Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the race, or national or ethnic origin, of the target person or the persons in the target group", substitute "the race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 28), omit "the particular race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "the particular race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(4) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 28), after item 11, insert:

11A After subsection 16A(2AAD)

Insert:

(2AAE) In subsections (2), (2AAC) and (2AAD), association with another person includes:

(a) being a near relative of the person; and

(b) living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; and

(c) having a formal business or employment relationship with the person.

I rise today in support of the bill, but also to put forward amendments. I'm introducing an amendment to part 3, the aggravated sentencing factor. This provision is a matter which must be considered by the court when sentencing persons for federal offences if the factor is relevant and known to the court. This factor is whether the offender's conduct was motivated by hatred of another person or group and, if so, whether that hatred was because of the person's belief that the target person or target group are distinguished by race or national ethnic origin.

I support this provision. A federal offence which has been motivated by hatred, especially on the attributes which are inherent to an individual or group, is an offence which deserves additional punishment upon consideration of the court. In a time of unprecedented antisemitism, particularly directed to those in my community and across the country, and in the wake of the abhorrent attack on 14 December, we must take action to show that hatred is not acceptable and draw bright lines—and this is a fitting way to do so. However, I remain concerned that the groups designated within this provision are too narrowly defined. Consideration of this hatred should not be limited by race, or national or ethnic origin. Hatred can be enacted through violence and crime against members of our LGBTQIA+ community, for example; those with a disability; and those from religious communities.

As I've said previously, the Jewish community has not asked for special treatment in relation to these bills and I think that is really relevant. Given what has happened in my community, I wouldn't be standing in this space on this without having spoken to the Jewish community. What they have said to me is that we need to protect all Australians from hatred and vilification. We need to draw bright lines across this country and we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are equal in front of the law. I really cannot understand why the government, in this case, would bring in what I think is an appropriate piece of legislation but then, in terms of this part of the bill, not apply it consistently. That is actually inconsistent internally with the rest of the act. So just from the point of view of good governance this is bad, because we have laws applying to some in some ways and not in other ways. I think that it is not good for the message that we're trying to send the country: that we are all equal in front of the law and that hatred matters to everyone. While, again, I have very much stood for and fought for antisemitism protections in the last parliament and in this parliament, I have always done it in consultation with the Jewish community. They have said, 'Don't single us out; make sure that this is protection for everyone.'

I raise this particularly because I represent the biggest Jewish community in the country, and I think I probably represent the biggest LGBTQI+ community in the country as well. I'm going to read something that someone sent to me about this: 'For much of my life I was a senior banking executive. Due to my public role, I attracted the attention of a man who sought to destroy my life. I am a gay man, and the hatred and homophobia he directed to me over a number of years was of an order that Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said she had never seen. He sent thousands of emails to everyone I knew—family, board members, colleagues, associates. He left multiple phone messages every day; came to my home and workplace; generated pornographic and other images of me; and accused me publicly of all manner of terrible crimes and so on. I was forced to sell my house, move jobs, resign from several boards and more or less live as a hermit for some years, with security guards accompanying me. That is the case for some people in our community.' I have been there and have talked to Jewish community members who are afraid to go out in their country and do not know if they will ever be safe again. As a parliament, we have to fight for that, but we need to fight for the safety of all Australians. The targeting of hatred against any Australian should not be acceptable to this parliament. The laws need to apply broadly and equally so that those people are not forced to go through this, and to recognise that the hatred against them does not matter as much. I think that is actually better for the social cohesion of our country rather than worse.

See this speech in context