Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, I appreciate that. It is very difficult for us to imagine what it might be like to be in a persecuted minority in this country. But we owe it to everyone involved in this debate to at least try to put ourselves in their shoes and at least try to reflect on what that experience—that lived experience—might be like. I have tried to do that—I have genuinely tried to do that, and that reinforces my fervent belief that we need to protect section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Those who are suggesting that freedom of speech is under threat in this country because of 18C—the self-styled freedom warriors of this debate—apparently have never read a Facebook comment thread. I would invite them to look at a comment thread on Senator Hanson's Facebook page or a number of other Facebook pages and then come in here and try, with a straight face, to suggest that freedom of speech, as it relates to speech based on racial grounds, is under any serious threat at all in this country. It is not.

If the people who want this reform were genuinely concerned about freedom of speech they would be campaigning for defamation law reform in this country. They would be campaigning for a bill of rights in this country. They would be campaigning to remove section 42—the draconian secrecy provisions—of the Australian Border Force Act in this country. They would be campaigning against SLAPP suits in this country. There are a range of genuine freedom-of-speech issues that exist in this country. But we do not hear from these people about those because they are not doing this because they believe in genuine freedom of speech. They are doing it because they believe in freedom from consequence for racist speech. That is the motivation here. They want to make it easier to say racist things in Australia.

Senator Paterson, to his credit, at least attempted to engage with the question I have continually asked the Attorney-General in this place, which is: what exactly does the government want people to say that they would be able to say if 18C were removed or weakened that they cannot currently say without offending that section of the Racial Discrimination Act? But, unfortunately for Senator Paterson, all the examples he gave were based on the cherry-picked cases that proponents of reform of 18C love to use. I will translate what Senator Paterson said. I congratulate him for attempting to respond to the question, but I will translate what he said. The translation is: he wants it to be easier for Australians to say racist things with no consequence in this country. That is an accurate, reasonable and direct translation of what Senator Paterson said.