Government’s hate crimes bill could challenge free speech, says bipartisan Senate committee

A bipartisan Senate committee says the Albanese government’s hate crimes bill could be an ‘overly broad criminalisation of certain speech’.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

A bipartisan Senate committee says the Albanese government’s hate crimes bill could be an “overly broad criminalisation of certain speech” and has questioned parts of the proposed legislation in relation to freedom of speech.

The Senate scrutiny of bills committee, which comprises Labor, Coalition and Greens senators, asked Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus why the legislation proposed to remove certain defences from a crime of urging violence against specific groups. The committee said the bill would also remove “the requirement for intention” from such acts.

“For example, under the bill it would appear likely that if a person posts a message saying they intend to forcibly stop neo-Nazis (who arguably have the protected attribute of a ‘political opinion’) from disrupting a planned multicultural event, this might be considered a threat to use force against the group, subject to up to five years’ imprisonment,” the report read.

The government last week presented legislation to the House of Representatives to lower the prosecution threshold for offences urging or threatening violence against certain groups and to remove “good faith” defences.

Under current legislation, it is a valid defence if a person urged force or violence in good faith to try to show that the government was mistaken; point out with a view to reforming legislation or the administration of justice; or to publish a report about a matter of public interest, among other defences.

Mr Dreyfus said in his second reading speech that there are “no circumstances in which urging force or violence against a targeted group or its members can be done in good faith”.

However, the Senate committee said it was not clear that “it is appropriate to remove this defence entirely without providing any ability for the court to consider the circumstances in which the conduct occurred”.

“This bill removes the requirement for intention, together with removing the availability of the defence, without making any other amendments to allow for any consideration of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred,” the report read.

The committee sought clarification on how people distinguished by a “political opinion” would form a protected group and “why the inclusion of this attribute is appropriate in the context of freedom of expression”.

When contacted for comment, a spokesman for Mr Dreyfus said the proposed legislation “makes clear there is no place in this country for hate crimes”.

“The legislation will now be considered by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee,” he said. “The government will closely consider any recommendations made by the inquiry to improve the legislation.”