Mr. Abbott's misreading of the evidence

… freedom of expression was also regarded as an important value which Parliament intended should, in the circumstances defined by s 18D, be balanced against the objective of promoting racial tolerance and proscribing inappropriate racially based behaviour. The Second Reading Speech described the provisions of Part IIA as balancing free speech against the rights of Australians to live free of fear and racial harassment…

It is not at all surprising that debate will take place, from time to time, about whether our Parliaments have got the balance right when seeking to protect competing values. Events which take place after legislation was enacted can sometimes throw useful light on legislation that was previously thought to strike the right note.

Mr. Bolt's shoddy journalism, however, is an unlikely candidate, on its merits, to give rise to a reconsideration of part IIA of the RDA.

We would encourage Mr. Abbott and anyone else interested in striking the balance between free speech and protecting people from baseless racial attacks in the public sphere to carefully read Justice Bromberg's lengthy reasons.

The lesson that is ripe to be drawn from the facts of this litigation is, we suggest, not that section 18C should be repealed but, rather, that Mr. Bolt should go back to journalism school.