TONY Abbott has resisted Coalition rebels and defied criticism from ethnic communities over looming changes to racial discrimination laws by insisting the reforms will “reconcile” support for freedom of speech and the rejection of racism.
Acting to limit Coalition dissent, the Prime Minister intervened in a dispute between his colleagues yesterday to declare the reforms would “proscribe” racial vilification while amending rules that led to the prosecution of News Corp Australia columnist Andrew Bolt.
Mr Abbott tackled the Coalition concerns in a partyroom meeting that heard calls to maintain the section 18C provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, which make it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of their race.
Mr Abbott issued a firm statement opposing racism but in favour of free speech and amending legislation to prevent a repeat of the 2011 judgment against the popular columnist and broadcaster. The robust discussions followed a report in The Australian yesterday suggesting Attorney-General George Brandis was considering a proposal to remove the words “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” from 18C but keep “intimidate”, and amend the “good faith” provision in section 18D, a key part of the law that led to the finding against Bolt.
Mr Abbott pledged in 2012 he would amend or repeal 18C “in its current form” if elected.
Queensland backbencher George Christensen and Sydney MP Alex Hawke spoke in support of his stand yesterday. “Freedom of speech is a God-given right - if we don’t allow the things we don’t want to hear, we don’t really believe in free speech at all,” sources claimed Mr Christensen said.
But West Australian Ken Wyatt, the first indigenous member of the House of Representatives with a long association with his home state’s equal opportunity tribunal, warned he could cross the floor if anti-vilification provisions were watered down. Queenslander Ewen Jones backed his stand.
The partyroom clash came as representatives of the indigenous, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities expressed their “vehement opposition” to the mooted changes to 18C and D. “These changes would mean that the federal government has decided to license the public humiliation of people because of their race,” the group insisted.
“It would send a signal that people may spout racist abuse in public, no matter how unreasonably and dishonestly. It would be astonishing if an Australian government in the 21st century was prepared to embrace such a morally repugnant position.
“It would be utterly indefensible. The suggestion that section 18D might be amended by deleting the threshold of reasonableness and good faith comes as an especially unpleasant surprise to us.”
The Human Rights Law Centre also spoke against the suggested amendments. “These proposals would substantially weaken the current laws and should be rejected,” executive director Hugh de Kretser said.
Senator Brandis said late yesterday that the government was committed to “rebalancing” the human rights debate in Australia to better protect freedom of speech.
“Accordingly, the government is considering amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act that will strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification,” he said.
“Racial vilification will never be acceptable in Australia. However, laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.”
Senator Brandis said the government was aware of the concerns among ethnic groups. It had the matter under “active consideration” and would announce a decision shortly.
A Coalition partyroom spokesman said yesterday’s debate was based on speculation rather than any firm knowledge of the government plans.
The spokesman said there was no statement to the meeting from Senator Brandis about amendments to the act, while Mr Abbott did not indicate any timeframe for changes.
The spokesman noted in relation to Mr Wyatt’s comments “there is no commonwealth statute that prohibits racial vilification in those words”.
“At the end of the discussion the Prime Minister addressed the issue and he said everyone in this room believes in freedom of speech,” the spokesman said. “(Mr Abbott) said, ‘Everybody in this room is against racism’, and he said, ‘Everybody in this room thinks Andrew Bolt should not have been prosecuted’.”
The spokesman said Mr Abbott had continued: “This is a debate in which there is a unanimity of opinion about three important values or ideas. The question is how to reconcile those three.”
After the meeting, western Sydney MP Craig Laundy, who had defended Section 18C in the partyroom, told The Australian he was not necessarily opposed to changes to Section 18D. “I don’t have a problem with D being tweaked,” he said.
Section 18C criminalises acts “reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”. Section 18D ensures that “section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith”.
