Night time summary
Here is a short summary of the day in politics.
- After cabinet approved surgery to the Racial Discrimination Act, Malcolm Turnbull took it to the party room.
- The change removes the measures of insult, offend and humiliate and inserts the higher bar of “harass”. The changes also clean up the processes of the Human Rights Commission to ensure dodgy claims are thrown out earlier.
- A small group in the Coalition party room argued against making the changes. They were mostly in ethnically diverse seats.
- Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce said 18C was not a burning issue in the electorate and they would lose votes on it.
- Nevertheless, the changes passed the party room.
- The prime minister said the changes strengthened both free speech and racial protections.
- Labor said bollocks.
- Bill Shorten said if the government was genuine about freedom of speech, why the deafening silence on the many other pieces of legislation and areas of policy which severely restrict freedom of speech and other civil liberties?
- The Senate remains hostile to the idea, given Labor, the Greens, three Xenophones and one Jacqui Lambie opposes.
- As a result, barring a late-night conversion, the substantive bill will fail.
Tomorrow the industry minister, Arthur Sinodinos, is speaking at the press club.
That’s your lot for the evening. Thanks to the brains trust Gareth Hutchens, Paul Karp, Katharine Murphy and Mike Bowers.
Good night.
Updated
The Xen Master again confirms:
The Nick Xenophon Team does not support the government’s proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, but we do support sensible changes to the process involved in the handling of such complaints so the process does not become the punishment.
Which means the 18C changes will not pass the Senate.
The attorney general, George Brandis, has a message for Xenophon, via David Speers on Sky:
If you are careful enough you can write legislation that protects people from racial discrimination ... which does not have a chill effect on free speech.
Brandis says the government has indeed been careful.
Updated
Updated
Labor’s Malardirri McCarthy has taken issue with George Brandis’ statement that he does not believe Australians are racist.
As a white man growing up in Petersham, attending private schools, I am sure you have never been denied access or service in a shop.
You have never had taxis drivers past, pretending not to see you. You have never received hateful letters and emails because of your race or the colour of your skin.
I really wish I could believe there are not any racists in Australia. But certainly my personal experience and my family’s experience informs me of the reality that I live in this country. It is deeply unfortunate.
Updated
The social services minister, Christian Porter, on why harass needs to replace offend and insult and why the government believes it makes the act stronger.
The standard and clarity that you get from a word like ‘harassment’ is going to make it clearer from the very outset what sort of complaint is going to be properly sustainable, and that is very important, because what we have at the moment is complete lack of clarity as to what is the standard for a sustainable complaint, and indeed, what actually constitutes this formulation of words ‘offend, insult, humiliate’.
This definitely makes it stronger because it makes it clearer, it makes it fairer and the system that we have at the moment in that formulation of words has become meaningless to the point of bringing the whole system into disrepute.
Updated
Liberal MP for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, has advocated compulsory voter identification for federal elections in the Coalition party room on Tuesday.
Zimmerman told Guardian Australia it would be a “reasonably simple step to ensure the integrity of the voting system”.
“It seems bizarre that you require more ID to get into a pub in Sydney than to determine the prime minister of Australia. It’s about time we ensured the possibility of multiple voting is precluded by this simple step.”
He said there were 8,000 cases of suspected multiple voting referred to the Australian federal police at the 2013 election. But because the lack of resources to investigate and burden of evidence is so high, it was more important to prevent rather than punish multiple voting, Zimmerman said.
Zimmerman was the only one to speak directly on the issue but it had widespread support, indicating it could soon become official policy.
Asked about the possibility voters could be disenfranchised because they lacked ID, Zimmerman said that people who attended the polls without ID could cast a provisional ballot and have their identity checked later before the vote was counted.
There was also a “legitimate discussion” about whether photo ID would be required or a credit card or Medicare card would suffice, which would also alleviate the concern of disenfranchisement.
Updated
The special minister of state, Scott Ryan, has announced the government will introduce legislation next week to require authorisations for robocalls and texts explaining who sent them, in a bid to head off anonymous or misleading electoral messages.
In an interim report in December, the joint standing committee on electoral matters (Jscem) recommended that all electoral advertising, including telephone, text messaging or social media, should have authorisations.
Ryan said the law would require “political parties, candidates and others to put their name to a greater range of political communications, ensuring voters fully understand who is trying to influence their vote”.
“It will also strengthen laws to prevent individuals or organisations from impersonating a commonwealth body.”
Jscem suggested that change was necessary because the current prohibition on impersonating a commonwealth officer may not prevent impersonating a commonwealth entity, such as Medicare.
Jscem noted concerns that at the 2016 election text messages were sent that were “alleged to be or [gave] the impression that they were” from Medicare.
The text messages, sent by the Queensland branch of the Labor party, said: “Mr Turnbull’s plans to privatise Medicare will take us down the road of no return. Time is running out to save Medicare.”
On Tuesday, Ryan said the legal changes would “better serve voters by making sure Australians know who is trying to influence them”.
Updated
There are debates going on everywhere on 18C.
.@timwilsoncomau says #18c changes preserve freedom to discuss ideas, @GrahamPerrettMP says there's laws already in place that do #auspol pic.twitter.com/CGThpQxA4m
— ABC News 24 (@ABCNews24) March 21, 2017
Read Katharine Murphy on 18C.
The Coalition is unable to drop this particular hot potato, despite senior players like Barnaby Joyce and Scott Morrison saying very clearly that the issue really isn’t a priority down the back paddock, or in the cafe where you picked up your coffee this morning, because a significant bloc in the right faction of the Liberal party intended to keep on pushing until the Freedom™ lady sang.
This is an internal crusade, a little passion play for the conservative base, pure and simple, and never mind the casualties – even if the casualties are your hard-working government colleagues, attempting to defend marginal seats with large ethnic populations.
Updated
Meanwhile, former Labor senator Nova Peris is sharing some examples of free speech possible under the current system.
#FreedomofSpeech pic.twitter.com/tUgistooGV
— Nova Peris OAM (@NovaPeris) March 21, 2017
#FreedomofSpeech pic.twitter.com/zpafGj5fil
— Nova Peris OAM (@NovaPeris) March 21, 2017
#FreedomofSpeech pic.twitter.com/TpkZq8oNQX
— Nova Peris OAM (@NovaPeris) March 21, 2017
Updated
The justice minister, Michael Keenan, has been sent out to bat for the changes to 18C.
It’s all about striking the right balance, he says.
Keenan is talking about the treatment of Bill Leak and the appalling prosecution of the QUT students.
Updated
Tony Burke gives a very strong speech.
No one expected the member for Wentworth would be less sympathetic than his predecessor...
Today the end of the Turnbull prime ministership is complete.
Tim Wilson is champing at the bit in his seat on the backbench.
Tony Burke says the Coalition has no idea of the real effect of the 18C changes, then quips maybe that’s because they had so many at the Cronulla riots.
Labor’s Tony Burke is speaking on a matter of public importance on the changes to 18C.
Do they want to lower the bar on racial hate speech in Australia?
Will be interesting to see who does the speech defending the changes for the Coalition.
There appears to be no one in the chair at this stage.
Updated
Shorten to Turnbull: Wages growth is at record lows. Underemployment is at record highs. The unemployment rate has increased to nearly 6%. Is the prime minister still committed to his entire $50bn tax cut for big business, a plan that the prime minister has previously modestly described as his greatest achievement? And if not, what’s left of the prime minister’s 1-point plan for jobs and growth?
Malcolm Turnbull says the suggestion from Shorten and Plibersek was utterly false.
He reads a transcript of the interview concerned, when he was asked “what would you say is your greatest achievement since being prime minister?” Turnbull says he responded, “Jobs and growth, 3.3% economic growth”.
Completely and utterly false. The answer is there. Once again, no regard for the truth. Talk about post-truth politics. The parallel universe in which they inhabit.
Updated
Bowen to Morrison: Days after last year’s budget, the treasurer said, “At the centre of our plan for jobs and growth is a 10-year enterprise tax plan.” Is the treasurer still committed to his entire 10-year plan, a plan the prime minister described as his greatest achievement? If not, isn’t the government’s so-called plan for jobs and growth just in tatters?
Morrison says he is absolutely committed to his tax plan.
Then he attacks Labor’s change of support for company tax cuts (as Keating once supported).
Updated
Plibersek to Turnbull: On 9 September last year, when asked to name his greatest achievements since deposing the former prime minister, the member for Warringah, the current prime minister said, “Reforms to business tax.” Is the prime minister still committed to his centre piece $50bn tax cut for big business in full? If not, what will the prime minister’s new greatest achievement be?
The PM does not exactly answer but he sings the praises of the policy.
Updated
Updated
Updated
Government question on secret payments between unions and employers to Christopher Pyne.
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: There are reports today that the government is preparing to back down on its centrepiece $50bn tax cut for big business. Just like the treasurer backed down on an increase to the GST, state income taxes and dealing with the excesses in negative gearing. Can the treasurer name one major tax reform he has been able to hold on to for more than a year?
Morrison says:
- Multinational anti-avoidance legislation,
- diverted profits tax legislation,
- low-value goods legislation to make sure that people are paying taxes on the goods that they buy from overseas,
- superannuation “that those opposite didn’t have the gall to bring into this chamber”.
Updated
Labor’s Brendan O’Connor to Turnbull: The Reserve Bank ofAustralia has today said, “Growth in labour incomes had been unusually weak and if it were to persist it would have implications for consumption growth and the risks posed to household debt.” Why is the government threatening demand and the economy by supporting pay cuts for Australians?
Turnbull says O’Connor supported the Fair Work Commission as did Bill Shorten.
But not now. What did they justify those changes for? The increase in employment. More jobs. More businesses opening. Page after page of examples of small businesses that said that the high rate of Sunday penalty rates and public holiday rates at the moment prevented them from opening. There are pages and pages of them, Mr Speaker. It was a decision based on evidence. The Fair Work Commission is backing small business and so are we.
Updated
Not a single Q so far from Govt on their decision to water down Racial Discrimination Act #QT
— David Lipson (@davidlipson) March 21, 2017
An energy question to health minister Greg Hunt.
Labor to Turnbull: I refer to reports today that some Australian police officers face pay cuts of up to $35,000 a year because of cuts to allowances for working late nights and weekends. Why is the prime minister cutting the pay of hard-working police officers who protect Australians at the same time as he’s cutting the penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australians? Why is the prime minister determined to cut the pay of Australians who work on Sundays?
Turnbull says his government does everything to support national security agencies and then flicks the question to justice minister Michael Keenan.
The Australian federal police union has demanded Malcolm Turnbull intervene to stop the nation’s elite officers from having their pay cut by $35,000.
The AFP Association has sent an urgent letter to the prime minister asking him to stop a proposal by AFP executives to cut the pay of more than 200 officers, including his own personal bodyguard and surveillance officers tasked to the counter-terrorism unit.
Keenan goes through the government’s record supporting agencies and Labor’s record but does not address the pay issue.
Updated
Next government question is on reliable energy to trade minister Steve Ciobo.
Shorten to Turnbull: The ABC has today revealed that workers at Sydney airport are sleeping rough between shifts in their own workplace, because they cannot afford to go home between their shifts. When there are real problems like this, why is the prime minister’s priority today weakening protections against racist hate speech, and ignoring workers like this who are suffering?
Turnbull says his government is focussed on delivering economic growth, segues on to the trade union royal commission and then flicks the question to transport minister Darren Chester.
Chester says he has sought assurances, he understands concerns were raised with the ground handling company Aerocare involved and if anyone has a problem, raise it with the regulatory bodies.
Updated
Third government question to energy minister Josh Frydenberg on Labor’s energy policy.
The Racial Discrimination Act changes and Harmony Day are duking it out for top spot in Australia on Twitter.
TT AUSTRALIA 12:07
— TT Mobile AU (@TTMobile_au) March 21, 2017
1.#HarmonyDay
2.Racial Discrimination Act
3.#SMP2017
4.#salesforcetour
5.De Goey
6.Chair
7.#WorldPoetryDay
8.#ANIRC2017
Greens Adam Bandt to Turnbull: Senior members of the US military and national security establishment last night warned that climate change is a massive security threat, with [rising] sea levels [and] droughts fuelling conflict and terrorism. Do you agree that there are national security implications from climate change? If so, given that most fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to meet the 2C limit we agreed to in Paris, will you rule out letting the northern Australia infrastructure fund or any other public money subsidise the Adani coalmine and associated infrastructure, or are you happy to use taxpayer funds to threaten our way of life?
Turnbull says the government is very alert to the risk of climate change and the national security implications, particularly of rising sea levels, particularly in the region.
And he gets that the Greens want to stop coalmining in Australia.
Were Australia to stop exporting coal tomorrow, not only would billions of dollars of export revenue be lost, not only would thousands of jobs be lost, but there would be no benefit to the global climate whatsoever. Because if our coal exports stopped, they would simply be sourced from other countries.
Updated
Anne Aly to Turnbull again: As someone who has been subjected to racism time and time again, as I was growing up and even in my life now, please give me an answer. What exactly does the prime minister want people to be able to say that they cannot say now?
Turnbull says he understand’s Aly’s point. But.
The suggestion that those people who support a change to the wording of section 18C are somehow or other racist is a deeply offensive one. I mean, among the people that have called for its reform are Warren Mundine, Justice Ronald Sackville, Professor Sarah Joseph from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, who questioned whether the section in its current form is actually consistent with our international human rights obligations to protect freedom of speech.
Updated
Second government question is on the “power crisis” to Barnaby Joyce.
The first government question was on energy and Snowy Hydro, presumably a more popular topic to push for the government than 18C changes.
Labor’s Anne Aly to Malcolm Turnbull: the prime minister has claimed today’s changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act are about increasing freedom of speech. What forms of racial speech does the prime minister want people to be able to say that they cannot say right now?
Turnbull says the high court been obliged to define 18C as involving serious effects, not just mere slights.
It is plain that a statute should speak in language that is clear and accurate and what we need – what we have there is a statute whose language creates a pall of insecurity over writers, over students, over cartoonists, because people look at those words and they say, “So that means any insult, any offence, any humiliation, any hurt feelings it prohibited.”
Updated
Turnbull: 18C lost credibility a long time ago
Clearly Malcolm Turnbull always thought the Racial Discrimination Act needed changing, even though before the election, he said it did not.
Section 18C has lost its credibility. It lost it a long time ago. It needs to be reformed and we are putting it in language that does the job. What we are delivering is a stronger and fairer section. A section that will do a better job at protecting Australians against racial vilification.
Shorten to Turnbull: today is Harmony Day. The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Why on today, of all days, has the prime minister chosen to weaken protections against racist hate speech?
Turnbull says we are strengthening the Racial Discrimination Act.
Today we are strengthening the Racial Discrimination Act. We are strengthening it because we are making it clear and we are standing up for freedom of speech.
We are standing up for the freedom of speech that underpins our society, the greatest multicultural society in the world. So, this is the Australia the Labor party believe. They believe that Australia is a nation of racists, only held in check by Gillian Triggs and section 18C.
Updated
Question time coming up at 2pm.
This is a strengthening of the law. Isn’t it George?
Updated
Updated
Lunch time politics
A quick summary:
- Malcolm Turnbull’s government will attempt to remove “insult and offend” from the Racial Discrimination Act and insert the offence of harassment to both enshrine free speech and strengthen racial protections. It is not clear how these two goals will happen simultaneously.
- In defending the Coalition’s changes, Steve Ciobo said it was a small niche of people preoccupied with 18C but the government would get on with making the hard decisions.
- Barnaby Joyce told the joint party room that this debate would cost the government votes because it was not something that was gripping the people of Australia.
- It is Harmony Day, for international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.
Today is #HarmonyDay. Let's celebrate community participation, inclusiveness, diversity, respect and a sense of belonging for everyone. pic.twitter.com/hDXWU1I3hR
— NSW Police (@nswpolice) March 21, 2017
Updated
Mark Dreyfus says some racial complaints will not be able to be made under the proposed changes.
I am predicting that there are forms of racist hate speech which now fall on the wrong side of the line and can give rise to complaints to the Human Rights Commission, and if they are not resolved, complaints to the federal circuit court or the federal court of Australia. Complaints that can now be made will now not be able to be made because they are seen as insufficiently serious.
Q: Like what? You say you predict it? Like what?
It is not for me to give specific examples.
Updated
I am having trouble with the prime minister’s logic on 18C.
The Coalition has to change the Racial Discrimination Act because free speech is restricted.
The Coalition has come up with a change – remove insult and offend and insert harassment – to enshrine more free speech.
But it will make racial protections stronger – in other words it will be more likely to catch racist speech.
Am I missing something?
Updated
Tony Burke:
In every school in Australia at moment, there are children, many of them wearing orange, celebrating harmony and being taught about respect. And here in Canberra, we have a government wanting to give permission for more racial hate speech. Yesterday, this government released its multicultural policy. It didn’t even survive 24 hours before they walked all over it.
Labor shadow attorney Mark Dreyfus says Malcolm Turnbull’s 18C change is not a strengthening of the law, it is a weakening of the law.
It is the first time I have ever seen law reform in this country being conducted with reference to claims [QUT and Bill Leak] which have failed. Claims which have failed to meet the standards we’ve set in the law.
Updated
Katharine Murphy has done a round up on 18C, drawing together all of the elements that we know so far.
The Turnbull government will press ahead with an overhaul of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act despite explicit warnings from party moderates and ministers that the change will cost the government politically in marginal seats.
After debate in the Coalition party room on Tuesday, in which the former prime minister Tony Abbott congratulated Malcolm Turnbull for pursuing reform, and the Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, expressed his view that overhauling 18C really wasn’t a priority – the government resolved to press ahead with both legislative change and procedural change.
Five moderates spoke against changing the RDA – New South Wales Liberals David Coleman, Julian Leeser, and Craig Laundy, and Victorians, Julia Banks and Russell Broadbent – but all resolved to stand behind the new policy.
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the minister for international development and the Pacific, warned the party room the decision would hurt the government in ethnic communities. She said Labor would mount an aggressive campaign attacking the Coalition, a campaign the government would need to counter.
George Brandis says harass is more powerful language than insult and offend
George Brandis says most other countries have “harass” as proscribed language.
Harassment is a more powerful language. There is no country in the world that has “offend, insult, humiliate”, as the terms, the prohibited conduct. But almost every country in the world, or every like-minded country, that has protections against vilification, uses the term “harass” as one of the proscribed types of conduct.
Yet, for unexplained reasons, that was missed when this legislation was passed in 1995. Although, as I said in my opening remarks, the recommendation was that it should be part of the law. It wasn’t. We are correcting a gap in the law.
Malcolm Turnbull: 'We are strengthening the race hate laws'
So if the law passes, we will be allowed to insult and offend but not harass, intimidate and humiliate.
Paul Osborne of AAP asks: Australia is making a bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. What’s your message to people who say – well, why should Australia have such a seat if you’re watering down race hate laws?
Turnbull:
I absolutely reject the premise of your question. We are strengthening the race hate laws. These are stronger laws, more effective laws because they are clearer laws. We are strengthening the Racial Discrimination Act. We are strengthening it because it’s clearer, it will be a more effective protection against race hate. As far as international commitments, I can say, and George will explain, there has been concern that the generality of the language in 18C may, in fact, create issues of that kind.
Updated
Paul Karp has another try but is again rebuffed by the prime minister.
Q: Are we going to have a plebiscite on 18C? It is a contentious social reform ... Why are elites allowed to have this but same-sex marriage is going to be done by a popular vote?
Thank you for the editorial.
Turnbull takes the next question.
Updated
Turnbull says the law will be changed to provide better protection and not “mere slights”.
From Andrew Probyn: You referred to a very small slight. Isn’t this the point that a rich white guy who refers to something as “very small slight” might not understand what other people feel? And secondly, just on the QUT case and the Bill Leak case, they could have both been dealt with with proper process, couldn’t they?
Well, an improvement to the process of the kind we proposed, we are proposing, would certainly result in a better processing. But nonetheless, the language has been the subject of extensive criticism both from leading legal professionals, from leaders from the left and the right. The language itself is very general and does not strike the right balance between protecting people from racial vilification and free speech.
Malcolm Turnbull says of his previous statements not to change 18C, he says the QUT case and the Bill Leak case had changed the circumstances.
The bill will be introduced into the Senate first.
Updated
The first question:
What do you say to a black person or an Asian person who is experiencing racism? What do say to them when they hear the removal of these words?
The new language will better and more clearly protect people from racial vilification and in a more generic term, from harassment or intimidation, because the language is clearer.
George Brandis says they will introduce harassment to the Racial Discrimination Act.
The HRC president will have to make a preliminary assessment on a complaint over its substance before it goes to formal inquiry.
There will be a requirement that a complaint be lodged within six months of the conduct complained of and an obligation on the commission to use best endeavours to resolve complaints within 12 months of a complaint being filed.
Malcolm Turnbull: we are defending Australians from racial vilification with a stronger fairer law
The prime minister is speaking now.
We are defending Australians from racial vilification by replacing language which has lost credibility. It has lost the credibility that a good law needs and so 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.
We are also amending the law so as to ensure that the Human Rights Commission will offer procedural fairness, will deal with cases promptly and swiftly and fairly, and that’s very important too. We need to restore confidence to the Racial Discrimination Act and to the Human Rights Commission’s administration of it.
Updated
Labor’s Julie Collins has welcomed the appointment Julia Gillard as Chair of Beyondblue.
Ms Gillard brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to her role as Chair given the commitment she made to driving mental health reform during her time as Prime Minister.
There is no doubt Ms Gillard will be a champion for people living with mental illness and her appointment as Chair will ensure the mental health of all Australians continues to be a national priority.
It should be underlined (or highlighted) that the legal definitions of “insult” and “offend” in 18C are different to the pub meanings.
Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act: The legal meaning of "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" #Auspol pic.twitter.com/hR2XBUkXWI
— Graham Perrett (@GrahamPerrettMP) March 20, 2017
Malcolm Turnbull and George Brandis have a press conference at 12.50pm. This will explain aforementioned 18C changes.
We understand it is remove insult and offend, add harass, but that has not been confirmed anywhere by government.
Updated
Meanwhile:
The World Meteorological Organisation warns the record-breaking heat that made 2016 the hottest year ever recorded has continued into 2017, pushing the world into “truly uncharted territory”.
Eric Abetz is cockahoop about the planned changes to 18C.
He is reminding all the Johnny-come-latelys to free speech that he has been a long-time advocate of reforming section 18C.
Abetz says he advocated for change dating as far back as 2011 and announced in 2015 that he would cross the floor on the issue.
These common-sense reforms will go a long way to ensuring that Australians can engage in free speech while maintaining protections against racially motivated harassment and intimidation.”
I am also pleased that the Government will rein in the Australian Human Rights Commission which has morphed into self-appointed thought police.”
OK more briefings from joint party room.
According to another MP, Barnaby Joyce’s speech suggested that amending 18C was not a priority for the government. That sounds more like his public stance, that people are not raising this with him.
Amongst the Libs, the debate consisted of those in more ethnically diverse seats raising concerns including:
- David Coleman (Banks, NSW)
- Craig Laundy (Reid, NSW)
- Julian Leeser (Berowra, NSW)
- Julia Banks (Chisholm, Victoria)
And also Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Victoria) who is in a regional seat.
Here is Homebush West public school in Liberal MP Craig Laundy’s seat of Reid, via the state member Labor member Jodi McKay.
18C revolt sounds muted in Lib party room. MPs say "Usual suspects" Lesser Craig Laundy Coleman Alexander but otherwise strongly supported
— Samantha Maiden (@samanthamaiden) March 21, 2017
If the Coalition has little chance of getting the 18C amendments through the Senate, this is all academic and the government will have to live with changes to Human Rights Commission process as the Liberal moderates have been saying all along.
In the meantime, as Joyce said, a fair proportion of voters will be mightily cranky about the debate.
An incredible strategy, if you think about it.
Updated
Senate numbers and 18C
Let’s revise the Senate numbers again in the frame of the 18C debate.
The Senate normally has 76 seats
There are currently 75 due to the vacancy of Family First Bob Day.
The majority required for legislation under those circumstances is 38.
These are the numbers:
- Coalition 29
- ALP 26
- Greens 9
- Pauline Hanson 4 (even though Cullen’s replacement Peter Georgiou is yet to sit, he is paired)
- Nick Xenophon 3
- Jacqui Lambie
- Derryn Hinch
- David Leyonhjelm
-
Cory Bernardi
If Labor and the Greens oppose any legislation, the government needs both Hanson and Xenophon and two of the four single senators.
Xenophon has said many times that he might consider procedural changes to the Human Rights Commission so give that a try first. He told the ABC today:
Let’s improve the processes. Let’s get rid of those frivolous and some would say vexatious claims by improving the process and then we can then look down the track, if there are still problems in respect of the wording.
But there is strong feedback from communities, from a whole range of ethnic communities, from the Jewish communities, Islamic communities around the country are saying “keep it as it is”. But reforming the process seems to be the priority.
Updated
So the National party are pulling up the Liberal party on race issues. This is no mean feat for Barnaby Joyce, given the threat the National party faces from One Nation in rural and regional areas. As Liberal conservatives have been pointing their spears in recent weeks, Joyce has been reminding all and sundry that this is not the stuff they are talking about in farm sheds in north Queensland.
Meanwhile deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce has told the joint party room the move to amend 18C is really dumb and it will lose the Coalition votes.
Updated
Remembering that Tony Abbott had dropped the changes, Abbott could not bring himself to give a fulsome congrats to Turnbull. He suggested circumstances had changed to essentially make it easier for Malcolm.
The Coalition party room meeting continues but I have confirmed Tony Abbott has congratulated Malcolm Turnbull for moving on amending 18C.
The Matt Hatter picks up on the broken promise point regarding 18C (no plans to change) and marriage plebiscite.
@gabriellechan 🗻Hi🌅 No parlt'y vote on gay marriage as the govt said it wouldn't, but 18c can be changed as the govt said it wouldn't. Goodo pic.twitter.com/ed65VE2XnO
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) March 20, 2017
Guardian Essential’s latest survey has also found that 75% of Australians polled like a gas reservation policy. Katharine Murphy reports:
An overwhelming majority of voters would support the Turnbull government if it implemented a reservation policy where a percentage of Australian gas is held back from being exported and quarantined for domestic use.
The latest Guardian Essential poll shows 75% of the survey supports a reservation policy, with the strongest support registered among Coalition voters.
The federal resources and energy ministers have, until very recently, expressed public opposition to a reservation policy, but that opposition has softened in recent weeks as concerns have escalated about looming energy shortages because of insufficient supplies of gas.
(You could have knocked me down with a feather.)
The other thing is the lower house is currently debating the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, known in common parlance as the Google tax.
The bill imposes a diverted profits tax at a rate of 40% on the amount of “a significant global entity’s diverted profits”. We are talking companies with an income of more than $1bn.
The Senate economics legislation committee has backed the suggestion of a great big new tax on multinationals when it released its report last night.
Paul Karp reported that the committee found that a penalty rate of tax on profits diverted overseas would encourage then to comply with the tax system and should not be watered down.
The power should not be a “last resort”, for use only when all other tax powers had been exhausted, the committee examining the proposal said.
The joint report, tabled on Monday, was supported by the Coalition, Labor and Nick Xenophon, although Labor suggested the scheme did not go far enough.
The Minerals Council is not happy.
The Minerals Council submitted the commissioner’s ability to issue an assessment was “harsh and without precedent”, giving “extraordinary new powers to the ATO without adequate oversight”.
Just a few interesting things from late night news.
Immigration minister Peter Dutton has a few competing interests in his electorate of Dickson. On the one hand, One Nation is poking him with a stick and on the other, anti-mining peeps are suggesting any subsidies should go towards renewables. And it is not out of the realms that there is a crossover between the two groups, if you think about Adani in terms of a foreign company.
Most voters in Peter Dutton’s electorate oppose taxpayer subsidies for the Adani coalmine and more would prefer the government to fund renewable energy rather than coal-fired power plants, a poll has found.
The ReachTel poll of Dickson, commissioned by the Australia Institute, found that, even among Liberal National party voters, more opposed spending taxpayer funds on new coal-powered plants than supported it.
The poll also shows a large One Nation primary vote in the seat (16.8%).
Updated
Let me take a brief trivial excursion to a Daily Tele story our social services minister.
Social Services Minister Christian Porter 's hilarious self-portrait’ for Cleo magazine, aged 28. https://t.co/0tYf4nihRa pic.twitter.com/ewIZXMlwg0
— The Daily Telegraph (@dailytelegraph) March 20, 2017
Perfectly spherical in face, dark-eyed and with tiny arms, Mr Porter’s stick figure self-portrait was unremarkable — except for one astonishing feature that suggests Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet has a remarkably well-endowed member.
Taking time out yesterday from negotiating the passage of the government’s omnibus bill, Mr Porter told the Daily Telegraph: “It was a long time ago, but I recall having to submit a self-portrait. I’m not much of an artist — and, yes, there was a lot of wishful thinking in that picture.”
In the 1999 list of Australia’s most eligible bachelors, Mr Porter was in the esteemed company of many prominent and wealthy Australians including James Packer and Justin Hemmes.
Perhaps that was what led him to overstate his wedding tackle credentials. Or maybe with a name like “Porter” he just wanted to brag about how much luggage he has to carry — as well as the size of his trunk.
I make no comment.
Updated
Liberal MP Craig Laundy blames the conservative media for whipping up 18c
The moderate Liberals are fighting a rearguard action. Liberal MP Craig Laundy, who also has a very diverse seat in Sydney, has been speaking out against any changes.
Laundy’s seat is one of the most ethnically diverse in Australia, with high populations of Australians from backgrounds including Chinese, Greek, Indian, Korean and Italian.
But Laundy says this is not about votes for him and he did fight the changes from the original proposal first proposed by Tony Abbott and George Brandis in 2013. He told Fran Kelly:
This isn’t an issue of votes for me, never has been. Four generations of my family have called Reid home. We have watched it change, amazingly and for the better. I am pragmatic and sensitive to the issues people face. This is a matter of principle, not being re-elected.
Laundy says talk about things that matter to the population. He says the bump in the polls last week occurred because the government was talking about energy policy and the Snowy Hydro scheme. Stick to your knitting.
While he acknowledged 18C was a preoccupation of some in his party room, he also blamed the conservative media for the current debate.
Yes there is an element of my party that have an issue with this but there is a far bigger element in the conservative media that run this and make it a front page issue at times and that is when I have it raised with me from people that are concerned with changes.
He also laid blame at the feet of Tony Abbott, who dumped the changes on the basis that he had to negotiate with the Muslim community over national security changes.
Former prime minister Abbott I think did the discussion a great disservice when he stated that one of the reasons he was walking away from changing 18C was to appease the Muslim community.
Now the major drama is, Islam is not a race. It is a religion. And you only have to look at comments from people like Ross Cameron and others to know that you can speak and bag Muslims all you want with no fear of repercussion. This was an issue of the day with race and that got missed and blended into a problem that some conservative commentators conflated or brought together with their questions about radical Islam.
He said that this time around, the debate is about process, after the Bill Leak case. He said the case against Leak should have been knocked out immediately, given the provision of 18D. He said costs were racked up and that should not have happened. Laundy is in favour of a change of process but not the law.
The process should be such that if Bill Leak’s case had come to the commission at nine in the morning it should have been knocked out by two minutes past nine.
Updated
Rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs has welcomed the (unsighted) proposed change. The IPA have been pushing for this for a long time and when former deputy director senator James Paterson moved into the Senate for the Liberal party, it had the voice on the inside as well as on the outside.
John Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, has welcomed any proposal to replace the words “offend” and “insult” in section 18C with the word “harass”.
This is an important step towards restoring freedom of speech in Australia. However, only the full repeal of 18C will guarantee this fundamental human right.
Section 18C in any form is a restriction on freedom of speech that chills public debate and damages social cohesion.
The definition of words like ‘harass’ are mired in uncertainty. We would predict that even under the government’s proposal, problems would still emerge in the future.”
Updated
Steve Ciobo on 18C: a small niche of people really preoccupied by this
Trade minister Steve Ciobo is talking to Kieran Gilbert on Sky. He starts with a fan dance on whether the government is removing “insult” and “offend” from the Act.
I’m getting whiplash listening to the key messages.
- Ciobo says any changes will make the law work better.
- But this is a minor issue for a niche group of people (in his party room).
- He would rather be talking about issues that resonate with Australians (this does not).
Which seems to be conflicting.
Gilbert makes the point that chief justice Susan Kiefel said there was a tougher test for “insult” and “offend” than the words would suggest. What about changes to the process instead?
Ciobo:
There’s scope to look at both reform in relation to the actual section 18C but also reform in relation to how that actual process works with the Human Rights Commission as well.
We effectively want to take it from being about hurt feelings to harm. So it’s a tougher law. It’s a better law. And it’s a fairer law.
So the government is definitely changing the law rather than process.
Then Ciobo bells the cat on whether this issue is gripping the Australian people.
I would love to have spent this amount of time talking about something that actually really resonates with Australian people, in terms of unemployment, in terms of economic growth, in terms of job prospects, in terms of trade. It’s actually what exercises my mind.
And how many people actually care about it.
These are not the issues that I focus on. These are not the issues that I believe Australians focus on. It tends to be a small niche of people that are really preoccupied by this but you know what Aussies care about. They want to know about their job security. they want to know about their wages. they want to know about their ability for their kids to get a good education.
Then Gilbert notes that Plibersek just said exactly the same thing.
This is going to be something we are going to deal with because we are not afraid to make hard decisions ...
Updated
Tony Burke on 18C: if you are the woman abused, this is no small matter
Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek has been out early, reminding people that there is a significant unemployment and under-employment problem, education and childcare issues to fix. Her tone and words are along the lines of “what the hell are you people thinking if this is the most important thing etc etc”.
Tony Burke, who represents the very diverse seat in Sydney of Watson which takes in Lakemba and Punchbowl, said get a grip, people.
There is a discussion where people say this isn’t the biggest issue. And for most people it’s not. But if you’re the woman who gets racially abused on the way home when you’re catching public transport just keeping to yourself, it’s not a small matter. If you’re the child that comes home shaking after your parents have been abused and racially insulted in a shopping centre, it’s not just a minor matter.
And I cannot fathom what sort of extreme members we have in this parliament when for all the people you could defend, for all the so-called victims that you could go out and try to help, they look at a situation of racial abuse and say, its the abuser who is the victim. That is the person whose cause we need to champion, that’s the person who we need to help.
Under any changes of the Racial Discrimination Act, no matter how they say what words they delete and what words they insert, its about permitting more than is permitted now.
Updated
Today’s Guardian Essential poll, reported by Katharine Murphy, has found Labor pulling ahead of the Coalition. But the interesting point is on perceptions of a divided Liberal party.
Labor has pulled 10 points ahead of the Coalition, and there has been a significant rise in voter perceptions that the Liberals federally are divided, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll.
As the government prepares to bring heavily contested changes to the Racial Discrimination Act to the Coalition party room on Tuesday, the new opinion survey puts Labor well ahead of the Coalition on a two-party preferred basis, 55% to 45%.
The latest poll also charts a 16% increase in voter perceptions that the Liberals are “divided” [to 68%] since that question was last asked in June 2016, just before last year’s federal election.
Voters are also more inclined than they were last June to characterise the government as being “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, “out of touch with ordinary people” and “will promise to do anything to win votes”.
Barnaby Joyce: I don’t get pursued by people up and down the street by people talking about 18C.
Of course Malcolm Turnbull ruled out any changes to section 18C before and after the election.
Before the election in February 2016:
Q: Do you believe that 18c in the Racial Discrimination Act strikes the right balance?
Turnbull:
Well, it is, there are no plans to change it, so no plans to change it.
After the election in August 2016:
The government has no plans to change 18C, we have other, much more pressing priorities to address and they include big economic reforms.
Last night, Barnaby Joyce warned reporters to check their sources and has told the ABC again there is no great clamour for change in the electorate.
I always love to hear rumours about a cabinet meeting which I’ve just left and I’d say, check your sources, check them hard. Because they were all still there when I walked out the door.
18C? There’s been a committee. It’s made a report. We’ve read the report. No doubt something we’ve brought to the joint party room in due course, I imagine tomorrow. But there’s all of the reports about a massive split. That’s a load of rubbish. I can’t understand how these reports get legs when I was actually in the room and what they say is just wrong.
I don’t get pursued by people up and down the street by people talking about 18C.
Updated
Good morning blogans,
Welcome to 21 March, the United Nations international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I kid you not. The theme this year is “racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration”:
Every person is entitled to human rights without discrimination. The rights to equality and non-discrimination are cornerstones of human rights law. Yet in many parts of the world, discriminatory practices are still widespread, including racial, ethnic, religious and nationality based profiling, and incitement to hatred.
In Australia last night, cabinet met to discuss the vexed issue of section 18C (sans 18D) of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The Australian, which has been campaigning to change the law, suggests that cabinet favours the Right’s proposal going the Full Monty - that is, remove the words “insult” and “offend”.
The Australian has learned that a major sticking point was the offence of “humiliate” within the act, which several senior MPs who are backing change argued would be politically difficult to remove.
The government is not confirming these reports and any change first has to get through the party room.
This is what these two sections say:
Section 18C: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
Katharine Murphy reported yesterday that Liberal moderates like Russell Broadbent and Craig Laundy are opposed to the change and prefer a process change which would stop vexatious claims earlier.
The Coalition party room will meet this morning and we expect a briefing around midday.
It is going to be a rocky road today. Keep calm and carry on. Or out the door. Speak to me in the thread, on the Twits @gabriellechan and @mpbowers or on Facebook.
Updated
