Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. On Monday,
Speaker 1: Parliament will return early to debate new laws to deal
Speaker 1: with hate speech and gun ownership. The legislation has been
Speaker 1: drafted in a hurry, under mounting pressure in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the Bondai terror attack. By support for the bill
Speaker 1: has already fractioned. The Coalition says it goes too far,
Speaker 1: the Greens say doesn't go far enough. Both want more
Speaker 1: time to consider changes. The debate over what is and
Speaker 1: is in hate is unfolding at a time of deep
Speaker 1: political division, with consequences not just for Parliament but for
Speaker 1: Australia's cultural institutions. Today, CEO of Cheek Media and host
Speaker 1: of the Big Small Talk podcast Hannah Ferguson on the
Speaker 1: politics of hate speech and how a fight over free
Speaker 1: expression spilled into the arts. It's Saturday, January seventy Henna,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. It's great to have you on
Speaker 1: seven Am.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me. I'm very excited
Speaker 2: to be here.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the government's new hate speech legislation. Can
Speaker 1: you give us a sense of what it is they
Speaker 1: are proposing.
Speaker 2: They're progressing a lot now.
Speaker 3: It covers everything from you know, customs and migration changes too.
Speaker 2: Basically like major anti terrorism reform.
Speaker 4: It increases the penalties for hate crimes offenses. It ensures
Speaker 4: that defenders whose crimes were motivated by extremism had that
Speaker 4: factored into their sentencing. It creates a new offense for
Speaker 4: inciting hatred in order to intimidate all harass.
Speaker 3: But I think there's two specific parts that have people
Speaker 3: most concerned.
Speaker 2: One is a new federal offense for inciting hatred.
Speaker 4: It expands and strengthens the ban on prohibited symbols, and
Speaker 4: it makes it easier for the Minister for Home Affairs
Speaker 4: to cancel or refuse a visa for people intent on
Speaker 4: spreading hatred.
Speaker 2: And the second is a new regime for outlawing hate groups.
Speaker 3: So they're kind of the two major aspects of this
Speaker 3: bill that are being considered highly contentious right now.
Speaker 4: Once an organization is listed, it will be a criminal
Speaker 4: offense to be a member, to recruit for it, to
Speaker 4: donate or receive funds, or support that group in any way.
Speaker 3: The federal offense for inciting hatred is an interesting one
Speaker 3: because it makes it illegal to publicly promote or incite
Speaker 3: racial hatred, but the test is a reasonable person test,
Speaker 3: so it's not whether someone actually experienced intimidation, fear, harassment,
Speaker 3: or that actual hatred has been proven, but whether a
Speaker 3: reasonable person from the targeting group would feel that. So
Speaker 3: that's kind of one of the aspects that I think
Speaker 3: has come up a lot in the media in the
Speaker 3: past couple of days. And then there's the aspect with
Speaker 3: the sort of regime or scheme for prescribing hate groups,
Speaker 3: which is groups that don't fit the mold for a
Speaker 3: definition of a terrorist group but are before that when
Speaker 3: they're engaging in acts of what would be considered hate
Speaker 3: crimes under the Criminal Code.
Speaker 1: Saying, both the Greens and the Coalitions say they won't
Speaker 1: support the bill as it stands. Why is that.
Speaker 3: I think there's very different reasons for the Greens and
Speaker 3: the Coalition's disagreement and opposition to the bill. So we've
Speaker 3: seen from the Greens leaders like David Shubridge, Marine Ferouki
Speaker 3: and Larissa Waters who are opposing the bill because they
Speaker 3: want it to consider their sort of national framework for
Speaker 3: anti racism and expand beyond just racial issues, so into
Speaker 3: areas like protection to the LGBTQIA plus community. We are
Speaker 3: hearing new concerns and red flags every single day, and
Speaker 3: the Greens will not be supporting this bill in its
Speaker 3: current form.
Speaker 5: The same hateful ideology that was directed against the Jewish
Speaker 5: community at Onbi could have as easily been directed against
Speaker 5: women in positions of power or the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 3: Whereas the Coalition is opposing the bill for different reasons.
Speaker 3: Opposition Leader Susan Lee described it as unsalvageable and said
Speaker 3: I think explicitly that the bill didn't contain reference to
Speaker 3: radical Islam.
Speaker 6: The legislation does not address the real issues that gave
Speaker 6: rise to the Bondai attack. It doesn't address Islamic extremism,
Speaker 6: it doesn't address isis influence and shed.
Speaker 3: The Prime Minister can't name the problem, they can't solve
Speaker 3: the problem. So we're seeing the coalition quite contrastingly appealed
Speaker 3: to only wanting the bill to actually protect certain minority groups.
Speaker 1: Yep Assie just said very different reasons for not supporting
Speaker 1: the hate speech aspects of this bill. Is this a
Speaker 1: sign that the government hasn't done enough to bring their
Speaker 1: parliamentary colleagues along.
Speaker 3: I think yes, it is a side of that, but
Speaker 3: we always knew that following the Bondi terror attack on
Speaker 3: the fourteenth of December, it's only been a month. It's
Speaker 3: been a Christmas period of grief and of mourning and
Speaker 3: of a lot of harm between political parties and then
Speaker 3: messaging through the media to the public. So we always
Speaker 3: do it's going to be contentious, highly politicized, and I
Speaker 3: think every party has fallen into the kind of tropes
Speaker 3: at the Australian part public would assume of them. But
Speaker 3: I do think the government has failed on a lot
Speaker 3: of fronts. They have failed to consult the stakeholders necessary,
Speaker 3: they have failed to look at into the expert advice
Speaker 3: and there's only been a forty eight hour public consultation
Speaker 3: period for a very significant and complex piece of legislation.
Speaker 2: So not only have they failed to bring their colleagues along,
Speaker 2: their failed to bring the country along.
Speaker 1: If we focus on the coalition, they've been highly critical
Speaker 1: of the government for not recalling parliament right after Bondai.
Speaker 6: The first thing that needs to happen urgently is for
Speaker 6: the parliament to be recalled.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard the Prime Minister to give a date.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard that.
Speaker 1: Now they're saying they can't support the bill because they
Speaker 1: are too rushed. So this is a very very rush process.
Speaker 6: From what we have seen so far, it looks pretty unsalvagable.
Speaker 1: What does their response over the summer signal about how
Speaker 1: they're likely to approach next week?
Speaker 3: The Coalition is really right now running our political game
Speaker 3: of making a lot of noise but no clear points.
Speaker 3: They are going to flip flop all over the place
Speaker 3: because they are rapidly losing support not only to Labor
Speaker 3: and the Greens, but to one nation as well. So
Speaker 3: it's really, I think a race to the bottom, one
Speaker 3: actually representing the Australian public and having reasonable conversations and
Speaker 3: instead forsuably from my perspective, my personal opinion is it
Speaker 3: the Coalition right now just trying to find fights and
Speaker 3: stoke division, which is exactly the opposite of what the
Speaker 3: country needs right now.
Speaker 1: And to that point, Seasonally wants this to be about
Speaker 1: radical Islam and anti Semitism. Only. Is there risk that
Speaker 1: Labor will fold on that approach to these laws in
Speaker 1: the same way they folded to the demands for a
Speaker 1: Royal commission.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I think one of the hallmarks of Anthony Alberanizi's Prime
Speaker 3: ministership has been a leader that is really just leaning
Speaker 3: into what the conversation that's dominating the media of the
Speaker 3: time dictates that.
Speaker 2: He should do.
Speaker 3: Even with this announcement of a royal commissioner, he announced
Speaker 3: a federal review into our intelligence agencies and then backflips
Speaker 3: despite consistently saying we were not going to hold a
Speaker 3: royal commission. So I think the worry here is that
Speaker 3: he is vowing to pressures, actually stitching to his values,
Speaker 3: despite having such a strong majority in Parliament.
Speaker 1: So are these laws doomed to fail given where we're
Speaker 1: at at the moment?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 3: I think to rush through such complex legislation makes such
Speaker 3: significant changes not only to hate speech legislation, but also
Speaker 3: to gun reform, to migration. There are so many different
Speaker 3: moving parts of this bill that arguably could be unconstitutional,
Speaker 3: but lawyers experts haven't been given the time for peruse
Speaker 3: and provide submissions to the still despite it being such
Speaker 3: a complex piece of legislation. So I think right now
Speaker 3: they are doomed to fail because they do not have
Speaker 3: party support outside of Labor, and they haven't consulted the
Speaker 3: necessary stakeholders.
Speaker 2: To actually ensure success and the goal of the bill is.
Speaker 3: Really social cohesion and to reduce extremism and reduce division,
Speaker 3: and continues on this path, it's going to be the exact.
Speaker 1: Opposite coming at from Bondai to Adelaide and the problem
Speaker 1: of weaponizing cultural sensitivity. And if we brought in things
Speaker 1: out a little bit and talk about the climate in
Speaker 1: which this legislation is being introduced into. You were set
Speaker 1: to appear at Adelaide Writers Week. How did you first
Speaker 1: hear that Randa Abdolphatar was uninvited?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so last Thursday, I was actually still on break
Speaker 3: overseas traveling and I received an email from the Adelaide
Speaker 3: Festival Board with an attached statement informing all participants that
Speaker 3: doctor Randa Abdolphatar had been removed uninvited from the festival. Now,
Speaker 3: I quickly went online did some searchers, expecting to find
Speaker 3: some clear information as to why had she been uninvited,
Speaker 3: what were recent comments made? There was no actual quotes
Speaker 3: in the statement, there was no specific references to comments
Speaker 3: that were made, and there was this really odd conflation
Speaker 3: that I read between doctor Abdolfhatar, her voice as a
Speaker 3: Palestinian author, and the Bondi terror attack. While denying there
Speaker 3: was connection now and the whole statement felt very funny
Speaker 3: to me. So after receiving that email from the Adelaide
Speaker 3: Festival Board and kind of reviewing the material of having
Speaker 3: a look online, I decided that the only option for
Speaker 3: me was to pull out of the festival, given that
Speaker 3: I didn't understand the context and that I believe this
Speaker 3: to be a racist act of censorship. So I immediately
Speaker 3: emailed the board, raised my concerns and pulled out of
Speaker 3: the two sessions I was set to participate in next month, and.
Speaker 1: You weren't alone in pulling out. What did you make
Speaker 1: of the mass boycott?
Speaker 2: I actually thought it was an amazing moment.
Speaker 3: I think that over the last two years there's been
Speaker 3: a real divide in our responses to you know, what
Speaker 3: I would describe as Israel filmside against Palestinians. I think
Speaker 3: to see the silencing, the suppression of a Palestinian author
Speaker 3: by a festival board was concerning. And to see the
Speaker 3: Australian you know, writing an arts community quite broadly showed
Speaker 3: support for doctor Abdulfatawa was a beautiful thing because it
Speaker 3: was an act of solidarity and an act of protest
Speaker 3: in one.
Speaker 1: The death Australian Premiere backed the board's decision and took
Speaker 1: it even further, comparing around as a heerence to booking
Speaker 1: a far right Zionist in the aftermath of a Zionist
Speaker 1: killing Muslims.
Speaker 7: Can you imagine that as Premier of this state, I
Speaker 7: would actively support a far right Zionist going to Writers
Speaker 7: Week and speaking hateful rhetoric towards other people?
Speaker 2: Of course I wouldn't.
Speaker 7: The reverse has happened in this instance, and I'm not
Speaker 7: going to support that either.
Speaker 1: Randa is now laun's defamation proceeds because of this extraordinary
Speaker 1: attack on her character. What does it say to you, Hannah,
Speaker 1: that we have a political leader ultimately in charge of
Speaker 1: the event's budget making a comment like that.
Speaker 3: It is hard for me not to see it as
Speaker 3: the continued, you know, lobbying pressure placed on Australian institutions.
Speaker 3: And it is really hard for me to see this
Speaker 3: as anything other than an act of censorship and racism.
Speaker 3: And I think the Premier, you know, I'm seeing a
Speaker 3: lot of the murder comedia cover this by only quoting
Speaker 3: the South Australian Premier's references to its like platforming a
Speaker 3: far right Zionist at the festival without actually acknowledging that
Speaker 3: the real concern and imputation here is that doctor Randa
Speaker 3: Abdolphattal might have held the same views as those who
Speaker 3: committed the Bona terror attack, which just isn't the case
Speaker 3: and actually is so blatantly offensive and disturbing for a
Speaker 3: premiere to be making. And so I think we actually
Speaker 3: need to sit with the fact that we have the
Speaker 3: highest official in South Australian making these comments at a
Speaker 3: press conference, you know, quite Willie Nillick, and that that
Speaker 3: is deeply irresponsible and that she deserves an apology.
Speaker 1: You've touched on a little bit, Hannah, But what are
Speaker 1: the powers that play here? Why do we keep seeing
Speaker 1: this type of thing happening in our cultural institutions?
Speaker 3: I mean, over the last two years in particular, we
Speaker 3: have seen, you know, from my perspective, over and over again,
Speaker 3: the Zionist lobbies at play here launching coordinated campaigns against
Speaker 3: particular voices in our media and political landscapes, and politicians
Speaker 3: are folding to the pressures.
Speaker 2: And so I think consistently that has been the recurring
Speaker 2: theme that needs to be named.
Speaker 1: How do you think this whole cyber will shape next
Speaker 1: year festival and the programming decisions at other arts festivals.
Speaker 1: Could it have a chilling effect?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that that is the biggest risk we're
Speaker 3: facing is that instead of you know, having arts festivals
Speaker 3: see this result and say we need to actually diversify
Speaker 3: our offerings, diversify our panels, diversify and experiences we're offering
Speaker 3: to audiences who have a passion thirst for.
Speaker 2: Hearing from different voices.
Speaker 3: We will lifely see some festivals take the approach of
Speaker 3: not inviting diverse voices and diverse authors to speak and
Speaker 3: platform in Palestinian voices in particular. And the worry from
Speaker 3: my perspective is that instead will continue to see many
Speaker 3: of the kind of white, centrist, safe, polite conversations that
Speaker 3: have dominated at the Australian media landscape for decades.
Speaker 2: But I also think.
Speaker 3: When we're talking about the idea of a chilling effect,
Speaker 3: what's interesting is that we always kind of have this
Speaker 3: perspective that that effect will take place on the festival,
Speaker 3: that it will send to a white voices, that it
Speaker 3: will actually remove diversity from these arenas.
Speaker 2: What we never really ask is why this doesn't have
Speaker 2: a chilling of effect on the diversity of the board
Speaker 2: that now has to be rehired. Who programs the festival?
Speaker 3: Will alwais ADLB invited that to be the director in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty seven and.
Speaker 2: Will she take that position.
Speaker 3: I hope that one of the outcomes from this cancelation
Speaker 3: and kind of horrific week of unfolding news is that
Speaker 3: boards moving forward reconsider how they meant decisions, who is
Speaker 3: placed on them, and how they approach these contentious and
Speaker 3: conflicting issues.
Speaker 1: And what does it say about our ability to have
Speaker 1: a mature conversation As we're about to embark on a
Speaker 1: royal commission that is potentially going to be very divisive.
Speaker 1: What does the events of that, like writers Waken, the
Speaker 1: events before that in other cultural settings say about our
Speaker 1: ability to have these conversations?
Speaker 2: You know what, I.
Speaker 3: Think that I have been someone who in the past,
Speaker 3: you know, for the years I've been kind of entering
Speaker 3: this new media landscape, I have been very negative about
Speaker 3: the media and politics, and you know, looking forward trying
Speaker 3: to remain optimistic, it is quite difficult, I actually think,
Speaker 3: you know, and I'm sure doctor Admiral Fatal might have
Speaker 3: very different views to me, having been on the receiving
Speaker 3: end of such harm by the media as well. I
Speaker 3: think the solidarity and the acts of protest from so
Speaker 3: many writers who work for Mastheads and It's would have
Speaker 3: been a significant risk to them to boycott or pull
Speaker 3: out from the event. I think there is an actual
Speaker 3: positive here that so many people stood together and made
Speaker 3: clear statements that it wasn't acceptable, and I think that
Speaker 3: is a beautiful thing from many parts of the media.
Speaker 3: But I also think it speaks to the fact that
Speaker 3: so much of the political and media landscape right now
Speaker 3: is leaning into the inflammatory and running unfair headlines that
Speaker 3: take out of context particular authors, views and language, and
Speaker 3: that we are living in dangerous times where social media
Speaker 3: makes inflammatory headlines and clickable moments the dominant narrative rather
Speaker 3: than actual, nuanced conversations that focus on productivity and how
Speaker 3: we move forward together.
Speaker 1: Hanna, thank you so much for coming on seven Am.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Seven Am is a daily show from Solstice Media. He's
Speaker 1: made by Atticus Bastow, Ariel Richards, Chris Dangate, Daniel James,
Speaker 1: Crystal Keller, Nicole Johnston, Sarah mcvee, Travis Evans and Zaltenfio,
Speaker 1: Ruby Jones is on Sir Comment and we'll be back
Speaker 1: at the end of March. Our theme music is by
Speaker 1: Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of En belowe Bordio. This
Speaker 1: has been seven am. Thanks so much for listening.