Editorial: Section 18C faces a serious challenge

AFTER becoming a dormant issue over the past year or so, voices are again being raised about repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

FREE speech in Australia faced a ferocious challenge under Labor’s Gillard government. Using events in the UK as a cover, then prime minister Julia Gillard arranged an inquiry into media activities because, as she put it, Australians had “some hard questions that they want answered” from News Corp, publisher of The Daily Telegraph.

Gillard never properly spelled out what those “hard questions” were, but that didn’t stop her Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, from proposing new and damaging restrictions on press freedom. Those moves provoked a stern rebuke from Malcolm Turnbull, then the Coalition’s opposition communications spokesman.

“Freedom is at stake, liberty is at stake, democracy is at stake,” Turnbull said.

As Prime Minister, Turnbull now faces a further potential debate on freedom, liberty and democracy. After becoming a largely dormant issue over the past year or so, voices are again being raised about repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The recent Walk of Respect in Lakemba, which protested proposed new law changes concerning the Racial Discrimination Act.

Repeal of 18C, which makes it illegal to commit an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity, was an election pledge by ­former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who subsequently backed off due to political constraints.

Abbott said last week that his ­effort to reform Section 18C might have worked if he’d aimed to drop “offend” and “insult”, while ­“leaving in place prohibitions on the more serious harms”. Yet Abbott still believes there is little chance of 18C being altered or removed.

Others are not so sure. The West Australia Liberal Party on the weekend voted in favour of a motion to remove the words “insult” and “offend” from the Racial Discrimination Act. And there is renewed pressure from some within federal Parliament — some of them members of the government — to again push for repeal.

When Parliament resumes, Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm plans to introduce a bill to drop 18C completely. “Free speech is free speech, there’s no qualification to it,” he said earlier this month. “Let’s just remove 18C entirely and everything that goes with it.”

To highlight the iniquities of 18C, Leyonhjelm is pursuing a case of alleged race hate. The senator has lodged a formal complaint before the Human Rights Commission under race hate laws for being publicly abused as an “angry white male”. Leyonhjelm told The Daily Telegraph that he wasn’t personally offended by the article but said under Section 18C he didn’t have to be. The law as it stands means that the offence be given rather than taken.

On the face of it, Leyonhjelm has a strong case. This is an important test for 18C advocates.

Either the section applies to all Australian citizens or it is ­discriminatory and should indeed be abolished.

DRINK-DRIVE ESCAPE ROUTE

ONE extremely effective way to deal with drink driving is to suspend the licences of those caught drink driving.

Yet, as The Daily Telegraph reports, thousands of people every year avoid convictions and more than a quarter of drinking motorists who go before the courts are allowed to keep their licences.

That is an abysmal and deeply concerning figure, particularly as the decades-long crackdown on drink driving has been a major reason for the massive decline in the NSW road toll. Soft magistrates are doing the state and its citizens no favours by weakening their stance on road safety. At issue is the too-frequent application of Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which allows the court, on a plea or finding of guilt, to dismiss the charge and not record a conviction. It also allows drivers to keep their licences.

Pedestrian advocate Harold Scruby has some odd notions from time to time, but he’s on solid ground with his conviction criticism. “Why are we so soft on drink-driving? It is a joke,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

“The whole area of Section 10 is screaming out for review.”

Good call.

ELUSIVE KEY TO OLYMPIC RECIPE

AUSTRALIA’S swimmers are in a much better frame of mind in Rio than they were four years ago but results have still fallen short of expectations. Given the talent available, this might require more than head coach Jacco Verhaeren’s promised strategic overhaul. Perhaps Australia should examine America’s example. US taxpayers contribute nothing towards Olympic athletes. Just a thought.