Dr THEOPHANOUS(11.27 a.m.) —While we support the general idea of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1996, the current context in which we approach this matter is a sad one because of the Howard government's actions in relation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in which there has been an announcement of a reduction of 40 per cent in its budget.

We just heard the previous government speaker, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Pyne), waxing lyrical about how the Hanson phenomenon has to be stopped, how racism has to be stamped out and how we have to do more things to improve our international image. But actions speak louder than words. The reality is that the government in its action in reducing the budget dramatically of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is sending a very different signal.

The different signal is this: notwithstanding the language and the propaganda, when it comes to having the resources to deal with the issues of discrimination and the issues of human rights, this government is cutting those resources in a dramatic way. It ought to be condemned for that. It is a sign of what is happening across the board with respect to this government on the issues of race, multiculturalism and human rights.

What is happening across the board is that we have had somewhat reluctant comments from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—and some not so reluctant comments from some other ministers—coming too little too late. At the same time, when you look at the actions, you see that the actions are not in any way consistent with the comments that the Prime Minister has made.

It is no good the Prime Minister going overseas and saying, `Australia has been condemned unfairly on these matters,' when he was responsible in the first instance for not doing enough. It is universally accepted throughout this country that he did not do enough about the Hanson phenomenon. We also have actions by the government which appear to be giving ground to the very positions of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and her supporters. One of those is this dramatic cut to the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

If one looks at the recent history of Australia, one cannot imagine a time when it was more important to boost the budget and support of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission rather than to reduce it. That comes on top of a reduction of 55 per cent, $5.5 million, to the campaign against racism, which has not started yet, although it is one year since the time it was announced. In the first year of its budget, not a penny was spent. Not a penny was spent because of the fact that we have a situation where we have had a lot of talk from this government in recent times—not so much earlier, when it was necessary—about how we need to stamp out the problems created by Pauline Hanson and her supporters, but we do not have sufficient action and we do not have sufficient resources.

Those two things together—the cut to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the cut to the campaign against racism—ought to be condemned. They illustrate a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of the government in relation to these issues.

There is no doubt that on the human rights question this government is cutting out resources across the board. This government is not as concerned about these matters as it ought to be. I believe that is a very serious issue. By the way, it does not just go to the question of the role of the commission on matters of race. In the case of the sex discrimination issue, the government, because of its cuts to budgets, decided not to replace the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who has a very important role to play in ensuring that there is equality between men and women in relation to a whole range of issues in this nation. What happened is that, instead of replacing that commissioner, they merged that position with the position of the Privacy Commissioner. They have one person doing the two jobs. That is a huge task for the one person.

The reason for that was obviously some attempt to save a small amount of money in the context of a situation in which we are facing increasing complaints about discrimination from all levels, especially discrimination against women, discrimination against indigenous people and discrimination against people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds—especially, in recent times, people of Asian background—as a consequence of the Hanson phenomenon. The fact that there has been a dramatic increase in complaints about racial discrimination clearly shows that the Hanson phenomenon has had an impact in our society and cannot be ignored. How can the commission carry out its functions and its role if it is not properly funded and if its resources have been substantially reduced? The government cannot be seen to be serious about the Hanson phenomenon while it is doing things of that kind.

We should look at a little bit of history in relation to this question of how to deal with racial issues, because you will recall that in the last year of the Keating government we attempted to pass the racial vilification bill. What happened in relation to that bill was that the conservative parties that had control of the Senate with one of the minor parties decided that they would not support punitive sanctions in that bill, which basically meant that only civil remedies were available for people who have been discriminated against or who have been abused because of racial vilification.

What that has meant is this: because we now have the Hanson phenomenon and we have people actually being vilified, the law cannot take action against them. They have to take civil action in civil courts. That was the result of the conservatives' failure to pass the racial vilification bill in its full meaning when they were in opposition. Nothing has been done to fix up this problem.

If you read some of the comments of the member for Oxley—and some of her comments were reproduced on page 6 of the Herald-Sun on Tuesday, 18 June—in my opinion, they are contrary to the racial vilification bill. Unfortunately, nothing very much can be done about it because there are no punitive sanctions.

When we were discussing the racial vilification bill, the issue of freedom of speech arose. Of course, whenever you are discussing this question of whether people can express racial abuse, others who want to say, `Yes, they ought to be able to do so,' bring up the question of freedom of speech. But both sides of the House, when this matter was discussed, agreed that there is a limit to the freedom of speech; that is, racial abuse and abuse of people on the basis of their race should not be admitted in this country. What have we had from the Hanson phenomenon and from Ms Hanson herself? We have had comments similar to those which the racial vilification bill was intended to deal with.

When the Prime Minister was first asked to comment on the maiden speech of Ms Hanson, did he emphasise the racial vilification act? Did he emphasise the Racial Discrimination Act? Did he emphasise the human rights commission's role in these matters? Not at all. On the contrary, he emphasised her right to freedom of speech as if there were an unlimited right to freedom of speech, irrespective of questions of racial intolerance and racial discrimination. That is what he did.

The Prime Minister failed even to refer to the balance which this House had sought to achieve when it passed the racial vilification bill and when speakers on both sides of this House made the point that there is not an absolute right to freedom of speech. There is a universal right, but it is limited in one specific way throughout the world in considerations of this kind—that is, freedom of speech does not extend to being able to attack people on the basis of their racial or ethnic origin.

Because the Prime Minister in his first comments on Ms Hanson's maiden speech failed completely to talk about that balance, to refer to that issue, it was assumed and widely accepted that she had an absolute right to talk about these matters—and she continues to do so—irrespective of the fact that we ought to have been having a very thorough examination as to whether the comments by Ms Hanson are contrary to the intentions and to the letter of the racial vilification bill.

If you say things like, `I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians, who have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate,' and the comments are taken up and directed towards individual people, that is racial vilification. Individuals are vilified because they are of Asian background, irrespective of the fact that they may have made a significant and very important contribution to this country.

When did we last see in human history the claim that a race of people form ghettos and do not assimilate—this idea of condemning a whole group of people? We saw that before the Second World War and during the Second World War when it was directed against the Jewish community and later on when it formed the basis of the extermination of the Jewish people. It is not a very long way to go from racial vilification comments to violence against individuals and to organised attacks against those groups of people. We do not want this in Australian society.

The Prime Minister, by not condemning this matter from the very beginning, totally failed the nation. As I said before, rather than talking about the member for Oxley's rights to freedom of speech, he should have been focusing on the need to balance freedom of speech with responsibility in terms of these issues. After all of this process, we are now in a situation where internationally our reputation has been sullied. The Prime Minister now, a year later, goes overseas and says, `This is all very unfair. Australia is not like this at all.'

The fact of the matter is that the Hanson phenomenon was allowed to spread and it was allowed to multiply. In the context in which we have economic problems and other problems in this nation—which we can address, notwithstanding the fact that we have differ ences of view in this place about how they ought to be addressed—we know that people will try to blame others of different ethnic cultures and of different races. When people feel threatened, when people feel their economic future is insecure and when they feel some angst about the future, it is a common phenomenon for them to try to blame people of a different race or a different culture for their problems. Therefore, we have had this idea that the immigration program in the last few years has been somehow responsible for our current ills, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence from economists that immigration is a net positive for the economy.

The government does not even carry out a campaign to counter these lies being put about by the member for Oxley and her supporters. No campaign is carried out to show the enormous positive benefits which this nation has had from immigration, from multiculturalism and from the fact that we have managed until the Hanson phenomenon arose to be a harmonious nation in which people from more than 200 different cultures and traditions were working together and trying to build a better society.

Then all of a sudden, because of the economic problems I mentioned plus because the Hanson phenomenon was allowed to continue in that way without much counter from the government until recently, we now are in this extraordinary position where a society which was previously held up as a model of multiculturalism and as a model of people working together by the United Nations itself in its conferences, is threatened. Because of these serious tensions and divisions, the rubric of our society is threatened. They threaten to divide our people and threaten to create an image of Australia internationally which is a very bad one and which will rebound on us, not only economically but also in terms of the standing of the nation internationally.

Many people have said, `Oh, this is a problem because of its economic consequences.' Of course the economic consequences for this nation will be extremely serious. But it is not just an economic question; it is a fundamental moral question. If the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights means something it means that all peoples, irrespective of their culture and racial background, have the entitlement to equal treatment and equal worth. Australia was one of the founding nations in signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, in recent times, some members of this House—and I do not just refer to the member for Oxley—seem to have forgotten about that. We are left, therefore, with a situation in which we now have to carry out a positive campaign in support of human rights.

That brings me back to the problems that we have with this bill. We will be moving a number of amendments in the Senate to seek to strengthen this bill. We will also be continuously making the point to the Australian people that if you are serious about human rights, if you are serious about racial discrimination, if you are serious about discrimination on the basis of gender, if you are serious about doing something to improve the image of Australia as a nation in which human rights are respected then you do not cut the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—and certainly not by 40 per cent. That is a disgrace. It indicates that the government has lost its way in relation to these very important issues facing the Australian nation. As I said, it is no good the Prime Minister complaining internationally about these matters. (Time expired)