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 Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Does the minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister who says in relation to amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act: 'It is definitely not the issue people are talking about in the beer garden on Friday night or at the counters of banks or, to be quite frank, in the big office blocks when they finish work on a Friday night'?

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

I always agree with everything the Deputy Prime Minister says. That is not to say, and the Deputy Prime Minister does not say, that this issue is not one the parliament should deal with, as many, many people have said—opinion leaders such as Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission; Professor Rosalind Croucher, President of the Australian Law Reform Commission; Professor George Williams; Mr Warren Mundine; and the Hon. Jim Spigelman.

Jim Spigelman, for example, made this contribution recently:

… declaring conduct, relevantly speech, to be unlawful, because it causes offence, goes too far. The freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech. There is no right not to be offended.

…   …   …

None of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended. We are, however, obliged—

that is, by our international treaty obligations—

to protect freedom of speech.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock.

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

A point of order, Mr President. I asked whether the minister agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister's quote.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, the Attorney-General answered the question quite clearly and distinctly up-front by saying he agreed with everything the Deputy Prime Minister says. The Attorney-General is in order.

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

Senator Singh, while I do agree with Mr Joyce that this is not the issue at the top of mind for people in the supermarkets and the shopping centres and the workplaces in Australia today, that does not mean that it is not an important issue for the parliament to deal with. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights only 23 days ago delivered a report which proposed certain reforms to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. I have discussed those proposals with Professor Triggs. She largely agrees with them and has been a very constructive contributor to this process. She has also offered some views of her own, which the government has adopted as to other reforms that might usefully be made. This is useful work for the parliament to do. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, a supplementary question.

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

Yesterday, Senator Williams told the Senate: 'Until about three years ago, I did not even know this law 18C existed.' Does the minister agree with Senator Williams that it is not something that people pull you up about in the street in the country towns and say, 'What are you doing about 18C?'

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

Senator Singh, I have always found my friend Senator John Williams to be a very wise and sagacious individual, and I have always found myself in agreement with him. As a matter of fact, I myself have been pulled up in the street by a person I did not know who said, 'What are you doing about section 18C?' I have. That experience is obviously not an experience that has been shared by Senator Williams. I really cannot go beyond what I said in my answer to your primary question. I actually agree that this is not the most important issue facing Australia today. The issue of jobs, the issue of prosperity, the issue of energy security, the issue of infrastructure, all of which this government has shown the lead on, are far more important. Nevertheless, it is an important issue on which this parliament may usefully do work in responding to the demands of those for whom it is a concern. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, a final supplementary question.

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

Given the Liberal Party's coalition partner is confused by the Liberals' obsession with weakening protections from racial abuse, isn't it clear the reason the Prime Minister has turned his back on multicultural Australia is to satisfy the ideologues on his own backbench and One Nation?

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

Senator Singh, not an hour and a half ago you voted in this chamber to have a six-week-long inquiry into this issue on the heels of the 2½-month-long inquiry in which your Labor Party colleagues recently participated. Since you want to have a second, six-week-long, parliamentary inquiry on the heels of a 2½-month-long parliamentary inquiry into this very issue, I am very surprised to hear you say now in your question that this is not an issue that matters. As I said to you in answer to your earlier questions, we do not put this at the top of the list. We put jobs, we put infrastructure, we put prosperity, we put energy security, we put getting the budget back under control there. All of those issues are far more important. All of those issues are issues on which we inherited a mess from you. But, nevertheless, there are other issues that deserves some attention, and this is one. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Before I ask it, I add the thoughts and sympathies of the Australian Greens to the sentiments expressed by Senator Brandis and Senator Wong earlier in regard to the attacks in London.

Attorney, during the inquiry into the Racial Discrimination Act, the breadth of multicultural Australia said: 'Leave 18C alone.' This included representatives of the Islamic community, the Jewish community, the Chinese community, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the Lebanese community, the Vietnamese community, the Sikh community, the Japanese community, the Indian community, African communities, the Greek community, the Cambodian community and many others, including many multicultural peak bodies. They warned that weakening 18C would unleash more racism in Australia, which would harm the health and wellbeing of their members. Why do you, the Prime Minister, Senator Hanson, Senator Canavan and Senator Abetz think you know more about the shocking damage that racism can cause than the unified voice of multicultural Australia?

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

Senator McKim, I have never been able to understand what it is that parties of the left like yours so fear about a debate. I have never been able to understand that. There is a variety of views in the Australian community on this question. For example, the Australian Law Reform Commission presented a report to this parliament in March of last year saying that section 18C ought to be reformed. I think a responsible government—and, indeed, a responsible parliament—should heed that. There was a variety of views put to the parliamentary committee, as you know. You have quoted selectively and you have made the assumption that every member of the communities that you have listed is of a common view. I know for a fact that that is not right and that members of those communities have different views one from another. Other members of the Australian community, not merely members of ethnic minority communities, have a variety of views as well, because there is a variety of views about this issue across the Australian community, and we on the Liberal and National Party side of politics are not afraid of having a discussion. Senator McKim, I challenge you—through you, Mr President—to defend an anti-racial-vilification provision which does not expressly refer to harassment, because section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act omits reference to racial harassment. Whether you agree with me or not about the omission of terms like 'offend' and 'insult', and I know that you do not agree with me, surely you accept that a valid anti-racial-vilification provision should include a prohibition against harassment—as it was meant originally to include, if you look at the then Attorney-General's second reading speech. It does not, but under our proposal it now will.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, a supplementary question.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are cutting 18C whichever way you want to put it, Attorney-General. Contained in the Greens' submission to the Human Rights Committee inquiry I referred to in my substantive question was the following story from Danielle in Victoria, an Australian person:

I'm walking my children to school and out a car window someone shouts f*#% off to your own country. My kids are 6 and witnessing such disgusting behaviour.

How do you explain to Danielle your desire to unleash more of that kind of behaviour? (Time expired)

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

How do you explain to her that you are apparently going to vote against a measure to include a prohibition on harassment of that kind in the law.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the Attorney-General has concluded his answer. Did you still have a point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not pursue it. But I will note that I dispute your reference to it as an answer, because it clearly was not.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, your final supplementary question.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Attorney, I direct you to the following quote from Senator Canavan this morning on ABC:

People should be allowed to have a joke in this country—it's part of our Australian culture and way of doing things, I think—without being hauled before the courts.

Why is Senator Canavan's right to tell racist jokes more important than people's right to be free from the harms caused by racism?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, on a point of order?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening carefully to the questions, and section 73 is very clear. There are about nine provisions in it, and I think the questions that have been asked—this one in particular, with its imputations—have offended all of them. It has to be withdrawn.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will allow the question. The question will stand. I call the Attorney-General.

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

I did not hear Senator Canavan's interview, but, as I understand it, you are now attacking Senator Canavan for defending the right of Australians to tell jokes. You are attacking him for defending the right of Australians to tell jokes! For goodness sake, Senator McKim! Have you not gone beyond a parody of yourself when the political party you represent in this chamber is now launching a campaign to prevent Australians telling jokes? The Australian Greens are attacking one of the great properties of the Australian character—that is, the sense of humour. For heaven's sake, Senator McKim—get a life!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right! Order!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, can you please tell the senators opposite that they are only encouraging me?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, you have the call.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The minister yesterday said that the government's plans to weaken protection from racial abuse had resulted in 'so much hysteria'. The Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales, which represents 358 organisational members, on Tuesday said it would oppose the Turnbull government's amendment and:

… work to maintain the protections and preservations of Australia as a pluralist society in which multiculturalism is protected, and bigotry is challenged.

Does the minister think the Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales is being 'hysterical'?

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

No, I do not, Senator, and I welcome that contribution to the debate, but I think you are being hysterical, Senator Dastyari. I think you are being hysterical—charmingly hysterical, but hysterical nevertheless. The fact is that I doubt very much if any of the 358 members of the Ethnic Communities' Council would be of the view that there should not be a prohibition against racial harassment in the Racial Discrimination Act. I doubt very much if any of them would oppose the government's intention to introduce for the first time into the Racial Discrimination Act a prohibition against racial harassment. Nor do I believe any of them would oppose the government's commitment to freedom of speech. These are not inconsistent values, Senator Dastyari. We can have a good, strong and effective anti-racial-vilification law—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, you have asked your question.

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

and protect one of the fundamental Australian values, the value of freedom of speech, at the same time, if we get the law right, which is what this government will do, guided by the advice of the Australian Law Reform Commission; informed by the views of the Australian Human Rights Commission itself; informed by the views of so many other leading Australians, like Jim Spigelman, like Warren Mundine, like George Williams, like Gary Johns, like David Marr; and like so many other opinion leaders in this country, right across the political spectrum from the left to the right, have said we ought to do. We know you are trying to play the electoral politics of this, Senator Dastyari—that is transparent for all to see. But what we are trying to do is to ensure that we have the best and strongest anti-racial-vilification laws in this country, including protection against racial harassment, while, at the same time, defending the Australian value of freedom of speech.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, a supplementary question.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister yesterday said that no serious person would support 18C as it stands, does the minister think that the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, which says the government's changes will 'significantly weaken legislation that has worked effectively for over 20 years', is not serious?

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

I know them very well, and I think they are very serious men and women, if I may say so, and many of them are friends of mine, and we welcome their contribution to the debate as well. But, Senator Dastyari, what you are going to have to tell me when you embark on this exercise is: what is the conduct that you say should be outlawed that would not be outlawed by the government's amendments? A protection against intimidation and harassment on racial grounds—what conduct would not be caught by that, that the government ought to regulate?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, a final supplementary question.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, isn't it clear the Turnbull government is turning its back on multicultural Australia in its desperate attempt to win back voters from One Nation sitting over there?

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

No, and, Senator Dastyari, I refer you to the multicultural statement that the Prime Minister released only on Monday—a very, very fine example and a very, very fine iteration of a number of documents issued by governments of both political persuasions over the years, but, I am very proud to say, the first multicultural statement endorsed by Australia's multicultural community that recognises freedom of speech as a core value of multicultural Australia.