Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I'm glad to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 and to follow such a great contribution from my friend, the member for Macnamara, and before him the members for Bruce and Spence. As the member for Macnamara said—I think quite rightly—none of us, as legislators, particularly want to spend time focused on legislation like this, because legislation like this is responding to something that we don't want to see in Australia. We don't want to see division. We don't want to see discrimination and bigotry. And we certainly don't want to see the things that can flow from that way of thinking and that kind of behaviour, which is violence and making people fear violence. That's unacceptable.

At the outset, I'd make the point—I think it's an obvious point—that the greatest protection against violence and other hateful conduct that can flow from particular kinds of extreme bigotry and prejudice will not be legislative. The greatest protection will be cultural. The greatest protection is all of us working all the time—every member of the community—to foster, build, maintain and enhance the qualities that have generally prevailed in Australia: tolerance, inclusion, multicultural acceptance and diversity, care for one another and care for broader, shared wellbeing. Those cultural elements and values of Australia are the most potent protections against discrimination and bigotry and the things that flow from them. But we nevertheless need protections—legislative and through law enforcement, which is Australia's capacity to follow and enforce those legislative precepts—to guarantee the safety of the community and, in some ways, to reinforce what I said about the importance of culture to set those normative standards. What this bill does is take those standards and that capacity for law enforcement to provide further protection in response to the circumstances that have arisen in recent times.

Those circumstances have been extremely concerning. As almost everyone who has contributed to this debate has acknowledged, no-one in Australia should face the fear of violence or be on the receiving end of other kinds of hateful conduct because of their race, religion, nationality or national ethnic origin, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability. Nobody should face the most harmful and extreme kinds of discrimination because of their identity, because of who they are. When we see examples of hateful conduct and violence that has antisemitism at its root cause, we should be gravely concerned. Antisemitism is one of the oldest and most harmful kinds of prejudice that human beings have ever fallen prey to. We've seen that in this country and we've seen it more particularly elsewhere, particularly in the 20th century in the form of the Holocaust. We need to be mindful that that kind of discrimination will never entirely disappear, and when it manifests, when it appears, we need to be clear-eyed about it and respond to it. Jewish people in Australia should not feel unsafe or threatened—and nor should anyone—as a result of their membership of a group defined by all those characteristics I just mentioned.

If we are genuine in this place, and if we are genuine in our roles as representatives and, frankly, as community leaders, we have to make sure that our conduct and our words are consistent with what I said about that broader cultural peace when it comes to peacefulness, non-violence, social inclusion and tolerance. That hasn't always been the case. It concerns me that, when the events on October 7 commenced—the terrible conflict in the Middle East that went on far too long and harmed far too many people unnecessarily—at the outset of that conflict, when people stood up and called for restraint there were other people, including other people in this place, who said that calling for restraint was wrong. As if there can ever be a time when someone speaking up against violence and someone speaking up for a greater and faster move towards a cessation of violence and a return to peacefulness—as if there can ever be a wrong time for that sentiment to be expressed.

While we make these new strengthened arrangements, which are entirely consistent with the approach the government's taken—we have been moving very quickly to provide funding for social cohesion, to make sure that places of worship are properly protected, to create the envoys on antisemitism and Islamophobia, to bring in the legislation that we did earlier in the parliament in relation to hate symbology, which was a first, and now to bring along these further strengthened measures—we should remember that what we are trying to combat in general terms is not new. We should remember that we've seen at various times in Australia's history conduct that is similarly hateful and similarly prejudicial. I think that, as we deal with this particular issue, it pays to reflect on other kinds of discrimination that have been present and continue to be present, and to make sure that we're going to be consistent about those things.

The reality is that we have seen violence and relatively large-scale social unrest in this country in this century focused on people because of their faith or their national identity; the Cronulla riots in 2005 come to mind. This was an instance where we saw wide-scale violence and wide-scale hateful targeting of people based on the perception that they were from the Middle East or that they might be of the Islamic faith. As far as I can recall—and if someone has another example, they can make that part of the debate—that would be the most serious kind of prejudicially based violence and civil disorder we've seen in the 21st century. At the time there were people who didn't think that was a particular problem. I think Prime Minister Howard said at the time that he didn't think that there was any reason to be concerned about the racialism and the prejudice that was involved in those terrible events.

As we bring in an arrangement that will make sure that hatefulness, the advocacy of violence and the threatening of violence through prejudicial hatefulness against people for a range of general characteristics—race, religion, nationality, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on—I think it's worth remembering and having the courage to be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge that the most harmful form of that in Australia's history is prejudice against First Nations people. There's just no question whatsoever that the history of Australia involves more harm, violence and hateful conduct towards First Nations people than towards any other group. We should be able to be honest about that and apply ourselves to making sure that that kind of prejudice is called out and combatted at every opportunity.

While I support moves to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to combat the most dangerous form of bigotry—bigotry that leads to violence or threats of violence towards people based on their identity—I acknowledge that we should always make these kinds of changes carefully. When responding, as we should, to discrimination and hateful conduct, there will always be a risk that, in seeking to combat a particular problem, we create other issues. It goes to the point that my friend the member for Bruce was making earlier about the balance of things like freedom of speech on the one hand and people's right to live free from fear on the other hand. It's perhaps easy in these circumstances for everyone to lean in to the part of this kind of undertaking that is about stopping kinds of conduct and enabling law enforcement to focus on people who present harm. But I think it's responsible to remember that what is almost always involved in these kinds of measures has the potential to infringe on other freedoms that we regard, rightly, as being very precious.

We have had laws in the past that were, for instance, around the threat of terrorism, and it's quite right that we took those measures. But when we did them, we often said, 'This is starting to move the line when it comes to people's right to have access to legal advice or to not be searched without a warrant,' and a whole range of other things that are core to our civil liberties and core to the basic freedoms that we have in Australia. We should transgress into those areas very, very cautiously and give ourselves the opportunity to look carefully at how they work in operation. We obviously want them to be effective when it comes to combating hatefulness, the risk of violence and the application of that kind of prejudice. But, if we find that there are these other consequences with respect to people's freedoms and civil liberties, we should reflect and make adjustments as appropriate. That's why, often when we've made these changes, there've been aspects that have involved a review. There've been aspects that have given us the chance, as a parliament and as a community, to say, 'Is that, first and foremost, doing the job that we need it to do to protect Australians from hatefulness, violence and prejudice, but, on the other hand, are there aspects of it that are, in an unhelpful way, starting to transgress on other important freedoms and liberties that are core to what it means to be an Australian?'

Fundamentally, at a difficult time, when the temperature is high as far as division, a lack of cohesion and a sense that there's this febrile atmosphere that puts people under threat and at risk—particularly, recently, members of the Jewish community but not just members of the Jewish community—it's right that government and parliament take responsible action. As I said, we have done that in a very timely and responsive way at every opportunity over the last 18 months, and we're doing that again now.

There have been people who have been part of this conversation who I think, frankly, at times have not been so much focused on the reality of the problem and the reality of the solution but have, sadly, sought to fan the flames of division, turn up the heat and create a more febrile atmosphere and a sense of argy-bargy, including political argy-bargy, because they think that that suits them. They think it suits them to create that sense of 'us and them', that sense of chaos. I hope that people who have engaged in that or might engage in that in the future reflect carefully because the truth is that, when there is a lot of intemperate, divisive, extreme, aggressive, adversarial language, accusations and behaviour thrown around, it actually produces exactly the kind of thing that we're trying to stop. It's incumbent on everyone who is a representative, a legislator and a leader in the community to practise peacefulness, tolerance, cohesion, engagement and civil respect. The more that we see that, the less we will need these kinds of changes.

See this speech in context