Once again, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is in the news – and has reignited public debate about what the law says about free speech and hate speech.

This week (ironically to coincide with World Harmony Day, aka International Day of Elimination of Racial Discrimination), Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced his intention to alter the language used in the controversial 18C law.

Changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act will make it unlawful to racially ‘harass’ someone – a word that has replaced the words ‘offend’, ‘insult’ and ‘humiliate’. The word ‘intimidate’ will remain in the Act.

The decision to move forward with this change comes after years of debate about the nature of free speech in Australia and were defended by the Prime Minister, who has argued “we are defending the law by making it clearer.”

“The changes we are proposing to section 18C will provide the right balance between protecting Australians from racial vilification and defending and enabling their right of free speech, upon which our democracy, our way of life, depends,” Prime Minister Turnbull said this week.

Religious and cultural groups, along with the Labour Party, The Greens and several independent parliamentarians have pushed back, arguing the changes do nothing except weaken the protections afforded to those subjected to racial discrimination.

In parliament on Tuesday afternoon Labor MPs and Senators highlighted their own experiences of racism and asked why it was important for the government to change the Act.

“What insulting, offensive, or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think people should be able to say to me?” Labor Senator Malarndirri McCarthy said.

And on social media comedian and journalist Benjamin Law launched the ironic hashtag “#freedomofspeech” in order for people to “share stories of racism.”

Among tweets by writers, actors, playwrights and others, several of the tweets that took up the hashtag specifically mentioned racist speech that occurred at workplaces.

Twitter user Claire Usher (@UsherClaire) tweeted: “Overhearing a Manager saying not to hire Aboriginal people “in case they go walkabout””. Another user with the handle @FM_AU33 posted: “Was working for a recruitment firm where bosses told me to ignore all resumes without anglo-saxon surnames”.

Would changes to 18C impact your workplace?

It’s important to note that the original Racial Discrimination Act was (and still is) primarily concerned with situations where racism produces a material disadvantage for someone, for example the denial of a promotion in the workplace context.

Though you may not have witnessed, or managed a discriminatory speech claim at your workplace, there’s more than enough evidence that people’s places of work are not excluded from instances of hate speech or racial vilification.

Recent examples include a case in which a man who was simply doing his job as a security officer at a public building was called a “Singaporean prick” and was told to “go back to Singapore.”

However not all claims are ruled to have breached 18C. HRM reported on a recent dispute that ended in the Federal Circuit Court dismissing a complaint by an indigenous administrative officer who said that an electronic post constituted hate speech and breached 18C.

As Law Professor Luke McNamara maintains, the courts have shown that “the bar is not a low one.” Research published in the UNSW Law Journal found that most interviewees impacted by racial discrimination said they would never lodge a complaint or pursue litigation, but that “they saw vilification laws as a precious symbol: they said that simply ‘knowing there is something there to protect you’ made them feel less vulnerable.” Those interviewed also said that these laws were seen as the government setting a ‘standard’, making a statement about what is ‘not right’ in public behaviour.

Diversity Council Australia, Australia’s Not for Profit workplace diversity advisor has voiced concerns that changes could lead to an increase in workplace bullying.

“Our concern is the reduction in the strength of the legislation as it applies to workplace,” says CEO of DCA Lisa Annese.

“We believe the existing piece of legislation is working and working to protect people in workplaces against racial vilification and religious vilification.”

(What about talking politics at work? Read our take on the issue here.)

What HR needs to do

Whether or not the proposed changes are passed, lawyer Angus Macinnis recommends using the renewed debate as an opportunity for HR to ensure they have their house in order in relation to the prevention of discrimination more broadly.

HR should be checking that company policies are clear (and that the training of your employees is up-to-date), as well as ensuring that your grievance procedures (and those who administer them) are tuned up, “so that any problems which do arise are dealt with swiftly and close to their source.”