Ms ROXON (1:37 PM) —Today I introduce the Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to Violence) Bill 2005, which would provide new offences in the Crimes Act for threats and incitement to violence on racial and religious grounds. Labor have supported laws like these for a long time and we think that in a multicultural and multi-religious society we can have no tolerance for those who preach violence on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, colour or nationality. Every government has a basic responsibility to protect citizens from violence and the fear of violence.

Lately we have been most concerned about protecting the whole community from terrorism but we should also be concerned about racist thugs who terrorise minority communities. Indeed, there is a link between the two. Heaven forbid that there should ever be a terrorist attack on Australian soil, but if there were, we would need to make sure that thugs and bullies did not use it as an opportunity to whip up hostility against scapegoat groups from a particular religion or racial background—or any other reason they had for singling them out.

The laws that we propose would act against all those who make threats and incite violence on racial and religious grounds. It would give our authorities the power to act against jihadists preaching terrorism but also against neo-Nazis terrorising Jews or others terrorising Muslims or ethnic communities—along with many other examples.

Every time we have proposed laws of this sort in the past they have been opposed by the Liberal and National parties. In the past John Howard has always argued that these laws impede free speech. Labor does support free speech, but the right to free speech is not absolute. Free speech should not permit people to cross the line and whip up or incite violence against others.

After years of opposition to the idea, in the last few months the Howard government has swung to the other extreme. It now proposes tough new sedition laws that are so badly designed and drafted that they will cast the net too wide—possibly catching journalists, artists and peaceful protesters—with the effect of chilling national debate. The problem is that the government is using a 16th century law for the 21st century challenge of terrorism. Not surprisingly it is ill-suited to maintaining multicultural harmony and controlling violent material on the internet. This result is a clumsy and unfocused law.

The bill I propose is designed for a particular purpose. The link to violence gives Labor’s proposal precision by focusing exactly on the type of conduct to be prohibited. Under our plan there is no way anyone could be prosecuted for mere criticism, evangelism, mockery or satire. To get in trouble you would have to go that extra step—actually making threats or calling on others to commit acts of violence motivated by religion or race. The focus is on catching the promoters of violence before their followers actually commit violent acts. This is a current gap in our law.

The Howard government sedition provisions do provide a crime of encouraging violence between groups but it will only be activated when the urgings of violence between groups also threatens the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. So the big gap is that the government’s planned law will not be effective against localised neighbourhood thugs even though they can cause just as much fear and risk to the community. The sedition provisions also imply that the offence will apply to minorities that urge violence against majority groups but not necessarily the other way around—another odious weakness.

On the whole, Australia has avoided problems on the scale that we have seen overseas. All around the world we have seen examples of conflicts between ethnic and religious groups. The success in Australia of avoiding these problems is the result of a more open and active approach that we have taken to multiculturalism. We have encouraged ethnic communities to maintain cultural practices and we have celebrated the diversity that results. But we have also made efforts to make sure that immigrants and their children learn Australian values and have opportunities to participate in the economic and cultural life of the nation.

The Australian experience has not been perfect. We have problems to iron out, for sure. But on the whole we have created a multicultural miracle—not through luck but through effort. The next step in that effort is to have laws that stop incitement to racial or religious violence. These might help us to protect the community before harm is caused and underwrite the harmony our nation is fortunate to take for granted.

If we are to limit free speech in any way, the laws must be drafted carefully and in a considered and targeted way. We do want to catch the violent cheerleaders who urge followers to terrible acts against the community but we do not want to prevent others simply from speaking their minds. This bill seeks to achieve both those ends. I commend it to the House and present a signed copy of the explanatory memorandum.

Bill read a first time.

The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.