Sooooo..hats off to Sussan Ley for not responding on the national day of mourrning to the Nationals splitting. Littleproud himself could have left the press conference till tomorrow - his excuse that he wanted to get out early so we could prepare for 7:01pm is just a line developed once he realised his mistake.
Classically no journalist seems to be interested in the detail of the Nationals amendments to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 that , if successful, would have seen them support the criminal and migration laws bill. There were five.
The first was a standard motion to deny the second reading and instead refer it to the relevant legislation committee. The second was a sunset clause to end the hate crimes part on 20 Jan 2029.
The third was to require a prohibited hate group regulation to only come into effect if approved by both houses of Parliament (normal regulations are disallowable instruments - they come into effect immediately but can be disallowed by a simple majority in either house within 15 sitting days of being made (technically - tabling).
The fourth went to the objects and the definition of hate crime. They wanted to change the protection from being against "social, economic, psychological and physical harm (including harm mentioned in subsection (2)), and from the promotion of violence" to "politically motivated serious violence or the promotion of communal serious violence". Sort of strange that they think they improve free speech by narrowing definition to political - a change that I think would leave the law more open to being struck down by the High Court. They wanted to limit hate crimes by changing "to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety" to "fear violence". Interesting point that an action that causes someone to fear violence is, I think, already the common law crime of assault. Google AI definition "In Australia, assault is broadly defined as intentionally applying unlawful force to another person or causing them to fear immediate, unlawful violence, even without physical contact, requiring no injury or significant fear, just the apprehension of harm." Only issue seems to be immediacy.
Their fifth amendment goes to the banning of hate groups. They wanted to add to the list organisations that have "glorified, morally supported or excused terrorism" which is pointless because terrorism is by definition a hate crime.They also wanted to insert a provision requiring the Minister to give the organisation an opportunity to disavow violence and terorism before they are banned.
I can see no issue of high principle in any of these failed amendments. They certainly don't go anywhere near the concept of trying to preserve freedom of speech. I so would like a journalist to quiz Littleproud on the amendments. For example, is there one in particular that caused them not to support the Bill? Why couldn't you get Ley to agree to requiring of the Govt he inclusion of the sunset clause?
*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL
No comments:
Post a Comment