Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is an important step in combating the antisemitism crisis that Australia has today. The coalition has secured some very significant amendments to the legislation, and we are pleased that the government has agreed to them.

The final piece of legislation before the Senate today is the result of the strong leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton. Thanks to the work of the coalition standing up to antisemitism across Australia, the Labor Party have finally agreed—capitulated—to some strong measures to ensure those in our community who are committing terrorism offences are punished appropriately. It's taken them some time. As recently as 3 February Senator Watt was saying that they didn't support mandatory sentencing, yet here we are today. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has once again led the way on a crucial issue of national security and social cohesion.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens. Well, here we are again with a Prime Minister Albanese special, capitulating to Mr Dutton and letting him run the government's agenda—his government's agenda—in a race to the bottom with the Liberals. Say one thing and do the other—again. This is what Labor have become under Prime Minister Albanese: a hollow shell that stands for nothing. They are so afraid of Mr Dutton and his Trump-like politics that they have no qualms whatsoever in doing a complete 180 on mandatory minimum sentences. Get a backbone, Labor; be leaders. But I think that's just too much to ask from you. You are a lost cause. You have not even hesitated whatsoever to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing laws which are incompatible with human rights, which are discriminatory and which will make no-one safer.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said there were issues with mandatory minimum sentencing as it could be counterproductive. Just two days ago, Minister Watt confirmed there would be no mandatory minimum sentencing. But last night, at the eleventh hour, you all capitulated. You did a dirty deal with the Liberals on mandatory minimum sentences. Shame on you.

This amendment by Labor is an absolute disgrace, and you know it. The Labor Party platform itself opposes mandatory minimum sentencing. Labor are ripping up their own platform here and helping Mr Dutton bring Trump style politics right here to this country. Do you know what? The type of politics that Trump is playing is horrific. Mr Dutton, after Trump's proposal to effectively ethnically cleanse Gaza, praised Trump for being a 'big thinker'. That's who you are doing these dirty deals with. Labor didn't need to do this. We said, at the start of the week, that we would support the bill in its original form. But Labor has instead chosen to work with Peter Dutton.

We have legal expert after legal expert telling us that mandatory minimum sentencing simply does not work, because it takes judicial decisions out of the hands of the judges and the courts and puts them into the hands of politicians. No-one wants that and no-one needs that. The Australian Law Reform Commission has highlighted that mandatory minimum sentences are discriminatory and a breach of our international human rights obligations. The Law Council of Australia president, Juliana Warner, has said that mandatory sentencing laws are arbitrary and limit the individual's right to a fair trial. Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns has said that there is simply no evidence to support mandatory sentencing.

We do, however, have extensive evidence that mandatory sentences disproportionately and unfairly target First Nations people and other targeted communities and people of colour. Go and speak to any community lawyer or peak legal body and they will categorically tell you that mandatory sentences are unjust, inappropriate and extremely discriminatory. Politicians are not in a position to understand the individual circumstances of each case, and there is no justifying politicians intervening in judicial discretion. But here we are.

The bill that Labor introduced in parliament, the bill that was scrutinised by the Senate committee, was a step towards increasing protections for marginalised groups. In particular, the additions of gender, sexuality and disability as protected attributes are long overdue and much needed changes. These additions send an important message at a time of continuing attacks on our LGBTQIA+ community, particularly trans people. Equally, the addition of disability as a protected attribute is a crucial step towards combating ableism and discrimination faced by disabled people.

The Greens support protections against hate crimes, but we have very deep and very serious concerns, as I said earlier, about the addition of mandatory minimum sentences, as now introduced by Labor. Once again, Labor are buckling to the extreme demands of Dutton's Liberals.

Hate, bigotry, racism and discrimination very sadly have become a part of everyday life for too many people in our communities. First Nations peoples, of course, have been subjected to this since colonisation almost 250 years ago. Muslims have been subjected to hate and racism pretty relentlessly for the last 25 years as Islamophobia has kept rising. And, recently, we have seen terrible antisemitism. But genuinely combating hate and violence in our communities cannot be resolved by criminal law and criminal law alone. Indeed, the criminal justice system is ill-equipped to protect against hate, with its own history of targeting queer communities, First Nations people and other culturally and racially marginalised communities. This was confirmed in the National Anti-Racism Framework, which was finally completed late last year. It identified the criminal justice system as a sector where racism is especially present and requires urgent attention.

What is needed is revolutionary social change, where racism and white supremacy are called out for what they are—a scourge in our society—where queer people are able to feel safe and live their lives without judgement or discrimination and where our environment, our buildings, our workplaces and our schools and universities are accessible and welcoming to all. This kind of change is not going to come easily, and it's not going to come through mandatory minimum sentencing.

To be effective, responses to hate and racism must be community led, must be grassroots and must dismantle the ingrained structures of white supremacy. The National Anti-Racism Framework also rightly identifies that the Australian government should explore and fund community informed and early intervention solutions beyond civil and criminal penalties to address far-right extremism and white supremacy in communities, particularly as they intersect with other forms of discrimination.

The Greens and I have been calling out the rise of right-wing extremism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism for a very long time, including right here in my first speech in the chamber seven years ago, when I said:

The existence of racism, sexism and other discrimination is not new, but what has changed is its legitimisation, normalisation and encouragement in the media and in politics. Political leaders, in addition to their old habit of racist dog-whistling, are now comfortable outright fanning the flames of racial conflict.

And that in part led to the most deadly and violent attack in our region, which was the Christchurch mosque massacre, where 51 Muslims were murdered in cold blood by an Australian neo-Nazi. But has this country reckoned at all with those murders? No, you have not, as you have not reckoned with the discrimination, racism, oppression and dispossession of First Nations people, and the violence that still goes on. And unfortunately, seven years since then—since I said that—things have only become worse. Politicians from the major parties continue their racist dog whistling, punching down on migrants and people of colour, and cover their own abject failures to address the housing and cost-of-living crisis.

With Trump now in the Oval Office, the risks posed to minorities have become even greater. Trump's actions have already emboldened racist, ableist, homophobic filth everywhere, and his right-hand man, Elon Musk, is actively peddling white supremacist and Nazi views. This was on show for all to see when he gave a double Nazi salute at the Trump inauguration. But there was not a peep out of anyone here. You so-called leaders who talk about hate and racism—not a peep out of you. I am yet to hear condemnation or even criticism of Donald Trump's proposal to effectively ethnically cleanse Gaza. The events in the US do have a flow-on effect here and everywhere. Here we have seen neo-Nazi rallies as recently as January in Adelaide, and households receiving despicable racist material in their letterboxes. This is no surprise when you see the leader of the opposition peddling anti-immigrant hate, fearmongering and reading from his own MAGA playbook.

Then we have the Prime Minister, who capitulates to the opposition every time on migration, which is so hypocritical. This Labor government is so hypocritical, has such double standards, and that is what is allowing the division and fearmongering to continue. Labor and Mr Albanese are so scared of the opposition that they either just want to remain silent or be led by the opposition. What is the point of you being in government—truly? The Greens have been the only political party to take racism seriously. We have a dedicated antiracism portfolio.

The recent spate of antisemitic attacks across the country are abhorrent, and we must call them out, as we must call out every single form of racism. For the last 1½ years, there has been an onslaught of hate and racism directed at Arabs, at Muslims and at Palestinians, and my colleagues from the two parties do not seem to understand that at all or they just want to ignore it. The weaponisation and the politicisation of antisemitism from politicians makes no-one safer, including the Jewish community. And it is not antisemitic to call for an end to a genocide, so stop weaponising and politicising racism.

In the last year and a half we have seen immense grief for the Muslim community, for Arabs, for Palestinians and for so many more in the community who just want justice and peace. But, despite this onslaught of abuse and vitriol they have received, they have kept coming out, week after week, calling for an end to violence, calling for antiracism and calling for peace.

Of course there is a growing fear that our world is being overcome with hate and with violence. It is hard not to fear this when we are here in parliament, where the fearmongering and division goes on. But that means actually acting and using tools that are effective in tackling hate and racism, and that does not include mandatory minimum sentencing. So the Greens will be moving a motion to delete these egregious mandatory minimum sentences from the bill. We will also be moving an amendment for a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, for these laws to be reviewed by them. And we will be moving that if—as obviously is going to be the case, sadly—the deletion of the mandatory minimum sentences doesn't get up. If it doesn't then we want a sunset clause on these sentences, because they are cruel and they are discriminatory.

We will also be moving an amendment, as the community has suggested, to change the language of sex characteristics. I know Labor opposed that amendment in the other house, but I hope you have reflected on that and will support the community in the changes you are asking for. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator Canavan for many of his comments about the lack of process for what is a really important bill before us that will have far-reaching consequences. The government has created an alarming habit of linking really good reforms with incredibly problematic policy, as well as curtailing opportunities to consult with experts and the community—who we are in here to represent—on major legislative changes. This time they are adding mandatory minimum sentences to a bill that was all about protecting vulnerable members of our community from hate crimes, and rushing it through parliament in a single day. As Senator Canavan said, the Senate will have less time to debate the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 than the House of Representatives will.

To be clear, this is an important bill that is urgently needed. Like so many others in this place and in our community, I condemn hate speech in all its forms. Everyone in our community deserves to be safe to practise their faith openly and without fear. This bill is designed to make that happen. What experts have said won't be effective, though, is the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions that have been added in a late-night deal with the coalition. Faith leaders and others in my community are telling me that these issues should be above politics, yet time and again they are being politicised and used to drive division. People convicted of hate crimes must absolutely be held to account, but it is the judiciary who should set the penalties on a case-by-case basis.

Less than a month ago, the Law Council of Australia published an article titled 'You know what creates unsafe communities? Mandatory sentencing'. According to the former president of the Law Council Greg McIntyre SC, the Law Council of Australia has consistently opposed the use of mandatory sentencing regimes and, indeed, has adopted a formal policy against them. He goes on to say:

… mandatory sentencing laws are inherently arbitrary and limit an individual's right to a fair trial by preventing judges from imposing an appropriate penalty based on the unique circumstances of each case.

The Australian Law Reform Commission also opposes the policy, saying:

Evidence suggests mandatory sentencing increases incarceration, is costly and is not effective as a crime deterrent. Mandatory sentencing may also disproportionately affect particular groups within society …

International law is equally clear. There is a prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the principle that children should be detained only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time is expressed in article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Perhaps, most strikingly, at page 87 of the current Labor Party platform, it states:

Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime, but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.

But apparently not. If we look at what Labor members have said, it's no different. In 2019, the now Attorney-General said, in the other place:

Labor have a longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing, and this bill would introduce mandatory minimum sentences. Labor's opposition to mandatory sentencing is no secret. It is spelled out in our national platform …

In 2019, now Minister Murray Watt also said:

Labor has a longstanding, well-reasoned and principled opposition to mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing may sound tough, but there is nothing tough about sentencing measures that make it more difficult to catch, prosecute and convict child sex offenders.

In 2017, now Minister Matt Keogh said:

There are already numerous reported examples of mandatory sentences that have been handed down and applied with anomalous and unjust results. When adopted, mandatory sentencing fails to produce convincing evidence to demonstrate that increases of these sorts of penalties actually deter any crime.

In 2014, now Minister Stephen Jones said:

Parliament, in fact, is usurping the judicial discretion by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing. It actually sends, as the former DPP of New South Wales said, a vote of no-confidence from the parliament to the judiciary.

Despite all this opposition to mandatory minimum sentences—including that of the Labor Party and, I assume, its rank-and-file members and most Labor voters—here we are. The government has capitulated to the coalition's politically motivated demands to add something that experts tell us doesn't work to a bill that, I think, had fairly broad support amongst the community. People have acknowledged that the parliament needs to act on this. In all of this, the communities that need the substance of the original bill are being overlooked. The Muslim community, the LGBTI community, the Jewish community, people with a disability and so many people who experience racism and bigotry have been desperate for the protections contained in this bill for so many years. They've been abused and subjected to hate speech in our streets and in our public spaces, and that's why this bill is important. They want to see this bill pass. But this practice from the government of corrupting positive reforms with terrible policy has to stop. Australians deserve better.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know time is brief and there are others on the speaking list. I don't want to take away their opportunity to make a contribution, so I will also be brief and make a couple of points. It is a good thing that the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 will pass the parliament today. It will send a strong message to those who are responsible for the attacks against the Jewish community, in particular, in recent months, that there are very real consequences for their behaviour, that the Parliament of Australia does not tolerate it and that we want them to feel the full force of the law to deter them from engaging in any more terrorisation of the Jewish community.

But it is a shame that this legislation did not pass earlier. Senator Cash and I wrote to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs before Christmas. This bill was introduced in September. We offered them bipartisan support to pass this legislation before Christmas because we were concerned about what might happen over the summer to our Jewish community. Unfortunately, our worst fears were realised, and a summer of terror was unleashed against the Jewish community, starting with the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue and continuing with the firebombing of cars, the targeting of homes and even the firebombing of a childcare centre among others, including small businesses. And it left our Jewish community terrorised. It would have been very good, had these laws already been on the books and had they been able to be used by our law enforcement agencies over the summer, to stop these crimes and to punish people for these crimes, but this is where we are.

It is also a good thing that this legislation has been strengthened. This legislation has been strengthened by the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for terrorism offences. It has been strengthened by the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for the display of prohibited hate symbols, including the flags and logos of listed terrorist organisations, and it has been strengthened by a specific prohibition on advocating violence against places of worship and other institutions significant to people of faith, including religious schools and religious centres. None of that would have happened if it were not for Peter Dutton and the coalition. All of those were demands that we made of the government. All of those were demands that the government initially said were unreasonable and unnecessary.

It was only Tuesday in this chamber that Labor senators voted against a motion calling for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. It was only last week that the prime minister dismissed the need for mandatory minimum sentences. It was only two days ago that Minister Watt said that mandatory minimum sentences were not part of Labor's policy or platform and that they would not be introduced. This is yet another example of the coalition leading the government on national security and community safety. Because their instincts are not right the first time, they have to be pressured publicly into taking the tough decisions necessary to protect our community, and it is yet more of an example of why the weak leadership of the Prime Minister cannot continue, or our country will get further off track. Only the strong leadership of a Peter Dutton coalition government can deal with these crises, because Peter Dutton does have the right instincts. He does understand the seriousness of the disaster that we're facing in our country, and he is willing to make the tough decisions to act. He won't need to be pressured into acts like this to send a strong signal to people undermining social cohesion and community safety in our country; he will do it because he believes in it. If you're going to have a strong leader, you might as well have the real one, not one who's a pale imitation of it.

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

We're in a remarkable position here. The Labor government introduced the initial bill that had enormous support across the community that was an actual response to some of the appalling racist attacks that we've seen against the Jewish community, particularly in my home city of Sydney, and that would have dealt with some of the ongoing, persistent and appalling attacks against the LGBTQI+ community and would have given some comfort to those in our multicultural community who have been attacked because of their Muslim faith. There was an opportunity here to present legislation that would have brought us together and established real and important protections that would have promoted community safety and could have stepped against division. It had gone through good process and had been well considered. Then, because they have been led by the noes of the coalition in their ongoing, divisive, aggressive, far-right, Trumpian attack on basic things like the rule of law and common decency in politics—because they've been dragged there by the coalition—they decided at midnight last night to ram into this legislation a whole series of noxious, unwarranted, damaging provisions about criminal penalties with mandatory minimum sentences.

Labor has taken something good that we knew would work and that had widespread support amongst the legal fraternity and communities across the country and rammed into it mandatory minimum sentences because they're scared of the coalition. They are running scared. We have a government that is being driven by the opposition and is scared of standing up for what they know is right.

We know that thousands and thousands of Labor Party members are offended by what the Albanese government is doing, because they've included it—forced it on Labor politicians—in Labor's own policy platform. Labor's own policy platform rightfully opposes mandatory sentences. I'll read it:

Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.

Time after time in the last 12 months we've had elected Labor senators and members of parliament come out and say they oppose mandatory sentencing because it tears down the independence of judiciary and replaces careful consideration by a judge who can take all the circumstances of someone's life and the nature of the offending into account and craft a sentence that is just. It destroys the independence of judiciary and replaces a judge's opinion with that of a politician when it comes to criminal sentencing. They've said it time after time, and every time that has been right, because mandatory sentencing attacks the independence of judiciary. It tears down one of the core tenets of our society that I thought this place would unite around—rule of law and having penalties decided not by politicians but by judges. But, because they are so utterly spineless and utterly unable to make a principled argument and take a stand against the opposition, they caved in during the small hours of last night.

It's not just Labor's own platform. I want to be clear that the Greens' platform has said consistently that we will oppose mandatory sentencing. In 2020, the Law Council of Australia—not exactly the most left-wing organisation in the country—said:

Mandatory minimum sentences are abhorrent to the whole notion of sentencing where judicial discretion is essential and can result in perverse jury decisions …

What does that last bit—perverse jury decisions—mean? That means that if you want to put people who have committed these offences behind bars then don't do mandatory sentencing. If the jury knows that this person is absolutely going to go to jail for six years or seven years or whatever the mandatory minimum is and they're a bit troubled about the nature of the evidence—they may be thinking, 'Well, it wasn't that bad' or whatever a jury might be thinking about the issue in front of them—then, the Law Council is saying, there will inevitably be fewer convictions. I'd say that applies not just to juries but to judges as well. The courts are much more likely to put a really strict interpretation on each and every element of the offence if they know that at the end of it they have no discretion on sentencing and must put the person in jail for six years.

So we have the coalition beating their chest and saying mandatory minimum sentences are going to keep the community safe, when all the evidence we have says it won't; it will do the exact opposite. It will make it harder to get convictions. It will certainly mean far more trials are contested, because who on earth would cop a plea if they're going to get a mandatory minimum sentence? It's far less likely you'll have people cooperating with the police, and, in relation to the number of incidents where both the AFP and the New South Wales police say they're not sure who is funding or causing these individuals to do these appalling attacks—you may have some career criminal who is being directed by a foreign agent or by someone locally; the career criminal commits the offence—if you have a mandatory sentence, what incentive is there for them to cooperate and tell who actually funded them and where the directions came from, because, win, lose or draw, they're going to jail for six years mandatory minimum? It makes it far harder for police.

We know what works in this space—working with communities, listening to the evidence, joining this country together, not dividing it like this. Labor and the coalition between them have turned something that could have absolutely united us all in fighting against antisemitism, in fighting against racism, in fighting against intolerance to the LGBTQ community into this ugly, nasty bit of politics. There is something rotten in the way the two major parties in this country ignore the evidence, drive this toxic politics and create bad laws like this with no scrutiny.

The Greens know there are elements, particularly in the original bill, that are essential to deal with some of the hate crimes that we're seeing. We'll take some measurable good. We've been trying to say to the government, 'Work with the rest of the chamber here, the diversity of the crossbench, and don't just be dragged by Peter Dutton to the single lowest common denominator.' But Labor can't help themselves, can they? They just can't help themselves. They keep surrendering time after time. There's no principle that they won't sully, and that's why we're here with these mandatory minimums. We know mandatory minimums won't work. We know they're going to fight against all of the purported intent of this bill. Shame on you both for doing this.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I rise to speak against the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is the third week in a row that we have come to Canberra and the two major parties have tried to introduce laws that will prevent free speech in this country. I don't know about you, but I come down to Canberra to serve the people, not to control the people. That's what this bill is all about: it is a political stunt, and it is a political stunt because the two major parties don't have any solutions to the real crises in this country, which are the cost-of-living crisis, the energy crisis and the housing crisis. Instead, what they want to do is basically dog whistle about race in order to deflect from their own ineptitude at solving problems.

We already have laws in this country that deal with violent acts and sedition. We do not need more laws in this country that target certain statements against certain groups on the basis of violence. Why? Because we already have these laws. What is the purpose of this bill if we already have laws against violence? I note Senator Cash was at pains before to stress that this was only with regard to violent acts and not psychological acts. Well, I want to know why the Liberal Party think that it's necessary to bring in laws for violent acts when we already have laws for violent acts. Of course, the only answer to that is that they want to dog whistle and play games with race when they should be focused on solutions.

Here's the thing: how do you identify a hate symbol? Someone's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. How do you actually identify what someone thinks about a particular ideology? Who's right and who's wrong? If you don't believe another person's point of view, why can't you debate them? Why do you want to gag them? What is it that you're hiding? Is it because the two major parties lack the intellectual capacity to have a debate about these issues? Of course, the answer to that is, yes, they do. They are nothing but puppets on a string that have survived in these political parties for far too long by being nothing but obedient.

I'd like to reference my good friend in the House, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt. He said he was not going to contest again because the whole idea of sticking to the script and discipline is nothing more than obedience. That's why, for the Liberal Party—I can't speak for the Labor Party, even though it seems they're pretty much the same as the Liberal Party—it's all about obedience in their eyes. It's nothing to do with free thought or their capacity to have a rational debate and put the opposite point of view across and let the facts make the case.

Look at last week's hysteria over the bombs in a caravan. Senator Babet, please remind me the next time I decide to blow something up to leave bombs in a caravan with a handwritten note that I'm going to do it and where I'm going to do it. This type of fearmongering over allegations that somehow a couple of meth-heads, who'd be lucky to find their next hit, were somehow organising a terrorist plot is absolutely absurd. While I don't agree with the Prime Minister on many things, I think the attack on him, that somehow he's playing games with this, is absolutely absurd. And that's what this bill is all about. It's a political stunt and it's going to circumvent free speech.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The allotted time for the second reading stage of this bill has expired. Therefore the question before the Senate is that Senator Lambie's second reading amendment on sheet 3231 be agreed to.

Senator Lambie's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) classify the defacement of war memorials as a hate crime; and

(b) recognise that such acts not only disrespect the service and sacrifice of veterans but also diminish the historical and symbolic significance of these memorials".

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.