18C requires non-racial remit without curbs on free speech

It is relatively straightforward to do so. First, parliament should change the Criminal Code and extend the protection against urging ­violence to all sections of society.

Second, it should establish a standard that can be applied consistently between protecting free speech and safety.

The obvious option is full repeal of 18C, which wouldn't leave anyone without protection.

The Australian Constitution charges states to frame laws around harassment, and they do.

The only reason 18C exists is because of the crafty work of man­ipulating the external affairs power to give the federal government the power to legislate for it.

Failing full repeal, the committee should recommend a standard that can be applied universally.

In its present form, the law is based on a subjective test of whether someone is offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, based on the attitudes of someone in that subgroup.

So it asks, for example, what a Chinese person thinks is offensive to Chinese people.

In practice that means some Chinese people can say things that non-Chinese people can't.

That has to change to an objective assessment of an ordinary Australian, so we are all treated equally.

Then the correct test should be introduced for all. A universal test can't be "offend, insult or humiliate". If you want to know why just ask Hobart's Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous. He was hauled before Tasmania's anti-discrimination authorities for allegedly violating section 17 of the state's Anti-Discrimination Act.

Section 17 uses a similar test as 18C but goes beyond race and includes gender and sexual orientation and so on.