The late Tim Wilson, a controversial star on the Australian political right, was appointed as Human Rights Commissioner in February of that year. That’s why the Abbott government chose him for this important role. Freedom of speech constituted an important part of his mandate’s significance to ensure its further protection. This subject has caused charged discussion in Australian politics, particularly surrounding Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section criminalized the act of “to the prejudice of a particular race or ethnic group … offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person of that race or ethnicity. Under Wilson’s tenure, this creation of new problems became a highly controversial topic.
In the years after his appointment, Wilson made himself an unflinching actor in the bitter battle around Section 18C. At the time, the Abbott government was very much against the provision. Instead they were fighting tooth and nail to reform it so that Americans would have greater freedom of expression. In 2014 Wilson was deeply disappointed when the federal government backflipped on its promise to repeal Section 18C. His frustration was publicly displayed when he tweeted, “Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18C and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.” This expression of indignation was emblematic of a larger right-wing anxiety that free speech was being demolished.
During Wilson’s time as Human Rights Commissioner, the debate around the relevance of Section 18C burnt brightly like a bushfire. National outrage grew in response to a spate of killings. One recent success story saw the Executive Council of Australian Jewry forcing the cancellation of hardline preacher William Haddad. Haddad’s remarks, which included claims that “the majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans,” sparked outrage and prompted legal action under 18C. The case thrust the tension between freedom of speech and protection from hate speech firmly into the spotlight. It made the already confused debate over Section 18C even worse.
As things changed, so did the conversation surrounding free speech to become much more nuanced. Wilson was a central figure in these debates. He became a key ally and voice for conservatives seeking to abolish rules prohibiting vehemently offensive speech. As their political climates changed and the tide turned against them, so too did public will towards the issue. There are those who think that the debate has passed, back when articles were running every week during the height of agitation over Section 18C.
George Brandis, then attorney-general through that chaotic 18C debate. In this, he not only stood his ground, but he continues to take a hard line stance. He stated, “My view hasn’t changed. First, it ought not in a free country to be made criminally or civilly actionable merely for uttering that causes offense. But here, the behavior at issue crossed into something much worse than insult, into threat. It certainly did not need 18C to achieve the redress that was sought in the case. Brandis’s view illustrates the challenges encountered while operating under a free speech policy regime, in legal structures purposefully designed to avoid discrimination.
Wilson’s political career would go on past his appointment as Human Rights Commissioner. He served Goldstein from 2016-2022. Though nationally tragic, during his tenure, he truly and actively built white support—not just indifference, but active opposition—across socioeconomic demographics to change the landscape. Specifically, his successful 2025 election campaign in which he received overwhelming support from the Jewish community in the wake of increasing antisemitism. This change is a welcome sign that there is increasing awareness and understanding about the complexities of discrimination-free speech issues in modern-day Australia.
Wilson has previous form when it comes to abusing Section 18C. He has gone out of his way to signal that he’s not interested in reopening the debate on Section 18C. He must know too that the environment has shifted immensely since he first started engaging on these issues.
The political landscape that now faces Wilson is a completely changed world compared to when she was first appointed as Human Rights Commissioner. The conversation about free speech today does not just focus on the legal implications, but the social responsibility. Critics contend that the right to freedom of speech is fundamental, but it should be paired with safeguards against hate speech and discrimination.
Tony Burke, a prominent political figure, has pointed out that “no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation,” indicating a belief that existing laws provide adequate protection without infringing on free speech. Taken together, this view points to a developing societal consensus that these interests can be balanced without infringing on core civil liberties.
