Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis to questions without notice. I was not aware of the initial motion when I stood to speak earlier. I am concerned by the level of contribution that has been put into this topic by a number of people. I was pleased to hear Senator Moore's comment that it is good that everyone has the opportunity to say that they abhor racism and that they will do what they can to stop it. But to suggest that to change a poorly drafted piece of Labor legislation is somehow to behave in a racist way is not acceptable. It is not about freedom of speech. It is not about anything that, in my view, should be happening in Australia or within Australian values. It is not reasonable. Senator Brandis has put out an exposure draft which will be available for a month for people to comment on, if they wish. If you do not like the way it is currently drafted—which Senator Singh certainly appears to believe—you are perfectly free to comment to Senator Brandis on the way it is currently drafted and to suggest new drafting. There is no way that there is not the ability for Australia to have legislation that both opposes racial vilification and allows freedom of speech. But it is not going to happen with the sort of nannying behaviour that we have had in the past from the former Labor government.

I do not believe that anybody could possibly see the outcome of the Andrew Bolt case as acceptable in Australia. It is not acceptable in Australia. I certainly share very few of Mr Bolt's views. But I will fight to the death—as would anybody, I would hope, in this place—for his right to express those views. Whether he expressed them accurately or not is not a matter for legislation around racial vilification. One would think that that sort of a problem could be taken to the Press Council if there were inaccuracies in the reporting. That is the body that deals with inaccuracies in media commentary or reporting. That is the body to talk to. To suggest that, because his report contained inaccuracies, it somehow becomes racial vilification is not reasonable in any way, shape or form. I did not like the views expressed in the article that was the subject of the court case involving Mr Bolt, but he has the right, in Australia, to have those views.

Whilst others might suggest that this is a very minor point to be using as the basis for changing legislation, it has the potential to be an extremely important point. I would think that anybody in this place would thoroughly respect and acknowledge that Attorney-General Brandis is someone who has the utmost regard and the utmost respect for law and for a liberal, with a small 'l', interpretation of law and the rights of the individual under the law in Australia. So I cannot believe that this opposition wants to attack this legislation. Well, I can, I am afraid, believe it. Certainly, if there were any penalties for inaccurate statements about legislation within this parliament the entire opposition—the entire non-government side—would stand condemned for the way they have misinterpreted and misrepresented this legislation.

I am a member of a very privileged group within Australia: a white Anglo-Saxon. I cannot begin to know what it is personally like to experience racial hatred or racial vilification. Nevertheless, I would not want to see that happen to anyone in Australia. I certainly have very strong views on disability discrimination. I do not want to see people attacked for their race in the same way I do not want to see people attacked because of a disability or because they are different in any way from anybody else. The opposition have a month to comment calmly and succinctly on this legislation. They should take it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.