Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is widely understood that changes to the Racial Discrimination Act proposed by this government follow the introduction of section 18C by the Keating government in 1995 and 11 years of successful operation of this law under the previous conservative government led by John Howard. It is also widely understood that this is being contemplated because of the insult and offence felt by one case involving that most valiant tribune of the conservative cause, Mr Andrew Bolt. It must have been a mistake, therefore, that his newspaper decided against appealing Justice Bromberg's decision. Justice Bromberg had made a ruling that under 18C Mr Bolt had offended people.

It is strange that higher courts can often overrule aberrant or adventurous readings of the law, but this decision was not appealed. It does seem to have given the freedom fighters of the Institute of Public Affairs a cause celebre. Their mission, which, in the words of the Mission Impossible brief, they have chosen to accept, is to liberate the nation from 'Bolt Laws'. In fact, it is only one occasion of 1,268 cases where nearly 500 issues of racial vilification were dealt with by conciliation. So the government is making a decision to move on the basis of one apparently aberrant ruling, while 1,268 cases have had a completely different outcome.

A wise government would think very carefully about sweeping away the widely accepted section 18C. This has been very clear to Indigenous leaders, such as Warren Mundine. There are some courageous members of the government, whom I would like to single out, who also raised this issue, apparently: the member for Reid, Craig Laundy and the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt. I believe there are others.

The widespread critique of section 18C that automatically if someone is offended or humiliated the law will find for them is completely wrong. In fact, Justice Drummond noted, in relation to section 18C: '… whether an act contravenes the section is not governed by the impact the act is subjectively perceived to have by a complainant'; instead, as the Attorney-General said when introducing the Racial Hatred Act in 1994, section 18C: