Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decision handed down last week by the Federal Circuit Court in Prior v QUT, in my opinion, only adds to the argument for not watering down section 18C. In his judgement, Judge Jarrett found that in two of the three claims that were dismissed, the words complained of were 'a mere slight' and were not reasonably likely to give rise to offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation, as required to offend under section 18C. May I point out that the Australian Human Rights Commission was not a party to these proceedings. The role of the AHRC is to attempt to resolve any complaints between the parties. Their role is not to make a decision about whether there has been any unlawful discrimination. This is not the noise that is going around Parliament House at the moment at all. The proceedings were brought by Ms Prior, who was entitled to bring those proceedings, no matter what the Human Rights Commission did with her complaint.

The respondents were entitled to seek to have her claims against them dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court, which is what happened. The decision is an example of the section working as it is designed to so that only claims that are reasonably likely to give rise to offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation are proceeded with. Claims that are mere slight are not, and that is what the court actually decided. I hope that those opposite would understand— (Time expired)