Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, we're now debating the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. We've been unable to have the second reading stage. We are in committee for the next 30 minutes, so I will make a number of comments in relation to the bill.

In commencing my comments, I welcome the capitulation by the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, on accepting the coalition's longstanding calls to rectify what was a severe omission in the bill, and that is, of course, the banning of the Nazi salute, which the Australian Labor Party has now belatedly agreed to. It is disturbing, however, that it took the Attorney-General and the government so long to make a decision on such an important matter, which should, quite frankly, have been clear from day one. You have to ask: how do you bring forward a bill to ban prohibited hate symbols but then not ban the Nazi salute? The Attorney-General of Australia and the Labor members on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security fought against the banning of the Nazi salute every step of the way, and there are, quite frankly, no words to explain why they would do this.

The original bill introduced in June of this year by the Attorney-General was glaringly deficient in what it proposed to ban. It narrowly defined what were to be banned symbols and, as I've said, glaringly omitted the banning of the Nazi salute. For more than eight months now, the coalition has been calling for the banning of the Nazi salute. It was in March of this year that the coalition introduced legislation into the House of Representatives so that the parliament could ban the Nazi salute.

The government, the Australian Labor Party, under Mr Albanese, blocked this. Why on earth would a responsible government do this? Therein lies the answer: clearly this government is far from responsible. In May, in our contributions to the inquiry into the bill that we had introduced into the Senate, the coalition again called for the prohibition of the Nazi salute, and again, under this Attorney-General, the government said no. There are really no words to explain why a government would take this position.

After the horrendous 7 October attacks by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians and the abhorrent rise of antisemitism in Australia, the coalition again recommitted to move amendments to the bill we have before us, to ban the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is one of the most powerful symbols of antisemitism in our country. It symbolises the industrial murder of over six million Jews and countless others. All Australians are diminished by the sharing and glorification of an ideology which is characterised by genocide, mass murder and other forms of persecution. Quite frankly, I would have thought the banning of the Nazi salute would have been an issue on which this place should unite. Yet for months the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus, and his colleagues have failed to back in the Jewish community and pass simple laws that say the Nazi salute is never appropriate.

The Attorney-General himself said on no fewer than five separate occasions this year that he would not take this important step and ban the Nazi salute. In an interview on 8 June 2023 on the ABC, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said:

We think that it's really a matter for state police to deal with the Nazi salute and that's why we've left that for the state law.

In an interview on the same day, 8 June 2023, with Gary Adshead on 6PR, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said:

… it's a matter more appropriately dealt with by state and territory law.

In an interview on 8 June 2023 on ABC News Breakfast, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said:

… we think it's better dealt with by the state laws …

Then he performed an Olympic-grade backflip. Despite saying to the coalition they were wrong and despite blocking the coalition's moves in both the House and this place to ban the Nazi salute, the Attorney-General, for some bizarre reason, does an Olympic-grade backflip. On 28 November 2023, the Attorney-General of Australia finally accepted that he had got it wrong. He had made the wrong call. He had advised the Albanese government to do the wrong thing. He backflipped, accepted the very reasonable calls of the coalition and announced his reversal—not by way of press conference, though. He announced the reversal of his position via X, formerly known as Twitter. I have to say, on behalf of the coalition, I am glad that the Attorney-General of Australia accepts that the position taken by him and the Albanese government, those members opposite, was the wrong position and that he acquiesced to the right calls of the coalition and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton. There is no place in our society for symbols which are directly linked to one of the most heinous regimes in our history.

There are still some gaps in this bill. We saw on the weekend Neo-Nazis protesting down the main streets of Bendigo, giving the Nazi salute. The bill before us would not stop the display of the flag that the group uses as its logo or other Neo-Nazi symbols such as the black sun, which is another symbol of the National Socialist Network that it uses in Australia. We know that the symbol used by the National Socialist Network in Australia will not be banned under this bill. We also know that Neo-Nazis continue to develop and now utilise additional symbols, more than just the double-sig rune and the hakenkreuz. It is for this reason that I foreshadow that the coalition will be moving an amendment to allow for a review of these laws—which, in our view, should be conducted by a pre-eminent member of the Jewish community—to ensure that these laws are doing what they are meant to do.

We may well find as a result of that review that these narrow laws, as drafted by the government, need to be expanded to properly deal with antisemitism in Australia.

I have to also comment that it is disappointing that it has taken eight months for the Attorney-General of Australia to get this bill to the Senate for debate. For reasons that are unfathomable, the government dragged its feet at every single step while alleging that it continued to work on the issue itself. When the coalition moved in the House of Representatives on 22 March this year to ban the Nazi salute and other symbols, the Leader of the House, Mr Burke, said this to the House of Representatives:

… I have clarified with the Attorney-General that there is work being done within his department that has been going on for some time that goes to these exact issues.

That was a statement made on 22 March 2023. But documents now provided through a freedom-of-information request show that drafting instructions for this bill were not sent to the drafting office until 22 days after the Leader of the Opposition moved to ban Nazi symbols and the Nazi salute on Friday 14 April 2023. So it would appear that work on this bill was not contemplated by the Attorney-General and his office until after the coalition moved in the House of Representatives on 22 March this year to ban the Nazi salute and other symbols. Why would the Leader of the House make his statement that the work was ongoing? If work was ongoing, this is a government that is ridiculously slow to act if drafting instructions were only given 22 days after we had moved in the House of Representatives on 22 March this year to ban the Nazi salute and other symbols.

As I've said, though, this is something that the coalition has been calling for for a very, very long time. It is something that, for some bizarre reason, under the Attorney-General of Australia, the Albanese government has fought kicking and screaming every step of the way. They are the ones that have to answer why. As I said, on 28 November 2023, the Attorney-General of Australia finally did admit that he was wrong. This legislation could have been brought in a long time ago had the Attorney-General heeded the calls of the coalition. So I ask the minister: Why did the government change its position? Why were you so strong on opposing the prohibition of the Nazi salute for eight months on spurious constitutional grounds only to roll over?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was quite a remarkable contribution from Senator Cash complaining about the government taking eight months. They were in government for 10 years. Senator Cash was Attorney-General for a lot of that time and did absolutely nothing on this and yet comes in here and tries to lecture us, and the Attorney-General as well, on antisemitism. There would be no member of the parliament, be it in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, who would have done more to combat antisemitism in their life than the Attorney-General. So that was a completely ridiculous speech from Senator Cash that was very loose with the truth about the issues that we're dealing with and went nowhere to being held to account for the 10 years that they were in government and did nothing on this. They did absolutely nothing and yet are complaining about us taking eight months.

The reality is that, in June 2022, the Attorney-General's Department provided advice to the Attorney-General in the incoming government brief relating to legislative reform in response to the diversifying nature of violent extremism and increased occurrences of online extremism. It was noted in that brief that reforms might include acts which do not meet the current threshold on terrorism contained in the Criminal Code, such as the display of extremist flags and insignia. The department provided further advice to the Attorney-General between September and November 2022, with a decision by the Attorney-General to develop measures addressing extremist flags and insignia made on 28 November 2022.

Senator Cash mentioned the bill that they brought in. What she conveniently neglected to mention was that that was introduced a couple of days after a Liberal member in Victoria appeared on the steps of the Victorian parliament with Neo-Nazis. That was actually what prompted them to come in here and try and cover their tracks. They still haven't dealt with that issue in Victoria, and it is tearing the Victorian Liberal Party apart.

So there was no substance to what Senator Cash was going on about. It was no true reflection of what they did in government, which was nothing, and then a hagiography of what we've been dealing with over the last couple of months.

In terms of the Attorney-General, what he said on day one is that, if we needed to do more, we would. We want the parliament to come together to send the strongest possible signal that there is no place, none whatsoever, for any gesture or any symbol that seeks to glorify the Holocaust. This is a moment that unites the parliament and the nation. The government wants to bring everyone together to vote for this bill and send the strongest possible signal to those who seek to spread fear and hatred that there is no place in this country for antisemitism and no place in this country for those who celebrate Nazis and the Holocaust. Right from the start, the Attorney-General said that the Nazi salute is an evil and offensive gesture and it has no place in Australian society. We said that, if we needed to go further, that we would. And we have.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I'm opposed to the emergence of all violent extremists, both far-left and far-right, particularly those featuring despicable, inhuman racism, corrosive, antihuman hate and the vile antisemitism that we have recently seen in our Australian communities. The inhuman atrocities that Hamas cowards inflicted on innocent Israeli men, women and children remain a stain on humanity. Yet, here in Australia, extremist Palestinians celebrate Hamas's horrific, inhuman atrocities cowardly inflicted on defenceless citizens. The celebration of Hamas's actions remains a stain of shame on Australia's reputation for fairness and tolerance. This bill, as I read it, is designed to prohibit the public promotion of hate symbols, including those of the historic Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s. Yet history is real and should not be buried or denied. Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. Former president of the United States Harry Truman, a very widely read American president, said, 'The only thing new in the world is the history you haven't read.' In other words, it has all happened before. Denying history cannot diminish the Holocaust horrors. History shows that ignorance or wiping of history only brings ignorance, which in turn begs the repeat of atrocities, and we don't want that.

There are many people in Australia interested in preserving history during the period of World War II and preserving items of significant historical interest. These genuine collectors of militaria and historical items are not extremists, nor do they wish to promote extremist or violent views. Their intent is to preserve items of historic and military significance. These genuine collectors, academic researchers and historians should be excluded from the prohibition provisions, and they are. Genuine collectors are often well read and actively research their areas of interest and should not be prevented from maintaining their interests nor run the risk of being punished for preserving the history during a time of historic turmoil. The amendment that I have proposed would exclude and protect genuine collectors from the prohibition provisions of this bill. I commend it to the Senate. By leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson, move One Nation amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 2307 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 12), after "academic," insert "collecting militaria,".

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 15 (line 29), after "academic," insert "collecting militaria,".

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 19), after "academic," insert "collecting militaria,".

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start with a very clear commitment from the Greens, and that is that the Greens are absolutely committed to the criminalisation of Nazi symbols and for this parliament finally taking some steps to deal with right-wing extremism. The minister, in his response, I thought, aptly responded to some of the coalition's attacks. The coalition had a decade in government and failed to list a single right-wing extremist organisation as a terrorist organisation, despite the very real concern in the community about it. It failed to take any actions at all to criminalise right-wing extremism and then came in here and sought to lecture the rest of this parliament about the action that has been taken today. It is pretty extraordinary stuff.

If there was a hypocrisy God keeping an eye on this chamber then a bolt of lightning would have come down and struck the chamber in the middle of that contribution from the coalition.

Let's be clear, the Greens support the criminalisation of the Nazi symbol. We want to get this legislation into law as quickly as possible but, since the introduction of the bill, there have been significant amendments and expansion of the bill. The Greens said in our second reading contributions that we are concerned about the way in which these laws will be policed in the real world. Whatever we may think about finely crafted laws here, at some point they get into the hands of a police officer on the streets and that is when we know that those communities who already often face marginalisation and over policing—especially at the moment the Muslim and Arab communities in our states—feel threatened. They are right to be concerned about the potential for aggressive policing of conduct that is not in fact criminalised by this bill. We need to be absolutely vigilant about that and, if we see examples of it, we should unite across politics and call it out. If necessary, we should amend this legislation to address it.

The government have said they have consulted broadly with stakeholders. Many of the stakeholders we have consulted with remain concerned that the bill criminalises speech and conduct in a manner that does risk that inappropriate over policing of particularly Muslim and Arab communities, and it feeds harmful narratives linking those practising a specific religion to acts of violence. The government's amendments do not fully alleviate those concerns. The bill could have the effect of people being policed for symbols that are not of banned terrorist organisations but are words important to people for religious and protest purposes. In the context of over policing and prejudice towards Muslim and Arab communities, in the misunderstanding of the Arabic script by police, there is a significant risk of further demonisation and harassment on the street.

The Greens believe those risks are not mitigated in full by the exemption in the bill that applies when a reasonable person considers the display of a symbol is for a religious purpose nor contrary to the public interest, because the explanatory memorandum states clearly that the intention of this exemption is for Buddhist, Hindus and Jains, who rely on religious exemptions and defences, but it is silent about the sacredness of religious words and symbols that are important to the Muslim community, and that silence is loud and it is concerning.

The unanimous PJCIS report explicitly said that the Attorney-General's Department should undertake further consultation with interested parties, including on the text and proposed draft amendments, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences in the alternative approach. I would ask the minister what consultation has been done with key stakeholders about these amendments, consistent with the recommendation from PJCIS? As I said earlier, we have very real concern from our engagement with stakeholders that that consultation has not been adequate.

There are elements of this bill that have raised significant concerns amongst the legal community as well. In that regard, schedule 2 would make a person liable to up to five years imprisonment for accessing or possessing violent material that a reasonable person considers advances an ideological cause and that is intended to encourage intimidatory acts. There is deep concern if anybody has that material and, if it was intended to cause harm or intended for any such act, there is a strong case for criminalising it. But the offence focuses on the nature of the material and not on the intention of persons dealing with it. Legal groups have stated how this is problematic that there is no need to prove any substantive mental state, only that the person intentionally dealt with the material and that could be nonaccidental access, transmission, soliciting, possession or control and that the person may have been reckless as to the material being violent extremist material.

Stakeholders such as the Law Council are concerned that the creation of offences without intent are:

… highly extraordinary measures—

I'm quoting the Law Council—

normally reserved for material that has a very low likelihood of being accessed unwittingly, and involves the infliction of significant harm upon vulnerable persons …

I said before that there are potential unintended consequences of this bill, and we do need to be vigilant that that doesn't unintentionally criminalise people who had no criminal intent. It is a powerful reason to have a review of these laws.

On the issue of review, I can indicate that the Greens are withdrawing the amendment on sheet 2313. I do that now in noting there is more than two hours to go before we conclude this debate. The reason I'm withdrawing it is that we have been engaging and consulting with the Attorney and the government on a review of not just the terms and operation of this bill but also, more broadly, the issue of right-wing extremism. I understand we'll be in a position to support a motion establishing such an inquiry before parliament concludes this year. We think it's important to do a proper investigation of right-wing extremism, to understand why it is that so few right-wing organisations have been listed as terrorist organisations and to hear from the community about their fear of right-wing extremism. We have seen in repeated reports from ASIO that right-wing extremism is a real political danger to us here in Australia, and we should be vigilant and look into it. In those circumstances, we will be withdrawing our amendment seeking the review, but I indicate that we will be, before this parliament rises, support that inquiry in terms that have now been agreed.

Finally, I will deal with two other sets of amendments that the Greens propose, those on sheets 2251 and 2280. Those amendments seek to preserve the existing three-year sunsetting provisions for the listing of proscribed terrorist organisations and to remove the exemption from the standard 10-year expiry of delegated legislation. Retaining the existing sunsetting provisions on the listing of proscribed terrorist organisations so that they expire after three years remains important. It ensures that listings are relevant and based on the best current evidence, not historical artefacts. Given the extreme impact of such listings, the small administrative burden of ensuring this is not in any way disproportionate. If we went back 30 or 40 years, the Australian government would still be seeking to call the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela terrorists. History and the effluxion of time have proved that they were fighting for freedom and for legitimate political purposes. Of course these listings should be reviewed. I'll put on the record that the listing of organisations such as the PKK should absolutely be regularly reviewed and not allowed just to sit there indefinitely, given the struggle that groups like the Kurdish people are facing.

We also believe removing the proposed exemption from standard delegated legislation provisions, which would ordinarily mean regulations expire after 10 years, is bad practice. It removes parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation. Those amendments, we believe, are critical for retaining the primacy of the parliament over legislative provisions.

With those notes of concern and support, I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill.

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

This legislation clearly is dealing with the symptom, not the root cause, of the rise of these sorts of ideologies in Australia. Minister, I have two questions. I'm conscious of keeping them brief because we're running up on the time limit for the debate. I circulated a second reading amendment that went to the Senate noting that 'people turn to extremist ideologies when they feel isolated, disaffected and excluded from society', that 'fostering strong, cohesive communities is the best way to prevent the rise of right-wing extremist ideologies', that 'criminalising the use of Nazi symbols and salutes is an appropriate public policy outcome but, by itself, it will not address the underlying drivers of radicalisation', and that 'the government must increase funding for social cohesion'—something we've heard a lot about in the last month—'early intervention and deradicalisation programs to genuinely address this issue and keep Australians safe'.

Firstly, I'm interested in the government's views on that and why you're not supportive of acknowledging that. Secondly, I come to the 10-year sunsetting provision that has been removed from this.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! As it is 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate.

Progress reported.