Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer the Attorney-General to the comments by the President of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, who describes his proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act as 'a contrivance', 'not wise' and 'an overreach'. Why did the Attorney-General tell the Senate on Tuesday that the Human Rights Commission had welcomed his proposed changes?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much indeed, Senator Singh. I once again acknowledge and thank you for your deep and close interest in this important topic. Senator Singh does not render the full text of the remarks I made to the Senate, because what I in fact said to the Senate was that the Human Rights Commission, speaking through the Human Rights Commissioner, had made certain observations. I did not say, as a matter of fact, that the president of the Human Rights Commission had said something; I said that the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Wilson, had said something. I think the fact that there is a variety of views on this matter within the Human Rights Commission is itself relevant to the fact that we are having a debate in the community about where the line should be drawn between the two goals that I suspect everybody in this chamber subscribes to of on the one hand protecting freedom of speech and freedom of public discussion and on the other hand protecting racial minorities from vilification.

I accepted entirely, Senator Singh, that different people in good will may draw that line in different places. Professor Triggs, with whom I have discussed this matter on several occasions, has a particular view. The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Wilson, has a different view. It is the government's view that the fact that there is a variety of opinions about how best to arrive at twin objectives which we all share is a good thing, not a bad thing. That is why the government has put out an exposure draft for consultation and feedback.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General confirm accounts from no less than three of his cabinet colleagues that he proposed more extreme changes to the government but got rolled? Is his fellow cabinet minister right to say, 'George has really drunk the right wing Kool-Aid'?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a cunning plan … he is a genius.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I cannot help but being flattered by Senator Conroy's interjections. I am afraid you are over-reading the situation somewhat. Senator Conroy, fond of you though I am—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, interjections are disorderly. You should ignore the interjections and address your comments to the chair.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming to Senator Singh's question, I think it is a matter of public record that the cabinet had a discussion about this matter on Monday. You would know, and you would not expect me to reveal cabinet discussions—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, you have been a member of cabinet, so surely you understand that one does not reveal cabinet discussions.

Senator Wong interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order on my left!

Opposition senators interjecting—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, I'm trying to get to Senator Singh's question, Mr President.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senator Singh is entitled to an answer to the question and to hear the answer.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But cabinet decisions, Senator Singh, as you would be aware, are collective decisions. The decision to release this exposure draft was the collective decision of every cabinet minister.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to Premier Barry O'Farrell's injunction this morning that:

Bigotry should never be sanctioned …

Why does the Attorney-General still fail to recognise the profound harm caused by speech that offends, insults and humiliates on the basis of race?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen Mr O'Farrell's comments this morning and I must say I thought Mr O'Farrell's comments were a very measured contribution to this debate. I agree with them. I particularly agree with what Mr O'Farrell said when he said:

Vilification on the grounds of race or religion is always wrong. There is no place for inciting hatreds within our Australian society.

Everybody on this side of the chamber and I am sure everybody on the other side of the chamber agrees with those sentiments. That is why, as part of our reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, we intend to include for the very—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, resume your seat. You are entitled to be heard in silence. Order on both sides!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why we intend, as part of our reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, to include for the first time in Commonwealth law a prohibition on racial vilification and the incitement of racial hatred.