Will the law be applied consistently?
The double standards around hate speech is pathetic. Thousands of people were vilified by politicians, medical professionals, the media and employers into getting vaccinated after being injured from the first jab. Rather than showing compassion and providing medical care they were bullied. How is this not inciting violence and hate speech.
This week I asked in Question Time if vilifying the vaccine injured into getting another jab causing more harm would be considered inciting violence under the hate crimes laws.
Incredibly the clerk of the Senate claimed it was against standing orders to ask for a legal opinion.
Given the hate crime laws were only amended last week I fail to see how asking how they would be applied is somehow breaching standing orders.
What’s the point of the Senate if you can’t ask the government how they think their laws would apply.
Needless to say I got no answer as always.
- Senate on 12/02/2025
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – Hate Speech
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, first supplementary?
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (14:57): Throughout the COVID management, thousands of Australians injured by the vaccine were vilified and gaslit by politicians, the media, medical professionals and employers as antivaxxers. Many of those injured by the COVID vaccine were even forced to get additional shots, causing more harm. Would people who mandate the use of vaccines on people who are clearly allergic to them be arrested under the hate crime laws for inciting violence?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, I am advised that parts of that question don’t adhere to the standing orders, because you can’t ask ministers for legal opinions. But I’ll invite the minister to answer the pieces of the question that are relevant.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:58): Thanks, Senator Rennick. Again, I’m not going to offer a legal opinion on whether someone’s behaviour breaches the laws that this parliament has passed. But I guess the point I’ve been making is that we live in a democracy and we do value freedom of speech, but we also recognise that there are limits around what people should be able to say out of consideration for other members of the community. The robust expression of diverse opinions is an important feature of our democracy, and the bill that we passed last week on hate crimes respected the need for vibrant public debate. The offences in that bill were carefully crafted to target only the most serious forms of harmful hate speech, namely the promotion or threat of violent conduct. The offences are not intended to criminalise mere expressions of belief or opinion, however unpleasant they may be. The offences in the bill apply only where a person’s communication or other conduct could result in violence or force against groups or members of such groups.
