Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Law changes must be approached with caution

News this week that the government will examine parts of the Act has disappointed groups that believe that there is not enough emphasis put on either side of the divide.

The move has pre-empted the national plebiscite on same-sex marriage and is, in part, a reaction to a complaint by Hobart transgender activist Martine Delaney.

She complained last year to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner on a booklet distributed by the Catholic church on the issue.

The Commissioner accepted the complaint but Ms Delaney withdrew from action after not wanting to commit to lengthy tribunal hearings.

The government’s proposed changes will force the Commissioner to raise the bar at which she can now accept complaints and an amendment will allow a person to more freely express views with religion as a basis.

Marriage equality advocates predict an unconscionable hate-fuelled smear campaign while conservatives feel that the government has not gone far enough.

They want all people to be able to express views, regardless of religion, and are pushing for the government to weaken section 17 of the Act – the section Ms Delaney cited in her complaint.

This part of the Act states that a person must not engage in conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of race, age, gender identity, or disability.

The words in the section of the Act – offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate – are strong words.

Each carry definitions that have fairly blunt, unconfusing interpretations.

Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks claimed she was not consulted by the government ahead of the move and has said that no changes are needed.

The government has said that it has no intention of changing section 17 and we should all hope it sticks to that.

Premier Will Hodgman has insisted that the planned changes will put us on the same level as other states and will achieve a better balance between free speech and protection from discrimination.

Unhindered freedom of speech, and the possibility of loosely defined hate speech, cannot make people who follow certain lifestyles feel restricted from doing so for fear of abuse or ostracism.

We need to question whether there is enough evidence in Tasmania to suggest that people have been unfairly prosecuted or dragged through court proceedings for words and actions that have caused hurt and offence but were, outside the eyes of the law, actually reasonable.

And the government needs to consider how it is possible to measure the consequences of an enhanced freedom of speech.

We know who the winners will be in this and need to be aware that there will clearly be losers.

The big question, that remains deliberately unanswered by those supportive of further changes, is what exactly do people want to say that they feel they can’t say already?

We will only truly know once changes are enacted and by then, they will be impossible to reverse.