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

Minister, I think you're completely aware of this, because it was interrogated during the committee stage by Senator Scarr—in the inquiry into the bill, it was confirmed by the Attorney-General's Department—but, because this is the committee stage, could I just work through it again with you to get it on the Hansard record. In line with the advice from officials from both Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department, could I confirm that the term 'force or violence' in this legislation takes its ordinary meaning and refers to physical force or violence.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I answer your question, I take the opportunity to table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. Yes, Senator Cash, I can confirm what you've just said. The terms 'force' or 'violence' are not defined in the legislation and would take their ordinary meaning. What is intended is that the terms 'force' or 'violence' would only extend to physical force or violence against a person or group. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of these terms.

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

Thank you for that clarification. Obviously there has been some discussion with a number of stakeholders who have an interest in this legislation. I know that there will be some amendments moved in this regard which we will not be supporting. Just for the benefit of anyone who may need to interpret the legislation, I want to ask one or two more questions in the same vein. Can you confirm that this bill, as amended, makes it an offence to advocate force or violence, in the terms that you have just described, against Jewish people through conduct involving damage to property?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that.

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

Just again for the benefit of the chamber, the new offence in proposed section 80.2BB specifically includes minor damage, such as offensive slogans painted on buildings, if they advocate force or violence against groups. For the benefit of the Hansard record, is that a correct position?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that as well.

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

Can you confirm that if a person is convicted of the new offence under proposed section 80.2BB of the Criminal Code—the one we just referred to—then, based on the amendments passed, they will be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that as well.

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

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3290:

(1) Schedule 2, page 20 (after line 29), after item 7, insert:

7A Sunsetting of mandatory minimum sentences

Without limiting item 7, the amendments of the Crimes Act 1914 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a conviction that occurs on or before 31 December 2026.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3290, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

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

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3284:

(1) Schedule 2, page 19 (line 1) to page 21 (line 11), to be opposed.

This amendment is about removing mandatory minimum sentencing, which is cruel, inappropriate, highly discriminatory and unjust. Mandatory minimum sentencing is going to make no-one safer in this country. Labor should think about what they are doing here.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Think about your own policy.

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

Yes, exactly. It is a backflip on your own policy after promises that Senator Watt, who is sitting right there, made just two days ago. Think about how this will impact First Nations communities, First Nations children, people of colour. The exact groups that you say you want to expand protections for will be targeted by mandatory minimum sentencing. Shame on you. There is still time. Let's get these highly unjust laws out of this bill—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I'm required now, by a previous order, to put the question. This will be the first question that I'll put, and then—Senator Pocock?

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

Pursuant to the contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

It's a pretty extraordinary move when you have a bill that has the broad support of the community, is something that Australians recognise that we need and has the support of the crossbench to pass—and to potentially pass with some strengthening and sensible amendments, which the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, moved in the other place—yet we have Labor capitulating to the coalition to add mandatory minimum sentences and totally politicise a bill that could have seen the parliament, the Senate, say, 'This is important in our community, and we're not going to stand for it.' They've now added something for which there is absolutely no evidence that it works—no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing works.

It's against Labor's policy platform. Earlier I read out four or five quotes from Labor ministers, including Senator Watt, saying exactly that, saying: 'It doesn't work. Why would we vote for something that had mandatory minimum sentencing?' And now you're putting the crossbench in a position where we have good policy that has the support of our constituents, that we've consulted on, that we're set to vote for, and you've done an overnight deal where you've added something that has no justification, no backing from any expert. Then you give us absolutely no time to actually consult—15 minutes to consider this bill in Committee of the Whole, three questions from Senator Cash, one vote on an amendment, and then we're into it.

I feel that this is so disrespectful to the communities we represent. My team has been frantically ringing around—ringing the Canberra Jewish community, the Muslim community, the LGBTI community—saying, 'Hey, we support this bill, but now there's mandatory minimum sentencing; what do you want to do?' No-one supports the mandatory minimum sentencing. It's so shameful.

You can see this coming from the coalition. They want to talk tough on national security. Yet it turns out that when they're in there they're actually not that tough, that all sorts of things have been happening. But the disappointing thing is that Labor is doing this—going against their own principles. I do not understand and I don't know who they're trying to please with this because it certainly isn't rank-and-file Labor members or Labor voters, who believe in something.

I have serious concerns about the process of this and serious concerns about what's been cooked up that took a good bill, which had broad support and which was long overdue, and politicised it and added a whole lot of stuff to it that makes it very, very hard to vote for.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now come to the substantive motion, which is to suspend standing orders. The question before the committee is that there be a suspension of standing orders.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my intention to come to the amendment moved on sheet 3284 by Senator Faruqi. After that, in accordance with order, I will then deal with all of the remaining Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the next amendment, which is also in the name of the Australian Greens. The question from sheet 3284, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 3273 and 3283 be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

SHEET 3273

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 16), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 28), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 8), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 27), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(5) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 2), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 14), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 20), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(8) Schedule 1, item 19, page 10 (line 5), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 11 (line 29), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 12 (line 24), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(11) Schedule 1, item 19, page 14 (line 18), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(12) Schedule 1, item 19, page 15 (line 11), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(13) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (line 6), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

_____

SHEET 3283

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review by the Australian Law Reform Commission

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The review must be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission.

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 6 months after this Act commences.

(4) The Australian Law Reform Commission must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. We are on sheet 3259 and amendments (1), (3) and (10) standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that, in schedule 1, items 10, 18 and 21 stand as printed.

Senator Thorpe opposed schedule 1 in the following terms

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 9 and 10), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed.

(10) Schedule 1, item 21, page 18 (lines 8 to 10), to be opposed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now come to amendments (2) and (4) to (9) on sheet 3259, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that the remaining Senator Thorpe amendments on sheet 3259 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 1, at the end of item 10A, at the end of section 80.2A of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(4) Schedule 1, at the end of item 18A, at the end of section 80.2B of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(5) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BA(7), insert:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(7A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person if person is under the age of 14.

(6) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BB(8), insert:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(7) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BC of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(9) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(8) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BD of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(10) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(9) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BE of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by Senator Canavan. As the amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.

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

by leave—I move the amendment in my name on sheet 3277:

(1) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 17), at the end of the Schedule, add:

23 Dictionary in the Criminal Code

Insert:

force means physical force.

violence means physical violence.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.