I want to be very clear about my approach to my role in this place: I am committed to doing all that is necessary and appropriate to rid this country of the scourge of antisemitism.  

The murderous terror inflicted on the Jewish community and on Australians more broadly -on 14 December - must never be allowed to happen again.  

It is precisely because of that desire to get our response right that I have been so disappointed at the haste with which the government has approached this task –  

• the severely truncated inquiry,  

• the lack of meaningful consultation, and 

•  the limited time given to parliamentarians to review and understand the legislation  

– let alone to have an opportunity to work with the government on behalf of my constituents to try and improve it.  

After all, these are very significant changes being proposed. We’re talking about new criminal offences, with penalties of imprisonment for up to 15 years.  

As a lawmaker new to this place, it is utterly confounding to me that here  

– in what is supposed to be one of the most robust parliamentary systems in the world 

am being to asked to pass a law which could result in someone being sentenced to prison for up to 15 years, the same day as receiving the text of that law.  

I completely understand, respect and support the need to act swiftly to protect people. 

Indeed, it’s our duty as government.  

But what if we act swiftly to enact laws,  

• which trade off people’s rights,  

• without being sure that that they will even achieve the desired results? 

Expert after expert have expressed their deep concerns about not only the substance of the laws but the process by which they will make their way through parliament.  

In its submission to the inquiry conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security - held hastily over a couple of days last week,  

the Law Council reminded us that the rule of law requires that laws be readily known and available, and certain and clear. 

It was in that context that the Council criticized the lack of clarity and precision in the laws before us,  

and that they couldn’t even be certain of  

• just how unclear,  

• just how imprecise these laws are, because they haven’t had enough time to review them.  

That is both disappointing and outrageous.  

The sentiment was echoed by eminent constitutional law scholar Anne Twomey, who said that the time given for submissions to the inquiry,  and the time given for the Committee to produce its report were manifestly inadequate.  

She went on to outline some possible outcomes of the application of the laws – outcomes which deserve due consideration as they concern us all. 

It is for these reasons that I have moved an amendment which introduces a sunset clause in this bill.  

My amendment means that the bill will automatically be repealed after 2 years.  

This is one step beyond a mere review clause (which also must happen):  

it will force the government to go again to the people and say,  

• this has worked, and it is still necessary. If that is indeed the case, passing the laws again will be a simple matter.  

It is relevant also to note that the offence of ‘publicly inciting racial hatred’ introduced by the NSW government last year contains a 3 year sunset clause. 

The second amendment I move today relates to the definition of hate crime for the purpose of banning hate groups.  

As currently drafted it is not possible to ban a hate group for advocating terrorism or advocating genocide. 

 This is an illogical aspect of this bill, especially given we are attempting to combat terrorism.  

I seek to amend the bill to ensure that the crimes of advocating terrorism and advocating genocide can cause a group to be banned.   

The reason I give is that if we want to stamp out hate against targeted groups, the intentional exclusion of these worst types of hateful conduct, is irrational.  

I commend these amendments to the house.