Sec 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

 makes it unlawful for a person to behave (in public) in such a way that it is likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics".
There are certain exemptions to this which allow for artistic expression and things like academic/scientific research. There are also, supposedly, exemptions for balanced media reporting and comment if they are deemed to be in the public interest.
I have said it elsewhere and I will say it again - we need to be rid of Sec 18C.  Racial discrimination is vile. It is wrong, absolutely wrong but this is not the way to be rid of it. I doubt it will ever be stamped out completely but something like this is not the answer. The case brought by Cindy Prior against the five university students and a university in Queensland showed just how ineffective this law is and how easily it can be abused. 
And the other problem is that the law is not equally applied. Attempts by some others to use the same section have failed. The young woman who complained about being called a "Kiwi" was told it wasn't discriminatory but a term of endearment. An Irishman I know who was told "you're all members of the IRA" was advised not to take the matter any further. There are people I know who have also simply accepted the unacceptable because they are afraid to say anything lest they be accused of being "racist". An assistant in a shop once told me, "That woman just stole something and I can't do a thing about it."
The woman in question was of a different racial appearance. The shop assistant admitted she was too afraid to confront the woman for fear of the consequences.
All this has come up again because the likely incoming government wants to extend the act even further - to cover religion.
Now the constitution does not allow the government to make laws about religion but it will be argued that this is a law about unlawful discrimination and not religion. The problem is that it may open the door to something much bigger than is intended. There are already calls for sharia law to be applied in areas like marriage and family relations. If someone wanted to argue that a failure to allow that was discrimination on the grounds of religion what would happen? Yes, it is likely to be very subtle at first but once a decision has set a precedent then such things can grow. 
The matter was raised by a member of the federal parliament who is female and Muslim. If she succeeds in being re-elected (likely) then she will be a powerful voice in support of this change. To go against her will be difficult to say the least.  There will be accusations of a sort that no government wishes to face. 
A well respected professor of law has expressed serious concern about the likely consequences of such a move to me. I think he is right to be concerned.