Dr William Jonas AM, Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner

I would like to acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, upon whose land we meet today.

I'm delighted to welcome you all here to this workshop on race hate on the Internet.

We are particularly indebted to the panellists who will be working with our facilitator Greg Tillett throughout what will be a long, but I'm confident, also a productive day. The three broad issues for discussion are:

1. How effective is the current regulation of racial vilification on the Internet in Australia?
2. How can the regulation of racial vilification on the Internet be made more effective?
3. What are some possible non-regulatory ways that racial vilification on the Internet can be addressed?

I think this is the first time in Australia that key stakeholders have come together to analyse and debate the regulation of racist activities on the Internet in a workshop forum. Two years ago some of us participated in a valuable conference on this topic. We hope that this workshop will be the beginning of a collaborative process to develop public policy on this issue.

I would like to extend a very warm welcome to Professor Henrik Kaspersen. Professor Kaspersen is recognised internationally for his expertise in the field of Internet regulation. He chaired the Council of Europe's Committee of Experts which drafted the Cybercrime Convention.

The Cybercrime Convention is the first international treaty dealing with criminal offences relating to computer networks. It particularly deals with infringement of copyright, child pornography, network security and computer-related fraud. That Committee has also drafted an additional Protocol to the Convention. The protocol extends the scope of the Convention to cover offences of racist or xenophobic propaganda. Professor Kaspersen will address us shortly on the details of the Protocol. He has travelled from Europe to join us today and we are honoured to have him with us.

In preparation for the World Conference Against Racism last year, HREOC staff and I conducted some 28 separate consultations around Australia. They included 26 regional consultations and focus groups. We also set up an Internet bulletin board for discussion on racism. We consulted principally with civil society because the federal government had undertaken to consult with the government sector. By 'civil society' I mean the general community - principally people who experience racism in their own lives.

Those consultations revealed, unfortunately, that racism is alive and well in Australia today. Indigenous people experience racism as a routine feature of their daily round. "Like getting up and having a cup of tea", according to one participant.

Racial vilification and the negative stereotyping of ethnic and religious communities is also a grave problem undermining social cohesion and putting individuals at risk. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, for example, Australian Muslims and others of Middle Eastern appearance experienced threats, harassment, discrimination and outright violence. New manifestations of racism and new forums for the expression of racist ideas are emerging and we do not necessarily have the tools to cope with them. The Internet is one of these relatively new forums.

The research we have undertaken in preparation for this Symposium reveals that the Internet is used by many groups and individuals to denigrate others because of their race. Some examples of this are illustrated in your Background packages.

Racist images and ideas can be accessed through websites, emails, discussion-groups and chat-rooms. Race hate has even become a form of "entertainment" in some computer games and music. I find this material deeply disturbing, particularly in its capacity to drain people of their humanity, to render them as sub-human and expendable.

This material may also violate Australian law. Racial vilification was made unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995. The Act is based on the international Race Convention which is an agreement among more than 80% of the member countries of the United Nations.

The Act makes it unlawful in Australia for anyone to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race. Many different types of communication mediums come within the scope of the Act - radio, TV, magazines, newspapers - and the Internet.

Free speech considerations are protected by a number of exemptions in the Act. These require the person to have acted reasonably and in good faith. One exemption is for artistic expression. There's another for academic discussion; another for political debate on matters in the public interest.

A person or group offended by a publication on race grounds can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission has investigation powers and will usually attempt to conciliate the complaint. Conciliation involves assisting the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. If a complaint can't be conciliated, the complainant is entitled to take the matter to court.

Two recent Federal Court decisions based on the racial vilification provisions have been successfully fought by members of our panel today. One of these involved the anti-Semitic website of Fredrick Toben's Adelaide Institute. Jeremy Jones and his legal representatives, including barrister Stephen Rothman who are on the panel today, were successful in both cases.

The World Conference Against Racism in South Africa last year was organised by the United Nations to mark the International Year - and the Third Decade - for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The World Conference focused on practical steps that countries could take to combat racism.

The Durban Programme of Action finalised at the World Conference proposed that governments should implement legislative and regulatory reforms in response to cyber-racism.

One proposal was that governments should impose sanctions on those responsible for inciting racial hatred or violence using the Internet. This raises doubts for me about whether the individual complaints-based process offered by the Human Rights Commission is sufficient to the task of protecting Australians from this kind of material.

The complaints-based process has its limitations. It relies on victims to make complaints. Identifying the author or the publisher of the material is often a stumbling block. Just as graffiti is usually anonymous, so too is material on the internet. And there are also problems with applying Australian law to material hosted by internet companies located overseas.

Self-regulation was the complementary strategy proposed in the Durban Programme of Action. Internet Service Providers, for example, should establish voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulatory measures against the dissemination of racist messages. Clearly the standards set in these codes should be the standards established by the International Race Convention and, within Australia, by the Racial Discrimination Act. One question for us today will be whether the codes we have in Australia do meet this standard. Are they consistent with the federal Act?

And one final question. Even if we can effectively control racist material generated from within Australia, is it possible to protect Australians from material created or hosted in other countries?

I look forward to your deliberations and wish you a fruitful and enjoyable day.