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

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. The Minister for Sport has thrown her support behind Sam Kerr, the captain of the Matildas, even though body cam footage presented as evidence in court showed Kerr calling a British police officer 'stupid and white'. Why does the Labor Party support people who use racial speech in that manner, and would Sam Kerr be jailed under the hate speech mandatory sentencing laws if she were to behave that way in Australia?

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

Thanks, Senator Rennick. I did notice that, overnight, Sam Kerr was actually cleared of the charges against her, so I'm not going to stand in the way of a British court and a British jury making the decision that she was not guilty of the criminal offence that she was charged with. You ask the broader question about hate speech. Our government is proud of the fact that we've taken serious action to restrict hate speech at a time in Australia when we are seeing too much division in the community and we are seeing antisemitic attacks take place. We are seeing Islamophobic attacks take place. And we are seeing a range of other racial slurs meted out against members of our community, and that should not happen.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go. Put it in the same sentence as if they're equivalent.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

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

I'm surprised that the opposition want to contest the fact that we've taken this action, because only last week they voted with us to pass that legislation. The reality is that, in Australia's laws, we've always had a number of restrictions on freedom of speech within Australia. We've got defamation laws, which prevent people from going out there and saying defamatory things about people. We've got laws around the contempt of court, which also restrict people's—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick?

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

Would that particular comment be considered hate speech under the crime laws?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was that a point of order? The minister is being directly relevant to your question.

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

Thanks, Senator Rennick. Obviously, I'm not going to be offering a legal opinion on whether the actions of an individual person breach Australian laws. What we're here to do is to set those laws and let the courts then interpret them. But, as I was saying, there have always been restrictions on freedom of speech in our country—defamation, contempt of court, and of course a really important one that has been there for quite a long time, which is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It wasn't that long ago that people like Senator Paterson and Senator Cash were trying to abolish section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, because they wanted to open the floodgates to racial vilification and all sorts of other hate speech. It was the Labor Party who stood against that, just as it's been the Labor Party in government that have passed further laws about hate speech. So we will protect people from unlawful behaviour like that in the future.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, first supplementary?

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

Throughout the COVID management, thousands of Australians injured by the vaccine were vilified and gaslit by politicians, the media, medical professionals and employers as antivaxxers. Many of those injured by the COVID vaccine were even forced to get additional shots, causing more harm. Would people who mandate the use of vaccines on people who are clearly allergic to them be arrested under the hate crime laws for inciting violence?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, I am advised that parts of that question don't adhere to the standing orders, because you can't ask ministers for legal opinions. But I'll invite the minister to answer the pieces of the question that are relevant.

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

Thanks, Senator Rennick. Again, I'm not going to offer a legal opinion on whether someone's behaviour breaches the laws that this parliament has passed. But I guess the point I've been making is that we live in a democracy and we do value freedom of speech, but we also recognise that there are limits around what people should be able to say out of consideration for other members of the community. The robust expression of diverse opinions is an important feature of our democracy, and the bill that we passed last week on hate crimes respected the need for vibrant public debate. The offences in that bill were carefully crafted to target only the most serious forms of harmful hate speech—namely the promotion or threat of violent conduct. The offences are not intended to criminalise mere expressions of belief or opinion, however unpleasant they may be. The offences in the bill apply only where a person's communication or other conduct could result in violence or force against groups or members of such groups.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, second supplementary?

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

I'm not sure if this is going to breach standing orders as well, but we'll see how we go.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll let you know!

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

Will the Labor Party consider the comments made by the two nurses in the video from today to be in contravention of federal hate crime laws or just state laws? And if New South Wales doesn't press charges, would the Labor government recommend or consider that the hate crime laws would apply in this case?

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

Again, I'm not going to offer an opinion on that specific case, but I will reinforce the comments that the Prime Minister has made and the Senate leader has made: the statements of those individuals are absolutely disgusting. They deserve to be called out, and I am really pleased to see that that has occurred from a variety of political leaders on all sides of the aisle. That's what deserved to happen, and the disciplinary action that's being taken against those individuals is thoroughly deserved as well. Again, I'm not going to comment on whether their behaviour challenges the law or goes against the law. I am advised, in addition, that the Prime Minister has spoken with the AFP commissioner about this incident and that the AFP have made clear they're available to provide their full support to the New South Wales police. Of course, that's now a matter for the police to investigate, so probably the less I say about it, the better.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.