David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start with a very clear commitment from the Greens, and that is that the Greens are absolutely committed to the criminalisation of Nazi symbols and for this parliament finally taking some steps to deal with right-wing extremism. The minister, in his response, I thought, aptly responded to some of the coalition's attacks. The coalition had a decade in government and failed to list a single right-wing extremist organisation as a terrorist organisation, despite the very real concern in the community about it. It failed to take any actions at all to criminalise right-wing extremism and then came in here and sought to lecture the rest of this parliament about the action that has been taken today. It is pretty extraordinary stuff.

If there was a hypocrisy God keeping an eye on this chamber then a bolt of lightning would have come down and struck the chamber in the middle of that contribution from the coalition.

Let's be clear, the Greens support the criminalisation of the Nazi symbol. We want to get this legislation into law as quickly as possible but, since the introduction of the bill, there have been significant amendments and expansion of the bill. The Greens said in our second reading contributions that we are concerned about the way in which these laws will be policed in the real world. Whatever we may think about finely crafted laws here, at some point they get into the hands of a police officer on the streets and that is when we know that those communities who already often face marginalisation and over policing—especially at the moment the Muslim and Arab communities in our states—feel threatened. They are right to be concerned about the potential for aggressive policing of conduct that is not in fact criminalised by this bill. We need to be absolutely vigilant about that and, if we see examples of it, we should unite across politics and call it out. If necessary, we should amend this legislation to address it.

The government have said they have consulted broadly with stakeholders. Many of the stakeholders we have consulted with remain concerned that the bill criminalises speech and conduct in a manner that does risk that inappropriate over policing of particularly Muslim and Arab communities, and it feeds harmful narratives linking those practising a specific religion to acts of violence. The government's amendments do not fully alleviate those concerns. The bill could have the effect of people being policed for symbols that are not of banned terrorist organisations but are words important to people for religious and protest purposes. In the context of over policing and prejudice towards Muslim and Arab communities, in the misunderstanding of the Arabic script by police, there is a significant risk of further demonisation and harassment on the street.

The Greens believe those risks are not mitigated in full by the exemption in the bill that applies when a reasonable person considers the display of a symbol is for a religious purpose nor contrary to the public interest, because the explanatory memorandum states clearly that the intention of this exemption is for Buddhist, Hindus and Jains, who rely on religious exemptions and defences, but it is silent about the sacredness of religious words and symbols that are important to the Muslim community, and that silence is loud and it is concerning.

The unanimous PJCIS report explicitly said that the Attorney-General's Department should undertake further consultation with interested parties, including on the text and proposed draft amendments, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences in the alternative approach. I would ask the minister what consultation has been done with key stakeholders about these amendments, consistent with the recommendation from PJCIS? As I said earlier, we have very real concern from our engagement with stakeholders that that consultation has not been adequate.

There are elements of this bill that have raised significant concerns amongst the legal community as well. In that regard, schedule 2 would make a person liable to up to five years imprisonment for accessing or possessing violent material that a reasonable person considers advances an ideological cause and that is intended to encourage intimidatory acts. There is deep concern if anybody has that material and, if it was intended to cause harm or intended for any such act, there is a strong case for criminalising it. But the offence focuses on the nature of the material and not on the intention of persons dealing with it. Legal groups have stated how this is problematic that there is no need to prove any substantive mental state, only that the person intentionally dealt with the material and that could be nonaccidental access, transmission, soliciting, possession or control and that the person may have been reckless as to the material being violent extremist material.

Stakeholders such as the Law Council are concerned that the creation of offences without intent are:

… highly extraordinary measures—

I'm quoting the Law Council—

normally reserved for material that has a very low likelihood of being accessed unwittingly, and involves the infliction of significant harm upon vulnerable persons …

I said before that there are potential unintended consequences of this bill, and we do need to be vigilant that that doesn't unintentionally criminalise people who had no criminal intent. It is a powerful reason to have a review of these laws.

On the issue of review, I can indicate that the Greens are withdrawing the amendment on sheet 2313. I do that now in noting there is more than two hours to go before we conclude this debate. The reason I'm withdrawing it is that we have been engaging and consulting with the Attorney and the government on a review of not just the terms and operation of this bill but also, more broadly, the issue of right-wing extremism. I understand we'll be in a position to support a motion establishing such an inquiry before parliament concludes this year. We think it's important to do a proper investigation of right-wing extremism, to understand why it is that so few right-wing organisations have been listed as terrorist organisations and to hear from the community about their fear of right-wing extremism. We have seen in repeated reports from ASIO that right-wing extremism is a real political danger to us here in Australia, and we should be vigilant and look into it. In those circumstances, we will be withdrawing our amendment seeking the review, but I indicate that we will be, before this parliament rises, support that inquiry in terms that have now been agreed.

Finally, I will deal with two other sets of amendments that the Greens propose, those on sheets 2251 and 2280. Those amendments seek to preserve the existing three-year sunsetting provisions for the listing of proscribed terrorist organisations and to remove the exemption from the standard 10-year expiry of delegated legislation. Retaining the existing sunsetting provisions on the listing of proscribed terrorist organisations so that they expire after three years remains important. It ensures that listings are relevant and based on the best current evidence, not historical artefacts. Given the extreme impact of such listings, the small administrative burden of ensuring this is not in any way disproportionate. If we went back 30 or 40 years, the Australian government would still be seeking to call the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela terrorists. History and the effluxion of time have proved that they were fighting for freedom and for legitimate political purposes. Of course these listings should be reviewed. I'll put on the record that the listing of organisations such as the PKK should absolutely be regularly reviewed and not allowed just to sit there indefinitely, given the struggle that groups like the Kurdish people are facing.

We also believe removing the proposed exemption from standard delegated legislation provisions, which would ordinarily mean regulations expire after 10 years, is bad practice. It removes parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation. Those amendments, we believe, are critical for retaining the primacy of the parliament over legislative provisions.

With those notes of concern and support, I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill.