find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
LCA advises against watering race hate law reforms

LCA advises against watering race hate law reforms

As political discourse about reform of anti-discrimination laws ramps up, the Law Council of Australia has told a senate committee that weakening Section 18C will serve no good.

Late last night a Senate majority comprising crossbenchers, Labor and Greens voted down the government's push to amend Section 18C of Australia's racial discrimination laws.

Ahead of the vote, Fiona McLeod SC made an address last week to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, outlining why proposed changes to Australia’s race hate laws are not necessary. 

The Law Council of Australia (LCA) president told the committee, which had quickly convened last Friday (24 March), that the law already strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection from racial vilification.

This position is the same as that taken by the LCA in 2014, when a so-called ‘Freedom of Speech Bill’ had been proposed to scrap S 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

Ms McLeod said the case had not been made to accept any of the proposed changes in a new bill currently before the Senate and warned against watering down the language contained in Section 18C.

She drew special concern to the suggestion that existing words contained in Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) be replaced with the word ‘harass’ and said that as a matter of interpretation, this change could have the effect of limiting the scope of the provision. Potential difficulties with the definition of ‘harass’ also exist.

“Omitting the words ‘offend, insult and humiliate’ and replacing them with ‘harass’ assumes a direct personal relationship. It may have the effect of carving out media or publications where the author has no person in mind to ‘harrass’,” Ms McLeod told the committee.

“Further, it is unclear what meaning should be given to the term ‘harass’. In the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), for example, racial harassment can include threatening, abusing, insulting or taunting another person. Accepting that the WA definition is a statutory definition, and that ‘harass’ is not otherwise defined in the proposed amendments, it may be that ‘harass’ covers conduct that is intended to be removed from 18C,” she said.

Writing for The Conversation earlier this month, University of New South Wales law academic Professor Luke McNamara said that 18C detractors who fixate on replacing the words ‘offend, insult and humiliate’ lose sight of an important objective of the provision.

Professor McNamara said that calls to reform the provision misunderstands the harm threshold in 18C.

“The courts have consistently held that the bar is not a low one. To fall within 18C the speech must have profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights,” Professor McNamara said.

The legal academic pointed to an explanation provided by the federal court in Eatock v Bolt which says:

The definitions of ‘insult’ and ‘humiliate’ are closely connected to a loss of or lowering of dignity. The word ‘intimidate’ is apt to describe the silencing consequences of the dignity denying impact of racial prejudice as well as the use of threats of violence. The word ‘offend’ is potentially wider, but given the context, ‘offend’ should be interpreted conformably with the words chosen as its partners.

During last week’s hearing, Ms McLeod told the senate committee that if Parliament was minded to see the changes through, despite expert recommendations to the contrary, more satisfactory alternatives were available to replace the words ‘offend, insult and humiliate’.

Ms McLeod referred to a suggestion made by acting NSW Supreme Court Judge Ronald Sackville that if the existing words are removed, they should be replaced with ‘degrade, intimidate or incite hatred or contempt’.

Another option, she suggested is to keep the stronger term ‘humiliate’ so that the current formulation of the act is replaced with ‘humiliate, intimidate or incite hatred or contempt’.

“Whatever words are ultimately adopted by Parliament, they should be consistent with the prevention of harm and social cohesion objects of the Racial Discrimination Act,” Ms McLeod said.

The LCA also expressed concern about the vague test offered by the newly proposed test held up against the ‘standards of a reasonable member of the Australian community’, describing it as a vague and changeable concept.

The legal body however did express support for some changes proposed in the bill, subject to some technical amendments. These changes include efforts to tighten up the complaints handling process and the introduction of a new subsection under Section 18C.

Following Thursday's Senate vote, it is believed the government's proposal for procedural changes to the complaints handling process overseen by the Australian Human Rights Commission will succeed. Those changes are intended to make it easier to dismiss vexatious complaints under the legislation. 

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

LCA advises against watering race hate law reforms
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...