Criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu may be an offence under Australia’s new hate speech laws, Greens warn | Bondi beach terror attack

The Greens have warned that Labour’s newly passed hate speech bill could criminalize reasonable expressions of insult or ridicule by individuals and groups, and could make critics of the Israeli government subject to prosecution.

Greens justice spokesman David Shoebridge said the hasty changes agreed between Labor and the Coalition in the wake of the Bondi terror attacks represented an unprecedented expansion of political power to ban organizations and criminalize speech based on vague standards.

Anthony Albanese and home affairs minister Tony Burke denied the allegations on Wednesday and insisted the laws were necessary to protect Australians, including members of the Jewish community.

Shoebridge said legitimate criticism of Israel or the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, could be a crime if it causes psychological harm and intelligence agencies immediately alert the government.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

“I think people don’t know that the Coalition made a deal with Labor yesterday that doesn’t narrow the scope of this law to include groups that incite violence or break the law,” he said.

“The Coalition’s deal with Labor in the last 24 hours has greatly expanded this.

“He invoked seven different state laws and said that behavior that violates any of those seven state laws, which include tests such as ‘taunting’ and ‘humiliation,’ could lead to organizations being banned, informal membership in those organizations being made a crime and people being sentenced to five, 10 or 15 years in prison.”

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey said uncertainty about the law, including the conduct that would be covered, risked having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

“The implication seems to be that criticizing Israel and the Israeli government and suggesting that it is involved in genocide or something similar is enough to trigger at least the beginning of the process with the provisions on inciting racial hatred being fulfilled.

“At least that is the case. But we do not know whether a minister would take that view when making such a decision. Likewise, we do not know whether there would be objections to whether a court would take a different view.”

The progressive Jewish Council of Australia accused Labor of “Trump’s crackdown on our democratic rights” after Attorney General Michelle Rowland confirmed new hate group laws could theoretically affect groups accusing Israel of genocide.

But Rowland told ABC TV that other criteria must also be met, including violations of state laws regarding racial slurs.

The council said in a statement that the laws were “an attempt to denigrate and intimidate the hundreds of 1,000 Australians protesting against Israel’s genocide and appalling human rights abuses”.

Palestine Action Group spokesman Josh Lees warned that the changes should “deeply disturb everyone in this country”.

“Our politicians and ministers cannot be trusted with such powers.”

Groups such as neo-Nazi organization National Socialist Network and Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir will be the focus of the new laws, Rowland said.

A group of independent senators, including David Pocock, sought to amend the bill to clarify that the new enhanced sentencing provisions do not apply to situations involving criticism of the policies, actions or institutions of a foreign state or discussion of issues of international law.

The change failed.

Australian Human Rights Commission chairman Hugh de Kretser said new laws to ban hate organizations needed stronger safeguards, including procedural fairness.

He welcomed laws banning hate groups, describing them as part of Australia’s international treaty obligations.

“Procedural fairness is a standard requirement when government officials make decisions that affect people’s interests and generally requires that you give the person affected the opportunity to have their voice heard on the matter being decided,” he said.

“This means they have a chance to explain why they think the decision should not have been made, if it is relevant.

“This is a real safeguard against inappropriate decisions being made and helps to ensure that the law is applied properly and for its intended purpose.”

Burke told ABC radio that any action under the new laws would require advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Asio).

“There’s a first step from Asio and if they don’t open the door there’s nothing the minister can do,” he said.

“It is important that no minister, whether it be me or anyone in the future, starts using such powers to make things difficult for political rivals and start playing legal games.”

Albanese defended the amended laws, which he said included appropriate protections.

“You’ll see what he does in action,” he said. “I will not preempt these processes.”

Albanese pointed out that the home secretary had not been able to determine in advance which groups would be officially defined as extremist organisations.

“People will try all kinds of analogies around this law, both about guns and hate. None of them are based in reality. This is sensible reform.”