Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the conduct of business, namely a motion to defer consideration of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 until Thursday 30 March 2017.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business, namely a motion to defer the consideration of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 until Thursday 30 March 2017.

The opposition is moving this motion and has been required to suspend standing orders in order to get appropriate time to consider the legislation which is before the chamber and to consider amendments which are not even yet before the chamber. Whatever one's views about the substance of the provisions of the government's bill—and the opposition has made its position very clear—it is a bill that makes changes to the Racial Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Commission Act and they are changes which are of critical importance to the nation. Yet the government, with some of the crossbench, has been in an obscene rush to drive them through this place. Let's recall: this bill was introduced to the Senate on Wednesday 22 March and referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee the next day. Labor sought an inquiry process and a report in May. The government managed to get through its demand for a committee to have a single morning of hearings last Friday with virtually no notice, and then to report in a report that was tabled just now—just moments before debate on this bill is listed to begin.

It is also an absolute disgrace that this government, and the government dominated Senate inquiry, failed to call any Indigenous witness last Friday. What an absolute disgrace. When representatives of the Aboriginal Legal Service did come to the hearings and asked to be allowed to speak, they were not allowed to do so. It really does say everything you need to know about this government and its real views about freedom of speech when it denies Indigenous Australians the right to be heard on changes to anti-racism laws that it is trying to press through the Senate.

Even in the few hours of the limited public hearings, it became clear that there are a number of serious problems with the procedural changes which are being proposed in the bill. Schedule 2 of the bill alters the complaints handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is distinct from the substantive changes to section 18C, about which there have been a great deal of focus. It is clear from the evidence before the committee that there are a number of problems with those amendments. It has also been flagged that the government will amend schedule 2 to deal with the many problems identified in evidence last week. On Friday, their own officers said there were problems with schedule 2 of the legislation, including in relation to the procedural changes which are proposed. The government has flagged that it is going to move amendments to its own legislation. Where are they? We are about to start debate on the bill. I invite you, Senator Brandis, to table the changes now, because your officers have flagged them. Where are they? You are going to proceed to debate a bill when you have not even provided to the chamber the amendments to schedule 2, which were flagged on Friday. What that really shows is what a sham this all is.

Do you know why they want to debate it and get it done? Because they just want to lose it quickly and get it off the agenda. As long as Senator Xenophon and his team stick to the position they have articulated for some time, this bill will fail, except for those aspects of schedule 2 of the procedural changes in relation to which there may be a majority in this chamber, including some that the opposition may support. We flagged in-principle support for some of the issues raised. But no, the government do not want to actually have a constructive discussion. They want to just drive it through and lose it quickly so it can be taken off the agenda. Do you know what that really shows us?

It really shows us that the object of this bill is entirely internal. They are not actually interested in getting changes through, because, if they were, Senator Brandis might have broken the habit of a lifetime and actually had a negotiation with someone, actually had a conversation with someone, actually provided something to the opposition and to the crossbench in relation to those areas where there might be majority support for the change that is the procedural aspect of this legislation.

But, no, we do not have any of that; we have the government insisting on bringing this in today, tabling the report just moments before I got to my feet and not providing us with the amendments that they themselves have flagged. Let us understand this. The government have flagged amendments to a bill that they want you to start debating when you have not seen the amendments. If the crossbenchers are not concerned about that, with respect, they ought to be. The government should at least have the courtesy, before the debate commences, to show the Senate the changes which they are proposing.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we see yet another last-minute attempt to delay the Senate from dealing with an issue that has been the subject of public discussion and the subject of discussion in this parliament and in this Senate, by its committees, since the end of 2013. There is nothing more to be said on this matter, because every possible argument about section 18C has been made and made again over the course of the last 3½ years.

Might I remind honourable senators, and particularly those members of the crossbench, of the history of this matter. The coalition government was elected in September 2013, with a promise to reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. We promised to do that for two reasons: firstly, because it represented an unjustifiable constraint on freedom of speech, as we saw in the Bill Leak case, as we saw in the QUT students case; and, secondly, because it was not well worded to deal with the core vice of racism that is racial harassment, which was entirely missing from section 18C. We had a long public discussion in 2013. In May 2014 the Abbott government released an exposure draft of changes—changes that are very, very similar to the ultimate form of the bill that has now reached this chamber. Mr Abbott in September 2014, for reasons he explained at the time, decided not to proceed with that bill and, to use his words, took the matter off the table.

But the public discussion of section 18C continued, in particular because we continued to see section 18C being used as a vehicle for the persecution of innocent Australians, as it was used as a vehicle for the persecution of the late, great Bill Leak, as it was used as a vehicle for the persecution of a handful of completely innocent teenagers who were students at the QUT who made a wisecrack about a racially discriminatory computer lab. Those youngsters were subject to the persecution of a process for months and years. That is the reason the matter continued to be a matter of concern to all thinking Australians.

Last year the Prime Minister decided to revisit the issue, by asking me to refer the issue to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for inquiry and report. I sent that request to the parliamentary human rights committee on 8 November last year. In the following two months, the parliamentary human rights committee held nine full days of public hearings, including a public hearing in every single capital city in Australia. Nine full days of public hearings is a very long inquiry for a parliamentary committee, by any measure. It reported on 28 November. That report was tabled.

The government considered the report. I discussed the report with the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, whose contribution to this discussion has been very constructive, and Professor Triggs suggested some amendments of her own, many of which the government has taken up. The matter was brought up in the Senate, when the bill was introduced last week, and a view was taken by senators that, purely for the purpose of having a look at some drafting matters, there would be a brief Senate inquiry. It was not, as you say, Senator Wong, for half a day, because in substance the inquiry went for the whole of Friday, which is about the length of time a routine Senate inquiry that does not go into the merits of the issue—because the merits had already been extensively canvassed by the parliamentary human rights committee—would expect to take. That committee has reported back, and we are now ready to debate the bill, on an issue that has been a major issue in public discussion in this country for 3½ years. There are already 20 speakers on the speakers list for the second reading. The Senate can deal with this matter this week, as it always planned to do. It should deal with the matter this week, and Senator Wong should not be indulged in trying once again to play politics with this issue.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the opposition motion to suspend standing orders in order to make sure that we have time to consider the government's amendments to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Let us go back a step here. Let us consider the time line. In 2014 the Prime Minister redefined what the phrase 'no surprises and no excuses' meant. That was the PM who gave us knighthoods. He then set out plans to make it easier for people to attack others on the basis of their race. We thought that was just a little hiccup. We thought, 'If this is an idea that's so bad that Tony Abbott rejects it, surely it's gone for good.' But this is like some bad zombie movie. It just keeps coming back and back and back.

We have the Attorney-General here, who said that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights needed to inquire into restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia. That is a fair call. It is always good to examine freedom of speech. It is a fundamental tenet of any liberal society. But then the Attorney-General decided to direct the committee to inquire only into the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, not into real restrictions on freedom of speech. Think about the Border Force Act, for example, which says to a doctor or a nurse or a health professional, 'We'll make a criminal out of you if you stand up and say that you've witnessed abuse in offshore detention facilities,' or indeed the ASIO Act or the vast pieces of anti-terrorism legislation, which make it almost impossible for journalists to report on abuses that go on right across Australia's network of asylum seeker detention centres.

We heard in the committee inquiry process that members of the Indigenous community were denied a hearing. So much for freedom of speech! It is really telling that the parliamentary joint committee looking at this issue, which was dominated by members of the coalition, could not agree on what changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act were necessary or justified.

Now out of that process, where there is clearly internal division, we see a bill rushed through basically so the Prime Minister can give the far Right of his party another victory. This is all about the internal politics. Senator Wong was absolutely right. This is all about the internal politics within the coalition. This is about a government that is now governing for itself and not for the community. Outside of its little echo chamber this is not an issue. Barnaby Joyce belled the cat. It is not often I agree with Barnaby Joyce, but he belled the cat. This is not a conversation that is happening around kitchen tables in Australian communities.

Now we have some amendments that were cobbled together at the last minute. God knows what they are. We have not seen them. You want to rush this legislation through the parliament and we have not even seen the amendments that you are proposing. Surely good process would mean that when we come into this place we are all presented with the amendments to this 'critical piece of government legislation'—in your words. The Attorney-General said that we have had weeks, months and, indeed, years of ventilating this topic. Why on earth are the amendments not even ready for us to look at right now as we go into debating this legislation?

We hear time and again the old platitudes about freedom of speech, but we do not hear about freedom of speech not being freedom of consequence. These platitudes are mentioned by the coalition. Freedom of speech is a critically important issue in a liberal democracy, but what about freedom of consequence? To say that the community support for retaining the current wording of section 18C is overwhelming is an understatement. When there is so much pressure from the community pushing you in the opposite direction you have to ask yourself: why is the government going so hard on this issue? It is very clear that there is the mother of all fights within the coalition right now.

The fundamental issue for me is this. Time and time again this government has been asked: just what is it that this government would like to say, or have other people say, that they cannot say now? What is it that this small group of mostly privileged white men want to say that is racially offensive or insulting which is not justifiable, reasonably or in good faith, and about which they claim has no overriding public interest? What is it? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I urge other senators to support this suspension of standing orders motion. I also take this opportunity to respond to the assertion that the opposition is simply trying to delay government business. The Attorney-General should reflect on yesterday in this place, when the opposition with other members of the Senate passed I think 11 bills and started debate on the 12th. We ably assisted the government with its legislative program yesterday. That shows you that where there is proper process—where there is a government program that is set out, organised and foreshadowed—you will find the opposition cooperating.

But on this bill we have seen an absolute shambles. This bill, which seemingly was of no priority, suddenly became a priority. It was whisked through cabinet and the government's own processes in the party room and into this place. We were given one morning for a committee to inquire into it and report back to the chamber at the commencement of proceedings today. Now the government wants to move straight into second readers. The Attorney-General in his contribution said: 'There are 20 or so second readers, so no matter there. We can get on with that'—without actually seeing the amendments.

So all senators who would like to contribute could do so without actually knowing what the government intends the final legislation to look like. Perhaps your support or opposition will hinge on some of the amendments. We do not know, because we have not seen them. We might get them today. The Attorney did not actually go to where the amendments are at, despite the request by Senator Wong in her presentation that the government provide some indication of where those amendments are at, how many there are and what they go to. None of that was addressed in the Attorney's contribution today.

We saw last week the government seeking to use the Senate as a rubber stamp for their own political difficulties and their own political agenda. This is what this suspension of standing orders motion goes to. We must stand up and protect the role of this chamber for a start and protect established practice. We must require the government to follow proper process, which would normally be a bill gets introduced, it heads off for a reasonable committee process and it comes back to the chamber with notice and, if there are to be amendments, the amendments are foreshadowed and people are provided an opportunity to have a briefing on those amendments and perhaps to consult on them. We hear rumours that the Human Rights Commission may not support some of the amendments that the government is proposing. We do not know, because we have not seen them. Perhaps we would like the opportunity to seek the view of the Human Rights Commission about the way they do their work and whether the government amendments are actually going to assist that work or frustrate it. Again we do not know.

The Senate must stand up for itself. It cannot become a patsy of the government. It is meant to be here as a check on executive power. That is the role that we are asked to do. To fulfil our role in this place we must stand up for proper process. We cannot continue to have this chamber used as a rubber stamp for the government. That is what happened last week and that is what is being attempted here today. Last week it was the different deals, that we are still not fully aware of, and the price of those deals—certainly, the price that families pay. It is a serious issue, family tax payments and child care. The price that Australians will pay is serious, as is the outcome of last week. Again, we cannot allow this.

I have had representations right across my community about this bill. They expect the Senate to take it seriously. They want a rational and informed debate. We are simply asking to shift the debate from today to Thursday. It is not like we are sending it off to the never-never. We understand the political difficulties. It is, actually, not our issue that you have internal political difficulties of this. We are simply asking that debate proceed on Thursday, not today. That is not a big ask but what it does say to the government is that when the Senate needs to do its job it will stand up, against the executive, and make sure that we are given the time and opportunity to do that job and do it seriously. This is a serious bill and it deserves serious consideration.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I acknowledge that colleagues in this place can have sincerely-held differences of opinion on matters that are the subject of the human rights legislation. But I do not think there can be any legitimate claim that the issues addressed in this legislation have not had very good ventilation.

The opposition's motion to suspend standing orders is an attempt to re-litigate something that this chamber has already determined—that is, that the Senate committee inquiry would report today and, therefore, that this chamber would be in a position to address this legislation today. I must disagree with the proposition of colleagues opposite that there has been a rush on this legislation. It is important to remember that the human rights committee of the parliament has had an extremely extensive inquiry into all of the issues around the existing legislation and potential modifications to that legislation. It was an exhaustive inquiry and I must commend Mr Goodenough and the committee members for the work that they did there.

In addition to that, we have the Senate committee inquiry, which has reported to this chamber within the last half hour. But that is not the end of scrutiny. We have listed—all colleagues can see on the speakers' list—20 speakers for the second reading debate. There is no attempt by the government—nor, if there were, would it be supported by this chamber—to curtail the opportunity for colleagues to speak in the second reading debate. That will go for as long as it goes and is entirely in the hands of colleagues in this place. I have no doubt that there will also be a good debate in the committee stage. I should point out that there will be a small number of amendments from the government, of a purely technical nature, which are the product of discussions the government has had with Professor Triggs and which seek to satisfy some issues that she had with the initial draft. I provide that by way of context but highlight, again, that we will have a good committee debate. I have no doubt of this.

This has been a model of good process. The human rights committee and their work represented this parliament at its best, in terms of the conduct of their duty. The government is not seeking to curtail debate, in this place, in any way, shape or form on this legislation. I do want to acknowledge something that Senator Wong and the Manager of Opposition Business referred to: that yesterday was a red-letter day for legislating in this place. There were 11 packages addressed—12 bills in total—and I thank all colleagues for their cooperation in that. It would be terrific if that cooperative spirit continued today and for the rest of the week so that we can get on with the business of addressing the human rights legislation.

What we are seeking to do through the legislation—that, I hope, we will be in a position to debate shortly—is to address that balance between appropriate protections for individuals in our society and that fundamental right, and fundamental capacity to exercise that right, of freedom of speech. It is not something that any of us should take lightly.

Let me end where I started: I recognise that there are colleagues of goodwill who reach different conclusions on these matters, but it is time that we moved onto the business of addressing the legislation before this place. I do not believe that the motion to suspend standing orders should be supported.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the suspension of standing orders on the consideration of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I say, very clearly, to all senators and anyone who is listening or watching: what you are seeing here is a government making an absolute mockery of the processes of this Senate and, by extension, making an absolute mockery of Australia's democracy. Even worse, they are doing so to try and make it easier to be a racist in this country, because—make no mistake—that is the core content of this legislation. The government wants to make it easier for Australians to engage in racist hate speech. They want to send a message out there into the community that it will be okay to say things that previously you could not say without offending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I sat as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it is very true to say that it was a significant inquiry. It took us a fair length of time, and it visited right around the country, as it should have. But what the Attorney did not tell the Senate was that the committee recommended precisely nothing in regard to 18C. It did not make a recommendation to engage in specific changes to 18C. What the committee did was float a range of options and leave it at that. As I said at the time, it was a blancmange of a report from the human rights committee.

The government has moved of its own volition to make changes to 18C that will make it easier to be a racist in this country. Then we had to put up with a quick and dirty inquiry that took precisely one morning, in terms of hearings, from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I also sit on. What a disgrace it was that representatives from the Aboriginal Legal Service were prevented from giving evidence to that committee by the government members, against the wishes of the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party members of that committee. So, we had the quick and dirty inquiry, the report of which was tabled only just over half an hour ago in this place, and then the government attempted to bring this legislation on for debate.

I have news for the government: Barnaby Joyce is right. This is not an issue that is dominating the barbeque conversation in this country. What it is an issue that has dominated the pages of TheAustralian, that has dominated the agenda of the IPA and its agents in this place, and that has dominated the agenda of the culture warriors who make up, exclusively, the far right of the Liberal Party in this place. It is those culture warriors doing the job of the culture warriors in TheAustralian, the culture warriors on Sky and the culture warriors in the IPA who have driven this debate so far that it has bullied a craven Prime Minister into acquiescing to their demands in moving to make it easier to be a racist in Australia. How far he has come—Mr Turnbull—from his glory days.

Make no mistake, the reason we are doing this in such a hurry today is that the Prime Minister is like a little boy who has to swallow a spoonful of cough medicine. He just wants to get it all down in one go. That is a really important point. This rush is about nothing more than politics. It is not about making good policy. It is about the Prime Minister getting a difficult issue, or an issue he sees as difficult, off his plate as quickly as he can.

The Greens are going to stand shoulder to shoulder with multicultural Australia here, because we have listened to what they have told us. There is never a good time to make it easier to be a racist in Australia, but now is the worst of all times, because multicultural Australians are telling us that racism is on the rise. They have told us about the toll it takes to be a victim of racism—the mental health toll and the physical health toll that are taken on people against whom racist acts are perpetrated. These are people who will face more racism if this legislation passes unamended through this place.

Senator Fifield has just described the amendments as technical. If they are just technical, give us a look at the things. We have not seen the amendments, and I do not accept that they are technical, because my understanding, from the evidence Senator Brandis gave to a committee, is that they will go to the heart of how the Human Rights Commission operates, and there is every chance that they will be detrimental to the work of that commission.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong to suspend standing orders be agreed to.