George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Flags Amendment (Protecting Australian Flags) Bill 2016 will enshrine in law protections for the most recognised symbol of our nationhood and our identity as a people—protections a majority of Australian people mistakenly believe already exist.

This bill responds to flag-burning cases that any red-blooded Australian should (and probably does) find disgusting and offensive.

I note that similar instances in the recent past have led to similar bills being introduced to this place, notably in 2003, 2006 and 2008.

Indeed, colleagues have queried the value of bringing this private member's bill to parliament, given the failure of previous attempts made to protect the integrity of the Australian flag.

While this bill is not so very different, the times most certainly are.

These are turbulent times.

These are uncertain times.

In these times, we need the strong foundation of cultural values and beliefs upon which this nation was founded and through which this nation has flourished.

But ill winds blow and the sea of public discourse is polluted with a distracting and self-harming froth and bubble of our own making.

The chattering classes and the self-proclaimed elite, egged on by a compliant and self-serving media, are forcing the entire nation to apologise for everything the nation is and represents.

And the people of this nation, willing or not, have allowed this cancer to take root.

In such a climate, this bill may be viewed as one sailing against the winds of political opinion.

But this is an opportunity for Australians—real Australians—who still believe in the 'fair go', still believe we are the lucky country and still believe that opportunities abound—equally—to all who value their good fortune of being born in (or migrating to) Australia.

In such a climate, this bill can either ride the wave of political correctness, buoyed by the mechanisms contained within public discourse and already enshrined in law—or the nation risks a rising tide of revolt.

The key argument one could raise against this bill is one of free speech.

I, too, believe in freedom of speech.

I have spoken at length in this place on the virtues of free speech, particularly in relation to section 18C of the discrimination act.

It is within the context of section 18C that this bill must be supported.

Freedom of speech is important in a democracy.

But that ship sailed the day that 18C was entrenched in law.

Section 18C was an amendment the Labor government made to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

What section 18C makes unlawful is, and I quote: 'Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin'.

Two things are required for section 18C to apply to an act:

(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.

Of particular interest here is the inclusion of the words 'national or ethnic origin'.

I note that the Human Right Commission omit any reference to 'national origin' in an their article explaining the law, an article titled: 'At a glance: Racial vilification under sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).'

The article says, under the heading: 'What does the law say?':

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race or ethnicity.

It is not surprising that the Human Rights Commission have omitted, very conveniently, the words 'national origin'.

Last year, I lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission about flag-burning activities by protestors at a rally.

The response from the Human Rights Commission was this:

It is not clear how it could be argued that the burning of the flag in these particular circumstances was done because of your race, national original or ethnic origin or the race, national or ethnic origin of Australians of European descent.

The circumstances mentioned are these.

The flag-burning incident took place on 4 April last year. Protestors burned the Australian flag to chants of 'No pride in genocide' and 'Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land'.

In these circumstances, I cannot see how burning the Australian national flag can be anything but an attack based on nationality and, specifically, Australians of European descent.

The protesters' action was not about burning the physical entity but about attacking the values and ideals of the nation that it represents.

The existence of this connection is the very reason why this particular symbol was chosen to be desecrated.

They did not burn an ISIS flag.

They did not burn a swastika.

They specifically chose to burn our nation's symbol because they knew that would cause maximum offence to their targets—patriotic Australians of European extraction, who have as much right to be in this country as Aboriginal Australians—or anyone else.

The act was designed to offend.

The act was intended to offend.

If section 18C is not equally applied to all, then it is a joke.

If section 18C protects peoples of all nations except Australia, and people of all ethnicity except Australians of European descent, then the act is legislated racism itself.

I know the protestors who burned the Australian flag on that day would be great supporters of section 18C because it affords them protection against the free speech of others while denying those same protections to others.

If those people support section 18C’s suppression of free speech then they absolutely must support this bill.

The Australian flag is declared to be the national flag by the Flags Act 1953 and this bill will afford protection to the Australian national flag, the Australian red ensign, and any other flag or ensign appointed under section 5 of the act.

The bill seeks to provide protection by making it a criminal offence to wilfully destroy or otherwise mutilate the flag in circumstances where a reasonable person would infer that the dishonouring and defiling of the flag by burning or other actions is intended publicly to express contempt or disrespect for the flag or the Australian nation.

The protections afforded by this bill would also extend to the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag, which are our nation's flags as well.

There is a widespread belief, as I said before, in the general community that such protections already exist.

There is also widespread opposition to the provisions made in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Such an imbalance—impinging on freedom of speech to protect some while refusing to protect others—is contrary to our cultural values as Australians.

Discrimination is not a one-way street, regardless of whether acts and speech are directed at a minority or a majority.

Racism is racism.

You do not have to have brown skin to be able to be offended.

You do not have to follow a radical ideology based on death, fear, torture and degradation of women to be offended.

Attacks on one’s nationality and ethnicity cut both ways and we cannot outlaw one without outlawing the other.

If this bill was in response to desecration of the Aboriginal flag, this would be a very short debate indeed.

But the politically correct crowd only tolerates intolerance and discrimination if it is against the perceived majority.

But the perceived majority are rapidly becoming a political minority in their own country, and that is why there is a growing backlash against political correctness.

If we sell off free speech in exchange for appeasement then it must cut both ways.

If discrimination against ordinary Australians continues to flourish through this culture of political correctness, then natural consequences will follow.

Someone will take up the mantle and speak for the masses.

It was the suppression of open discussion in Australia that led to the rise of Pauline Hanson.

It has been the same 'thought police' in America that has seen the rise of Donald Trump.

If the sanctimonious elite decry any thoughts and suppress any discussions that do not comply with their own ideological view of the world, they will give birth to something they find even more intolerable.

The general community has valid concerns.

Their concerns and thoughts deserve a voice.

In giving protection to our foremost national symbol, through this bill, we give them that voice. Can I end by saying to those concerned about freedom of speech that burning a flag is not speaking.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.