The federal Coalition's relationship with the Human Rights Commission and its president, Gillian Triggs, never particularly cordial, sank further on Tuesday. In his media release announcing a parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech, Attorney-General George Brandis referred to the importance of the "machinery for human rights protection [operating in such a way] as to ensure procedural fairness, and that it cannot be used as a vehicle for vexatious complaints".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This was a pointed reference to a Federal Circuit Court case in which a Queensland University of Technology employee sought $250,000 damages from three students she alleged posted comments on social media that breached section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. This provision outlaws conduct likely to "offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate another person … and done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person".
After a number of students had been asked by the employee to leave a computer lab she claimed was "an indigenous space for indigenous students at QUT", one posted a Facebook comment "just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation …?" Another responded "I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is?"
The case, brought under the auspices of the HRC, was dismissed last Friday, with the judge noting the applicant did not enjoy "any reasonable prospects" of successfully prosecuting her proceedings. Afterwards, the students' lawyer called on politicians to abolish s18c, saying it was being used to limit free speech and to extract money in a "legal shakedown".
The Turnbull government's receptiveness to revisiting 18c has risen markedly in the wake of the QUT case – and the HRC's attempts to solicit complaints against Newscorp cartoonist Bill Leak over a cartoon commenting on the lack of Indigenous parental skills has further emboldened those calling for reform.
There are numerous individuals and groups, however, who are passionate about the need to preserve s18c as a buffer against racial vilification or hate speech, particularly in view of Australia's increasingly multicultural makeup and bipartisan political commitments to maintaining racial harmony. And indeed, since limitations on speech inciting crime, obscenity and seditions have existed for decades, the notion that racially intolerant speech should be similarly muzzled enjoys popular support.
It is the HRC's apparently highly enthusiastic approach to allegations of racial vilification (epitomised by the QUT and Bill Leak cases) that has given rise to Malcolm Turnbull's concerns that s18c may unjustifiably interfere with freedom of speech. Regardless of Ms Triggs' criticism that Mr Turnbull lacks a good understanding of the HRC's powers, the fact remains the authority has been involved in two cases which the court of public opinion might reasonably consider to have been vexatious in nature, and designed to shut down legitimate discussions.
Given the problematic nature of the QUT case and the unreasonable attempts to pursue Bill Leak, the thorough review outlined by Mr Brandis is timely and necessary.
