-
Wallace criticised the government's initial handling of antisemitism and the rushed inquiry process. Wallace supported the criminal law amendments, including aggravated offences for religious leaders and hate symbol provisions, but noted the omission of specific references to radical Islamic extremism in the migration amendments. Wallace warned against using the new powers as political weapons and called for further action to stamp out antisemitism.
-
Laxale supported the bill, citing the real-world impact of hate in his diverse electorate. Laxale highlighted the need to confront organised hate that threatens social cohesion and makes communities feel unsafe. Laxale emphasised that the legislation strengthens penalties for inciting violence and criminalises organised hate groups, providing law enforcement with clearer tools to intervene.
-
Burns supported the bill but criticised the Liberal Party for refusing to support vilification laws, which he argued were necessary for comprehensive protection. Burns stated that the removal of these clauses meant hate would not have the full consequences intended. Burns accepted responsibility for the government's past inaction but insisted that passing the current bill was vital for protecting communities.
-
Ryan expressed concern about the rushed legislative process and lack of community consultation. Ryan supported tougher penalties for hate crimes and constraints on radical hate groups but criticised the removal of racial vilification elements. Ryan argued that the haste risked legal inconsistencies and unintended consequences, urging careful, rights-based lawmaking.
-
Ambihaipahar supported the bill, highlighting key reforms such as aggravated offences for preachers and increased penalties for hate crimes. Ambihaipahar explained the new framework for listing prohibited hate groups and the strengthened migration character powers. Ambihaipahar argued that the legislation addressed the root causes of extremism and should be seen as part of a broader response to the Bondi attack.
-
Haines welcomed increased penalties for threatening force and aggravated offences for hate preaching but raised concerns about the rushed process and potential human rights implications. Haines noted widespread confusion about the reforms and the lack of compelling evidence for expanding ministerial visa cancellation powers. Haines supported the intent of the bill but emphasised the need for statutory review and careful consideration.
-
Gregg commended the bill as a sensible reform that addresses loopholes allowing hate groups to operate. Gregg argued that the legislation balances rights with the need to stand up to antisemitism and protect vulnerable communities. Gregg expressed regret that vilification laws were not included but insisted that passing the current reforms was a necessary step for national unity.
-
Spender supported the bill but argued it did not fully address the heart of the extremism problem. Spender welcomed aggravated offences and hate symbol measures but criticised the coalition for rejecting vilification laws called for by the Jewish community. Spender warned against a culture of guilt by association and urged parliament to draw clear lines against hatred.
-
Campbell supported the bill as a reflection of Australian values and a step towards healing after the Bondi attack. Campbell highlighted the introduction of aggravated offences for those in positions of influence and increased penalties for hate crimes. Campbell emphasised that the legislation was about protecting innocent lives and ensuring that hate is outlawed.
-
Chaney supported the bill despite concerns about the rushed process and limited protections for other groups. Chaney argued that the legislation sends a message against the normalisation of antisemitism and may reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Chaney proposed amendments to expand protections and ensure merits review for listing hate groups but agreed to drop her review amendment due to Senate agreements.
-
Rebello supported the bill, stating it introduced harsher punishments for offences driven by antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism. Rebello welcomed the prohibited extremist group listing regime and expanded migration powers to cancel visas for those spreading hatred. Rebello argued that the amendments were reasonable and proportionate, enhancing community safety and standing with Jewish Australians.
-
France supported the bill, drawing on personal experience of loss to emphasise the trauma of racially motivated terror. France highlighted the strengthened hate crime laws and aggravated offences for religious leaders and those radicalising children. France stated that the legislation was about protecting innocent lives and honouring the victims of the Bondi attack.
-
Wilson supported the migration amendments but expressed wariness about the new prohibited hate group powers. Wilson criticised the government's initial omnibus approach and the lack of leadership in addressing antisemitism earlier. Wilson cautioned against expanding powers without proper process and emphasised the need for vigilance to protect liberal democratic norms.
-
Wood supported targeting hate preachers and groups, citing past terrorist incidents and the rise in antisemitism. Wood raised concerns about the rushed process and the need for more time to scrutinise the legislation, particularly regarding social media platforms. Wood emphasised the importance of capturing those who influence younger people to commit attacks.
-
McIntosh supported the migration amendments, arguing they sharpened the focus on extremist advocacy and antisemitic behaviour. McIntosh highlighted constituent concerns about immigration levels and infrastructure pressure, linking them to the need for a responsible migration system. McIntosh emphasised that the bill must protect community safety while upholding the rule of law.
-
Joyce opposed the bill, criticising the rushed process and the broadening of the bill's scope beyond antisemitism. Joyce expressed concern about the reliance on state and territory laws to define hate crimes under Commonwealth jurisdiction. Joyce argued that the bill had not undergone proper committee scrutiny and warned against voting for legislation that had not been fully read.