Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today is indeed a very auspicious day. We are here this afternoon talking about the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act. Some of us earlier today commemorated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Time does not allow me to elaborate on the links between the Racial Discrimination Act and Magna Carta. In the last parliamentary sitting week, the President of the Senate was joined by the current Clerk of the Senate to launch the second edition of Australia's Magna Carta. It includes a chapter from the former and now late Clerk, Harry Evans, which is entitled 'Bad King John and the Australian Constitution'. Before turning to the importance of the motion before us, I would like to quote a little from his chapter, where Mr Evans made the following suggestion:

I want to suggest that Magna Carta has a significance which is not dependent on its content. This is its contribution to the history of constitutionalism, and, in particular, to the development of the concept of a constitution.

In order to appreciate this significance, it is necessary to realise that many concepts and institutions of government which we now take for granted and which we regard as obvious developed extremely slowly over a long period and in very small accretions. Even the most simple ideas and institutions have been a long time in developing. It is also necessary to appreciate that there are very few really new ideas or institutions. The modern epoch has made very few original contributions to government.

They are very wise words, indeed, from the former Clerk of this place. Finally, he goes on to say:

So perhaps after all we may gaze upon our copy of Magna Carta with some awe and reverence, not because of its content or for its legal significance but for the contribution it made to the development of the written constitution and the concept of rights of the citizen. In a sense, all written constitutions, including our own, and all declarations of rights, are its descendants. Remembering that, and other aspects to which I have referred, may help us a little on our way into another century.

It is particularly important to think that a document that originated 800 years ago is the origin of the democratic institutions that we in this nation enjoy and others in other nations enjoy as well.

There is an important point that is worth observing in the context of this debate on the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act. For the most part, the contribution of other senators this afternoon has been a very worthy one and, for the most part, I add my sentiments to their sentiments. Fortieth birthdays are significant milestones and I would argue that those of us who have turned 40—I do not want to be rude, Mr President, but I cannot see anyone who would not be 40—would almost certainly have used the occasion as an opportunity to reflect and make an assessment about those four decades. If we are honest with ourselves in looking back, we do make assessments about those things that have gone well and those things that could have gone better. In my view, that should be no different for legislation. In marking the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 there is, indeed, very much to be proud of. Multiculturalism—I often wonder why it is not called 'cultural pluralism'—did not begin with Gough Whitlam, as much as some in this place would like to believe that to be the case.

The passage of the legislation in 1975 represented an important milestone in Australia's evolution and in our transition to becoming a more multicultural society. Likewise, racial tolerance did not simply come into being with the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act. What the legislation did, however, do was crystallise values of tolerance that were already alive in the Australian community. In effect, in passing the legislation, the parliament was giving formal notice of the Australian community's desire to be an open and racially tolerant society. The legislation has not been static for 40 years, and Senator Singh alluded to that in her contribution. There have been amendments over the years, most notably, I would argue, amendments to section 18C, which have now moved beyond the original intention of the legislation and have upset the delicate balance between protection from discrimination and freedom of speech.

The point I am making is this: that in the same way as the Magna Carta, which we are celebrating today, has had 800 years of influence over our parliamentary democracy and our traditions we should be open to the fact that the Racial Discrimination Act, which was passed 40 years ago, should be open to discussion, should be open to change and should be open to reform. I am proud to say that in this place I am one of those people who believes there are some elements of the Racial Discrimination Act that can, and should be, reformed. It is not new news to senators that I and a number of other senators have proposed the evolution of the Racial Discrimination Act, particularly in regards of section 18C, to better promote freedom of speech in our country and, importantly, to transfer the burden from legislation to every individual in this country to challenge discrimination and abusive and offensive things whenever they are said and heard.

Just briefly, I am proud to say that I am not alone. Senator Bernardi, Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Day have a similar view to me.