Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (lines 18 to 27), omit subparagraphs 114A.3(2)(a)(ii) and (iii).

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (line 32) to page 13 (line 4), omit subsection 114A.3(3).

I believe that it is incredibly important that we understand that in the division, in the bifurcation of this omnibus bill, we now have a complete change in what went before the committee for inquiry. As that is the case, I have seen an enlargement of the scope and the net of what this bill now brings about. I bring your attention to this section and this amendment because a hate crime is also conduct whether engaged in before or after this section commences, as would constitute an offence and provision of a law of the Commonwealth. We can understand that. We're in the Commonwealth parliament. We have the authority, and that is our remit.

It also goes on to say that it would constitute an offence against a provision of a law of a state parliament. It would constitute a provision of a law of a territory parliament, enforced at the commencement of this section, and if engaged before a provision referred to in subparagraph 1 or 2 commenced, would have constituted an offence against the provision had the provision been enforced at the time the conduct was engaged in.

This is getting awfully large. There seems to be an awfully large net here. We have a lot of policemen and a whole range of people who can now get caught up in this. We can have dualling views of what hate crimes are by respective parliaments and respective territories. They could actually take retribution against another person's view by deeming something a hate crime in their state parliament and then relying on the Commonwealth to enforce it. At the end, an aggravated form of this has 15 years in jail. This is way beyond anything discussed at the inquiry that was rightly held.

This issue has only just appeared. If I had had a little bit more time than receiving this at around 10 o'clock and now having a guillotine, I suppose, for the next half hour, we could have probably gone through this with a little more depth. I don't intend to divide on this, but I will be calling a division on the third reading to vote against the bill. This is incredibly dangerous and goes way beyond what we were supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be dealing with antisemitism, the hatred of Jews, and people who murder people of the Jewish faith. That was where it was supposed to be.

It could have been succinct, clear and focused, but we've now opened this net up so wide that it has become quite dangerous. I think it's hard enough that we have to come up with legislation in this chamber, which we know a future parliament may change or do with as they wish, but we're now saying that we're willing to take on the risk of not only future federal parliaments but future state parliaments and future territory parliaments. That is just beyond the breadth of something that can be tolerated. So I ask my colleagues here to truly consider how wide you want the police force to go. How far do you think this legislation should reach? I think you are all happy to say, 'This will favour me on a certain area,' but just imagine the person who's the political polar opposite of you and the fun they could have by being able to go to a state parliament and bringing forth a section, which they deem to be hate legislation, and then taking you off to court. It won't be too hard to prove; they've got their own state legislation. You'll definitely have a criminal offence. If they can find it's aggravated, there is the potential that you'll go to jail for 15 years. How did you come up with that complete lunacy of legislation?

See this speech in context