on indulgence—My friend and the friend of many on this side of the chamber, Tim Picton, passed away yesterday following a violent incident in Perth on 27 December. Tim Picton was just 36 years old. He was highly respected across politics. He had worked for the South Australian government, the Victorian government and the federal government, but he really found his niche as the secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party. He led the campaign in 2021 that saw Mark McGowan win almost every seat in that state. He was the campaign director for me in 2022 in Western Australia that saw Labor win four additional seats in Western Australia and three Senate spots for the first time in a very, very long period of time.

Tim Picton was not only very effective as a political operator; as a human being he was remarkable. He was full of joy. He loved his wife, Priya. His beautiful daughter, Charlotte, was the apple of his eye. I want Charlotte to know just how loved her dad was—also his parents, Fiona and Michael; his brother, Chris, who is a minister in the South Australian government; his sister, Johanna; and all of his family and friends in the Labor family across the board. He also worked in the private sector for MinRes and was on the executive of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy Western Australia. He was respected right across the state and right across the political spectrum. Due to his background of working in three states, as well as in Canberra, he was very well known. I have no doubt that one day he would have sat on this front bench at least had his life not been cut so short by that act of violence on 27 December. May Tim Picton rest in eternal peace. May his family, who have gone through such a terrible time, with him in hospital since the 27 December incident from which he never recovered, get some solace by just how loved Tim was.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the exposure draft legislation: Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The terrorists who killed 15 people on that horrible day had hate in their hearts, and guns in their hands. The tragic events at Bondi demand a comprehensive response from government. As a government we must do everything we can to counter both the motivation and the method. We must deal with the motivation of hatred, and the method—the firearms—that the attackers used to devastate so many lives.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to address the methods of the attack.

The bill provides a framework for ensuring Commonwealth intelligence can inform firearms licence decision-making in states and territories. It provides the foundations for the largest buyback of firearms since Port Arthur, nearly 30 years ago, and it strengthens laws for the importation of firearms.

The bill forms part of a comprehensive package of reforms, including the renegotiation of the National Firearms Agreement led by National Cabinet, and the bill brought forward by the Attorney-General to further criminalise hateful and extremist conduct, and ensure that those who seek to spread hate, division and radicalisation are met with appropriate penalties.

It comes as a shock to most Australians that Australia has more firearms now than we had before Port Arthur, nearly 30 years ago. Many people are also surprised to see that it was possible for a visa holder to have a licence, and that the information held by our intelligence agencies was not integrated into the firearms licensing decisions.

A critical question that I've often been asked during this debate is if this national reform package had already been in place, how many firearms would the Bondi gunmen have held. Would it be six? Would it be five? Would it be four? The answer is zero. The father would have been ineligible because he was not a citizen. The firearms that they were using would not have been available to them. And the son, who didn't have a firearms licence in any event—had he tried, any intelligence holdings with respect to him would have formed part of the licensing decisions.

No-one is pretending that dealing with guns deals with everything that happened at Bondi. But it does deal with the method, and we must deal with the method.

Buyback s cheme

The bill will establish a framework for a National Gun Buyback Scheme to support proposed reforms to national gun laws. The buyback would purchase surplus and newly restricted firearms, and reduce the now more than four million registered firearms in Australia. A buyback is essential to compensate state and territory firearms owners for surplus or newly restricted firearms, and ensure that restricted guns don't end up in the hands of criminals and organised crime groups.

The sheer number of firearms currently circulating within the Australian community is unsustainable. Research last year highlights over 2,000 firearms are stolen or diverted to the illicit market every year—that's roughly one firearm every four hours.

The fewer legal firearms in the community, the less opportunity there is for them to fall into the wrong hands, including potential violent extremists and serious organised criminals. The National Gun Buyback Scheme will help get firearms off our streets.

Commonwealth i ntelligence s haring

The bill, importantly, will also lay the foundation for a new Commonwealth background checking framework to inform decisions to issue or renew firearms licences by the states and territories.

The model would leverage AusCheck's existing role in providing background checks to other sensitive licensing frameworks.

Intelligence held by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission would be shared securely and underpin firearms licensing decisions.

With these changes, the licensing system will combine with AusCheck and the National Firearms Register to make sure we're using the best information we have. When someone seeks a licence or renewal, AusCheck will make sure that our intelligence holdings are utilised.

When new persons of interest come to light for our intelligence agencies, they will be able to readily check if the person of interest is also a firearms holder. This means our intelligence agencies will get the best information they need. And states and territories, when deciding if someone is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, will have the best possible process before a licence is issued.

Details of the regime's operation, and how assessments are used in licensing, will be negotiated with states and territories.

Customs restrictions

While states and territories predominantly regulate firearms, the Commonwealth regulates the importation of them at the border.

There will be a range of measures introduced through customs regulations. These tougher, more robust regulations will protect the safety of the Australian community by ensuring only those with legitimate needs can import restricted firearms.

The regulations dealing with wearable ammunition equipment such as vests will not be dealt with today. There will be further consultation on this measure.

Criminal Code offences

At the time of Port Arthur, and the original National Firearms Agreement, there was no such thing as 3D printing, let alone 3D printed guns. The bill updates Australia's Criminal Code to deal with this new technology.

The bill will create new offences for using a carriage service to send electronic materials, like 3D-printing blueprints, used to manufacture firearms and explosives, or possessing or controlling this material through a carriage service.

These measures respond to feedback from the firearms community, including defences to ensure it does not capture those who seek to share material that assists with firearms maintenance, safety training and information on ammunition packing, and provides narrow defences for possession and use of 3D printing blueprints by those who are licenced to manufacture and modify firearms and firearms parts.

Other c ustoms amendments

The bill also strengthens regulations that prohibit the import or export of goods that contribute to the spread of hate and extremism and promote the use of violence against persons and groups.

National Firearms Agreement

The measures in this bill complement the government's ongoing work with states and territories to modernise and strengthen Australia's firearms laws. This includes the agreement by National Cabinet to develop options to:

Conclusion

In the wake of the tragedy at Bondi on 14 December, we as a parliament have a responsibility to act decisively to make sure Australians can be safe and feel safe. We must do everything we can to counter both the motivation and the method of the attackers. We must deal with both the hatred they had in their hearts, and the guns they had in their hands. This bill is a critical step towards addressing their methods.

I extend my thanks to staff across my portfolio for their incredible work in developing this bill. I also extend my thanks to the members of the public, advocates, community representatives and industry groups who have engaged in consultation to inform the measures I am introducing today. I commend the bill to the chamber.

I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 on behalf of the opposition. May I begin my remarks by restating that the coalition unequivocally condemns antisemitism, hate motivated violence and radical Islamist terrorism. We have always been dedicated to the enactment of strong, effective and proportionate measures to protect Australians and uphold national security.

What was previously known as schedule 4 of the original omnibus exposure draft proposed significant changes to Australia's firearms laws, including a so-called national firearms buyback scheme and expanded importation restrictions. Evidence before the PJCIS inquiry demonstrated that these measures are poorly constructed, inadequately justified and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives. Instead, they impose disproportionate burdens on lawful firearm owners, importers, wholesalers and retailers, as well as primary producers and state and territory governments. To the detriment of the bill, the government has chosen a reactive, politically driven approach to the preparation of these proposed laws, rather than the careful, judicious, evidence based process Australians would legitimately expect in such a highly regulated policy area.

The presentation of this bill has also been marked by a distinct lack of meaningful consultation undertaken prior to its introduction, a view almost universally presented by witnesses before the PJCIS inquiry. There was little or no prior consultation with farming groups, sporting shooters, industry representatives or technical experts. As coalition members of the PJCIS point out, the truncated nature of the inquiry compounded these failures, an approach utterly inconsistent with best practice lawmaking.

This bill reveals the contempt the government has for the million gun owners of Australia. The Prime Minister has failed to recognise that guns are tools of trade for so many Australians, including for so many people on the land and for many Australians as part of legitimate sporting pursuits. There may be a number of reasonable measures in this bill, such as the schedule 1 customs amendments, but these amendments have nothing to do with guns and specifically relate to violent extremist materials and prohibited symbols. The Leader of the Opposition requested that the government transfer this schedule to its other bill for this reason, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. Equally, the gun bill's firearms AusCheck scheme has legitimate merit in the interests of national security. However, taken as a whole, these measures are completely overwhelmed by the deficiencies in the bill.

This proposed gun legislation is fundamentally flawed. As was revealed in the PJCIS inquiry, there has been no genuine evidence-based examination applied to this bill by the government or the parliament. There has been insufficient time for the committee to properly examine the matter and the share of the 7,000 submissions to the inquiry that relate to the bill—7,000 submissions. After making repeated protestations that there would be no separation of the omnibus hate speech and gun control bill, the Prime Minister completely capitulated, when he revealed on Saturday his deal with the Greens to ensure passage of his gun legislation.

The Prime Minister on Saturday made the outlandish statement, which has incensed those involved in the shooting community, that he is introducing a John Howard gun-buyback scheme. This could not be further from the truth. John Howard's 1996 national gun buyback was widely supported across the country. This buyback faces criticism from the governments of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through a process of cooperative federalism, and the buyback proposed in this bill has been advanced without securing such cooperation.

The 1996 buyback was properly funded. This buyback calls on the states and territories to foot half the bill, irrespective of their capacity to pay. The 1996 buyback was based on the surrender of weapons at fair market value. States and territories have been told that this buyback will be based on price schedules at well under market values, providing little to no incentive for owners to hand in their guns. The 1996 buyback covered ammunition and pieces of equipment, such as scopes and spare parts, rendered unusable by virtue of the handing in of individual guns. Under this buyback, states are told these items are explicitly excluded from compensation. The 1996 buyback compensated legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry who had suffered due to the buyback arrangements. States under this legislation have been told that these businesses will receive nothing—zip, nada. The 1996 buyback involved buyouts for those businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. This government couldn't care less about the fate of legitimate gun sellers, who will be run out of business.

The coalition agrees with the statement of the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia that the only way to have a John Howard gun buyback is to legislate one. That is why the opposition has gone to the Prime Minister and asked that he be true to his word and amend his bill to make this a John Howard buyback. He has failed to make such a commitment. It's little wonder why we will be opposing this bill in this House. In the Senate, we will seek a referral of this bill to an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 2 March 2026. In the Senate we will also make a series of amendments to give effect to a John Howard buyback, including fair-market-value compensation for firearms, firearms parts, firearms accessories, ammunition, ammunition components and equipment. Our amendments will seek compensation for loss of business and hardship, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. The coalition will also move amendments seeking clarity from the states and territories by 28 February this year as to their intention to participate in buyback schemes.

Coalition members of the PJCIS are concerned that this bill will unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, particularly farmers and primary producers who rely on firearms for legitimate purposes such as pest control, animal welfare and land management. It is the view of the coalition committee members that recreational and sporting shooters, whether they be competitive shooters or hunters, enjoy the expertise and skill of using different types of firearms and appreciate the nuances of ammunition reloading and variations of accessories. They argue that these elements of the bill would make even the most mundane of those activities illegal through either restrictions on imports or prohibitions on sharing online manuals and discussions.

Coalition committee members of the PJCIS indicate that witnesses raised credible concerns that essential firearms may be captured by the buyback or import restrictions, with limited replacement options. Restrictions on importing firearms and accessories such as straight-pull rifles will directly affect lawful users who already operate under some of the strictest laws in the world. For the reasons outlined, particularly in relation to the unacceptable levels and breadth of buyback compensation and importation restrictions on assisted repeated action, the coalition will be opposing— (Time expired)

I rise to speak today to this bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, as a mum of young children and as someone who can recall the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996 as a teenager and the way in which the country rose up. We saw leadership in this place, working together to get guns off our streets. I also rise as a regional member, a regional MP and a member of parliament. My electorate is 10 minutes from the border of New South Wales, runs through the centre of Victoria and ends an hour north of Melbourne. We are a regional electorate. We have suburbs, we have farms, we have rural communities, and we at the moment are in a challenging time, recovering from the bushfires that devastated the tiny town of Harcourt not more than a fortnight ago. But I stand here today in this place to speak because there are over four million licensed guns in Australia. That was a figure that shocked me post the tragedy in Bondi. The reality hit—just like after Port Arthur, when I was a teenager. Four million guns are circulating legally in our community.

I've had conversations with people in my electorate: 'My brother has guns. He lives with my mother. He's not working.' 'How many guns?' 'Four or five.' 'Well, is it four or is it five?' This is just around the corner from where I live. It's a hidden reality that a lot of us don't know.

There is at least one gun for every seven Australians. That's a lot of guns. To put it another way, that's more than one gun for every person living in Tasmania, South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, combined. That's a lot of guns legally in our community. On average, a firearm licence holder owns more than four guns, with two individuals in the suburbs of Sydney owning over 300 firearms.

Firearms are not confined to rural areas, like some of those opposite might try to suggest. A third of the guns legally owned in New South Wales are located in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. These are the facts. This is what we must confront as a parliament and as a society. This isn't new. A report conducted by the Australia Institute, assisted by Gun Control Australia and the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, released this time last year, stated:

The overwhelming majority of Australians expect that our gun laws strictly control the licensing and ownership of firearms and expect their governments to ensure our firearm laws and regulations are responsible, safe and strong, putting community safety before the needs of those people wanting firearms.

It went on to say:

The gun reforms introduced after Port Arthur have served Australia well. It is deeply concerning to see the firearm industry exerting influence on policy and marketing, resulting in over 4 million firearms now in circulation …

They're circulating legally in our community.

Following the devastating impact of the Bondi terrorist attack in Sydney, our government is rightfully reviewing the gun laws in Australia, as Australians demand. Based upon the circumstances around the attack, the government—not on its own but through National Cabinet—is progressing reforms to ensure and improve public safety.

Regional Australians, by and large, are responsible gun owners. Their use of firearms is legitimate and professional. From recreational hunting and pest management to the unfortunate occasions where livestock or wildlife need to be put down, they are responsible. I want to acknowledge the local people in my electorate who have reached out to me, who do want to see safety and who want to have a dialogue on this. An example is the bushfires that occurred in the last fortnight. I acknowledge that there are some farmers who have used guns responsibly, safely and ethically to put down their much-loved livestock. Not all of them did; some of them worked with Agriculture Victoria to euthanise in other ways.

This was not what occurred in Bondi. As we saw in the Bondi attack, the terrorists had the racial ideology but also the means to conduct this awful crime. We have to prevent the ready access to guns by people who do not need them and who will inflict violence with them. (Time expired)

Let me make this clear. The National Party and the coalition will be opposing this bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. This is nothing more than a cheap political diversion. It's a diversion from facing up to the real problem in this country, which is radical Islamists. They are taking hold and causing harm on the streets, as we saw in Bondi. It is not the gun owners of Australia that have done this; it is radical Islam that has done this.

One element of this bill that we will support is the ASIO checks. In fact, we supported a national gun register, which was agreed to nearly two years ago. It could have already been in place if those opposite had put it in place. Instead, what they are trying to do is demonise legal-gun owners for something that was not caused by them. We do not have a gun problem; we have a radical Islam problem.

The gun laws in this country actually worked, because there was an order by the police that saw perpetrators of that evil act in Bondi on a watchlist. They should not have had their licences in place. If I have a domestic violence order against me in this country, my gun licence and my gun are taken away. This has been a failure of process, not a failure of gun licensing. The fact is that authorities did not act and take away the licence and the weapons as they should have.

This legislation goes further. It has implications for the types of firearms that are imported and which are already covered under state legislation. In fact, the overreach we are talking about here will affect some of the pistols that are coming into this country for sporting shooters. Some of the weapons that the member for Hunter would use to become an Olympian again—he isn't here at the moment for some reason—would be revoked under that import order. We would also see weapons that are used by primary producers to undertake the pest management that we need absolutely revoked, so this is not going to the heart of the problem. But this is not just about farmers. This is about the people in metropolitan areas as well, the lawful gun owners that actually do a lot of the heavy lifting, the pest management, for farmers. These are the people in Newcastle and the Illawarra that the member for Bendigo talks about. They are lawful gun owners who come out to farms and do that work of pest mitigation. They do that because farmers do not have the energy and the time to be able to do that. These people own a number of guns and are able to undertake that.

You cannot own a gun in this country just because you want one. You have to pass a fit-and-proper-person test and wait 28 days. You can't just say, 'I want a high-calibre weapon.' You have to demonstrate a necessity, and you have to be able to prove that. You have to go through training. You actually get inspected every 12 months about that weapon. So the licensing arrangements that we have in place for the weapons and the calibre of weapons that are approved have been proven to work. This is a diversion, a cheap political stunt by this government, who want to divert attention away from the nation's real problems and onto the lawful gun owners of this nation. We are also going to take away the imports of accessories, so those sporting shooters will not be able to have their Olympic vests that can hold 50 cartridges. There has been no consultation on this.

Then we get into the use of a carriage service whereby, if someone—an innocent Australian gun owner—were to download instructions on how to place a scope on their rifle, they would be in breach of this legislation. This is a desperate overreach by a government looking for a political diversion; it's demonising lawful Australians. Do you honestly believe you want to spend a billion dollars—Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania don't want to—buying guns back? Are you that naive that you think the criminals and the terrorists will be the ones that will hand them back? That is not going to solve the problem we have in this nation. You are impinging on the rights of lawful Australians that—it's been proven—have been doing the right thing; they have been respecting the law. We are trying to solve a problem that is not there.

You are taking away the attention from the real problem in this country and from what caused the tragic events at Bondi. If you do not have the courage to look at yourselves in the mirror and to look the people of this country in the eye and say, 'It is not guns that are the problem; it is radical Islam that is the problem,' then all you are doing is diverting attention and taking away the rights of lawful Australians, whether they be on farms or in metropolitan areas, who have done the right thing by this country, have abided by the law and should not have their rights taken away. That is not the Australia that we deserve to hand over to the next generation. But that's the gutless nature of this government, which hasn't got the courage to face the problem. It will not own up to the problems that have been allowed to seep into this country for— (Time expired)

On 14 December last year there was a horrific extreme Islamic terrorist attack in Bondi.

Government members interjecting—

I got sighs when I said that! That says everything. You cannot say 'Islamic extremism' to people on the other side of this chamber without getting the sigh. What happened in Bondi was an Islamic extremist attack in this country. That's what happened, and that's what we need to be talking about.

As soon as that attack happened, the victims of the attack, the people who were affected by the attack and the community of this whole country wanted the Prime Minister of this country to call a royal commission straightaway. What the people in this country wanted to know is how widespread Islamic extremism is in this country. How widespread is it? How widespread—

Government members interjecting—

Yes, I get interjections. Isn't this terrible? How widespread is antisemitism in this country? That's what the community wanted us to talk about. That's what the community wanted to be done. Did the Prime Minister act on that? No. He already had the report from the antisemitism commissioner that he appointed, a report that had many recommendations. Had he acted on any of those recommendations? None. He hadn't acted on any of the recommendations from his antisemitism commissioner when that attack happened—none of them.

What was his first instinctive reaction after this horrific Islamic extremist attack in Bondi? It was to clamp down on legal gun owners in this country. That was his first response, not to call a royal commission, to go in to look at the issues we're dealing with or to go to the report from his commissioner into antisemitism—which, by the way, didn't mention guns at all. His instinct wasn't to go to that report and say: 'We have a serious issue with Islamic extremism and antisemitism in this country. What has my commissioner said we should do? Should I call a royal commission? I'll call a royal commission to get our heads around how big this issue is.' No. His first response was to effectively use that tragedy to crack down and justify gun law changes that will be felt by farmers and sporting shooters in our country.

An opposition member: Collectors.

Collectors and also small businesses. I had a chat to a gun shop owner in my community in Grafton the other day. Some of the amendments that we're going to move to the legislation will provide not just that people will get a fair price for the guns that will be bought back but also that there will be compensation for the businesses. Matt in my community is concerned and knows that his business will probably close and he will lose his livelihood. So we're not just talking about people losing guns that they need for their sporting clubs or for their own protection. If you're out on farms, especially big farms, and there are feral animals and all sorts of things, you need different guns for different things. Not only is it potentially going to endanger people's lives but people are going to lose businesses over this.

Some of the amendments we will move here are to make sure there's compensation for people—not only that, even though this is unfair, they will get a fair price for the guns that will be bought back by the government but that people who lose their businesses will be compensated, too. The coalition disagree and will be voting against this legislation. We're not going to use law-abiding gun owners as the scapegoats for that terrible Islamic extremist attack in Bondi, but we also want fair compensation for businesses in this country that are going to be very badly affected by this.

As the Leader of the Nationals just said, what has to be acknowledged is that in this country we already have very tight gun laws. We're not entering this space with an industry that's unregulated or where you can just do what you like. There are inspections and there are 'fit and proper' checks on gun owners. Obviously gun licences can be revoked for different reasons, as well.

Again, we are here debating very important things. We have an Islamic extremism issue in this country. We have an antisemitism issue in this country. We need to do things to make people feel safe, but we are going to make sure that our gun owners are not the scapegoats in this.

On 14 December 2025, Australia was confronted with a horrific terrorist attack at Bondi. This was an act of violent Islamist terrorism. Fifteen innocent people were murdered in an attack deliberately designed to terrorise the community and intimidate Australians far beyond the immediate victims. This was not random violence; it was a calculated, ideologically motivated assault on Jewish Australians and on the fundamental expectation that in this country people can worship, celebrate and gather in public without fear.

I know firsthand what extremism looks like. I fought radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, where Australians were killed and wounded. Many now live with the enduring consequences of that conflict. We fought terrorism there so we would not have to fight it here on Australian soil. The protection of Australians in the defence of the nation is among the most serious responsibilities of any government. However, it must be stated plainly that the failure of leadership did not begin with this bill. It began more than 14 months before the attack, when Australia witnessed disturbing antisemitic protests on the streets of Sydney. These events were not ambiguous. They were not isolated. They were a clear warning sign that extremism and antisemitic intimidation were escalating. The time for decisive, targeted action was then. Instead, the Prime Minister chose inaction.

In December 2024, as a Jewish synagogue burned in Melbourne following a suspected terror attack, the Prime Minister's decision to stay in Perth playing tennis became a symbol of a broader failure of leadership. For over a year warnings were ignored, concerns were minimised and communities were left exposed. Now, in the wake of a terrorist atrocity, the government has rushed forward a sweeping and poorly conceived legislative process. This bill is not the product of careful leadership; it is a kneejerk reaction to a failure to act when it mattered most. The bill is fundamentally flawed. It is unclear in its operation, inadequately safeguarded, poorly consulted on and lacking the precision required for legislation. Coalition members cannot support this bill.

Coalition members unequivocally condemn antisemitism, hate motivated violence and violent Islamist extremism. However, we cannot support this firearms bill. The proposed national firearms buyback scheme and expanded import restrictions are poorly consulted, inadequately justified and lack the support of state and territory governments. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through cooperative federalism. Proceeding without the states' cooperation risks implementation failure and undermines an otherwise effective national framework. These measures unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, primary producers and sporting shooters while doing nothing to address the ideology responsible for the Bondi attack. Violent Islamist extremism, not firearms, caused the deaths of 15 innocent Australians.

We reaffirm our support for strong, targeted and enforceable measures to combat antisemitism, disrupt violent Islamist extremism and protect Australians, but legislation of this magnitude must be deliberate, precise and built on genuine consultation. It is critical that the Prime Minister now do what he failed to do earlier—lead. That means working constructively with all members of this House and, more importantly, with the Australian people to ensure this legislation should be and could be effective, proportionate and worthy of the freedoms it seeks to protect. National security demands unity and competence. Australia deserves nothing less.

This bill punishes law-abiding citizens and law-abiding firearms licence holders and does not go to the root of the cause of why we're here. And for those yelling out, 'You demanded to come back early!'—rightly so. The first rule of any government is to keep its people safe. When the terrorist attack happened, the coalition said, 'Let's go back to parliament and pass laws or pass bills that keep people safe'. That is not blind commitment to support bad legislation. To be given the legislation on a Monday, to start hearings on a Tuesday, to then get passed within a week whilst receiving more than 7,000 submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which crashed the website—this didn't allow the people to have their voice. This is not good leadership and people deserve better from this Prime Minister.

I rise today to speak against the proposed Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. These should not even be in the same sentence—this is totally ridiculous! This bill is a diversionary tactic. It will not stamp out antisemitism, hate or extremism. This bill will not change the culture of antisemitism, hate, extremism and radical Islam that has been allowed to flourish due to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's weak leadership. All this will do is punish law-abiding firearm owners that are being used as a scapegoat.

Australia already has the strictest gun laws in the world and the most stringent licensing. They do thorough background checks and withholding periods both before you get a licence and before you obtain a firearm. The coalition supports law-abiding firearm owners. The coalition supports the National Firearms Register. The question is this. Everything is already in place for the gun register's introduction. It's been in place for two years. Why hasn't the Albanese Labor government implemented it? That's the question.

As a fully licensed firearm owner myself, who shoots rifles, pistols and shotguns for pest control and recreation, I'd like to explain to the parliament why shooters use so many different guns. The reason is, essentially, they do different jobs. They're for different purposes. For the destruction of birds and other pests that destroy crops, farmers might use a .22 calibre, which could be a .22 calibre long rifle, a .22 calibre Hornet or a .223 for longer range. They all have different jobs. They're the same calibre, but they shoot further. For rats and rabbits, you might use the same sort of calibre, but you might change what projectile you use. For a pig, you might use a .30-30, if you're in the scrub at close range. You might use a .308 if they're out on the open. Pigs come in and rip up your tomatoes and capsicums and make a mess.

The golfers have to understand why golfers need so many different clubs. I'm trying to use an analogy here that people will understand. I get that people don't fully understand firearms, but that shouldn't be a reason to be afraid of them. For the golfers, you don't see someone teeing off with a putter. You don't see someone on the green with a driver. If you're a landholder and you come across a beast that's broken their leg or something, and you need to destroy that beast, you can't use a .22 calibre, because that's inhumane. So you need a higher calibre rifle to dispose of that—to put that beast out of its misery.

If that landholder is also a sporting shooter, they might have three different types of shotguns. If you're shooting guns at the range, you might want a long barrel for shooting down the line, a shorter barrel for shooting trench or an even shorter one for shooting skeet. That's three different shotguns. If that landholder also shoots, say, western action out at the pistol club, they might need a pistol, a lever action rifle and a shotgun. Again, they're all different. There would also be different actions. You could have a single action, a double action or a semiautomatic. The horse people out there might understand this analogy. It's horses for courses. You don't see a dressage horse racing in the Melbourne Cup.

That's why I do not support this legislation. Twenty guns in the hands of a law-abiding grazier, sporting shooter or collector is fine. One gun in the hands of a radical Islamic terrorist is a massive problem. Do you honestly think that terrorists and criminals will come and hand their guns in? Do you honestly think that's going to happen? No. Law-abiding firearm owners will be punished due to the failure of this government. I don't want to even talk about buybacks, but, if this bad legislation does go through, buybacks need to give appropriate compensation. But this is bad legislation. It's time this government faced up to the real problem, which is radical Islam, not the firearm owners.

It speaks volumes of those opposite that not one of them has stood up, since the member for Bendigo did, to seek to defend this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, because this is bad legislation. This is bad legislation which has been rushed into the parliament, with no consultation, to solve a political problem for the Prime Minister. And that is the form of this prime minister.

This year, the member for Grayndler celebrates his 30th year in parliament. The Prime Minister is the ultimate insider who is always trying to find a political solution to any problem he faces. His basic instinct after the tragedy at Bondi was to try to find a political solution, and the first scapegoat he found was the law-abiding gun owners in this country. Never forget: we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. This prime minister has sought to distract and divide the population by pointing to gun owners now and saying, 'We have to take those guns away from you.'

There has been no consultation. I've been to gun-shop owners in my electorate to ask them, 'What consultation was there with you?' How many guns is it reasonable for a person to have? You just heard the member for Dawson explain that it is reasonable for a keen licensed shooter to have multiple guns for different tasks, because different guns do different things in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. It is quite reasonable for someone who may be involved in clay-target shooting to have a shotgun for that purpose, a different shotgun for duck shooting, maybe a light-calibre rifle for control of pests like rabbits and a different calibre rifle for control of deer or pigs. Very easily, a law-abiding Australian pursuing their sport as a hunter or a sporting shooter, or just a farmer doing their job, would rapidly have half a dozen guns with no problem whatsoever. And they are no threat to the Australian public. Yet this government and this prime minister, seeking a political solution, are vilifying law-abiding Australians going about their pastime or their business and causing no harm to anyone else.

This legislation enables the states to pursue a gun buyback, using $1 billion of taxpayers' money. Does anyone think a single criminal, a would-be terrorist or anyone who is a threat to society is going to roll up and hand in their gun to recover the gun buyback money from the Australian taxpayers? It is not going to achieve a single thing in terms of community safety, but it is going to divide our nation, and it is going to cause undue grief for some of our firearm owners through having to surrender guns that were very personal to them or maybe even family heirlooms. This is what we get when we have a weak and divisive prime minister who's always looking for a political solution.

The real issue here was radical Islamic extremism; that was the real issue. And, for two years after the October 7 attacks, we refused—the government of our nation refused—to call out the antisemitism, to keep our Jewish Australian people safe. It was a failure of our nation that we failed to keep them safe. When the attacks occurred, instead of calling that out, instead of taking some responsibility, instead of apologising to Jewish Australians, the Prime Minister's first instinct was to go after the guns—to go after law-abiding Australians with legal guns who have done nothing wrong. They have had a gutful of being continually victimised by people who don't understand their sport and don't understand the lawful purposes for having firearms. And they are reasonable people.

I say that because, if the Prime Minister had come to us and said, 'What are some reasonable changes we could make here?' there would be reasonable changes you could make. Instead, he has gone straight to the buyback, straight to taking guns off law-abiding Australians, because it's always about distraction. It's always about a political solution from a weak and divisive leader who has failed to keep Australians safe.

Just this morning, this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, was made available for us to view. How does that give anyone in this place who respects their job as a lawmaker time to properly scrutinise this government's bill? We'll have just 90 minutes of debate, and then debate's going to be gagged, this bill's going to be sent to the Senate, where a deal has already been done with the Greens party, and then it's going to be passed. What contempt of the parliamentary process! When we rush legislation, we make mistakes and the Australian public suffers the consequences. The normal process for contentious legislation—everybody in here knows this—is that there is an exposure draft, we have a look at it, there are early discussions and then the government may present the bill. Then there is a formal inquiry that often travels around the nation, giving people who would be affected by the legislation the opportunity to make submissions, to be heard in that process, and perhaps even to present to the inquiry. I'm told that the rushed Senate inquiry into this whole bill did not give many firearms owners or even organisations involved in sports shooting the opportunity to be heard.

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. I've received hundreds of emails from locals angry that their lives will be impacted through buybacks or through the prohibition of accessories because two radical Islamic extremists full of hate wanted to murder Australian Jews. And I'm afraid that Bondi will happen again. Something like that will happen again. It's not the first time that we've had Islamic terrorism on our shores. Unless we properly address what has happened and properly address that we have Islamic extremists living in our suburbs—the government can't even say the words 'Islamic extremism', let alone deal with it, and that is the problem.

This is just one of many letters I've received:

I am particularly alarmed about the firearms provisions, which are reckless, poorly drafted and will unfairly punish law-abiding citizens.

As a retired police officer with nearly 30 years of combined State and Federal service, including nine years in Close Personal Protection … within the Australian Federal Police … I can state unequivocally that this incident does not justify further firearm law reform. Australia already has some of the strictest firearm laws in the world, and the vast majority of licensed firearm owners comply fully and pose no threat to public safety.

I am a competitive shooter and hunter and own a pump-action centrefire rifle for the quick and humane dispatchment of feral … pests as one of my rifles, along with a handgun for competitive target shooting.

Since retirement, shooting sports have been my primary social connection and a vital part of my identity after a lifetime of public service. Measures that restrict lawful participation without improving safety are unacceptable. As inconsequential as it may seem, utilising a handgun through competition connects me to who I feel I am, after spending my entire adult life in Law Enforcement protecting the community at both a State and Federal Level.

The proposed bans on importing shooting clothing and equipment will not enhance public safety but will devastate law-abiding competitors from local club members to Olympic athletes. These provisions must be removed.

The bill removes the right to review adverse intelligence findings for firearms licence applicants and allows AI-assisted decision-making, directly contradicting the Robodebt Royal Commission's recommendations. These provisions are unacceptable and must be reversed.

If a buy-back proceeds, compensation must reflect full market value, including accessories, ammunition and business losses. This must be enshrined in legislation to ensure fairness.

This tragedy exposes failures in oversight and inter-departmental accountability, not a lack of laws. Punishing compliant firearm owners for the actions of criminals is unjust, counterproductive, and erodes trust in government.

Public safety can be improved without penalising responsible citizens.

That, to me, is entirely fair. This whole process is rushed, contrived and contemptuous of this chamber.

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge that Sunday 14 December 2025 will be remembered in Australian history as the day of the worst terrorist attack on our shores. Fifteen innocent people attending the Jewish celebrations at Bondi died, and may they rest in peace. This heinous act was the actions of two Islamic extremist terrorists with murderous intent as their sole motivation—and, yes, these terrorists used firearms, but they also prepared pipe bombs, and the truth is we may never know the full intent of their plan. Could they have planned to use the vehicle to drive into crowds of people?

After weeks of pressure from all sectors of the Australian community, the Prime Minister has finally agreed to hold a royal commission into antisemitism. All of Australia will be waiting for the findings and the recommendations that will guide this place on actions required to stamp out antisemitism and prevent any future senseless loss of lives. The faulty nature of this rushed legislation has been highlighted by the fact that at the eleventh hour the omnibus bill was radically altered. In yet another dirty deal between the Albanese government and the Greens, democracy was stitched up before the bill even hit the floor of this parliament.

Today, I rise to speak against the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which has been carved out from another bill that we barely had time to comprehend. We are now left to debate a major matter for Australians without adequate time to debate democratically and offer amendments to support those regional Australians the Albanese government has forgotten. Since that terrible day at Bondi, when attention returned to gun laws, I've been swamped with letters, emails and phone calls from regional Australians that this government has let down. Anger is growing to fever pitch in most of the towns and villages in the Parkes electorate and across regional Australia.

In the months since the last federal election, the Albanese government has passed a number of pieces of legislation—many times in backdoor deals with the Greens—that have all had negative impacts on regional Australia. I'm talking about the Environmental Protection Reform Bill 2025, changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and changes to water regulation. And the Labor government now has regional Australia in its sights with these national gun laws.

The calls and letters about these gun laws have been coming from Broken Hill, Cobar, Parkes, Gilgandra, Dubbo, Curlewis, Gunnedah, West Wyalong, Lake Cargelligo and many more communities throughout the Parkes electorate. My people are worried; regional Australians are anxious. Guns are not a novelty in regional Australia. They're a necessity for pest animal control, livestock protection and land management. Primary producers already follow tough regulations to retain their firearms. For many farmers, guns are simply an essential part of business. They are essential for providing the rest of the country and the rest of the world with quality food and fibre. Why are all the regional Australians paying the price for the very few who have done the wrong thing?

Since terrorists pulled the trigger at Bondi, the reverberations have been felt right across regional Australia. New gun laws were rushed through the New South Wales parliament on Christmas Eve. Gun owners across New South Wales will face further restrictions on the number of firearms that they can own. There are changes in categories of firearms available for farmers and also for recreational shooters.

This bill has very little detail on the proposed gun buyback scheme. There is no detail in here to tell us how it will work, when it will happen and how much it will cost. Gun laws are a state-by-state and territory-by-territory concern. How can this be implemented at all when there are so many different laws, so many different approaches and so many different perspectives? Will the states and territories even agree to fund this buyback scheme? If this Labor-Greens buyback scheme does proceed, gun owners must be compensated at full and fair market value for the property that they surrender—not just the firearms but also any firearm parts, accessories, ammunition, components and reloading equipment. Compensation must also be made available for hardship and the loss of any business, including any buyouts of a business deemed unviable as a result of the introduction of this crazy legislation. It would be entirely irresponsible for us to support something that has very few parameters and contested costings and won't achieve the result of preventing terrorism on our shores.

The people of the Parkes electorate and regional Australia are tired of their lives and their livelihoods being bartered away by Labor with the Greens. It's time to remember who we are trying to protect—and that is all Australians.

I rise today to speak against the government's proposed changes to Australia's firearm laws and to place on the record my support for responsible gun owners, farmers, primary producers and sporting shooters who rely on firearms for their livelihoods, safety and way of life. Let me be clear from the outset. Australia does not have a gun control problem. What we have is the Albanese government attempting to use tragedy as a cover for ideology.

The horrific ISIS-inspired extremist Islamic terror attack at Bondi shocked our nation to its core. Australians mourn the innocent lives lost and stood united against evil. But what we must not do—and what this government is now doing—is exploit that tragedy to justify laws that would punish the very people who do nothing wrong and divert attention away from the real issue: extreme Islamic terror. That is the uncomfortable truth that the Prime Minister refuses to confront.

Instead of addressing the real failures that led to the attack, this government has developed a knee-jerk policy that proposes firearm restrictions that target farmers, regional Australians and responsible gun owners—people who obey the law, follow the rules and pose no threat to public safety. This is not leadership; this is political weakness and, some would say, political cowardice.

What we do know about the Bondi attack is deeply troubling. The perpetrator was known to authorities. The perpetrator was on an ASIO watchlist. There were failures in coordination, intelligence sharing and bureaucratic decision-making. Those are the failures this parliament should be examining, and, thanks to the pressure applied by the coalition and everyday Australians, those answers will come from the royal commission into the Bondi terror attack. But, rather than address the real problem, the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the breakdowns within his own government's systems and shift the blame onto everyday Australians who legally and responsibly own firearms. It takes a pretty devious government to use the tragedy of Bondi to tighten firearms laws. And you know what, Mr Speaker? The people of Australia know this.

Jeffrey Ross, Queensland State President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc., said in a letter to me:

A firearms buyback and any major change to firearm laws are a cynical distraction from the authorities' likely failures leading up to the terrorist attack and a waste of taxpayers' money. Firearms owners are being used as a scapegoat and we are rightly scathing of the political motives behind these measures.

In my electorate of Capricornia, ever since the Prime Minister announced this legislation, my office has been inundated with emails and calls from constituents worried that they are being punished yet again by the Albanese government.

Let us be clear. Bondi was not a failure of gun control; it was a failure of the Albanese government. Under this legislation, the people who will pay the price are not extremists, not hate preachers, not criminals and not terrorists but farmers who need firearms to protect livestock, rural families who rely on them for safety and sporting shooters who have complied with every law this parliament has ever passed. This is just wrong. The National Party has always taken a responsible approach to firearms policy. We believe in strong laws. We believe in proper licensing, storage requirements and background checks. And we believe those laws legislated by the Howard government are working. Farmers did not cause Bondi. Sports shooters did not cause Bondi. Responsible gun owners did not cause Bondi. Islamic extremists did.

If the government is serious about preventing attacks, then it should be strengthening intelligence coordination, resourcing counterterrorism agencies properly and ensuring that watchlists mean something. Regional Australians already feel under siege from this government from policies made in Canberra boardrooms by people who have never set foot on a farm and never understood the realities of rural life. The National Party will stand with responsible gun owners. We will stand with the farmers. We will stand with regional Australians.

Australians want accountability, honesty and laws that actually make them safer, not laws that are simply a vanity project for this prime minister. I will be opposing this legislation.

I rise to speak against the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. We need to do better and what is right. We owe it to those who lost their lives and those impacted by this attack to get this done in a measured and precise way. We don't have a gun problem; we have a radical Islam problem. I support a national register, but that on its own isn't enough. In my home state, the Queensland government have indicated they won't even be involved in any buyback scheme. We don't need these laws to stop another Bondi. We just need to enforce the laws we already have, with law enforcement agencies working more cooperatively.

Many people strongly opposed to these gun laws have contacted my office—legitimate businesses with contracts that could collapse. Their businesses could close down. Some of these contracts are with this federal government, our state government and our local councils. The reality is this: do you honestly believe that, by spending a billion dollars trying to take guns off Australians, you are actually going to take the guns off criminals and terrorists, not the innocent Australians?

Yes, the coalition supports genuine measures to combat antisemitism and violent extremism, but this bill is being pushed through with minimal opportunity for scrutiny, even though it is a proposed response to the worst terrorist attack in Australia's history, and it risks punishing law-abiding Australians while failing to address the real causes of extremism and terrorism. Labor is attempting to present this as a decisive antisemitism response, but the firearms package is a major policy shift that will have huge consequences well beyond the stated purpose. I will always be standing up for the people of Hinkler and all Australians who will, very unfairly, be hurt by this.

The Bondi terrorist attack was horrific, but the content of this bill is effectively using that tragedy to justify wideranging gun laws, changes that will be felt most sharply by lawful farmers, sporting shooters, collectors, licensed pistol competitors, firearms dealers and other related businesses. This is not a credible counterterrorism response; it's a diversion from the government's countless number of grievous failures and missteps in dealing—or, more to the point, not dealing—with antisemitism and radical Islam. Of course we support public safety, but the buyback framework is incomplete, with key scheme details not finalised. There is no firm legislative guarantee of fair market value compensation for weapons surrendered, consistent with the 1996 model. There is also no clarity around the cost, which could be enormous and ultimately swell to many billions of dollars. That will almost certainly result, in this case, in inconsistency, confusion and inequities across jurisdictions. The proposed restrictions on imported pistols risk prohibiting lawful pistol imports, including for recognised sporting and elite competitions.

Here are just a few examples of the dozens of emails I've received in my office in just the past few days:

As a sport and recreational shooter I feel that we are being unjustly targeted through new laws that haven't been seriously debated and proper consultation undertaken.

The gun buyback and import restrictions appear to target licensed, law-abiding owners rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

There has not been enough time to consider all the implications and unintended consequences of the bill.

If a national buyback proceeds that compensation needs to reflect current market value, cover accessories and ammunition stocks and include provisions for dealers and businesses.

Firearms are a legitimate and necessary tool for farmers and those living in regional and rural Australia. These communities rely on firearms for pest control and livestock protection.

These are five things that I've had through my office in the last few days from people who are completely against this and what's going to affect them. This bill is large, complex and consequential. Stakeholders have had inadequate time to scrutinise it. It contains a series of flaws. We don't have a gun problem, we have a radical Islam problem.

I am unable to support this bill, and I won't support this bill. One of the issues that many in our electorate have is that this has been a political response to the horrific crime that was perpetrated on 14 December 2025. Many have noted that the government's first reaction to this atrocity was to call for firearm reform rather than a royal commission, which would shine a light on exactly what happened here. It smacked of a political response and the avoidance of scrutiny. This has caused widespread anger amongst law-abiding gun owners in our region who believe that the government has unfairly targeted them, rather than uncovering all the facts that led to this evil crime.

One of the questions that many people in our communities have raised is how it is that terrorists were allowed by the New South Wales government to have access to licensed guns in circumstances where they were known to the federal security services as having links to extremists as far back as 2019. They're also asking questions such as why the terrorists' recent trip to the Philippines didn't raise any red flags. Our police and security services do an extraordinary job in keeping our community safe from threats that we never even hear about. We will never know how many attacks were prevented, but this one got through, and we need to know why so that we can stop it happening again. I know that our communities are united in finding answers to these questions; however, the answers don't lie in rushed legislation with no community consultation.

The only scrutiny of this legislation occurred through a committee process which the major parties exclude the crossbench from. That's right: the major parties unite to exclude the crossbench from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is the parliamentary committee that ran a ridiculously brief inquiry into this legislation. At the same time the sun is setting on their old political empires, they won't even countenance crossbenchers on the committee that examines this very legislation. The committee's report was only made available minutes before this debate started, yet here we are voting on this bill. It's breathtakingly arrogant, and it makes a mockery of parliamentary processes.

In Calare, we have more than 17,000 firearm-licence holders. The government has rushed these changes through without giving our regional Australians the chance to have their say. This is not the way to make good policy. We need to make sure that any changes to our gun laws are evidence based and actually address the problems they are trying to solve. The government's current proposal fails this test. It's a political response that unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners.

There are elements of the government's proposed reforms that most people in our community would support and I do too. These include the reforms to firearms background checks, which would enable Commonwealth intelligence to be shared and considered as part of firearms licensing decisions. Most Australians would be surprised that this is not already occurring, and this is a failure of successive governments and the major parties. I would also support the transmission of firearms information between relevant stakeholders to facilitate a criminal intelligence assessment being made.

I do, however, remain concerned about the consequences of a number of measures in the bill and the potential unintended consequences for law-abiding gun owners, including farmers, veterans, professional shooters, members of our community gun clubs and local businesses. This is no John Howard-style gun buyback, and the flaws in the compensation arrangements—particularly for legitimate, law-abiding firearms businesses—are there for all to see. The undeniable fact is that criminals are not the ones that are going to be handing in firearms as part of a buyback. What our communities would like to see is a comprehensive national effort to tackle illegal firearms and the trade in them. Sadly, the government did not take the time to consult with regional communities and rushed this legislation out while at the same time resisting a royal commission until the weight of public opinion simply became too great.

I will continue to stand up for law-abiding gun owners in the Central West, and I will continue to hold the government to account on this issue. Unfortunately, this rushed response was born out of a desire to avoid the scrutiny of a royal commission. Everyone in our region supports genuine measures to make our community safer, but we need a response that is based on evidence and facts, not politics. This should be the government's priority, not targeting law-abiding citizens.

The 15 souls that tragically lost their lives on 14 December on the beach at Bondi are owed at least the honesty of their polity. The honest truth—perhaps the hard truth for those opposite—is that we don't have a gun problem in this country; we have a problem with radical Islamic extremism. Objectively, a reasonable person might conclude that the US does have a gun problem, but we don't. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, a product of very hard decisions taken by former prime minister John Howard and his government. That's why I can't support these changes in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026.

They're a product of a couple of things, principally an attempt to hoodwink the Australian people and, sadly, to gaslight lawful, legitimate licensed Australian gun owners. I'm not going to stand in this place and support it. I know many of my colleagues won't either. The truth—again, a hard truth for those opposite—is that what happened at Bondi was not a failure of our national gun laws but a failure of national leadership. When the time came to deal with the rising tide of antisemitism in this country, our national leadership hid under the doona. We should be reflecting on those poor choices, not seeking to strengthen gun laws in effect as an attempt to distract people from what actually happened here. I remind the House that these terrorists not only had firearms; they also had improvised explosive devices. I remind the House that we have seen this kind of terror in Sydney with people wielding knives. I remind the House that we've seen it in Melbourne with people driving motor vehicles. It's always the motivation; it's never the method. I say to those opposite: please, don't gaslight Australian gun owners.

I rise today to point out to the House that law-abiding, gun-owning farmers, sporting shooters, recreational shooters, hunters and people who like to get out in the bush and do a bit of target practice are being scapegoated by this government. In the electorate of O'Connor we have many gun owners. We've heard from government members today that—shock, horror—there are four million guns in this country; that's seven people for every one gun. Well, I can tell you that, in the electorate of O'Connor, that ratio would be far higher. Yet, when I think back on my 13 years as the member for O'Connor and how many terrorist attacks there have been in the electorate of O'Connor, that number is zero. When I think back on any serious gun crimes that have taken place in my electorate of O'Connor in 13 years, the number is zero. That would suggest, to me, that it's not the guns or the number of guns that are the problem.

An additional factor for Western Australians in this debate is that we have just been through a gun buyback scheme conducted by the Western Australian government. As a licensed gun owner myself, I found that process quite traumatic. My dealings with the police department made me feel as if I was a suspected criminal. Many people contacted me—even though I'm a federal member and this was state legislation—about how intimidating and difficult that process was for them. They are now going to be subjected to that process a second time. This ramps up what the Western Australian government did.

I'm very disappointed that the member for Hunter isn't here to talk about what he thinks about making vests illegal. The vests that clay target shooters and other shooters, including pistol shooters, wear as a matter of course as part of their sport will now be deemed to be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence of up to five years. Reloading—which is par for the course for sporting shooters, to reload their own ammunition—will now be punished by up to five years in prison. I conclude today by saying that I strongly oppose the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, and I will always fight for the rights of law-abiding citizens in my electorate of O'Connor.

I cannot support this Albanese firearms bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. In Australia, we already have some the most restrictive gun laws in the world. You can't just go and buy a gun when you please. There are already restrictions, waiting periods, a genuine needs test and an intensive licensing regime. This bill risks punishing law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root cause of extremism and terrorism. The root cause of the Bondi terrorist attack was radical Islam; the government should be laser focused on combating that issue instead of going after law-abiding firearm owners.

Antisemitism in this country has been building for some time, and we needed to take action a long time ago. This legislation is simply a stunt to make it look like the Albanese government is taking action. Just slapping the words 'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism' into the title of the bill doesn't mean that the legislation will have that effect. Who do we expect to actually hand back their guns under this regime? It will, of course, be the law-abiding owners like WA farmers, recreational shooters and hunters. It won't be the criminal gangs or anyone intending to do us harm.

This falls well short of the Prime Minister's own stated goal of instituting a John Howard buyback. There is no legislative guarantee of fair-market value compensation for property surrendered, which would be consistent with the 1996 model. Additionally, there is no legislative guarantee of compensation for hardship and loss of business, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable. Rushing this legislation shows a contempt for Australia's one million gun owners. Guns have a real purpose for many in my community, whether they be farmers who need guns for pest management or their livestock, or for recreation, which I know they enjoy seriously in my electorate of Durack—they are entitled enjoy that sport.

The coalition will not be supporting this legislation, but, unfortunately, it looks like some dirty deal has already been done between the Labor Party and the Greens political party. This will be just the latest in a long list of examples of the Labor-Greens alliance penalising regional Western Australia. We've seen this play before. We've seen the contempt of the WA Labor government, and now we are seeing it from the federal Labor government. Like the WA Labor gun law changes, it is the law-abiding WA farmers, pastoralists, shooting clubs and firearms businesses that will bear the brunt of this legislation, which will do nothing to confront the threat from radical Islamists or extremists in our community. I can't support this legislation.

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 comes before the House in the shadow of the Bondi terrorist attack. In the weeks since the tragedy, my office has heard a consistent and deeply troubling question from the community: how did the attackers gain access to firearms? The government repeatedly tells Australians we have some of the strongest gun laws in the world, and many on this side have repeatedly said that, but the laws are only strong if they are maintained, enforced and fit for our modern reality. Since Port Arthur, these laws have been steadily eroded through complacency, inconsistency and a failure to keep pace with technology.

Australians can own firearms for legitimate recreational and occupational purposes, but ownership must always be matched with strong modern safety provisions. What concerns my community is the growing number of firearms held in dense urban areas and the simple question that follows: how many guns are actually in our communities? In 2026 Australia still does not have a national digital firearms register; instead, we rely on a paper based system. That is ludicrous. You have to renew your passport or your drivers licence, but we don't have a digital register of gun ownership. It's outdated, ineffective and, quite frankly, just unacceptable. Without a proper digital system we do not truly know how many guns exist, where they are and who has access to them. At a time of heightened social tension, increasing online radicalisation and a domestic violence crisis, this failure has very real consequences. We know that we need to act decisively, and I commend the government for doing this, but the process of this legislation is simply unacceptable. There has not been proper consultation, and there has not been time to properly review this legislation and assess whether it's actually strong enough.

The people in Warringah, overwhelmingly, want stronger national gun laws. They believe that firearms should not be in dense urban communities and that women escaping domestic violence should not have to fear that their former partners have access to firearms or licences. While we receive assurances constantly from police and government, the system fails when, ultimately, that violence remains. We know we need to act decisively. We need strong changes. I commend some changes, but we absolutely need to do more when it comes to this.

For more than a decade, gun lobby groups have sought to weaken our firearms laws. We've seen proposals to normalise expanded firearm use, including attempts to enshrine a so-called 'right to hunt' and to broaden access under land management frameworks. This bill sits within a broader and ongoing responsibility to put public safety ahead of political pressure. While there are strengthened controls at a federal level, particularly around the importation of firearms, we must also confront the growth of domestic firearm manufacturing in Australia. Production accelerated during COVID, largely beyond federal oversight. This is an area that requires stronger regulation by state and territory governments to ensure accountability and safety. We must ensure all Australians are safe from gun violence. We know from domestic violence allegations and interim AVOs that these areas should also be considered when it comes to background checks.

This is not the USA; this is Australia. We want genuinely strong gun controls. While I will support this legislation, I urge the government to go further and ensure that background checks properly assess the risk and safety of all Australians.

The member for Monash has the call for 30 seconds.

I cannot support this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which punishes responsible gun owners, sporting shooters and farmers in my electorate of Monash. It is bad legislation and it does nothing to address the real issues that, as a federal parliament, we should be focused on.

Order! Under the terms of the resolution passed unanimously by the House yesterday, the second reading is concluding no later than 10.30. It being 10.30, I shall now put the question to the House that the bill be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, do I have the right to move an amendment?

No. Resume your seat, Member for Kennedy. We shall get to consideration in detail after we put the second reading, which I am doing now. The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 14), omit "only".

(2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 22), at the end of subsection 8(4A), add:

; (d) any criminal history or proceedings relating to domestic violence or AVOs issued in local courts.

In relation to the legislation which sets out firearms background checks, these amendments seek to amend subsection 8(4A), relating to firearms background checks. The current bill indicates:

… a firearms background check … may only take into account one or more of the following:

(a) an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation of the individual under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979;

(b) a criminal intelligence assessment (within the meaning of Part III of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002) …

(c) the citizenship status of the individual.

The amendments circulated seek to delete the word 'only' and insert an additional provision (d) to indicate that, amidst the domestic violence crisis that we have in Australia, a firearms background check should take into account any interim or final apprehended violence order or domestic violence related events.

It is not acceptable that dangerous men or women have access to firearms when we have a domestic violence crisis. I do not understand why, if we are bringing legislation forward after the tragedy of the Bondi terrorist attack, we should not also be ensuring all Australians are safe, and that should include women being safe from domestic violence. I commend these amendments to the House to ensure that people should not be able to have access to licensed firearms if they have a violent history, especially in respect of domestic violence.

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. The member for Warringah is exactly right that these issues should be taken into account in the issuing of a firearms licence, but they have to be taken into account at the state level.

There are two different hurdles under what's being proposed. AusCheck, which is what's in the bill, is the federal hurdle. It doesn't exist at the moment, but, by putting that in place, it effectively allows all of the information that we hold to be used in the firearms licensing process. That means the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and ASIO. It then goes to the states to determine the fit-and-proper-person test. The states are the holders of information on family and domestic violence. The states are the holders of information on AVOs. I can't put into the AusCheck process information that we don't hold, but it does come into the second hurdle, which is when licensing is happening from the states. For that reason, whilst I agree completely that this issue must be taken into account, it's not something that we can do in the federal part of the process.

Question negatived.

I move:

28 At the end of subsection 36(1)

(1) insert:

; (e) A person put on ASIO watchlist has his firearms automatically revoked

The amendment hasn't been circulated, but it has been formally read into the record, so that is allowed. It is the preference for all members to have the amendments circulated, but the member for Kennedy can speak to his amendment.

Speaking to the amendment, this is all about 15 people being murdered. Why were they murdered? Because the immigration department allowed some extremely dangerous people into this country. So the first people who should be held to account are the immigration authorities. When this person was put on an ASIO watchlist, there was no effort made to remove registered high-powered firearms from that person, so the people who were enforcing the ASIO watchlist are the second group of people who were responsible in the end for the deaths of 15 innocent Australian people.

This happens in the background of what happened many years ago. In the year that that happened, Queensland had no gun laws at all. I went in to buy a pair of socks and ended up buying an AK-47 rifle and 350 rounds of ammunition, which was a lot better than those socks. There were no gun laws at all. We had eight deaths with guns in Queensland. With draconian legislation in Victoria, they had 54 deaths with guns in that year. So much for your gun laws! You might think twice about shooting somebody if that person can shoot back. Whenever men of great wisdom—

Government members interjecting—

Here are the men of great wisdom! I said 'men of great wisdom', and they all spoke up. When the men of great wisdom sat down and wrote documents by which we live—the Bill of Rights in Britain, the Magna Carta, the American Declaration of Independence, the French declaration of independence—every single one of them put in the right to bear arms, which you want to remove. You say you've got greater wisdom than all of those people. That's what you're saying. I'll tell you, mate—you haven't. If they get their way, then the only people who will have guns are the people in uniforms, and we know what sort of society that is where the only people who have guns are the people in uniforms.

North Dakota has the highest gun ownership in the world. The last time I looked to find out how many deaths there were with guns, they had no deaths with guns for two years. Similarly, Switzerland, where, by law, every single house has to have a gun, has the lowest death with guns rate in Europe. If you put forward a proposition, then you want to have hard evidence that backs up that proposition. When you are standing in defiance of the greatest wisdom in human history, then I think you should also put forward a bit of evidence. The evidence is very clear-cut that where you have the most stringent gun laws, you seem to have the most deaths with guns.

In an interview I did, I said: 'I don't know why, when you ban guns, you have more fascination with guns. But all I can say is that, in Victorian England, they banned sex, but, geez, they had a population explosion during those years.' In conclusion, Queensland had eight deaths with guns with no gun laws at all. Victoria, with draconian gun laws, had 54 deaths with guns. There really isn't any more that needs to be said in recommending this to the House.

I rise to support the legislation as it stands before the parliament. I do think it's important to say what it is but also what it isn't. This legislation is not about targeting farmers. It's not about competitive shooters. It's not about those who are law-abiding firearm owners. This federal bill will establish a national gun buyback scheme to purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms. The gun buyback scheme is based upon the same scheme that was introduced under John Howard, Tim Fischer and Kim Beazley—three leaders who all stood up at an important moment for Australia and who have made a difference. It is important to comprehend that state governments control the issue of licences, state governments control categories, and state governments control gun limits. This legislation does not interfere with those arrangements. What the federal government controls is the importation of weapons. This is sensible reform, which includes stopping noncitizens from importing weapons. This is important legislation, following on from the legislation that was carried a long time ago—

Point of order.

Are you serious?

He was talking to the amendment.

That's the reason; that's the whole point. Point of order.

I'm going to explain before I take your point of order. The member for Kennedy's amendment was extremely broad. The Prime Minister is responding to that amendment.

This sounds like a second reading speech. He's not speaking to the amendment.

To be fair to the member for Kennedy, he didn't speak to his amendment either. I'm allowing, as I have done before, a very broad debate for the second reading amendment. I can point to multiple times where this has happened—normally from the opposition's side. The Prime Minister will refer to the member for Kennedy's amendment to ensure that he is compliant with the standing orders.

I'm saying, as I began my speech, why the amendment shouldn't be supported and why the original legislation that's before the parliament is the right legislation that will be carried. The truth is that there are different arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states. What we have responsibility for, and what the member for Kennedy spoke about, was the provisions that are in this legislation that are important to control these issues going forward.

I attended the funeral of Peter Meagher. There, David Meagher had this to say:

Gun reform alone will not solve hatred or extremism, but an antisemite without a gun is just a hate filled person. An antisemite with a gun is a killer.

The member for Kennedy has spoken—notwithstanding some of the factual issues, which weren't correct—about how the senior member, the father in this alleged atrocity, was someone who was granted a licence in 2013. That was not pursued, and later on he was given access to guns. We agree that that's a problem. That is the very issue of what we have focused on with the security authorities. That is why this legislation should be carried without amendment. That is why it's absolutely critical that that occur.

I rise to support the amendment of the member for Kennedy. At the heart of this amendment is a question that is being asked all over Australia and in particular in regional Australia, including the Calare electorate, and that is: how was it that these people, who were known to the security services since at least 2019, were able to access licensed firearms? Whilst I've heard what the Prime Minister has said, the member for Kennedy really homes in on this issue and makes it clear that this is something that the nation needs to deal with. This issue needs to be brought out into the open. It needs to be made very clear that, if you are known to the security services and you are on a watchlist, you simply cannot have firearms. Nobody in our part of the world can understand how this happened. That's why we need the royal commission, and that's why I support the amendments made by the member for Kennedy.

I rise to support the member for Kennedy's motion. It does have merit. We've just heard the member for Calare articulate that. There are many, many people asking this question. Why did these people have access to firearms when they were on a watchlist? This deserves support.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.

We have one more amendment to do and that is from the member for Mackellar.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 86 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 8 — National Firearms Safety Council

217 National Firearms Safety Council

There is established a National Firearms Safety Council (the Council).

218 Constitution of the Council

The Council is to consist of:

(a) the Chair; and

(b) at least 7, but no more than 10 appointed members.

219 Function of the Council

The function of the Council is to provide independent, evidence-based policy advice to governments on any matter relating to firearms and harms that may arise from their use by:

(a) collecting, analysing and publishing national firearms data, including licence and firearms numbers and types, firearms categorisation, firearms access laws and practices, and trends across jurisdictions, through regular public reporting; and

(b) commissioning and coordinating public health and criminological research into firearms-related harm, including suicide, domestic and family violence, accidental shootings, theft, and crimes of violence; and

(c) developing national best-practice standards and benchmarks for firearms regulation, including licensing, storage, training, inspections, and risk screening; and

(d) monitoring and reporting annually to the Parliament on jurisdictional compliance with the National Firearms Agreement, and the effectiveness of legal frameworks for the regulation of firearms in Australia, including identifying regulatory failures and making recommendations; and

(e) identifying conflicts of interest and regulatory capture risks; and

(f) promoting transparency and integrity in firearms governance and advisory processes; and

(g) developing harm prevention and education initiatives; and

(h) other matters as requested by the Minister.

220 Appointment of Council members

(1) Each Council member is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument, on a part-time basis.

(2) An appointed member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 4 years.

Considerations of appointment

(3) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Council unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) the person has substantial expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following:

(A) injury prevention;

(B) public health;

(C) policing;

(D) public or community safety;

(E) domestic and family violence;

(F) suicide prevention;

(G) invasive species;

(H) regulatory policy;

(ii) integrity;

(iii) does not have a current or previous interest in, or represents or has previously represented, any industry, business, organisation or person that has or may benefit financially from changes to firearms regulation, or has a commercial interest in such matters; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c).

221 Chair of Council

The Minister must appoint a Council member to be the Chair of the Council if that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subitem 220(3).

Today I'm introducing an amendment to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 that would require the government to establish a national firearms safety council based on the principles of public health and public safety. Australia's firearm management framework, forged in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996, is recognised around the world for saving lives. But, for almost 30 years, our laws have not evolved to keep pace with changes in firearm technology, patterns of ownership or emerging risk factors. Regulatory approaches between states and territories have drifted apart, and national oversight mechanisms have weakened. Our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest jurisdiction.

In the wake of the Bondi attacks, Australians have been alarmed to realise that, since the Port Arthur massacre, firearm ownership has not decreased but grown significantly, with more than one million firearm owners and four million registered guns—a 25 per cent increase from 1996, with some individuals owning over 250 firearms. The rise in licences and guns has occurred especially in urban areas. In my own urban Sydney electorate, there are at least two individuals that have around 200 guns each; they are not dealers or collectors.

The recent Bondi attack, with 15 innocent people murdered and many more injured, was a devastating reminder of the consequences when regulatory systems fail. Authorities have confirmed that the weapons used were legally owned. This exposes serious deficiencies in licensing, firearm categorisation oversight and national coordination. The gradual erosion of the National Firearms Agreement has occurred under sustained pressure from powerful vested interests and cashed-up gun lobby groups in Australia.

The Bondi tragedy demands a national response to address these failings. A YouGov poll commissioned in December found that 92 per cent of Australians support stronger gun laws. Strong gun laws are not only critical to reducing the potential for massacre events; they are also crucial in the fields of domestic violence and suicide and accidental death prevention. In recent years we've also seen the tragic murders of several police officers in the course of their work. Gun harm is a public health and public safety issue, and yet, to date, the voices of these sectors have been largely drowned out.

Whilst I support the provisions in the government's bill to strengthen gun laws today, we must also ensure that, over the years, our National Firearms Agreement evolves to remain fit for purpose. That's why I'm proposing the establishment of an independent, evidence based national firearms safety council, a body designed to ensure Australia's firearm laws continue to evolve and keep Australians safe. Australia must not wait until the next major tragedy before again taking action.

This proposal stems from the work of the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, which includes Gun Control Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. It would embed community voices, public health expertise and transparency into national firearms policy. And, crucially, it would operate independently of industry influence.

Among its responsibilities, the council would collect, analyse and publish national firearms data including licence and firearm numbers and types, approvals and refusals, and emerging trends; monitor and report on jurisdictions' compliance with the reformed 2026 National Firearms Agreement, identifying gaps, inconsistencies and regulatory failures; provide independent, evidence based advice to governments; commission and coordinate research into firearm related harm including suicide, family and domestic violence, accidental shootings, theft and crimes of violence; and develop national best-practice standards for licensing, safe storage inspection and risk screening.

It would also evaluate firearm access pathways to ensure they do not undermine genuine-needs assessments. It would support community focused harm prevention and report to parliament annually to ensure transparency and accountability. A national firearms safety council would strengthen national coordination and ensure our regulations keep pace with emerging risks and ultimately save lives.

These amendments are a practical, evidence based measure that honours Australia's longstanding commitment to preventing gun harm. I commend these amendments to the House and urge all those who care deeply for the safety of Australians to support these amendments.

I thank the member for Mackellar for raising the issue. While the government doesn't support the amendments and the form of doing this, we are in support of establishing a national firearms safety council. A similar conversation has been happening with the Greens in the Senate as we've been dealing with these issues over recent days, and earlier today I put in writing to Senator Waters that we will be establishing a national firearms safety council.

I rise in support of the member for Mackellar's very sensible amendments, notwithstanding what the Minister for Home Affairs has just said, because closing a knowledge and evidence gap in our national gun laws is absolutely critical. The prevailing question from people in my electorate, in relation to killers such as those who perpetrated the horrors in Bondi, is: how can one of them have been a registered gun owner? It speaks to the critical elements in the legislation that I've just voted for, around bridging these evidence gaps, closing the problems that we have and assessing who is out there trying to get their hands on guns.

These laws aren't about law-abiding gun owners, many of whom live in my electorate and many of whom have written to me about their concerns around these laws. These are people in my electorate who, indeed, are trying to manage pests on farms and national parks, who are tragically having to euthanise sheep and cattle, or who are sporting shooters. But the key point they make to me, which I have listened to so carefully, is that every gap that we possibly have that allows people with criminal intent to get their hands on guns must be closed. So I support legislation which does that. I support what the member for Mackellar is trying to do.

I want to put on the record that the truncated debate that we have had this morning in regard to such important laws as these is really frustrating for us as legislators. As a member of parliament from a regional area who could not get on the speaking list, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the member for Mackellar's amendments, which I think are sensible ones. I welcome the government working on this council. I want to see that succeed, because ultimately I want guns in this country to be used for the purposes for which they are intended, with law-abiding citizens using them as a tool of trade or for sporting intent with complete safety.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The question before the House is that the bill be read a third time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Bondi attack and antisemitism

14 December 2025 will be marked in history as one of Australia's most horrific and most tragic.

Fifteen innocent lives were lost, many more injured, and a national conscience was left forever scarred.

This Thursday, 22 January, will be observed as a national day of mourning.

Flags will fly at half-mast, and Australians will pause to honour the victims and reflect on the courage and compassion shown in the face of unimaginable horror.

Australia's many diverse communities are connected through generations by an invisible string that binds them to the culture, practices and beliefs of those who came before them. This vein of history brings richness and a sense of identity but, when confronted with hate, can be a source of trauma and pain of memory.

Australia is proudly home to a significant population of Holocaust survivors.

Many of those attending the Hanukkah event survived, or were descendants of those who survived, that darkest period of modern history.

They stood side by side with others who had fled persecution.

They came to Australia seeking safety, a refuge from this most insidious hatred, seeking a community that saw their Jewish heritage as a contributor to the richness of the Australian character.

That sense of safety has been shattered.

As a community, as Australians, it is our responsibility to rebuild that trust.

The violent terrorist attack we saw in Bondi did not occur spontaneously. Violent extremism starts with words, words of hate spread throughout the community by pernicious individuals and organisations.

This hatred is corrosive to a multicultural democratic society.

This bill targets those that support violence, in particular violence targeted at a person because of their immutable attributes.

This conduct is criminal, but, more than that, it is the seed of extremism, the roots of terrorism.

It must be stamped out with the full force of the law.

Organisations that proffer these hateful ideologies must be outlawed and their composite members held accountable. Indeed, some of the cowards who spread hate as part of one such group have announced they will be disbanding in anticipation of the effectiveness of these laws.

Those that seek to exploit their position of trust, or radicalise our youth, must be met with serious penalties.

Visitors to our country who espouse these hateful views must be removed.

We must take our responsibility as a parliament to stamp out hate incredibly seriously.

Government response

The government has announced a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to examine the roots of hatred and division and to strengthen the bonds that hold our society together.

But we cannot wait for its findings to act. Waiting a year gives in to the very people this bill seeks to target and leaves the safety of Australians exposed.

Today, the government introduces the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—a legislative package designed to combat hate, dismantle extremist networks and prevent violence before it occurs.

Criminal amendments

This bill will increase penalties for those advocating or threatening violence against groups because of their protected attributes.

It will also ensure even greater penalties are available for those that exploit their position of trust as a religious official or other leader to spread violent extremism, or seek to radicalise children.

The bill will introduce an aggravated sentencing factor for Commonwealth offences motivated by hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin.

Courts will be required to consider hate motivation when sentencing, ensuring any sentence acknowledges the additional harm to society caused.

The bill will introduce a new framework to allow certain organisations to be listed as prohibited hate groups where they engage in hate crimes, or support or advocate the commission of these offences.

These groups which seek to spread hate, fuel division, and stoke violence, have avoided criminality for too long. They have no place in our society and this bill will provide the government with a mechanism to outlaw them, and to criminalise their activities.

In relation to the definition of a hate crime at subsection (5), the government confirms that the provision is directed at serious conduct or the threat of serious conduct of a criminal nature.

As noted in the explanatory memorandum, the bill does not capture conduct, or the threat of conduct, that includes being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable in everyday social interaction or to life in the community. It must be serious harm to a criminal standard under the current law.

For the avoidance of doubt, this provision does not trespass into legitimate free speech, including the implied freedom of political communication. It does not seek to capture lawful debate, robust criticism, religious discussion, or genuine political advocacy. It does not target legitimate comedy, satire, or artistic expression.

What it does target is serious conduct of a serious nature, whether occurring in Australia or overseas, where the director-general of ASIO must be satisfied the conduct would, or is likely to, increase the risk of politically motivated violence or promote communal violence. That threshold is deliberately high. It ensures the definition is tied to security risk and public safety, not mere commentary, and not mere offence.

The line is drawn where it should be drawn: at serious harm—harm of a kind that meets a criminal standard threshold. Harm by an organisation that impacts national security—that is the director-general's concern. That is the test. Not discomfort. Not disagreement. Not merely, 'I didn't like what was said.'

Two years ago, this government introduced offences for the public display of Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols. These symbols are representative of, and are used to convey, ideologies of hatred, violence and racism which are incompatible with Australian values.

This bill will strengthen these offences and associated police powers to ensure greater operational effectiveness, including expanding the offences to capture symbols of any prohibited hate groups that are listed under the new framework.

Migration amendments

The Australian government remains committed to protecting the community from the risk of harm posed by noncitizens who engage in hate motivated conduct or offences relating to the spread of hatred and extremism.

The current character framework is a key component of Australia's migration system, protecting the community from the risks posed by noncitizens with criminal histories or criminal intent, as well as noncitizens who may vilify a segment of the Australian community, incite discord or otherwise threaten public health, safety or good order.

The bill will strengthen the legislative framework in the Migration Act by introducing specific grounds to enable the refusal or cancellation of a visa, if a noncitizen:

These new grounds will expressly capture conduct that spreads hatred and extremism, including in circumstances where a hate crime may have been committed, but there has been no criminal justice outcome.

The bill will also amend the Migration Regulations so that if a noncitizen is refused a visa on character grounds, they are subject to the same permanent exclusion from Australia that currently applies when a visa is cancelled on character grounds.

Together these amendments will strengthen the character framework and ensure that when a noncitizen is involved in spreading hatred and division, their visa may be refused or cancelled.

This bill did not come together on its own. To that end, I acknowledge the constructive engagement of the Jewish community, legal representatives, members of civil society and other advocates who helped shape the development of this bill. Your feedback has been thoughtful and considered.

I also acknowledge the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its scrutiny of the exposure draft that led to this bill and recognise the tireless work of the secretariat who supported the inquiry.

Finally, I acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who crafted this bill with expertise and care.

This bill should not be a moment for division or political pointscoring. This is a moment for national unity.

The colour of someone's skin or the god they pray to is not determinative of their worth.

Legislation alone cannot rid prejudice from people's minds.

Hate spreads, it fosters, it takes root, every time it is not called out.

It is our collective responsibility to stamp out this hatred wherever we see it.

Our nation is strongest when we choose respect over division, and we must continue to invest in a community where everyone belongs, where everybody can thrive.

The passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill will be a decisive step forward in achieving this.

It will send a loud and unequivocal message to all corners of this country that we must stand united in the face of racial hatred.

But, more importantly, passage of this bill will send a message that light will prosper over darkness.

The passage of this bill will give us hope that Australia will continue to be a place of tolerance and that our diversity can be displayed with pride.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I want to open by using that old Irish phrase 'if I wanted to get to Dublin, I wouldn't have started here'. That sums up the government's handling of antisemitism since 7 October 2023. In the wake of the Bondi Beach tragedy, the coalition called for serious, collaborative, decisive and targeted action to confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism. What Australians were given instead was a rushed, sprawling and incoherent omnishambles of a bill. Stakeholders were given barely 48 hours to make submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS is an important committee of this parliament that was tasked by the PM to conduct what could only be described as a sham inquiry. The committee's report was only tabled this morning, making the committee's process an absolute farce.

That approach was completely inappropriate for legislation of this scale and consequence, cutting across democratic principles and national security. Rather than protecting Jewish Australians, the original bill risked shielding radical Islamic extremists. Rather than stopping hate, it threatened to chill legitimate political and religious debate. Ultimately, the government was forced to abandon its approach. That collapse reflects a broader pattern. When it comes to antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism, this government either dithers or it bungles.

This failure did not begin at Bondi. For more than two years, despite repeated warnings from the Jewish community, intelligence agencies and law enforcement and despite a clear and alarming rise in antisemitism, the government sat on its hands. Rather than confronting antisemitism when it mattered, the government appeased extremist protesters, abandoned the State of Israel, left Jewish Australians feeling isolated and then sat on the recommendations of its own Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism for almost six months without implementation. When legislative action finally came, it did not come from moral leadership; it came because the government was dragged into action under sustained pressure from the community, grieving families and this parliament. That is why we are here today, dealing not with a comprehensive or considered response but with a narrower bill salvaged from that failure.

I now turn to the criminal law provisions that remain before the House and which we support, in principle—subject to the safeguards and amendments we've sought, to ensure these measures are targeted, proportionate and lawful. Schedule 1, part 1 introduces new aggravated offences for religious, spiritual or other leaders who provide religious instruction or pastoral care, applying to the existing offence of threatening force or violence under part 5.1 of the Criminal Code. Religious leaders occupy a position of trust and authority. With that influence comes a higher duty of care and a greater responsibility. This is a sensible and overdue deterrent, particularly against radical Islamic preachers and other figures who exploit religious settings to radicalise, groom and incite violence. The message must be unmistakable: abusing religious authority and using the pulpit to threaten force or violence will attract serious criminal consequences. Importantly, we ensured that this provision captures anyone who stands up in a religious setting and promotes extremist violence, whether or not they hold a formal religious title.

Part 2 increases penalties from two to five years for using postal or similar services to menace or harass. It's another commonsense measure that recognises that hate does not always occur in person.

Part 3 introduces a sentencing principle requiring courts to treat hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin as an aggravating factor. This sends a clear signal that crimes motivated by antisemitic hatred will be punished more severely.

Part 5 introduces aggravated grooming offences, targeting adults who radicalise or recruit children, including through online platforms. Radical Islamic extremism does not emerge overnight; it is cultivated through grooming, indoctrination and manipulation. Addressing that reality requires a proportionate and necessary response to people who abuse their special position of authority as a religious or spiritual leader, or those who target minors.

Part 6 strengthens hate-symbol offences by lowering the fault element to 'recklessness', extending prohibitions to symbols of prohibited hate groups and providing police with powers to seize symbols and order their removal online. These changes reflect reality. Hate symbols are not neutral expressions. Supporting these measures is entirely consistent with the coalition's longstanding position. But it should not have taken Bondi for the government to act.

Part 4 establishes a new regime for listing prohibited hate groups who engage in, prepare for, assist or advocate hate crimes relating to race or national or ethnic origin. This regime is designed to address a real gap in Australia's national security framework. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir glorify terrorism and act as incubators for Islamic extremist radicalisation yet have not met the threshold required for terrorist listing. That gap has also been exploited by Neo-Nazi organisations, allowing them to operate openly, to recruit and fundraise and to radicalise supporters, while remaining technically lawful. The prohibited hate group regime is designed to close that gap.

While Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to portray itself as a non-violent ideological movement, its record demonstrates a very different reality. That includes consistent promotion of antisemitic hatred, public praise for the October 7 attacks and a well-documented role in acting as a conveyor belt to terrorism worldwide, with former adherents or supporters progressing into terrorist organisations. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned or restricted in multiple jurisdictions, including being terrorist-listed in the UK.

Following Bondi, there is a pressing need for Australia to act. These groups contributed to the climate of hatred and radicalisation that resulted in Bondi. The regime provides a practical and immediate mechanism to act, where inaction is no longer acceptable. In that context, it is a necessary response to the clear and present threat of radical Islamic extremism to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Turning to the migration amendments, schedule 2 makes amendments to the Migration Act to expand the character grounds on which the Minister for Home Affairs may refuse or cancel a visa. These new grounds relate to hate-motivated conduct and offences involving the spread of hatred and extremism where the minister is satisfied of the relevant considerations. Part 2 provides that a person whose visa is refused or cancelled on these grounds may also be subject to a permanent exclusion period unless the decision is revoked or the minister personally intervenes.

These amendments are sensible in principle. They give the minister clearer authority to refuse visas to people who pose a genuine risk to public safety, including radical extremists. But there is a glaring omission. The provisions do not expressly refer to radical Islamic extremism or antisemitism, despite this being the stated focus of the bill.

While these measures are an improvement, we cannot ignore the government's record. This is the same government that allowed individuals from Gaza to enter Australia without adequate vetting, while cancelling the visas of democratically elected Israeli members of parliament. That sent a deeply troubling signal about what conduct is tolerated and what views are punished. These powers must not become a political weapon used against our allies or against voices the government simply disagrees with. They must be confined to their stated purpose—dealing with radical Islamic extremists and those who promote antisemitism—not punishing lawful political expression.

The measures before us today are ones that could and should have been taken after 7 October 2023. Instead, the government delayed, it dithered and it ultimately produced a failed omnishambles bill that had to be dismantled. There is much more to do if we are to stamp out antisemitism once and for all, and no-one in this place would suggest that what we are putting together today is a set-and-forget solution with nothing further to do.

While it's prudent to await the royal commission's findings, that has never been an excuse for inaction, particularly when clear recommendations already exist. Within days of the Bondi attack, the coalition's Taskforce on Antisemitism, Extremism and Counter-Terrorism put forward targeted, practical measures, including implementing the special envoy's plan, strengthening counterterrorism laws, stripping citizenship from terrorists and hate preachers, and ending Labor's reckless policy of self-managed returns for ISIS brides. Taking those steps earlier would have reassured Jewish Australians and strengthened the safety of all Australians.

It is time for the government to put politics aside and confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism with seriousness and resolve. The coalition will continue to fight for the safety of Jewish Australians, and all Australians, and I call on the government to finally do the same.

I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I do so not just as a member of this government but as a local MP who has seen at close range what hate is and what hate does to members of my community.

Bennelong is one of the most multicultural electorates in the country. It's a community where people of different faiths, cultures and backgrounds live side by side and contribute to our shared Australian story. But, despite our diversity and despite our prosperity, hate emerges from time to time. These laws today are designed to target that hate, because when hate and extremism emerge in a community like mine, they are felt immediately. They divide my community, and they make communities feel unsafe.

Over recent years, I've spoken directly with Jewish Australians in Bennelong who are feeling increasingly unsafe in ways they never expected to feel in this country. Parents have spoken about their children being targeted. Young people have spoken about hiding their identity, and students have spoken about feeling isolated and unsupported. This reality must be named clearly. Antisemitism is not vague. It is specific, it is persistent and it causes real harm.

Yesterday, members of parliament from all sides named that hate clearly in this House. I'll single out a contribution from my friend and neighbour the member for Berowra, who spoke very powerfully about the need to confront these threats head-on. On many elements of his speech, I agree with him. Taking on Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists is something this parliament must do with conviction and with haste, and that is what this law intends to do.

Even in Bennelong—beautiful, diverse and safe Bennelong—we have seen the real-world impact of hateful activities. Too regularly, white supremacist material finds its way into local letterboxes. Too often people in my community, where I live and raise my family, are targeted not because of chance but because of what they look like and what they believe in. In Marsfield more than half of the residents speak a language other than English at home. In Eastwood nearly half of the community identifies as having Chinese heritage. The vile material they receive is not distributed to persuade or debate; it is distributed to threaten, to signal that they are not welcome in their own home. That is how organised hate operates. It seeks to fracture social cohesion by creating fear across communities, normalising division and emboldening those who thrive on hate. This is where the real risk lies. Hate cannot be allowed to organise, because it will be normalised. The more it becomes organised the more it becomes visible, and when that happens it's not institutions that absorb the damage; it is people. Hate does not begin with violence, but all violence begins with hate.

On 14 December last year, Australia was forced to confront the reality of hate-inspired Islamic extremist violence, when the deadliest terrorist attack on our soil occurred at Bondi Beach. It's a place associated with everyday life, community and joy, and it became the site of a devastating loss. That moment shattered any lingering belief that this kind of violence and hate could not happen here. Disgustingly, in the days and weeks following Bondi, more hate was distributed in my community of Bennelong—again, material designed to threaten and divide. It was redacted and shared on our local Love Gladesville group, and I'm so proud that my local community called it out. Sara said, 'These views are not welcome in my home or my country.' Aiden said that these groups are 'an enemy of peace'. Martin hit the nail on the head when he said, 'We need to send a very strong message that their BS and lies are not tolerated and these dropkicks are not welcome in our community.' To Martin, Sara and Aiden: this bill is that strong message.

This legislation strengthens penalties for those who incite hatred and violence. It provides law enforcement with clearer tools to intervene earlier. It criminalises organised hate groups that exist to radicalise, recruit and intimidate. It holds leaders and authority figures to account when they abuse positions of trust to spread hate, and it recognises and criminalises the serious harm caused when adults deliberately radicalise children. I support this legislation, as should everyone in this place.

Yesterday I stood here and said that the Bondi terrorist attack represented a moment of choice—a choice about the type of country we are and the type of people we want to be, a choice about whether we stay in the political cul-de-sac that we've been in for over 800 days or, instead, tackle the sources and causes of antisemitism in this country, a choice about whether to continue to treat antisemitism as just another political issue or to treat it as the moral and cultural problem it is, a choice made by people in this place about whether to drag heels or to deal with the issue with priority, alacrity and zealous determination, a choice by each member of this place about whether to change. The sad reality is that if we don't change then Bondi won't have changed anything.

Until recently Australia had an exceptional and unique story to tell about its Jewish community. Jews have been part of the story of Australia since the First Fleet. Australia came to be seen as a unique place good to the Jews. In turn, Jewish Australians have contributed to their country—famous names, like Monash, Isaacs, Lowy and Jessica Fox, and everyday people, with acts of service and gratitude that come from people living lives of peace and security. The grief from Bondi is twofold: it's not just the innocence lost, the families broken and the children scared and afraid; it's also the loss of the precious truth that Australia is good to Jews and the bitter sense that Bondi was predictable—we were warned.

There were 800 days of warning signs between October 7 and 14 December, starting on 8 October in Sydney with the public rally where the day of kidnapping, murder, rape and torture of Jews was called 'a day of pride' and 'a day of victory', and exemplified in the occupation of the opera house the next day with chants of 'gas the Jews'; in the incidents where people drove around Melbourne looking for Jews to kill; in the countless acts of graffiti in our capital cities calling for Jews to be gassed and murdered; in the encampments at our universities where Jewish students and staff were harassed; in the endless week-after-week protests in our cities calling for the destruction of Israel and occupying our landmarks; in the sophistry and lies of the academic and intellectual class, who justified abuse by saying that it wasn't antisemitism but anti-Zionism and that they weren't enabling antisemitism but just arguing for peace; in the doxxing and deplatforming of Jewish artists and creatives; in the smashing of Jewish shops and businesses; in the physical assaults on identifiably Jewish people; in the firebombing of cars; in the attacks on the synagogues at East Melbourne, Caulfield, Perth, Hobart, Newtown and Allawah; and, of course, in the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue. The Jewish community has seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. It ends in murder at Bondi after 800 days of failure.

Antisemitism is an old hatred that wears different masks. First it was about religion. Then it was about race. Now it is about the Jewish state. But the hatred is always the same, and the result is always the same. And now that hatred has come here, to our country.

The government has been warned about these things by its own antisemitism envoy, whose report was untouched for six months. We know that antisemitism is found in three groups—among Neo-Nazis who revel in the atrocities of the Holocaust, in the radical Islamists who take pride in October 7, and in the cultural left who foster and enable breeding grounds for hatred in our writers festivals, in artistic circles, on university campuses and in the so-called progressive organisations usually pretending to be about Zionism but mixed in with platitudes about human rights.

As I said, Bondi represents a moment of choice, and the choice the Liberal Party makes this morning, as we have always done, is to stand with the Jewish community and law-abiding Australians. It's the choice to be constructive, to pass this legislation as a step in the right direction. That's the choice the Liberal Party has made. But the choice for the government of the day does not end today. The choice for the Albanese government is in the implementation. The test for the government is how it uses these new laws. It must expel or jail hate preachers. It must list Hizb ut-Tahrir and its prayer halls. It must protect our borders from radical Islamists and the insidious propagandists who use Jews as a way of attacking Australia. It's a choice that doesn't end with these laws. The government must root out antisemitism from our schools, from academia and the universities, from the arts, from the trade union movement and from its own political base. Unless we do that, Bondi will not be the end of the story; it will be the midpoint of a story that gets so much worse.

I listened carefully to my friend the member for Berowra's speech on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. For all of us who have lived antisemitism over the last two years, this is an incredibly difficult moment in our country's history and for our community. I take the words the member for Berowra said seriously. I have never sought to politicise antisemitism and I will work and stand by anyone, from any part of this House or from any part of politics, in order to get things done to protect our community. But the bills that will pass this parliament, hopefully, with the support of the coalition, are not the full set of bills that should have passed this parliament today.

The member for Berowra is quite right in saying that antisemitism should be confronted in more than just the way these bills present today. But the truth of the matter is that the vilification clauses that were originally attached to these bills had to be taken out because the Liberal Party refused to support serious vilification laws in this place. That came after the Leader of the Opposition came to my electorate last week, stood up in a synagogue and said that hate needed to be confronted and that there needed to be consequences. She said that, if she were the prime minister, there would be. Within hours, the Liberal Party refused to support laws in this place that would do exactly that. If you break down what the Leader of the Opposition said—that, if she were the prime minister, there would be consequences for hate—there is not going to be an election for over two years. So the Leader of the Opposition is actually saying that she's not going to look at tackling hate or antisemitism in Australia for 2½ years—not while we are government and not before the next election. The Jewish community shouldn't have to wait that long for the Leader of the Opposition to do what she said she wanted to do inside a synagogue last week.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party, after Bondi, were very quick to stand up and do press conferences, talking about how the recommendations of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism should be adopted in full and that the Liberal Party supported them in full. Let me read recommendation 3.2 of the special envoy's report:

You cannot claim to support the special envoy and then refuse to support the very recommendation that the special envoy put forward in her report, but that is exactly what the Liberal Party has done. Make no mistake; as a result of the Liberal Party's refusal to support the serious vilification laws, hate will not have consequences, and instances of hate will not have the consequences that we wanted to put into legislation today. That is because of the Liberal Party. They are the ones who will have to answer to the community.

I completely accept that more could have and should have been done. I accept responsibility for the way in which our country and the community has felt, and I am deeply, deeply sad about the state of Jewish life in Australia. But it is not an excuse to then not try to do everything in our power to confront it, today and tomorrow and into the future. We all have to be humble about this.

The fact of the matter is that, even late last night, a bunch of Jewish kids in my electorate who were dressed in religious Jewish garb were chased down the street and screamed at just for being who they are. Incitement, vilification and hatred—all of which would be criminal offences had the Liberal Party been willing to support what they said they were willing to support when they were inside a synagogue. It's all well and good to be strong in a press conference and it's all well and good to call your political opponents weak, but what actually matters is that we are strong in this place and that we put legislation in place in order to protect the communities who are affected by it.

The Jewish community also has said that the vilification clauses shouldn't just be around race and that they should go to everyone because everyone deserves equal protection before the law, and of course that is true. No-one should suffer vilification. No-one should suffer hate. No-one should suffer because of incitement.

It is just an absolute shame that we come in here today and the full suite of laws aren't what they should be, because the Liberal Party refuse to support the very things that they said they supported. But these bills as they stand will have a significant impact, and I commend them to the House.

The terrorist attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025 shocked our country, and it utterly traumatised the Australian Jewish community. In its wake, our country needed our leaders to stand together with resolution and unity. Instead, our leaders have largely failed us in the last four weeks.

The immediate politicisation of a mass murder, by the opposition, which attacked the Prime Minister and which immediately chose to punch down on immigrants, disgusted many people in the community that I represent. The opposition's strident calls for the immediate return of parliament, followed very soon after by complaints about the early return of parliament, were confounding.

The government initially vacillated on the need for a royal commission and then proposed broad, sweeping legislation on critical areas—the Criminal Code, migration law and gun control—without the judicious consultation and review that would ensure the confidence and support of our constituents. Civil liberty and community groups were given 48 hours to provide, to the parliamentary committee, submissions on a 144-page bill, with the final report being released just this morning. While I consulted constituents on the bill last week, the government decided to fold to pressure over the weekend, announcing wholesale changes without including our communities. The legislation now before the House was first seen by us less than an hour ago. We have been given five minutes to speak to it. This is unacceptable.

Australians want us to get this right. Poor policymaking will not reassure our electorates. It won't make our constituents safer. Terrorism is not just an attack on our lives; it is an attack on our confidence, on our idea that the democracy we live in can remain both secure and free. Legislation on the run will never engender confidence in our processes or our government.

In the last week, I've heard from many constituents who are rightly concerned that this legislation has been introduced and moved too quickly, with insufficient opportunity for community consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. They want us to undertake careful, rights based, non-reactive lawmaking. They want clear definitions, robust scrutiny and protections for democratic freedoms, including those for protest and advocacy. The concern from many in our community, and in the findings of the parliamentary report that was released this morning, is that the speed with which this bill has been drafted and the potential broad application of many of its provisions could have a chilling effect on legitimate debate on political, social and religious issues. The speed with which this legislation has been developed means that legal inconsistencies and unintended consequences seem inevitable.

The bill does include measures that I and my community support. I support the government's move to include tougher penalties for hate crimes. I commend the government on taking action to constrain the radical hate groups that divide and harm us. I welcome new aggravated offences for community leaders who choose to incite violence. This morning I supported measures to improve the control of firearms in this country. But there are things that we're not debating today that we should be talking about. We're not protecting all Australians from serious vilification based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics. Hatred doesn't discriminate based on those characteristics, and neither should the law. The need for these protections was agreed on by the Jewish community, the Australian Human Rights Commission and Equality Australia, but the government has caved on this issue to a coalition that is in ethical and political freefall. The removal of racial vilification elements from this legislation renders it less likely to be effective in its aim of banning hate groups.

The government has further watered down the bill overnight to ensure it can be passed today, but we don't have to pass this law today. We could consult with our communities, faith groups and human rights and legal experts and get this right. The government is letting politics be the enemy of policy. If the legacy of Bondi is a memory of division and inadequacy, then we will have failed this country. Yesterday so many of us spoke in this House of our great sadness at the tragic loss of 15 Australian lives. We have a unique opportunity with this legislation to make the greatest of differences on their behalf. If we don't do that, it will be a moment of darkness for this country, and it will reflect poorly on us all.

It is no secret that we are seeing a rise in antisemitism, hatred and extremism in this country, and, more recently, the nation experienced its darkest day, at Bondi Beach in December last year. The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill is part of our response to this horrific event and a piece in the puzzle of restoring social cohesion in our wonderful nation.

There are key reforms presented in this bill that I want to highlight because a few constituents have reached out to me with claims about the bill's effects that are untrue and inflammatory. Such claims stem from online disinformation and, sometimes, from those across the chamber. I'm glad we've come together as a parliament to make these changes. Let's be clear about what they do and not fall into a dangerous echo chamber that seeks only to divide this nation.

Firstly, there's the introduction of a new aggravated offence for preachers and leaders and for adults radicalising children. Where these actors advocate for violence against others, they will face penalties of up to 12 years of imprisonment.

Secondly, the bill will significantly increase penalties for hate crimes. These will capture offences involving advocating or threatening force or violence against protected groups, members of groups, their close associates and their property. Penalties will increase from five to seven years for base offences and from seven to 10 years where there's an added threat to the public order.

Thirdly, the bill will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to introduce a new general sentencing principle that will require the courts, when sentencing a person for a Commonwealth offence, to consider an offender's hate motivation based on race or national or ethnic origin as an aggravating factor. This will encourage judges to apply a higher penalty within the maximum penalty range where hate motivation is a factor in the commission of a crime.

Moreover, this bill will establish a new framework within the Criminal Code to enable the listing of organisations as prohibited hate groups. Once an organisation is listed, it will be a criminal offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, recruit for, give funds to or participate in training involving the organisation. Amongst other tests, and before a group is listed, the AFP minister must also obtain the Attorney-General's agreement in writing and arrange for a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition. On top of this, the bill will strengthen and expand the prohibited hate symbols offences in the Criminal Code, and symbols of these hate groups will be listed under the new regime.

Finally, the bill will amend the Migration Act to enable earlier, clearer and more defensible refusal and cancellation of visas where a noncitizen poses a risk to the Australian community through conduct that promotes hate, vilification or division, while ensuring consistency with constitutional constraints and existing character powers. The proposed changes to the Migration Act will strengthen the existing character powers to better protect the Australian community from noncitizens suspected of engaging in hate-motivated conduct or extremism.

I had the opportunity to listen to a number of members of the House speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 this morning. I think the reality is that we don't need a royal commission or an investigation. We can all watch the footage of what happened on that dreadful night of 14 December last year. The guns didn't fire themselves. The guns were in the hands of individuals who were holding hate and extremism in their hearts. The reality is that this particular bill shouldn't be addressed on its own. This legislation came as an omnibus bill, and it should be seen in its entirety. I ask those in the chamber to really look at the way the legislation is being presented to us today. The reality is that it was hatred and extremism that pulled the trigger.

I rise to speak to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. The horrific attack on Jewish people celebrating in peace on 14 December ignited demands for strong and decisive action in response to this act of hate driven by violent extremism and carried out with firearms. There is much I wish to say about these reforms. While I welcome the government's decision to split the bills and allow each to be debated on its own merits, we have in fact been given very little time as a parliament to speak on them.

There are deep concerns being flagged by constitutional experts, civil society, faith leaders and the public, not only about the substance of these reforms but about the process. In his submission on the bill, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism raises concerns that elements of the bill are inconsistent with Australia's international human rights obligations and, in relation to the rushed process, observes:

It is the experience of the Special Rapporteur's mandate worldwide that hasty law-making is prone to lead to over-reach, unintended consequences, and violations of human rights law, which does not well serve the victims of terrorist attacks or protect society.

There is widespread confusion and misinformation about what these reforms do and what they don't do. Rushing the legislative process only deepens that uncertainty. These reforms carry far-reaching consequences. As legislators, we must hold ourselves to the responsibility that poorly drafted or poorly examined laws may not actually make Australians safer.

I welcome the increased penalties for threatening force or violence, which appropriately reflect the seriousness of these crimes. I also welcome the new aggravated offences for hate preaching and grooming, which recognise that hate crimes are especially abhorrent when they're committed from positions of trust and influence. I agree with the intent of the new aggravated sentencing principle, but it should not be limited to a small subset of attributes, and I support the member for Wentworth's proposals to ensure that all forms of hatred are treated consistently.

Unfortunately, we have had limited opportunity to build consensus about the balance and proportionality of these laws. The hate speech provisions are technically complex, and a wide range of concerns have been raised about the way they are drafted and how they will operate, including the kinds of speech and conduct that may be captured. There are legitimate questions about things like procedural fairness, constitutional validity and the potential for unintended consequences. In addition to criminal amendments, the bill amends migration law to significantly expand the minister's powers to cancel or refuse visas, and we have not been presented with compelling evidence about why this is needed or how the current framework falls short. The statutory review of these reforms is essential to making sure they ultimately work as intended.

In many respects, I can live with the haste of this. I did not come here with the intention of standing in the way of immediate action on the serious issues this bill is intending to address. But the reality is that the report of the inquiry into this bill was only tabled this morning. The consequence of haste as a legislator is the missed opportunity to carefully consider and improve this significant legislation. That leaves me with considerable risk concerns. It truly does. I recognise that acts of antisemitism have left the Australian Jewish community living in terrible fear. I've spoken with Jewish leaders, and I understand the urgency of the parliament acting. I take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. I do have genuine concerns, but I have heard the call for urgent action.

I commend the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to the House, knowing that we could and should have done more as an institution. We had the opportunity to stand up to hate speech and vilification, and we fell short. Sadly, the political reality of this parliament means that we couldn't get done everything we thought we needed to; however, this is an important step. It should be uncontroversial that hate groups should not be given the capacity to spread that vile hate across our community and to undermine social cohesion in some of the most heinous of ways. It should be uncontroversial that people in positions of power should be prevented from spreading that hate to vulnerable young people and using their positions to inflict the worst of pain on fellow members of our community. It should be uncontroversial that people who come into Australia as guests be expected to conduct themselves in a way that does not undermine social cohesion or act as a direct attack on our nation's values. We need to ensure that we are addressing opportunities and loopholes that exist in the current law and that have enabled organisations that have preached hate for a very long time to fall just under the criminal thresholds. It's time that we stand up as a parliament and address these obvious evils in our society.

These are sensible reforms. I appreciate that these have happened at a greater pace than some are used to, but there has been sufficient time to get across the detail. We do not have a lawyer shortage in this building. We do not have a shortage of people who can understand and comprehend legislation. For those who needed support, there are plenty of people around who can explain things. I get that it's complicated, but, now that we're facing two bills that are less complicated, there really is no reason for us not to pass these important reforms.

When we are talking about rights, yes, there is often a balancing act. Hate speech will almost inevitably, to some extent, impact on the freedom of speech. The balancing act is the subject of legitimate discussion, but it's not intellectually complex; it's a choice that has to be made, and leadership is about choices. What do you do to stand up to the challenge of antisemitism in our community at this moment in time? Do we sit by and allow it and pretend that the status quo is acceptable, or do we take meaningful and substantive action to address this social ill that has, since October 7, reared its ugly head in ways that we have not seen before in this country? It's appropriate for this parliament to stand up for the values of Australia, for the things that we hold dear, and this bill does just that.

We're hoping that this can be a moment of national unity. We have split the bill, when a lot of us on this side of the House think it should have remained as it was before, to get rid of the roadblocks that prevented real action being taken by this parliament. It is hoped and expected that this can be a moment of national unity, where people on both sides of the House can stand up for foundational principles, and where we can at least agree that groups dedicated to spreading hate are not acceptable in our community; that lines that were previously unsaid but understood by all have been crossed; and that lines need to be drawn in the sand to make sure that hate is denounced, that it is considered unacceptable and that the promotion of it is dealt with under law.

It's also important that these sentencing factors be changed. It is a more serious affront to the community and our society if a criminal offence is committed with racial hatred as its motivation. It is a legitimate sentencing factor. It goes to the seriousness of the offence, it goes to its repugnance and it goes to the importance of ensuring that the denunciation and punishment reflect the severity of what's been done.

These are sensible, pragmatic reforms. They reflect the values that we should really all share. They balance rights of freedom of association. There are existing defences under the Criminal Code that protect legitimate expressions of political discord, legitimate arguments, artistic expressions and all of those things. These bills can't be seen in isolation; they form part of a criminal code which contains defences around good faith. It is just a shame that we couldn't come together to deal with vilification. It's something that I hope that we can revisit another day. But hopefully these reforms, which go to the key concerns of many in the Jewish community about these hate groups openly and unashamedly spreading hate in ways we have not seen before, are something we can at least get behind. One would hope that, when Neo-Nazis are calling for this bill not to be passed, we take the clue. Perhaps it's best not to be on their side. Perhaps it's best that we stand up and address these hateful organisations without delay and stand up for our nation's values at this horrible time.

This is a sensible bill. I commend it to the House, and I hope it receives support from across the parliament.

I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let us be completely honest: neither this bill nor any of the actions of the parliament to date will eradicate antisemitism or keep the Jewish community safe in the future. There is much, much more work that needs to be done.

The fourteenth of December is one of the darkest days in modern Australian history, and it is a day that my community, Jewish and non-Jewish, will never, ever forget. Fifteen innocent people were violently murdered while celebrating their Jewish faith, customs and community. It was an attack on Jewish Australians and it was an attack on all of us as a country and all of our Australian values.

We know that violence does not start with weapons. It starts with words. It starts with hate. I acknowledge that in this bill there are some important steps to deal with the spread of hate, which leads to the spread of violence. I support the bill. I support the aggravated offences measures, particularly for hate preachers. I support the strengthened measures in relation to hate symbols. I support the actions in relation to hate preachers, and I support the fact that the home affairs minister now has the framework to proscribe certain groups—which should include, in my mind, groups like the National Socialist Network and Neo-Nazis and Hizb ut-Tahrir, who openly spread and promote virulent antisemitism as well as vile hatred against other groups in our country. These groups do not merely offend; they normalise dehumanisation and incitement. Their rhetoric corrodes our social fabric and creates a condition in which violence becomes possible.

But let's be honest: this bill does not get to the heart of what I believe we need to do as a country. There is extremism in Australia. There is Islamic extremism. There is Neo-Nazi extremism. These ideologies are a direct threat to Jewish Australians, and they are a threat to all of us. But this is not only a question of immediate security; it's also a profound challenge to our social cohesion. When parliament fails to address the direct causes of extremism and hatred, entire communities end up carrying the blame for the actions of a violent, extreme minority. This is what deeply concerns me about the current trajectory of our national conversation. Muslims and migrants are increasingly made to feel suspect by association. By failing to confront hateful individuals and ideologies directly, we drift towards a culture of guilt by association rather than accountability. We know that radicalisation thrives in environments where blameless people are persistently blamed, excluded or treated as inherently suspect. This is the consequence of a parliament that has failed to legislate clear standards of behaviour and failed to draw strong lines between what is offending, what is disagreeing and what is directly promoting and inciting hatred in our country.

I talk to the coalition here because the coalition has rightly spoken up on antisemitism very strongly for the last two years, and I commend it for that. But, when it comes to actions, it has not followed through, and the coalition could have and should have supported laws against vilification that the Jewish community called for before 14 December and is calling for even more strongly now. We do need to protect the Jewish community. I have had people come up to me constantly, saying: 'How is it possible, Allegra, that somebody can call for the final solution to the Jews without this being an offence in this country? How can people hatefully target the Jewish community in their words, when we know that words lead to action, without this being an offence in our country?'

We do have stronger laws, but they are a patchwork across our country, and this is the opportunity for the federal parliament to lead. But I do believe that the coalition has really stepped back from what the Jewish community has deliberately asked you for in this case, and that is a terrible shame. So when I hear the words—and I hear them constantly, and I think they are well meant—saying there is no place for extremism and that we need to stamp this out, my question is: what other mechanisms are you saying we can use now? You have rejected something that the Jewish community has been calling for for a long time. I put that forward in the previous parliament, and you also rejected it then.

The final thing I want to say is that we have a long road ahead of us. The security of the Jewish community is absolutely critical. The antisemitism envoy's packages and the actions taken there are absolutely critical. The royal commission is critical. But we also need to lead a better conversation in this country about how we disagree well, and I think that means drawing bright lines against hatred.

On 14 December 2025 I was at home, having friends over for dinner. They were old schoolfriends. When we were around the table, we were breaking bread and talking about our families, our aspirations, our hopes and our dreams and sharing old memories. As were having that dinner, there were people in Bondi being murdered—people who will never again be able to sit around the dinner table talking about their hopes, their aspirations, their dreams and their memories. Those people are no longer with us because they were targeted as Australian Jews. This is an absolutely appalling and horrendous attack not just on the people who were involved that day but on every Australian.

In these last few days in this chamber, what we have remembered is who we are and what we stand for as Australians. Our fundamental principles and values as Australians are mateship, caring about one another and the fair go. None of these values are underpinned by the hate that led to those murders. We need to do something about that. It's our collective responsibility as a parliament to do something about that. We know that there is not one solution but there are many to tackle this and to ensure that it never happens again.

This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, is about combating antisemitism. It's about combating hate. It's about making sure that we have legislation that backs in those Australian values that we hold so dear in this country. These reforms are about making sure that another piece of the puzzle is put in place so that this never happens again. It's a bill that will introduce new aggravated offences to ensure that very serious penalties apply to those in positions of influence and authority who commit hate crimes. It's a bill to ensure that we have increased penalties for the offences involving advocating or threatening force or violence against protected groups, members of groups, their close associates and their property.

It's a bill that will amend the Crimes Act to introduce a new general sentencing principle that will require a court, when sentencing a person, to consider an offender's hate motivation based on race or national or ethnic origin as an aggravating factor, because in this country it shouldn't matter what the colour of your skin is, what god you pray to or what your religion is; you should never be the victim of hate. We know what hate can lead to. It's about making sure that people in our community are held responsible and that hate is something that is outlawed, because we cannot afford to go down this road again. In particular, it's about making sure that our young people in this country are not infected by hate and that our most vulnerable people in this society can live and grow up free from hatred that leads to tragedy.

This bill is, at its core, about Australian values. It's about who we are as a nation. It's about who we want to continue to be as a nation. It's about taking the step to ensure that what happened in Bondi will never repeat itself there or anywhere else. For so many people's communities, children, families and loved ones, it is a tragedy that we wish will never happen again.

For me and everyone in this place, this is a serious issue. It's not one to be politicised; it's one for action and it's one for unity. This bill is about taking that step towards unity and healing after such an appalling antisemitic attack on Australian soil.

Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, was introduced an hour ago. The committee inquiry was way too short, with the report only tabled today, and this bill will be passed tonight with debate curtailed. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny.

In the time available, I've looked at whether the bill would do four things: address the unacceptable normalisation of antisemitism, reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks, deal fairly with the rise of hatred and violence against all groups, and strike an appropriate balance with important freedoms.

Firstly, on the normalisation of antisemitism, this bill is a step forward. In the year to September 2024, antisemitic incidents increased by more than 300 per cent. This is not who we are, and it's important that the law shows that antisemitism is unacceptable in Australia. No matter what you think about the actions of a foreign government on the other side of the world, demonising someone for their race or culture in Australia is not okay. This bill tries to send this message by making racial hatred an aggravating factor in sentencing in a number of Commonwealth crimes, by increasing penalties for existing offences about promoting violence, by creating more serious offences for preachers and spiritual leaders and for people trying to radicalise children under 18, and by making it easier for the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel or refuse visas for people intent on spreading racial hatred. Bigger penalties will not stamp out antisemitism. In fact, no change to the law can, although the vilification laws that have been removed from this bill would have been a good addition and went no further than the current WA law does. But, even without them, this bill does send the message.

Secondly, will the bill reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks? Possibly to a small extent. We will never be completely safe from terrorism, but we can address the means and the motivation. The gun reform laws passed this morning are an improvement, limiting the means. Dealing with antisemitism is also an improvement to address motivation. The bill also aims to deal with the groups that organise and facilitate hate and violence by allowing the minister to list organisations as hate groups if they prepare, plan or advocate for hate crimes related to race or national or ethnic origin. It will be a criminal offence to be associated with such a group. But these are limited steps forward, and they come at a cost. Criminalising organisations is a big step.

Thirdly is protection for other groups. This bill does little to ensure that we make Australia safe for other at-risk groups. Many of the new provisions relate to race, national or ethnic origin, which won't address Islamophobia or threats to the LGBTQIA community. This is why I strongly support the amendment that will be put forward by the member for Wentworth to expand protections to other protected groups defined by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, disability and religion. If we're going to deal with the fraying of social cohesion, we should be protecting all groups from those who seek to spread hatred. It makes no sense to have different levels of protection for different groups.

Fourthly, does it strike an appropriate balance against important freedoms? The speed with which we've had to review these laws and the lack of time for serious public consultation means there is some risk here of unintended consequences. For example, I can see that there could be circumstances in which the minister wants to act quickly, but criminalising organisations with the right to be heard specifically exempted and no merits review is a significant power that could be misused in the future. With the democratic backsliding we're seeing in the US at the moment, it's not too hard to imagine. That's why I'll be proposing an amendment to ensure that a decision made to list a group as a hate group is subject to a merits review.

In conclusion, the process of passing this bill is very poor. But, despite it not extending protections to other groups and lacking some important safeguards, I will be supporting it because it sends a message to arrest the normalisation of antisemitism, and it may reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks by criminalising the structures that could support these attacks. Building social cohesion will require more than a change of law, but this is a start. Importantly, I'm glad to hear that an amendment will be agreed to in the Senate for a two-year review of this rushed legislation. I will drop my proposed amendment to this effect, to ensure this review, because it will happen in the Senate. It's essential that we review the impact and adequacy of this bill after the conclusion of the royal commission. Thank you.

Like 9/11, we all remember where we were on 14 December last year. For me, I was at a Gold Coast Hanukkah celebration at the exact same time that the Bondi attack went down. It was a really good opportunity to have the Jewish community on the Gold Coast come together for what was supposed to be a very joyful, positive, light filled celebration. Halfway through the ceremony, I was tapped on the shoulder and informed about the tragedy that was unfolding in Sydney. I looked around at the families, at the kids, the parents, the grandparents and the beautiful Jewish community that we have on the Gold Coast. It hit me that what unfolded in Sydney could well and truly have been something that unfolded in that crowd.

I've been speaking about the rise of antisemitism in this country since I entered the parliament mid-last year. It's something that has to be stamped out, and it's something that as a country we should have taken a tougher stand against. It's something that the Jewish community has long been calling for us to do. What happened in Bondi—let's be clear—was the result of two things: antisemitism and radical Islam. These were the root causes. Hatred and extremism have no place in Australia, and, from day one, we as the coalition said that we would work constructively with the government to address this. Instead what we saw was that the government delayed parliament, resisted calls for a royal commission and produced what was unfit legislation that not only failed to address those root causes that I've spoken about but also severely threatened free speech. Over the last couple of weeks, I've spoken to many people in my electorate—and I've received countless pieces of correspondence from them—who expressed those concerns. They're very real concerns that we in the coalition listen to.

The former bill, as I said, was so unfit for purpose that even the government conceded failure. They scrapped their racial vilification laws and have left the coalition to clean up the wreckage.

This new bill which is before us now creates new and tougher penalties for crimes motivated by antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism, and it supports tougher action on radical Islamic extremists in positions of influence, specifically targeting those who radicalise or recruit people towards violent or extremist conduct. It also establishes a prohibited extremist group listing regime. Radical Islamic extremist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir have long operated as conveyor belts to extremism, and internationally they're banned or restricted. In Australia they've operated without consequence and have fuelled antisemitism.

This new bill expands the Migration Act to allow visa refusal or cancellation for spreading hatred and extremism, including for involvement in hate-crime conduct, hateful public statements or links to terrorist prohibited hate groups, and this includes those who glorify violence, fuel antisemitism and radicalise individuals. It's in our national interest that the laws relating to cancellation and refusal of visas be strengthened to ensure that the Australian government of the day has the powers to protect the Australian people.

The amendments proposed are reasonable and proportionate by the coalition, and they will enhance the ability of the government to cancel the visas of those who engage in antisemitic rhetoric, Islamic extremism—which is the extremism underpinning Islamic State and other terrorist organisations—and other extremist ideologies which pose a risk of harm to the Australian people. This is not about politics; it's about community safety, confidence in the rule of law, standing with Jewish Australians and confronting Islamic extremism honestly and directly. Australians expect their parliament to name the problem and tackle it properly, and I'm confident that we can do that today.

I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. Some of us here in this place know loss, know trauma and know grief—the grief of losing a child or a family member. We know that gut-wrenching feeling, that visceral feeling, of coming home and they are no longer there. But what I don't know, and can't begin to know, is racially-motivated terror, and the loss, trauma, grief and fear that derives from that.

I know what it is like to see danger and to put your body in front of your child to give them every chance of living. I know it because I did that, as an out-of-control car came towards my four-year-old in a pram in 2011. That day has never left me. It is seared into every breath I take. It is fear that I never knew before the accident, and it means the management of never-ending anxiety that, at any moment, anywhere, life can end.

What I don't know, and have never lived with, is racially-motivated terror, anxiety and fear—deep fear—that you might be purposefully targeted by another human because of your faith, the colour of your skin, where you were born or where your parents or their parents were born; that, while you're doing your grocery shopping, another human will whisper under their breath; that, while you're dropping your child at school, another parent will say things about the way you might be dressed or what's happening in your country of birth; that your family members, your children, may be abused, shunned and targeted; that, while attending a celebration at our iconic Bondi Beach with your friends and family, other humans would plan a mass-murder event targeting you, your friends and family on that beach. I don't know that, and nor should any Australian. That is not living.

What I do know is the horrific loss of a child. I know some of the grief that Charlotte's parents are going through. It is a particularly cruel existence, living while your child no longer walks with you. What I don't know is the intentional murder of a child—that another human chose that, planned that and was motivated by hate to do that. Cancer chose my boy. Leukaemia took him. No human took him. I can't imagine the grief, the anger and resentment that that would trigger.

Antisemitism, hate and extremism have no place in Australia, and I certainly support any changes that will help ensure that no parent or family experiences the trauma of Bondi again. This bill is about confronting extremism, protecting social cohesion and safeguarding our communities. It is about protecting the loss of life, preventing violence and hate. This bill, together with related firearms and customs law reforms, delivers strong, targeted action against those who spread hate and violence. The bill strengthens hate crime laws by introducing aggravated offences for those in positions of influence, including religious leaders who advocate violence and adults who radicalise children. These provisions reflect the serious harm caused when an authority is being abused. Penalties for hate crimes will be increased to ensure they reflect the gravity of these offences.

These laws send a clear message that crimes driven by antisemitism and racial hatred will attract strong consequences. This bill is about protecting innocent lives. It is about honouring 15 beautiful people who left us too soon. Bondi must never occur again.

I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. Since 7 October 2023, Australia's antisemitism crisis slowly evolved from words to protests, intimidation, harassment, fire bombings and, ultimately, catastrophe on 14 December 2025. Throughout this whole period, Australia did not have a problem with laws; it had a problem with enforcement. That was missing. Certainly, there's always room for refinement, but what was missing more than anything else was leadership. This government is seeking to use the law to fix the problems of absent leadership. After this tragedy, Australians wanted our leaders to unite our country and elevate the nation, but it was not to be. Instead, we had floated an omnibus bill that brought together new speech laws, firearms regulation, migration amendments and the creation of new prohibited hate groups, and we were told take it or leave it and decide in record time. This is not how a mature democracy nor a mature government behaves.

In response to the Bondi terrorist attacks, Jewish Australians have said the answer is to be more Jewish. And in response to a terrorist attack attacking our way of life and a government that is dismissive of our democratic processes, our parliament has rightly reasserted itself and our democratic processes and lived up to the best of our democratic institutions. The bills have now been split. The response from Goldstein constituents, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the government's so-called hate speech provisions was visceral. No-one would be surprised that I raised my own concerns about how these sections were drafted. The government has now withdrawn them.

The Jewish community has expressed their anger that the firearm provisions were a deliberate distraction from the broader issue. I'm happy to support the migration amendments, but the minister already has wide-ranging powers. The minister has been using them, of course, and we know he's been using them against Israeli visas. My hope is that he will use them against those who preach Islamic hatred and extremism instead.

Finally, my liberal instincts teach me to be wary of some of the new prohibited hate group powers, and I am wary of them. After reading the bill and having looked at the referral, oversight, transparency and renewal obligations, I think it's fair to say that I'm alert but not alarmed. The need for vigilance to oversee these new powers will be very important in protecting the community and also our liberal democratic norms.

I note some members in this debate have already talked about how these laws have been rushed through the parliament and normal processes have not been followed. I agree with some of those concerns, but I find it odd that they're seeking to move amendments to expand those powers without any proper process to be able to understand the consequences, and I caution them against doing so. We know the evil we are seeking to target, which is those people who preach hatred, particularly extremism and the radicalisation pathways that promote violence against Australia's community of Jewish heritage. We should understand that's the specific nature of the cause we're focused on now.

Anyone who thinks today's bills will cage the antisemitism threat that has been unleashed misunderstands the challenge and the necessary effort to contain it, just as the government misunderstood the consequences of leaving it unchecked. Their inaction will be judged as lacking moral clarity and courage when they were warned. They knew what was right, and they refused to act. Now is the time for good people to stand up. It will not be demonstrated in our words but, of course, in our deeds.

When we tolerate extremism against Australians of Jewish heritage, it does not end there. We have already seen an uptick in homophobic violence because we know that the equal and opposite reaction to one form of extremism is other varieties of the same. Social cohesion is essential to the type of Australia we want, not just for Australians of Jewish heritage but for every Australian. It will decide whether we honour our inheritance, and hand a nation that makes us proud to the next generation, or whether we knowingly blink in the face of those who sow discord.

Goldstein's constituents have lived with the cost of inaction, as many others have. They see the scale of the problem with clarity and can see that, too often, our nation's leaders have blinked. They are now looking to this parliament to lead and to give them hope that once again we can rebuild the safe and free nation that we want Australia to be, that it should be and that they desperately need it to be.

Islamic terrorism is nothing new. On September 11, 2001, we saw the awful events in America. Another incident was the bombing in Oklahoma by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were two hardline white supremacists. These laws here today must target both Nazi sympathisers and Islamic extremists.

Here in Australia in 2008, Abdul Benbrika was convicted of directing planned terrorist attacks on the MCG and the Crown casino in Melbourne. He had been removed from his mosque because of his radical beliefs, but he went out there to use his influence to target young people. That's something important about the need to target hate speech.

Back in, I think, 2008, I was out there saying that we need to target hate preachers. The reason for that is my background with Victoria Police. When I look at laws and legislation, I'm looking at how police can find a conviction. I've had concerns in the past. For example, going back to September 11, you had radical preachers out there talking about how the September 11 attacks were justified and saying that it's a good thing when infidels die. It's not actually going far enough to be incitement or threats. That's why this legislation here today is very important: to make sure we capture people who are trying to influence younger people to commit hideous attacks.

We look at what's happened in recent times. It's even been reported in the news overnight that, again, our Jewish Australian community has been targeted. Young Jewish teens had to escape from a ute trying to hit them in St Kilda East as the offenders drove away doing Nazi salutes. Antisemitism has got much worse since 7 October, when those awful attacks happened in Israel. Two days after, we had statements and awful chants made in the Sydney Opera House by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Then it went further, with weekly protests at universities, with chants targeting the Jewish community—and no action was taken. You then had Neo-Nazis with their chants and their salutes, trying to get more members to join them. All of this just breeds more hate. Anything goes. We've seen the hate escalate against the Jewish community, going from chants to the bombing of a synagogue in Melbourne in a terrorist attack. We heard from authorities of that plan from overseas, which is quite unbelievable. And then we had the awful atrocity at Bondi. My thoughts go out to the victims.

I'm very much in support of targeting hate preachers and hate groups. We've got all the advisers here today. One thing, though—and I'm putting my detective hat on here—when it comes to social media, I notice the proposed hate speech laws are going to target comments made on public social media platforms. What about private WhatsApp groups—for example, I'm on one with 200 members—that you are invited to join? When it comes to this Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—and I've heard this before—the government is really rushing this through.

We've recalled parliament early, but for members to work out if this legislation goes far enough—for example, when it comes to targeting those using social media—it really needed a lot more time and effort. Our Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was only given a very short time to make its report. Even with the legislation, we only got to see it this morning.

Again, my thoughts are with the victims of the Bondi massacre.

Australia is one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world, and that success rests on a simple foundation: a strong, fair and orderly immigration system. Australians are generous people. We welcome migrants. We value their contribution and we are rightly proud of our multicultural society. But Australians also expect their government to manage migration responsibly, to uphold the law and to put community safety first. That is the standard against which the migration section of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 must be judged. Immigration is not just an abstract policy debate. It affects real people—families trying to find housing, workers competing for jobs, communities relying on already stretched services and migrants who have followed the rules and played by the book.

Views on immigration are strong in outer metro electorates such as mine, where infrastructure is under pressure. Western Sydney has a wonderful multicultural community and concerns around immigration levels are not about race but about services and quality of life. In late 2025, results from a local survey showed that many of my constituents believe immigration is too high and impacts roads, hospitals, schools and housing. Eighty-two per cent said that immigration is important to them. Ninety-one per cent said it was placing significant pressure on our services and infrastructure, such as our roads, our schools and our hospitals. Ninety per cent want us to decrease the level of immigration.

It's not just about the pressures. Migration concerns are also about the safety of our citizens. Today, I received hundreds of emails from concerned people in my electorate, as well as hundreds more from across Australia, who are deeply concerned about this bill. I say this to them: I have heard you; I have read your emails and your opinions matter. Shane from Orchard Hill shares that immigration is having a negative impact on the community. Housing, infrastructure and schools are his biggest concerns. Louise from Claremont Meadows says: 'Successful societies are based on social cohesion. Immigration in Australia is a failed experiment that has led to high crime rates, lower standards of living and lower social cohesion.'

Our communities deserve a migration system built on integrity at its core. That means clear rules, consistent enforcement and decisions that are made in Australia's national interest. Measures that strengthen the government's ability to deal with serious criminal conduct, protect the community and enforce visa conditions are necessary. Australians should not be asked to accept a system that allows dangerous individuals to enter and remain in our country because of weak laws or administrative failure. Integrity cuts both ways. Strong powers must come with strong safeguards. Ministerial discretion must be exercised transparently and responsibly. Decisions that affect people's lives must be lawful, proportionate and subject to proper scrutiny. The rule of law is not optional, and it must apply to government just as much as it applies to everyone else. This parliament has a duty to get it right.

With very little time, the coalition has been focused, working hard to ensure that this legislation targets genuine threats. We are working through what's left of the bill to make sure that it works and that it deals with hate and extremist groups. This means enabling the immigration minister to deal with Islamic extremists, who we want to stop coming into this country. These groups are a genuine threat to our safety and to our way of life.

The revised legislation no longer includes the provisions that sparked free-speech concerns across the parliament—although, even with the changes, we must ensure that it does not impinge on freedom of expression or freedom of association. Instead, it must focus on the tougher penalties for existing hate crimes, expanded powers to list hate organisations, and stronger visa cancellation and refusal powers in relation to noncitizens engaged in extremist activity and online extremist views and ideology.

The migration amendments in this bill sharpen the focus of existing character powers so that they clearly capture extremist advocacy and antisemitic behaviour, including where that conduct occurs online offshore. Antisemitism today is often transnational in nature, spread through digital platforms, imported through overseas networks and amplified by individuals who have no permanent stake in Australia. The coalition supports clearer grounds for refusing or cancelling visas where a noncitizen has demonstrated that they promote racial or ethnic hatred. We have pushed for additional safeguards to address the risks, and we have worked to ensure that there are additional protections contained in the legislation.

We need to remember why we're here: to tackle extremist groups, to better protect Jewish Australians—and all Australians—and to ensure that terrorism does not continue. We must ensure that the integrity of this bill is strong and that Australians can have confidence in it.

I rise to say that we have been absolutely jammed in consideration of this. The first bill, which was part of the omnibus bill, arrived at 7.09 in the morning and was guillotined at 10.00. This bill arrived sometime later. It's substantially different to what was in the omnibus bill, and now we're about to be guillotined again. I might just take you to one section of it that really concerns me. It concerns me that a hate crime, as of now, would constitute an offence against provisions of a law of a state or territory. What we are now relying on—and this is very concerning—is that you will come under the remit of the Commonwealth for a hate crime in aggravated circumstances, punishable by up to 15 years in jail, premised on what a state or territory might deem to be a hate crime.

We're starting to get an awfully wide net on what was supposed to be succinctly dealing with the issue of antisemitism. If we had had a clarion focus on antisemitism—that is, the hatred and attacking of the Jewish people, which has been done in this instance by fundamental Islamic terrorism—then this would be so much cleaner, but you have broadened this in such a form that stapled to a very noble cause is a whole range of peripheral issues. That really causes great concern. When people vote against this—and they will—it has to be understood that it is because of the mischievous nature of attaching other circumstances to the bill that it has to be voted down in bulk.

This bill has not been to a committee. There's an omnibus bill that has, but this section of that omnibus bill is substantially different. It has not been to a committee. It has not had the proper transparency. A bill that has not been to a committee is nonetheless going to be guillotined. Why are you voting for something that, might I suggest, you haven't even read? What other things that you haven't even read are you now going to just vote for? You definitely haven't read the 89 pages of this. I have to admit there are not a lot of differences in this, but there certainly are in the other one. If you want to have the jurisdiction of the federal Crimes Act being administered by a territory and then the legal act of a territory determining the penalty you will have under the Commonwealth act, then this— (Time expired)

In accordance with the resolution unanimously agreed by the House yesterday, the second reading debate shall conclude at 1 pm, with questions being put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill. I put the question before the House now that the House deal with the second reading of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The House will now consider the bill in detail, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 19 January 2026. The bill will be now taken as a whole. The question is that the bill be agreed to.

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 8 — Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

Criminal Code Act 1995

66 After Subdivision B of Division 80 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

Subdivision BA — Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

80.1AD — Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

A person commits an offence if the person burns or desecrates the Australian National Flag (within the meaning of the Flags Act 1953).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

The Australian national flag is far more than stitched fabric fluttering in the wind. It is woven into the very fabric of our nation. It is a living symbol of who we are, the values we hold and the price that has been paid in blood, service and sacrifice to preserve our way of life.

For generations of Australians, the flag has stood as a unifying emblem, raised in moments of triumph and lowered in moments of profound national grief. It is worn with pride on the shoulders of our Australian Defence Force, and it is draped with solemn honour over the coffins of those who never came home. I have buried friends, my brothers, beneath that flag—mates who were killed in combat, who died in training or who were taken by the battles that followed them home. I have stood at gravesites where the Australian flag was the final gesture of gratitude that a nation could offer. That flag does not represent an idea alone; it represents lives given, families broken and a debt that can never be repaid. That is why the growing scenes of flag burning and flag desecration on our streets strike such a raw national nerve.

Over the past year, Australians have watched protesters deliberately desecrate and torch our national flag. For the overwhelming majority of Australians, this is not political expression; it is contempt. It is a deliberate act of disrespect from those who seek to undermine the very values upon which our nation is built. National polling shows that 77 per cent of Australians believe burning the Australian flag should be illegal. That is not a fringe view. It is the clear and overwhelming voice of the Australian people. The symbols on our flag—the Federation star, the Union Jack and the Southern Cross—tell our national story. They represent the unity of our states and territories, the rule of law, the foundations of our democracy and our place beneath the southern skies. These are not abstract concepts. They are the values that underpin our freedoms, our institutions and our national identity. Yet our laws are silent.

The Flags Act 1953 offers no protection against desecration unless it involves damage to private property. That is an indefensible gap. If we accept that the Australian national flag represents our nation, then it must be protected in its own right by this amendment. Some argue that criminalising flag burning infringes on freedom of expression. That argument fundamentally misunderstands both freedom and responsibility. Freedom of expression has never been absolute. We already draw lines where conduct incites violence, promotes hatred or desecrates sacred and culturally significant symbols. Protecting our national flag is not censorship. It is an affirmation of national unity and mutual respect. Desecrating and setting fire to the Australian flag is a disgusting act designed to divide, demean and inflame.

This amendment sends a clear and unequivocal message: we stand united under our flag, the Australian flag. Introducing a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment is a proportionate and necessary deterrent to this hateful and disgraceful act. Every time another grub on the street puts a torch to our national flag without consequence, it is an insult to every Australian, especially those who wore the flag on their shoulder while protecting our nation and those who were buried beneath it. I commend this amendment to the House.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Herbert be agreed to.

I present two supplementary explanatory memoranda to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendment (1) on sheet JA104 and government amendment (1) on sheet JA105, as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendment (1) on sheet JA104 and government amendment (1) on sheet JA105, as circulated, together:

SHEET JA104

(1) Schedule 1, Part 7, page 42 (after line 10), at the end of the Part, add:

66 Review by Senate committee

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:

(a) begin a review of Subdivision CA of Division 80 of Part 5.1 of the Criminal Code as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of this item; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the review.

_____

SHEET JA105

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (after line 26), at the end of subsection 114A.3(5), add:

Note: Consistent with the implied freedom of political communication, subsection (5) is directed at serious conduct or the threat of serious conduct of a criminal nature.

The government's amendments will require the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to conduct a review into subdivision CA of division 80 of part 5.1 of the Criminal Code as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of this item. In doing so, this review will ensure there is an appropriate assessment of the effectiveness of these provisions, with a report tabled before the parliament. The government's amendment would insert a legislative note to clarify the remit of subsection (5) of section 114A.3 to explain that it does not seek to capture lawful debate, robust criticism, religious discussion, genuine political advocacy; nor to target legitimate comedy, satire or artistic expression.

Question agreed to.

I will advise the House that, in terms of speeches, I've got a procedure, which I'm hoping to not move, that we deal with all remaining amendments without debate. If we can get through this relatively quickly, then we'll be able to make sure that everybody gets to present their amendments properly, but I'm just flagging that, if people could be conscious of the time, that'd be great.

No, he's not guillotining, Member for Kennedy. He's just saying that, if everyone can be brief, we will not need to go down that path. That means short and sweet.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 22 (after line 19), after paragraph 114B.4(1)(a), insert:

(aa) either:

(i) the person intends the training to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or

(ii) the training is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 23 (after line 9), after paragraph 114B.5(1)(a), insert:

(aa) either:

(i) the person intends the funds to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or

(ii) the funds are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 24 (after line 15), after paragraph 114B.6(1)(a), insert:

(aa) either:

(i) the person intends the support or resources to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or

(ii) the support or resources are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and

All Australians, including Jewish people, have the human right to feel safe in Australia, and, over the last two years, we've witnessed a deeply troubling escalation in antisemitism that has left many Jewish Australians feeling vulnerable to violence in their own communities. This bill seeks to respond to that reality. Whilst I fully support efforts to criminalise the incitement of racial hatred and to prohibit organisations that actively promote or encourage such hatred—these are important and necessary steps—we must also, while seeking to protect one right, ensure that we do not erode others. Our response must be proportionate, well calibrated and firmly grounded in human rights principles.

I note the rushed nature of this debate and the lack of time in being able to get across this bill adequately, as well as the compressed nature of the bill. I also note that I had a second reading amendment that I would have liked to have introduced, but debate was curtailed, so I was not able to do that. That amendment noted that the Australian Human Rights Commission introduced a National Anti-Racism Framework in November of 2024 and the government has not responded. During the very limited consultation on the original exposure draft, numerous significant concerns have been raised, including by the Australian Human Right Commissioner. Many of those concerns remain unresolved in the current version of this bill.

One particular area of concern relates to the proposed prohibited hate groups framework. As identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, this framework is overly broad, lacks essential procedural fairness and risks criminalising people on the basis of association rather than on their conduct or their intention. It is this critical aspect of the bill that this amendment addresses. In criminalising a wide array of activities, such as attending training or providing support after a group has been listed without clear evidentiary thresholds or fair-listing processes, the laws could capture people engaged in an activity that had nothing to do with promoting hatred or violence. Under this bill, a person could be prosecuted simply for receiving training from a listed organisation, even if the training had no connection to hate motivated conduct and the individual had no intention to be involved in hate motivated conduct. The threshold is extremely low for offences of such gravity. Remember that this could result in a person spending several years in jail.

This amendment clarifies that offences relating to training, funding or support would apply only where the conduct is intended to facilitate or is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime. This amendment responds to the recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It provides better balance, better targeting and better alignment with human rights principles, and, for that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.

I thank the member for her contribution and appreciate the intent of her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill is already appropriately limited to situations where someone intends for this conduct to assist the organisation to engage in hate crimes or to support the organisation to continue to expand or exist.

Question negatived.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add:

Decision reviewable by ART

(6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

This amendment introduces a provision to ensure that the AFP minister's decision regarding hate groups is reviewable on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill introduces a significant power for the AFP minister which needs safeguards against misuse or mistake. We have to make laws for bad governments, not assuming that we will have good governments, and, when we look overseas, we can see authoritarian figures are rising. Banning organisations is a typical strategy of authoritarian figures, and frequently associated with democratic backsliding, so we need to ensure that a power like this has sufficient safeguards. Some safeguards do exist—the agreement of the Attorney-General and judicial review of the AFP minister's decision about whether the proper process was followed—but it explicitly exempts the application of procedural fairness, so there is no right to be heard. If someone believes that their group has been wrongly designated a hate group, this amendment would give them the ability to seek an ART review of that decision on its merits.

I thank the member for her contribution. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill already contains robust oversight, including the ability for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review a listing decision. The parliament retains its ability to disallow a listing, and nothing in this bill precludes judicial review.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the race, or national or ethnic origin, of the target person or the persons in the target group", substitute "the race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 28), omit "the particular race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "the particular race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes".

(4) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 28), after item 11, insert:

11A After subsection 16A(2AAD)

Insert:

(2AAE) In subsections (2), (2AAC) and (2AAD), association with another person includes:

(a) being a near relative of the person; and

(b) living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; and

(c) having a formal business or employment relationship with the person.

I rise today in support of the bill, but also to put forward amendments. I'm introducing an amendment to part 3, the aggravated sentencing factor. This provision is a matter which must be considered by the court when sentencing persons for federal offences if the factor is relevant and known to the court. This factor is whether the offender's conduct was motivated by hatred of another person or group and, if so, whether that hatred was because of the person's belief that the target person or target group are distinguished by race or national ethnic origin.

I support this provision. A federal offence which has been motivated by hatred, especially on the attributes which are inherent to an individual or group, is an offence which deserves additional punishment upon consideration of the court. In a time of unprecedented antisemitism, particularly directed to those in my community and across the country, and in the wake of the abhorrent attack on 14 December, we must take action to show that hatred is not acceptable and draw bright lines—and this is a fitting way to do so. However, I remain concerned that the groups designated within this provision are too narrowly defined. Consideration of this hatred should not be limited by race, or national or ethnic origin. Hatred can be enacted through violence and crime against members of our LGBTQIA+ community, for example; those with a disability; and those from religious communities.

As I've said previously, the Jewish community has not asked for special treatment in relation to these bills and I think that is really relevant. Given what has happened in my community, I wouldn't be standing in this space on this without having spoken to the Jewish community. What they have said to me is that we need to protect all Australians from hatred and vilification. We need to draw bright lines across this country and we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are equal in front of the law. I really cannot understand why the government, in this case, would bring in what I think is an appropriate piece of legislation but then, in terms of this part of the bill, not apply it consistently. That is actually inconsistent internally with the rest of the act. So just from the point of view of good governance this is bad, because we have laws applying to some in some ways and not in other ways. I think that it is not good for the message that we're trying to send the country: that we are all equal in front of the law and that hatred matters to everyone. While, again, I have very much stood for and fought for antisemitism protections in the last parliament and in this parliament, I have always done it in consultation with the Jewish community. They have said, 'Don't single us out; make sure that this is protection for everyone.'

I raise this particularly because I represent the biggest Jewish community in the country, and I think I probably represent the biggest LGBTQI+ community in the country as well. I'm going to read something that someone sent to me about this: 'For much of my life I was a senior banking executive. Due to my public role, I attracted the attention of a man who sought to destroy my life. I am a gay man, and the hatred and homophobia he directed to me over a number of years was of an order that Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said she had never seen. He sent thousands of emails to everyone I knew—family, board members, colleagues, associates. He left multiple phone messages every day; came to my home and workplace; generated pornographic and other images of me; and accused me publicly of all manner of terrible crimes and so on. I was forced to sell my house, move jobs, resign from several boards and more or less live as a hermit for some years, with security guards accompanying me. That is the case for some people in our community.' I have been there and have talked to Jewish community members who are afraid to go out in their country and do not know if they will ever be safe again. As a parliament, we have to fight for that, but we need to fight for the safety of all Australians. The targeting of hatred against any Australian should not be acceptable to this parliament. The laws need to apply broadly and equally so that those people are not forced to go through this, and to recognise that the hatred against them does not matter as much. I think that is actually better for the social cohesion of our country rather than worse.

I thank the member for her contribution and acknowledge her constructive engagement with the government. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The government is focused as a priority on measures to respond to antisemitism noting the Jewish community has been subjected to serious and significant harm, most recently with the deadly terrorist attack on Australian soil. Existing offences in the Criminal Code, including for advocating or threatening force or violence already protect other groups, including those distinguished by religion, sexual orientation and disability. Those provisions will be further strengthened by this bill.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (lines 18 to 27), omit subparagraphs 114A.3(2)(a)(ii) and (iii).

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (line 32) to page 13 (line 4), omit subsection 114A.3(3).

I believe that it is incredibly important that we understand that in the division, in the bifurcation of this omnibus bill, we now have a complete change in what went before the committee for inquiry. As that is the case, I have seen an enlargement of the scope and the net of what this bill now brings about. I bring your attention to this section and this amendment because a hate crime is also conduct whether engaged in before or after this section commences, as would constitute an offence and provision of a law of the Commonwealth. We can understand that. We're in the Commonwealth parliament. We have the authority, and that is our remit.

It also goes on to say that it would constitute an offence against a provision of a law of a state parliament. It would constitute a provision of a law of a territory parliament, enforced at the commencement of this section, and if engaged before a provision referred to in subparagraph 1 or 2 commenced, would have constituted an offence against the provision had the provision been enforced at the time the conduct was engaged in.

This is getting awfully large. There seems to be an awfully large net here. We have a lot of policemen and a whole range of people who can now get caught up in this. We can have dualling views of what hate crimes are by respective parliaments and respective territories. They could actually take retribution against another person's view by deeming something a hate crime in their state parliament and then relying on the Commonwealth to enforce it. At the end, an aggravated form of this has 15 years in jail. This is way beyond anything discussed at the inquiry that was rightly held.

This issue has only just appeared. If I had had a little bit more time than receiving this at around 10 o'clock and now having a guillotine, I suppose, for the next half hour, we could have probably gone through this with a little more depth. I don't intend to divide on this, but I will be calling a division on the third reading to vote against the bill. This is incredibly dangerous and goes way beyond what we were supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be dealing with antisemitism, the hatred of Jews, and people who murder people of the Jewish faith. That was where it was supposed to be.

It could have been succinct, clear and focused, but we've now opened this net up so wide that it has become quite dangerous. I think it's hard enough that we have to come up with legislation in this chamber, which we know a future parliament may change or do with as they wish, but we're now saying that we're willing to take on the risk of not only future federal parliaments but future state parliaments and future territory parliaments. That is just beyond the breadth of something that can be tolerated. So I ask my colleagues here to truly consider how wide you want the police force to go. How far do you think this legislation should reach? I think you are all happy to say, 'This will favour me on a certain area,' but just imagine the person who's the political polar opposite of you and the fun they could have by being able to go to a state parliament and bringing forth a section, which they deem to be hate legislation, and then taking you off to court. It won't be too hard to prove; they've got their own state legislation. You'll definitely have a criminal offence. If they can find it's aggravated, there is the potential that you'll go to jail for 15 years. How did you come up with that complete lunacy of legislation?

I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The legislative package before the parliament is appropriate, and the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Page 2 (after line 16), after clause 3, insert:

4 Sunset clause

The amendments made by this Act are repealed on the day that is 2 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit "80.2C or 80.2D,".

I want to be really clear about my approach to my role in this place. I am committed to doing everything that is necessary and appropriate to rid this country of the scourge of antisemitism. The murderous terror inflicted on the Jewish community and on Australians more broadly on 14 December must never be allowed to happen again. It is precisely because of that desire to get our response right that I've been so disappointed in the haste with which the government has approached this task—the severely truncated inquiry; the lack of meaningful consultation; and the limited time given to parliamentarians to review and understand the legislation, let alone an opportunity to work with the government on behalf of my constituents to try and improve it. After all, these are very significant changes being proposed. We're talking about new criminal offences with penalties of imprisonment of up to 15 years. As a lawmaker new to this place, it is utterly confounding to me that—in what is supposed to be one of the most robust parliamentary systems in the world—I'm being asked to vote on a law today which could result in someone being sentenced for up to 15 years in prison the very same day as I am receiving texts of that law.

I completely understand, I respect and I support the need to act swiftly to protect people. Indeed it's the duty of this government to do so. But what if we are acting swiftly to enact laws which trade off people's rights without being sure that they will even achieved desired results? Expert after expert has expressed deep concerns about not only the substance of the laws but the process by which they will make their way through this parliament. In its submission to the inquiry conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, held hastily over a couple of days last week, the Law Council reminded us:

The rule of law requires that the law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear.

It was in that context that the council criticised the lack of clarity and precision in those laws before us. They couldn't even be certain of just how unclear and how imprecise these laws are because they haven't had enough time to review them. This is both disappointing and, frankly, outrageous. The sentiment was echoed by eminent constitutional lawyer, Anne Twomey, who said:

The time given for submissions to be made and for the Committee to report … is manifestly inadequate …

She went on to outline some possible outcomes of the application of the laws, outcomes which deserve due consideration as they concern all of us.

It's for this reason that I have moved an amendment which introduces a sunset clause to this bill. My amendment means that the bill would automatically be repealed after two years. This is one step beyond a mere review clause, which must happen, and it will force the government to go back to the people and say, 'This has worked and it is still necessary.' If that is indeed the case, passing the laws again will be a simple matter. It is also relevant to note that the offence of publicly inciting racial hatred was introduced to New South Wales by the New South Wales government last year and contains a three-year sunset clause.

Very briefly, the second amendment I have moved today relates to the definition of 'hate crime' for the purposes of banning hate groups. As currently drafted, it is not possible to ban a hate group for advocating terrorism or genocide. This is an illogical aspect of the bill, especially given we are attempting to combat terrorism. I seek to amend the bill to ensure that the crimes of advocating terrorism and advocating genocide can cause a group to be banned. The reason I give for this is that we want to stamp out hate against targeted groups. The intentional exclusion of these worst types of hateful conduct is completely irrational.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The provisions respond strongly to antisemitism, hated and extremism. The consequence of supporting these amendments would amongst other things recommend them temporary, including the important listing regime for prohibited hate groups.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 42 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 8 — Reporting

Criminal Code Act 1995

65 At the end of Subdivision C of Division of the Criminal Code

Add:

80.2DA Annual report

(1) The AFP Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, cause to be prepared a report about the operation of this Subdivision, and the rest of this Part to the extent that it relates to this Subdivision, during the financial year.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following matters:

(a) the types and number of alleged offences reported to police;

(b) the types and number of alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial agency;

(c) of the alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial authority, the types and number that were finalised without court proceedings;

(d) of the alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial authority, the types and number that were finalised by a court, including whether a conviction was recorded;

(e) in relation to matters finalised by a court, details of any sentence imposed.

It's clear that the Australian community has insufficient evidence based information in relation to existing hate speech offences. There has been a lot of misinformation about these offences, how they operate and whether they're successful in the prosecution of serious instances of hatred within our communities. To have respectful, fact driven conversations about hate crimes and about how well we are addressing them, we need clear and regular reporting about the incidents, nature and outcomes of those crimes in this country. That data can then guide assessment of the effectiveness of interventions such as the legislation that we are debating today.

At the eleventh hour, earlier today the government agreed with the opposition to include reporting on new aggravated offences for hate preachers and listings of prohibited hate groups within this legislation. Those additions are welcome. But they relate to only two new hate provisions. They are too limited in scope, and they won't take effect for two years. The amendment I put in front of the House now requires the government to provide annual reporting on the effectiveness of existing hate offences under the Criminal Code—those reported to the police, those referred to prosecutorial agencies, those finalised with and without court proceedings—and the details of any sentences imposed. With this I call for anonymised reporting on the substance of those alleged or prosecuted offences and the reasons why some may fail to result in a prosecution.

To date, the convictions, prosecutions and sentencing of crimes committed under the hate regime of the Criminal Code have not reflected the broader community's view on the seriousness of these crimes. I expressed this concern in this place in February 2025. Since that time the laws have been invoked to charge only a handful of people in the face of a very significant number of hate crimes that we know are ongoing within our communities. This is just disproportionate to the seriousness and prevalence of hate crimes in our communities. The reports that would be generated as a result of this amendment will provide a clear and accurate picture of whether a hate crime regime is effective or whether its threshold remains too high to enable meaningful outcomes. The amendment is based on recommendations of expert groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the office of Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. We need a better understanding of the effectiveness of this critical piece of legislation. This amendment would represent a constructive contribution to that effect.

I thank the member for her contribution. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill contains robust oversight of the provisions. There are other means through which this information can be obtained, including three parliamentary process.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 31), omit subparagraph 80.2DA(1)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) a spiritual leader who provides religious instruction or religious pastoral care; or

(iia) a leader of a prohibited hate group (within the meaning of Part 5.3B); or

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 12), omit subparagraph 80.2DA(2)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) a spiritual leader who provides religious instruction or religious pastoral care; or

(iia) a leader of a prohibited hate group (within the meaning of Part 5.3B); or

(3) Schedule 2, page 43 (after line 28), after item 2, insert:

2A Paragraph 5C(1)(d)

Omit "there is a risk", substitute "there is a reasonable risk".

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (after line 31), at the end of section 114A.3, add:

(7) In this section, a reference to race or national or ethnic origin includes a reference to race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability.

It's impossible to properly scrutinise this legislation when it's provided to members only hours before debate. It makes a mockery of our responsibility to carefully scrutinise laws. Despite this, my serious concerns about the bill and the extremely limited amount of time, I've been able to at least draw out these four amendments to areas that are contentious and incredibly concerning. In seeking to act quickly, this bill grants the minister broad discretion with inadequate safeguards, weakens procedural fairness and sets a dangerous precedent that future governments could exploit. My concerns and amendments address three areas: the breadth of ministerial power, the lowering of visa cancellation thresholds and the narrowing complete definition of hate crime and consequently the prohibited groups to which it applies. As drafted, it enables a significant overreach of ministerial power, weakens procedural fairness and sets a dangerous precedent that may be exploited.

In relation to my amendments, the revised bill circulated just recently is intended to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, and that is something I would hope we are all united about, but the execution is flawed and unacceptable. The bill continues to define hate crimes narrowly, focusing on race, nationality and ethnic origin. I certainly welcome that, but it is clear that we have hate crimes that are done on the basis of faith, sexuality, gender, sexual orientation and disability. Why these are not included in the definition of hate crime for the purpose of prohibited groups I do not understand. I know that for many in Australia, in such a multi- faith country, that why hate crimes done on the basis of at least religion are not included is really quite astounding.

So one amendment seeks to broaden the definition of hate crime—to expand it to include targeted people on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability. We know that hate does not stop at race or ethnicity. There is no justification for excluding those other communities. I know they are quite distressed at the moment at hearing the debate in this place and hearing that the government does not care about the hate that they face.

Narrowing the definition of secular pastoral leadership—as drafted, the bill criminalises conduct by anyone providing religious or secular pastoral care. Secular pastoral care is not defined. That term has no clear legal meaning and no settled boundaries. I have consulted with academics and legal experts in relation to this. The amendment removes the concept of so-called secular pastoral care leader entirely and limits the offence to genuine religious officials or members of prohibited hate groups. With this change, the risk of unintended consequences—and, I would say, a constitutional challenge that would be an embarrassment for this government—is important.

Finally, I come to the visa cancellation threshold. This bill changes the legislation in relation to the discretionary power of the minister to cancel a visa on the basis of a concern that someone 'would' commit an offence to 'might'. That dramatically lowers the threshold for cancelling a visa and for consideration—'might' is entirely speculative. On a balance of probability, you could say that, on the basis of a chance of one out of a 100, that is a might. 'Would' requires already slightly higher consideration. My amendment seeks to include that, where a minister seeks to cancel a visa based on speculation about what a person might do, they should at least make clear there must be demonstrable and reasonable risk. That is not an objective test. It invites arbitrary decision-making and broad discrimination. The amendment seeks to make clear a defensible standard—one that respects the rule of law while maintaining public safety.

I thank the member. The government does not support these amendments for the reasons provided in response to the amendments of the member for Wentworth. In addition, leaders of prohibited hate groups would already be subject to penalties of up to 15 years under this bill, so it is unnecessary to extend the aggravated offences for religious leaders, which carry penalties of up to 12 years, to them.

Question negatived.

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, just a suggestion on arrangements if I may. First of all, because the resolution of the House says that there would be a suspension if we finish before two o'clock, I might suggest that shortly it might suit the convenience of the House if you vacate the chair and caused the ringing of the bells to happen at five past two, and then we'd have question time.

Secondly, the resolution of the House has us suspending following question time. For the information of members, we now have a fair idea of the timing for the Senate tonight, and I know people have planes to get away. So the intention would be that we would reconvene tomorrow morning. So we'll suspend now, have question time and then suspend, and the bells will ring for us to return at eight o'clock tomorrow morning. That way, people who need to be on their way will be able to do so.

I thank the Leader of the House for that advice.

Sitting suspended from 13:56 to 14:10

Every summer in Australia—and often the period which is dangerous is getting longer and longer—our people face the challenge of extreme weather. In the last month, Queenslanders and Victorians have been hit hard. In Victoria, fires burned through over 400,000 hectares of bushland. Authorities had been warning that the extreme conditions were the worst since the Black Summer, and the fireys on the ground said the same thing. These fires were fast moving, unpredictable and intense. Tragically, they claimed the life of Max Hobson. Max had come to cattle farming late in his working life and he went about it with all his engineer's precision, and with real passion. Our thoughts are with Max's wife, Julie, his loved ones, his friends and his community.

Over 1,000 farming properties were affected and nearly 25,000 head of livestock lost. More than 1,340 structures across the state were either damaged or destroyed. The damage done to Ruffy, Alexandra and surrounds is devastating. In Ravenswood and Harcourt, which I visited, over 50 homes were destroyed. I saw where the Harcourt Co-op Cool Stores and the neighbouring cafe had stood. Standing right on that street, the power of fire was so evident. Over 90 small businesses use that cool store:, local winemakers, brewers and apple growers. Years of their hard work burned away. So much was lost, yet the bravery and dedication of firefighters and volunteers saved so much more. As we were taken into that town by police and emergency services, we could see that the fire had devastated one side of the road. Houses that had been there were reduced to a bit of a chimney or some sign that there was a dwelling there. But across the road, really a miracle: houses intact due to the extraordinary work of volunteers, rural firefighters, police and just locals—neighbours—fighting for their properties. Quite extraordinary! If you looked at it you would not think it was possible.

At the Ravenswood staging centre, I had the opportunity to personally thank CFA members. They were not just from the local community but they had come from Rochester, which had been devastated by those terrible floods just a short time ago and which I had visited seemingly yesterday. And they came from Creswick and Mount Macedon as well to help. They included Darcy, who was a young 16-year-old volunteer on his first day in the job. As the member for Bendigo knows—I travelled there with her and the Victorian Premier—these are communities where people know each other and they care about each other as well. When fires took out the Mount Alexander ABC transmission tower, Phoenix FM, which is a 100 per cent volunteer local community radio station, switched over to carrying the emergency broadcast for three days, saving lives. One CFA volunteer, Tyrone Rice, was out fighting fires when his own home was lost. In less than a week, the community had raised over $65,000 for his family.

In Queensland, the devastation has been different but the courage and generosity have been the same. Monsoonal rain, exacerbated by ex-tropical-cyclone Koji, has caused widespread flooding across North Queensland. Previously, I travelled to Cloncurry with the emergency management minister and with the Treasurer, and we were in Cloncurry and Mount Isa. The minister went on to visit Julia Creek and Richmond afterwards, looking at the extraordinary impact that those floodwaters had had. I thank the Mayor of Cloncurry and other community volunteers who we were able to meet and thank for what they had done there as well.

Tragically, one man died when his vehicle was trapped in floodwaters near Normanton. He and his loved ones are in our thoughts today.

Primary producers have seen thousands of kilometres of roads and fencing destroyed, and around 50,000 head of livestock have been lost—at least. What I said to the remarkable SES volunteers in Hoods Lagoon and locals at the Clermont Bears footie club is the same message I took to Harcourt in Victoria: We have got your back. From response to recovery to rebuilding, we'll be with you every step of the way.

In both states, we've made the disaster recovery allowance available—up to 13 weeks of support for people who have lost income. In Victoria, together with Jacinta Allan's government, we've provided $77 million in disaster recovery funding. This is support for emergency fodder, community recovery officers and primary producer grants up to $75,000, as well as assistance for personal and financial counselling and dealing with power outages and clean-up. The Defence Force have made some of their accommodation available, as well, in Victoria. In both states, I thank all those in police and emergency services and fire services, volunteers and the SES—the extraordinary people who step up at difficult times.

In Queensland, we are working with David Crisafulli's government, who I also met with last Thursday in Brisbane. We travelled there, to Clermont, with the minister. We have provided over $66 million in support to 30 different local government areas. This includes an $11.3 million primary producer support package, in addition to $21 million in disaster recovery grants; almost $10 million for extraordinary disaster recovery assistance grants for small business; $7 million in emergency fodder for stranded livestock; and $11½ million to repair the Cloncurry airstrip, that's so important—vital—particularly for fly-in fly-out workers who work in the resources sector, in the mines around Cloncurry. In addition to that, we've provided support for mental health support and personal hardship assistance.

I know the whole parliament cares about helping these communities get back on their feet. There's no politics in any of this. When natural disaster strikes, governments work to provide assistance. I know that we always have the support of the parliament to do so, and I thank all members of the House for doing so and for engaging. I will continue to work with local members on what else can be done.

Of course, this remains a difficult period—a difficult weather period. In Sydney over the weekend, and on the Central Coast of NSW, there was a real impact as well—the impact of the extreme weather events and record rainfall in some of those communities, including in the member for Robertson's electorate and the member for Dobell's as well. This is a difficult period.

I remind people, as well, as a final thought: if it's flooded, forget it. Every time I go into a flood area, the police and people will tell you that people think that they can drive through and they know what it looks like. I know, in the member for Mackellar's electorate, over the weekend, we saw examples of that. If you can't see the ground, you don't know what's under the water; you don't know if the road has slipped away. It is simply not worth it. Please follow the advice of our police, emergency services and SES volunteers. They risk a lot to help out their fellow Australians. What they ask is that they get listened to on that advice. That way, we'll keep Australians as safe as possible, even in difficult times.

I'm pleased to join the Prime Minister in acknowledging the deep hardship being experienced by Australians across our country as they confront the devastating aspects and impacts of fire and floods. From communities facing catastrophic bushfire conditions along the New South Wales-Victoria border and in parts of South Australia and Western Australia to families and businesses still reeling from widespread flooding in Queensland and northern NSW, Australians are once again being tested by a landscape that is both extraordinary and unforgiving. I am always reminded of the beauty and the terror from Dorothea Mackellar's iconic poem.

In recent weeks, I've been on the ground in flood affected communities across North Queensland. I've been in Cloncurry, Julia Creek, Richmond and Mount Isa, speaking directly to families, pastoralists and local leaders whose lives and livelihoods have been turned upside down. The No. 1 thing you see in their eyes is exhaustion, fatigue, but, behind it, there is great anxiety for what the future holds, great pain for what they've gone through and great, great shock. I've also spent time with emergency services on the New South Wales-Victoria border in the upper Murray region, where I spent 17 years of my life as a farmer and where my family and community still lives. So it was very close and personal to see firsthand the damage that was done there only recently. It reminds me that those communities are, too soon, going through something that they went through in 2020 in the Black Summer fires. Similarly, for North Queensland, 2019 was a time of dreadful flooding.

I want to say that when the weather is at its worst, Australians really are at their very best, and the most important thing is to acknowledge those who are directly affected. That includes families who are forced to evacuate. But when fires and floods have an impact like this, we must always put our farmers front and centre. They are the people who work the land, the people who care for their livestock and the people who will only leave their farms if they absolutely have to. When I look at the picture of Max Hobson, who lost his life in the Longwood bushfire—and I pass on our deepest condolences to his family—I see a farmer. I see an iconic bloke from the bush and his stoicism, fortitude, calm and commonsense. You can imagine him leaning on the rails at the stockyards, coping with everything and dealing with the highs and lows of life on the land. It's a life that he has now lost, and his family and community are devastated. There are those who've lost homes, there are those who've lost stock, crops, machinery, fences, businesses or treasured belongings, and there are those who are trying to keep going while carrying the emotional weight of having been through it all before.

I want to place on record the opposition's gratitude to those extraordinary Australians who respond on the frontline. To our volunteer firefighters, our SES crews, our police, our paramedics, our Defence personnel, our council workers and the many community volunteers: a really big 'thank you'. As I met crews from the CFA, from Queensland and from the NSW RFS in the Tallangatta incident centre in north-east Victoria, it was quite clear that they'd all dropped everything to be there, and that's what you always see. Whatever they've left behind, they have done so willingly to come and lend a hand.

I particularly thank our aviation crews and pilots. I've seen helicopter pilots in outback Queensland flying mission after mission from dawn till dusk. They are as exhausted as the people they are helping, knowing just to get that last load of hay, pick up that last stranded person or see some evidence of where stock might be gathering might help and support them the next day. We thank them and every person involved in the planning, coordination and logistics that support these efforts.

Recovery is a long process. It takes time, it takes resources, and it takes support. It requires governments at every level to stay engaged, not just in the immediate crisis but in the weeks and months that follow. In Richmond, I heard directly from local leaders and landholders about all those practical realities of recovery: restocking, rebuilding fences, restoring yards and managing animal welfare—it's always at the top of the list. The anguish and heartbreak of a farmer who has lost his land and his fences but not his cattle or sheep is a totally different experience from one who has. The anxiety they have for their cattle as they recover is beautiful to behold because it demonstrates that bond between those who manage the land and the spirit of Australia.

But we heard something so important there from the mayor in Richmond. He said, in words that stayed with me, that disaster packages save lives, literally. He said that, in 2019, support announced in the midst of a crisis changed the course of people's lives and gave hope to those who felt they could not continue—and hope matters in disaster recovery. It's not abstract; it's real. It's often the difference between despair and the determination to rebuild. That's why it's so important that assistance is delivered quickly. The goal must be to help people get back on their feet, not to add further strain through complexity or bureaucracy at a time of such profound loss.

I want to assure Australians in these affected areas, as I know the Prime Minister has, that they're not alone. They often feel that a lot of attention is paid in the days after the disaster, as it should be, and then those communities can fade from our public consciousness. I know that everyone in this parliament is determined that that not happen—that we are there for those communities over the years ahead. Remember that they are Australians who don't ask for help, but they need a lot of help, and so we must make sure that they get it.

Australia has faced disasters before. We'll face them again. Every time, we are reminded of not only the power of nature but the resilience of the Australian people. I know that spirit will carry communities through the difficult days ahead, and the opposition stands with all those in this place and the other place to support them in whatever way we can.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 19 January, I will call on questions without notice.

I inform the House that the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions on his behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The families of the Bondi terrorist attack victims had to beg the Prime Minister, through their grief and tears, for a Commonwealth royal commission into antisemitism. The Prime Minister forced those families to juggle unimaginable grief with national advocacy. It was callous, it was unfair, and they are owed an apology. The Prime Minister dithered and delayed, with a host of bogus excuses, citing nameless experts, saying it would take too long, arguing it would platform hate. Not once has the Prime Minister admitted to and said sorry for his mistakes. Can the Prime Minister just humble himself for once and simply say sorry?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We've dealt with this time question before. I hope it will be the same measure applied if any ministers go over time.

What happened on 14 December was a targeted, evil, antisemitic terrorist attack on Jewish Australians, and my heart breaks for every person, every family, every community that has been made to suffer because of that senseless, hate fuelled violence. I've attended homes and synagogues, and had private meetings, both in their homes and in my Sydney home, for the moment, and in my Sydney office with those families. I haven't had TV cameras or radio reporters with me. What I've done is engage respectfully with those people. I've said I feel the weight of responsibility for an atrocity that happened whilst I'm Prime Minister. And, as I have said, I'm sorry that this occurred—sorry for the grief and pain that the Jewish community and our entire nation have experienced. Our responsibility is to channel that grief, that pain and that anger into meaningful action, making a difference, and that is what I have striven to do.

I've said that we would implement in full the recommendations of the antisemitism envoy's report. Unfortunately, some of those recommendations, the most serious ones—about vilification—did not receive the support of either the coalition or the Greens in the Senate and therefore were not able to be pursued. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, our priority was unashamedly about the safety of Australians. If you look at what is happening with terrorist attacks overseas, what often occurs is that one attack leads to another, coordinated attack somewhere else as part of planning. Our first priority, unashamedly, on the Sunday night, on the Monday, on the Tuesday, on the Wednesday, on the Thursday, was not to worry about politics. Our priority was: were these people part of a cell? Would there be another attack in another place in Sydney? Would there be a follow-up attack in Melbourne? Were Jewish Australians being kept safe? Were the leaders of those communities being kept safe? We upgraded the security measures around the track. Our priority was that. What were the gaps that were missed in security? Through the National Security Committee, which has met on almost a daily basis every day since 14 December, our priority was to get that right.

Our second priority was to make sure not that we did something in a year's time or two years time but that we did something immediately. The House of Representatives passed legislation—not as strong as we would have liked in tackling antisemitism, but what we could get through. That was our priority. We called a royal commission once we had the royal commissioner in place and once we had consulted the Jewish community about the terms of reference.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I'm asking all members to show restraint, today of all days.

My question is to the Prime Minister. After the tragic events of the violent, antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach last month, how is the Albanese government working to combat antisemitism, extremism and hate, and to keep all Australians safe?

I thank the member for Isaacs for his question and his commitment not just as a member of the Australian parliament but also as someone who is very committed to helping his fellow Jewish Australians. He travelled to Sydney in the hours after this terrible attack on the first night of Hanukkah where 15 Australians were murdered at Bondi Beach. They wounded dozens more—men, women and children. It was an antisemitic terrorist attack aimed at Jewish Australians, inspired by ISIS, the deadliest that has ever occurred on Australian soil. It was also an attack on every single Australian because it was an attack on our way of life, in which the Australian covenant is that, if people have any prejudice or hate, that is left in the customs hall. Here in Australia we respect each other, people of different faiths and backgrounds, and we treat each other properly.

Since the horror of that day, our priority has been to keep Australians safe, to combat antisemitism, extremism and hate, to bring an end to violence, to bring the nation together, to wrap our arms around the Jewish community and to be with them in their profound grief. We've announced a royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion so people can tell their stories to inform meaningful action. Today we have passed through this House laws to address both the motivation and the method of the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi, because the terrorists had hate in their hearts but they also had high-powered rifles in their hands. We're taking action on both—we're tackling antisemitism and hate and we're getting dangerous guns off our streets.

On Thursday, we will come together in a national day of mourning, honouring the victims and all those impacted by the violence at Bondi. The theme that the Chabad community have chosen is 'light will win: a gathering of unity and remembrance'. That is what the local community, led by their spiritual leader Rabbi Ulman—whom I have spoken with again this morning—really want to see: a fitting moment for our grieving nation to come together and reaffirm our commitment that in Australia light triumphs over darkness.

My question is the Prime Minister. After Australia's deadliest ever terror attack, in Bondi, the families of victims wrote to the Prime Minister and said:

… we have endured more than 2½ years of relentless attacks.

Our children feel unsafe at school … Our homes, workplaces, sporting fields and public spaces no longer feel secure. It is an intolerable situation that no Australian should have to endure.

Prime Minister, I ask again: will you apologise to Jewish Australians because you and your government did not listen?

I certainly acknowledge very directly the pain that Jewish Australians are feeling and that they have felt for some period of time. The idea that antisemitism began with the election of the government in 2022 is just not right. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, on 25 November 2018, said that the 12-month period ending 30 September 2018 saw a 59 per cent increase over the previous year in total antisemitic incidents in Australia involving threats or acts of violence. Josh Frydenberg, the then treasurer, said on 10 May 2019, 'Antisemitism is on the rise here in Australia, and the number of incidents has increased quite dramatically.' The member for Berowra said on 6 May 2019:

… I find it hard to believe that in 2019 we are witnessing anti-Semitic incidents on an unprecedented scale.

Senator Andrew Bragg said in the same year:

I believe anti-Semitism is a rising problem …

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We don't need those sorts of commentary. The member for Berowra is entitled to raise a point of order.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Prime Minister wasn't asked about the history of antisemitism in Australia; he was asked whether he apologised for his government's failures to do enough to deal with the antisemitism.

The Prime Minister—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! As all members know, I can't direct any member to give yes or no as the answer you would like. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant, giving information to the House about the exact topic he was asked about. The Prime Minister has the call.

Let me be very clear: all governments should have done better. That is my point. The idea that antisemitism began two years ago with the change of government is false, and it's declared to be false by the comments of those opposite in senior positions. Despite the surge in antisemitism on their watch, did the Morrison government appoint a special envoy to combat antisemitism? No. Did they establish a joint operation, bringing together the AFP and ASIO to combat acts of antisemitism? No. Did they introduce Australia's first ever hate speech laws? No. Did they legislate a crackdown on preachers and leaders that promoted violence? No.

We also enacted a landmark ban on the Nazi salute and hate symbols; we criminalised doxxing, something that those opposite voted against; we've appointed Australia's first National Student Ombudsman; we've created and launched a national hate crimes and incidents database; we've imposed counterterrorism financing sanctions on the white supremacist terrorist network Terrorgram; we expelled the Iranian ambassador for their interference in Australia; we directed the eSafety Commissioner to tackle the proliferation of hateful online content; and we have now established a Royal Commission—

Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked her question.

on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the Australian government's response to combating antisemitism, and why is a bipartisan approach important?

I thank the member for his question. Back in May of 2024, I visited Mount Scopus Memorial College, a Jewish school in Melbourne, with the member for Macnamara, who is indeed an honoured old boy. We attended there because the day before there had been a horrible antisemitic slogan spray-painted on the school's wall. It was a clarifying experience for me. It's obviously terrible that kids have to look at that hate directed at who they are. But, actually, life at the school was an eye-opener. Security there is not unlike security here, but whereas we are adults who have made the choice to be an adult life, these are kids who have no choice. The idea that children are receiving their education—that they are learning to experience the world behind large walls protecting them from the world—is just so sad. That's not a reflection on the kids; that is, of course, a reflection on the world that is outside. That is a reflection on Australia today.

Antisemitism has been around for a while, and in truth that kind of security on Jewish community facilities has been there for many years, but antisemitism has become much worse since 7 October 2023. The way in which life for Jewish Australians has been compromised is profound. It is not okay that Jewish students at universities feel uncomfortable wearing the kippah. It is not okay that Jewish artists have effectively been cancelled. We understand that there is much more to do, but our government has acted against antisemitism. We have made criminal more forms of hate speech, we have appointed an envoy to combat antisemitism, and we've now committed to implementing her report in full.

We would have liked to have done more in that regard this week, but we are grateful for whatever we can do this week amongst all of us, because it takes all of us, which is a point that is well made by the American Jewish Committee in its call to action against antisemitism. It says:

When considered only through a partisan lens, antisemitism is not being countered, but instrumentalized. Antisemitism must not be a partisan issue used as a wedge within the Jewish community. Especially in advance of elections, we encourage Members of Congress to be mindful of politicization and reach across party lines to address antisemitism.

These are wise words. We are only going to rid the scourge of antisemitism in this country if we all rise above our parties and do it together.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms, is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians, as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December. We have had deradicalisation programs in place for many years, but extremism is still taking root. How does the government measure the current effectiveness of these deradicalisation programs, and how effective are these programs at all? We have the Richardson review and part of the royal commission coming up, but is the government planning to take any other actions in terms of deradicalisation in particular before then?

I thank the member for Wentworth for her question, and I praise her unreservedly for her role as a local member in what has been a devastating time for her local community—not just the Jewish community. Of course, Bondi is such an iconic place, and the local member has shown extraordinary leadership and capacity in my view, and I thank her for that. I will ask the minister to supplement, but I would say that radical Islamic extremism is a major problem. We know that that is the case. We know that hate preachers can cause a real problem in distorting Islam and creating a circumstance where people are full of hate, and we saw an expression of hate motivated by ISIS, an ideology that isn't about any state. It is about an Islamic caliphate around the world. Often this is difficult, as the examples come from what is a father and son—it's much more difficult to detect. As the ASIO director-general has reported, a big threat is sole actors—an individual actor. In this case, a father and son discussing these things over the dinner table or in private quarters—not engaging in electronic measures, communication that can be detected—means that it is much more difficult. But the government has a range of programs. That is certainly something, as well, that the Richardson review will look at. I'll ask the minister to supplement.

Thanks, Prime Minister. The counterterrorism and violent extremism strategy was released again last year, where we reviewed the different programs that we run. They're important programs, and there is regular measuring of them. The challenge we have is that terrorism itself is changing as well.

If I give, simply, these statistics: as of a couple of days ago, since 2014, we've had 189 people charged as a result of counterterrorism operations. Right now we have 35 people who are currently before the courts. Eighteen of the 35 are children. So what we used to have to monitor in terms of organised cells of people, often in their 20s and 30s, is very different now. In terms of the ideology, we are getting mixed ideologies. We're getting seriously mixed ideologies. You'll have someone, for example, whose ideology will be a mixture of Nazism, the sort of radicalisation that you've just described, and environmentalism. This will all be mixed up where the only common theme is violence. That does mean that, for our agencies, the threat now is more complex. People are radicalising younger and faster and predominantly online.

My question is to the Attorney-General. What is the Albanese government doing to strengthen our laws to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism after the Bondi terror attack?

I thank the member for his question. On 14 December 2025, the deadliest terrorist attack on Australian soil occurred at Bondi Beach. The terrorists had hate in their hearts and guns in their hands. Let me be clear: antisemitic, hateful and extremist conduct is unwelcome, is unacceptable and has no place in Australia.

Just four days after this abhorrent attack, the government announced a package of legislative reforms to target those who spread hate, division and radicalisation. The government moved with urgency and care, consulting with experts and stakeholders—most importantly, the Jewish community—to prepare legislation that deals with both cracking down on hate speech and taking sensible action on firearms. I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their engagement on this legislation. I also acknowledge the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its scrutiny of the exposure draft that led to this bill.

These new laws being debated in the parliament today specifically target those who seek to spread hatred, including those who seek to disrupt social cohesion in our community and, so critically, those who seek to radicalise our youth. As the minister said previously, it is a shocking fact that, since 2001, around 120 people have been convicted of terrorism offences and, of that cohort, 10 were children. Today, however, of the 35 people before our courts, around half are minors. This unprecedented radicalisation of our youth must stop. We will not allow extremists to groom and brainwash our children into radicalisation, hate and terrorism.

These new laws also create a regime for listing organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech or promote violence or racial hatred. The laws also amend the Migration Act to introduce new grounds, enabling the minister to refuse and cancel visas on the basis of hate motivated conduct and offences relating to the spread of hatred and extremism. Organisations that proffer these hateful ideologies must be outlawed, and their composite members must be held accountable. Indeed, some of the cowards who spread hate as part of one such group announced they would be disbanding in anticipation of the effectiveness of these laws. The events of 14 December were horrific and must never happen again, and these new laws send a clear message that this conduct will not be tolerated in Australia.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns has said sorry to the Jewish community for his handling of the antisemitism crisis that led to the murder of 15 people at Bondi. The Jewish community wants to hear their Prime Minister say sorry. For the third time: why won't you say sorry too?

I repeat that I am sorry that this occurred, and that it occurred on my watch as prime minister. It's something I have said consistently—privately, publicly. I said it in my first answer as well.

Opposition members interjecting—

But what I won't do—

Opposition members interjecting—

No, order! The Leader of the Opposition! I am asking all members—I'm pleading with all members—to show restraint and respect to the people in the gallery and to the hundreds of thousands of people who are watching this. Our words really matter. I'm asking all the parliament to come together so that we can hear the Prime Minister.

Let me just say this: when Port Arthur happened, the parliament came together. No-one saw that as a political opportunity; Kim Beazley gave every support. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated to me on the Sunday evening of 14 December, every support would be given to the government.

Are you sorry you didn't call for a royal commission?

Order.

When the Lindt Cafe siege happened, not a single dollar went to any of those victims from the Commonwealth government. We provided, though, every support to what was the then Abbott government at that time. When the Bali bombings occurred, people didn't see that as an opportunity for politics; people saw that as the need for the national interest to be put first.

I am devastated, as all Australians are, at what has occurred. The fact that I was Prime Minister while it occurred I have acknowledged repeatedly. That is a source of sadness, and I'm sad that every government has not done better on antisemitism—including mine. What I won't say, though, is that antisemitism began when my government was elected, because that is just absurd.

Opposition members interjecting—

What I won't do—

October 7 did happen and there hasn't yet been an independent review of those events of October 7 in Israel, because they have been getting on with the response. We responded: when October 7 happened, we came together in this parliament and passed a resolution, unanimously, at that time.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left!

I tell you what I won't do: I won't let the terrorists off the hook by pretending that the atrocity that they committed was not the result of their choices and their actions. This was not a random event. This was an antisemitic terrorist attack inspired by ISIS, conducted by father and son—perpetrated in the name of a perverted, murderous version, as they saw it, of Islam. They bought the guns; they fired them into the crowd. They killed 15 innocent people and wounded dozens more, and the idea that they are not responsible for those actions is something that I certainly will not do.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Why is the passage of the Albanese government's gun reforms so important for Australians? What would it have meant to the Bondi terror attack and what opposition has there been?

I thank the member for Werriwa for the question. In responding to the antisemitic terror attack, we need to deal with the motivation and we need to deal with the method. We are dealing with two people there who had horrific antisemitic bigotry in their minds and in their hearts. They had weapons they should not have had, as those individuals—I don't think anyone argues those individuals should have been able to have weapons. We need to be able to respond to the method that they used as well.

The vast majority of gun licence holders in Australia take their licences seriously and are responsible individuals. I say to those people that these changes are not targeted at you. There are claims that have been made by some of those opposite which are simply not true. Our laws will not be a blanket ban on firearms. Our laws will not stop Australian athletes from competing or accessing the equipment they need. Our laws will not stop pest controllers or sporting shooters—those with genuine need. Our laws will not stop farmers and primary producers from performing their daily tasks.

The question that is right to ask is what the reforms will do when you reduce the number of guns in the community, when you strengthen the National Firearms Agreement, when you strengthen background checks, when you improve intelligence-sharing and when you restrict licences, as far as practical, to Australian citizens. The critical question that came to a head in a vote today—those opposite did not distinguish and did not seek to amend; they opposed the lot in the way they voted on the gun laws today—is: what would these laws have meant for those two men? There's been a lot of discussion. We heard the New South Wales debate. Should there be six? Should recreational shooters be able to have six firearms, four or five? How many firearms would those individuals, those two people, be permitted to have under the laws that the government supported and the opposition opposed today? The answer is zero.

Under those laws, those two people would have been able to access zero firearms. What are the reasons? Only citizens would be able to get a licence. The firearms licence holder was not an Australian citizen. The firearms they were using would not have been available to them. Had the son, who didn't have a firearms licence in any event, sought one, or had the father sought one, AusCheck and the intelligence information we had would have been cross-checked before a licence could be issued. All of these things result in one very simple question: do you believe those two people should have been allowed to have those guns? Every member on this side today voted to say, 'No they should not.'

My question is to the Prime Minister. Sheina Gutnick, whose father was tragically killed during Australia's deadliest-ever terror attack, in Bondi, publicly wrote:

Australia did not fail quietly.

It failed loudly, repeatedly, and with full knowledge.

Its government watched hatred grow and chose to do nothing.

They minimised it. They excused it. They dismissed Jewish warnings as noise.

Prime Minister, these are not my words. These are the words of the victims' families. Can the Prime Minister finally humble himself and just say sorry?

I met with Sheina yesterday. I spoke with her last week. I spoke with her community leaders—she's from Chabad community in Melbourne—on a regular basis, as well as Rabbi Moshe Kahn, who is a good friend of the member for Macnamara. I met her husband. It was a very warm meeting. It was a very warm and generous meeting.

Can I say this. The contrast between some of the rhetoric those opposite have engaged in and the warmth and generosity of this grieving community has been quite extraordinary. I have been into homes and into synagogues. I've had meetings and engagements with small groups, one-on-one and with groups of up to 30 for the first meeting. I was in homes on 16 December. Since then, I must say, a number of people have now become friends because of the extent of the engagement. I visited people in hospital. I have engaged with people in every forum, and there is no-one who has asked to speak to me who has not had a meeting.

At the same time, what we have had is loud shouting. We had shouting that the parliament had to be resumed before Christmas, but then, when we resumed it, we were resuming it too soon. We had shouting that we had to introduce legislation based upon the antisemitism envoy's report, but, when we introduced it, they opposed it.

A point of order on relevance: my question was very pointed. Can the Prime Minister finally humble himself and just say sorry for failing to act?

The Prime Minister spoke directly about the person that you asked him about. He couldn't have been more directly relevant when he described what had happened. I can't make him do what you want in the answer, but I can ensure that he is being directly relevant. He has been completely directly relevant to the question he was asked.

You don't have to bang lecterns to show you're concerned. What you have to do is to show respect and engage in an orderly, respectful way. We have responded in that way in the meetings with the Jewish community. We didn't wait. We have appointed the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. Within days, we began the legislation. Of course, we'd already appointed the National Student Ombudsman. We have appointed David Gonski to look through the education schemes. We've gone through. Professor Craven has been appointed to do the report card as well. We have been going through the envoy's report, one by one. A key element of it was vilification, and they opposed it. They wouldn't support it, and that's why they, together with the Greens, were there.

At the same time, those opposite—the gap between what they've called for and what has occurred is remarkable. They said they had a package of legislation on 5 January. Where is it? No-one has seen it. (Time expired)

My question is to the Attorney-General. How is the government addressing antisemitism and social cohesion after the Bondi terror attack? What role will the royal commission play?

I thank the member for her question. There is no place for hate, violence and terrorism in our nation. In the wake of the abhorrent events on 14 December, our response as a nation needs to be above politics. It is about the right outcome for our national unity and our national security. Australia needs to heal, to learn, to come together in a spirit of collective strength and to go forward knowing that light will always prevail over darkness. As the Prime Minister said, the government has engaged with members of the community, particularly Jewish Australians, and we have listened.

In addition to the legislation outlined in my previous response, the government has established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, led by the honourable Virginia Bell AC. Ms Bell is an eminent and highly capable former justice of the High Court of Australia. She also served with distinction on the Supreme Court and the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Ms Bell has the deep experience to conduct her inquiry in a way that meaningfully examines the impact of antisemitism on the daily life of Jewish Australians and works to promote social cohesion. She was an exceptional judge, and I have complete confidence that she will discharge her role as commissioner with the same fairness and impartiality that she brought to the bench.

Her appointment has received wide support, including from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Its president, Daniel Aghion, said, 'Commissioner Bell is a retired high court judge with excellent credentials,' and, 'we endorse her appointment.' I am pleased to inform the House that the commissioner has now formally commenced her role and is wasting no time in operationalising the royal commission.

The royal commission will be an important opportunity for Australians, particularly Jewish Australians, to have their voices heard and to speak to their experiences. It is also important to note that the royal commission must be conducted in such a way that it does not prejudice any future criminal proceedings. The letters patent were very clear on this, and Ms Bell, as commissioner, is well placed to navigate this task due to her extensive experience in criminal law. The government has asked Commissioner Bell to deliver an interim report to government by 30 April and a final report by 14 December. We all want a safer, more unified Australia, and this royal commission will be one part of that process.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if a Commonwealth royal commission is such a good idea, why did you spend 25 days arguing against it?

I thank the member for Berowra for his question. We spent the immediate aftermath, as I have said, of the attack on 14 December making assessments based upon: how do we ensure that this isn't part of a cell, given ISIS's recognition that was identified very early on by these perpetrators? We wanted to make sure we put in place the measures that kept people safe. That was the first priority, as you would expect. We worked on the Sunday night. The national security committee met very early on the Monday morning. We met, as well, with New South Wales police in Sydney, and we continue to meet on a daily basis.

We established that we needed to have the Richardson review, which would look into the operations of the AFP, ASIO and ASIS as security agencies but also the way that they interacted with state agencies. We chose Mr Richardson as he's probably Australia's pre-eminent expert on foreign, international, and defence and security issues. At the same time, we were convening a process, and we announced what the principles would be in the legislation that we would bring before this parliament that was—

Member for Fisher, no-one else is interjecting like this. You're going to cease interjecting for the remainder of question time, or you won't be here. It's not appropriate. No-one else is behaving like this. I'm asking you to show restraint. The member for Berowra on a point of order.

On relevance: my question was not about the other things the Prime Minister was doing but about why he argued against a royal commission.

Resume your seat. You specifically mentioned the timeline, and you gave a number of days. From what I can hear, the Prime Minister is going through, day by day, the reasons you asked him about. I'll make sure he's being directly relevant, but he is answering the question and giving reasons and arguments.

The member would also be aware that the New South Wales government announced that they would have a royal commission, and we responded at about the same time as we announced the Richardson review and said there would be full Commonwealth cooperation, including access to all personnel, all records and everything, which would have effectively made it a Commonwealth royal commission as well. We announced that and said that very publicly. We then, of course, worked with the community on what a royal commission might look like, because we wanted to make sure that we got it right.

There are risks with a royal commission, given that a criminal case will be taking place at the same time, and we needed to make sure they were covered. We needed to make sure, as well, that we got the royal commissioner right, and, in choosing Virginia Bell, I believe we did get it right. We also needed to consult with the Jewish community. We sat down and went through it line by line, days before the royal commission was announced, to make sure that that occurred. The character assassination of Virginia Bell that took place in some sections of the media, and was briefed out by some people associated with that side of politics, shows the problem that would have occurred had we not announced not just a royal commission but who the commissioner was and what the terms of reference were and had the support of the community for those terms of reference. I thank ECAJ for making sure that that occurred. They engaged respectfully. There was one meeting that went for over four hours.

Name names.

Member for Wannon, I'm asking you to show similar restraint and to not interject for the remainder of question time.

We engaged respectfully. The people who were critical of Virginia Bell did it publicly, and very openly, on social media. You know who they were.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the Australian Federal Police working to crack down on antisemitic crimes, and what progress has there been?

I thank the member for Macnamara for the question. The answer goes, quite specifically, to issues around the arson attack against the Adass Israel Synagogue in his electorate.

In October, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett announced who the Australian Federal Police's No. 1 priority was. She has not given him a name—nor have I—but his name has appeared in the media. He is an alleged offshore offender, who Australia had rightly deported, who posed a national security threat to our country. Referred to as Person No. 1, he was living offshore. Having been deported, he thought he was out of reach. But he was not out of reach and is now locked up in Iraq. This person has come up in investigations with respect to the illicit tobacco trade, violent and dangerous crimes, and other crimes in Australia, and he came up during investigations as having suspected links to the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue.

After announcing him as Person No. 1 of priority for the Australian Federal Police, the AFP worked with a number of agencies to investigate the offender. The commissioner had one-on-one conversations with law enforcement and principals about the alleged offender. Late last year, the Australian Federal Police provided information to law enforcement officials around the world, specifically in Iraq, about this alleged offender. The Australian Federal Police has been using all its capability, partnerships and networks to help ensure that this person faces the justice system. The person was announced as the AFP's No. 1 priority in October and was locked up in Iraq by January. Iraqi officials made an independent decision to arrest the alleged offender, following their own criminal investigation, after they'd received information from Australia. He thought he was out of reach and he was not. He's now in custody in Iraq.

I've been repeatedly asked: does Australia have an intention to extradite him to make him face the full force of the law here in Australia? I'll be frank. He was deported because we don't want him here. We want him locked up. If the outcome is that he is out of Australia and behind bars, I view that as the best outcome we could have.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. In 2022 there were 60 older South Australians stuck in Adelaide hospitals waiting for residential aged care. As of yesterday, there were 370 stranded—more than a 515 per cent increase. State health ministers are frustrated and so are older South Australians. When will the government act and take responsibility for elderly people in hospitals who need to be in aged care?

I thank the member for her question, for her deep interest in aged-care issues, in particular, and for her engagement with me and with other aged-care ministers over the course of her time in government. As you know, there's been quite a deep public discussion about the issue of longer-stay older patients in public hospitals across the country, perhaps with the exception of Victoria, where there's a pretty strong state-run nursing home system that takes a lot of those patients more directly.

But there's no question—the increase in longer-stay older patients across the rest of the country is quite significant and, frankly, tracks the increase we are seeing in the number of very old Australians as a result of the ageing of the baby boomer population. This is increasing demand for residential aged care and it is increasing pressure, by extension, on our hospital system.

From the first term of the Albanese government, we have undertaken arrangements with different state governments to fund programs to divert older Australians from hospitals in the first place; they include, in South Australia, geriatric outreach teams that go out to aged-care facilities to try to prevent admission in the first place. Those are working very, very well. They're the subject of Commonwealth funding.

We're also trying to ensure, as far as possible, that people are able to leave a hospital if they are medically able to do so. That, ultimately, in some cases, depends on there being a residential aged-care bed available to them, and we know there is a shortage of residential aged-care beds right across the system. That is why we put so much energy, particularly under the former minister for aged care, into designing a new aged-care system that would stimulate new investment—investment that had fallen off a cliff, frankly, over the period leading into and certainly during the COVID pandemic.

Now, we are still engaged with state governments about that. It is a significant part of the negotiations that remain underway between the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments for a new five-year hospital funding agreement. Quite explicitly, a part of that negotiation has been to continue, and maybe extend and expand, arrangements, including Commonwealth funding for longer-stay older patients, as I said, to try to avoid them having to go to hospital in the first place and, if they do end up in hospital, to have a smooth transition out of hospital into an alternative place, whether that's at home with a home-care package or into a residential aged-care facility. Those negotiations are ongoing. We hope to strike a deal, particularly before the South Australian government goes into caretaker mode. If we're not able to do that, we start to get right up against the end of this financial year, given we only have a one-year agreement so far, and this will be a big part of those negotiations going forward.

My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting communities in my state of Victoria and in Queensland that have been affected by recent natural disasters?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. I've been with her in her electorate the last couple of weeks, visiting the fireground and speaking with impacted community members about their experiences, and I want to thank her for her work in supporting the community in the aftermath and what will be a long recovery to come.

The last few weeks have brought severe weather to large parts of our country. The bushfires in Victoria have been absolutely heartbreaking for many, and our thoughts are with those that have been impacted by those severe fires, including the family and friends of the man who died in the Longwood bushfire. Whilst assessments are continuing, we currently have 1,300 structures, including 400 homes, that have been damaged or destroyed, and stock losses of up to 20,000.

The national aerial firefighting fleet has been active across Victoria and other parts of the country as well, and so far we have committed more than $77 million under our joint Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, including $75,000 to primary producers, as well as a range of concessional loans, personal hardship payments and a range of other grants. The Australian government disaster recovery payment has been made available in 47 locations across Victoria to support those people most impacted, and the disaster recovery allowance, which is up to 13 weeks of income support, is available now in 18 local government areas, as well as the Lake Mountain Alpine Resort, to assist those who have lost income.

It was a real privilege to meet with emergency service personnel along with the Prime Minister—many of them, volunteers who have been battling bushfires and putting themselves in harm's way to support others. And I know I speak for all Australians when I say: we cannot thank you enough.

As devastating as fires are, we know that floods are impacting our country too. In December, we saw monsoonal rain across north and north-west Queensland. One man lost his life in floodwaters, and our thoughts are with his family and friends too. Whilst it's too early to determine the full scale of the flooding disaster, it's already clear that losses are going to be significant, with reports stock losses could exceed 50,000.

To date, more than $66 million of support has been activated through our Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. I travelled to some of the worst-impacted areas with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in early January, where we announced emergency fodder drops, primary producer grants and $11½ million for critical repairs to the Cloncurry airport. In Julia Creek, I met grazier Jake Webster, who was helping coordinate fodder drops not only for his own property but for those of his neighbours as well. From talking to locals on the ground in Julia Creek, in Cloncurry, in Clermont and in Richmond it was clear that, whilst these are resilient communities who look out for each other, they need our support too. So I'm proud that we've been able to do that through our disaster recovery funding arrangements activated in 13 local government areas and our disaster recovery allowance activated in 11 local government areas. We will continue to work closely with the Queensland and Victorian governments on any further assistance that may be required, and our communities will stand behind those that need their support the most.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told Australians that national security experts advised against a Commonwealth royal commission. In establishing the royal commission, has the Prime Minister defied national security advice, or was he just making stuff up?

The Leader the Opposition said, on 23 December: 'I'll continue to call for parliament to be recalled. It's a comprehensive package that we put forward.' Then, on 27 December, she said, 'Every single day the coalition stands ready to go into parliament and to move our own legislation.' On 30 December she said, 'We have proposed a comprehensive package of laws that we should be debating in the parliament right now.'

The Leader of the Opposition?

For the Prime Minister to be so deflective and dismissive of a question on national security really does him no good whatsoever, and I draw your attention and the Prime Minister's attention back to the question about national security advice and the Prime Minister's citing of that advice for not calling a Commonwealth royal commission.

The Prime Minister just needs to make sure his answer is being directly relevant.

I am, absolutely, Mr Speaker.

He wasn't asked about alternative policies. He was asked about making stuff up—

I was asked about making things up—

and about comments he made.

I've already said what we did in the immediate aftermath of the 14 December attack. I didn't say when the NSC met—I can't talk about that, obviously. There wasn't any forum where I was, 'Okay, why don't we set up a committee?' What it was was: 'How do we act? How do we keep people safe? What do we need to do immediately?' That was the priority.

But the Leader of the Opposition, during all of that time—and as we have seen again today, in spite of the fact they voted for some of the legislation—voted against the areas of national security. I tell you what—see if you can find a national security expert that doesn't support the gun laws that went through this parliament with the support of this side but not that side. One of the problems we've had throughout this is the gap between the rhetoric of those opposite and what they've actually done. They said they had legislation and they didn't.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition? There's only been one point of order taken.

Yes, and my point of order goes to the order of the House.

Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was talking about national security advice. I'm going to make sure he returns to that part of the question that he was asked about.

The way that this government functions is orderly. It's about getting things right and seeking advice, including off the leaders of the Jewish community. That's the process that we put in place for the vilification legislation, which they called for and then voted against. In all of the negotiations, in every single measure put forward by those opposite, their approach hasn't been, 'How do we strengthen the legislation?' It's been: 'Oh, we've got an internal problem. Can we weaken it a little bit here and there?' That's been the process, to be very clear, of the legislation that will pass the parliament.

Because we don't have the numbers in the Senate, we have had to deal with either coalition or Greens support in the Senate, which we have managed to do. But the hypocrisy—they called for the parliament to be resumed, then said it was too soon; called for vilification laws in the Segal report, then opposed it; called for all of these measures to go forward, including on security and guns, and then voted against it. What we have done is work with the community in a collaborative way and get things done through this parliament in spite of, not because of, those opposite. (Time expired)

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How have the Australian government expressed our support for the Iranian people and taken action against the Iranian regime?

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of the Iranian community in Australia. The Australian government and the Australian people stand in solidarity with the brave people of Iran who are demonstrating for their basic human rights against an oppressive regime. There is absolutely no legitimacy in the Iranian government killing thousands of its own citizens in order for the regime to maintain power. Indeed, this is an outrage, and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

The Iranian people, particularly Iranian women, have been having their voice heard for many years now, and our government has taken strong action against Iran. We have more than 200 sanctions in place against individuals and entities, including those within the regime and members of the Iranian revolutionary guard corps. We were at the forefront of seeing Iran removed from a UN committee which was focused on discrimination against women, and, because of Iranian interference in our own country, we have expelled the Iranian ambassador. We will continue to work with the international community to put pressure on the Iranian regime in respect of its treatment of its own people and the way in which it engages with the world.

That said, there is a significant Iranian community in Australia, and there are Australians who are in Iran. Since 2020, it has been the advice of the Australian government not to travel to Iran. For those Australians who are in Iran right now, our advice is that, if it is safe to do so, leave and leave quickly. This is a volatile situation, and it can change very quickly. Our embassy in Iran suspended its operations back in August of last year, so there is little, if any, consular assistance which can be provided right now to Australians who are within Iran, which makes it very important for people to monitor Smartraveller and keep abreast of its updates—which we will endeavour to put up as soon as possible—as well as availing themselves of the 24-hour emergency consular phone line on +61262613305.

For far too long, Iran has been a malevolent influence in the Middle East and around the world. We look with awe at those Iranians who, right now, are risking their lives to protest against the Iranian government, and today our nation salutes the people of Iran as they bear the torch of freedom.

on indulgence—Can I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Iranian regime is a criminal regime that commits human rights abuses against its own people, as we have been seeing, and they export terror and violence abroad, as we have suffered in our own country. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the government in the condemnation of the Iranian regime, in the support for those people seeking to change the regime and with the Persian community in this country.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Sitting suspended from 15:29 to 08:00

The House of Representatives transcript was published up to 15:29 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.