Gillian Triggs backs calls to reform section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act

Malcolm Turnbull confirms plans to set up a far-reaching joint parliamentary inquiry into free speech.

Professor Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, has backed calls to reform section 18C by replacing the words “offend” and “insult” with “vilify”. Picture: Kym Smith

Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed plans to set up a far-reaching inquiry into free speech amid a vigorous Coalition debate on how to change Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Mr Turnbull and Attorney-General George Brandis will set up the joint parliamentary inquiry with the aim of receiving a report at the end of February on potential reforms.

In a Coalition party room meeting that saw 19 MPs, including the Prime Minister, debate the reform options, some Liberals argued for process changes at the Australian Human Rights Commission rather than amendments to Section 18C.

Mr Turnbull acknowledged the case for amendments by citing a comment by commission president Gillian Triggs supporting change to 18C and the inclusion of a clearer power over racial vilification.

The joint parliamentary committee on human rights is chaired by Liberal MP Ian Goodenough, who supports change to 18C. Terms of reference for the inquiry will include looking at whether section 18C and 18D impose unreasonable limitation on freedom of speech and, if so, how they should be reformed.

The HRC’s complaints handling procedure will also be scrutinised to ensure vexatious and frivolous claims are eliminated at an early stage.

“It will examine ways to ensure that complaints are dealt with in an open and transparent way, without unreasonable delay, and in a manner which ensures those subject to complaints are afforded natural justice,” Senator Brandis said.

“It is important that Australia strikes the right balance between laws which protect social harmony and mutual respect, and the fundamental democratic value of freedom of speech … Equally, it is important that the machinery for human rights protection in Australia operates in such a way as to ensure procedural fairness, and that it cannot be used as a vehicle for vexatious complaints.”

Liberals including David Coleman, Julian Leeser and John Alexander told the Coalition meeting that the best way to fix the problem was to change the process of making complaints to the commission.

But Liberal Senator James Paterson told the meeting that Professor Triggs had made it clear, in an interview on ABC TV on Monday night, that she thought the contentious complaint against three Queensland University of Technology students had been a complaint with substance even though it was rejected by the Federal Circuit Court last Friday.

Senator Paterson argued that Professor Triggs’ comments showed a change to the law was needed.

Bill Shorten criticised Mr Turnbull for once saying 18C was not a priority but later being dragged “kicking and screaming” by conservatives to do something about it.

“How many new jobs will be created by amending Section 18C? How will it help protect our AAA credit rating by amending Section 18C?” Mr Shorten asked.

Professor Triggs this morning backed calls to reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by replacing the words “offend” and “insult” with “vilify”, saying the change would only “strengthen” the law.

As the Coalition partyroom met, Professor Triggs threw her support behind the inquiry if it recommended changes to 18C that made it stronger and clearer.

It is illegal under 18C to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person because of their race.

“There’s always ambiguity about what you mean by offending and insulting,” she said on ABC radio.

“The bar for the federal circuit court and general federal court has always been very high on this question. No mere slight will constitute a breach of 18C (but) the way the commission deals with matters is at a much lower level and that is why we’d like to see reform there.

“We’re open to seeing what the inquiry might suggest — whether the language could be clarified and in our view strengthened that enables us to support the multicultural society that we are.”

Asked if she thought the clause could be made stronger by replacing “offend” and “insult” with “vilify”, Professor Triggs said: “I would see that as a strengthening, it could be a very useful thing to do.”

The embattled president, who is facing calls from some Coalition MPs to resign for giving misleading evidence to a Senate estimates hearing, declared Malcolm Turnbull had been “misadvised” and was “wrong” about the commission’s role after he warned its credibility and reputation had been threatened by bringing a case against three Queensland University of Technology students.

The case was thrown out of the federal circuit court on Friday after judge Michael Jarrett ruled the students had no case to ­answer in response to a $250,000 compensation claim by indigenous staffer Cindy Prior over comments they made in May 2013 on Facebook.

“The commission never prosecutes, never brings a case, never pursues any matter. Once we have declared that the parties cannot conciliate the matter we will terminate it and that was done about 15 or 16 months ago (for the QUT case),” she said.

“So we had nothing whatever to do with the federal circuit court and indeed contrary to the Prime Minister’s statement, the federal district court said nothing whatever about the Human Rights Commission or its role.

Professor Triggs denied being a “political person”, saying she had never been a member of a political party or sought public attention.

This morning, Cabinet minister Steven Ciobo said a lot of people were “very frustrated” by Professor Triggs because there appeared to be a “pattern of deceptiveness” about the way in which the HRC conducted itself.

“Only yesterday she made remarks that said that they were obliged, the Human Rights Commission was obliged to investigate this (the QUT case) and couldn’t be dismissive of a false and vexatious claim,” Mr Ciobo told Sky News.

“Well that’s just wrong. Under the Act, they can. The simple fact is this need never have happened.

“The second issue gets to whether or not – one of the pillars of western democracy is about free speech – whether or not insulting or offensive comments are something that should be a matter of the law.”

Terms of reference for the inquiry will include looking at whether section 18C and 18D impose unreasonable limitation on freedom of speech and, if so, how they should be reformed.

The HRC’s complaints handling procedure will also be scrutinised to ensure vexatious and frivolous claims are eliminated at an early stage.

“It will examine ways to ensure that complaints are dealt with in an open and transparent way, without unreasonable delay, and in a manner which ensures those subject to complaints are afforded natural justice,” Senator Brandis said.

“It is important that Australia strikes the right balance between laws which protect social harmony and mutual respect, and the fundamental democratic value of freedom of speech … Equally, it is important that the machinery for human rights protection in Australia operates in such a way as to ensure procedural fairness, and that it cannot be used as a vehicle for vexatious complaints.”