A controversial section in the proposed anti-discrimination legislation dealing with treatment that offends is set to be removed after critics said it amounted to an attack on free speech.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On Thursday, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said that she had asked her department in early January to ''develop alternative drafting for the sections of the draft bill that have raised freedom of speech concerns''.
The legislation consolidates several anti-discrimination laws, including one on racial discrimination, which refers to treatment that offends. The proposed law extends ''offending'' into the definition of discrimination for all purposes.
Ms Roxon said that officials would present these options to the Senate committee reviewing the proposed Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination bill at a hearing at Parliament House next Monday.
These options include the removal of controversial section 19(2)(b).
''As I have said before, the main objective of this bill is to simplify and consolidate many discrimination laws into one. It has never been the government's intention to restrict free speech,'' she said in a statement.
''In Australia it should always be lawful to be offensive about a person's football team or cooking - but not to deny service to someone because they are a woman or a particular race.''
Along with human rights experts, the Coalition, independents Andrew Wilkie and Tony Windsor and ABC chairman and former NSW chief justice Jim Spigelman have been among those who raised concerns about the proposed bill's impact on free speech.
Critics such as Cardinal George Pell have suggested that the laws could make it an offence to speak insultingly about a politician.
Legal expert Justin Quill told Fairfax Radio that comments such as "I hate Indian food. It's too heavy . . . I reckon I put on weight when I eat Indian food" as well as Tim Mathieson's prostate joke would be in breach of the proposed laws.
Almost 600 submissions have been made to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, which is due to report on February 18.
Ms Roxon has defended the process in the overhaul of anti-discrimination laws, telling ABC radio on Thursday that the ''release of the exposure draft had done its work''.
Last week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the government had put out an exposure draft of the bill and people's views would be considered. ''We would not have gone down an exposure draft route if we didn't want people's feedback,'' she said.
Ms Roxon's announcement about the roll back has been welcomed by the Greens.
Greens spokeswoman on legal affairs Senator Penny Wright, who sits on the committee reviewing the legislation, said the move would allow public scrutiny to turn to other areas of improvement needed in the legislation.
"Attorney General Nicola Roxon has made the right decision to remove this clause, which was, I believe, an unintentional overreach and drafting error," Senator Wright said on Thursday.
Other submissions to the inquiry have raised separate concerns that the bill does not do enough to protect the rights of gay and lesbian people - particularly in terms of their employment in religious organisations. Concerns have also been raised that intersex people are not adequately covered by the proposed laws.
With Michelle Grattan, AAP
