Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, I think people would have been stunned to hear the release of the Global Terrorism Index for 2019. Some of its findings were pretty disturbing. In particular, the report found there had been a 320 per cent increase in far Right terrorism in the West over the past five years. According to the index, far Right terrorism is more than five times deadlier, on average, than far Left terrorism. This rise in far Right extremism is not happening in isolation; it's being mirrored by an increase in hate crimes.

I have previously spoken in this chamber about the fact that we have seen some pretty terrible incidents, even in the last few months. Putting aside the horror of the Christchurch event—if that is an evil even conceivable to put aside—and looking to our own shores, you can see significantly smaller, but still disturbing, actions. I recounted to the chamber only a few months ago about a person approaching a mosque in Brisbane, in Holland Park, with a machete. That mosque itself had been vandalised with swastikas painted on it and tributes to the person who undertook those truly heinous acts in Christchurch, glorifying that person in the process. Last week, a pregnant Muslim woman was bashed in the head 14 times by someone who was known to police. This is happening. Dare I say, I frankly wonder how that would be treated if that person were of another faith.

The concern about the rise of Islamophobia is real, as has been demonstrated. The concern about anti-Semitism being on the rise is real as well. And where is the response?

I keep raising with the home affairs minister the need to take this seriously. Whether the threat is from Jihadists or if it's from right-wing extremists, they're both threats and they should be treated the same. They are threats to national security, they are threats to the safety of the general public, yet there is no genuine response to this. The claim is that the bulk of the threats that are being tracked are Jihadist. Yet we've got a global terrorism index that's showing, firstly, the rise of far-right extremism—320 per cent in five years. This whole notion that that would be ring-fenced in one country is ridiculous. These groups are using the internet, using channels like 8chan, to talk amongst each other and one-up each other in a most disgraceful way, saying that they are doing things for Tarrant, they are doing this inspired by those terrible acts in Christchurch, and we don't see any serious response out of the government at all—none whatsoever.

Again, I am not raising this in this chamber without having done the work of raising it privately with government. I most certainly have. But I don't think there is any serious treatment or any serious response to this. Where is the resourcing? Where is the raising of this as an issue? Nowhere. There is no response from the government about this. Are we to see anti-Semitic and Islamophobic behaviour on our streets escalate? The reason I feel so strongly about dealing with vilification is that vilification is the gateway to more-serious acts. When people feel that they're given some a licence to say something and incite hate, they can then act upon it.

There are grounds for having legitimate debate—absolutely. But it is not legitimate to incite hate. What we are seeing should be of concern to fair-minded people, regardless of what political party they're from, and it should be treated far more seriously.

Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton for moving this important motion and thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I rise to speak on this on the International Day of the Elimination of Violence against Women. I also do so less than a week after a 38-week pregnant Muslim woman was brutally attacked while out at a cafe with friends in Parramatta—shocking and horrifying. I reiterate what everybody else who has spoken on this motion has said: there is absolutely no place in Australia for violence, vilification or incitement of hatred on the basis of a person's religion or religious belief. The examples of this occurring, as detailed in the member for Moreton's motion, and in many of the speeches of members who have spoken before me, are reprehensible and abhorrent.

Australia is a nation of great cultural diversity, from the oldest continuous culture of our First Australians to our newest arrivals. Nearly half of all Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was. Similarly, we are a country of diversity in religious beliefs, with 12 million people identifying as Christians and over two million identifying as a religion other than Christianity. We also have a rising number of Australians, 30 per cent, who identify as non-religious. Australia's success and stability as a nation, as with all other nations, is dependent on all of us—regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of them, regardless of our cultural identity, regardless of any of our differences—finding ways of getting along with the other. We need, as a nation, to recognise the importance of social cohesion to our individual and national wellbeing. Without an appropriate degree of social cohesion, we cease to be a strong nation.

Acts inciting hatred against others, acts of violence against others, and extreme vilification of those who are different to us cause wide-ranging harm and damage. The most significant harm and damage is obviously the physical and emotional harm done at the individual level. There is, of course, harm to our society, a greater harm, the creation of fear, of mistrust, of antagonism. There is, for those who like to put a dollar value on everything, also damage done to our economy—lost productivity, increased need for health services, police services, damage done to our international reputation.

The government's role in protecting religious communities at risk of endangerment, and protecting all Australians from incitement of hatred and violence, is primarily done by ensuring that we have the right legislative framework with appropriate deterrence and punishment and that we also invest in and support and encourage, through policy frameworks, initiatives which help to build cohesion across society. There are always dangers in legislative action, and any legislative action must be carefully nuanced. But it must be clear: when it comes to stopping violence and hatred, there must be decisive and clear legal prohibitions.

We also need to realise, however, that legislation in and of itself will not ensure social cohesion. We need concrete actions that promote understanding, tolerance, self-responsibility and resilience, and which are undertaken and driven at grassroots levels in families, in schools, in workplaces, in communities. To this end, I note the $71 million package that was allocated in this year's budget to support locally-led initiatives, which will, amongst other things, build interfaith and intercultural understanding through sport, in classrooms and in cultural institutions.

There are other programs that will encourage a diversity of perspectives in the public debate and promote resilience against harmful and divisive messages, particularly those that promote violence. I also want to note existing local initiatives, such as Courage to Care, which is a community outreach and education program that has been developed and delivered by a team of trained volunteers to teach young Australians of the dangers of prejudice and discrimination.

I conclude by repeating what all those who have spoken on the matter before have said: there is absolutely no place in Australia for violence, for vilification or incitement of hatred on the basis of a person's religion or religious belief. There is a role for government in building the social cohesion of a nation, and government is doing this, but there is also a vital role for each of us individually. We need to accept personal responsibility to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the motion before us, and I want to thank the member for Moreton for bringing this very important motion on the vilification of minority groups for discussion here in the chamber. I also want to thank all colleagues who have made a contribution to the debate.

As the member for Calwell I have spoken many times about my culturally diverse multifaith electorate and I've spoken about the aspirations and tribulations of both the established and emerging migrant and refugee communities who live in my electorate. They are the waves of migrant Australians who, in making Australia home, continue to add to our country's nation-building enterprise by bringing with them their unique cultures, their languages and faiths, their skills and experiences, and their investments and business acumen, ensuring always that Australia continues to remain a dynamic and vibrant contemporary multicultural society with a viable and strong economy. This is why this motion today is very important. Despite best efforts, there are still religious communities that face vilification, which is why this motion calls on the government to protect all Australians from incitement of hatred due to religious beliefs.

Calwell has one of the largest Muslim communities in Australia. In our case, Islamophobia is a real and pressing issue. Our community, over the years, has endured its fair share of vilification. I have previously, in this parliament, talked about the abuses and verbal assaults and insults, and even attacks on individuals and buildings, that my constituents have endured. We, however, continue to fight against the intransigent prejudice of those who view their Muslim neighbours as threats or incompatible to the Australian identity or the Australian way of life.

Since 9/11, Australia, as with other Western countries with Muslim minorities, has experienced a profound surge of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is defined by the Runnymede Trust's Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia as:

The dislike of or prejudice against and fear of Islam or Muslims.

Against the backdrop of international conflict, terrorist incidents and counterterrorist measures, Muslims have become the subject of rising mistrust and suspicion and, in some cases, outright hostility.

In the case of my local Muslim community, the effects of the post September 11 period have been profound. Recently I met a young man from my electorate who, at 22 years of age, told me that he has known no other way than post the 11 September period, because he has grown up having to deal with suspicion and discrimination because he is a Muslim. That's a shocking revelation for any Australian, especially a young Australian, to have to go through. I say this because together we have all built a successful Australian democracy. Our social cohesion has been key to our social harmony. We have resisted and must continue to resist any threats to our social cohesion by protecting our community from any discrimination, vilification or incitement of hatred based on race or faith.

Since its inception in 2001, the Hume Interfaith Network in my electorate is an example of such resistance, with faith leaders from across the electorate working with the Hume City Council, strengthening social justice, deepening mutual respect and promoting community participation and wellbeing through interfaith dialogue and community engagement. The network celebrates the rich diversity that is found in Calwell by dispersing misplaced fears. It plays a key role in promoting unity through opportunities for people from diverse cultures and faiths to meet and to learn from one another. From second generation Turks to recently arrived Pakistanis, from Iraqis, Egyptians and so many more to Christians from Iraq and Syria, from Hindus to Buddhists—we all work together. All of our good work can only succeed if government responds by providing the necessary protections in terms of statements, policies and legislation.

I want to focus on protecting young people, because they are most vulnerable, especially in their formative years. If we don't protect them, they can easily feel alienated and unwanted, and that can lead to an identity crisis that renders some susceptible to zealotry and misplaced antisocial behaviour. Over half of Australian youth have witnessed harmful content online according to an Office of the eSafety Commissioner research study. Equally alarming is that 53 per cent of children surveyed by Charles Sturt University for their report Islamophobia in Australia have been subject to an incident of Islamophobia.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Wallace, I know you are one of the great champions of this country with a sense of unity and purpose. You know better than anybody that Australia is a place of welcoming, no matter who they are. We welcome a full breadth of society on the condition that people take responsibility and respect each other's freedom. That is the fundamental point of this motion today: to acknowledge our mutual obligation and responsibility to respect others by standing up against racism within the community, particularly for minorities. It's not the only type of 'ism' we should stand up against. We should stand up against anyone who seeks to draw a line of prejudice against others.

The success of our liberal democracy is, in part, due to our unqualified support for the rights of individuals to live their lives in a society that respects people's diversity, individuality and faith. For decades, Australia has always stood firm on these principles. We should be rightly proud of it.

Going back to the UDHR in 1948, we spoke of 'all men' without distinction to race, sex, language or religion, having certain inalienable rights. These rights are subject only to the rights of others, as individuals, to the just requirements of society to which they are enable to develop wider freedom.

Today we are facing a concerted challenge to these values as demonstrated, sadly, by the 2019 Executive Council of Australian Jewry's report into anti-Semitism. The report lays bare a sobering reality of the anti-Jewish sentiments that exists, sadly, in some parts of our community. As the MP that represents the third-largest Jewish community in Australia, it's appalling. We should never let it go unremarked.

From October 2018 to September 2019 at least 225 attacks and 143 threats were made against Jewish Australians, despicably so. The character of anti-Semitism has only worsened, with more incidences of direct verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation. That sits against a global backdrop where, sadly, we're seeing the same sorts of behaviour, particularly in the UK. A new generation of Jewish people are facing the same anti-Semitic bile that flooded through Europe in the 1930s. In one instance a group of Jewish primary school children faced verbal abuse and harassment on Halloween. The perpetrators, boys in their mid-teens, performed Nazi salutes and taunted them with racial slurs. There is no place for that type of behaviour in our country.

In July this year a 12-year-old Jewish boy at a public school was physically assaulted in a corridor. He was punched in the face, had skin gouged out of his shoulder and was bruised on the left side of his back, requiring hospital treatment for the injuries. We all have a responsibility to shine a light on the dark recesses of a community. Nobody should find it acceptable that a generation of young Australians are growing up accustomed to walking past armed guards and bulletproof glass as they go to school. This is an indictment of the values of freedom and tolerance that built this country up to its position of strength, and that's why we must stand firm.

While we must condemn overt harassment, similar forms of vilification shouldn't be left unnoticed. In our suburban streets, graffiti supporting Hitler and Nazism have more than doubled. Holocaust and Nazi minimisation continues to demean the millions of Europeans who lived and suffered under the Nazis, and their descendants who live in our wonderful community. Additionally, we must recognise the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel that is, sadly, finding a home in some nefarious quarters of Australia's political parties. Abroad, Israel has faced a prejudicial contempt and international sanction from the United Nations unendingly, while many other countries that have appalling human rights records go completely unremarked.

Jewish Australians are not alone in facing discrimination, hatred, violence and harassment. Many of the atrocities I've highlighted also befall Muslim Australians and other minority groups. Everyone in our society has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to exercise those freedoms should be respected. A person's faith does not end at the church door. It informs part of their identity and their individuality, and they should be free to express it in the public square. When Australians of faith are harassed, the foundations of our free society are also threatened. If the vilification of minority groups continues to worsen, every Australian loses, not just the individuals who are targeted.

That's why we must stand up as part of this motion and part of our country. When we set the tone in this place we set the standard for the nation, and Australians look to us to find the courage and confidence to stand up and speak out, sometimes when it's difficult. That includes confronting ourselves and holding a mirror up to the nation. So we say to racism across this country, and every other type of prejudice: it has no place in our great country.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our democracy is based on a fundamental principle of equality before the law, regardless of one's faith, race, ethnicity or gender. Indeed, it should be regardless of one's postcode as well. That is an important principle. It's not one that is actually practised in most countries in the world. And I think it's been the basis for our multicultural model, which has been a spectacular success over the decades. We've had our difficulties with race and ethnicity, yes. But it has been a successful model—similar, obviously, to other new world models, like the US's melting pot and others, but unique in the sense that Australians can be Australian and feel Australian, regardless of their background. Also, they don't have to choose between their identities. They can be proud of their Irish heritage, or their Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Egyptian, Lebanese, Italian or Greek heritage. Wherever they've come from in the world, they don't have to choose between that identity or heritage and being Australian.

In fact, being Australian is being multicultural, in many senses. We've all come from somewhere else. Unless you're an Indigenous Australian, you've migrated to this country. It might have been many generations ago or it might have been a month ago. That's an important point. And it works because we embrace that diversity as a strength of our nation, not just tolerate it. Growing up, I had a lot of trouble with my identity. I had a big question mark about whether I was actually fitting in, whether I was an Australian, because I used to get told, 'Go back to where you came from,' or 'Piss off, you wog.' That is probably unparliamentary, but it happened—and much worse. So I questioned my own identity. Was I an Australian? Did I belong here? But I came to understand that, yes, I am Australian, because we are part of that multicultural story. We've all migrated to this country and made it what it is. I've experienced hate speech. I've experienced the vilification that we're talking about today. It does have an impact on you. It changes you. And it hurts.

I know there's a lot of debate about the law having normative change that leads to cultural change, but in this country there have been many instances where the parliament has led the way with changes in laws that have had a normative change, which have led to cultural change and acceptance of others. It may not have been popular at the time of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. I'll use an even earlier example: female suffrage, which was one of the foundations, during 1901, when we became a nation. It was agreed upon by all, but it probably wasn't very popular at the time. Unfortunately what we remember too is that the main part of that law was the White Australia policy, but female suffrage was part of it as well, the start of our Commonwealth. So the law can have an impact in changing culture and cultural attitudes, and in shifting attitudes, cultural change and acceptance.

Free speech has never been absolutely free. There are exceptions. There's defamation. There are laws that restrict free speech. We should be entitled to say and articulate and have freedom of expression in this country, but there are limitations on that free speech. You can't just shout 'Fire!' in a theatre and get away with it. That's a famous legal case. And there are other exceptions. The law has, in the past, through this parliament and other state parliaments, sought to adjust and provide certain exceptions and restrictions around the way that we exercise that free speech, because with it comes an obligation as well as a right. That's an important point that we have to remember.

In many respects, this motion goes to the heart of this point. I know there's a debate we're having about how far free speech can go and how far we can regulate behaviour, attitudes and so on, but let me tell you this. It is very true, at least from my experience, that when faced with the kind of deep-seated hatred based on my ethnicity—and I went through many of these examples growing up—if there had been laws that restricted people from doing that, it would have changed a lot. I am thankful that there was the foresight in several parliaments to put forward and pass the Racial Discrimination Act and other laws that made Australia a better, more egalitarian country.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I thank the member for his contribution. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.