Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is very important to start this debate in a respectful tone and to acknowledge the fact that there are differences of opinion, but in the end we have to preserve, protect and advance freedom of speech so we can deal with and discuss difficult and challenging ideas while at the same time making sure that all people in this country are free from harassment. That is the basis upon which the government has put forward this proposal. It is not just about strengthening the law; it is about promoting an idea of increasing respect. But one of the cheap party tricks used by so many people in this debate has been to ask the simple question that they think is so smart: what is it that you cannot say that you would like to say? I can tell you, as I have written about this subject matter many times.

For instance, a couple of years ago, a man by the name of Anthony Mundine did an interview on Channel 7's Sunrise program. During his interview with Andrew O'Keefe, Mundine said Aboriginality and the 'choice' of homosexuality were incompatible, and homosexuality should not be shown on prime-time television—not my words; his words. The basis of his comment—again, not my words; his words—was 'Aboriginal law'. At the time, I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, and it was not actually clear what I could say in terms of condemning the basis of his commentary about people like myself. That is at the heart of what needs to be addressed in the reform of this law: whether we can stand up and speak out against bigotry that comes from ethnic communities towards other minority groups as well as other ethnic groups. Are we going to have a test in law that establishes something that is consistent, that is not just about people expressing difficult and challenging ideas? I will defend Mr Mundine's right to say that awful, awful thing; it is about whether he did it in a harassing way which sought to limit other people exercising their freedom or not.

When it comes down to it, we know that there is good precedence for changing the law exactly as has been proposed. I need to remind the members opposite that they used to argue that we should keep 18C because it was preceded by three independent inquiries, and they supported the current law—until you actually go and do the research and look at it. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody is a matter that is of very significant relevance to the previous member, and I respect the legitimacy in which you raise the issue. Let's understand what the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody actually recommended—that there should be a federal civil offence against racial vilification, but that should exclude demonstrations against the behaviour of particular countries, publications or performances of works of art, and the serious and non-inflammatory discussion of ideas of public policy—in short, what the government is currently proposing. It does not included 'offend, insult, humiliate' at all. The royal commission explicitly counselled for the definition of vilification to be based on the spirit of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial violence, discrimination or hostility—again, not 'offend, insult, humiliate'. That was the royal commission, not me.

Then there was the 1991 report, by the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, on the national inquiry into racist violence. In this report, the commission called for the creation of a civil offence against 'incitement of racial hostility', 'an express prohibition of racist harassment', as well as a federal crime against 'racial violence'. The commission also recommended the creation of an offence of 'incitement to racial violence'.

Finally, there was the Australian Law Reform Commission's 1992 report, titled Multiculturalism and the law, which examined the issue of racial speech. It recommended a civil offence that supported making incitement to racist hatred and hostility unlawful. While it provided no explicit definition of racial hatred, it is clear that the intention was to focus predominantly on speech that could act as a precursor to violence. Even then, one commissioner in that inquiry dissented from the recommendation, expressing the view that 'in a democratic and pluralist society freedom of expression is of special importance, which may necessitate tolerance of obnoxious and hateful views which do not incite violence'.

This is extremely important. What it shows is that the three independent inquiries that were used as the basis for the introduction of this law—independent inquiries, not parliamentary inquiries that looked at different parts of legislation, and politicians deciding what they thought it should be. Actual independent inquiries, including a royal commission, considered this law and never recommended the current one, and said we should focus on harassment.

See this speech in context