28 November 2024

Anti-racism plan launched moments after racist accusations thrown across the Senate

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
53

FECCA CEO Mary Ann Geronimo, Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman and Chair of FECCA Peter Doukas launching the anti-racism framework at Parliament House. Photo: James Day.

Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman has launched what he is describing as the most comprehensive plan Australia has ever seen for eliminating racism across the nation.

With 63 recommendations for a whole-of-society approach to the issue, the plan proposes reforms across Australia’s legal, justice, health, education, media and arts sectors.

A key recommendation calls on the Federal Government to establish a Federal Government to establish a National Anti-Racism Taskforce to introduce a dedicated strategy for eliminating racism experienced by First Nations peoples.

The National Anti-Racism Framework calls for action to improve the national understanding of racism in order to inform the implementation of all anti-racism initiatives, programs and policies.

Commissioner Sivaraman discussed the plan during a launch event at Parliament House on Wednesday (27 November).

“This is a historic moment in the fight against racism. For the first time, we have a comprehensive plan for eliminating racism in Australia,” he said.

“Racism diminishes a person’s sense of self and corrodes one’s soul. In doing so, it corrodes the soul of our nation.

“We all want to live in a world where everyone can thrive in ways that are important to them, regardless of their identity. Here in Australia, we like to think we’re the land of the fair go, but the reality is very different for many people who are affected by racism.”

READ ALSO Labor has much-needed win on housing policy

The Australian Human Rights Commission developed the framework with dedicated funding from the Federal Government and follows three years of extensive consultations with community organisations, service providers, government agencies and other stakeholders

It seeks to provide a roadmap for all levels of government, business and community organisations to address all forms of racism.

“Throughout our consultation process, we heard consistently from First Nations and other negatively racialised people that systemic racism is deeply embedded throughout Australia and requires an urgent national response,” the Commissioner said.

“The racism that history has baked into our systems and institutions means many negatively racialised people in Australia – especially First Nations people – have poor health, education and employment outcomes, are over-represented in the justice system and are negatively represented in the media.

“With alarming rises in racist behaviour during recent times, we’re at a critical juncture in the journey to address racism in Australia. Interpersonal racism is one symptom of the disease of systemic racism.

“Even if you don’t see that symptom, the disease still causes much damage across people’s lives and needs to be treated.”

Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) chair Peter Doukas and chief executive officer Mary Ann Geronimo also attended the Parliament House event.

“Australia prides itself on being a successful multicultural nation. However, it is important to recognise that embracing multiculturalism does not mitigate the issue of racism,” Mr Doukas said.

“In fact, in highly culturally diverse societies like Australia, it’s vital we all work together to ensure we translate support for multiculturalism into genuine equity and inclusivity for all.

“The National Anti-Racism Framework is a guide for delivering a society that works for everyone and implementing its recommendations should be a priority for governments, businesses and communities across our country.”

READ ALSO Labor dumps misinformation bill and more as last week of parliament begins

Just moments before the launch event, and just a few steps away, the Senate burst into uproar over racism claims, with independent Senator Fatima Payman accusing One Nation leader Pauline Hanson of “vile racism” in the chamber.

It was in response to Senator Hanson questioning whether Senator Payman was eligible to be an Australian senator due to her Afghan citizenship.

The One Nation leader raised a motion seeking to determine whether Senator Payman should be excluded from parliament under Section 44c of the Constitution.

Senator Payman has taken all possible steps to denounce her Afghan citizenship but has been thwarted by that nation’s Taliban rule and, therefore, qualifies to be a federal parliamentarian in Australia.

Senator Payman was outraged at the questioning and repeatedly accused Senator Hanson of racism and was repeatedly forced to withdraw the comments.

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe tore up Senator Hanson’s motion and threw the torn papers at her.

Senator Thorpe was later suspended from the Senate for her actions.

Earlier in the day, she and Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi moved a motion to investigate racism in the Federal Parliament.

“We’re calling on the parliament, on the senators, to support our inquiry to ensure our workplace is a safe one and we don’t have to deal with disgusting racism every time we open our mouths in our workplace,” Senator Thorpe said.

That motion failed.

Join the conversation

53
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The only people still capitalizing on “systemic racism” are the people who are either signalling obsequiousness to prevailing professional-managerial class ideology, or/and are benefitting financially or status-wise from it. On the whole, it’s a particular framing that, despite its vicious policing, is beginning to lose its power as its excesses and intellectual failings become clear.

Systematic racism is still a thing. Word salad doesn’t make it go away.

Yes, the anti-Semitism displayed and promoted by Senator Thorpe, Senator Payman, and Senator Mehreen Faruqi is disgusting. Glad you agree! And I am sure you would be outraged at the bullying behaviour and intimation by Snator Thorpe, Senator Payman and Senator Mehreen Faruqi towards Senator Pauline Hansen. I could just imagine the reaction from the left if a male conservative politician carried on like that towards a female politician. But of course, because this behaviour is directed towards a conservative female politician; apparently there is nothing to see here.

Once again this is a logical fallacy as well as a complete load of BS. I would bet quids this concern about anti-semitism, for which there should be no place in Australia, doesn’t go beyond aiming barbs at people you don’t like.

Name one universally accepted positive contribution to the public good that career politician Pauline Hanson has made. I’ll wait.

She made the Government of the day stop the boats!

I didn’t ask for right-wing slogans.

I asked for one example of Pauline Hanson as a career politician having a universally accepted achievement for the public good.

Most career politicians have something that they can hang their hats on when they retire. Pauline Hanson has nothing.

“Most”, eh? You’ll have your work cut out to substantiate that adequately.

Seano is right. She hasn’t. However, ‘universally accepted’ is an impossibly high standard. I doubt that a single politician has ever achieved this.

Not really champ. Most is more than 50% and few have been in politics as long as Hanson.

Howard gun control, Gillard, first female PM/NDIS, Turnbull Free Trade etc.

I see Hanson has nothing.

It’s all in the slightly aggressive use of “champ” — your favourite bully put-down when you can’t defend your opinion, is it?

Fair call @BSC happy to say “generally” or “widely” accepted.

So gun control would be an example with Howard.

Hanson would struggle to find anything concrete that could be described as an achievement.

Rusty, Champ…you still haven’t come up with a positive contribution that Pauline Hanson has made. I’m not the one who can’t defend an opinion here.

PS. A Pauline Hanson supporter calling anyone a “bully” is laugh-out-loud funny although the victimhood is on point.

So what exactly is a positive contribution that Senator Thorpe, Senator Payman or Senator Faruqi have made? Besides bringing their racism, including their vile anti-Semitism into the Federal Parliament.

And in comes the brain’s trust with the logical fallacy. Calling out Hanson is not a defensive of anyone else.

PS. Neither of your misdirections are career politicians with nearly 3 decades in politics (and thankfully Thorpe will be gone soon, it’s a shame we can’t say the same about Hanson).

PS. There is still not one example of a positive contribution that Pauline Hanson has made. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Capital Retro1:33 pm 28 Nov 24

“Senator Payman has taken all possible steps to denounce her Afghan citizenship but has been thwarted by that nation’s Taliban rule and, therefore, qualifies to be a federal parliamentarian in Australia.”

If this is true, why does she still wear the garb that she would have to wear if she were still in Afghanistan or is she still wearing it to support her identity politics?

Hi Capital Retro, I assume you’ve asked a genuine question and are just unaware of conditions for women right now in Afghanistan. Afghan women are forced to wear a burqa and be completely covered, including covering their faces, in public. There are other humiliating restrictions, too many to mention here, but including not being allowed to freely associate in public and having to be always accompanied by a member of the opposite sex. As you would understand, this would make life pretty intolerable.

On the other hand, Senator Payman wears a hijab, which is basically a head scarf and, most importantly, is worn by choice by Muslim women and not all Muslim women choose to wear a hijab – just like some Christians wear a crucifix and some Jewish people wear a star of David or a yarmulke to signify their beliefs.
I hope this answer helps you in your quest for understanding.

“Senator Payman has taken all possible steps to denounce her Afghan citizenship but has been thwarted by that nation’s Taliban rule and, therefore, qualifies to be a federal parliamentarian in Australia.”

Who says all possible steps have been taken, the Senator herself, some Labor party lawyer, or an independent court. During the 2017 citizenship debacle, 15 federal parliamentarians had to resign, many after their particular situation had been considered by the High Court. A ruling from the High Court is required in these difficult cases.

@nobody
“Who says all possible steps have been taken, the Senator herself, some Labor party lawyer, or an independent court”
The decision on whether or not to refer Payman’s “citizenship” to the High Court rests with the Senate. A Senate motion from Pauline Hanson to formally refer Payman’s citizenship for investigation was resoundingly defeated, 35-3. Only Hanson, party colleague Malcolm Roberts, and UAP’s Ralph Babet (no surprises with those 3) voted for it, while Labor, the Greens, the Coalition and other crossbench members voted against.

The question was put. It was “resoundingly” defeated. Case closed. Move on.

The Senate didn’t decide all possible steps had been taken, they just voted to not have the issue tested.

Professor Anne Twoney covered this case back in July, stating it’s unclear how the High Court would rule.

35-3, our Senates shrunk. I’d say the vast majority didn’t give a rats so didn’t turn up.

It was defeated by people who are not qualified to make such a determination, I think is the argument being made. It’s a fair point. The High Court is really the only place with people qualified to make the determination. It probably should have been referred if there was any doubt at all, which there clearly is. The High Court wouldn’t hear it if they found it had no basis.

@Elf
Exactly, Elf – a non-iisue, but those who did turn up overwhelmingly told Hanson exactly where to shove her racism.

@Ken M
It went through the democratic process and the motion was found to be unwarranted … that’s how democracy works. Sounds like Seano is right – perhaps you would be happier in Russia.

LOL
What a deranged response to a perfectly valid point. It has nothing to do with “democracy”, it’s a legal matter. The senate is not qualified to deal with it. It should be referred to the High Court to decide whether it has any merit. If people qualified to make the determination decide there is no case to be heard, it won’t go any further. The only reason to resist it is fear Hanson is right.

@Ken M
When 18th Century English writer, Samuel Johnson penned his quote: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing – it only hastens fools to rush in where angels fear to tread”, he would not have known that he was describing you perfectly.

You obviously have no idea of the process whereby the High Court gets involved in Constitutional questions relating to politicians and their eligibility re dual citizenship. But of course, that doesn’t stop you, from arming yourself with ignorance, and coming out with all guns blazing.

In the 2017, the High Court was involved in what became known, by the media, as the “Citizenship seven” rulings. There were 7 MPs were to the court, by the house in which they were sitting (6 by the Senate, 1 by the House of Reps), to determine whether or not they were eligible to contest the 2016 election under S44 of the Constitution. The High Court determined that 5 of the MPs (4 Senators, and 1 HoR member) did not meet the citizenship requirement under S44 and were ineligible to stand. This resulted in a by-election for the HoR seat, and recounts for the 4 Senate positions to determine their “replacements”.

In determining the fate of the Citizenship Seven, the High Court ruled that to be eligible to contest a federal election, a candidate need only take all the reasonable steps within their power to renounce the foreign nationality prior to the nomination date, even if the formal renunciation did not happen until after that date.

Just in case you missed it above, let me reiterate for you – the relevant house of parliament referred the question of eligibility to the High Court. Earlier this week, Hanson (as is her right) questionned whether Payne took ‘reasonable steps’ to renounce her Afghani citizenship. The Senate, overwhelmingly determined (as stated, 33 votes to 3), that Payman did take reasonable steps, and such, her eligibility did not need to be referred to the High Court for determination.

So, the fact that you believe “The senate is not qualified to deal with it” is not only irrelevant, but absolutely highlights your ignorance – because it is empowered to ‘deal with it’, and has done so.

Again, deranged.

The High Court makes the determination of eligibility, as they did in 2017. If there is any doubt at all on eligibility, it should be referred to the High Court to determine if “all reasonable steps” were taken.

Why are you so afraid of the matter being heard by the proper authority?

@Ken M
Despite your puerile foot stamping, which is only exceeded by your ignorance, there isn’t any doubt.

I’m not afraid, because the matter has been dealt with by the ‘proper authority’, as per the established process – the same process that was in place in 2017. And that ‘proper authority’? YOUR democratically elected Senate.

The bloke throwing a screeching tantrum because I have suggested that a legal matter be dealt with by a court is accusing me of “foot stamping”. 🤣

Deluded AND deranged. It’s hilarious to watch.

I think it could have been made clearer that the Senate acted within its power, such that no referral to a court is required or appropriate.

Outside parliament, to bring a matter ordinarily requires a brief of evidence to be referred by police to the relevant prosecutor who is empowered to determine whether there is a case and that it is in the public interest to take it to a court. Many accusations do not make it past the front counter or phone line at a local police station, let alone through evidence to the prosecutor and then to a court.

The houses of our parliament are independently self-managing. The Senate acted within its power in not referring Payman’s s44 status to a court, and it is the proper authority to do so.

While it is true that JustSaying could have been clearer by showing the parallel and explaining the legal structure, the facts of the matter are that Ken M has merely expressed an opinion that he sides with One Nation and the UAP in the political minority, about 8% of the Senate as it is of the population. Entitled as he may be to his view, a minority opinion cannot be made up to be a fact.

Ken M
It is not a legal matter … it is a Constitutional matter on which the High Court has made a general ruling. The Senate has followed its process, and considered Paymans’ situation vis-a-vis that ruling (i.e. “all reasonable steps”) and decided she has complied. That you have suggested the outcome should have been different is irrelevant.

Calling you ignorant and puerile is not a screeching tantrum – it’s just a statement of the reality. I know you find it challenging, but perhaps you can actually try presenting an argument, as to why Payman’s situation should have been referred to the High Court by the Senate.

Given your track record, for not being able to present anything remotely resembling a reasoned and logical argument, I won’t hold my breath

When you call Ken ignorant and puerile, you say more about yourself than you do about him. His language in this thread has been far more mature. Right or wrong, I give him credit for that

@BSC
Oh right – labelling comments “deranged” is very mature is it? Perhaps you need to actually read comments to avoid erroneous conclusions.

You could only (somewhat) achieve this with a digital gulag surveillance state 15-minute type city where everything everyone says, does or thinks is regulated and tracked and traced for compliance. Climate change goes hand in glove with this, too.

The foundations for it all started being laid long ago, but it hasn’t been until more recently that they’ve really started to take shape (such as in age verification for social media use, digital IDs, mis and disinformation bills, laws to protect people from hurt feelings, political correctness, working from home, living more and more online, and the gradual phasing out of cash).

People who don’t believe this believe instead that the most wealthy and powerful people in the world meet regularly in secrecy for the benefit of the average person.

You will never remove in-group preference.

These things just tend to be “special treatment for people who aren’t white” in any case, and have very little to do with “eliminating racism”.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.