Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (15:56): This motion calls on the Senate but particularly the government to show some leadership rather than the B-grade governance we have seen in recent months and, most especially, during the period of this new Senate. Last session, with respect to leadership, we saw, as we can all understand and still see today, the budget chaos. Indeed, we saw Senate chamber chaos over the two sitting weeks at the end of the last period. We saw evidence of this yesterday in the discussion about the budget. I suppose I am calling this lack of leadership along the path of the Bs. It seemed, yesterday, that we do not talk about the budget anymore. There are not the dorothies about the budget that we saw in the past from government senators, and the government remains quite unclear about what it wants to do about the budget. In fact, some of the characterisations are practically in denial. We do not know whether we have a budget emergency or not. It depends on who you talk to and on what day. Senator Johnston: You wouldn't know. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Johnston says 'I wouldn't know.' Yesterday we saw ignorance from senior government ministers about the Parliamentary Budget Office and its statement related to the budget. We saw complete ignorance about the likely blow-out of the PPL—the Prime Minister's champion program. We saw ignorance of that. At the last session, and most related to this motion, we saw concern from Senator Brandis for bigots' rights—not a broader concern that one might expect from a competent Attorney-General but a narrow concern with the issues of the rights of bigots. On another side, though, fortunately, we did see a backflip with respect to the National Security Legislation Monitor. This was a very good thing, because if we are going to act competently on national security then we need the provisions and the balance to secure the protections in that system as well. During the break we saw some astounding stunts. We saw that Senator Brandis needs to lift his head out of his books for a while and understand exactly what metadata is—and that is probably highlighted by the vote we just saw a moment ago. There is an astounding, surprisingly strong level of support from the Senate for better action with respect to metadata. better transparency and a more competent response. And we saw, of course, Senator Abetz and his need to be more careful in his expressions about breast cancer. These were the Bs: we saw the budget chaos; we saw the concerns for bigots' rights; we saw Senator Brandis's fetish with his books, rather than the important issues of the day; and we saw clumsy expressions around important issues to do with breast cancer. I could go on to the Cs; I could talk about Mr Hockey's understanding about who uses cars; or I could talk about the commentary about who should be a future Senate leader. There have been suggestions, similar to my own musings, that Mathias Cormann is starting to show some signs of interest in Senate procedure. The leadership in this place, in recent times, has been astounding. But there are more serious matters for me to address. It is good to see that Senator Smith has arrived for his lengthy contribution to this debate, although I must say I am saddened that his will be the only government contribution to this debate. This government has chosen to hide yet again. They have put their full 20 minutes on to Senator Smith. I hope you are up to that burden— Senator Smith: I am honoured. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The Australian people have lived with the threatened repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for far too long. It is time to bring this issue to a head once and for all. The Labor Party's position on 18C is crystal clear. The Labor Party introduced 18C and the Labor Party will fight to retain it. We have campaigned in the streets to protect 18C and we will vote in this parliament to oppose any attempt to weaken the vital protections it contains against the scourge of racist hate speech. We in the Labor Party believe that 18C is a critical element of Australia's anti-discrimination framework, which has served this country well for 20 years. What does that tell us about our leadership today? This is an area where we have had general community consensus for 20 years until we got the Abbott government. Section 18C strengthens the rich fabric of Australia's successful multicultural community, and we cannot afford to risk this. Section 18C appropriately balances freedom of speech with the right of all Australians to live in dignity and free from bigotry —no rights for bigots—and the destructive, divisive effects of racially-motivated hate speech. This is our position, and we are proud of it. We have never waivered on it and we never will. Almost two decades of experience have unequivocally demonstrated that this is the right policy for Australia. The Labor Party is not alone in its support for 18C. In recent months thousands of Australians have rallied behind 18C to affirm their support for tolerance and social cohesion and voiced their opposition to bigotry and hatred. These voices have been heard in the parliament and have powerfully resonated at the highest levels of government. Public opinion polls and, embarrassingly, even statistics released by Senator Brandis's own department clearly show that the vast majority of Australians strongly oppose any moves to water down protections against racist hate speech. The Labor Party's position, as I have said, is crystal clear and the mood of the Australian people is beyond doubt. But, unfortunately, the Liberal Party's position is much more questionable. It is murky, indeed. Senator Brandis and then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott promised Andrew Bolt they would repeal 18C in 2011, after he was found guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating and intimidating 'fair-skinned aborigines'. After coming to government, Senator Brandis published an exposure draft of what I will call his 'bigots' charter'. But even at this early stage, the Liberal Party's position on 18C was in flux. Media reports revealed that Senator Brandis had been rolled by his Cabinet colleagues, who had doubts about the wisdom of repealing 18C. These reports exposed Senator Brandis's original intentions. We learnt that he originally intended to ram legislation through the parliament without even a hint of public consultation. Embarrassingly, he was smacked down by Cabinet and forced to first publish an exposure draft to gauge the extent of community anger—and, boy, have we seen that. The concern is, though, that Mr Abbott has now decided that that level of community anger cannot be borne at the same time as the level of community anger over the budget. He has described the issues around 18C as having become 'a complication', but the issues involved in 18C are much more than a complication. The Senate and the Australian public at large deserve more respect than that. Mr Abbott tries to close down one front while he deals with the issues around the budget—a weakened government could ill afford further conflict such as the furious reaction that has occurred to the budget. But the Prime Minister has not ruled out proceeding with plans to repeal 18C in the future, if the political environment becomes more favourable. Australians who hoped to have closure on this shameful episode in political history are set to be disappointed. That disappointment has transformed into renewed fear and anger after a group of senators, including the Attorney-General's Liberal Party colleague, Senator Bernardi—who we are not hearing from today—announced that he would soon sponsor a private bill to resurrect plans to weaken 18C in favour of their belief in a right to be bigots. (Time expired)