THE HON TONY BURKE MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER
SHADOW MINISTER FOR CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA
SHADOW MINISTER FOR THE ARTS
MEMBER FOR WATSON
THE HON MARK DREYFUS QC MP
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SHADOW MINISTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
MEMBER FOR ISAACS
GRAHAM PERRETT MP
MEMBER FOR MORETON
DEPUTY CHAIR OF PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
PRESS CONFERENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 2017
SUBJECTS: Section 18C
MARK DREYFUS, SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am shocked that on Harmony Day, on the day on which we are celebrating the International Day against Racial Discrimination, that the Prime Minister of Australia and the Attorney-General of Australia can stand up and try to explain, and fail to explain, a change to the law against racist hate speech in our country. Make no mistake, the change that has just been announced is a weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is a weakening of theprotections which have servedAustralia very well for more than 20years. And for the Prime Minister tostand up and pretend, and it is onlya pretense, because he's had hischain yanked by the right wing ofhis party, for the Prime Minister topretend that this is a strengtheningof the law is simply nonsense. ThePrime Minister gave the game awaywhen he was unable to explain, in answer to adirect question, what successfulclaim under the law as it standswarrants this change to the law. Hedid not offer one single example ofa successful claim under Section 18C as a reason for changing the law. Instead, he went to failed claims.It is the first time I have everseen law reform in this countrybeing conducted with reference toclaims which have failed. Claimswhich have failed to meet thestandards we've set in the law. Theline we've drawn against racist hatespeech. This is a weakening of thelaw. The Attorney-General gave thegame away as well. He described thenew term that they are going tointroduce to the law, "harass", as a"stronger term", as a "more powerfulterm". And what happens when youintroduce a stronger and morepowerful term to the law is that youraise the bar. You make it harderfor people to complain againstracist hate speech. It is a betrayalof Australia's multicultural communities. It is a betrayal of thePrime Minister's statements,frequent statements, that the lawwasn't going to be changed, of thePrime Minister saying at theelection that this law wasn't goingto be changed. It's a betrayal ofthe Aboriginal community inAustralia, the Jewish community inAustralia. Every single ethniccommunity in Australia has beenbetrayed by this Government andno-one should believe in any waythat this is, as the Prime Ministerhas untruthfully attempted tosuggest, a strengthening of the law.It is not. It is a weakening of thelaw. It's a shameful thing to bedoing on, of all days, Harmony Day,when schools around Australia,school children are having explainedto them, why we set our face againstracial discrimination and why we setour face against racist hate speechin our community. This is a dreadfulstep back. I am, however, hopeful ofworking with the crossbench in theSenate, who have already expressedclear views about this, to make surethat even if this legislation, whichwe have not seen yet, passes throughthe House of Representatives, itwill not pass through the Senate. Mycolleagues want to add somecomments.
TONY BURKE, SHADOW MINISTER FOR MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mark. In everyschool in Australia at moment, thereare children, many of them wearingorange, celebrating harmony andbeing taught about respect. And herein Canberra, we have a Governmentwanting to give permission for moreracial hate speech. Yesterday, thisGovernment released itsmulticultural policy. It didn't evensurvive 24 hours before they walkedall over it. There is no way oflooking at today's announcementwithout this one fact in mind. TheGovernment intends to givepermission to forms of racial hatespeech that are currently not permitted. Now, that might not bereal for George Brandis or MalcolmTurnbull. But it is real for theperson who gets humiliated on public transport on the way home. It isreal for the child who has to standthere while his or her parents arebeing abused in a shopping centre.It is real for many, manyAustralians. And this Government, onHarmony Day of all days, on aninternational day to eliminate allforms of discrimination on race, onthis day, the Government has chosento lower the bar and allow forms ofhate speech which are not currentlypermitted. Well, the Governmentneeds to answer one question - whatis it that they want to be allowedto say that they're not allowed tosay now? What forms of racial hatespeech that are currently notpermitted do they want to give permission for? Because be in no doubt,when you remove the words thatthey're removing, there are forms ofracial hate speech which will begiven licence to. And the farce of amedia conference that the PrimeMinister just held. As if we'remeant to believe this is astrengthening of the law. As ifwe're meant to believe, after allthe complaints that they've been making over the last couple of yearsfrom the hard right of the LiberalParty, how on earth are we meant tobelieve that they've then come upwith a law reform pushed by the hardright of the Liberal Party and it'sall about giving more protectionsagainst racial hate speech? No-onewill fall for that. And this changetoday is the first time in a longtime a country like Australia couldbe seen to be taking a backward stepon racial hate speech, and they'vechosen Harmony Day to do it.
GRAHAM PERRETT, PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEPUTY CHAIR: This isthe Human Rights Committee report on freedom of speech and section 18C. I brought it along because thePrime Minister obviously wasn't familiar with it, nor was theAttorney-General. We went to everycapital city, received over 400submissions, consulted widely,received 11,000 individualsubmissions. We didn't just talk toa couple of people in Point Piper orBrighton. Instead, we spoke to thepeople who would be affected by thischange. And what did we say? Thecommittee where Senator James Patterson used to be in the IPAallthe committee agreed to with theLiberal majority wasthat we would not change section 18C. Instead, we've got the partyroom, I don't know what the votewas, but the party room came outfrom the Coalition and said we'regoing to change it. They're notlistening to the report at all. Weclearly stated that there would beconsequences, particularly for thoseone in four Australians who areeither born overseas or had parentsborn overseas. Malcolm Turnbullshould hang his head in shame. Thisis a day of infamy for MalcolmTurnbull.
REPORTER: You said earlier thatthere was an instance of racialabuse that could occur?
BURKE: Thatpermission would be given for them.
REPORTER: Permission would be given.Can you give an example of exactlywhat sort of instances you'retalking about?
BURKE: Well, I'm not the onewanting to make this change. Butthere is no doubt the entire pushfrom the Government in wanting tomake this change has been thatthey've said that currently, theybelieve, it is a curtailment offreedom of speech. So therefore,unless everything they've beensaying is untrue, there must be newthings that this amendment willallow to be said. It must mean that.And they're wanting in that mediaconference from Malcolm Turnbull,he's refusing to come to grips withthat issue. What do you dress it upas? Actually, no, it's a very strongterm. He's the one who needs toanswer the question - what is itthat he wants to say or wants peopleto be allowed to say that they'renot allowed to say now? The otherthing, if I may just touch on, theGovernment's strategy in introducingthis to the Senate first isdeliberate. Very few bills are introduced to the Senate first andit is not only money bills that onlystart in the House ofRepresentatives, and it is noprinciple that bills in theAttorney-General's department alwaysstart in the Senate. It's startingin the Senate for one reason and onereason only. If they can't get itthrough the Senate, they don't wantto force their own back bench tohave to vote for it. Well, if theythink that the communities aroundAustralia are going to fall forthat, they've got another thingcoming. Liberal and National Partymembers are going to have to makevery clear whether they believe thestatements that they used to make indefence of Section 18 C of theRacial Discrimination Act, andagainst racial hate speech, orwhether they have now changed theirviews. Starting a Bill in the Senatewon't get them off the hook.
REPORTER: The Prime Minister saysLabor has no interest in free speechwhich is why they're proposing thechanges. What do you make of that assessment?
DREYFUS: What an absurd thing forthe Prime Minister of Australia tosay that the Australian Labor Party,with a proud history of defendingfree speech in this country, doesnot care about free speech. It's anabsurdity just to state it. This isnot about free speech at all.Section 18C of the RacialDiscrimination Act is paired withsection 18D which protects freespeech. It protects comments onpolitical matters. It protects, as my colleague Graham Perrett reminds me, cartoons andsome of the decided cases are,indeed, about cartoons, in which thecourts have held that cartoons areprotected by section 18D. So forthe Prime Minister to suggest thatthis is either about free speech, orworse, and completely improperly andincorrectly, that the Labor Partydoesn't care about free speech, whata nonsense. He needs to explain whatit is that he says that Australiansshould be free to say. What type ofracist hate speech does he wantscreamed in the street? What kind ofracist hate speech does he wantpublished on Facebook or Twitter?What kind of racist hate speech doeshe want to hear children exposed toin schools? Or people with darkskins walking on the streets exposedto? That's the question that hewon't answer. He can't answer thequestion about what successful claimshows that the law needs to be changed. He can't answer anyquestions about it. He's talkingnonsense in suggesting that this lawis a strengthening of protections.It's not. Let me repeat it. It is aweakening. It is a weakening ofprotection against racist hatespeech. It is a moving of the linethat we have drawn against racisthate speech for more than 20 yearsin the wrong direction and he's doneit on Harmony Day.
REPORTER: Can we get asense of what sort of incident doyou think could potentially comeunder the change that would not becovered by "harass "or hate speech?
DREYFUS: It's not a question for us toanswer. It is the Governmentchanging the law. And I ampredicting that there are forms ofracist hate speech which now fall onthe wrong side of the line and cangive rise to complaints to the HumanRights Commission, and if they arenot resolved, complaints to theFederal Circuit Court or the FederalCourt of Australia. Complaints thatcan now be made will now not be ableto be made because they are seen asinsufficiently serious.
REPORTER: Like what? You say youpredict it? Like what?
DREYFUS: It is not forme to give specific examples. Iinvite everyone here to go away andread the 20 years of decided cases.That will give you an idea of thekinds of cases which have been heldto contravene section 18C. I'mgoing to read out what the now-HighCourt Chief Justice said in a case when she was a Federal Court judgein 2001. She said, "To offend,insult, humiliate or intimidate, areprofound and serious effects not tobe likening to mere slights." Now,what will happen if this law isweakened in this way by removing theterms "offend and insult", any court interpreting the amended law willsay - we no longer have to concernourselves with "offend or insult".We are only going to look for"intimidate and humiliate andharass". "Harass" is a verb whichdescribes a course of conduct,whereas "offend and insult" do not.So this is not merely a prediction.This is a very confident reading ofthe established law on this section.The established law on this section,looking not just at now ChiefJustice Kiefel's quote. Showing thatit is a provision reserved forserious cases, by changing the lawin the way that the Government has proposed, that bar will be puthigher and instances of racist hatespeech, instances of abuse,instances of insulting and offendingother Australian citizens, will nolonger be caught by the section.That's the intent of the right wingof the Liberal Party which hasyanked the Prime Minister's chain onthis matter and that's what willhappen. And it's not for me to giveyou particular examples of racisthate speech. I'm simply saying thatit follows as night follows day. If youtake out the words "offend andinsult", if you replace them withthe word "harass", you are weakeningthe statute, you are raising thebar, you are making it harder forpeople to complain. You are reducing the protection against hate speechin this country.
REPORTER: Mr Dreyfus, to what extent do you think that this will development will harm the chance of Australia getting a seat on the Human Rights Council?
DREYFUS: Howcan it do other than harmingAustralia's chance to get a seat onthe human rights council. Under theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention For Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, because it is thosetwo international statutes that thislaw complies with, or fulfils. Howcan it do anything other than harmAustralia's chances of getting aseat on the Human Rights Council,that we are running away from ourobligations to protect the humanrights of Australians? Becausethat's what this change will mean.It is a running away from our obligations. It is a weakening ofthe protections and no explanationhas been offered by the Government,other than a hollow claim that a law which is weakening protections issomehow strengthening it.
REPORTER: Obviously we've spokenabout 18C but what about thechanges to boost the Human RightsCommission to throw out vexatious complaints early on. Is thatsomething that Labor supports?
DREYFUS: We'vesaid all along that all parts ofAustralia's laws have to haveprocedures looked at constantly tomake sure that the procedures are working well. And many of thechanges that were put forward by theJoint Committee on Human Rights, anumber of them actually put forwarddirectly by the Human RightsCommission itself, we think seem tobe sensible changes. We'll have tolook at the legislation that theGovernment brings forward, but inprinciple, the changes indicatedseem to be sensible changes.
REPORTER: Just on a relatedstatement regarding yesterdays Multicultural Statement. Are you comfortable withwhat seems to be a marked shifttowards an emphasis on integration, rather than diversity, within that statement? And doesLabor support that?
BURKE: I was amused. Isaw the front page of one much thenewspapers saying how revolutionaryit was to be talking aboutintegration. And I went back to someclippings from when I was ShadowImmigration, Integration andCitizenship Minister in 2007. And the samepaper had the same article on thefront page, only it was about me. IfI can explain very simply.Integration and multiculturalism arepart of the same story. If you keepeverything separate, you've got segregation. If you whack everythingtogether and say none of it has anyidentity, that's assimilation. Whereyou create the salad mix whereeverything keeps its own integrity,but together you get a nationalflavour, that's multiculturalism andintegration. Always has been. I think that they got away with somegood spin and I think that a coupleof people who wrote that article hadforgotten what the same paper had published about a decade earlier.
REPORTER: You don't see asubstantive shift at all?
BURKE: It's not ashift of what I've been saying mywhole time in Parliament and myparty's belief. Integration hasalways been completely in step with multiculturalism. It's the sameconcept. Thank you.
ENDS
