Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Opened the debate

Thorpe argued that the bill was necessary to ensure access to justice and accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity without political interference. Thorpe contended that the current requirement for Attorney-General consent, known as the fiat, allowed a single politician to block prosecutions in secret, violating Australia's obligations under the Genocide Convention. Thorpe highlighted ongoing genocide against First Nations peoples and atrocities in places such as Palestine, Tibet, and West Papua, asserting that the government's refusal to remove the veto demonstrated complicity in these crimes. Thorpe also moved an amendment to uphold universal jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad by non-residents.

Opposition response

Cash stated that the Coalition opposed the bill because it removed a longstanding common law safeguard requiring the Attorney-General's consent for prosecuting serious crimes. Cash argued that such prosecutions could impact national security and foreign relations, necessitating executive oversight to protect Australian interests. Cash claimed the bill would allow activists to use courts for political agendas through private prosecutions without adequate oversight. Cash characterised the legislation as an attempt to prioritise the interests of a narrow political group over the broader Australian public.