Speaker 1: It was a twist no one saw coming. Labour's hate
Speaker 1: speech laws have blown up the coalition.
Speaker 2: I understand if you do the crime, you have to
Speaker 2: take the time, and if it is so requested, I
Speaker 2: will be stepping down.
Speaker 3: From Shadow Cabinet.
Speaker 1: It started with three senior Nationals resigning from the opposition
Speaker 1: front bench after defying Shadow Cabinet and voting against the
Speaker 1: government's hate speech laws.
Speaker 4: I'm very aware of the conventions of Parliament, are.
Speaker 3: Daring Susan Ladasaki.
Speaker 1: Then after a late night emergency meeting, the entire Nationals
Speaker 1: front bench followed suit, resigning their positions in solidarity. I'm
Speaker 1: Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven AM today Press
Speaker 1: Gallery journalist Karen Middleton on how Labor got their laws passed,
Speaker 1: imploding the coalition along the way. It's Thursday in January
Speaker 1: twenty two. Karen, thanks for joining me. After an extraordinary
Speaker 1: forty eight hours, we've seen a deepening public split in
Speaker 1: the coalition, with the Nationals breaking rank with their Liberal
Speaker 1: partners over Albanesi's hate crime laws, leading to resignations. How
Speaker 1: did this all play out?
Speaker 2: Well, we saw the parliament recalled and on Sunday night,
Speaker 2: the Shadow Ministry met and determined a position, and that
Speaker 2: was the members of the Shadow Cabinet, who were both
Speaker 2: Liberals and Nationals. They got an agreed position on the
Speaker 2: hate crimes dimensions. The Nationals were going their own way
Speaker 2: on firearms laws, but they were all supposed to vote
Speaker 2: the same way on hate crimes. However, when it got
Speaker 2: into the Parliament, that's not what happened.
Speaker 4: And unfortunately, despite the many positive elements of this legislation,
Speaker 4: the government has not been able to convince my party room,
Speaker 4: the National Party, that adequate safeguards are in place for
Speaker 4: the proposer take crimes.
Speaker 2: And in fact Susan Lee has made the point in
Speaker 2: the statement she issued that there were three different positions
Speaker 2: from the Nationals across the two houses of Parliament. One
Speaker 2: voted for it, some voted no, and some abstained. So
Speaker 2: already we started to see things splintering. But where it
Speaker 2: got really untidy for the Nationals is that while they
Speaker 2: are allowed to cross the floor if they are back
Speaker 2: benches within the coalition, unlike in labor where they would
Speaker 2: be expelled for crossing the floor, if you are a
Speaker 2: front bencher you cannot do that. You must adhere to
Speaker 2: the position that the Shadow Cabinet has adopted. So we
Speaker 2: saw three members of the Nationals in the Senate who
Speaker 2: were front benches decide to vote in opposition to their
Speaker 2: own party's position, and they are the ones who've now
Speaker 2: had to resign.
Speaker 3: They will be out of the Shadow Cabinet.
Speaker 2: They will still serve in other positions, Parliamentary committee positions
Speaker 2: and the like, and they will still obviously be in
Speaker 2: the Senate, but they will no longer be front benches
Speaker 2: as a result of that decision. They say they acted
Speaker 2: on their conscience that they felt they couldn't endorse the
Speaker 2: position that had been agreed, even though Susan Lee says
Speaker 2: that these issues weren't especially raised during the Shadow Cabinet meeting,
Speaker 2: and they've taken that course.
Speaker 1: As you said, when they crossed the floor, they knew
Speaker 1: they were breaking the rules. But what was it specifically
Speaker 1: that they felt that this was worth quitting over.
Speaker 3: Well, that's interesting, it's not entirely clear.
Speaker 2: One of the things they have said is that they
Speaker 2: tried to amend the legislation to send it off to
Speaker 2: a committee to get longer scrutiny of it, and that
Speaker 2: was rejected. So that's the thing that they've pointed to
Speaker 2: most directly, but that doesn't seem to be all of it.
Speaker 2: And of course we know the Nationals are under pressure
Speaker 2: from One Nation. They've lost Barnaby Joyce, they're former leader,
Speaker 2: former deputy prime minister to one nation. One Nation is
Speaker 2: polling very strongly, and so I think there are concerns
Speaker 2: within the Nationals that they want to distinguish themselves from
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party and not lose ground on the conservative
Speaker 2: side to another party.
Speaker 1: And then yesterday David Little Proud wrote to Susan Lee
Speaker 1: warning that if she let the Nets walk that the
Speaker 1: rest would go, which is what we've now seen. So
Speaker 1: did we make the right call?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think she had any choice, Nicole.
Speaker 2: I mean, she couldn't go against what the coalition usually demands,
Speaker 2: and that is solidarity among the shadow ministry, that.
Speaker 3: Is the rule.
Speaker 2: If she hadn't required them to resign, she would look
Speaker 2: weak and that would destroy her leadership. And her leadership
Speaker 2: may well be destroyed now anyway as a result of this.
Speaker 2: But David Little Powder was staring her down with that
Speaker 2: letter that emerged last.
Speaker 3: Night, and she has.
Speaker 2: Called his bluff and they've walked out, and so we're
Speaker 2: back to where we were last year with the Nationals.
Speaker 2: It seems kind of out of the coalition, not officially yet,
Speaker 2: but you've got to think that's a matter of time.
Speaker 1: So when all of this happened, Karen, what did you think.
Speaker 3: Well, the word that came to mind was debarcle.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, the government has been under pressure,
Speaker 2: the Labor government for its handling of the December fourteen
Speaker 2: terrorist attack at Bondai. The Coalition has forced the government's
Speaker 2: hand and making changes to its legislation.
Speaker 3: And they've just gone and blown themselves up.
Speaker 2: And politically speaking, that seems completely idiotic and given the
Speaker 2: government the ability to claim a victory at the end
Speaker 2: of the parliamentary sitting. So it's up to the coalition
Speaker 2: to explain how this is anything positive because it doesn't
Speaker 2: look like that to me.
Speaker 1: So without the Nats on the front bench, are there
Speaker 1: even enough Liberals to fill all the roles?
Speaker 3: Well barely.
Speaker 2: I know there've been jokes about, you know, filling a
Speaker 2: minibus and that sort of thing since the federal election,
Speaker 2: but now, I mean it's not so much of a joke.
Speaker 3: Really, is it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are enough, but it isn't a coalition if
Speaker 2: the Nationals aren't represented on the front bench. And late
Speaker 2: last night, Susan Lee put out a statement saying there
Speaker 2: was no need for the Nationals to resign on mass
Speaker 2: and that she's basically going to keep their positions open
Speaker 2: and try to hold the coalition together. She said the
Speaker 2: Liberal Party supports the coalition arrangements because they delivered the
Speaker 2: most effective.
Speaker 3: Political alliance for good government.
Speaker 2: And she noted that David little Prowd's letter to her
Speaker 2: didn't talk about dissolving the coalition, so she's trying to
Speaker 2: avoid that happening.
Speaker 1: So how likely is it that Susan Lee will keep
Speaker 1: her job after this?
Speaker 2: I think it's very hard to see her continuing as
Speaker 2: things are, but there has to be a challenger. There
Speaker 2: has to be a challenger who can garner enough numbers
Speaker 2: in the Liberal Party. Bearing in mind the Nationals don't
Speaker 2: get a vote on the Liberal Party leadership to secure
Speaker 2: the leadership. Those who had designs on the leadership had
Speaker 2: indicated last year that they they weren't ready in wanted
Speaker 2: to wait. So it's a bit hard to know how
Speaker 2: it all goes, whether they can pull themselves back together
Speaker 2: and plow on again. Is anyone's guess, but things can't
Speaker 2: continue the way they are. There has to be some
Speaker 2: kind of reckoning for all of this, I think, because
Speaker 2: clearly there's unrest within the Nationals, within the Liberals, within
Speaker 2: the Coalition as a whole, and that's not how you
Speaker 2: hold a government to account.
Speaker 1: Coming up, what's actually in these laws, Karen, can you
Speaker 1: explain for us in some more detail how these new
Speaker 1: laws will work well?
Speaker 2: The focus of the new laws are on a few
Speaker 2: different things. There is now a designation power for the
Speaker 2: Home Affairs Minister. He can nominate, designate proscribe organizations that
Speaker 2: are seen to be engaging in hate speech.
Speaker 3: He can only do that if the.
Speaker 2: Domestics FY Agency ASO has had the groups on their radar,
Speaker 2: has gave it evidence that they have been doing these things,
Speaker 2: and then made a report to the government.
Speaker 3: And now the.
Speaker 2: Opposition has also required that the Opposition leader be consulted
Speaker 2: in that process. So there are a few changes that
Speaker 2: have been made, but there are still some concerns about
Speaker 2: how that prescription regime might work and some fears that
Speaker 2: it could be used in future by a minister with
Speaker 2: a grudge against various organizations for reasons other than just
Speaker 2: the hate speech provision, so there's some controversy.
Speaker 3: Still about that.
Speaker 2: There are aggravated offenses for preachers, so people who hold
Speaker 2: leadership positions within religious organizations, if they are found to
Speaker 2: be engaging in hate speech, then the penalty for them
Speaker 2: is greater than for others. There are some aggravated provisions
Speaker 2: if you were seen to be influencing young people as well.
Speaker 2: There are provisions about migration making it easier to deport
Speaker 2: foreign citizens who engage in hate speech, and the Coalition
Speaker 2: pushed hard on aspects of that, and the maximum penalties
Speaker 2: for these offenses ranged from around about seven years up
Speaker 2: to as many as fifteen years imprisonment. So there are
Speaker 2: a whole lot of different elements to that hate crimes
Speaker 2: legislation that.
Speaker 1: Passed, Karen. As you mentioned, the laws dramatically changed the
Speaker 1: way that hate groups are prescribed in Australia and the
Speaker 1: Minister now has more power over that process. So what
Speaker 1: could that mean in practice?
Speaker 2: They've put a caveat in there or a safeguard in
Speaker 2: there that organizations could only be subject to this ministrial
Speaker 2: designation if they're already on AZOS radar. So if the
Speaker 2: domestics by agency has already been investigating them, has documented
Speaker 2: their activities and has evidence that they are engaging in
Speaker 2: hate speech to a concerning degree. That report would have
Speaker 2: to go to the minister first before the minister consider
Speaker 2: designating them. The critics of that say, but that is
Speaker 2: still a secret process, and they are concerned at the
Speaker 2: lack of review capability, so that if you're in an
Speaker 2: organization that's been designated like that, you basically have no
Speaker 2: means of reviewing it, and you won't necessarily be able
Speaker 2: to see the evidence provided against your organization. So those
Speaker 2: are the sorts of arguments that are being made about
Speaker 2: whether those safeguards that have been built in are enough,
Speaker 2: or whether there needs to be another provision to stop,
Speaker 2: say some future rogue minister for using this measure to
Speaker 2: take action against a political organization or some organization with
Speaker 2: whom that minister has a problem.
Speaker 1: We are hearing some concern that under the legislation, groups
Speaker 1: that criticize Israel or accused of genociding Gaza, that they
Speaker 1: could be caught up in these laws. What's your assessment
Speaker 1: of how these types of groups could fare under these laws.
Speaker 2: Well, these are the kinds of difficulties that we face
Speaker 2: when we're legislating in this domain, and the Greens have
Speaker 2: certainly raised concerns. The Greens refused to support the Hate
Speaker 2: Speech Bill in the end because of that.
Speaker 5: We will not be party to a legislation which divides
Speaker 5: communities and people along religion, which can be used to
Speaker 5: shut down political discourse and the right to protest, and
Speaker 5: which scape guards migrants.
Speaker 2: They say fear that it will criminalize the legitimate protest
Speaker 2: against foreign governments, against the activities of foreign governments, or
Speaker 2: human rights.
Speaker 3: Abuses, either in Australia or abroad.
Speaker 2: So the government insists that legitimate protests will still be allowed,
Speaker 2: and they are some of the questions that government officials
Speaker 2: haven't really been able to answer yet, so we may
Speaker 2: well still see things play out in the courts. They
Speaker 2: were also concerned that these laws are restricted to offenses
Speaker 2: involving race and ethnicity and not religion.
Speaker 3: More broadly, not sexuality, not disability.
Speaker 2: They said that they were too narrow and that other
Speaker 2: people would be left exposed Muslims, for example. People of
Speaker 2: other faiths wanted them to be broader than that, and
Speaker 2: number of the Independents also oppose the legislation for some
Speaker 2: similar reasons and because of the short time that was
Speaker 2: given to analyze the bill.
Speaker 1: Karen More broadly, today is a day of national mourning
Speaker 1: for the Bondai attack and the response to the massacre
Speaker 1: has divided the community. So can you see these laws
Speaker 1: going any way to healing that.
Speaker 3: Well, we have to hope that they do.
Speaker 2: I think having the Day of National Mourning is designed
Speaker 2: to bring people back to the grief about the events
Speaker 2: and to perhaps take the focus away from the politics.
Speaker 2: And I think it's also designed as a mechanism to
Speaker 2: try and bring people together again when there has been
Speaker 2: so much argument and divide in the Parliament over the
Speaker 2: past few days on what measures should go forward and
Speaker 2: what measures shouldn't to bring us back down to basics
Speaker 2: that we are a country all together trying to move forward,
Speaker 2: and I know the Prime Minister can continually emphasizes unity,
Speaker 2: and I think the Day of National Mourning is not
Speaker 2: only designed as an acknowledgment of the terrible suffering and
Speaker 2: the appalling events that should never have happened, but of
Speaker 2: trying to unite Australia in a determination that they don't
Speaker 2: happen again and that Australians can find a way to
Speaker 2: come together.
Speaker 1: Karen, thank you so much for speaking with us.
Speaker 3: Thanks Nicole.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, Queensland Premier David Chris A Foley
Speaker 1: has confirmed the state won't back the federal gun buyback scheme.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister announced his intention to titan gun laws
Speaker 1: after the Bondai massacre on the fourteenth of December, including
Speaker 1: stricter licensing rules and a national buyback scheme. Premier Chris
Speaker 1: of Foley says a gun buyback won't keep gun runs
Speaker 1: out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, saying he
Speaker 1: will introduce new state legislation when Queensland Parliament returns in February.
Speaker 1: Queensland has the second highest rate of gun ownership in
Speaker 1: the country, and Canada's Prime Minister says the country remains
Speaker 1: strongly opposed to any tariffs announced by Donald Trump, as
Speaker 1: the US President vows to take control of Greenland. Addressing
Speaker 1: leaders in Davos for the World Economic Forum, Mark Carney
Speaker 1: urged Middle Powers like Australia to come together in response
Speaker 1: to the fragmentation of what he called the Old Order.
Speaker 1: Mister Karney has vowed to support affected NATO allies in
Speaker 1: pushing back on mister Trump's proposed annexation of Greenland amid
Speaker 1: media reports that Canada is considering sending troops to Greenland
Speaker 1: for military exercises in the region. I'm Nicole Johnston. This
Speaker 1: is seven a M catulator