Mr GRIFFIN (3:03 PM) —I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Cook. The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed through the Victorian parliament following an extensive community consultation process by both the Victorian government and the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party. The results of that consultation saw both government and Liberal members speak in support of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill and vote for its passage through the parliament. Members from both sides of the parliament saw the significance of the act not in terms of the criminal and civil sanctions contained in the act or as a restriction on free speech, but as a reminder of the freedoms Australians hold dear to their hearts and which underlie the very essence of our society. The former Liberal member for the Victorian seat of Forest Hill, Mr John Richardson, spoke directly to this point in his second reading speech to the bill when he said:

During the second reading debate, the Liberal member for Warrandyte, Mr Phillip Honeywood, made the following comments:

I believe the Victorian act provides a proper balance between the rights of free speech and action against those using racial or religious vilification. It does not seek to restrict free speech. Like similar legislation in other states, it seeks to ensure some sections of our society can participate as full members of that society without being faced with the prospect of racial and religious taunts. I acknowledge the Victorian legislation is still relatively new and yet to be fully tested. To the best of my knowledge, there has been only one action brought under the act. I believe it is still subject to judicial review.

Every Australian has the right to free speech, to criticise and comment on the actions of others that you do not agree with. It is not, however, the right of any person to use this right to criticise or comment in a way that would incite religious or racial hatred. The Victorian legislation seeks to cast a net to capture the small minority who seek to incite hatred on the basis of one’s race and/or religion. As with every piece of legislation, the potential always exists for someone to unintendedly get caught in that net. In the case of the Victorian legislation, it is up to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the courts to determine the reason that they did so.

We live in a country that has for many generations become one of the most multicultural countries in the world. We have welcomed people from every nation across the world and offered them here in Australia a place where they can follow their beliefs unhindered and without fear. It is what makes this nation strong. It is what makes Australia attractive to those in other nations that have been driven out through persecution of their race or religion. There is no place in Australia for such persecution and I am sure that every member in this House and a large majority of Australians also agree with this.

There is, however, an unfortunate minority that, for whatever reason, seeks to use a person’s race or religion to vilify them. Every person in Australia has the right of protection under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as mentioned in the motion. But there is also a view that the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 does not adequately set out the provision for the protection of one’s religious beliefs. In that act there are no specific provisions that protect a person from religious vilification. This is one of the reasons why state governments have taken action to address the situation. Victoria is not the leader in this area. As the state Liberal member for Caulfield, Mrs Shardey, said in her speech on the Victorian legislation:

I thank the member for Cook for placing his private member’s motion before the House today and I commend him for doing so. However, I believe that many of the provisions in his motion are unnecessary. As indicated earlier, it is too early to know exactly what the outcome of the Victorian legislation will be. The Victorian act is in its infancy and until we can see the full impact of this legislation any moves to condemn it are, in my opinion, premature.

I am aware that in New South Wales the Hon. Peter Breen MLC has moved a bill to amend the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to promote religious tolerance and for other purposes. As an Independent member, Mr Breen has the right to introduce a private member’s bill to address what he believes to be a problem with existing legislation. I am sure the debate on his bill will be as extensive as was the debate on the Victorian act. This is a subject on which there is a wide variety of views and, in accord with the principles of freedom of speech I referred to earlier, they should be heard and openly debated. Debate and discussion is what characterises Australian society—(Time expired)