Labor eyes extending 18C complaints
to gender, disability and age
Labor is considering a secret plan to extend the reach of litigation based on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to include people claiming they have been offended or insulted because of their sexual orientation, disabilities or age.
A video, obtained by The Australian, shows Labor legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus last week explaining the proposal, which would lead to the Australian Human Rights Commission and the courts facing a new wave of complaints.
Because Bill Shorten has rejected changes to 18C, there is a risk that Labor’s plan to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination laws will lead to litigation by the disabled and the LGBTI community that would be determined using the same procedures that apply under section 18C.
The Australian can reveal that the amount of compensation paid as a result of race discrimination complaints to the Human Rights Commission has soared, with companies and governments handing over almost $1 million since 2010 to avoid going to court.
Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.
Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or insulted by those who publicly defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.
Labor’s proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.
Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.
In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor government hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.
When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.
“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.
“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”
When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”
Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.
Under a plan unveiled by Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney-General George Brandis this would be changed to eliminate what they have described as an unnecessary restriction on freedom of speech.
The proposed changes would impose liability only on those who intimidated or harassed others because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background. The government’s plan would also abandon the test for liability and require all disputes to be decided based on the standards of reasonable members of the community.
This would overturn the current arrangement in which judges are required to adopt the perspective of reasonable representatives of those who complain.
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
411 COMMENTS
Geoff330 people listening
This, of course, is classical fascism. Not satisfied with directing what citizens do, fascism seeks to direct and control what they say and think. It is not surprising that the ALP is seeking to introduce such controls. It has been moving in this direction since Whitlam. This latest move is just part of that continuing eradication of Australian cultural and political heritage.
Fortunately, we can all follow the policy of ACTU Secretary Sally McManus, and disregard laws that we don't agree with.
That's what I'll be doing.
When any vote is taken in the Federal Parliament that relates to freedom of speech, I ask that the "Australian" publish a list of those MPs and Senators that vote against our right to free speech. In that way, the electorate can get a clear understanding as to which politicians are trying to gag us.
Surely that would make a case for those who support leaving marriage as it is to bringing an action under 18C to stop being offended, insulted, humiliated, harassed and intimidated by SSM activists.
Age and disability are red herrings here.Labor desperately wants to go down in history as the father of SSM.The LNP’s promised plebiscite would pre-empt Labor, whichever way the vote went.Making open public debate about SSM illegal would sink the plebiscite, thereby promoting Labor’s demand for a parliamentary vote as the only option.
Being run like a Union because that's what pays best for those in power, be they government or opposition. Regretfully I believe we need Shorten as PM before those "in the Pub and round the Barbie" say enough is enough and take to the streets, recent events show that is the only way to get what "you want" in this country.
Do we have to wait for Sen. Jackie Lambie to tell us whether anyone in Tasmania has complained to her about Mark Dreyfus' proposal to end free speech? It seems the future of western civilisation in Australia is dependent on the constituents of a single cross bench senator. High risk, no chance of reward.
the slide to 1984 is happening. time for the silent majority to wake up.
And rather than being sued for breaches we will be sent to re-education camps.
Basically, Labor want to close down ALL debate on SSM and ALL debate on the cost of the National Disability Scheme however, Labor does not seem to have made it any easier for a white-middle-aged-man to have his complaint accepted by the HRC.
@Michael Hamilton over qualified. They want to shut down all debate. Wait for Conroy's internet filter with the secret blacklist and his and Gillard's Media censorship laws to come back.
Ultimately they will make it impossible to discuss or hold and opinion they do not agree with.
More adventurism? More speech control by enemies of the Open Society? Give us a break- and let's get right the central issue of the moment... the anti- race vilification law. First, let's say unambiguously that to vilify fellow-citizens for no good reason is, well, base, wicked and ... vile. It should not be countenanced. At an individual level, there are good anti-defamation laws which deal with exactly this in Australia.
The real problem with the anti-race vilification law [at a societal level] is that it is too subjective and does not cope with what to 'vilify' means. The Macquarie dictionary defines it as to slander, calumniate and malign, to speak evil or falsely of. The application of the law is not so much whether some objective red lines have been crossed, but whether putative 'recipients' feel insulted, humiliated and offended.This is where the cancer lies.
It is not inconceivable that even someone like Ivan Milat may, subjectively, feel offended or humiliated by this or that description of him. The bar is set too low. The temptation to play the victim card is even more alluring if pecuniary, power or political advantage are at play, as seems to have been, in the Leak and QUT cases.
Apart from the concept of objective red lines being crossed, the ones regarding whether remarks are simply malicious or not, intellectually defensible or not, gratuitous or well-grounded are crucial- and these are seemingly wilfully neglected concepts in the present debate. These criteria must be central to the debate but are mysteriously absent.
No, a free society is not content to have its bigots, but seeks to educate its bigots out of their entrenched positions. For this, it needs the free flow of information, not what information various commissars deem to be safe or appropriate. It needs to be compassionate and embracing, but it must be able to speak freely against its enemies, whether corporatised, unionised, radicalised or of any illiberal hue. In this day and age of radical claims from disparate groups, often pushed through force and violence, our society cannot simply drift into being muzzled and stunned into submission, disempowered and ultimately enslaved. It must see a more enlightened and brave attitude from its parliamentary representatives- and one more in tune with World War sacrifices and the battle against communism in the ongoing war for freedom. Let us also remember that the enemies of the Open Society are many and cunning and often more dedicated than its defenders.
And a majority of One Nation supporters prefer to preference Labor ahead of the LNP. A curious mob!
Anti-Australian
Politicians no longer have credibility. It's time for a new voter participation system. Signing over your rights at election time under the duress of a fine or imprisonment is archaic.
Labor, rushing left very quickly. Rudd would be proud. No lurching to the right in today's world.
this means that the AHRC is heading to be a mega department to handle all the complaints.
Well if anyone needs another reason not to vote Labor/Green there it is. I was truly astounded, talk about the thought police.
Why not include facial expressions, just in case someone gets "offended" by a dirty look. Looks can be so upsetting and a clear violation of human rights!
Brasso's mate
@Brasso Remember the outrage when Tony Abbott looked at his watch in Parliament and then had the temerity to wink in a Radio interview.
@Brasso I'm surprised "looking at someone funny" isn't on the list.
Think I'd have to take the "Sally McManus approach" to this ridiculous proposal.
And this is the biggest issue for dear old Labor and their watermelon mates?! More on how to disempower the people by restricting what they can say. This thought control at its worst. Let's just call it for what it is. This is a step (another) towards communism.
Once again labours shows it bigotry against main stream Australia. WE are not bigots, not raciest, and generally give everyone a fair go. The only way to fix this is not to vote labour , Greens Lambie, nxn etc
If the APL/Greens get their way, saying most common swearwords will get you hauled before the HRC! ( even "old fart" and "moron" will be banned!)
I cannot think of a building site, mine, sawmill or powerhouse where all these derogatory words are not used in casual conversation? I wonder what the CFMEU will think of their new thought and speech masters?
( and Kevin Bloody Wilson will need to find a new career!)
@Clive It depends if the label relates to a minority group or not.
@David @Clive and therein is the problem. is all subjective.
To be fair, we need to see the details of Dreyfus’ proposed amendments to 18c. I don’t believe that all freedom of expression will be removed. Instead, I think that Dreyfus will legislate for a compulsory Orwellian “Two minutes of Hate” where, each day we can express our outrage loathing, revulsion, loathing, etc at the likes of middle-aged heterosexual married white men and Christians of any kind. By then, these groups will not exist. However, they will be depicted as an ever-present enemy of the peoples’ paradise that Dreyfus and his fellow travellers are laying the groundwork for today. There is no need go to North Korea when we can create it right here under a Labor / Greens government with the very valuable assistance of Xenephon and Lambie.
This is madness, you have lost my vote!
Why stop there? Why not go all the way and ban any discussion which disagrees with the Labor Party, Dreyfus and their mates in the unions. And while we are at it, why not rid ourselves of this inconvenient notion of democracy and then Labor can adopt their new name, the Australian Fascist Party.
Labor is morphing into the Greens. They are a threat to freedom.
1984.
@David @john It's the old Frog in a frying pan analogy. It's been coming for a long while in small increments. Now that people are waking up to what's been going on - it's too late.
I raised this prospect a couple of days ago. Don't say you weren't warned....
I feel we are just going to go around in circles until someone takes 18C to the High Court. I live in hope that this will happen at some point and put my faith in the legal and constitutional law experts who question the Constitutional validity of 18C.
Labor aiming to put further restrictions on 18C might just be the trigger to take this farce of a law to the High Court.
I don't know what is worse the party that is determined to destroy Australia or those that support and vote for them.
Linda's husband
Dreyfus is trying to turn Australia into a marxist state, he is a dangerous man.
Love or loathe Turnbull or Abbott, you cannot deny they are fundamentally good men and want to do good for the country. The other side couldn't give a damn what their position does to society at large.
@Paul On the contrary, Labor care very deeply how much they affect society. They want to know they have us in tow.
This PC extremist, who would be a minister in a Labor government, wants to legislate for 'niceness' and punish anyone who by his standards is not nice. Labor is beyond parody.
@Kent That's it. Off to the HRC for you Kent. We shan't have that kind of hate speech around thanks very much.
Australians have always been exceedingly kind and helpful to minority groups, migrants, people with disabilities, etc. You only need to look at the amount of volunteer work and giving to charities which occurs in our society. Many people from minority groups are given great assistance and encouragement in fitting into the community. They are invited to events and to participate in sports and other activities. Members of minority groups are not discriminated against and occupy some of the highest positions in our land.
I find it offensive the way people in politics and high profile positions, slur the common people as being offensive, rascist, mysogenistic, etc, in order to selfishly advance themselves and their interests.
Show More Comments
