Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a low bar. I am sure all senators fondly remember my first speech to the Senate! I am sure it is emblazoned on your memories, especially my friends Senator Smith and Senator Rushton! In my first speech, really the core theme that I touched on was the need for us all—regardless of our party and regardless of where we are from geographically—to work hard to bring our community together. It is only by bringing our community together that we can solve the big challenges that face our country and the world as a whole. So it is extremely disappointing that we find ourselves debating a bill that will do the exact opposite of bringing us together. In fact, this bill will further divide Australia, and there has never been a worse time for a bill such as this which will divide Australians and turn them against each other. As I say, our country does have big challenges facing it, and we all know that it is only by working together that we will solve those challenges.

Evidence that was received in the rushed inquiry into this bill from the federation of ethnic communities in Australia pointed to the absolute, undisputed fact that racism is on the rise in our country. It is a very sad fact that, for a range of reasons and, I dare say, partly because of some of the racist sentiment which, unfortunately, we do hear at times from members of this chamber and other people in leadership positions in our community, we are seeing racism on the rise. We are seeing more complaints from people of non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds about the racism they experience on public transport, in employment situations, when they are being served at stores and in all sorts of other situations.

I am not for a moment saying that most Australians are racist. I am very proud of the fact that our country is the most successful multicultural nation in the world. Most Australians, I think, are not racist people but, unfortunately, we do have some among us who want to pick on people from other backgrounds. It is happening all too often, and I do fear that this bill will only encourage that into the future. Given that and given the risk of opening the door to more racist speech, we have to ask ourselves: why is the government so determined to push on with this bill?

We have had a number of speakers from the government talk about the importance of free speech. I accept that, particularly for the Liberal Party, the rights of the individual are an important value, and many members of the Liberal Party fight hard for them. But what is not ever recognised by members of the Liberal Party in advocating this free speech reason behind this bill is that there has always been constraints on free speech—in our society, in every Westminster parliament and in every Western democracy like our own. The law of defamation restricts people's ability to go out in public and say things which damage the reputation of other people, especially without any foundation. That is just one of numerous examples I could give where there have been constraints placed around free speech for what is considered to be for the benefit of society as a whole. That is nothing more than what section 18C, as it currently stands, seeks to do. It seeks to put limits on free speech for the benefit of the community as a whole. I think that most people in Australia recognise that there does need to be a limit on what people can say about each other because of the damage and hurt that can be inflicted when unfair, untrue or hurtful comments are made about someone, particularly in relation to their race.

Australia has come a long way in its dealing with these kind of matters. Unfortunately, my own party supported the White Australia policy, I think until the 60s, before it came to its senses and realised that was not the kind of Australia we wanted to build. Australia has come a long way in rejecting those sorts of policies; although I am sure there are a couple of senators in this chamber who pine for those days. We have moved on from that, including by recognising the need to put constraints around what people can say about others on the basis of their race.

There are other values which are just as important to Australia in the modern day as the need to protect people's free speech and their liberty, and one of those values is respect for others. In a previous speech I gave to the chamber about this topic, I talked about the fact that all of us who are parents—regardless of the party we are from—I am sure try to instil in our children respect as a value that they take on right throughout their lives. I talked at that previous time about the importance of respect for others no matter who they are and no matter where they are from. Again, opening the door to more racist speech in a form that this bill will allow is the complete antithesis of showing other people respect and it effectively gives the green light to people to be disrespectful of others on the basis of their race. That is not something I have ever encouraged in my own children and I doubt there is a senator on the other side of this chamber who would want to see their children behave in that kind of disrespectful manner. But unfortunately, that is going to be the consequence of this bill.

By their continued reliance on this notion of free speech, what we have seen from a number of speakers from the government is that they do not get it. I was here earlier today when Senator Abetz was talking about how important free speech is. He was asking why we should be putting constraints around people and what they can say on the basis of someone's race; he said that next it will be about whether someone has freckles or—I think he said—about whether someone has spectacles or braces. That sort of analogy shows how out of touch members of this government are and shows that a number of them just do not get it. They just do not get the fact that as people who are elected to this Senate we are all incredibly privileged people. Most of us have had the good fortune to be raised in a loving family and have had certain opportunities along the way, whether or not we have come from very humble beginnings.

The fact that certain government senators have drawn those sorts of analogies demonstrates that they have never actually experienced being in a position where they have less power than other members of the community, which is the daily experience of people from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds in this country. No-one from an Anglo-Saxon background in this country gets picked on because of their race or gets discriminated against because of their race, and that is because we are the more powerful members of this community. It is only people from less powerful backgrounds, such as those from our ethnic communities, that experience this. Indeed, listening to Senator Abetz's speech reminded me of some of the debates I had to endure in student politics from speakers from the Young Liberals. It is very unfortunate that some government senators have not evolved from those kinds of juvenile arguments that you would put up when you were in your 20s. These are real problems that are experienced by people all around Australia.

Again, why is this government changing section 18C? We all know that this country faces massive challenges, whether they be economic, environmental, social—all sorts of challenges—into the future. We are spending time on this, and an inordinate amount of time has been spent by both the government and certain media outlets pushing this barrow, when there are all these other challenges out there that need to be dealt with. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, made the point that no-one is talking to him about this in his electorate, and I have to tell you no-one is talking to me about it anywhere I go in Queensland, whether it be Brisbane, the Gold Coast or regional Queensland. It has not been raised with me once as a burning priority for this country to deal with. I was in the chamber when Senator Williams spoke about this bill the other day, and he made the same point.

It is not surprising that a new opinion poll released today, a Fairfax Ipsos poll, showed that 80 per cent of Australians oppose what the government is doing through this bill. So, the very first item of business on the government's agenda today in the Senate was to try and push through legislation that 80 per cent of the community actually oppose! We can only assume that the real reason why this change has been such a big priority is that 80 per cent is the proportion of the coalition caucus that wants to see these measures go through and that is obsessed with these kinds of changes in the same way that certain media outlets are obsessed with it.

As part of the arguments that have been put up along the way for why this is necessary, we have continually heard members of the government seize upon two cases that have involved section 18C. One was the case involving QUT students, and one was the case involving the late cartoonist Bill Leak. Now, there may be issues with the way those cases were handled—and I note that a number of the procedural changes that are being moved in this bill will seek to improve some of the processes for handling complaints. But what has been forgotten in this entire debate is that those two cases that apparently underpin why these changes are so essential are both cases where the complainants lost. The complainant made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission; the relevant process was undertaken; and, whether it was the QUT students or Bill Leak, their actions were not successful.

I do not remember too many other instances where we have devoted so much time to debating legislation to try to fix problems that do not actually exist. The existing legislation is working. The legislation is weeding out cases that are lacking in merit and is preventing people from upholding frivolous complaints. Yet, despite that, the government is spending all this time trying to change this legislation—for a problem that does not exist.

I was a lawyer. Every single day of the week, people bring legal actions, whether they be about negligence or contract law, competition law, migration law or any other area of the law. People lose those cases, but we do not see the government say, 'The law has got to change because too many people are losing their cases.' We have only found the government to show that level of dedication in this one area, and that is because, as I say, the Prime Minister's leadership is so weak, and he so terrified of being done out of this position by conservative members of his party, that he has to jump at their beck and call. It is embarrassing to see the leader of our country held hostage by an extreme rump in his own party that is preventing him from showing leadership and from standing up for the values that we know he actually believes in.

What are the changes being proposed here? In the first instance, I want to deal with the changes of substance to the wording of section 18C. Section 18C, as it stands, essentially states that people cannot offend, insult or humiliate others on the basis of their race. It seems like a pretty reasonable position to take. As I say, it is a sentiment that demonstrates the kind of respect that we try to instil in our children and in all Australians. That has been changed in this bill so that you will only breach section 18C if you harass or intimidate someone on the basis of their race.

Now, none of us knows exactly what that is going to mean, and we took evidence at the committee inquiry on the problems that will be caused by that uncertainty, particularly around the meaning of the word 'harass'. No-one knows what constitutes harassment, rather than offending or insulting. All we have had to rely on so far is one of the chief barrackers for this change, Andrew Bolt, who has said that in his view it probably amounts to racially abusing someone on five occasions. So it will be 'okay' to do so on one occasion, two occasions, three occasions or four occasions, but it is not until the fifth time someone is racially abused that it starts becoming a problem and the law should step in. I do not think that is acceptable. I think it is unacceptable to racially abuse anyone once, let alone twice, three times, four times or five times.

There is no doubt—and again we took evidence about this at the inquiry—that, in making this change, the government is raising the threshold for what is required to constitute discrimination. The sorts of racial slurs that would currently be in breach of section 18C and on which people can take action will now be allowed to go through to the keeper. It will only be if someone is harassed and if there is a cause of conduct of racially abusing them that they will be able to take action. How is that supposed to make all of the members of our community of ethnic backgrounds or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds feel now that they are exposed to greater levels of racial slurs that they cannot take action about? They can only take action if it constitutes harassment, which suggests a course of conduct. I do not think that is fair. I do not think that is the kind of Australia that we want.

There are also a number of changes to the process that the Human Rights Commission will need to follow in taking these kinds of complaints. Labor has made it clear for some time now that we accept that the processes the Human Rights Commission follow could be improved. Indeed, the Human Rights Commission has made that point themselves. What we still remain concerned about is that we understand that there are more amendments going to be made by the government to this bill, which I think we only received about an hour ago. I do not know what the amendments are. I cannot comment on them. It is pretty unfair, I think, that the government is tabling these kinds of amendments to important legislation as it is being debated. That is just a reflection of the appalling process that this government has followed around this bill.

The bill was introduced in the middle of last week. I think it was Wednesday. On Thursday afternoon we found out that there was going to be a rushed half-day hearing into this bill. There was very limited opportunity to consult with anyone who would be affected by these changes. Labor senators managed to at least include representatives of ethnic communities to come along and give evidence at the hearing on Friday morning, but, shamefully, led by Senator Macdonald, government senators prevented the Aboriginal Legal Service from giving evidence. I just could not believe that an Aboriginal organisation was prevented from giving evidence about changes to the law which would make it easier for their own people to be racially abused. Unfortunately, that is the kind of government we have, or that is at least the kind of chair of that committee we have in Senator Macdonald. Members of the government might like to reflect on his continued behaviour as the chair of that committee.

We were also told in the inquiry that, despite comments by Senator Brandis to the contrary, the Human Rights Commission did have serious concerns about some of the changes to this bill. The Human Rights Commission did make a number of what seemed to be worthwhile suggestions as to how the bill could be improved, particularly in the area of procedures that it would follow. As I said, I do not know which of those suggestions have been picked up. I know that about an hour ago the shadow Attorney-General received some proposed amendments to this bill.

The fact that the government is sharing amendments to this bill as we are debating it just shows what a rushed process this has been, what a shambolic process this has been and how it really is just being driven by an internal political objective, which is to try to get the extreme right of the Liberal Party off the back of the Prime Minister and give him a little bit of breathing space. Now, I have some really sad news for the Prime Minister: it is not going to happen. Every time you give in, they just take more comfort. We have seen it on climate change. We have seen it on marriage equality. Now we are seeing it on the Racial Discrimination Act. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. I think that they all thought that, with Senator Bernardi defecting and going and forming his own party, the pressure would be off, but apparently it is not the case.

There are still people within the Liberal Party who want to drag it to the right—failing to recognise the politics in this country is won in the centre. I even feel a little bit sad for the Prime Minister, because we know that he does not believe in these changes just as we know that he does not believe in the changes he has to stick with around marriage equality and climate change, but, because he is beholden to a rump in his party and has no courage and no strength of his convictions, he has given in yet again. I can only imagine what the next fight is going to be. Senator Paterson and all the other ideologues from the Institute of Public Affairs are no doubt dreaming it up as we speak. It is pretty amazing that the Prime Minister of this country feels so intimidated by Senator Paterson, who I do not think has even turned 30—not that there is anything wrong with being young. It is a real sign of how weak this Prime Minister is. (Time expired)