Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, taking on board Senator Payman's comments. I listened very carefully to Senator Payman's speech. I do so because I believe this bill is in the national interest. I sincerely believe there's an imperative that we pass this bill, and I believe there's a great risk—some people have been talking about the risks in some of these provisions, the risks of the process et cetera. I say: consider the risk of us not passing this bill. Consider the risk of us not including these additional offences in the Criminal Code. Consider the risks of us not strengthening the visa cancellation and refusal processes in the Migration Act. Consider how those risks could be manifested again in the future, as they were on the beach at Bondi on 14 December. That is a risk we have to all carefully consider. In doing so, and after great careful consideration, I support this bill. I sincerely believe this bill is in the national interest and in the interests of all Australians.

Before giving my detailed comments, I would like to first place on the record my regards and compliments to the staff of the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs. They have been working tirelessly in relation to this legislation and all of the extensive supporting material, so I really do want to acknowledge their efforts. It is only through their efforts that we're in a position this evening to pass this legislation in the national interest. Let me put that on the record.

There are a number of points I'd like to make in rebuttal to some of the arguments that have been made from those across the chamber. First, there were a number of speakers on the Labor side who attacked the coalition's issue with the hate speech law in particular—the proposed racial vilification offence. To them I say this: the coalition makes no apology, no apology at all, for deeply scrutinising that proposed offence. We make no apology at all, because it's our job to defend the balance we achieve in this place and this parliament between, on the one hand, the freedoms of all Australians, which we cherish, and, on the other hand, making sure we protect all Australians. So we make no apology for discharging that duty, which is our duty as members of this parliament.

Second, I believe that the Labor Party, the Labor government, should have consulted with the coalition as soon as possible before the briefing which occurred last Monday evening in relation to the proposed bill. If that consultation had occurred earlier, I think there would have been better prospects for us landing on an agreed position with respect to that particular clause.

Third, it isn't just the opposition that has raised concerns with respect to that hate speech offence, that racial vilification offence, which is now out of the bill. It wasn't just the coalition; it was stakeholders across the Australian community. Thousands of Australians made submissions raising their concerns to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security in relation to that offence. Faith leaders—Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh—raised concerns about getting the balance right in relation to freedom of religion. They raised concerns. So don't criticise the coalition for listening to the Australian people or for listening to stakeholders including faith leaders that were saying that that clause in particular was too rushed. That's our job—to listen to the Australian people—and we did that.

The second point I want to make is on the comments which have been made in particular by members of the Greens and the crossbench in relation to the prohibited hate group sections. Those sections are incredibly important. One, they only apply if there has been criminal conduct or conduct in the nature of criminal conduct. That is an extremely high bar. Second, the director-general of ASIO has to identify a risk of politically motivated violence or the promotion of communal violence. Again, that is an extremely high bar. Third, there's a disallowance process. Any prohibition has to come before this parliament to provide an opportunity for all members of this parliament to raise their concerns and for it to be disallowed if a majority of the elected representatives believe it should be. There are checks and balances in relation to these provisions, appropriate checks and balances, and they only apply and will only apply in the most extreme of situations, in situations where they need to apply to protect the Australian people. The last point I make on the prohibited hate groups is this: there is a link to the provisions in the Migration Act, and the ability of the government to strengthen processes and procedures to cancel and refuse visas is dependent upon those provisions being passed, in part. You can't strengthen the provisions under the Migration Act without passing those other provisions. They're mutually complementary.

The third point I want to make is that this law applies for the benefit of all Australians. It applies equally to protect all Australians. Whatever their race, whatever their country of origin, whatever their ethnicity, this law applies equally to everyone. That includes our First Nations people, it includes the descendants of those who came to this country generations ago, and it includes our newest Australians. It applies to everyone equally. It doesn't matter what your nationality, whatever your race or whatever your country of origin is; you get the benefit of these laws.

I want to say something about Islamic State. There have been references to the ideology which appears to have inspired those responsible for the Bondi massacre. The reality is that the Islamist extremism that underpins Islamic State is a scourge around the whole world. It's a global phenomenon. Let me give you the list of terrorist acts which have occurred around the world as a result of that extremist Islamist ideology that underpins Islamic State. There have been terrorist attacks in Iraq, Belgium, Canada, the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Denmark, Tunisia, Yemen, Turkiye, Kuwait, Egypt, Russia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Israel, Malaysia, Jordan, Sweden and Spain—all over the world—and the victims of those terrorist attacks have been people of all races, all ethnicities and all religions. Those terrorist attacks have targeted churches, synagogues and mosques. They've targeted Christians, Muslims, Jews and ethnic minorities all over the world—people of all faiths. They've attacked hotels, tourist sites and the Supreme Court of Afghanistan before the Taliban retook Afghanistan. They're attacking women and girls attending universities and schools. They're attacking the Save the Children office in Afghanistan. They're attacking voter registration centres. The extremism which underpins Islamic State is a scourge, and we need the ability to do everything that we can to protect all Australians, regardless of their race, their country of origin, their ethnicity or their religion—all Australians. This bill achieves that purpose in the national interest.

The fourth point I'd like to make is this issue that's been raised about the Migration Act being amended to change the word 'would' to 'might'. I want to put this in context and I want to read the particular section. Those listening to this debate, listen to this very carefully and tell me what your views are. This is the character test. This is from section 501(6):

Character test

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test—

which means there are processes so that their application for a visa is refused or a visa can be cancelled. One of the subsections is:

(d) in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:

(i) engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or

(ii) harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or

(iii) vilify—

et cetera, or—

(v) represent a danger to the Australian community …

At the moment, that provision says that, to trigger the character test, the minister or the department has to form a view that the person 'would' do those things. Is that the appropriate standard? I don't think so. I think that if you ask the Australian people whether or not it should be 'would' or 'might', just about a hundred per cent of the Australian people would say that it should be 'might'—that we shouldn't take that risk. Why should we take that risk?

People come to this country from all over the world because of our values, for safety. And the Greens and others are telling us that we should have to make a positive decision that that person 'would' actually pose a risk instead of 'might'. I think it's plain we can't afford to take those risks. We're talking about the lives of Australian people, and we saw a manifestation of what happens when people in this country, whatever their origin, actually engage in this behaviour. So I think it is reasonable and proportionate that that word 'would' should be changed to 'might'.

If there is a red flag raised with respect to someone who is seeking the privilege to come to our country, then there is both a preventive element to our responsibilities, to make sure that person doesn't have the opportunity to come to the country if they 'might' have an impact on the lives and security of Australians, and a protective element, if a person is in that category and they're currently in our country—preventive and protective. I think the amendment which is proposed is reasonable and proportionate, especially, as Senator O'Neill said, in the context of what happened at Bondi, which has brought us all together—15 innocent people shot dead.

I don't believe these laws will, in any way, unfairly apply to the vast majority of people who come to our country in good faith, who in many cases bring an appreciation for our freedoms—because they're coming from countries where they were denied those freedoms—and bring so many things to our country. In fact, these laws will assist to protect those people and all other Australians. I believe these laws are, in fact, reasonable and proportionate. We shouldn't have to wait for someone to commit a crime and to cause harm to Australians before we act. We shouldn't have to wait for that harm to occur before we act. We have to adopt a risk based approach in relation to immigration and in relation to cancellation and refusal of visas.

I note that the amendments proposed to the Migration Act reflect the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism's recommendations with respect to changes to migration laws, and the coalition made a promise—a commitment—that we would do everything we could to see those recommendations enforced. Ms Segal, in her report, recommended government actions to screen visa applicants for antisemitic views or affiliations, consistent with a risk based approach. As I've set out, the amendments to the Migration Act do just that. Also, ensuring the Migration Act and associated decision-making review processes effectively facilitate visa refusals or cancellations for antisemitic conduct and rhetoric—the proposed amendments do that. The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government in relation to these changes, and I'm very, very pleased that we're in a position this evening where this bill will be passed with the support of the coalition. That is in our national interest, and that is in the interest of protecting the safety of all Australians.