Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I understand and support the intent behind these amendments to the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. We should all deplore violent conduct, and it should be and is a crime to incite violence. This bill seeks to expand a number of groups that it is a crime to target for incitement of violence, and in principle I have no problem with that—although shouldn't it be a crime to incite violence against anyone?

The bill also removes the good-faith defence against a charge of incitement to violence. Again, in principle, it is hard to fathom how you could incite violence in good faith—although I would point out that many of us have probably referred to the need to 'destroy' or 'decimate' our political opponents, when of course we are only using those verbs rhetorically, not literally. This point raises the issue that words can have different meanings to different people, and we should be very clear about what the words mean in the Criminal Code, because people can go to jail for offences under it.

The Senate was told by the Attorney-General's Department during the committee process that the words 'force' and 'violence' in this bill are intended to refer to physical force or physical violence against a person. The problem, of course, is that there are numerous examples of where the intention of this parliament has been overridden by new interpretation by our courts, and there is clearly a risk here. There are many people who view speech as a form of violence. You hear it constantly today. It's not hard to consider that there would be people who seek prosecutions in the future on the basis that a good-faith position—say, on the effects of transgender surgery or the benefits of heterosexual monogamy—is seen as a violent act in and of itself. This is where the removal of a good-faith defence could otherwise weaponise dormant provisions of the Criminal Code.

So, if it's our intent to restrict these matters to physical force or violence, I don't understand why we can't simply make that black and white in the law. I have drafted an amendment to give effect to that. It's a very simple amendment that makes clear in the definitions of the Criminal Code that 'force' means physical force and 'violence' means physical violence. And keep in mind that, even if the courts weren't to misinterpret these words in a different way, just the prospect of this ambiguity could give rise to inequity and lawfare.

Many innocent individuals right now in our country are having their lives ruined by being hauled through our courts by well-funded activist groups, simply for expressing an opinion. The punishment is the process, not the final verdict. This is having a chilling effect on free speech in Australia, which is weakening what should be a vibrant and robust debate on many important issues, such as women's rights and the welfare of children. In no way should a debate about what is right for a child be limited by the hurt feelings of adults.

I want to make another point, too, that goes beyond this bill: we are here, again, with yet another gag order being put in place. We did this last time we were here. At least last time we stayed a little bit later to allow some debate on issues. This time we're going to gag the debate in the middle of the day so we can all go home early. This should be an absolute embarrassment to us as senators. As it stands, the House of Representatives, the other chamber, the other place, will debate this bill for much, much longer than we will. That is an embarrassment to us, and it's an affront to our Constitution, which has appointed this chamber as the so-called house of review. We are not doing our constitutional duty by using and abusing these gag orders that let us knock off early from work, especially when it goes to a bill that can put people in jail if they transgress it. It's a serious act and it requires much greater and more serious consideration than just the hour or so of debate that we've allocated here today.

I understand the urgent need to respond to the shocking antisemitic attacks that we have seen over the past year, but we need to be very careful here. Some of these changes imply that these attacks are inspired by the intemperate rhetoric of other Australians. We actually don't know if that's the case. It may very well be, but there's a lot we don't know about why and how these attacks are occurring. Those that have been apprehended for these attacks thus far hardly fit the profile of someone who has been radicalised by religious sermons or someone who has maybe just signed up to their local chapter of the Nazi party. Some people imply that, but that's not who they seem to be. Their profiles would appear to be much more fitting of some tragic souls that have ended up running with druggie or bikie gangs. The Australian Federal Police have explicitly stated that they are concerned that these people who are committing these heinous acts are effectively mercenaries being paid by foreign actors to sow discord in our country. If this is true, I worry that our rushed and hasty response here only advances the goals of such foreign actors, if they exist.

By rushing these changes, we are accepting or implying that there is a rotten core in our society that not only hold bigoted and racist views but are able to inspire other Australians to commit acts of violence based on these views. We are effectively admitting what these foreign agents are trying to do to our country. The result of course would be that we actually end up with a more divided country and being less harmonious and less trusting of each other. We should not be playing into their hands. We should be pursuing those who have committed, inspired or funded these horrific acts under our existing laws, which provide ample opportunity to do that, and if we need to make further changes to strengthen those laws then we should do so in a considered fashion that does not treat this parliament and this chamber as a rubber stamp.

I'm very proud of Australia. I believe we are the most harmonious country in the world and that, despite all of our differences, we very rarely see any resorts to violence. Let us not become any different by just assuming that we are.