Hate speech legislation

Risky, rushed and not good enough

Parliament passed the gun reform bill and the hate speech bill on 20 January, so they’ll now become law. These are big changes, covering firearms, hate speech and migration law, and they deserved a lot more time and care than they got.

As an independent, I had less than 12 hours with the final version of the bills before we were asked to vote. The Government rushed this through — just three days for public submissions and a week for Parliament to look at it. That’s simply not enough for laws of this size.

That’s why I was so keen to hear from you and others across Tasmania. I met with stakeholders, listened carefully, and read through the more than 15,000 emails sent to my office. What I heard was pretty clear: people largely supported stronger gun laws, but there were serious and widespread concerns about the hate speech bill.

On firearms, many lawful gun owners raised genuine concerns. I heard from farmers, people in agriculture, and responsible firearm owners who were worried about the impact on them and frustrated by the lack of consultation. Those concerns are real and they deserve to be taken seriously. At the same time, most people supported tighter gun controls overall.

That’s why I voted for the firearms bill — to strengthen gun laws without unfairly punishing people who do the right thing. I also pushed for an independent review to check how the laws actually work in practice, including their impact on lawful owners and community confidence. I backed a Senate inquiry as well, so these issues could be properly examined after the bill passed. Both ideas were knocked back by Labor and the Greens, which I think was a missed opportunity to get this right and bring people along.

The hate speech (criminal and migration) bill was a very different story. I heard serious concerns about unintended consequences and the risk of limiting free speech. The bill leaves some groups out, creating a two-tier system of protections. It also has unclear definitions and even shifts the burden of proof in some cases. Changes to migration law lacked basic fairness. To put it plainly — that didn’t sit right with me.

I tried hard to improve the bill. I pushed for protections for lawful political speech — that was rejected. I pushed for stronger checks on the Home Affairs Minister’s powers, including giving Parliament a say — also rejected. I called for a Senate inquiry and an independent expert review so the bill could be properly scrutinised and fixed if needed — again, rejected by Labor, the Greens and the Liberals. I also tried to remove mandatory minimum sentences, which many people see as unfair and heavy-handed. These changes would have made the bill fairer, better balanced, and more respectful of free speech and migrant rights.

I support the aim of tackling hate and extremism. But I won’t support rushing serious laws through Parliament without proper consultation or consideration of the consequences. If the Government isn’t willing to slow down, listen, and do the work properly, I’m not going to rubber-stamp it.

That’s why I voted against the hate speech (criminal and migration) bill. I strongly support standing up to antisemitism, racism and hatred in all forms — but not at the expense of free speech, fairness, or migrant rights. We can do both, and the Government should have taken the time to get this right.