Crimes Amendment (Countering Violent Extremism) Bill 2026 - Second Read Speech
I make a brief contribution to echo and support the contribution made by my colleague Ms Sue Higginson, who has already outlined the substantial reasons why The Greens do not support the Crimes Amendment (Countering Violent Extremism) Bill 2026.
I address two points that were raised in the debate. Firstly, it was ironic to hear the Government complaining about the lack of consultation with impacted communities. Quite a few pieces of controversial legislation have passed this place in a very rushed manner and have impacted vulnerable communities who were not consulted, including Muslim communities. Indeed, one of those bills was before the House just yesterday: the places of public worship bill. It was honestly too much to hear that complaint multiple times from the Hon. Mark Buttigieg and not respond to it.
Secondly, members spoke about the shocking violence against members of the LGBTQ community—gay men, really—and the bashings that were publicised on 7.30, including men being lured by dating apps. It is absolutely terrifying and hideous. However, they are not the only homophobic attacks, actions and statements that occur in this State. In fact, it is wise to remember the Christian Lives Matter group, which was prompted to act by the marriage equality vote. Over the years a group of conservative Catholics from the Maronite Church have engaged in hate speech against the LGBTQI+ community, invoking hatred and violent demonstrations against gay and trans people. It was outrageous to hear that the only time homophobic violence has ever occurred in this State is at the hands of what appeared to be people linked to the Islamic State, because they had T-shirts on that said that and they quoted certain statements. However, as I understand it, there have been no charges and they have not been located, so that is not yet proven.
To use that experience to justify the passing of this bill is to use horrific experiences to justify a political agenda, further discrimination and further division, at a time when we need to come together to stop trying to target particular religions as being the problem. Extremism exists everywhere. I again raise the incident of the racist right-wing white Australian man who chose to go to Christchurch to shoot and kill 51 Muslims in two different churches and injure many others. He was only in New Zealand for three months; it could have happened here.
Who knows what the bills before the House are apparently meant to deal with. I do not know. They suit members' political agendas and grandstanding, and they are highly dangerous. We need to look at the facts of where this is all coming from. Hopefully, we will start to see bills that are more positive. In fact, we do not need legislation to bring communities together. We have to stop introducing these extremely divisive bills and making speeches that pit people against each other and encourage the type of violence that we saw on display on 7.30. We know that it is happening in so many other places and perpetrated by so many people of other faiths and of no faith.
Ms SUE HIGGINSON: The Greens have serious concerns about the Crimes Amendment (Countering Violent Extremism) Bill 2026, although we support parts of it and believe it deserves due consideration from this place. Criminal laws targeting those who groom or coerce people into engaging in violent extremism are perhaps more targeted and proportionate than sweeping laws increasing penalties for conduct that is already criminal. I will canvass The Greens' views on criminal law as an instrument to combat extremist ideology more fulsomely in debate on the Crimes and Summary Offences Amendment Bill 2025, which will soon be debated in the House, but we have serious concerns about the ability of criminal law to genuinely combat violent extremism. The most direct statement of the problem comes from the Government's own Cabinet Office. National security experts within the Cabinet Office, whose advice the Government obtained on hate speech and incitement to violence on religious grounds, concluded:
… legislation doesn't change behaviour. It also runs the risk of driving activity of concern underground …
The reality is that children and young adults becoming caught up in violent extremism are not sitting at home, combing through our Notice Paper. I challenge any member to find any young person who is even aware of what section 93Z of the Crimes Act actually is. I challenge any member to find a young person who could even explain the difference between common assault and the aggravating factor of discrimination on the basis of race and racial hatred, as defined in the criminal law. People engaged in violent extremism do not do so on the basis that they believe the law endorses their behaviour. Violent extremists will not decide to transform into law-abiding model citizens because they are trembling in fear as a result of new section 310N of part 6C of the Crimes Act, which they understand so well—said no-one ever.
In its submission to the Sackar review, the Aboriginal Legal Service submitted that "criminalisation responses are not effective for producing societal change and reducing incitement of hatred" and called for investment to be redirected into research, public education and engagement, social media regulation, and anti‑racism strategies. It is disappointing that we still do not have a publicly available copy of the Sackar report before being asked to legislate on hate speech and violent extremism.
The Greens have concerns about the broad definition of "violent extremism" contained within the bill. The definition of "act" is very broad and includes any form of communication. The definition of "support" is similarly broad. It includes promotion and glorification. The definition of "violent extremist material" includes any document justifying the carrying out of violent extremism. It may be the case that an 18-year-old makes a social media post rationalising a terrorist act. That conduct is reprehensible. That 18-year-old should be held accountable. But does that decision warrant five years incarceration? The Greens suggest that would be a counterproductive by-product of this law, and that targeting the social media corporations who allow hateful content to proliferate in the name of profit would be a more worthy target.
In its submission to the Sackar review, the Advocate for Children and Young People submitted that 82 per cent of young people have seen hate speech online at least occasionally, and half encounter it weekly. The most vulnerable are LGBTQIA+ young people, who make up 89 per cent; those with mental illness, who make up 75 per cent; and those living with disabilities, who make up 70 per cent. A criminal justice response to young people's online engagement fails to address why they are being exposed to and drawn into such content in the first place.
The bill does not differentiate between a terrorist grooming someone to engage in an act of violence and a social media post glorifying violent extremism overseas. Both actions should be condemned, but to equate them in criminal law is somewhat irresponsible. Children or very young adults may glorify extremist political violence. Again, that conduct should be condemned. We know the criminal law often comes down hardest on vulnerable people who have been led astray. Sometimes, in a haphazard attempt to catch violent extremists, our systems of law enforcement foster violent extremism.
My Federal colleague Senator David Shoebridge exposed a radical case of a 14‑year‑old young person named Thomas Carrick—which is not his real name—being sent a birthday cake by the Australian Federal Police [AFP] in an attempt to lure him into displaying violent extremist behaviour. The 14-year-old's parents had reached out to police seeking assistance with their child's fixation with the Islamic State [IS]. The 14-year-old was autistic. On his fourteenth birthday, he was sent a cake from the police saying "We Love You [Thomas]" in icing. At the same time this was occurring, the AFP was telling Thomas that killing an AFP police officer was a good plan and that he would make a "good sniper or suicide bomber". Nineteen days after his birthday, in October 2021, Thomas was arrested and charged with two terrorism offences: being a member of a terrorist organisation, namely Islamic State, and advocating terrorism. Cases like Thomas's will become more and more common as the cost-of-living crisis and rising fascism come to the fore.
In its submission to the Legislative Assembly's inquiry into measures to combat right‑wing extremism, Youth Action NSW submitted that studies of young people engaged with extremism identify the primary driver as being rooted in isolation and a poor sense of belonging rather than in pre-existing extremist values. Two in five young Australians aged 15 to 25 report feeling lonely at any given time and only 56 per cent of secondary school students reported a positive sense of belonging in 2023. In the current New South Wales landscape of decreasing social cohesion and growing loneliness, the conditions are ripe for extremism to flourish.
The Greens appreciate and sympathise with the arguments brought forward in relation to the grooming of young people to engage in heinous hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ+ community. To contemplate that in 2025 gay men are being lured on dating apps to be bashed, humiliated and berated to the point of near death is simply unacceptable. It is incumbent on Parliament to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can walk the streets of Sydney without fear of being attacked. It is shocking to contemplate that religious extremists are grooming young people to engage in violent hate crimes. Certainly, in our view, increasing criminal penalties for the groomers is perhaps a better approach than further criminalising the young people being groomed. The Greens are concerned that the Government appears to have moved on LGBTQ+ hate crimes only after IS‑inspired attacks have taken place. As I mentioned in the budget estimates hearing with the Attorney General, there was an op‑ed inThe Sydney Morning Herald last year from Nicholas Stewart making clear that it was an emerging issue requiring an urgent response. Yet the Attorney General had taken no action in response to that op‑ed.
The Labor Government gutted the equality legislation amendment Act to make it easier to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. The New South Wales Labor Party has effectively legislated to allow LGBTQ+ people to be discriminated against, knowing that discrimination leads to the type of hateful criminal behaviour we see. Now it seeks to respond to LGBTQ+ hate crimes after they have occurred with harsh criminal sentences. The approach is backwards and it deserves to be revised. Labor's approach permits perpetration of systemic homophobia and transphobia—all of which stem from misogyny—leaving it untouched by letting hateful lobby groups and religious fundamentalists off the hook. Instead, vulnerable young people who have been led towards appalling behaviour are subject to even greater criminalisation for conduct that is, in fact, already criminal in New South Wales.
The Greens believe that the Labor Government and the Opposition should focus on preventing discrimination by fully funding deradicalisation programs and support programs for vulnerable communities and by doing everything they can to outlaw discrimination. Instead, the Government and the Opposition have focused on further criminalising reprehensible conduct—that is already criminal—after it occurs. After the Lindt Cafe siege, the former Government announced a number of programs to counter violent extremism, providing funding to services across government seeking to deter radicalisation. I have asked questions of the Premier, the police Minister, the corrections Minister and the youth justice Minister about the status of those programs under the current Government, and the answers have been less than forthcoming.
In its submission to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety's inquiry into right-wing extremism, the Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] cited the ASIO director-general's Annual Threat Assessment 2025, which found an increase in issue‑motivated extremism fuelled by personal grievance, conspiracy theories and anti-authority ideologies. The AHRC specifically recommended the New South Wales Government adopt and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework as the type of comprehensive, multifaceted response that is needed. The National Anti-Racism Framework is still sitting on Federal Labor's shelf, awaiting a government response.
Youth Action NSW called for youth hubs—proactive, place-based spaces designed with and for young people—to address the multiple risk factors that drive extremism, including mental health, employment, education, safe accommodation and, crucially, the social connection and sense of belonging whose absence is the single most common pathway into right-wing extremism. One of the best ways to reduce the risk of violent extremism is to prevent the contact of young people with the criminal justice system, but both major parties are doing the exact opposite with their racist laws to lock up more kids. By funnelling more people into the criminal justice system than ever before, particularly vulnerable young people, the Minns Labor Government is increasing the risks of violent extremism by providing private criminals with the perfect circumstances in which to recruit others to their corrosive causes.
The whole notion of "violent extremism" is rooted in colonialism and imperialism. Peace and nonviolence are a core pillar of the party I belong to. We condemn all forms of violence and we do not believe there is any justification for violence, even against the most reprehensible of people. The Greens condemn violence from a universal position. The other parties—Labor, the Liberals and One Nation—rationalise violence. They have become and they are the war parties. They are selective in which violence they condemn. They justify Israel's actions in Gaza. They support the illegal war in Iran despite its catastrophic impact on fuel prices in Australia. They make excuses for a justice system that causes violence to vulnerable First Nations kids by incarcerating them and traumatising them.
Too often, when people of colour or victims of colonialism celebrate violence in opposition to oppression, they are classified as violent extremists. But when states like Israel bomb and dismember children in the tens of thousands using weapons parts manufactured in Australia, those states are engaged in "their right to defend themselves". When the United States launches an illegal invasion of Iran, the foreign Minister calls it "collective self-defence". To be clear, The Greens believe in peace, nonviolence and demilitarisation. But it is difficult being lectured on violence from a two-party system that wants to replace coal and gas with weapons manufacturing as one of Australia's leading industries. If we want to curtail violent extremism, we could start with the billionaire lobby. Despicable lobby groups like Advance Australia have manufactured support for neo-Nazi‑backed rallies like the March for Australia. They are funded by billionaires like Gina Rinehart and James Packer, as well as Jillian Segal's husband. Are those billionaires not responsible for more and more people falling down the path to far-right violent extremism?
Labor Premier Chris Minns has travelled to the State of Israel, as have many Labor and Liberal members of this place. He has spoken at an Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce forum gathering despite that organisation's clear affiliation with illegal Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank. He has described himself as a friend of the State of Israel. He has received awards from the genocidal State of Israel, and he has paraded the President of Israel through the streets of Sydney. Does that qualify as justifying violent extremism? Does it constitute support for violent extremist material? Does it entitle the Premier to five years imprisonment? Somehow, I do not imagine it does.
For those reasons, The Greens approach the bill with a high degree of scepticism. We support targeted provisions against those who recruit and groom others into violent extremism. We do not support sweeping, broadly drawn offences that will come down hardest on the vulnerable and the young; drive genuine extremism underground, rather than confront it; and be used as obfuscation for genuine solutions—community investment, deradicalisation programs and anti-discrimination laws—that would actually save lives. In the current framework, it is important that we look at what it means to be a young person and what violence really looks like, where it is happening and who we are trying to prevent from perpetrating it.