In this interview, Margaret Chambers appeared on ADH TV to discuss the IPA’s research on Anti-discrimination laws.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Lyle Shelton:
Margaret Chambers is a research fellow at the IPA, and she joins me now. Margaret, thanks for the work you’ve done on this. How is this new bill dangerous to freedom of speech?
Margaret Chambers:
Exactly what you said. It would dramatically expand the scope and reduce the standard for speech that is unlawful in Queensland so that somebody need only consider it to be hateful for them to level a complaint against you in the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Lyle Shelton:
So, hateful. What do they mean by hateful? That’s a very subjective term.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. So hateful is extremely subjective. There’s no objective legal test for how that would be determined, and it’s entirely inappropriate for legislation. One of the key requirements for the rule of law is that everybody subject to the rule of law should be capable of understanding what their requirements are under it. And with such a subjective term such as hateful or objectionable, you have no idea of knowing how that’s going to be enforced.
Lyle Shelton:
Yes. And you’ve pointed out in your submission to the bill that’s before the Parliament, and I believe it’s been shelved till after the October election. So, thank goodness for that. But it’s still a very dangerous piece of legislation sitting there. But under this legislation, people can be, as you said, dragged before the Queensland Human Rights Commission. That’s exactly what happened to me. And then you finally end up in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. But hateful, it’s so subjective. It can even apply if it’s not directed at an individual person. Isn’t that what you’ve discovered in part of your research?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. So the problem is that somebody just needs to consider it to be hateful for them to level a complaint against you. Another terrible part of this legislation is that it imposes an obligation on employers to eliminate objectionable conduct, and the Queensland Human Rights Commission is actually empowered under the legislation to investigate a workplace even without a complaint. So just if they have a suspicion that objectionable conduct is taking place, they can level a investigation against the workplace.
Lyle Shelton:
So, what sort of form would that investigation take? Do they send officers in to forcefully come onto your work site to see whether someone in your workplace is instigating hate towards a colleague? Is that how it works?
Margaret Chambers:
Yes, that’s exactly right. It would be a very secretive process. Complaints levelled to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, they get to assess the merits of the complaint, and there’s no transparency or oversight into that process. It’s just whatever a Human Rights bureaucrat would consider to be hateful or objectionable, which is just a recipe for disaster, if you ask me.
Lyle Shelton:
This sounds like the sort of stories I’ve heard from people who lived in Eastern European countries under Soviet communism. You’ve talked about this having implications for faith-based communities, and schools in particular. I guess these are schools that might believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that gender is based on biology. That could all become hate speech, and they could be subject to workplace investigations, presumably?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It would absolutely undermine the ability for religious schools to teach what they actually believe. And under this legislation, they would also be forced to affirm the government’s position on these issues. For example, under the positive duty to eliminate objectionable conduct, there’s a very real pressure from the Queensland Human Rights Commission to stamp out discrimination and objectionable conduct. So that would mean compromising their religious beliefs to comply with the government’s legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
So that would mean a faith-based school, a Christian or a Muslim school would have to use the preferred pronouns of a child who decided they wanted to transition. They’d have to let a boy wear a dress to the formal, if that’s the sort of thing they would want to do. Let them compete against the girls in sport, use their toilets, change rooms, sleep in their dormitories on school camps.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It would basically force them to subscribe to the government’s position on modern gender theory, which we know a lot of these religious schools don’t share that position, and would force them to compromise their faith just to comply with the legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
Why do you think then the government put this off until after the election? Was it because there was a backlash?
Margaret Chambers:
So, actually, this bill is still before the parliament. Although, it has delayed a second stage of reforms until after the election, but it’s absolutely pressing ahead with these dangerous vilification provisions, that positive duty to eliminate objectionable conduct. That’s all still very alive and in the parliament as we speak.
Lyle Shelton:
What’s the LNP been saying about this?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, very little. The opposition hasn’t come out with a clear position on this issue, which is terribly concerning, because it affects the ability of all Queenslanders to participate in public debate as well as the workplaces.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah, that’s extraordinary. I thought that was the answer to the question. I’m a little bit removed from Queensland politics these days. But this is the trouble. Radical Labour-Green governments put up this sort of legislation, but there’s often no sustained opposition, and the public often don’t know that these Draconian pieces of legislation are going through the parliament.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It’s terribly problematic given that it affects the ability for all Queenslanders to participate in public debate. Last year we had a referendum on the Voice to Parliament where some 70% of Queensland had voted no against the government’s proposal. If this legislation had been in place at the time of the referendum debate, Queenslanders would absolutely hesitate before expressing what they actually thought about the government’s proposal for fear that somebody might consider it to be hateful. So it’s a terrible assault on freedom of speech in Queensland.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah. So legislation like this seems to be about making certain types of political arguments harmful, whether it’s on an issue like the Voice, as you just said, whether it’s on modern gender, queer theory. It’s really all about controlling the language and controlling the political discourse, isn’t it?
Margaret Chambers:
It absolutely is. I think the devil is in the detail with these bills, where hateful and objectionable are not defined. So it’s very much open up to exploitation from activists or people who want to shut down debate. Activists are already inclined to shut down debate, and this really just hands the sword to them to do that.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah. Now, the Albanese government, Margaret, is also looking at beefing up its hate speech laws at a federal level. These laws often have common threads running through them. We should also be pretty worried about that development as well.
Margaret Chambers:
That’s true. Yeah. The federal government has had some shocking proposals recently, not to mention the ALRC report’s recommendations to repeal exemptions for religious schools, which would completely undermine their ability to hire people who share their religious ethos and absolutely expose them to legal risk and litigation within the school.
Lyle Shelton:
Have you been surprised, as a researcher, as you’ve delved into this, just how strong this ideological agenda is?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, I think it has been quite surprising, but it’s also not surprising because we know that this is the flavour of the debate in Australia. There is this absolute temptation to control what people can say and force the debate to go a certain direction. So yeah, unfortunately I’m not surprised, but it’s absolutely ridiculous how vague these standards are in the legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
Well, Margaret, it’s very comforting for people like myself who have been the victim of this sort of legislation, and I’m alarmed that they’re going to make it even worse. It’s comforting to know that there’s people like yourself who are very intelligent, great researchers, that are on the job calling this stuff out through the great work at the IPA. We really appreciate it, and appreciate you giving of your time today with us on ADH TV.
Margaret Chambers:
Thank you so much for having me.
Lyle Shelton:
Well, ultra woke governments like the Stephen Miles Labour government in Queensland are hell-bent on controlling what people can and cannot say. The Orwellian-named Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2024 is obviously not what it seems. It introduces a new category of hate speech, which on the surface sounds fine, but just what is hate? Should it be illegal? And if so, how should hate be policed? The Respect at Work bill changes the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1991, a piece of legislation that’s been around obviously for a while, so that if someone feels hate from another person, they can take that person to court or to a tribunal.
Now, under the current Anti-Discrimination Act, it is unlawful to, quote, “incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons based on their race, religion, sexuality, or gender identity.” Now, this can all sound very wonkish and technical, but for me it’s very personal. I’m currently being dragged through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is a quasi-court, by two LGBTIQA+ drag queens who have accused me of hate speech for writing a blog where I said they were dangerous role models for children because they were reading to little kids in a Brisbane City Council Drag Queen Storytime. And I stand by everything that I wrote.
Now, that’s under the current law and even before this new Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Bill comes forth and amends the Anti-Discrimination Act. So it’s already a flawed piece of legislation, but it’s not enough for the ideologues in the Parliament like the Parliament of Queensland. So this bill’s new vilification provisions would make it unlawful to engage in a public act that a reasonable person… Now, I wonder what they mean by a reasonable person? Is that someone who dresses in kink and waves a rainbow flag at a Pride parade? Anyway, it’s defined as a reasonable person who would consider, and this is the definition from the proposed legislation, would consider to be hateful towards, reviling, seriously contemptuous of or seriously ridiculing of another person based on their age, impairment, gender identity, race, sex, religion, sex characteristics, or sexual orientation.
Now, the Institute for Public Affairs said this is a dramatic diminution from the standards in the current Anti-Discrimination Act. Remember, that’s a very flawed Act as it is. I’m being sued under it. So the IPA is saying this is even worse insofar as it would remove the causal requirement that a person actually be affected by the speech, lowering the standard that someone need only consider hateful. Well, that’s my layman’s take on it all. I’ve got an expert to talk about this. Margaret Chambers is a research fellow at the IPA, and she joins me now.
Margaret, thanks for the work you’ve done on this. How is this new bill dangerous to freedom of speech?
Margaret Chambers:
Exactly what you said. It would dramatically expand the scope and reduce the standard for speech that is unlawful in Queensland so that somebody need only consider it to be hateful for them to level a complaint against you in the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Lyle Shelton:
So, hateful. What do they mean by hateful? That’s a very subjective term.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. So, hateful is extremely subjective. There’s no objective legal test for how that would be determined, and it’s entirely inappropriate for legislation. One of the key requirements for the rule of law is that everybody subject to the rule law should be capable of understanding what their requirements are under it. And with such a subjective term such as hateful or objectionable, you have no idea of knowing how that’s going to be enforced.
Lyle Shelton:
Yes. And you’ve pointed out in your submission to the bill that’s before the Parliament, and I believe it’s been shelved till after the October election. So, thank goodness for that. But it’s still a very dangerous piece of legislation sitting there. But under this legislation, people can be, as you said, dragged before the Queensland Human Rights Commission. That’s exactly what happened to me. And then you finally end up in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. But hateful, it’s so subjective. It can even apply if it’s not directed at an individual person. Isn’t that what you’ve discovered in part of your research?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. So the problem is that somebody just needs to consider it to be hateful for them to level a complaint against you. Another terrible part of this legislation is that it imposes an obligation on employers to eliminate objectionable conduct, and the Queensland Human Rights Commission is actually empowered under the legislation to investigate a workplace even without a complaint. So just if they have a suspicion that objectionable conduct is taking place, they can level a investigation against a workplace.
Lyle Shelton:
So, what sort of form would that investigation take? Do they send officers in to forcefully come onto your work site to see whether someone in your workplace is instigating hate towards a colleague? Is that how it works?
Margaret Chambers:
Yes, that’s exactly right. It would be a very secretive process. Complaints levelled to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, they get to assess the merits of the complaint, and there’s no transparency or oversight into that process. It’s just whatever a Human Rights bureaucrat would consider to be hateful or objectionable, which is just a recipe for disaster, if you ask me.
Lyle Shelton:
This sounds like the sort of stories I’ve heard from people who lived in Eastern European countries under Soviet communism. You’ve talked about this having implications for faith-based communities, and schools in particular. I guess these are schools that might believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that gender is based on biology. That could all become hate speech, and they could be subject to workplace investigations, presumably?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It would absolutely undermine the ability for religious schools to teach what they actually believe. And under this legislation, they would also be forced to affirm the government’s position on these issues. For example, under the positive duty to eliminate objectionable conduct, there’s a very real pressure from the Queensland Human Rights Commission to stamp out discrimination and objectionable conduct. So that would mean compromising their religious beliefs to comply with the government’s legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
So that would mean a faith-based school, a Christian or a Muslim school would have to use the preferred pronouns of a child who decided they wanted to transition. They’d have to let a boy wear a dress to the formal, if that’s the sort of thing they would want to do. Let them compete against the girls in sport, use their toilets, change rooms, sleep in their dormitories on school camps.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It would basically force them to subscribe to the government’s position on modern gender theory, which we know a lot of these religious schools don’t share that position, and would force them to compromise their faith just to comply with the legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
Why do you think then the government put this off until after the election? Was it because there was a backlash?
Margaret Chambers:
So, actually, this bill is still before the parliament. Although, it has delayed a second stage of reforms until after the election, but it’s absolutely pressing ahead with these dangerous vilification provisions, that positive duty to eliminate objectionable conduct. That’s all still very live and in the parliament as we speak.
Lyle Shelton:
What’s the LNP been saying about this?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, very little. The opposition hasn’t come out with a clear position on this issue, which is terribly concerning, because it affects the ability of all Queenslanders to participate in public debate as well as the workplaces.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah, that’s extraordinary. I thought that was the answer to the question. I’m a little bit removed from Queensland politics these days. But this is the trouble. Radical Labour-Green governments put up this sort of legislation, but there’s often no sustained opposition, and the public often don’t know that these Draconian pieces of legislation are going through the Parliament.
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah. It’s terribly problematic given that it affects the ability for all Queenslanders to participate in public debate. Last year we had a referendum on the Voice to Parliament where some 70% of Queensland had voted no against the government’s proposal. If this legislation had been in place at the time of the referendum debate, Queenslanders would absolutely hesitate before expressing what they actually thought about the government’s proposal for fear that somebody might consider it to be hateful. So it’s a terrible assault on freedom of speech in Queensland.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah. So legislation like this seems to be about making certain types of political arguments harmful, whether it’s on an issue like the Voice, as you just said, whether it’s on modern gender, queer theory. It’s really all about controlling the language and controlling the political discourse, isn’t it?
Margaret Chambers:
It absolutely is. I think the devil is in the detail with these bills, where hateful and objectionable are not defined. So it’s very much open up to exploitation from activists or people who want to shut down debate. Activists are already inclined to shut down debate, and this really just hands the sword to them to do that.
Lyle Shelton:
Yeah. Now, the Albanese government, Margaret, is also looking at beefing up its hate speech laws at a federal level. These laws often have common threads running through them. We should also be pretty worried about that development as well.
Margaret Chambers:
That’s true. Yeah. The federal government has had some shocking proposals recently, not to mention the ALRC report’s recommendations to repeal exemptions for religious schools, which would completely undermine their ability to hire people who share their religious ethos and absolutely expose them to legal risk and litigation within the school.
Lyle Shelton:
Have you been surprised, as a researcher, as you’ve delved into this, just how strong this ideological agenda is?
Margaret Chambers:
Yeah, I think it has been quite surprising, but it’s also not surprising because we know that this is the flavour of the debate in Australia. There is this absolute temptation to control what people can say and force the debate to go a certain direction. So yeah, unfortunately I’m not surprised, but it’s absolutely ridiculous how vague these standards are in the legislation.
Lyle Shelton:
Well, Margaret, it’s very comforting for people like myself who have been the victim of this sort of legislation, and I’m alarmed that they’re going to make it even worse. It’s comforting to know that there’s people like yourself who are very intelligent, great researchers, that are on the job calling this stuff out through the great work at the IPA. We really appreciate it, and appreciate you giving of your time today with us on ADH TV.
Margaret Chambers:
Thank you so much for having me.
This transcript with Margaret Chambers on ADH TV from 18 July 2024 has been edited for clarity.
