That is Labors belief, that every Australian has the right to be protected from speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race.
By contrast, this Abbott Government believes in the rights of the bigots.
The Abbott Government wants to legitimise, encourage and empower bigotry.
The Attorney-Generals stated rationale for the Governments proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act is to protect the rights of bigots.
As he told the Senate so famously already on Monday this week: People do have a right to be bigots, you know.
Even for a Government which seems to specialise in backward-looking policies, and in aggressive and bullying politics, this was an extraordinarily retrograde step.
We have built a remarkably tolerant, democratic, and free multicultural Australia.
But we all know there are still the bigoted and the prejudiced amongst us.
We all know that their conduct can humiliate, belittle, hurt and damage people.
That is why collectively we have agreed t the protections contained in the Racial Discrimination Act and that is why those protections are needed.
It is also why people in leadership positions have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry and prejudice.
In this place especially, we have a responsibility to denounce racial prejudice:
- not to defend it on specious grounds;
- not to encourage it by our actions or by our silence;
- and certainly not to legislate in its interests.
And on the same day, the Government released legislation to allow Australians to be insulted and humiliated on the basis of their race.
Well this is not a grace note. This is an ugly note, a jarring note of discord.
It will encourage bullies, it will create division and intolerance, it will damage the fabric of our society and, most importantly, it will hurt people real people, individuals who will experience real pain.
So in the Senate this week we saw the first law officer of the land stand up loudly and proudly defending the rights of bigots.
This really revealed the ethical framework which lies behind this legislation.
It reveals the philosophy which is driving this Government to seek these changes.
A philosophy which prioritises the rights of bigots to say what they will ahead of the rights of individuals to be free from harassment.
It puts the rights of bullies ahead of the rights of victims of bullying.
It gives the professional loud-mouths, the prejudiced, the ignorant a license to trample all over the marginalised, the powerless and the vulnerable.
This is a warped set of priorities and a warped philosophy.
Professor Andrew Lynch of the Centre of Public Law at UNSW has said today:
Law is an instrument through which a community's values and rights may be given effect. In Monday's debate, [Senator] Brandis came down firmly on the side of those who would give voice to racially motivated insult and offence, over those who are targeted by such comments.
I acknowledge that there are many good people in the Liberal Party who have taken a stand and shown leadership against racism and discrimination.
People like former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
People inside the Abbott Government who have spoken against changes to the Act, like Mr Wyatt and Mr Laundy.
But the Prime Minister and this Attorney-General have revealed with this legislation that they are ideological throwbacks.
They are prosecuting the agenda of the narrowest of sectional interests imaginable the sectional interest of a single, powerful columnist.
A columnist whose opinions are amplified daily by the resources of one of the biggest media corporations in the world.
A columnist who evidently wields considerable power over this Government.
His interests are to be put ahead of so many Australians: ahead of the interests of indigenous Australians; ahead of the interests of migrants and the children of migrants.
One persons agenda is being allowed to trump the interests of Australians who seek to live in a decent and tolerant society.
Weve seen this failure of leadership on race from the most senior figures in the Liberal Party before.
Because when the Attorney-General responds to criticism of this legislation by saying People do have a right to be bigots, you know he is echoing someone we all remember.
He is doing exactly as John Howard did at the time of Pauline Hanson.
Lets remember when Pauline Hanson called for multiculturalism to be abolished and claimed Australia was being swamped by Asians, what was the response from the then Prime Minister?
When he was asked whether Asian Australians should be protected from people like her, he said:
Well, are you saying that somebody shouldnt be allowed to say what she said? I would say that in a country such as Australia people should be allowed to say that.
He defended her right to speak freely but who did he not defend?
He did not defend the rights of those she attacked to be free of vilification.
When senior political figures in this country engage in this kind of manoeuvre, it sends a bad message.
It sends a message that it is acceptable to rail against those who look different.
This is a point I made in my first speech to this chamber back in 2002 and I am distressed and I am angry that this is a point that still needs to made today.
We need leadership on issues of race.
It is not about denying free speech it is about asserting the harm done by racist speech.
It is not just about laws and legal protections it is about the message influential people send to the community, and the message our Attorney-General has sent is that those who are marginalised, victimised and harassed are not a priority for this government.
So when he says to Senator Peris People do have a right to be bigots, you know, he is empathising with the bullies and he is showing callous disregard for the vulnerable.
It is moral equivocation and dog-whistle politics masquerading as support for free speech.
This remark from our Attorney-General shows he does not appreciate the need for leadership in a society where people experience bigotry.
Because Mr Deputy President, I have seen bigotry face on and it is not a pretty sight.
Words have an impact.
They hurt.
They do lasting damage.
Not only the words of the bigots, but also the words of those in leadership positions, when they defend the rights of bigots and stand by silent.
Mr Deputy President, the Attorney-General, as Australias first law officer, has a responsibility to show leadership on these issues.
Instead we have seen him fail the test of leadership by bringing forward these retrograde proposals.
We have seen him fail the test of leadership in choosing to defend the rights of bigots rather than stand up for victims.
And I also say in this place we see him fail the test of leadership in the way he conducts himself in public debate.
Because he has a predilection for getting personal a predilection for personal attack, denigration and denunciation.
We all remember his disgraceful claim in this place about there being a criminal in the Lodge.
We remember this morning when he was asked to respond to the shadow Attorney-Generals argument that the exemptions in the Governments proposed section 18D are so wide that you could drive a truck through them.
He responded: Well, I doubt the Shadow Attorney-General could drive a truck through anything, frankly.
Personal denigration rather than principled debate; abuse rather than analysis.
And I wont even deign to respond to his accusation against me of bigotry extraordinary and false.
Frankly, Senator Brandiss predilection for going personal are the tactics of a bully, stuck in the sandpit of student politics, not of the Attorney-General of this country.
Mr Deputy President, what is the public benefit in removing legal protection against hate speech?
There is no conceivable public benefit in enabling blatant racial attacks.
How does it benefit our Australian community to make it easier for people to vilify others because of their race or ethnicity?
How does it benefit our community to defend bigotry instead of tolerance?
It does not benefit our community in fact it damages and divides our community.
And there are really very clearly two sides in this debate.
We on this side of the chamber, the Labor Party, stand with the community with the ethnic groups, the indigenous Australians and the hard-working migrants who have come to Australia and helped build this nation because it is a free and fair society.
On the other side of this debate, we have an Abbott Government which stands with a powerful journalist, with libertarian ideologues and with the defenders of bigotry.
I have said before in this place, prejudice and distrust cannot build a community but they can tear one apart.
ENDS
