Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
The battle to contain antisemitism in Australia finds both sides of politics embracing measures they’d otherwise abhor.
Spectacularly, the government capitulated this week to include mandatory minimum sentences of between one and six years in its hate speech legislation that passed the parliament on Thursday.
That flip flop was done in a day. You need a longer memory to recall the Coalition’s insistence that free speech had to be preeminent over dealing with hate speech.
Way back, when Tony Abbott was prime minister, there was a big (ultimately unsuccessful) push against Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This civil law prohibits acts “likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity”. At the very least, libertarian Liberals wanted it reworded to remove “offend” and “insult”.
Before entering parliament, James Paterson worked for the right wing Institute of Public Affairs, which spearheaded attacks on 18C. Even after becoming a senator in 2016, Paterson remained a strong critic of 18C (although he says he always supported laws against incitement to violence).
Now as home affairs spokesman Paterson has been at the forefront of the opposition efforts to make the new hate speech law as strong as possible.
Until mid week the government firmly ruled out giving in to opposition’s demands for mandatory sentences for hate crimes. The government’s resistance was unsurprising. The Labor party platform rules out mandatory sentences.
But then late on Wednesday, leader of the house Tony Burke went into parliament with amendments including mandatory minimum sentences of between one and six years for various crimes under the anti-hate legislation.
Teal MP Zoe Daniel, from the Victorian seat of Goldstein, was among several crossbenchers who voted against that amendment.
She said later she supported the legislation but described the mandatory sentencing as “overreach”. “Community safety is paramount, and so is good policy-making. Mandatory minimum sentences do not reflect good parliamentary practice or good governance. Nor do they respect the sanctity of Australia’s constitution and separation of powers, and the importance of judicial independence.”
The antisemitism crisis is, on a number of fronts, leading to the actual or advocated curtailment of civil liberties. The federal government has outlawed the Nazi salute and hate symbols. The NSW government is to bring in more anti-hate provisions.
There is constant debate about the desirability of curbs of one sort or another on demonstrations. The antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has said, “There should be places designated away from where the Jewish community might venture where people can demonstrate”.
In our history we repeatedly see how government actions to confront perceived emergencies collide with civil liberties.
For example, strong security laws introduced in the wake of September 11 2001 triggered arguments about the extent to which they struck down people’s rights. Going back to the Menzies era, the Communist threat prompted the government to try (and fail) to carry a referendum to ban the Communist Party.
People of good intent will differ about the extent to which particular responses to a crisis are necessary and appropriate, or go too far, either being bad policy or an unjustified curb on civil liberties. Historical judgements may also differ from those made at the time.
This is not to dispute that we should be taking the strongest action against antisemitism. It’s merely to point out that with each particular measure, it’s important to be confident the end justifies the means, taking into account possible unintended or adverse consequences as well as what is to be achieved.
Having had a victory over mandatory minimum sentences, the opposition is pushing for an inquiry into when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was told about the caravan found at Dural, NSW filled with explosives and containing indications Sydney’s Great Synagogue and a Jewish museum could be targets.
The caravan was parked for several weeks on a street before it came to police attention. NSW police alerted Premier Chris Minns the following day. But it is unclear when the prime minister found out.
Albanese has steadfastly refused to say, citing operational reasons. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton suggested (without producing any evidence) the NSW police might have made a deliberate decision not to advise the Commonwealth “so that the prime minister wasn’t advised because they were worried he would leak the information”.
Dutton is calling for an “independent inquiry” into the circumstances by “an eminent Australian from the criminal intelligence and law enforcement intelligence community”.
The inquiry call is politically driven. The government is right in arguing it would have the downside of diverting resources. But nevertheless there are questions that need answering.
There seems no logical reason why the PM cannot reveal when he was first briefed on the caravan, other than to avoid disclosing some embarrassing timing gap. Any explanation around operational reasons would surely not explain why Minns was briefed but Albanese was not. Alternatively, if Albanese was briefed promptly, why doesn’t he say so?
When pressed at a parliamentary committee on Thursday, Australian Federal Police Force Commissioner Reece Kershaw would not be drawn, saying it was not appropriate to provide information about an ongoing investigation at a public hearing.
Later Greens member of the committee, senator David Shoebridge, said: “The AFP telling us when they informed the PM could in no way prejudice any ongoing police investigation. We had half a dozen senior AFP officials [before the committee] including the Commissioner and zero serious answers.
“This whole circus would be shut down by any half competent government by telling us when the PM knew with a simple explanation for any delay. Instead we get these bizarre performances from both the PM and the AFP.”
One question that should be answered by the authorities is why Jewish leaders, including those connected with the synagogue and the museum, were not informed. Though operational reasons might be relevant, surely safety considerations suggest the Jewish leaders should have been told.
The authorities believe the antisemitic attacks are not simply unconnected incidents. They say people are being paid to make them, suggesting some master minding behind them.
Of course that justifies secrecy while investigations proceed, but operational needs should not be a cover for refusing to provide enough information to give the public confidence the various authorities are working effectively together.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Grattan on Friday: we don’t need an inquiry into the caravan affair but we do need some answers – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-we-dont-need-an-inquiry-into-the-caravan-affair-but-we-do-need-some-answers-249275