If it wasn't already clear, the past few months demonstrate how firmly the issue of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is now entrenched as a fixture in the political debate in this country. The only way to resolve this issue is to repeal the law which so badly restricts freedom of speech.
In an opinion piece published in The Australian last weekend, Tony Abbott nominated failing to repeal section 18C as a key reason for his downfall as prime minister.
In his words: "Section 18C ... is clearly a bad law. Our debates should be polite but they should never be guaranteed not to offend ... With hindsight, I should have persisted with a simpler amendment along the lines of senator Bob Day's later private member's bill."
Indeed, in recent months the depth and number of problems associated with this provision have been shockingly revealed in the form of a case involving the payment of money, secret legal proceedings, and the pursuit of left-wing political aims using the federal court system. The complainant responsible for this extraordinary trifecta is Cindy Prior. She was a university administrator at QUT until she decided she simply could not work any more for fear of being offended.
The basis of her distress was a number of remarks made online by QUT students, including the factual statement by one student that indigenous-only computer labs were an example of "QUT stopping segregation with segregation".
Three respondents have each handed over $5000 to make the issue go away. But the case continues for the remaining respondents. Let's all hope common sense prevails, the case is dismissed, and Ms Prior gets the help she needs. But it doesn't end there.
The current case against QUT and its students is a case study of a far broader problem. My research demonstrates this complaint is just the tip of the iceberg.
A freedom of information request I lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission has revealed there are 18 complaints under consideration by the commission. The progress of these complaints ranges from an acknowledgment to a final response following conciliation at the commission.
Details of these complaints are not made public. The documents provided to me under FOI are heavily redacted.
They include some basic procedural information, dates, and the race of the complainant but none of the conduct which forms the basis of the complaint.
The conciliation process within the commission is shrouded in secrecy. Human Rights Commission race commissioner Tim Soutphommasane admitted this last year: "To give you a sense of how the law currently operates, last financial year the commission received 440-odd complaints. Only about 3 per cent of those complaints ended up in proceedings before a court".
That means 97 per cent of all complaints to the commission are dealt with behind closed doors. Only in 3 per cent of cases, where the matter is not resolved at conciliation, is the public ever made aware of the details of a complaint.
Why is this relevant? Because had it not been for the QUT complaint advancing from conciliation to litigation the public would never have known the extent to which section 18C threatens freedom of speech.
And without transparency around the conduct subject to section 18C complaints, the public doesn't have the opportunity to assess the practical operation of the law.
The extent to which the commission is accountable to the public is essentially the requirement for commissioners to appear before Senate estimates, and the publication of an annual report.
The annual reports list the number of complaints considered by the commission in the various areas in which it is given legislative authority to resolve disputes.
The reports include the number of complaints made each year under section 18C. In the last six years, 832 section 18C complaints have been lodged with the commission. Many people, including the former prime minister, have made the mistake of believing that section 18C cases are aberrations. But my own FOI request exposes the 18 cases currently before the commission.
And the AHRC's own statistics show section 18C has restricted freedom of speech in hundreds of cases over the past six years alone.
Malcolm Turnbull would do well to learn from the lessons of Abbott's time as PM. In taking the leadership of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister promised to lead a "thoroughly liberal government".
Turnbull should make the case for freedom of speech to the public, and recommit to the repeal of section 18C.
No comments:
Post a Comment