Senator BARTLETT (4:41 PM) —I will leave most of my comments on this to the Democrat amendment, because it goes much more clearly to the specifics of the exemption to the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Evans’s commentary is one I broadly agree with. With regard to making a commentary about the principle here regarding exemption from the Racial Discrimination Act, it is not just a matter of standing up in support of a principle because it is a nice noble principle, although it certainly is that. These measures were put in place in the law because people not only felt it was the right thing to do but also recognised it was necessary to prevent serious injustice. I just do not see how you can say something is a special measure just because we say so but then exempt it from the Racial Discrimination Act. I have read at least some of the lawyers’ advices and government advices flying around the place and some of the answers that were given at the Senate committee inquiry into this. I guess we all say, ‘I am not a lawyer,’ but eventually you can read all the legal opinions you like. It really boils down to the fundamental issue: if it is not a special measure, if it is not positive discrimination, then it is racially discriminatory and in a negative way it is in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.

To me, it demonstrates the insecurity of the government’s position and the insecurity in their assertions that all of these are positive measures and will be positive measures. I have no doubt that is their intention—it is certainly the intent of the minister—but it is whether or not it will be the effect, and that is the key part in relation to the law. Without getting religious on people, because that is not really my forte, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and stacking a whole pile of them in legislation is not necessarily going to pave a road that will get you to a good place. We do need to look at practical outcomes. But issues to do with racial discrimination and prohibition against racial discrimination were put in place because it is a way of preventing us getting to bad places. It is not just about good intentions and feel-good stuff and, to me, that is the core issue here as well. So it is a fundamental issue for the Democrats. That is why, frankly, we basically believe that that whole section, which we will move to shortly—clause 132—should just be struck out.