Bill Debate · In Committee
Senate · Thursday 6 February 2025
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate considered the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 in committee, with significant debate over the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences. Senator Cash sought clarification that the bill targeted physical force and included minor property damage, which Minister Watt confirmed. Senator Faruqi moved amendments to remove mandatory minimums and sunset them, arguing they were unjust and discriminatory. Senator Pocock criticised the rushed process and the government's reversal on mandatory sentencing policy. The Greens amendments were defeated, and the bill was passed without amendment.
The bill was agreed to, reported without amendment, and the report was adopted.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Cash sought to place on the record the government's interpretation of the bill's key terms. Cash asked Minister Watt to confirm that force and violence referred to physical acts and that the new offence covered minor property damage like offensive slogans. Cash also requested confirmation that convictions under the new section would attract a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Watt confirmed all these points, noting the terms took their ordinary meaning.
Government response
Watt tabled a revised explanatory memorandum and confirmed that force and violence meant physical force or violence against persons or groups. Watt affirmed that the bill criminalised advocacy of such force through conduct involving property damage, including minor damage. Watt also confirmed that the amendments passed included a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months for the new offence. Watt later moved that the question be put immediately to limit further debate.
Faruqi moved an amendment to sunset mandatory minimum sentences by 31 December 2026 and another to remove them entirely from the bill. Faruqi argued that mandatory minimums were discriminatory, unjust, and ineffective, particularly impacting First Nations communities and people of colour. Faruqi accused the government of reversing its own policy and urged the removal of these provisions to protect vulnerable groups.
Pocock moved to suspend standing orders to allow more time for consideration, criticising the government for politicising the bill with mandatory minimum sentences. Pocock argued there was no evidence such sentences worked and that the government had broken its policy commitments. Pocock expressed concern that the rushed process prevented adequate consultation with affected communities, including Jewish, Muslim, and LGBTI groups.
McLachlan managed the procedural aspects of the committee stage, putting questions on various amendments. McLachlan noted that the Greens amendments on sheets 3273 and 3283 were before the committee, which sought to replace intersex status with sex characteristics and establish a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission. McLachlan also addressed amendments from Senator Thorpe regarding age exemptions and those from Senator Canavan.
Canavan moved an amendment by leave to explicitly define force and violence as physical force and physical violence in the Criminal Code dictionary. This amendment was intended to clarify the scope of the legislation. The question on Canavan's amendment was negatived, meaning the definitions were not added as proposed.