David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I want to start by, again, remembering that we are here today because 15 people were murdered in a terrorist attack targeting the Jewish community in Bondi—the largest terrorist attack to happen on our shores. It was an attack designed to inspire fear and divide us. Jewish Australians, including here in the ACT, who were already concerned for the safety are now even more afraid. Parents have been left worrying about the safety of their children. Synagogues, schools and community centres, already needing constant security, have had to further upgrade protective measures—an unacceptable situation for any community in Australia.

We hoped such an attack would never happen on our shores, but it has, and we must respond with compassion and with unity. And, more than a right, it is the responsibility of our elected government to bring forward legislation and policy to respond to events such as these. It is what the community expects. However, it's also the responsibility of this Senate to review the government's bills, and particularly in a way that opens up scrutiny to the Australian people so that experts and the communities we represent can have their say and contribute to the laws that govern this land. That hasn't happened adequately in this instance. It's been farcical. We still have nine nongovernment senators on the speaking list to speak to this incredibly important consequential bill who will, likely, not get the opportunity.

Crossbenchers only received this bill, in this iteration, at 10 o'clock this morning, a mere 12 hours before being expected to vote on it. I too called for parliament to resume early so we could actually start this process and commence scrutiny, not to hastily legislate something in a single day and, for the Senate, in an afternoon and an evening. We should have done the condolence motion, introduced these bills, started the debate and then referred them to a Senate inquiry for more scrutiny and the time to properly consider, develop and negotiate amendments in good faith before voting in February or March. The crossbench, including the Greens, were not able to participate in the PJCIS inquiry—an inquiry that held two half-day hearings and only allowed three days for public submissions on the exposure draft legislation, which was already being changed less than a week after it was released. At the last election one-third of Australians gave their first preference to someone other than a major party, and, despite that representation, not a single crossbencher was allowed to ask questions of officials, experts and other witnesses at the inquiry about how these laws are expected to operate.

This bill is extremely consequential and potentially has big implications for people's freedoms to speak, to dissent and, potentially, to protest. It has implications for the kinds of protections vulnerable and persecuted groups are afforded and ensuring they apply equally to everyone. Rushing this process undermines trust in the government and in our political institutions. It undermines trust in this Senate, which should not act as a rubber stamp and should not conduct its business without debate.

Giving people a chance to be heard, coming together to work out what we can agree on and getting better at disagreeing well is so important when it comes to rebuilding social unity. We should be soberly considering changes to our national laws, out of respect for the people who have sent us here to represent them. We have a crisis of trust in political institutions, and the way this bill has been brought here today makes that worse. In moments such as these, where we are called to act together to improve community safety, good parliamentary process should not be seen as a barrier to good policy, but as an enabler.

In these moments, we have to listen to what the communities who sent us here are saying, and I fear that has not happened. My commitment to people of the ACT is to consider all bills in good faith and on their merits, and also to consult widely with experts and the community before I cast my vote on their behalf. This is a responsibility I take very seriously. In the time I've had available to me, I've done my best to do that.

Yesterday, I held three roundtable discussions, which included experts and members of the ACT community, about the firearms measures and on the exposure draft of this bill. This roundtable included leaders and a range of representatives from the ACT's Jewish community, Muslim community, Indian community, Chinese community, Canberra Palestinian community and South Sudanese community. It also included faith leaders, experts in civil liberties and human rights, women's safety organisations and campaigners for LGBTI rights. I also had the benefit of hearing from the ACT's Human Rights Commissioner.

While it's true to say that not everyone feels the same way about this bill, everyone was united in saying that the government should slow down and take the time to properly consult on the merits, impacts and risks of this bill. This was also reflected in a survey of Canberrans that I conducted over the weekend. Across about 1,000 responses, 75 per cent of Canberrans told me that they had serious concerns with the exposure draft of the bill and they thought it should be the subject of greater scrutiny before it passed.

Canberrans have told me that if we're going to pursue these laws then they need to be broader and protect those in our communities who are regularly the targets of hatred. This includes Jewish Australians, Muslim Australians, First Nations people, people with disability, the LGBTI community and all of our culturally and religiously diverse communities. Ninety-four per cent of people who took my survey said that this was a priority for them. They wanted equality under the law. A huge number of Canberrans—again, 94 per cent—told me that it was very important to avoid substantial restrictions on freedom of expression, including the right to protest. This is a challenging balance to get right, which makes it so important that we take the time to consult properly and carefully consider the drafting. Another concern raised included the religious text exemption. The visa changes and the listing of hate groups, both of which lack due process provisions, are among other concerns.

I want to take a moment to talk about the feedback I've received from the Jewish community in Canberra over the past month. Obviously, the Jewish community is not a monolith. Like any community in Australia, there are a range of views. There are many who feel that these laws to curb antisemitism are urgent, and who told me that in the wake of Bondi they felt isolated, alone, desperately worried for the safety of their community and desperately sad, but not entirely surprised, that years of growing antisemitism culminated in this most hateful attack.

They are calling for immediate measures to better protect them—this legislation, but also concrete measures like security upgrades and longer term initiatives like better education. There are others in the Jewish community who worry this bill may make antisemitism worse. I recently received a letter from 14 members of the Jewish community here in the ACT, and I thought, rather than paraphrase it, I would read part of it directly to the Senate. It says:

Our purpose in writing is not to minimise antisemitism or deny its reality. Antisemitism is real, it is dangerous, and it must be confronted seriously. But we are deeply troubled by the way Jewish identity and Jewish fear are being invoked to justify a legislative package that may reach far beyond the prevention of violence or intimidation, and into the regulation of political speech, protest, and association.

We have specific concerns about the substance of the Bill, including lowered intent thresholds for speech offences, expanded executive powers, and provisions that risk criminalising legitimate protest against the Israeli state and its conduct in Gaza. As Jews, we are particularly alive to the deep risks inherent in increasing the powers of the state to police language, behaviour and association—powers which have historically been used against our parents and grandparents.

We ask that you consider our views as Jewish constituents in the ACT. From our perspective, opposition to Israel's actions does not in itself amount to antisemitism, and we do not want our identity to be invoked as a justification for laws that risk weakening democratic freedoms for everyone.

We need to be able to recognise and respond to the rise in antisemitism in Australia. We need to acknowledge that the terrorist attack in Bondi was a repulsive act of antisemitism that targeted the Jewish community and that Jewish members of our community have been subject to the most vile and appalling treatment—from being spat on to having places of worship firebombed. I believe we can do that at the same time as we can recognise the hurt and ongoing hatred and discrimination being experienced by so many other people in our community as well.

The Bosnian Imam Ismet Purdic and his wife were attacked in Melbourne. Here in Canberra, the deputy chair of the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum, Diana Abdel-Rahman, was attacked in the street while wearing her hijab. Aunty Violet told my roundtable about her Ngunnawal people being called all manner of vile, racist terms, being subject to online abuse and being discriminated against institutionally—not to mention our appalling nationwide record on closing the gap and deaths in custody. These are a just few examples. They are by no means comprehensive, but they are illustrative of why protections need to apply broadly and why more needs to be done beyond a rushed and flawed bill.

Fundamentally, we can't legislate our way out of hate. Hate speech laws and antivilification laws have a place, but alone they will not solve the undercurrent of racism, extremism and violence in our society. This bill treats the symptoms; it is not the cure, and I feel that we, as legislators and representatives, do a disservice to the Australian community in not taking the time to consider the drivers of all forms of racism, discrimination and violence in this country that contribute to so many people feeling unsafe in our neighbourhoods and feeling like they are guests in their own country.

As a start, the government could actually respond to the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework, which presented 63 recommendations—back in 2024 now—on how to start to address this issue more comprehensively. We've heard nothing from the government about this, not even a response.

I cannot in good faith support this bill today. From the 12 hours in which I've had this bill, I cannot confidently say that the benefits outweigh the risks. I cannot confidently say that this bill strikes the right balance between stopping hate speech and preserving a person's rate to express themselves freely and to protest. I will try to move amendments that I think go some way to improving the bill, but I still feel overwhelmingly that more time should be taken to study its merits and its impact. I will also move an amendment that broadens the protections to capture other people who experience racism and violence every day, including to people with disability, LGBTI Australians, religious communities and our culturally diverse communities. I'll move another amendment to clarify that criticising the policies, actions or institutions of a foreign state alone cannot be taken as hate speech for the purpose of these laws. Protest and the right of people to criticise our government and foreign governments is not hate speech, and my amendment will make that clear. I'm also putting forward that an independent review of these laws commence in two years so that there is at least an opportunity for someone to review these laws properly.

Finally, I'll be moving an amendment to remove the mandatory minimum sentences for the hate speech laws which, shamefully, were passed last year. There is no evidence that they work and it is actually against the Labor Party's platform to support mandatory minimum sentences. They are antithetical to our good justice system. They make justice less transparent and less fair, and they should never have passed this place last year. It brings great shame on the Senate that, in 2025, we introduced mandatory minimum sentences in Australia.

I thank those of my Independent Senate colleagues who have agreed to co-sponsor these amendments. I hope other senators can see fit to vote for them on their merits as well.