Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, firstly, acknowledge that we stand on the unceded, sovereign lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the custodians of this land, sea and sky country. This country has deep scars and memories of the massacres from the genocidal Frontier Wars. We feel it all around us. This building has deeply unsettling energy. It was built on a sacred gathering site, yet those who are in power here routinely consent to the continued violence against our mother country and our people and all those who want to protect and live by the law of the land. The Frontier Wars have never ended: same war, different weapons—same oppression of our people for access to our land and our resources for the profit of a few.

The 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody referred to the genocide convention, and the Bringing them home report released in May 1997 provides 689 pages of damning indictment of the genocidal policies used against First Peoples in this country, with a whole chapter on contemporary separations. The report found that the removal of First Peoples constituted genocide as defined in the convention, yet, each year, our children are still being snatched at record rates. Our people are still being dispossessed of our country, forced into homelessness and jails, on our own lands, at the highest rates in the world. We have discriminatory living conditions, life experiences and racism. All the while, our land and sacred sites continue to be pillaged. This is the continued genocide of our people, of my people.

The lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the concept of 'genocide' after the Second World War, literally used the massacres of First Peoples in Tasmania as a key example. As time goes on, more and more evidence of this country's dark, whitewashed history is being revealed. Just last month, the Guardian finished their eight-year-long collaboration project with the University of Newcastle called 'The killing times'. The report showed definitive proof that at least 10,657 people were murdered in at least 438 colonial frontier massacres. About half of all massacres of Aboriginal people were carried out by police and other government agents. Many others were committed by settlers acting with approval of the state. What is now called Victoria, alone recorded at least 50 frontier war massacres. My mob, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung, my grandmother's country, saw 70 Gunditjmara clans reduced down to seven. It is past time to let the truth be told and to stop denying genocide when it is clear before our eyes. It is time for everyone in this country to learn their local history and see what crimes took place where you live, where you sleep, where you work and where you go to school. Have a look at your own backyard, Aus.

The late Kevin Gilbert, a Wiradjuri poet, artist and activist, told the story of his people's genocidal suffering in a poem called 'On the road to Queanbeyan', which is not too far from here:

I look at the open fields and see

the space where my people used to be

I see the scars of wounded ground

I cry as I hear the death call sound

of curlew mourning by.

The bill before us today, the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024, is about access to justice. It ensures that the crime of genocide is able to be prosecuted in domestic courts without political interference.

This bill embodies a commitment to transparency and accountability and an adherence to international human rights obligations, including the genocide convention, which established a framework for states to prevent and punish acts of genocide or crimes against humanity. It mandates that all perpetrators, whether private individuals, public officials or political leaders, must be held accountable. Yet, when the Australian government ratified the genocide convention in 2002, they put in an extra sneaky, slimy provision that only the Attorney-General can bring a prosecution for genocide, that their decision cannot be challenged and that it cannot be applied to historical events. This means the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, a single white man in this place, a political officer of the government, is the only person in the whole country who can make that decision, and no-one can question this. This goes against to the very intention of the convention. The Attorney-General is not required to follow any criteria for this decision-making, can make this decision in secret, and there is no possibility for judicial oversight, appeal or merits review. The Australia Tibet Council, in its submission, pointed out:

In its application, the Attorney-General's fiat creates silence.

The Tibetan experience has shown that silence only emboldens the perpetrators of human right abuses and genocide to continue their criminal policies with impunity.

This bill contains two simple demands: to remove the Attorney-General as the sole person in this country who can decide whether the crime of genocide can be prosecuted in the courts of this country; and to lift the block on the appeal or review of these decisions. The main bill addresses atrocity crimes of genocide that occurred domestically, and the circulated amendment on sheet 3055 upholds the principle of universal jurisdiction and ensures the fiat is removed for crimes that occurred in a foreign country when the individual accused is neither an Australian citizen nor a resident.

I want to thank everyone who made a submission to this inquiry and who provided evidence last year and acknowledge the difficulty for you in talking about crimes against humanity and genocide of your people. We heard so many stories from experts and human rights groups but most importantly from First Peoples in this country, who spoke to the genocide taking place, as well as from many others, including those from Palestine, West Papua, Tibet, Xinjiang, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and many more.

The inquiry made clear that the fiat stands in the way of justice and is an almost insurmountable obstacle for victims of atrocity crimes. Every single one of the witnesses, besides the Attorney-General's Department itself, supported the measures in the bill. Despite overwhelming support for this bill to pass, the committee ignored the voices of our people, disregarded the cries of those still living under the shadow of genocide and turned its back on the wisdom and pain shared by communities and experts, historians and survivors alike. They ignored legal and human rights experts. They ignored best evidence. This is to protect themselves. It is a protection racket. It's to protect their friends overseas and to keep lying about the history and reality.

This bill was supposed to be voted on last November and to be witnessed by First Peoples and activists from across the country who travelled here for this purpose—my brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles from Palestine, Kanaky, Tibet, West Papua, and the Sikh community and of course our own elders, who have looked after their land and our communities for many thousands of years. Genocide survivors and their allies came from across this continent and from overseas to stand together and bear witness to whether this government would stand true to its supposed commitment to prevent and end genocide. Instead of seeing the bill come to a vote, I was censured and then suspended for calling out genocide and racism in this very place.

I'm not alone in being punished. Over the past month, we have witnessed systemic, escalating attacks on cultural institutions, academics, artists, journalists and workers across the country for fighting against white supremacy, apartheid and genocide. Artists and academics have been censured, political dissent discredited and silenced, workers fired, and activists criminalised through a suite of legislation at both federal and state levels. The primary targets of these measures have been racialised communities speaking up against the realities of their own oppression.

Today is another day in the colony, because we will no doubt see the Labor and the coalition parties double down on their domestic and international policies of genocide, genocidal denial and blatant disregard of human rights obligations. The fact that both major parties are unwilling to remove the power from a single politician who can make decisions in secret without scrutiny, transparency and accountability or appeal avenues shows that this country is complicit. We have seen in the year how, instead of standing up against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Labor and the coalition would rather support their dear friends and allies like the United States and Israel.

If you don't support this bill, you are complicit in the ongoing genocide of my people and around the world, and, one day, you will all be held accountable because you've signed up to a convention. You are breaking the law. You are breaking international law, and each and every one of you who do not support this bill today will be personally held accountable and responsible and will be called to a court of law to answer—maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will come.

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

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024. The coalition does not support the bill. Let me take the Senate through the reasons as to why. In technical terms, what the bill will do, if it was passed through the Senate, is remove what is a longstanding feature of our common law where the Attorney-General of Australia, as Australia's first law officer, must consent to the prosecution of certain serious crimes. These are crimes of the highest order, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As I said, these are serious crimes.

As with other offences, the decision to initiate a prosecution for any such offence would, of course, be made independently either by the DPP or by a person seeking to commence a private prosecution. Given the serious nature of these crimes, almost invariably, however, these crimes raise important considerations relevant to Australia's national security, foreign relations and matters of international law that govern the actions of nation states. Therefore, legal proceedings in respect of these alleged offences may directly impact the interests of all Australians. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the executive government, through the Attorney-General, have the opportunity to consider the impact of any such prosecution on the national security and foreign relations interests of all Australians. That is what this bill seeks to remove. So everything I just said in relation to—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bullshit! That's bullshit—

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

the seriousness of this bill—

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

Senator Thorpe, can I call you to order. This matter will probably go into committee and, therefore, you will have another opportunity to prosecute your argument. Senator Cash.

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

It is one thing to talk to a bill in this Senate. It is another thing to properly scrutinise what the contents of the bill will do as opposed to the arguments that may be put forward by the person who is putting forward the bill. That is what the coalition has done. We have looked at the bill. We have analysed each section of the bill, and the reason we are not supporting it is because of what it does. As I said, put simply, the bill that we have before us—in other words, the legislation as drafted and the effect of the legislation, should it pass through this place—is, quite frankly, an attempt to further open up our courts to abuse by activists who engage in lawfare to pursue a political agenda.

Senator Thorpe and the Greens want to allow activists to use our courts to commence private prosecutions for some of the most serious crimes on our statute book. Those crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is what this bill actually does. Senator Thorpe and the Greens want to allow activists to use our courts to commence private prosecutions for some of the most serious crimes on our statute book, and they want this to occur without oversight. This is what the legislation does. They want to remove the important safeguard and the longstanding feature of our common law that allows the national security and foreign relation interests of all Australians—not just a few Australians—to be taken into account.

Instead, what this bill would do, if passed on behalf of Senator Thorpe and the Australian Greens, is put Australians' interests second. They want to give primacy to the narrow, sectional interests of their political supporters and, in particular, given the nature of the serious crimes that we are referring to—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'What an insult! Cash, what an insult.

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

Senator Thorpe, please! I have given you a reasonable amount of latitude. Let Senator Cash finish. Senator Cash, please resume.

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

What this bill would do, if passed—and I am talking to the bill as drafted as opposed to merely making a statement—is put the interests of all Australians, in relation to these serious crimes, second. What it would do is give primacy to the narrow, sectional interests of supporters of Senator Thorpe and the Australian Greens.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fearmongering. Racist bullshit.

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

Yes, Senator McKenzie?

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

On a point of order. Senator Thorpe has continually sworn in this chamber, and I would ask you to seek her to withdraw the swearwords.

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

Senator Thorpe, please—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Thank you. Senator Cash, please resume.

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

I would say that when this speech is, potentially, looked at by others they will see that the constant interjections by the mover of this bill, in relation to my speech on behalf of the coalition addressing the legislation that is before the Senate, prove the point of why the coalition will not be supporting this piece of legislation. We will not support a bill that puts the interests of all Australian citizens second to the interests of a narrow, sectional group of political supporters of Senator Thorpe and the Australian Greens. All this bill does is ensure that the courts are able to be used as a forum to make political points about events overseas or in Australia's past and make accusations about genocide or war crimes in order to advance nothing more and nothing less than a political narrative.

This immature—as we've seen on display today; the Hansard will reflect this—shouty, undergraduate and childish approach exploits and devalues what are extremely grave offences that relate to some of the most serious crimes imaginable. As I said, the crimes that we are referring to are genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, some of the most serious crimes imaginable.

The legislation and statements made by Senator Thorpe in her address to the Senate and, more than that, her display during the speech that I gave yet again confirm that this bill is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle for political activists to get into our court, to put the interests of the Australian people second to their own—nothing more and nothing less. Unfortunately, based on the last three years in this place, sadly, it is exactly what we've come to expect from the extreme radical Greens and their allies.

Given this, literally, will be the last sitting day of the Senate of this parliament, I'll close my speech by saying this to all Australians: God help Australia if those radical left-wing ideologues are holding the Prime Minister's puppet strings in a Labor minority government after the election. God help Australia!

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

Rarely do you see a political party step forward and say that it is in the interests of all Australians to have the law so skewed that politicians can decide whether or not somebody will be prosecuted for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Rarely do you see such a blatant exercise of self-interest from the two parties in this chamber as we just saw from Senator Cash, stepping forward and defending the situation.

Senator Cash said, 'God help us.' She as a potential future attorney-general would decide whether or not a prosecution could be issued against the Israeli Prime Minister, if he came to this country, and pretend that that would be an exercise of justice. We know her irreparable bias against the people of Palestine, the irreparable bias that the coalition has against the international court of criminal justice and the irreparable bias that the coalition has against international law holding decision-makers, like senior decision-makers in this government, to account for their crimes. Heaven help us if we get to that situation.

The Greens support this legislation because, unlike the coalition and unlike Labor, we believe that Australians want perpetrators of genocide, of war crimes and of crimes against humanity to be held to account for their crimes, whether they occurred in this country or anywhere around the planet. And we don't believe that a politician should be able to veto those prosecutions. Indeed, it's offensive to the very concept of rule of law that a politician, using a political analysis, will let somebody who is potentially guilty of the worst crimes on our statute books, the worst crimes known to humanity, off for political considerations.

The importance of this change is obvious right now. We've seen a genocide being carried out in Gaza, and that creates obligations under international law for our country to take action, for every country on the planet to take action. We have an obligation individually and Australia has an obligation collectively, under the genocide convention, to prevent genocide wherever it's occurring and to hold perpetrators to account at any time. We already know what the coalition would do if one of those people perpetrating the genocide was to come to Australia—they would refuse to permit Australian authorities to arrest or to issue a warrant, and would refuse to even allow a prosecution to get before the courts.

You'd almost think there's a global ruling class who think that they should be able to protect their mates and protect other decision-makers who are making these kinds of brutal decisions to inflict war and violence at impossible scale against communities. You'd almost think they want to make sure they and their mates are never held to account. That's what this is. It's not about the national interest. It's about the interest of senior decision-makers in countries like this, the United States and the United Kingdom. It's about a club that's protecting the club and ensuring international law will never reach it and actually take out the powerful.

If you want a classic example of how the club did that, we saw the way the UK failed to extradite Augusto Pinochet, a notorious war criminal, a notorious leader who oversaw mass murder and political torture. When Pinochet was held under house arrest, facing potential extradition to Spain to be prosecuted for those crimes against humanity, Margaret Thatcher, the coalition's poster child, sent him a bottle of scotch whisky and said, 'We support you, here's a British institution that will stand by you,' and issued Pinochet every political support, as did former US President George Bush. The club protects the club. They don't care about the genocide. They don't care about the war crimes. They don't care about the crimes against humanity, because protecting themselves is more important.

Of course we support getting rid of a political veto before crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are prosecuted. The argument put by the coalition just then, the facile argument put by the coalition that this would allow unlimited activists to be running prosecutions, is either deliberately misleading or shows a degree of base ignorance of how the criminal law operates in this country. But either of those are a poor conclusion made by somebody who says that they want to be a future attorney-general of this country. If Senator Cash knew how the criminal law works, if Senator Cash had read any of the submissions that were put in for this bill—which you wouldn't think would be an unreasonable requirement before standing up and speaking against it. Senator Cash may, for example, have read the submission from the Australian Centre for International Justice. The Australian Centre for International Justice details the law in relation to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth. I'll read:

The Commonwealth Director Of Public Prosecutions … exercises discretion to institute prosecutions for offences against the Commonwealth in accordance with the CDPP … policy. The CDPP also reserves the right to decide whether to proceed with, take over or decline a private prosecution in accordance with the same policy.

You see, the spectre of unlimited private political prosecutions being run by the coalition is plainly false—legally ignorant. If at any time the CDPP thought that an inappropriate prosecution was being undertaken they could take it over and shut it down, and historically they've done that on numerous occasions. But perhaps Senator Cash, who says she wants to be the future Attorney-General, doesn't understand that basic principle in criminal law. If so, that's an indictment on the coalition and an indictment on Senator Cash.

So, what is the rationale for the Attorney-General having the consent? We have an existing set of laws where, if there's evidence of a crime—and here some of the worst crimes: genocide against First Nations peoples in this country, genocide against peoples across the planet, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—the AFP should be undertaking an investigation. If they gather the brief of evidence, it goes before the CDPP, who review the brief of evidence as to whether there's sufficient evidence to persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt that it should go before the courts. That's how the law works for every other criminal offence on the books. But in relation to this—the most serious crimes—there's this political veto.

Again, I go to the Australian Centre for International Justice, who explained the rationale for the Attorney-General's consent. They say that while the explanatory memorandum for the bill that introduced this legislation originally did not detail why the Attorney-General's consent requirement was necessary for division 268 offences, 'the historical justification for such consent has been that certain prosecutions could potentially impact Australia's international relations or national security, necessitating government-to-government contact'. Additionally, the consent has been justified as a safeguard against inappropriate prosecutions.

Well, we know that last argument is specious, because the CDPP has the power to take over and end. But when it comes to the others, how is it in our national interest to let war criminals walk free? Can someone explain to the Australian public how it's in the national interest to let those who have committed genocide visit our country and walk free? Can someone explain how it's in our national interest to allow war criminals to wander freely around the planet without fear of prosecution? The Greens can't understand that, but apparently Labor and the coalition think there's an overwhelming national interest in letting those who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity walk free and that somehow that will make a better world. Well, we fundamentally reject that proposition.

We say not only that this act should be passed but also that history shows that Australia needs a specialised war crimes unit, with the skills and expertise to respond quickly, build cases and hold war criminals to account. The sorry history in Australia of those for whom there was compelling evidence of war crimes being allowed to visit the country and then walk free, despite our having these laws on the statute books, is a sorry tale of the AFP and a sorry tale of deliberate government inaction.

When Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa visited this country in 2011 there were attempts by the Tamil community to have a private prosecution brought, because the Sri Lankan president was deeply culpable in the decisions that led to the mass killings of Tamils in the final few months of the war in 2009. Political interference and a decision by the then Labor Attorney-General that they would not prosecute killed the prosecution. And when Aung San Suu Kyi entered the country in 2018 there were requests to the then coalition Attorney-General for consent for a prosecution because of the crimes against the Rohingya community—crimes that have continued since, at an appalling rate. They have the largest refugee population on the planet as a result of those crimes against the Rohingya people. In a press release, the then coalition attorney-general Christian Porter declined the prosecution, saying:

Aung San Suu Kyi has complete immunity, including from being served with court documents because under customary international law, heads of state, heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs are immune from foreign criminal proceedings and are inviolable …

That is directly contrary to our obligations under the convention, which expressly says that provisions providing immunity to heads of state shall not limit the reach of the law when it comes to genocide and crimes against humanity.

In 2019, Jagath Jayasuriya, who was, at that point, a retired Sri Lankan general, had effectively directed the appalling genocidal attack on the Tamils in 2009. He was deeply complicit as a security force commander for operations in the Vanni region of Sri Lanka. Before he came here, people approached the AFP and said: 'You must begin investigations. This is a war criminal.' Repeated evidence was provided to the government of the day, to the then Attorney-General and to the AFP, and after months and months of urging, they did nothing. Jayasuriya was present in Australia between October and November 2019, but the AFP did nothing. Indeed, the AFP wrote back in September 2021, after failing to take action, and said it was because of 'an administrative oversight' that they didn't hold a war criminal to account.

So we say this: of course we support this bill. War criminals, those who commit genocide and those who commit crimes against humanity must be held to account—whether those crimes happened here against First Nations peoples or anywhere on this planet. We commend Senator Thorpe for bringing in this bill and we reject the criticism of her passion and her commitment that we saw from the coalition. It's about time that the planet bent towards justice, and we can do a bit here by removing the bars to the prosecution of those who commit genocide and by making Australia live up to its international commitments.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on the private senators' bill introduced by Senator Thorpe, the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024, and to add—as my colleague Senator Shoebridge has already said—our strong support for the intentions of this bill. I also want to reject the assertions made by Senator Cash that this is somehow about political activism and only about political activism, and that we are somehow radical by believing that there needs to be justice for crimes against humanity and genocide and for war crimes. We see, time and time again in this chamber, the opposition and even sometimes the government come in here and talk tough about being the tough cop on the beat. How about being the tough cop on the beat when it comes to injustices in this country?

This bill, importantly, challenges the current power—as my colleague Senator Shoebridge has already said—of the Attorney-General, who is the highest lawmaker. I think Senator Cash's tilt, I'll call it, for her election platform to be Australia's next Attorney-General was to speak through the window to all Australians. But what I know in my home state of Western Australia, which is hers as well, is the Frontier Wars never stopped. The blood has never stopped being shed in our state.

I'm a proud Western Australian and I know that Western Australians want to know the truth about the history of this country. As a proud First Nations woman, I think we need to ensure that giving power to the highest lawmaker in this country is not about one person and never about one person, because those crimes against humanity—such as genocide and war crimes—as Senator Shoebridge and also Senator Thorpe articulated, clearly need to sit above politics; they cannot be left to a single politician. There should be no political veto to bringing a criminal prosecution.

So I reject that assertion that this will open up the courts to political activists across the country, because we live and walk this every single day. The lack of a proper legislative framework impacts on the most vulnerable people across the world. There is a plethora of evidence and research about war-torn countries that already shows this, including what we are seeing happen in real time in Palestine. We cannot turn away from that and we should not, just as we cannot and should not turn away from what's happening in our own Australian First Nations communities.

At the end of the day, this bill is recognition of Australia's failure to fully implement the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide—from here on I'm going to refer to that as the 'convention'. Australia signed this convention on 11 December 1948. It entered into force in Australia in 1951. However, it was not enshrined in Australian domestic law until 2002, when the Criminal Code Act 1995 was amended to make it an offence to commit crimes punishable by the International Criminal Court. That meant that these crimes—namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are sometimes referred to as genocide and related atrocity crimes—became crimes under Australian law. In passing that amendment, the Australian government included provisions according to which proceedings concerning these crimes under the Criminal Code must not be commenced without the written consent of the Attorney-General and can not be applied to events that occurred prior to the commencement of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002, on 26 September 2002. This is commonly known as the Attorney-General's fiat.

What we know and what history tells us is that these provisions undermine the very intent of the convention to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. The convention establishes that genocide, whether it's committed at a time of peace or in war, is a crime under international law. That's the important part of this. That's the importance that we cannot lose sight of. The convention states that all parties must take measures to prevent acts of genocide. Have we seen that happen? No, we haven't. We continue to see the failures of our own country in standing idle, watching what is happening and not challenging any of that.

The convention also states this:

… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I can tell you that, in Australia, these things have happened, and still we see no justice. In other countries around the world, these things have happened, and still we see no justice. The colonial and Australian governments have committed all of these crimes. That is the harsh reality. These are the dark times of our past. It is the reason that Senator Shoebridge and I co-sponsored a bill to bring truth and justice, through a federal commission, here, and we will bring the bill in again in the 48th Parliament later this year for you all to vote on.

These are uncomfortable conversations to have, but they are necessary to face the injustices that are happening. We cannot continue to go home, close the door and shut off the rest of the world and pretend it's not happening. It is our job in this place as political leaders to challenge that, and today, over on this side, we are supporting Senator Thorpe in bringing this bill to the nation's parliament to challenge that. We have an obligation under the convention to prevent genocide, and through the Select Committee on Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities and closing the gap, which I chair, we know that it is continuing to happen. How many of our children continue to be transferred into out-of-home care? When we said sorry in this place, that should have meant never again. In 2008, it meant that everyone should be standing on the right side of history, but it's continuing. The genocide continues.

We cannot allow the necessary legal measures and processes to be determined by politics. We need to remove the political veto of bringing criminal prosecutions against these matters. We know that the majors in this place are terrified. We just saw one of them from the opposition stand in this place. They're terrified. For the first time in history we've got black women in this place who are standing up alongside our allies and challenging what has been happening for 200-plus years in this country. Everybody out there is listening and watching us and cheering for us, saying: 'This is great. We want to know about this.' Do you know why? It's because we didn't know this happened in our own country. We didn't get taught this at school. But also, if it's not in our household, in our community, we don't know what's happening and we don't know the impact that it's having.

We will continue over here at the Australian Greens, as radical as you think we are, to call that out. Being passionate about humanity is not being radical. It is being real. It is showing empathy. That costs nothing in this country. It costs nothing. I wish that the political leaders on either side of this aisle would take some advice today and think deeply about what that means—what it means when you turn the television and the radio on every morning, when you listen to RN about what's happening around the world, but also in your backyard, and how you have the power to change that today by voting for this bill, to ensure that we all stand on the right side of history. This is the time for change. This is the last day of the 47th Parliament and this is the time when you can actually do that with your power.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question now be put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.