David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of my Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016, co-sponsored by senators Hinch, Hanson, Roberts, Culleton, Burston and former Senator Day to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I am also a co-sponsor of the bill initiated by Senator Bernardi to remove 'insult' and 'offend' from section 18C. My bill would also remove the other two prohibitions, 'humiliate' and 'intimidate', leaving nothing remaining. This extra step is important. The articles by Andrew Bolt discussing affirmative action policies were ruled unlawful not just because they were considered to insult and offend; they were also considered to humiliate. And we should remember that state and territory laws already prevent intimidation, so there is no need for a federal prohibition on race based intimidation.

In the debate about the origin of our rights I am on the side of John Locke, not Thomas Hobbes. I believe we are born with rights and do not derive them from governments. Governments can protect our rights, and that is their proper role, but, when governments attempt to limit or remove a right such as free speech, the onus is on them to provide sufficient justification. It is not legitimate to ask, 'Why do you need it?' on the ground that you do not have it unless you can justify it. You have it whether your use it or not, the same as you have rights such as a right to life, association, justice and equality before the law.

In the case of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act the government has provided no good reason for it at all. It is a misdirected law, ineffective and illegitimate. It inhibits free speech without achieving any offsetting benefits. It should go.

In an ideal world, none of us would entertain racist thoughts, but some of us do, and some also make racist statements that echo those thoughts. What 18C seeks to do is discourage racist speech in the hope that it will somehow change racist thoughts. It will not. In fact, it makes them more likely. Racists are prone to conspiratorial thoughts. Suppressing their speech is like suppressing flatulence. It might not make itself known in the same way, but it is still there and will erupt somewhere.

Far better to allow racist speech and to attack it with more speech. There is no shortage of people willing and able to do this. Racists are vastly outnumbered by non-racists, and it is incredibly easy to refute racist speech, which essentially relies on the idea that all people of a certain race think and act the same way. It is collectivist nonsense, not unlike the idea that all gay people think and act a certain way, or all women, or all disabled people.

We should remember that Weimar Germany had hate speech laws protecting Jews. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, was taken to court because of anti-Semitic remarks, and Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi publication Der Stuermer, was imprisoned twice. The laws made minor heroes of Goebbels and Streicher. Every time Streicher's magazine was sued—36 times in about a decade—he got media attention. A young Hitler even waited for him outside jail. Even worse, while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the majority of assaults on Jews were not: a clear abdication of state responsibility. And with what came next, there is no clearer example of the futility of laws like 18C.

Section 18C also purports to protect the feelings of those who hear racist speech. You can insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone about their lack of wealth, education, class, intelligence, morals, strength or beauty. But if you try to do that on the grounds of race, the law leaps to their defence. What is it about feelings about race that makes them so different that they warrant the protection of the law? Are we really such delicate little daffodils that we are fine if we are insulted, humiliated or intimidated when it comes to our ugly children, our choice of partner, our IQ or where we live, but we cannot handle offence when it comes to race? What complete and utter claptrap; ridiculous and obnoxious. And for those who think 18C is primarily there to save non-white people from insults made by white people, that is also quite racist. The implication that non-whites particularly need their feelings protected is reprehensible. In fact, the law should never be used to protect us from hurt feelings of any kind. The law has a legitimate role to save us from physical harm—sticks and stones. But, just as we learn in school, if we go running off to the teacher when the rude boy calls us nasty names, and we are told to toughen up and deal with it, so should we not go running off to the law when the same thing occurs to us as adults. It is not only childish but a misuse of the law.

Some say this is not the time to be removing section 18C, because it will compromise national unity. Actually, free speech does not have a timetable. You either believe that we are entitled to say what we think or you don't. You either believe this is a free country or you don't. You either get the first line of our national anthem or you don't. There is no such thing as a bad time for free speech.

In fact, I think it is incredibly dangerous that immigrant groups in this country are being told they will face hate and vilification if 18C is repealed. There is no reason to believe that might be true. But in any case, we are talking about speech not actions. We should not be encouraging people to believe that views and opinions they do not like and do not want to hear should be suppressed by the state. When immigrants come to Australia, we expect them to adopt our liberal democratic values. That includes support for free speech. They come to Australia, at least in part, because it is a free country. We expect them to not only enjoy but also defend that freedom. We are not going to introduce the death penalty on the basis that they had it in their former home country, and neither should we compromise on free speech just because some people are not used to the idea of hearing things they do not like. Rather than endorse suppression of that speech, they need to learn that, first, there is no obligation to listen and, second, free speech also means they have a right of reply.

Liberal democracies were never meant to be places of unity. That is a feature of fascist and Communist regimes and, dare I say it, Islamist regimes. What characterises a democracy is that propositions are put to the test of public deliberation. People who make national unity arguments in a democracy probably do not understand democracy at all. We cannot believe in freedom but make exceptions for when someone might have their feelings hurt. I—along with a lot of other people, I suspect—am sick of hearing about exceptions to freedom.

Questions of Aboriginality and Australian identity are matters of great public importance. They should be debated on the basis of evidence, without fear of being unlawful. Likewise, the Palestinian question is a matter that should also be debated and assessed on its merits. I lived in South Africa for a time during the apartheid era and I saw racism up close and personal. I hated it. I also have no time for other types of vilification. But we cannot have a situation where important matters are closed off from debate because of the potential for someone to claim they have hurt feelings. In short, it is not a bad time to repeal section 18C in the name of national unity; rather, it is a good time to repeal section 18C in the name of national diversity.

In any case, there is no evidence that to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone is to incite violence against that person. Indeed, what evidence we have shows the opposite effect, because words often serve to replace violence. As the law stands currently, instead of issues being debated and ideas criticised, toxic attitudes are driven underground or through the wires of the internet. This implicitly justifies handing over increased powers to Australian security agencies so that the speakers of various nasty words can be watched over by the powers that be. If people were free to speak, there would be less need for such surveillance.

Sir Robert Menzies once declared that the whole essence of freedom of speech is:

that it is freedom for others as well as for ourselves … Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and say what he likes about our opinions.

…   …   …

… if truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate—the untrammelled clash of opinion—must go on.

Shutting down free speech by claiming you are offended or that something should not be said or by inhibiting speech by criminalising journalism is an admission of failure to understand the whole concept of free speech. And if you do not understand free speech, you do not understand freedom.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few people in that category who do not understand free speech. I became aware of just how many when The Chaser team decided to make fun of me because of my support for the free speech of Wicked Campers, a company which has slogans on its vans that some people find offensive. The Chaser team waited outside my house in Sydney at 7.30 in the morning with a van painted with slogans based on those of Wicked Campers. They told me not to be a wowser and thought it was very funny that I did not find it terribly amusing. They also suggested that my lack of amusement made me hypocritical in relation to my support for free speech.

A few details are relevant. They did not identify themselves, which led me to advise a Daily Telegraph journalist that I had been the subject of a protest outside my house. I told them to eff off, as I was not amused at being accosted outside my home, and one of their slogans was homophobic. It appeared to me they were going to follow me into my front garden, which is why I said I would call the police.

What my critics have overlooked is that at no stage did I say they had no right to say what they did. At no time did I suggest they should be prevented by law from saying it. I did not think they were terribly smart, and what they did was in poor taste and upset my wife, but that is where it ends. Free speech does not require me to find them amusing or to appreciate what they said or even to remain and listen. All it requires is that I do not invoke the law. And can I say to Nina Oyama, Craig Reucassel, Zoe Norton Lodge, Kirsten Drysdale and the others: it would not require a lot of effort by me to find out where you live and to set up a sign outside your place which said rude things about you. If your response was to tell me to eff off and that is all, then perhaps there might be some hope for you and your understanding of the concept of free speech. But I doubt if that is how you would react. I suspect you would act like crybabies and go running off to nanny government asking for the nasty man to be shut up. And that is why I say I do not believe you understand freedom, let alone free speech, and that is a shame.

Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make governments and people uncomfortable, but, if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak on the Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Leyonhjelm and his co-sponsors for putting this important bill before the Senate. It is a bill which very closely reflects my own view on this issue, but senators will note that I am not a co-sponsor of this bill. Instead, I am a co-sponsor of the other bill seeking to address this matter, put forward by Senator Cory Bernardi. I want to spend a little bit of time this morning explaining why I have made a decision not to support Senator Leyonhjelm's bill—or, rather, not to co-sponsor Senator Leyonhjelm's bill—and why I have instead decided to support and co-sponsor the other bill.

First, I want to explain why I think that what Senator Leyonhjelm proposes is very important and in many ways best addresses this issue. As Senator Leyonhjelm pointed out in his speech, only his bill offers a guarantee that cases such as the Andrew Bolt case—but also the other cases that we have seen before the courts in recent times, including the QUT case, including the Bill Leak case and including his own case against the journalist Mark Kenny—could not proceed again in the future. Only by repealing the provisions of the act in their entirety can we rest assured that these cases will never be repeated in the future.

Having said that, I cannot see any prospect of this bill passing this parliament. I think one of the lessons from the previous attempt at reform under the previous Prime Minister was that there is no point going through another symbolic loss. If we are able to find a path through this parliament, and particularly this chamber, for a reform which does not go as far as Senator Leyonhjelm's bill but will go some way to addressing this issue, then I think we should focus our attention and our energy on that.

But there are other reasons why I think Senator Bernardi's bill, of which I am a co-sponsor with 20 senators in this place, has merit. This act and this matter are very important to those of us who believe in freedom of speech. It is important because it has affected people's lives, but it is also important because it is a symbol for us of what it means to live in a free society, in a pluralistic society, in a tolerant society, in a liberal society. For us, while ever this act exists in its current form, we feel that we do not live in a free society and that our freedom is not protected. That is why it is important to us.

On the other side, though, there are people who see it as a symbol in a different way. They see it as a symbol of what it is like to live in a multicultural society, in a harmonious society, in a community which is safe for them and their families. They very clearly told us during the previous reform process that getting rid of all of 18C, or almost all of 18C, would make them feel unsafe in Australia and make them feel like they do not have protections against hate speech. Nobody who is proposing reform in this area wants any fellow Australian to feel unsafe or to feel unprotected.

My own view is that 18C is a very imperfect protection against racist hate speech. I would much prefer to rely on, as Senator Leyonhjelm said earlier today, the goodwill and good nature of Australians to call out racism, to identify those who peddle it and to hold them responsible for it. I would much prefer we used that process. I also believe that there are extensive protections against vilification, particularly at the state level, in this country. In some ways, those laws are much better targeted against the kind of abuse that no-one wants to see, the kind of abuse we hear about from time to time in the street or on public transport—the awful, vile abuse that some people have experienced. I think our state anti-vilification laws better target that kind of behaviour and in many ways offer better remedies, including in some cases, in some states, potential criminal penalties for the behaviour, which 18C does not.

Nonetheless, we have heard that 18C is regarded as an important symbol of the protection of living in a harmonious society and feeling safe in our community. I understand and I respect people who put that view, and that is why I have come to the view that a compromise option is the most reasonable path forward. It is a path forward which will offer no perfect protection of free speech but certainly an enhancement and an improvement regarding free speech. At the same time, it will retain some important limitations on free speech which will help make some members of our community feel that they are safe.

I want to go through some of the most prominent cases involving this law in recent years, because I think they help show us a path forward and show what kind of reform in this area will work, could work and may not work. The case which has brought this to the widest public attention in recent times is obviously the Queensland University of Technology students case, recently resolved in the Federal Circuit Court with a judgement by Judge Jarrett. I commend the judgement to all senators and others interested in this case; it is a very interesting, thoughtful and quite extensive judgement.

There are a couple of important things about the judgement. One is that this was not a close call. This was not one of those cases where there were reasonable arguments on either side and where it came close, with the judge ultimately coming narrowly down on one side. It was comprehensively dismissed. It was found—I am using my own words and not the judge's—to basically have no merit at all. That was the right decision. I am pleased that the court made the decision, although I am troubled by media reports this week that there may be an appeal in this case and that it may not yet be over. But we must allow the legal process to flow through and see what comes of that.

There are other really important things about this case. As every senator and as many in the community who have followed this would know, this is a case which took 3½ years to resolve—3½ years elapsed between the alleged instance of racial discrimination and the court handing down its decision exonerating the students who were accused of discrimination. Under anyone's measure, that is a torturous and long legal process—a legal process which served neither the applicant nor the defendants well in this case. The person who made this complaint is as entitled to have it speedily resolved as are the people who are subject to this complaint, but I am particularly concerned and particularly sympathetic to what the students in this case endured.

They endured having their reputations smeared and damaged in the media. Many of them feel that their career prospects have been damaged by this case, even though they have been exonerated. It was an incredibly stressful time for them and their families and, frankly, I think it has not reflected very well on the university or on the Human Rights Commission, which I will come to in a moment. A particular failing of the Human Rights Commission in this case was that 14 months elapsed between the case complaint being made and the students being notified. I am pleased that the Human Rights Commission President, Gillian Triggs, has appointed an external lawyer to review the Human Rights Commission's conduct in this case, because I think it will reveal that they have failed both the applicant and the respondents and, particularly, that the students were grievously harmed by the handling by the Human Rights Commission in this case.

They were given three days notice that they had to attend a compulsory conciliation. Because of that short notice, many of the students were unable to attend, many of them were unable to arrange legal representation, as they are entitled to, and many of them felt completely railroaded by the process, with little prospect of successfully defending themselves. That is incredibly regrettable. It is fortunate that these students had the benefit of independent pro bono legal representation—excellent legal representation. Had it not been pro bono, as their lawyers have offered, then they would have been up for an estimated $600,000 to $700,000 of legal fees to defend themselves. No student has the capacity to defend themselves to that tune. As we know, some of the students did not even have the capacity to reach a confidential financial settlement with the applicant, as was requested by their lawyers.

That is worth reflecting on too. We have heard about Kyran Findlater, one of the students in the case, who ultimately agreed to pay $5,000 to the applicant in the case to be removed from the action so that he would not have to go to court. Seeing what the other three students who decided to contest the case went through, it is hard to question Kyran's judgement in that. That seems like an entirely reasonable thing. He did not want to go through the pain and suffering that the others did. It was a terribly difficult financial decision for him and a huge burden. It is particularly sad, given that we now know that the case was dismissed so comprehensively—that he might very well have been able to successfully defend himself in that case.

One of the reforms that has been suggested, as either an alternative or a complementary measure to reforming section 18C, is to reform the processes of the Human Rights Commission. A very sensible and thoughtful proposal has been put forward by my colleague in the other place, Julian Leeser. Mr Leeser's proposal seeks to address the appalling way in which the Human Rights Commission handled this case, to ensure that future cases are much more speedily resolved. While I support that, I do not support it in isolation—because the efficient administration of a bad law is still the administration of a bad law. I believe the law itself needs to change.

Comments that Gillian Triggs has made really underscore why that is important. On 7.30 a couple of weeks ago, when she was interviewed by Leigh Sales, Professor Triggs was asked why she did not use the commission's existing powers to dismiss the QUT case immediately when the complaint was made. The Human Rights Commission does have the power to terminate a case that is without merit, that is vexatious, that does not raise human rights concerns. It did not do so, even though a court subsequently found it to be a case lacking in merit. The reason it did not do so, we know now, is that Gillian Triggs believed it was a case of substance. Her answer to Leigh Sale's question was that she did think it was a case of substance. If it is the view of the Human Rights Commission, its president and her delegates, that a case as flawed and as weak as the QUT case has substance, and is worthy of proceeding first to conciliation and ultimately to the courts, then I am not confident that any power given to the Human Rights Commission to more efficiently administer this law would ensure that cases like the QUT case never happen again.

Another case which has brought this law to public attention is the Bill Leak case. This is a particularly troubling case as well. I am pleased that media reports suggest that the complainants in this case intend to withdraw or are in the process of withdrawing their complaints, but that does not mean that Bill Leak has not suffered because of this law. Bill Leak and his employer have had to engage lawyers to defend him, all because he drew a cartoon. It was a cartoon which challenged many people, which upset many people and which maybe even offended or insulted some people. But, in a free country, do we really think that a cartoonist drawing for one of our major newspapers should be required to go to a government body—in this case, the Human Rights Commission—and justify what he meant by his cartoon, why it was not racist, and why he was not engaging in discrimination? Do we really think it is appropriate for other public servants—the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane—to be actively touting for and soliciting complaints, effectively prejudging the case of Bill Leak? But I am pleased that that case has been dismissed.

Perhaps the case that is most famous of all is the 2011 case against Andrew Bolt. It is the one which, in the view of many people, activated this law, brought it to public attention and allowed it to be used as it has been subsequently used in further cases. There are so many things to talk about in the Bolt case. I will not bore the Senate by going over all of that old history, except for one really important point about this case. It is said by many that section 18D provides an effective defence for freedom of speech. It is also said that those of us who want reform to 18C ignore 18D, or are unwilling to talk about 18D. Can I tell you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, that that is not the case for me. I have talked about it dozens of times, and I know many of my colleagues have too. I have debated it in many interviews with journalists, and I am going to talk about it here today.

Defenders of this law often say that 18D is a sufficient defence for free speech and that the Andrew Bolt case proves that. They say that Andrew Bolt was found not to be eligible for the defence listed in 18D—in other words, he was not able to have his freedom of speech protected by the law—for a very good reason. That reason is that he made errors of fact in his article. And it is true, Andrew Bolt did make errors of fact in his article. We can debate another time whether it is a good thing in a free society to have a judge deciding that errors of fact mean you are not entitled to free speech. But that was not the only reason the judge found that Andrew Bolt was not eligible to use the defence of 18D. I encourage anyone who has not read the judgement in the Bolt case to do so, because there is an extended and fascinating discussion about the tone of Andrew Bolt's article.

The second reason that the judge found that Andrew Bolt was not eligible for free speech was the tone in which he wrote his article, including the fact that he used sarcasm, including the fact that he used gratuitous asides, including the fact that he had written things, allegedly, between the lines. So we have an instance in this country where, if a judge does not like your tone, does not like your use of sarcasm or gratuitous asides and believes you have written things between the lines—which, of course, you cannot do—you are not eligible for free speech. Even if Andrew Bolt had made no errors of fact in his articles, it is entirely possible that he still would have been found not to have been eligible for the defence of free speech under 18D because of his tone. That is an incredibly troubling thing.

I think the Andrew Bolt judgement will be interesting if Senator Leyonhjelm's case against Mark Kenny at The Sydney Morning Herald proceeds, because it could be said that Mark Kenny in his article used sarcasm, it could be said that he used gratuitous asides and it could even be said that he had written things between the lines about Senator Leyonhjelm and others. My view is that cases like the Mark Kenny case should not be able to proceed, should not be heard by the Human Rights Commission, should not make their way to court, but it may well be. A complaint has been made, the process is underway and it is yet to be determined where that case will go. It is clear that 18C allows that to happen and it is not clear that 18D would be a sufficient defence for Mark Kenny in this case, just as it is not clear it would have been a sufficient defence for Bill Leak. Many say that it would have been, but that is unknowable. The case did not get to court, and we do not know what the judge would have found.

Another senator in this place—our new colleague from Victoria, Senator Kitching—recently said when she was interviewed on The Bolt Report that she thought the judge that presided over the Bolt case was a relevant factor in the way in which the law was interpreted. That is an incredibly worrying thing. The quality of justice and the outcome of the decision that you receive in our courts should not depend on the judge that you receive; it should depend on the law as it is written. If it is the case that Labor senators opposite believe that all we need to ensure that laws are properly upheld is the right judges sitting on the right cases, we have a very serious problem indeed.

Another challenge to those of us who believe in reform is the question of what it is that we cannot say today that we would like to say. I would really like to respond to this because there are a couple of important points. One thing is I would like students such as those at QUT to be able to vent steam on Facebook and not spend 3½ years defending themselves in court for having done so. I would like cartoonists to be able to draw cartoons without having to go to a government body and justify why they drew their cartoons. I would like journalists to be able to express opinions and write articles on controversial issues of public debate without having to defend themselves in court. But the truth is we actually do not know what it is that cannot be said by this law, because we cannot be confident what will and will not offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone.

There is no way of knowing that Mark Kenny, in writing his article about David Leyonhjelm, could have reasonably understood or expected to be taken to court as a result. There are others here today and Australians out in the community who do not know what they can and cannot say because this law is not clear what would achieve the measure of 'offend' or 'insult'.

Finally, even things which are unpleasant and awful to hear are worth hearing because we live in a society where people do have different views and there is value in hearing what others have to say even when we disagree with it. I personally would much rather know what people's beliefs are than have them hold onto them and keep them in a dark and deep place in our society. We will have no opportunity to challenge them if that is the case.

I want to end on one note. Reform of 18C is something which has attracted support from across the political spectrum, from people including David Marr, Julian Burnside, Paul Howes, Jonathan Holmes and Jim Spigelman. It has attracted support this time around from people who opposed it previously such as Warren Mundine. It has attracted support from people who have been affected by discrimination and who have been victims of racism such as Robert Magid, the publisher of The Australian Jewish News. The accusation made in this debate that the only people in favour of reform are people of a certain age, a certain ethnicity or even a certain gender is utterly false. Support comes from across the spectrum, and ignoring those people who have suffered discrimination and who do support reform is an awful thing to do. They have just as much right to participate in this debate. Their opinion is worth just as much as everyone else's. I commend them for their courage and their advocacy in this instance. Even Gillian Triggs has agreed that we have a problem with not just the Human Rights Commission processes but also the law. I commend this reform process to the parliament.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that bigotry is back in favour. Back in 2014, the Abbott government sought to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to allow for all sorts of things to travel under the guise of free speech, and it was defeated. Labor will also be opposed to this particular amendment that has been proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm and others. At least Senator Leyonhjelm, as a libertarian, appears to be committing himself to a push because of principle, but I am not sure whether that is the case in relation to the Turnbull government. To me, it represents some weakness. The bill put forward by the members goes even further than the Abbott government ever did, in trying to repeal part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act in its entirety. This is something the Labor Party could never support. We created this part of the act and we are proud of it. We will continue to defend it. Labor opposed the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act in 2014, and again we will oppose them in 2016.

We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the communities across this country, which is something that those on the other side seem to forget. This is about human beings—people of different cultures who are Australians and who have all sorts of different ways of interpreting English. English has its own form of tyranny, and that tyranny is what causes wars, assaults, arguments and violence. The speakers who grow up with English have to understand that that is not the only frame of reference through which the world is interpreted. There is no clear definition, it seems to me, of what constitutes whiteness and the culture of whiteness. We talk of all sorts of other people who make up the Australian nation—Chinese, Indians, Lebanese and Africans; all sorts of people—who are part of the Australian population and who bring with their cultures a richness to this nation. Instead of us moving in a way to accept and appropriate the better things of their cultures, we seek to continuously divide and to create ways to sustain divisions and sustain the denigration of our fellow Australians.

There is nothing wrong with freedom, particularly if you are from the ruling class. There is a hell of a lot wrong with freedom if you have to battle to experience it—if you have to fight for it. I was born before the 1967 referendum, when we as Aboriginal people were not even counted in the census of this country, when this government did not have any power to make laws for Aboriginal people because it was excluded by the crafters of our Constitution in 1901. The whole battle for recognition—for freedom to enjoy the basics of being a citizen—in this nation had to be fought for by black and white Australians: Jessie Street, Faith Bandler and many others.

What I see today is the ideological creep back to bigotry and to racism. It is fine if you sit in some leafy suburb and never rub shoulders with people who are battling to interpret and navigate their way through modernity in this land of Australia, with its highly-sophisticated culture and its complexities of protocols and procedures and social ethos. We have to understand that today is not the day to be changing this section of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is not the day. We see every night on the news the bigotry, the racism, the hatred and the killings that take place in the Middle East, borne out by different interpretations that people extract from words. We only have to look to Indonesia—just recently, the President was coming here to Australia and he had to curtail his trip because of the alleged words used by one of the governors that offended sections of the community. And that matter is still afoot.

So words do matter, and how we use words is critical in the way we go about our business and in the way we go about our communication. Have no doubt that racism is something that is not growing wild out there in the fields; it is actually tended in a flower box sitting on the window sills of flats and houses. That matter is something that we as all Australians should be working to get rid of so that the freedom that is spoken about by Senator Leyonhjelm can in fact be enjoyed by all citizens.

We have not seen that. If we watched the news last night, our colleague Anne Aly, in the other place, was receiving death threats because of the stupidity of language used by one of our ministers to excite some lunatic in this society to threaten violence and death to her and her family. This is what words do. It is all very well in a debating class in the university; there is no freedom out there in the mainstream when you do not understand and comprehend the difference between debate and prejudice—when you do not understand being subjugated to racist taunts and to denigration.

As I said, we do not debate the definition of 'whiteness' or the culture of whiteness—and nor should we. But there is something that we need to pull ourselves up on, and that is the age-old reality of what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone else who is different, who is diverse and who has the richness of their own culture—when we talk about them, when we write about them and when we print things in relation to them.

Freedom is a very treasured thing, and it starts with defending, as has been said in an ideological sense, the rights of people. But with rights come responsibilities, and in a complex, multicultural society let's stress also the responsibility to note that other Australians do not see things entirely the way that we might from a Eurocentric position, or from an Anglo-Celtic background or from a sense of tradition and culture and politics.

So it is important, when we are debating these matters, to understand that many Australians are not sitting in the chamber. They are listening to this chamber and they are taking the leadership of this chamber as the litmus test of what this nation stands for. If this nation cannot stand up for the weakest, the poorest and those who are most vulnerable because of their race, their ethnicity or their beliefs, then we have become a very sad replication of what democracy is about. There is no need for this particular amendment. There has been a more than 20-year period where this has operated substantially to the benefit of our nation. The defences available under 18D are clear and are there not only to facilitate the freedom of speech and freedom of expression that people wish to exercise, but also to give an indication of what is not permissible and how it may be adjudicated by a court if it has to go to court and cannot be dealt with in conciliation. Labor is not going to be supporting this amendment and, certainly, any future amendments to this particular section of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016. When the proverbial hit the fan in the wake of the brilliant Bill Leak cartoon in The Australian, and the orchestrated protests against him started to grow, I took to Twitter for a seven word tweet: 'Je suis Charlie, but bugger Bill Leak.' It was the height of hypocrisy from the opponents. They marched in the streets to support freedom of speech and freedom of expression and to honour the brave staff of Charlie Hebdo, who had been slaughtered intheir Paris office because of a cartoon.But a telling, sad but true, other cartoon in The Australian showing an indigenous policeman, an indigenous father and an indigenous boy was racist. Leak must besacked. The newspaper editor must be hauled before the PressCouncil. Leak must be charged by the RaceDiscrimination Commissioner. In fact, to his shame, the commish actuallypublicly touted for business—pleaded for affronted citizens offended and insulted by acartoonist's pen to lodge a complaint. Look at the way his officestaff trolled around the Northern Territory to find acouple of compliant signatories.Leak was ordered to appear and justify his work. So bugger Bill Leak, bugger artistic freedom, bugger freedom of speech, to which I will add 'bugger 18C'.

Luckily sanity prevailed and the demands against Bill Leak were dropped—u nlike the equally ludicrous case involving the Queensland University of Technology students and the computer room scandal , which , disgustingly , went on for years before a judge tossed it out. And, as mentioned before by Senator Paterson, Andrew Bolt, who is no friend of mine but deserves defence, should never have been charged and should never have been convicted. The people that he supposedly offended and insulted should and could have sued him for defamation. Because of his errors of fact, maybe they would have won.

Going back to the racial vilification law, where it says—

It is unlawful for a person to you there will do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group—

I am offended and insulted that we have any legislation, any law in this country which is bad law. I am offended and insulted that such emotive and subjective words as 'offend' and 'insult' can be on our law books. Take the case of freedom of speech. You have to stand alongside people with opinions that you do not share. The Hansonites? You do not share their opinions, but it is freedom of speech. When you try to block it, when you try to make martyrs and shut down people who try to use it, it is bad and it is dangerous. I remember the case of David Irving, the Holocaust denier, to me a despicable person who spouted the most offensive and revolting stuff about Jewish people. He was banned from coming to Australia because of the words he uttered. I remember the case, because when he was banned I interviewed him on television by satellite for the Hinch program. Instead of him being made a martyr because he had been denied his freedom of speech, we let him have his freedom of speech and I spent the whole interview attacking him and deriding him, taking him down, making arguments against his puerile, offensive and insulting arguments. It was the same with Ian Paisley, that rabid man with his collar back-to-front. I think he was banned from Australia or told not to come.

Don't turn them into martyrs—don't ever do that. Go after them. Let them come and make their speeches. Freedom of speech has to be there for journalists, for cartoonists, for protesters and even for bigots. Take them on. An extension of this principle of freedom of speech is the reason I stood up here in the Senate and demanded that the photographic restrictions be removed for photographers—because, it is freedom of expression. They are doing their job. And if they take awful pictures of you, well, we have to wear it.

There are protections. I know Senator Dobson and I appreciate some of his remarks, but there are protections. You cannot and should not shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. That is dangerous and could end up with deaths or injuries. And there are criminal offences. If you verbally threaten the president of the United States of America you will have the secret service on your door within 10 minutes, because that is an offence. And freedom of speech was born in the United States; it is enshrined in their constitution.

In this country you see so-called journalists, media people, 150 of them from Fairfax, who signed a document protesting against Bill Leak and demanding that he be fired. I think they are a disgrace to their profession. I recall a personal case. When I was young journalist in Sydney the then editor of the august Sydney Morning Herald, Guy Harriett, referred to me in the most insulting manner—and I apologise to Senator Dobson—as a 'white boong', because I had been born in New Zealand. Things have changed, and rightly changed. Hate speech must be talked down and fought all the time.

I want to wrap up by saying that it is not in me to the light-hearted, but I wonder if John O'Grady—who wrote They're A Weird Mob under the name Nino Culotta—would have been charged under 18C, because it depicted Italian people as dagos. In The Wog Boy movie, in which I played myself, I depicted the character played by Nick Giannopoulos as a shiftless, dole-bludging dago. That, I presume, would have been a breach of 18C. So, I say that this is a bad law. I will be supporting Senator Leyonhjelm on this and I hope that the Senate listens.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016 being brought forward by Senators Leyonhjelm, Day, Hanson, Burston, Culleton, Hinch and Roberts. I have some sympathy with the bill, although I think it perhaps does go a little too far. As you know, I am a co-sponsor of the other bill before this chamber, in much the same terms as this one except that it seeks to remove only the words 'insult' and 'offend' and leave the words 'humiliate' and 'intimidate' in 18C. I have thought about this a bit. I do think having 'insult' and 'offend' is just ridiculous in today's day and age, and the cases quoted by Senator Paterson and others in this debate show just how ridiculous this particular provision is in its entirety. I would certainly support any move to remove 'offend' and 'insult', but I think removing 'humiliate' and 'intimidate' is perhaps a step too far.

I might say that my thoughts in this view are supported by my political party, the Liberal-National Party of Queensland, which at the last state convention—I think there were over 500 delegates there—resolved that the federal government should be urged to amend 18C to remove 'offend' and 'insult'. As recently as last month, my own federal divisional council of the LNP, meeting in my home town of Ayr—it is George Christensen's FDC but it is the FDC in which I live, so it is the one I go to—also moved a resolution along the lines of amending 18C by removing 'offend' and 'insult'. So my position on this is well supported by my own political party.

Perhaps both our bill, which is before the parliament, and this bill are a fraction premature. As I understand it, the Attorney-General has referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights an inquiry to report into all issues relating to freedom of speech in Australia. The Attorney has asked the committee specifically to inquire into and report to parliament by 28 February 2017 on the following matters:

1.   Whether the operation of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act … imposes unreasonable restrictions upon freedom of speech, and in particular whether, and if so how, ss. 18C and 18D should be reformed.

2.   Whether the handling of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission … under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act … should be reformed, in particular, in relation to:

a.   the appropriate treatment of:

i.   trivial or vexatious complaints; and

ii.   complaints which have no reasonable prospect of ultimate success;

b.   ensuring that persons who are the subject of such complaints are afforded natural justice;

c.   ensuring that such complaints are dealt with in an open and transparent manner;

d.   ensuring that such complaints are dealt with without unreasonable delay;

e.   ensuring that such complaints are dealt with fairly and without unreasonable cost being incurred either by the Commission or by persons who are the subject of such complaints;

f.   the relationship between the Commission's complaint handling processes and applications to the Court arising from the same facts.

The committee has also been asked to inquire into:

3.   Whether the practice of soliciting complaints to the Commission … has had an adverse impact upon freedom of speech or constituted an abuse of the powers and functions of the Commission, and whether any such practice should be prohibited or limited.

4.   Whether the operation of the Commission should be otherwise reformed in order better to protect freedom of speech and, if so, what those reforms should be.

That reference will look into these issues. It is joint parliamentary committee chaired by Mr Ian Goodenough. Naturally, because it is joint, it contains members of all parties. It is a good committee to seriously look into all of these issues. Those who have spoken in this debate who have a particular view should make sure that their views are known to this committee if they are not members of the committee. Of course, as we senators know, we can all put ourselves on that committee as participating members, so we can all participate directly should we want to.

It is curious that the terms of reference make a not very veiled reference to some of the atrocious procedures and actions we have seen in this country in recent times. Senator Paterson rightly referred at length to the QUT case, the Bolt case and the Leak cartoon case. The way that the process has been handled by the Human Rights Commission is nothing short of scandalous. Those who follow parliamentary debates will know that I do not have a high regard for the commission in its present form. I have very grave concerns about the president of the commission and the way she and the race relations commissioner have handled some of these issues.

The case of the Queensland University of Technology, which is a major and significant university in my home state of Queensland, was appallingly handled. All credit to the three students that when they were told 15 months after the event that they were the subject of the complaint they stood up to the Human Rights Commission and the complainant. Their position was ultimately justified by the Federal Circuit Court. I also should thank Mr Tony Morris who, I understand, at his own expense assisted those three students in their hour of need. There were other students who were also subjects of the complaint who just paid up. They paid 'go away' money so they would not have to be involved in a court case and possibly subjected to fines of $250,000, which had been sought by the complainant. It was just appalling behaviour by the commission, by the complainant and by the whole system.

To Professor Triggs's credit, she did tell me at the last estimates committee hearing—it was one of the things she did interact with us on; there were some other things where she denied having said certain things, but we will follow that up later—that, 'I would be very happy indeed to work with you and others who might consider amendments that would meet your concern.' So I think it would be very helpful to open up a discussion to examine the powers of the commission in this regard. Professor Triggs was indicating perhaps a fair point—that if the laws are wrong it is not up to her to fix them; it is up to parliament to fix them. In that regard, I do agree with her. But, having said that, the way the Australian Human Rights Commission acted in that particular instance was a disgrace.

In the subsequent instance of the Leak cartoon, the commissioner was out there touting for business almost and encouraging people to complain. As I read in the paper, there were a couple of complainants in Western Australia who did complain only because they had been encouraged to by the commissioner and then, after they thought about it, they withdrew their complaint. I think that clearly shows that they were neither insulted nor offended by the issue until they were egged on by a commissioner. That, to me, is unfortunate. I am pleased that the committee will be having a look into this issue.

As I say, I would not support this bill at the present time. The bill that I give preference to is the one that just seeks to remove 'insult' and 'offend' from 18C. I think this one goes a little bit too far. But I think both of them are perhaps a bit premature. I think we should wait for the report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to see what they think about this whole issue. I am aware that there are other senators who want to speak on this important debate, so I will conclude my remarks there. But I again thank the proponents for at least bringing this forward so that we can legitimately, maturely, sensibly and like adults discuss these issues which are of great importance to the freedoms we expect and enjoy in Australia.

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

( Well, here we go again. People watching this debate could be forgiven if they thought that reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was the most important issue facing Australia today. Obviously it is not. Freedom of speech is not under threat from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; in fact, there are a number of laws in this country that impose far more draconian restrictions on freedom of speech than does 18C. I want to mention again section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, which provides sweeping protections for freedom of speech. I will come to that in more detail later in my contribution today.

For people who want reform of 18C to style themselves as self-appointed warriors for freedom of speech in this country is simply dishonest. They are not campaigning for freedom of speech; they are campaigning for freedom from consequence. They are campaigning to be able to say racist things without consequence in this country. That is unacceptable in a modern, multicultural society. And make no mistake: this campaign—which is being driven by a confused rabble of fundamentalist right-wingers in the coalition parties and media bullies, led by The Australian newspaper—is designed with only one end in mind—that is, to allow people to make racist comment without consequence in this country.

Section 18C currently makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person on the basis of their race, their colour or their national or ethnic origin. It is crucial that 18C be retained in its current form, because the campaign against 18C is part of a broader attack on multiculturalism in this country. We are seeing it in proposed amendments to the Migration Act. We are seeing it in comments made by people like the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton, in comments he made targeting Lebanese Muslim Australians recently.

Multiculturalism is under sustained attack and threat, and it is only going to get worse when Senator Bernardi appears back in this chamber, re-energised by the election of President-elect Trump in the United States. And make no mistake, we are going to see politicians including Senator Macdonald, who is grumbling over there like Bill the Steam Shovel, Senator Bernardi, Mr Abbott, Senator Abetz and Senator Paterson, the representative of the IPA in this parliament—the right-wing fundamentalist cabal—take play after play from the Donald Trump playbook and try to apply it in Australian politics. The Greens will stand up against them at every turn. And we will, with others in the political spectrum in this place, defend multiculturalism in this country.

Most of the conjecture around 18C centres on the words 'offend and insult'. Opponents of 18C say that the words are vague or that they set too low a bar or too low a standard, but there are clear legal precedents, jurisprudence, which interpret 18C. As Justice Susan Kiefel said in a 2001 case, and I will quote directly from the judgement:

… to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" are profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights …

In other words, it is not enough for someone to feel offended or intimidated, and that is one of the big lies in this debate that is rolled out by people who want to weaken or, in the case of Senator Leyonhjelm's legislation, remove entirely section 18C—that it provides a foundation for people to access the justice system on the basis that they feel offended or insulted. Well, judgements and jurisprudence set the bar much higher than simply feeling offended and insulted. As I mentioned briefly earlier, section 18D creates widespread exemptions for artistic, political, scientific or academic communication, provided that those communications were done reasonably and in good faith. In other words, 18D, which is ignored in this debate almost as much as the second verse of Advance Australia Fair, provides sweeping freedom-of-speech exemptions, but you do not hear much about that from people who want to gut the Racial Discrimination Act in this country.

There is a lot a cherrypicking of cases going on here; Senator Paterson indulged in it in his speech and we have heard others indulge in it. They cherrypick a handful of cases and make it seem like the world has gone crazy and that they are the only voice of sanity in this debate. I want to go to the Andrew Bolt case, which has received an airing in the chamber this morning. It is worth pointing out that Andrew Bolt lost the case, not because what he said was edgy or controversial but in fact because Justice Mordy Bromberg found his articles:

… contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

That is why the judgement was made against Andrew—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've been pulling the chain. You would be convicted every time!

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

I do not remember pulling the chain, Senator Macdonald, so if you would just keep quiet that would be a benefit to the chamber.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, you should address your comments through the chair.

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

Well, it is also disorderly to interject, Madam Acting Deputy President, so I would just ask you to inform Senator Macdonald that that is the case.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, please continue.

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

On a point of order, then, Madam Acting Deputy President: would you please ask Senator Macdonald to refrain from interjecting?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is now a debating point. I have been listening to Senator Macdonald. There is no point of order, Senator McKim.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Interjections are disorderly, and it is a point of order.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just remind the chamber that senators should be heard in silence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take a point of order about Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting on my interjection—you should call him to order as well!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald I have already reminded the chamber that senators should be heard in silence.

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

As I was saying, Bolt lost the case because his articles, according to Justice Bromberg:

… contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

Justice Bromberg also found that Bolt's articles were

… reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity.

I think the latter part of the judgement was one of the points that Senator Dodson was making in his excellent contribution to this debate earlier, and that is that those of us who are debating this issue in the parliament need to think about how it might feel to be in other people's shoes. I am a 50-something white man of some means and from an Anglo-Celtic background, and it is very difficult for us—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not 52 yet!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I have been grievously mistranscribed there by the speaker and I ask that he accurately reflect on what I said. That is not what I said. I do not want people to be able to say racist things.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, I think that is a debating point. Perhaps take it up with Senator McKim after this.

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

Just for clarity, I was not suggesting that those were the words Senator Paterson used. I was translating his words, to put them into a more accurate frame. The issues here are too lengthy for me to canvass fully and I am already slightly over my time to speak, given the informal arrangements that have been made. But I want to say, in concluding my contribution today, that I challenge those who want to weaken or abolish section 18C to accurately state the actual things that they would like to be able to say, or would like to allow others to be able to say, that they cannot say now but could if the reform came in. Let's hear what racist things they would like Australians to be able to say. I want to know how much further they want to poison Australia's political conversation with speech made in bad faith. As I have said before, the only plausible answer is that they want to unleash more racism and bigotry at this time, when around the world we are seeing an incredibly disturbing rise in racism and bigotry. You only have to look at the spike in race-based attacks since Donald Trump was elected as President-elect of the United States to see how threatening times are becoming.

Protections against hate speech and intimidation are fundamental parts of pluralist Australia and one of the reasons we have largely been a very successful multicultural nation. So let's not wind the clock back now. Let's not go back towards white Australia. Let's stand firmly in support of, in defence of and for the enhancement of the beautiful multicultural society that Australia is. Let's stand strong against weakening section 18C or abolishing it, which would simply provide more opportunities for racist hate speech in this country.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to some comments in this chamber today and all I hear about is racism. Let me make my point very clear. When I first came into parliament I stood on the ground of equality for all Australians—equality regardless of race, colour or creed. Also, what I have tried to make quite clear is that yes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people were the first peoples of this land here. Yes, Australia was colonised and people came here. Since then, many migrants from around the world have sought to make Australia their home. They have come here to join us and to be one of us, and I welcome that. My first husband was actually Polish. He was a migrant after the Second World War who came to Australia for a new life with his mother.

I have had involvement with people of all different cultural backgrounds. The manager of my shop—my fish and chip shop—was also a refugee from Laos. I had the highest regard for her and we worked very well together. I had properties that I actually rented out to an Aboriginal lady and her child. My children grew up in the same street with Aboriginal children. My association will all different cultures has been one that I have cherished. My parents were people that welcomed anyone into their homes, and that is how I was taught. I have respect for so many different cultures and the people. Respect is earned by the person, not purely based on who they are or their race. It must be earned.

People say, 'Why are we standing up here and speaking out against the words "to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate"?' Today times have changed greatly. People have come to our country. I remember most, years ago when they came, there were the Greeks, the Italians and different ones. They were called wogs. They keep telling me, 'My god, we actually had everything thrown at us. We were abused, but we said no. We got on with it.' Because when the Aussies had a go at them in that Aussie way they became part of the community—they assimilated. I remember all the guys at the fish markets—the Greeks and the Italians. We all had jokes together and it was taken in a good sense of humour. I think we have lost that in Australia. I think people have become so precious that you cannot say or do anything anymore. Otherwise, you will be dragged off to the law courts.

You talk about racism. Let's define the word 'racism'. A racist is a person who believes their race to be superior to another. Understand the meaning. When you criticise or you have a point of difference, do not counteract that by saying it is a racist comment. I am fed up with people in this parliament and even outside this place calling me a racist, yet they cannot define one word that I have ever said in policy or anything that is racist.

I remember years ago, when I was first elected, I went to have a meeting with the Aboriginal elders. It was set up with the media. I remember they came out and called me a pig in mud and white trash. The media actually printed it. Then, when I actually spoke to them about it, they said, 'Well, what's wrong with that?' I can well imagine if I had reversed the words, but I never did. What I am hearing now is all one way—it is one-sided. Let's have a debate on this.

Senator McKim says here, 'If we change it and get rid of 18C, what do you want to say that you can't say now?' I will say, through you, Madam Deputy President, a case in point is those students. What did they say on the Facebook page? They said it is 'segregation with segregation'. So they were shut down. What is that? That is not an insult. It was pure fact. They actually went to the university and they wanted to go into a room and use computers that were purely marked for Aboriginals only. That is racist in itself. Why didn't they go and complain about 18C? Why wasn't something done about it? It is not; they are protected because we have laws in this country now that protect anyone who is not of a colour or anyone from another race criticising the Australians. It has become now, in Australia, reverse racism. That is why Australians are fed up with it. That is why they are saying they want change. It has gotten to a point where you cannot have a say anymore. I am okay; I am in this chamber. I am protected. I can say what I want to say here, but not if I go outside this chamber and say it outside, like many Australians. We cannot have an opinion. We cannot say anything anymore.

Senator Dodson made a comment. He said up until 1967 he was not included in the census, and that was true, but the Aboriginal people did have the vote prior to that. I believe it was Western Australia; please correct me if I am wrong. The whole fact is that Australians believed at the time of the referendum in treating Aboriginal people equally. That is why the majority of Australians—around 97 or 98 per cent—voted for that: they wanted equality and they did not want the separation anymore. Senator Dodson says that Aboriginal people were not included in the Constitution. Actually, section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, in the time before the referendum, said that the Commonwealth shall make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The framers of that Constitution, our leaders who drew up the Constitution in the 1890s, put in that ability to make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and that was because of the Chinese and Afghanis in this country—mainly the Chinese—because of opium and the immigration. That is why it was put in. It was not put in for any reason to do with Aboriginal people at all. It was to do with that.

Senator Dodson talks about words—they can be hurtful and words are what are happening in Syria and the fighting around the world. I do not believe it is just about words. I think it is about hatred of a religion that is casting their hate and their political ideology onto the rest of the world. That is what is behind this. I do believe that we will have the same problem in Australia if we do not address it and have the right to debate it to find the answers so that each and every one of us can live in peace and harmony on our streets and not live in fear of being dragged before the courts. I am pleased to hear that Senator McKim is following my Facebook page. He made a mention of it. Maybe he will learn a lot more from how the Australian people really feel.

What I am saying here today is: is it really going too far to have an opinion that we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone? Maybe the people in Australia should start looking at others of a different religious background to us, so that they may start to think twice before they make their comments on the streets towards our young ladies who wish to not cover themselves up or dress in the fashion of a short skirt and who are then told they are nothing but the meat market. There are women on our beaches who cannot go swimming, because others are offensive towards them. There is a lot of this going on this country, yet there are people in this chamber who will not acknowledge it, and I am sick and tired of seeing them stand up for one race or other people in this country, who do not see themselves as Australians and who have no intentions of ever assimilating. We are told constantly, time and time again, that we must be tolerant. Well, I have had it up to here with my tolerance. I believe that we have a right to have an opinion, have a say and debate it. I will go back to the point: I welcome anyone who has come to this country to join us, to assimilate and to respect our culture and way of life. I stand by that. It is a shame that we have come to the point where we need to debate this issue, but that is where our country is headed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.