NCAT hands out paltry penalty for “vile” tirade … Distressing assault in Taree … Vilification delivered from private property but held to be a “public act” … Adverse psychological effect on Aboriginal elder … No order for an apology because it would not be “sincere” … Janek Drevikovsky reports
Despite his “extremely derogatory” tirade, Wayne Campbell failed to show up for his day in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where he was found to have breach the racial vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Mr Campbell’s victim was Billy Lamb, a Wiradjuri man of the Dubbo clan, and a talented Indigenous artist.
In early 2020, Lamb was visiting a friend in Taree, who happened to be Mr Campbell’s neighbour.
Lamb and his friend were standing in the driveway, discussing Aboriginal clap sticks, when Campbell loomed into view. The friend described the encounter as follows:
“We saw Wayne Campbell standing on the front verandah of [Mr Campbell’s residence]. He was smoking and staring in our direction.
“Billy said, ‘How ya goin’ brother’, to which Wayne replied, ‘None of your business, black nigger cunt’.
“Billy was taken aback and said ‘What did you say?’ Campbell then released a torrent of abusive, racist, vile hate speech, including sexually explicit ranting regarding Billy’s sexual orientation (‘fucking black poof etc’) …
“Campbell continued his loud, abusive ranting, this time adding that he had a gun and was going to use it on both of us. At this point Billy drove off, and I came in and phoned the police.”
Lamb, a former amateur boxer and Newcastle first grade rugby league player, made a complaint under the racial vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. He took action because, as an elder, he felt a responsibility to condemn racism and show it should never be tolerated.
The tribunal, made up of Senior Member Michael Easton and General Member Dr Maree Murray, remarked:
“Mr Lamb was humiliated at the time and he has risked further hostility and humiliation by making and pursuing his claim. He has pressed his claim because he wants this kind of behaviour to stop.”
The tribunal found that Campbell’s tirade was a “public act”, as required by the Act, even though he was standing on his private veranda at the time. Passersby could hear Mr Campbell, meaning his words reached the general public.
The tribunal considered the legal definition of “vilification”, which focuses on words or actions that “incite” other people to feel hatred. Campbell’s abhorrent words would, the tribunal held, do just that, especially if overheard by someone who shared his racist and homophobic views.
Campbell had therefore committed unlawful vilification.
However, when it came to assessing penalty, the tribunal brought out the wet lettuce leaf.
There was evidence that Lamb was suffering deeply in the aftermath of the tirade.
“Since the incident Mr Lamb says he rarely sits out the front of his house painting and talking to people.
He has retreated as people who feel fearful and unprotected do. Mr Lamb has not visited [his friend’s] house since the incident, and he has asked his daughter and grandchildren not to go there for fear that they will be vilified on the grounds of race by Wayne Campbell.”
Lamb also tendered research showing that racial attacks on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders affect their mental health, putting them at risk of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide.
The tribunal was sympathetic, but thought this evidence was not particularly helpful. It arrived at an “appropriate” penalty of $2,250.
The tribunal contemplated requiring Campbell to apologise. However, it doubted whether an apology would be sincere, especially since the racist homophobe had failed to engage with the proceedings.
Instead, it ordered him to publish a “public statement” in the Manning River Times, explaining that that vilification was against the law, that he had breached that law and that Mr Lamb had done nothing to “invite or deserve the treatment he received”.
The tribunal was optimistic about the educative effect this statement might have on the general public:
“We are of the view that such a statement will publicly demonstrate that the law recognises the detrimental effects of racial vilification and provides remedies. The statement will also be educative, for both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, and may act as deterrence.”
More damages may be forthcoming if the respondent fails to publish the statement as ordered.