Matter of Public Importance
Senate · Wednesday 3 September 2025
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
Senator Pauline Hanson moved a matter of public importance urging the Senate to criminalise the intentional burning or desecration of the Australian National Flag. The government, represented by Assistant Minister Anthony Chisholm, moved an amendment to replace the motion with a statement recognising Australia's diversity and condemning desecration of all national flags, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. Opposition and crossbench senators criticised the government for hijacking the debate and failing to support specific legislation against flag burning. The amended motion was passed by a vote of 31 to 22.
The amended motion was agreed to by a division of 31 votes in favour and 22 against.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Hanson argued that the Australian flag is a potent symbol of national unity and the sacrifices of service members. Hanson stated that wilful desecration of the flag insults those who served and died for the country. Hanson contended that current laws were insufficient and that specific legislation was needed to protect the flag from burning. Hanson asserted that supporting the motion was a test of loyalty to Australia and its people.
Government response
Chisholm moved an amendment to replace the original motion with a statement recognising Australia's multicultural diversity and the significance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. Chisholm argued that existing state and territory laws already address criminal conduct such as arson and breach of the peace. Chisholm stated that the government sought to balance the protection of the flag with the right to free political expression. Chisholm emphasised the need for unity and respect rather than division.
Opposition response
Price condemned the government for usurping the opportunity to debate the original motion on flag desecration. Price argued that the government's amendment diluted the focus on protecting the national flag by introducing references to other flags. Price stated that the government was silencing voices that sought to protect national symbols. Price criticised the government for failing to stand up for everyday Australians who oppose flag burning.
McCarthy stated that the government opposes setting fire to or defiling any national flag. McCarthy argued that existing criminal laws provide a basis for action against abusive conduct involving the flag. McCarthy explained that the amendment sought to strike a balance between protecting the flag and preserving democratic rights. McCarthy emphasised the need for unity and respect in the Senate.
Babet expressed disappointment that the government and Greens had altered the motion to prevent debate on the original issue. Babet argued that wilfully burning the Australian flag should be an offence as it represents all Australians. Babet stated that the change to the motion undermined democratic representation. Babet criticised the inclusion of other flags in the debate.
Whitten argued that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags are official symbols but not national flags. Whitten stated that burning the national flag is an act of contempt rather than free speech. Whitten criticised the government for its silence on recent incidents of flag desecration. Whitten asserted that the flag represents shared values and the sacrifices of service members.
Mulholland stated that existing laws against arson and property offences already cover flag desecration. Mulholland argued that the flag is a symbol of unity and inclusion for all Australians regardless of background. Mulholland emphasised that the flag belongs to everyone and should not be used to spread hate. Mulholland highlighted the diverse origins of Australian soldiers and citizens.
Roberts argued that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags are not national flags as they do not represent the whole country. Roberts stated that the government's amendment was a bastardisation of the original motion. Roberts claimed that the government was gagging voices that reflect the views of the people. Roberts asserted that the spirit of the country was being killed by the government's actions.