SUBJECTS: Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Legislation.
DAVID SPEERS, HOST: The Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, joins me now from Canberra. Michelle Rowland, welcome to the programme.
MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good evening.
SPEERS: So, can you clear up for us under this hate speech bill, what will it take for an organisation to be banned?
ROWLAND: Well, there are a series of criteria, but essentially they go to two factors. Firstly, there needs to be the type of conduct or threat of conduct, and secondly, it needs to go towards harm and it needs to be one that is scrutinised by our intelligence agencies. There needs to be a recommendation to the responsible Minister, in this case the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police, but also there needs to also be scrutiny given by the Attorney-General as well. So, this is one of a series of measures that we've taken in this bill that mirrors the existing frameworks that we have in place regarding terror organisations and also regarding state sponsors of terrorism.
SPEERS: So, reading from your legislation, a group can be banned for causing social, economic, psychological or physical harm by engaging in or advocating engagement in a hate crime. They don't have to be convicted of any offence, and a hate crime can include someone being intimidated or feeling harassed. So, what do you say to the criticism that it's too broad, lacks procedural fairness and is the sort of stuff you see in authoritarian states?
ROWLAND: Well, I would say that we are responding to one of the worst things that we have seen in this country's history, and indeed the worst terror attack on Australian soil, and that demands that the Parliament take measures that ensure that our citizens are kept safe and that we directly address antisemitism. I would point out that there are provisions in this part of the legislation that also go to ensuring that there is oversight not only by the Parliament in terms of disallowance, but also by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, but also that there be judicial review available as well. So, there are those safeguards there it does recognise.
SPEERS: Well, let's just go to what it means in practise. Would a group be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid and as a result, Jewish Australians do feel intimidated?
ROWLAND: Well, there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied there. What we seek to ensure with this legislation is that we give our investigative agencies, like the AFP, and also our intelligence agencies like ASIO, the ability to be able to implement this law in a way that ensures that not only are we keeping Australians safe, but they are performing their responsibilities in terms of addressing antisemitism at its root causes.
SPEERS: Ok, just coming back to the practical example though. If a group is suggesting that Israel is guilty of genocide, what other measures or factors would need to be met before they can be banned?
ROWLAND: Well, under the provisions that are now before the Parliament, they would also need to be able to demonstrate that there are for example, some aspects of state laws that deal with racial vilification that have been met as well. So, the point I would make here, David, is that whilst these provisions have changed in response to the negotiations that have been undertaken with the opposition, they still represent a tight set of laws that can be implemented and are capable of interpretation not only by a court, but also by our agencies.
SPEERS: Ok, but just to be clear, if a group is saying Israel is engaged in genocide or they're saying Israel should no longer exist, that is not enough for that group to be banned?
ROWLAND: Well, again, that would depend on the other evidence that is gathered, David. So, I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct that you are describing here.
SPEERS: But surely we all need to know what will be against the law? This matters in terms of what your law will mean. So, what would it take for a group that's doing that to be banned?
ROWLAND: It certainly does, and your viewers have every right to know what the scope of this is. We have been clear from the outset about the kinds of groups that we are seeking to bring within this regime. This will include those groups that have so far managed to not do anything that is against the law or would otherwise attract criminal conduct provisions. So, they are groups such as the National Socialist Network and Hizb ut-Tahrir.
SPEERS. So, Hizb ut-Tahrir, as ASIO boss Mike Burgess has pointed out, typically condemns Israel and Jews, but has stopped short of promoting acts of violence here. So, how would they be captured?
ROWLAND: That is correct, David. It's because the threshold has been changed so that if there is that fear and if there is a reasonable person test in here as well, so if that is satisfied, then that would come within the scope of these provisions.
SPEERS: Ok, so this comes back to the question I was asking. If they are saying that Israel is engaged in genocide or condemning Israel, saying it shouldn't exist and Jewish Australians feel harassed or intimidated, they can be banned for that reason?
ROWLAND: If those criteria are satisfied, then that is the case. I would point out though, David, it would have been a set of criteria that would have been easier based on all the facts to have satisfied if we did have the serious racial vilification provisions in this bill. However, we understand that we deal with the Parliament as it is and as the Australian people elected it last year, which is why it is not there.
SPEERS: Well, let me ask you about that. I mean, the Prime Minister did drop that element, the racial vilification. There wasn't support from the Coalition or The Greens. Some of your Labor colleagues, though, don't want this drop forever. They want the government to return to this and perhaps broaden it beyond just racial vilification, but include religious groups, people with a disability, members of the LGBTQI community. Is that something the government's prepared to return to down the track?
ROWLAND: Well, firstly, I understand that frustration. That frustration is particularly felt by the Jewish experts whom we consult in the drafting of this legislation. It was also a direct recommendation of the Segal report, and it was one which the opposition said needed to be implemented in full. That is why we drafted those provisions with urgency, but also with care, to ensure that we were balancing the concerns around free speech, but also the very legitimate concerns about addressing antisemitism and in direct response to…
SPEERS: Will you come back to them? Will you come back to this issue?
ROWLAND: In direct response to your question, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the time to have brought this forward and the time to have had bipartisanship on this matter is now. We are not proposing to look at this again, and we understand the frustrations that are felt around that.
SPEERS: But what if the Royal Commission, for example, says this is something that should be done? Would you return to it?
ROWLAND: I was about to say, and the Prime Minister has described this as the same category as the Religious Discrimination Bill, which the government committed to bringing forward, but cannot enjoy parliamentary support at the moment. We will not proceed unless that is done on a bipartisan basis, and indeed, we anticipate that the Royal Commission, given its broad terms of reference, will make a number of recommendations that go towards social cohesion and some of these issues. I will not pre-empt what Commissioner Bell will find, but the Prime Minister has also made it clear that when we do receive those recommendations, they are ones which we will need to closely consider. I have no visibility of what the Commissioner will find in this regard, but we will wait until such time for that to be brought forward. As it stands now, we were not prepared to wait until after the Royal Commission to bring forward the package of reforms that we did.
SPEERS: Attorney-General, Michelle Rolland, thank you.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.
