Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to the House, knowing that we could and should have done more as an institution. We had the opportunity to stand up to hate speech and vilification, and we fell short. Sadly, the political reality of this parliament means that we couldn't get done everything we thought we needed to; however, this is an important step. It should be uncontroversial that hate groups should not be given the capacity to spread that vile hate across our community and to undermine social cohesion in some of the most heinous of ways. It should be uncontroversial that people in positions of power should be prevented from spreading that hate to vulnerable young people and using their positions to inflict the worst of pain on fellow members of our community. It should be uncontroversial that people who come into Australia as guests be expected to conduct themselves in a way that does not undermine social cohesion or act as a direct attack on our nation's values. We need to ensure that we are addressing opportunities and loopholes that exist in the current law and that have enabled organisations that have preached hate for a very long time to fall just under the criminal thresholds. It's time that we stand up as a parliament and address these obvious evils in our society.

These are sensible reforms. I appreciate that these have happened at a greater pace than some are used to, but there has been sufficient time to get across the detail. We do not have a lawyer shortage in this building. We do not have a shortage of people who can understand and comprehend legislation. For those who needed support, there are plenty of people around who can explain things. I get that it's complicated, but, now that we're facing two bills that are less complicated, there really is no reason for us not to pass these important reforms.

When we are talking about rights, yes, there is often a balancing act. Hate speech will almost inevitably, to some extent, impact on the freedom of speech. The balancing act is the subject of legitimate discussion, but it's not intellectually complex; it's a choice that has to be made, and leadership is about choices. What do you do to stand up to the challenge of antisemitism in our community at this moment in time? Do we sit by and allow it and pretend that the status quo is acceptable, or do we take meaningful and substantive action to address this social ill that has, since October 7, reared its ugly head in ways that we have not seen before in this country? It's appropriate for this parliament to stand up for the values of Australia, for the things that we hold dear, and this bill does just that.

We're hoping that this can be a moment of national unity. We have split the bill, when a lot of us on this side of the House think it should have remained as it was before, to get rid of the roadblocks that prevented real action being taken by this parliament. It is hoped and expected that this can be a moment of national unity, where people on both sides of the House can stand up for foundational principles, and where we can at least agree that groups dedicated to spreading hate are not acceptable in our community; that lines that were previously unsaid but understood by all have been crossed; and that lines need to be drawn in the sand to make sure that hate is denounced, that it is considered unacceptable and that the promotion of it is dealt with under law.

It's also important that these sentencing factors be changed. It is a more serious affront to the community and our society if a criminal offence is committed with racial hatred as its motivation. It is a legitimate sentencing factor. It goes to the seriousness of the offence, it goes to its repugnance and it goes to the importance of ensuring that the denunciation and punishment reflect the severity of what's been done.

These are sensible, pragmatic reforms. They reflect the values that we should really all share. They balance rights of freedom of association. There are existing defences under the Criminal Code that protect legitimate expressions of political discord, legitimate arguments, artistic expressions and all of those things. These bills can't be seen in isolation; they form part of a criminal code which contains defences around good faith. It is just a shame that we couldn't come together to deal with vilification. It's something that I hope that we can revisit another day. But hopefully these reforms, which go to the key concerns of many in the Jewish community about these hate groups openly and unashamedly spreading hate in ways we have not seen before, are something we can at least get behind. One would hope that, when Neo-Nazis are calling for this bill not to be passed, we take the clue. Perhaps it's best not to be on their side. Perhaps it's best that we stand up and address these hateful organisations without delay and stand up for our nation's values at this horrible time.

This is a sensible bill. I commend it to the House, and I hope it receives support from across the parliament.

See this speech in context