Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in relation to the tabling of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia, an inquiry which many would better understand as being about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the section which makes it illegal to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin. This inquiry was brought about solely by the stubborn, if not determined, effort to fulfil the desire of the hard-right faction of the Liberal Party to undermine laws against racist hate speech in this country—a desire which the Prime Minister now intends to do his best to fulfil.

It is extremely important to stress and note that, through our inquiry, the committee have found no basis to recommend any changes to section 18C. That should be the end of the matter. If the Prime Minister were true to his word, it would be. Yet now we hear that the government intend to proceed with changes to the act which would see the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' removed from the act.

Perhaps at this point it is worth noting that today we meet in this place on National Harmony Day, and the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a day which is about celebrating diversity and multiculturalism in our society. On this day we could be celebrating the fact that the final report of the committee has not recommended a change to 18C.

This is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for multiculturalism and diversity. Labor is pleased to sign onto this report, because we are not for turning in our unwavering support for ethnic communities and diversity. Labor believes unequivocally that protections against racial hate speech are worth keeping. However, today is not a day for celebration, because the Prime Minister has chosen this day to announce that his government, at the behest of the extreme right, intends to ignore the inquiry report—which he asked for—and proceed with changes to section 18C of the act which weaken protections against racist hate speech. Why? Because to say that the Liberal Party is bitterly divided on this matter would be a significant understatement.

Section 18C has become yet another matter where the Prime Minister is forced to bend to the will of those members of his party who do not even want him as Prime Minister. Already we have multiple reports emerging from discussions at the joint coalition party room meeting this morning. According to reports, not unsurprisingly, those who argued for weakening laws against racist hate speech included the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson; the member for Barker, Tony Pasin; the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie; the member for Dawson, George Christensen; Senators Paterson and Abetz; and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. On the other side were members in the other place: Mr Laundy, Mr Coleman, Ms Sudmalis and Mr Alexander.

The member for Reid, in what I will acknowledge was a valiant, perhaps even noble, effort, was out on ABC Radio this morning, defending section 18C and arguing that there is no basis for change—exactly what the report found. It is a position, of course, shared by the committee and stated, as I have said, in the report. We know from reports that Senator Fierravanti-Wells warned changing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act would be very unpopular with multicultural communities. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, warned that dragging out debate on race hate laws will cost the coalition votes. We are no doubt reliably informed by sources inside the room that one of the ardent supporter of former Prime Minister Mr Tony Abbott, the member for Canning, Mr Hastie, argued changing Section 18C was about 'de-fanging the operational arm of the political correctness movement in this country'—whatever that means. Perhaps these are the thoughts that occupy the deepest recesses of the member for Canning's mind as he lies awake at night, fretting about the matters he incorrectly believes to be at the forefront of concerns of the Australian people.

The fact that the Prime Minister has repeatedly been forced to kowtow to the likes of the member for Canning begs the question: what is even the point of being Prime Minister if you cannot even stand by your convictions? Well, The Huffington Post has very helpfully provided some quotes from the Prime Minister to illustrate his evolving view on this matter. In question time on 20 October in 2015 Mr Turnbull said:

The short answer to your question is: the government has no plans to change the Racial Discrimination Act at all.

At a doorstop on 5 February 2016 the Prime Minister said:

There's a longer discussion about the wording of 18c but there are no plans to make any changes to it. OK, thank you.

On 2GB on 25 August last year Mr Turnbull said in relation to the prospect of the government making changes to 18C:

The answer is no, not at this stage because we have higher and more urgent Budget repair priorities.

At a doorstop on 31 August last year he said:

I think the Government has no plans to make any changes to Section 18C. We have other more pressing, much more pressing, priorities to address.

On the ABC's Insiders program in August the host, Barrie Cassidy, asked the Prime Minister if:

… at one stage you'll be open to the idea of taking 'insult' and 'offend' out of the Bill?

Mr Turnbull responded:

Barrie, it is not on our agenda.

More recently, on 2GB in February this year the Prime Minister said:

Well, I've said in the past that I think it can be usefully amended.

It would perhaps, behove the Prime Minister to heed the words of the member for McMillan, Mr Russell Broadbent, who is a member of the committee. He told The Guardian yesterday:

Changes to the RDA should be about process, not about the wording of the section.

Unfortunately, what we have seen instead is that Malcolm Turnbull is prepared to trade away protections for Australia's multicultural communities in order to save his own skin. In doing so, the Prime Minister must answer the question: what forms of racist hate speech does he want to be able to use that he cannot now under current law? Unlike the Prime Minister, Labor is prepared to have the courage of our convictions and stand resolutely on the side of multiculturalism.

Labor will never support changes to section 18C. We believe that protections against racial hate speech are worth keeping. Everyone who opposes hate speech must now stand together to campaign against the government's proposed changes. In doing so we will be demonstrating the commitment of the vast majority of Australians to an inclusive society that respects people from all cultures and backgrounds.

Labor committee members were prepared to support some minor procedural changes to raise the threshold required for a complaint to be dealt with by the Human Rights Commission. These changes were agreed to by the committee in our final report and are supported by the Human Rights Commission and the president, Professor Gillian Triggs. The changes are designed to quickly dispense with frivolous or vexatious claims and will only affect a very miniscule number of complaints made to the commission.

It would have been nice if today we could come together in this place to support the committee's recommendations. Instead, we have had to bear witness to a weakened Prime Minister once again bending to the will of the hard right in his party; a Prime Minister who has been forced to implement one of the priority agenda items of the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott; a Prime Minister whose legacy will now include a scurrilous attempt to weaken the fabric of harmony in our community and support the most vulgar forms of hate speech imaginable.

In speaking to this committee's final report, I urge senators in this place to take note of all the recommendations contained in it. I urge them to make sure that the Senate remains the place where we are able to stop this sort of law, keeping in place the section of the law that has served this country well since 1975. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.