Australian style of humour – target of the PC class?

If one keys in 'gay rights Australia' in google, one will end up on a site that gives information about Australia (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Australian%20English). This is presumably to provide information to all those homosexuals overseas who want or who are being enticed to the 'gay capitals' of the Southern Hemisphere. The mighty Pink dollar. Among extensive information one will find the following about Australians' sense of humour:

Australians are known for their directness or "why call a spade a spade, when you can call it a bloody shovel!", which can lead to misunderstanding and offence on the part of Australia's Asian neighbours. Another notable trait of Australian English usage, inherited from Britain, is the use of deadpan humour, in which the joker will make an outrageous or ridiculous statement without explicitly indicating they are joking. Americans visiting Australia have gained themselves a reputation for gullibility and a lack of a sense of humour by not recognising that tales of kangaroos hopping across the Sydney Harbour Bridge are examples of this propensity.

So often I have seen in a business context American and English business executives take offence at the manner in which ordinary Australians send up people or things. I suggest that the brief exchange between Steve Price and John Laws (which was the target of the zealots on The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal) was in line with this brief but incomplete description.

It is true that some Australians go sometimes too far, beyond the limits of what the ordinary person understands as common courtesy. Sam Newman is a good example of a public figure who does not know where those limits are. But even if one finds Newman crass and offensive, this is no reason to enact laws to shut him up. Public objection and reprimand by the media organisations he speaks for is enough. There is even less reason to enact legislation to censor ordinary satire and ridicule. It is a positive injustice and an attack of an aspect of Australia's culture to censor Australians' sense of humour.

Can one really believe that claiming Kerry Packer is guilty of bad taste for including homosexuals in one of Nine's programs is an example of 'hate speech'? Are these people of The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal in possession of their senses?

Imagine if someone declared that Kerry Packer was in bad taste because he included Catholic Cardinal Pell in a program on the Nine Network. There would be roars of approval from the class that people such government bodies as The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The group in question clearly makes a difference for these guardians of the republic. When you replace homosexual with Catholic, that's an entirely different situation.

It's time the ordinary Australian had a good long look at the oligarchic tendencies in Australian society. Or one day it may be too late to do anything about it.