Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

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

(1) Page 2 (after line 16), after clause 3, insert:

4 Sunset clause

The amendments made by this Act are repealed on the day that is 2 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit "80.2C or 80.2D,".

I want to be really clear about my approach to my role in this place. I am committed to doing everything that is necessary and appropriate to rid this country of the scourge of antisemitism. The murderous terror inflicted on the Jewish community and on Australians more broadly on 14 December must never be allowed to happen again. It is precisely because of that desire to get our response right that I've been so disappointed in the haste with which the government has approached this task—the severely truncated inquiry; the lack of meaningful consultation; and the limited time given to parliamentarians to review and understand the legislation, let alone an opportunity to work with the government on behalf of my constituents to try and improve it. After all, these are very significant changes being proposed. We're talking about new criminal offences with penalties of imprisonment of up to 15 years. As a lawmaker new to this place, it is utterly confounding to me that—in what is supposed to be one of the most robust parliamentary systems in the world—I'm being asked to vote on a law today which could result in someone being sentenced for up to 15 years in prison the very same day as I am receiving texts of that law.

I completely understand, I respect and I support the need to act swiftly to protect people. Indeed it's the duty of this government to do so. But what if we are acting swiftly to enact laws which trade off people's rights without being sure that they will even achieved desired results? Expert after expert has expressed deep concerns about not only the substance of the laws but the process by which they will make their way through this parliament. In its submission to the inquiry conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, held hastily over a couple of days last week, the Law Council reminded us:

The rule of law requires that the law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear.

It was in that context that the council criticised the lack of clarity and precision in those laws before us. They couldn't even be certain of just how unclear and how imprecise these laws are because they haven't had enough time to review them. This is both disappointing and, frankly, outrageous. The sentiment was echoed by eminent constitutional lawyer, Anne Twomey, who said:

The time given for submissions to be made and for the Committee to report … is manifestly inadequate …

She went on to outline some possible outcomes of the application of the laws, outcomes which deserve due consideration as they concern all of us.

It's for this reason that I have moved an amendment which introduces a sunset clause to this bill. My amendment means that the bill would automatically be repealed after two years. This is one step beyond a mere review clause, which must happen, and it will force the government to go back to the people and say, 'This has worked and it is still necessary.' If that is indeed the case, passing the laws again will be a simple matter. It is also relevant to note that the offence of publicly inciting racial hatred was introduced to New South Wales by the New South Wales government last year and contains a three-year sunset clause.

Very briefly, the second amendment I have moved today relates to the definition of 'hate crime' for the purposes of banning hate groups. As currently drafted, it is not possible to ban a hate group for advocating terrorism or genocide. This is an illogical aspect of the bill, especially given we are attempting to combat terrorism. I seek to amend the bill to ensure that the crimes of advocating terrorism and advocating genocide can cause a group to be banned. The reason I give for this is that we want to stamp out hate against targeted groups. The intentional exclusion of these worst types of hateful conduct is completely irrational.

See this speech in context