Racial Discrimination Legislation

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:56): I rise to express my very deep concern about the changes proposed to the current commonwealth racial discrimination legislation by the federal Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis QC. As a new member of this parliament, I am here to devote my best efforts to serving the interests of our community, one of the most peaceful and harmonious multicultural communities in Australia and, arguably, the world.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent has just spoken about the importance of different cultures working together. It is because of my commitment to those best interests that I feel compelled to publicly express my deep alarm about and complete disagreement with the terms of the exposure draft of the Freedom of Speech (Repeal of Section 18C) Bill 2014, lately released for public comment by the federal Attorney-General.

It is my view that the changes proposed for section 18C are unnecessary as our present legislative scheme works well. In fact, the legislation as it currently stands has enjoyed bipartisan support for more than 40 years. If these changes are enacted, they will send a very dangerous indication to minority elements in our society that freedom of speech can encompass words of hate and that bigotry is sanctioned by our government and our society.

The negative ramifications of the repeal of section 18C have been widely canvassed. I agree with these analyses, but it is my view that changes to section 18D, which would become subsection (4), are equally dangerous. Section 18D specifically exempts from sanction conduct which has been carried out reasonably and in good faith for particular and specified purposes, including the making of fair and accurate reports or a fair comment on an issue of interest to the public if it is an expression of a belief genuinely held by the commentator. Basically, it seeks to balance section 18C's objectives with acknowledgement that there exists freedom of expression.

By contrast, the exposure draft broadens the exception so that, essentially, words, sounds, images and writings that are communicated as part of involvement in public discussion on any 'political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter' are exempt from the requirement that they be 'reasonable' or made 'in good faith'. Given this, it is hard to see how the protections could operate at all in the public domain.

Recently, submissions have been sent to Senator Brandis by Salisbury council and my former council, the Port Adelaide Enfield council, opposing the proposed changes. I commend these councils for taking a principled stand, and I concur with their views. I encourage other councils around the state and, indeed, Australia to do the same in opposing these changes. I urge the federal government to withdraw this bill.