Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Labor does not support these amendments. The Democrats are not going to get much joy out of us in this area. The amendments omit the phrase ‘or indirectly’ from proposed subsection (2)(a) and proposed item 4. Currently that proposed subsection provides that material must be banned if it directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act. These amendments would remove the phrase ‘or indirectly’ to mean that material can only be banned if it does those things directly. As I have said, Labor does not support the amendments. I do not want to draw this out longer than we need to, but the main reason is that, if you look at much of the hate language these days, you will see that much is obviously conveyed directly but it can also be and has been conveyed through code words and dog whistles. You have to look at the whole of the material and its indirect impact. You need only look at many European neofascist movements to know that terrorist organisations are unfortunately not always up-front about their intentions. That is why, I suspect, ‘indirectly’ is included in the bill. It is to ensure that there are no gaps or loopholes in the legislation. We do not think it is appropriate to allow those so that terrorists can circumvent them and therefore escape refusal of that type of material.