Tim Wilson facing clash with Human Rights Commission colleagues over 'Andrew Bolt' race provisions A CLASH is looming between new freedom commissioner Tim Wilson and his Human Rights Commission colleagues over the removal of controversial "Andrew Bolt" provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. The commission's president Gillian Triggs today warned Mr Wilson, who was hand-picked by Attorney-General George Brandis, that the commission must speak with one voice and be independent of government. She said Mr Wilson, a former Liberal Party member and Institute of Public Affairs chief, would bring "fresh air" to the body as one of seven human rights commissioners. "But I think it must be stressed that ultimately ... we have ultimately to agree on a single policy," she told ABC radio. Mr Wilson believes section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prevents people from being offended or insulted on the grounds of race, should be "unambiguously repealed." "I have been appointed to the role with the full knowledge of my view and I expect a reasonable accommodation of those views with respect to what the commission's position is," he told The Australian. But Professor Triggs said section 18C of the Act should be "tweaked" rather than abolished. We have a legal obligation internationally and under the treaties to implement legislation that protects people from racial vilification in public. That is all 18C purports to do," she said. Of course it is possible to tweak it, to amend it, to take language out and to put new language in that strengthens it - all of that we of course fully support as a matter of law. She said the Human Rights Commission "isn't a place for party political rhetoric," and must be independent of government. "We are not here to give effect to government policy as such, we are here to monitor compliance by Australia with its international obligations to human rights," Professor Triggs said. Senator Brandis has promised to repeal or amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so speech that is found to be offensive and insulting is no longer defined as racial vilification. The move will change the definition of racial vilification to eliminate at least two of the grounds that were used in a court ruling against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt over articles about light-skinned Aboriginal people. Professor Triggs said: "My understanding is that the Attorney is consulting and he will make up his own mind whether he decides to keep the provision and amend it, which we think is probably the better outcome." But Mr Wilson said the section represented an unjustifiable limit on free speech and should be struck out entirely. "Obviously I have a very strong and different view, and I am planning to prosecute that within the commission," he said.