The Government's high fibre diet of legislation

14 August 2014

In Canberra last week the Government provided a high fibre diet of legislation. The amended version of the racial vilification act was taken off the menu. In its place came legislation to deal with the threat that Australians fighting with terrorist groups overseas might terrorise Australia on return. This was complemented by legislation enabling the government to retain data in order to counter terrorist threats.

The Prime Minister made some attempt to draw a thread through these different bills. Acknowledging the strength both of support in his own party for watering down the Racial Vilification Bill and of opposition from ethnic and other minority groups, he explained that he was withdrawing the Bill in order to promote unity among Australians in resisting terrorism. He wanted all to get on board Team Australia.

This legislative flurry was all very messy. Public opposition to the amendments to the Racial Vilification Bill ran broad and deep. Proposed to further free speech, they were seen to legitimise bigotry. The legislation to deal with the threat of terrorism, which included such divisive elements as the reversal of the presumption of innocence and preventative detention, allowed minimal time for public discussion. The proposal to collect electronic data was evidently not shown to the Minister for Communications before its announcement.

All these decisions smelled of the haste and ad hocery that have characterised this government, as they did the previous Labor administrations. This is perhaps understandable because even legislation carefully crafted after extensive thought and consultation is likely to be torn to pieces in the Senate.

A more concerning quality of the legislation was that it showed few signs of reflection on what kind of a society we want to create, and how far particular legislation will help do so. The arguments for legislation are based on abstractions such as free speech and terrorism. They are not supported by sustained reflection on the way in which human beings interact, and whether the legislation will enhance or weaken respect for human dignity. Even the metaphor of Team Australia invited barracking, not reflection. It has generated fear and loathing of Muslims and of Islam. To ethnic communities the linkage of the racial vilification legislation with community cohesion looked less like an olive branch than payback.

There is more to speech than freedom. Any society relies on relationships between speakers and listeners that are marked by trust, accountability and care for

AUSTRALIA

The Government's high fibre diet of legislation

Subscriber login