Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, I will make a few brief observations before moving on to the machinery provisions. In a previous contribution, a Greens senator used what I find to be a very patronising term, and that is when the term 'ethnic groups' is used. It suggests that everybody of a particular race, as of necessity, agrees with a particular point of view. For example, with David Adler from the Jewish community we have somebody who is very supportive of changes to section 18C. In the ethnic communities that I move around in there is a divergence of opinion. Indeed, just recently, there was a meeting of various ethnic community groups in Hobart, where a few people spoke against changes to section 18C and some in favour. In a good healthy democracy, that is as it ought be. But to try to present every ethnic community as some sort of homogenous group is, quite frankly, patronising.

The other point that I would seek to make is that I was concerned about reports that a Labor member now wants to not only keep section 18C but extend its application even further—in other words, stifling freedom of speech even further. What that would mean, in effect, is that we would reintroduce a blasphemy law into this country, because this Labor person wants to extend section 18C to religion. One of the bizarre justifications for this was the case of a Muslim woman having her hijab ripped off. That is completely unacceptable behaviour, but our criminal law deals with that. That is assault. It should not occur. Whether it is a hijab or a jumper or whatever it might be, that sort of behaviour should not occur. It is outlawed, and we do not need special laws for it. It is the same with being abused in the streets. That should not occur. We have laws about public order in relation to that.

But now I am being told—and this is the point I sought to make earlier—that you can call somebody a 'dirty Arab' and be found to have offended under section 18C; but, if you call them a 'dirty Muslim', no action can be taken. This is, yet again, about hurt feelings. This Labor member would want that covered as well. So we would be offended if we were called a 'dirty Arab' or a 'dirty Muslim', according to this Labor member, but what about if you were called a 'dirty unionist', a 'dirty Liberal', a 'dirty Labor Party member' or a 'dirty deal maker'? The list goes on. Where would we have government step in and say, 'You are not allowed to use this language'? As somebody who supports freedom of speech, I do not believe governments should be involved in the area of hurt feelings but it should be in the area of having public order—protecting people from assault.

Moving briefly to the machinery provisions, the government seeks to insert a new 'reasonable person' test. We heard Senator McKim oppose that. The 'reasonable person' test, I suppose, is a very foreign concept to people in the Australian Greens, but it is a well-known concept in the law designed to ensure that the law is applied in a manner in tune with community expectations. Another one of the changes is requiring the Human Rights Commission to observe the rules of natural justice. The fact that we actually have to amend to ensure that the likes of Professor Triggs, who is going down to address a Green fundraiser later this weekend, is a sad reflection on the way the Human Rights Commission is currently being conducted under Professor Triggs. That we do have to protect—