People power defeated Roxon’s radical agenda

LESS than two years in the job, the former federal attorney-general will leave parliament with a swan song that is hard to beat. Not only did Nicola Roxon prove to be Australia's most radical attorney-general with draft anti-discrimination laws that sought to render illegal opinions that were offensive and insulting. But her reluctant decision to scrap these provisions after a community backlash provides the perfect lesson in the power of ideas.

Indeed, Roxon's humiliating backdown should be a textbook example of why free speech matters: her decision to pursue "other options" proves what can happen when ideas and opinions are thrashed around freely and robustly. Dumb ideas tend to get exposed as dumb. And sensible ideas are allowed to flourish.

Importantly, demolishing silly ideas such as Roxon's nanny-state vision to render offensive opinions illegal can happen only when the machinery of free speech is kept clean of the grit and grime of politically correct laws that would otherwise inhibit the free flow of ideas.

That's why free speech sits at the heart of liberty. Not just because we like the freedom to say whatever we want, though that is surely part of living in a healthy liberal democracy. No, the best reason to staunchly defend free speech is because it is the true gem of Western civilisation. Without it, other freedoms will not last for long.

If it is true that 12 months ago, barely months into her dream job as attorney-general, Roxon told the Prime Minister that she intended to leave parliament, then Roxon also must have intended that her human rights and anti-discrimination bill would be her parting gift to the nation. Happily, Roxon will leave parliament with a clear message Australians declined her illiberal gift.

So take a bow, people. As politicians gather for federal parliament, remember that people power defeated Roxon. Not just the power of ticking a ballot box. Roxon's radical and illiberal intention to undermine free speech in this country was exposed by people raising their voices between elections. There were no nutty activists carrying out stunts. Just ordinary people raising sensible arguments.

There were the big names. Former High Court judge Ian Callinan and ABC chairman Jim Spigelman helped the cause of freedom with their wise words of caution about Roxon's bill. Business leaders, religious leaders, even some human rights leaders also help to expose problems. Media groups (that included News Limited) united to make a rare joint submission to the Senate inquiry into the draft human rights and anti-discrimination bill. In fact, more than 3000 submissions were made to the Senate inquiry. While not all opposed the bill, the reaction was a tribute to free speech.

When tested against rational arguments, Roxon's agenda failed. Take a bow, too, the staff, headed by John Roskam, at the Institute of Public Affairs and the IPA's paying members who ran Freedomwatch - a campaign that garnered rational, passionate, liberty-based arguments against Roxon's bill.

Take a bow, too, the letter writers who reminded politicians of all hues that free speech is not a political plaything. Thank you to those who added some spine into the opposition's objections. Congratulations to those who did not fall for Roxon's ruse that the exposure draft was merely meant to "simplify and consolidate many laws into one". Well done to the constituents whose emails to Tony Windsor finally led the independent to say he too had concerns, although not without wondering aloud whether the whole matter was stirred by "some radio shock jock".

Windsor's late and politically convenient arrival at the free-speech party raises the point that not all people should take an equal bow. For example, there was a disappointing lack of curiosity among many journalists at our national broadcaster. Who can recall a senior ABC journalist discussing in any detail the serious ramifications of Roxon's bill? Other issues attract plenty of inquiring passion at Aunty - climate change, gay marriage, refugees and the Catholic Church, to mention just a few.

After a quick ABC news report about the release of Roxon's bill on November 20 last year there has been an intellectual wasteland at Aunty when it came to Roxon's bill. Curiously, the day Roxon was in Sydney to promote her anti-discrimination bill, she appeared on the ABC's premier political program 7.30. Yet host Leigh Sales devoted every question to the royal commission into child abuse. Free speech didn't get a look-in.

Lest we lovers of liberty get complacent, Roxon's assault on free speech has not been completely defeated. There is, for example, still the matter of the bill making a mockery of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Roxon's bill contains many other problems that must be addressed by the new Attorney-General. But will he? Before becoming A-G, Mark Dreyfus helped feed the misconception that Roxon's bill was a harmless consolidation that did not extend the reach on anti-discrimination laws. Will Dreyfus come clean and credibly defend free speech?

As Roxon prepares to leave parliament at the next election, she will go down in history as the attorney-general who tried to undermine our most basic liberty and the embodiment of the new Left. Whereas once the faces and voices of the Left tended to be as rough and tough as they were radical, Roxon's demure demeanour cleverly hides an agenda more radical than anything tried on the Australian legal system. And her ultimate backdown just days before announcing her retirement from politics is a reminder that this kind of creeping, illiberal paternalism, no matter how dulcet the tone of delivery, will be defeated only when people are able to argue and object freely and openly.