The Claim
“Prohibited the Aboriginal Legal Service from giving evidence at a legal enquiry into the loosening of racial hate-speech laws.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is factually accurate. The Aboriginal Legal Service (specifically the NSW/ACT Aboriginal Legal Service) was indeed denied the opportunity to provide evidence to a Senate inquiry in March 2017 [1].
The inquiry in question was a Senate committee hearing examining proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, specifically focusing on "loosening" section 18C racial vilification provisions [1]. The legislation was being considered in the context of the Coalition government's efforts to reform racial vilification laws.
On Friday, March 24, 2017, Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, who was chairing the inquiry committee, refused to allow the Aboriginal Legal Service to provide witness testimony [1]. This decision occurred when the committee was deliberating over its witness list for the five-day inquiry.
The denial was confirmed directly by Senator Macdonald's own statement to the committee. When challenged on the exclusion, Senator Macdonald justified the decision by stating: "once you start having one group of any type, in this case an Indigenous group, who have a particular view, do you call other members of that same group that might have a different view? I think it was for that reason we decided to restrict it to the ones we have (on the witness list)" [1].
Missing Context
The claim, while factually correct, omits important context about the reasoning and procedural context:
Committee's stated rationale: Senator Macdonald's justification centered on a procedural argument about consistency rather than explicit exclusion based on opposition. He argued that if the committee allowed one Indigenous organization to provide evidence, they would be obligated to allow alternative Indigenous voices with different perspectives [1]. Independent Senator Derryn Hinch supported this position, arguing that "Everybody in Australia has had a chance to put their view - all the views are known" and that adding additional witnesses was unnecessary since the issues had been "widely canvassed in a previous inquiry" [1].
Political context: The inquiry occurred during the Coalition government's push to reform racial vilification laws following the death of cartoonist Bill Leak in March 2017. Senator Macdonald opened the hearing by paying tribute to Leak and noting his "passion for this particular issue and the legislation which has followed" [1]. This suggests the reform was partly motivated by a specific controversial case.
Legislative background: The specific legislation being considered was the government's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act's section 18C provisions. These reforms had been a point of contention between the government and Indigenous groups, as well as civil liberties advocates and racial justice advocates [1].
Labor and Greens support: Notably, the exclusion was opposed by both Labor senators (particularly Pat Dodson and Murray Watt) and the Greens, who had specifically requested the Aboriginal Legal Service be added as a witness [1]. This indicates disagreement over the witness list was partisan.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is SBS NITV (Special Broadcasting Service's National Indigenous Television), which is an Australian public broadcaster specializing in Indigenous affairs. SBS is a mainstream, government-funded media organization with established editorial standards [1].
While NITV focuses specifically on Indigenous affairs and may naturally sympathize with Indigenous perspectives, the article itself quotes directly from Senate proceedings, providing the statements from all parties (Liberal Chair, Labor/Greens senators, and the actual committee decision) [1]. The reporting presents opposing viewpoints from both the committee chair (justifying the exclusion) and Labor/Greens senators (opposing it).
The article's framing emphasizes the controversy ("shambles," "disgraceful") but this reflects the actual language used by Labor senators in the inquiry itself [1]. The reporting is consistent with contemporaneous mainstream media coverage of contentious Senate committee proceedings.
Source bias consideration: While SBS NITV may have a perspective sympathetic to Indigenous affairs, the article's central claims (that the exclusion occurred, who made the decision, and what was stated) are verifiable through official Senate records and the direct quotes provided.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar or establish precedent?
The SBS article itself indicates that Labor senators had called for the Aboriginal Legal Service to be included in the witness list, with Labor Senator Murray Watt explicitly stating he would be "happy for the committee to invite an Indigenous person to argue in favour of the law changes" [1]. This suggests Labor was advocating for broader Indigenous participation rather than restricting it.
However, broader context on Labor's track record with Indigenous consultation on legislative inquiries is limited in the available sources. The Senate's witness selection processes are controlled by the committee chair, so the decision-making authority would have fallen to whichever party controlled the chair at that time.
Key observation: The exclusion was politically contentious at the time it occurred, with both Labor and the Greens immediately opposing it as inappropriate. This suggests it was not standard practice for Senate inquiries to exclude stakeholder groups entirely from witness proceedings [1].
Balanced Perspective
Arguments supporting the exclusion:
- Senator Macdonald's procedural consistency argument had some merit: if the committee invited one Indigenous group with a particular perspective, logically they might need to invite others with alternative views to ensure balance [1]
- Independent Senator Derryn Hinch argued the issues had already been extensively canvassed in prior inquiries, making additional witnesses unnecessary [1]
- The committee may have had legitimate space constraints or time limitations for a five-day inquiry
Arguments against the exclusion:
- The Aboriginal Legal Service had specific expertise relevant to the changes being considered: they handle cases involving offensive language charges against Aboriginal people and could speak to how the law affected Indigenous Australians [1]
- The organization's spokesperson raised a substantive point about Aboriginal people being "remanded in custody on charges of offensive language, many of those will be children" [1]
- Labor and Greens senators characterized the exclusion as inappropriately silencing Indigenous voices from a debate about laws directly affecting Indigenous communities [1]
- The language used by both committee opposition and Labor senators ("shambles," "disgraceful," "excluding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from this debate") suggests the decision was viewed as procedurally inappropriate by substantial parliamentary opposition [1]
Broader context: Senate inquiries do have legitimate scope limitations, but excluding an entire class of stakeholders (Indigenous organizations) from providing evidence on legislation specifically affecting that group raises questions about process and representation. The fact that this decision was immediately controversial and opposed by both major opposition parties and the Greens suggests it fell outside normal parliamentary practice.
The Coalition government was pursuing significant changes to racial vilification laws during this period, motivated in part by perceived restrictions on free speech. Whether broader Indigenous consultation would have informed better policy is debatable, but their exclusion from the formal inquiry process was procedurally unusual and politically contentious.
TRUE
8.0
out of 10
The Aboriginal Legal Service was factually barred from giving evidence at the Senate inquiry into changes to the Racial Discrimination Act in March 2017. This occurred and was decided by Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, the committee chair.
The phrasing "loosening of racial hate-speech laws" accurately reflects the Coalition government's intent to modify (and what critics argued would weaken) section 18C protections, though "loosening" carries a valence judgment; the government would have characterized the changes as "refining" or "clarifying" the law.
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The Aboriginal Legal Service was factually barred from giving evidence at the Senate inquiry into changes to the Racial Discrimination Act in March 2017. This occurred and was decided by Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, the committee chair.
The phrasing "loosening of racial hate-speech laws" accurately reflects the Coalition government's intent to modify (and what critics argued would weaken) section 18C protections, though "loosening" carries a valence judgment; the government would have characterized the changes as "refining" or "clarifying" the law.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (1)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.