Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I don't know about you, but I'm very happy to support laws that are going to give the relevant minister in this country the ability to actually chuck out violent Islamic extremists. That's actually what the laws that we are looking at tonight, in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, will do.

But, before I address those laws, let's talk about the journey to get here. Australians should never forget what Mr Albanese tried to do after Australia's largest terrorist attack. Let's be clear. He tried to push through the biggest expansion of criminal speech laws this country has ever seen. What's worse is he tried to do it in less than one week, before Australians had had time to properly read it, understand it or speak up. But guess what? Australians did speak up, and the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—stood firmly with them. So I say this to all Australians: congratulations, Australia. Just like us, you saw what the Prime Minister of Australia was trying to do to you. You saw through the spin, you looked at the substance and—well done, Australia—you stopped the Prime Minister of Australia.

As we stand here tonight and debate the legislation that is now before the Senate, let us be very, very clear, because there's a lot of misinformation out there tonight. Labor's hate speech package—the original package that would have silenced you, Australia—has been abandoned. Well done, Australia. You stood up, we listened, you forced Mr Albanese to take action and that bill has been scrapped. But, I have to say, here's a basic question that all Australian should ask themselves: after 15 Jewish Australians were murdered in the largest terror attack this country has ever seen, on Bondi Beach, why was the Prime Minister's first instinct to rush laws through that would have potentially silenced ordinary Australians while, at the same time, refusing to clearly name the ideology that drove the terrorist attack? Here's the bit that the Australian people can't get past: the package he wanted us to put through ran through hundreds of pages, and guess what? Not once in those 500 pages did it name what actually happened, the real threat—violent, Islamic extremism. Let's be very clear: if you can't name the threat that Australia is confronting, Prime Minister, guess what? You actually can't address it.

Let me say this plainly because, quite frankly, Australians are sick and tired of the Australia Labor Party and the Prime Minister dancing around the truth. Australia must confront violent Islamic extremism, not excuse it, not relabel it—as they tend to do so as to not offend the violent Islamic extremists—and not pretend it is something else. But definitely don't try and make laws around it whilst refusing to name it. Let's be very clear here. This is an ideology that glorifies murder, that celebrates terrorism, that targets Jews first. Australians, wake up and understand this: it is not confined to the Jewish people. They start with Saturday; they go after Sunday. For all of the Christians out there, wake up. You are Sunday. That is what they do. They target the Jews first and then they go after anybody else who stands in their way. This extremist ideology hates democracy and it hates the Australian way of life. That is the threat.

But, sadly, instead of focusing on this threat right from the start, Labor's original approach took a slightly different tangent. They wanted to introduce laws that actually risk chilling lawful speech and worse—I find this so offensive—it built in a dangerous loophole dressed up as a religious teaching defence that the hate preachers would have exploited. Quite frankly, I think the Australian people expect that a law meant to stop hate should never give the hate preachers in this country a roadmap to avoid accountability but that is what the Prime Minister of Australia did. He gave, by the drafting, the hate preachers—the people that we want to stop in this country—a 'get out of jail free' card. As I said, good on you, Australia, congratulations. You saw through the Prime Minister, you saw he was trying to silence you, you had the support of the coalition and we successfully defeated that bill.

Let's talk in plain English about what this bill before us today does, because there is a lot of misinformation out there tonight. First, as I said—and this is why I am supporting it—it makes it easier to kick extremists out of Australia using the visa system. This is the message of the coalition: if you come here to glorify extremist violence, if you want to threaten Australians or radicalise others, I don't care but you should not get a visa. If you are already here and you are doing that, I do think the minister should be given the power to take your visa from you. But I also think that the minister should be able to go one step further, which is what this legislation does. It says, 'Guess what? You are never ever coming back into the great country of Australia.' That is what this bill will deliver. It would give the minister clearer power to refuse a visa, to cancel a visa and to permanently exclude people who, quite frankly, are coming to Australia to poison our community.

I will also say this: to anyone who votes against this tonight, you need to be upfront with the Australian people about what you are doing. A no vote is a vote against refusing visas to hate preachers. A no vote is a vote against cancelling visas where someone is glorifying violence. And a no vote is a vote against keeping these people out for good.

So, amongst all of the misinformation that's out there tonight, let me be clear: I'm voting for laws that make it easier for the relevant minister—Labor or coalition—to throw extremists out of this country and to keep extremists excluded from this country. Why would I do that? I do it because the coalition's position is simple: Australia is not a sanctuary for violent extremists. We will not give people visas when they're glorifying terror or they are trying to radicalise others. And if they are here, yes, we do want the minister to have the power to remove them and keep them out.

The second thing this bill tonight does is in relation to violent extremist hate groups. Again, there's a lot of misinformation out there tonight, so let me be clear. Despite what people are saying, this is not about opinions; this is about organised, dangerous hate groups that recruit, intimidate and create the conditions for hate motivated violence.

One of the issues in Australia is that the terrorist listing threshold is incredibly high, as it should be. What that has therefore done, though, is leave a gap where vile hate groups can operate in plain sight. They are recruiting, radicalising and fundraising and they are intimidating communities, but they fall just short of a terrorism label. People have seen it. They've seen it of late with the Neo-Nazis. These are people who worship Hitler and glorify genocide. They don't just hold vile views; they build networks, they recruit, they threaten and they target minorities to spread fear. This part of the bill helps close that gap. It creates a way to prohibit organised hate groups and makes it illegal to take part in them or help them—this is very important—when they are tied to serious hate-driven criminal conduct.

That takes me to a group that, quite frankly, I can't wait to see listed. That is Hizb ut-Tahrir. Let's be very clear about what this organisation is. For anyone who wants to vote no tonight, this is an extremist Islamic organisation. It rejects democracy, it rejects Australian law and it openly pushes for a global Islamic caliphate run under sharia law. I'm sorry, but to anyone who's saying, 'Oh, this legislation goes too far,' I can tell you right now that I don't think that is just a slightly different opinion to what I might have. Their whole agenda is to replace the Australian way of life, and, quite frankly, I want that stopped.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's message is a simple one: Australia's system—our parliament, our courts, equal rights for men and women, and our freedom to choose our religion or, alternatively, to not have any religion at all—is illegitimate and it must be replaced. Sadly, this group doesn't need to set a bomb off to be dangerous. Their danger is their vile, extremist ideology—the propaganda that radicalises, that spreads hatred and that tells young Australians that our democracy in our great country is the enemy. I don't know about others in this chamber, but I have no desire to see groups that want a global caliphate under sharia law, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, operating in Australia. Quite frankly, if you come here to undermine our democracy and replace it, you should not get a platform. You should not get protection and you definitely should not be allowed to organise—like they have done, and will continue to do if this legislation does not pass tonight—in the great country of Australia. Here's the reality, again, for those colleagues who will vote no tonight: if you vote against this hate group regime, you will need to explain plainly why you are prepared to let Neo-Nazi organisations and Hizb ut-Tahrir keep operating freely in Australia, because that would be the practical effect—more space to recruit, more space to radicalise, more space to intimidate and, what is worse, more poison in our communities.

Many out there—again, there's misinformation—are claiming this is an attack on free speech. It isn't. That was the Prime Minister's original bill. That was the bill that Australians said no to and we successfully killed off. What we are voting on tonight is entirely different. This targets organised extremist groups that fall just short of a terrorist listing but still cause real harm. It is important that the minister, whether they are from Labor or the coalition, has the power to act against these vile extremist organisations. Here is the line, and it is the right line.

This is not about outlawing unpopular opinions. It is not about shutting down robust debate. It is not about religious discussion, genuine political advocacy, comedy, satire or art. And it is certainly not about the police knocking on your door because of a harsh Facebook post or because you criticised the government. The coalition would never support that. This is directed at serious conduct of a criminal nature and serious harm of a criminal standard under existing law, and it only applies where the Director-General of Security is satisfied the conduct would or is likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence. That is a high bar, and it should be a high bar. So, for anybody out there thinking that we're attacking free speech, the test is not whether someone said something offensive; it is whether what someone said increases the risk of violence—not of discomfort, not of disagreement, not of, 'I didn't like what was said.'

Australia is a free country, but it is not a sanctuary for extremists, and it should not be a safe operating environment for vile extremist hate groups. Australians want to see Islamic hate preachers gone, they want to see the minister given the ability to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and they want Neo-Nazis off our streets. These laws will achieve that, and that's why I'm supporting them.