HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-03-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Summary Offences (Nazi Salute and Symbols Prohibition) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 November 2023.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:08): I rise to speak about the Summary Offences (Nazi Salute and Symbols Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2023 and indicate the support of the Liberal opposition. This bill has been introduced as a result of the Select Committee on Prohibition of Neo-Nazi Symbols, on which I had the privilege to serve with other members of the Legislative Council. The Select Committee on Prohibition of Neo-Nazi Symbols was formed to consider whether legislation such as this to ban Neo-Nazi symbols is required to address the increasing trend of antisemitism and far-right extremism and what form of legislation it should take.

It is important that any law does not improperly impinge upon legitimate displays of Nazi symbols for educational and academic purposes, nor upon the cultural or religious use of symbols that may be mistaken for Nazi symbols. On that basis, I think it is really important that I highlight the distinction between the swastika and the Hakenkreuz.

Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Odinism have used the swastika for thousands of years as an ancient and auspicious symbol of purity, love, peace and good fortune. The committee heard that the swastika was used in Eurasia as early as 7,000 years ago and also appeared in early Christian art. The swastika has been dated by archaeologists in Ukraine to not long after the last Ice Age. The symbol has also been used in Africa and North America.

The image of the swastika has been used extensively by Hindus to adorn their homes and temples in festivals such as Diwali and Navratri. The committee heard that the swastika is a Sanskrit word meaning will bring good luck and wellbeing or good fortune. The Multicultural Communities Council of South Australia advise that the swastika has more than 10,000 years of positive association behind it, continuing actively to this day, and more than a billion people continue this tradition. The History Trust of South Australia stresses the importance of ensuring that this symbol can continue to be used in this context to protect South Australia's cultural and linguistic diversity.

I just want to highlight, however, the misappropriation of the swastika by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The Nazis modified the swastika and created the Hakenkreuz as a symbol of Nazi Germany. That distinction and clarification shows respect for the fact that, with this bill, we need to consider all factors when imposing on our multicultural communities and ensure that the banning of this Nazi salute or symbol does not apply to those religious and multicultural communities.

Evidence heard by the committee showed strong support for the banning of Neo-Nazi symbols. I want to highlight some of it. We did not really have the opportunity to finish the select committee's gathering of other evidence due to many delays of meetings and also the postponement and rescheduling of meetings, so therefore I think it is really important to highlight some of the evidence we heard. Those in full support included the History Trust of South Australia. In their submission, they mentioned that:

[Legislation] to prohibit the display of such symbols [is] one way to work towards a South Australia that truly celebrates cultural diversity, rejects racism and antisemitism and is a welcoming and safe society for all.

The German Bund der Bayern group say:

I strongly agree with a prohibition of Nazi symbols, in support of a cohesive, multicultural society, in which Nazi-ideology must not be tolerated.

The Jewish Community Council of South Australia and Vishva Hindu Parishad of Australia made a joint submission, so a Jewish community group as well as a Hindu organisation made a submission, which stated:

Use of the Hakenkreuz outside of education and other limited purposes is culturally abhorrent, harkening back to the Holocaust, simultaneously bringing hurt to Jews as well as desecrating a symbol holy to Hindu, Jain and Buddhist people.

Some evidence supported the banning of the Nazi symbols but expressed the view that it may have little impact on the hate and antisemitism experienced by Jewish people and other minority groups. The Islamic Society of South Australia, for example, made a submission and they said:

We submit that while prohibiting Neo-Nazi symbols is a worthy proposal, that it will not improve the experience of the majority of individuals, families and communities that are targeted by hate incidents and crime, whether online or offline. It will not disrupt dehumanising and violent-inducing conspiracy theories, such as Great Replacement theory online, and it will not protect victims of street harassment and public acts of hatred.

The Australian Jewish Association said:

[The Australian Jewish Association] supports prohibiting the public display of Nazi symbols, although with reservations about its effectiveness…By narrowly focusing on countering one form of historic antisemitism, the more pressing instances of antisemitism if left unaddressed, will grow.

The Jewish Community Council of South Australia said:

The contemporary antisemitism experienced by Jewish Australians is broader than those arising from Nazi, Neo-Nazi and far-right ideologies.

The Adjunct Associate Professor Matthew Goode, Faculty of Law at the University of Adelaide, said:

I do not think it is possible, as with anything, to eradicate something by passing a law against it…[but] I think the effort is worth making; it is a statement of what the parliament and the government believes. It discourages people…It will encourage police to collect information about extremist organisations…

Some evidence was collected from historians and collectors. They showed concern that their activities would be prohibited by the legislation, and I quote the Military Arms Preservation Society, which:

…certainly agrees with the intent of the Draft Bill. However, MAPS is concerned that in its current form and thus enacted, could be open to misinterpretation, which may lead to persons putting on legitimate historical displays being prosecuted.

Of course, that later is addressed by the bill. A few submissions were completely opposed to the ban. I put on the record the level of diverse views that were expressed by different witnesses when they came in to present. Michael Swan said:

Australia holds its place in the world as a society of tolerance and diversity but in this particular act it shows complete and utter disregard for education and tries to hide abuse of the Hakenkreuz/Swastika by removing the symbol in its entirety. If other religious icons become offensive, then here is the precedent to allow abuse of the law to remove them also if this legislation is enacted…

I am pleased that the work of the select committee, through this evidence, was able to inform the government to later draft the bill in its current form and to take into consideration all the evidence that we have heard. I believe that this bill now includes a prohibition of the Nazi salute or an image of a Nazi salute in addition to the symbol. In addition to the Hakenkreuz, it prohibits any other symbol associated with the Nazis or the Nazi ideology, and includes the prohibition of publishing a Nazi symbol on a website or social media platform.

Due to the growing concerns about the rise in public activities by the self-professed Neo-Nazi groups, involving unacceptable display of Nazi symbols and the salute, these symbols are definitely associated with racial hatred, violence and intolerance. The threat of racial and religious hatred, violence and intolerance will seriously destabilise our diverse and accepting society and therefore the banning of them needs to be taken into consideration and it is timely for this bill to finally be introduced.

The clauses and intent of this bill are in line with strong support, which I mentioned before through the evidence I quoted earlier. I want to turn my attention to look at three sections that this bill will insert into the Summary Offences Act 1953. Firstly, new section 32A defines the terms and is fairly self-explanatory. The important aspect to note here is that in defining the Nazi salute or the Hakenkreuz and other Nazi symbols, it captures gestures that so nearly resemble a salute that it is likely to be mistaken for that salute, and symbols that so nearly resemble a Nazi symbol that they are likely to be mistaken for such a symbol.

The definition is really important because it captures all acts and uses of symbols that are harmful, particularly as Neo-Nazi groups may continuously modify Nazi symbols for the purpose of secrecy or in an attempt to skirt around the regulations. This allows for law enforcement officers to execute the parameters of their job without obstruction or confusion.

New section 32C allows a police officer to give a direction to a person to remove from display a Nazi symbol, if a police officer reasonably believes the display constitutes an offence. Given the definitions in section 32A, a police officer could reasonably believe that an individual has used a Nazi salute or symbol, even if it is a similar or modified gesture or symbol, and could act swiftly to protect others without any ambiguity on their part.

The bill has an additional separate offence for failing to comply with a police direction to remove the prohibited symbol to ensure that the offending material is promptly removed from public display. Creating these offences in this bill will also ensure that police have the necessary powers to direct anyone publicly displaying the Nazi symbol in breach of legislation to move on and to cease the offending conduct.

Finally, new section 32B allows for a defence against a prohibited act if the act was engaged in for a legitimate public purpose. I mentioned earlier the distinction that many multicultural groups and religious groups use a similar symbol called the swastika, and this would be accepted and not considered as an offence. This includes genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purposes, and genuine cultural or educational purposes, and the making or publishing of a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest is acceptable.

What the stipulations do allow is that this bill does not restrict the freedom of speech and political communication that we are all guaranteed. The bill ensures that sufficiently broad defences are available for innocent displays of Nazi symbols including for religious, academic, artistic, educational, cultural, scientific, law enforcement or journalistic purposes. As the shadow minister for multicultural South Australia, it is really important to protect the multifaith society and provide that reassurance that Buddhists, Hindu and Jain faith communities potentially using some of the symbols or recognising the symbols as a way toward love, peace and wellbeing can be protected.

I am very pleased that this bill also provides definitions within the legislation in line with other jurisdictions that have put forward similar legislation, including Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania. These definitions are, in fact, the same as the Victorian Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Act 2022. That particular legislation has been supported by the Adelaide Holocaust Museum and the Andrew Steiner Education Centre, and the History Trust of South Australia in their submissions to the committee, some of which I have already quoted in my contribution.

In my closing remarks, I would once again like to thank all the stakeholders who came forward to provide evidence, their experience and case studies to fully inform the committee and help the development of this particular bill for government. I want to place my thanks on the public record for their contributions and also to thank the other honourable members who participated on the select committee. With those words, I support the passage of the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:25): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens in strong support of this bill, the Summary Offences (Nazi Salute and Symbols Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2023. I do so because the symbols of the Nazi regime continue to represent the ideology of racial supremacy that fuelled the Holocaust and continue to cause harm, especially to the Jewish community.

We know that far-right extremism is on the rise as they try to capitalise on people's fear and uncertainty, particularly during times such as the pandemic or growing inequality. That is why it is so important that we follow our Eastern States counterparts in banning the public display of Nazi symbols and recognise that this is just the first of many steps that can be taken to combat Nazis or Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and far-right extremism.

I would like to acknowledge the work on this of my interstate colleagues from the Greens, in particular the Hon. Samantha Ratnam in Victoria and the Hon. Abigail Boyd in New South Wales. Their efforts have been vital to both Victoria and New South Wales banning the public display of Nazi symbols, and I am proud to see that South Australia is now following suit.

The symbols of the Nazi regime that carried out undeniable atrocities continue to represent the ideology of racial supremacy that fuelled the Holocaust and causes harm. I note that we are now debating this because of concerns about extreme far-right activity across the world and here in Australia. As somebody who was a student in the 1990s, some three decades ago next week, Adelaide was the centre of Neo-Nazi activity in this nation, something that has since been disclosed in the ASIO files that have been released through various cabinet documents federally and at state level.

On 26 March 1994, we saw 20 Neo-Nazis goose step single file down Adelaide's Rundle Mall shouting 'Sieg Heil' and 'Heil Hitler' as they beat people up, kicked and punched them—one Asian man particularly being amongst the 15 injured. That day there were four arrests, only four arrests, of those 20 Neo-Nazis, who certainly disturbed the peace and disrupted the fabric of our society in Adelaide, South Australia.

I was a student at the time, active in the progressive student movement, a faction known as the independents, but I was known as a progressive member of that. I studied at The Levels Campus after Salisbury was closed down. In my class were two Neo-Nazis. They would turn up to class and they would wear swastika T-shirts, they would chant 'Sieg Heil' and 'Heil Hitler'. They would disrupt our classes. I had to be escorted by friends on and off campus. I was subject to stalking by some of them, and I was not alone.

I can rattle off the names of friends who were beaten up, who were harassed, who were stalked, who were persecuted by that Michael Brander led group, where Adelaide was the centre of far-right extremism in our country back in the 1990s. I am glad to see that those days have gone, and I hope that Adelaide never again has such a shameful experience. I believe that this bill will go some way to making sure we do not enter and go down that path again.

Of course, over the past few years we have seen an increase in hate crimes by self-identified Neo-Nazis perpetrated against Jewish people, Asian people, First Nations people and people of colour. Mainstream politicians and media outlets have embraced their harmful fringe ideology for votes and clickbait, without a care for the fact that in flirting with the far-right they do stoke the flames of hate in this nation. Normalising or even encouraging the growth of these ideologies continues to inflict harm on the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our community and it inflicts harm on our community itself.

This bill will ban the intentional display of Nazi symbols and will help us tackle the increasingly public displays of hate that we are seeing from extreme far-right and Neo-Nazi groups. The new offence applies to people in South Australia who broadcast a Nazi symbol to the public audience beyond our borders, such as on social media. People will still be able to publicly display swastikas for legitimate reasons, such as people of Jain, Buddhist and Hindu faiths, teachers, artists and protestors. I put on record something that I raised in the briefing to this bill. I do seek assurances from the government that this will not be used to stop artists or legitimate protest and will not be used more broadly than has been outlined in this second reading contribution and debate so far.

Images and words have meaning, symbols are powerful, and the new offence sends a strong message that the South Australian parliament and the community will not tolerate the public display of symbols intended to incite such hatred. We do need to recognise that the weaponisation of these symbols and the power that they have as recruitment tools can do real harm to real people. All acts of discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity are disgraceful, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 both bear testament to this.

Governments have a unique responsibility to set the tone, the laws and the expectations that create social cohesion in this country. I note that we are coming up to Harmony Week, but Harmony Week was, indeed, the watering down of the day for elimination of racial discrimination. While we all celebrate harmony we should remember that it comes because we need to eliminate racial discrimination.

In those duties being taken very seriously, today we balance the right to free expression with the right to be free from discrimination, and we can and we must work to stop the slow creep of fascism, of hate, of racism and of discrimination in our society so that we never again see the days that we have seen before, whether they were decades ago or a century ago. With that, I look forward to the passage of the bill today, and I will have some questions at clause 1.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:33): I rise, scratching my head, to speak on this bill and ask why it is even necessary, apart from trying to appease the member who introduced it and the Jewish community which, rightly, must speak up loudly when antisemitism is, sadly, reaching boiling point in our community. I will address that disturbing aspect which is going unchecked and fuelled by the politics in Gaza and which has spread in an ugly, divisive form in our country.

Only today in Perth, Friends of Palestine activists angrily confronted Dr Anne Aly, the only Muslim woman in federal parliament, and attempted to shame her. Much of what is in this bill has already been addressed in commonwealth legislation, which was passed in December, thereby overriding any similar state legislation. It is duplication. The Attorney's advisers said that they did not think theirs was inconsistent with what was proposed at the commonwealth level. It is already enacted and there are inconsistencies. The state bill does not just fill any gaps, it duplicates them.

Victoria does have this legislation already too, and one person has been charged under pre-commonwealth law. The commonwealth laws prohibit the sale of symbols and items, as well as the public display of them, even if the state legislation did not prohibit the sale or display for historical, cultural or educational purposes. There are very few exemptions in the commonwealth legislation, so in theory the traders in militaria are already banned from trading or exhibiting their collections both here and outside the jurisdiction.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Nazi cause, the Italian fascist movement or anything that resembles the murderous tyranny, cruelty and absolute authoritarianism these evil political zealots had followed. Germany obviously needed to rid itself of the horrible reminders of Hitler's Nazis and the Holocaust, and rightly has outlawed the display of anything that resembles that time in its history.

Italy, which was Germany's Axis partner during World War II, has also tried to wipe aside the memories of their dictator, Benito Mussolini. I am unsure why this legislation did not also include the fasces symbol of power and authority taken from ancient Roman times, which features a bundle of wooden rods and an axe bound together by leather straps.

The other Axis ally under the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was Japan, now a close and valued friend, an ASEAN Plus Three member and one of our biggest trading partners. Feelings were somewhat different 84 years ago, when our brave and courageous diggers were put to the sword and were on the receiving end of brutal treatment in their POW camps in Burma, Borneo and Singapore.

The Japanese also attacked our shores, yet we are not banning the rising sun flag or other symbols from Hirohito's emperorship. This is because the passing of time has since healed those war wounds. Germany, Italy and Japan are now global economic powerhouses that do big business with us and we with them. Italy, in particular, has been the source of hundreds of thousands of postwar migrants who have helped build this country of ours.

Austria, Poland, Hungary and France have followed Germany's lead in bans on Nazi symbols and propaganda associated with the Third Reich, and understandably so, because they were invaded by the Nazis. The Hungarians have even outlawed the hammer and sickle used by Communist Russia and the red five-pointed star worn on caps and uniforms by communists in China and Russia.

There are exemptions, of course, in the legislation for artistic, scientific and educational purposes, but these may be subject to interpretation as well. Throughout history, many nations have had chequered political histories and their share of sadistic autocratic regimes. They are not all wiped from memory, because we do need to learn lessons from our histories so that we do not repeat the terrible mistakes from our past.

That is why I am a little perplexed at moves like this to totally whitewash the history of some of these more notorious regimes. Let's be frank here: this also can amount to a form of censorship that hinders freedom of speech and is another type of regulatory overreach by governments, which can eventually lead to other forms of prohibition. It can also lead to unintended consequences and inconsistencies in the interpretation of antidiscrimination laws.

I still have a fascination for military history going back to ancient times. I have advocated for returned servicemen from various conflicts and will continue to do so. However, laws like this have only been generated to quash the mindless actions of a minority of extremists labelled as Neo-Nazis and who may borrow visual elements from history, like versions of the swastika or the salute of an outstretched arm with the palm pointing downwards. This legislation will stop that, but again there may be unintended consequences for some.

As I pointed out to the Attorney's advisers, the salute's origins go back to ancient Rome, where it was used to greet emperors. The Nazis pinched the custom. They also pinched and modified from ancient Greece key decorative borders to design the swastika. Just take a look at the borders featured on the woodwork in this room. They come from the country that gave us democracy.

Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists have a form of swastika. The symbol for Odinism, a religious organisation named after the Norwegian god Odin, also comes from symbols in Greek mythology and resembles a wheel or disc and a three-pronged trident. It is associated with the hammer-wielding god of thunder, Thor. It was depicted in Marvel comic books and the Thor movies that followed. There is also a modified form used as the logo by Adobe Acrobat, again thanks to the Greeks. So there are exemptions.

As for the salute, I can see that creating legal headaches already, with unintended consequences. The Black Power salute is a form of that salute but with a clenched fist. Soccer/football fans the world over use a form of that salute in raucous support of their teams, although former Socceroo goalkeeper Mark Bosnich came to regret using the Sieg Heil in defiance of the hostility shown by Tottenham Hotspur fans in 1996 while playing for Aston Villa.

Despite his racist gesture to fans of a London club that has a strong Jewish support base, Bosnich only received a token fine and escaped a misconduct charge. We will see those penalties certainly not being applied here—they will be much stronger here. Will South Australian police charge Melbourne Victory supporters who use the extended arm gesture not in a racist way but in a show of enthusiastic support for their team during A-League matches? Probably not, and I hope not, but an overzealous police officer might do so one day.

As this bill was making its way back here, I was contacted by a constituent, who I will call Aldo, who is concerned and upset that his large collection of militaria, probably worth around $3 million, would now be rendered valueless because of the federal and state laws. I visited Aldo and viewed his extraordinary collection, and as far as I am aware no other MP he contacted bothered to give him the time of day.

The collection includes Nazi and Italian military uniforms in pristine condition; officers' hats; helmets from famous theatres of war, like Tobruk; and service medals and badges, including Iron Crosses and SS symbols—by the way, those SS symbols of the two lightning bolts were something else pinched from the ancient Greeks. Aldo also had weapons and other wartime memorabilia from all sides in conflicts that he has collected.

He has meticulously recorded the history and provenance of each item in his collection, many brought back to Australia by diggers who served in Europe, North Africa and Asia. He is not a Nazi or fascist sympathiser. He is a military historian. The items in his collection present an accurate presentation of the designs that could be copied or viewed for genuine cultural, educational, academic or artistic purposes—for instance, in the costume design for films or stage presentations.

But now, the collection that he has spent decades building and had hoped would fund his retirement and that he thereafter would leave for his children is next to worthless. He cannot sell it. He cannot advertise it. He cannot display it. The national war museum in Canberra is not interested in it or other collections because it has more than it needs. No other museum, apart from one maybe dedicated to militaria, could ever contemplate displaying any items like that. No RSL would dare exhibit these items. The history and educational value of his collection is all but lost. Virtually overnight, Aldo's multimillion dollar collection and others like it are worthless. That is simply not fair.

I also know that there are many others with militaria collections including larger items, such as tanks, armoured vehicles, trucks and weapons, which are used in large-scale re-enactments of famous battles. Why were collectors such as Aldo not given a set period of time by the federal and/or state governments to sell off their prized collections before the new laws came into force? Surely, that would have been the right thing to do.

I do realise that the intention of this bill is to quash antisemitism in our community, and I fully endorse this aspect because, among other things, I have become alarmed and disturbed at the rise of this insidious racism in our country since the war in Gaza started on 7 October. It continues with pro-Palestinian supporters chanting messages of hate against Israel and Jews in rowdy demonstrations across the country, including in this city. It is making Jewish people fearful of reprisals and violence against them and their businesses.

It seems quite ironic that Labor is such a strong supporter of this bill when its own members both state and federally have not shown such a strong level of support for Israel and the Jewish community as they have for the Palestinian cause.

I was quite disturbed to learn that at least two Jewish academics from one of our biggest universities have been pushed out of their senior positions because of antisemitic sentiment not just from some of their left-leaning faculty colleagues but also from student activists and associated academic institutions. It disappoints me to say that the University of Adelaide, based on discussions I have had with members of the Jewish community, is now a hotbed of racist, antisemitic attitudes to such an extent that many Jewish students are staying away from attending the campus and lectures fearing reprisals. Some are even fearing identifying as Jews. This is disgraceful and it cannot be tolerated, yet it is.

I do not see the Malinauskas government coming out strongly condemning this conduct and moving to do something about it. I do not see much united action coming from the administration of our universities in denouncing this antisemitism and hate that is rife. I do not see much movement from the Albanese government. It is too busy cosying up to China and avoiding any political rhetoric that might inflame Palestinians. They have even committed to resuming funding of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees, an organisation the Americans and Israelis declared had members who took part in the terrorist attacks on 7 October.

I fully support Israel's right to defend itself and I would like to one day see a two-state solution in this troubled part of the world, but I am not optimistic that this will ever happen in our lifetimes. I know this legislation is so important to members of Australia's Jewish community and, although as a civil libertarian I do have some reservations about some aspects, I will give it my support.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:48): The government is introducing a bill to prohibit the public display of both Nazi symbols and the Nazi salute. This proposed bill, the Summary Offences (Nazi Salute and Symbols Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2023, would amend the Summary Offences Act 1953 to insert a new part 6A summary offence of public use of a Nazi symbol or Nazi salute, with a maximum penalty of $20,000 or 12 months' imprisonment.

You might want to know what is banned. The bill defines 'Nazi symbol' as including but not limited to the Hakenkreuz or other prescribed Nazi symbols. The Nazi Hakenkreuz symbol was used by the Nazi Party in the Third Reich in Germany in the early 20th century. Hakenkreuz means 'twisted or hooked cross' in German and became the symbol of the Nazi Party. The Nazi Party, as we all know, committed heinous crimes against humanity and particularly against the Jewish people.

As well as the Nazi salute, the definition in the bill includes a symbol that so nearly resembles such a symbol that it is likely to be mistaken for such a symbol. This is similar to the approach in New South Wales and Tasmania in allowing any Nazi symbol to be within the scope of the offence, and unlike the former draft bill of the Hon. Sarah Game MLC which was very narrow and prescriptive. The definition of 'public act' intentionally encompasses communication on social media and other forms of broadcasting of the symbol. The bill also includes an offence for failing to comply with a police direction to remove a Nazi symbol.

As in equivalent interstate legislation, the bill necessarily includes comprehensive defences for innocent uses of Nazi symbols, including in good faith for academic, artistic, religious, scientific, cultural, educational, law enforcement and news reporting purposes—for example, the similar religious symbol of peace used by the Buddhist, Hindu and Jain faiths, and the use of Nazi symbols for educational purposes in the Holocaust Museum on Flinders Street.

In relation to the contribution by the Hon. Frank Pangallo regarding Aldo and his military collection, I really do not know whether this would actually have an effect and cause Aldo's collection to be worthless. To some extent, you could believe that legislation like this could actually make it more valuable.

In recent times, concerns have been growing about an observed rise in public activities by self-professed Neo-Nazi groups involving unacceptable displays of the Nazi Hakenkreuz symbol and the Nazi salute, which are widely recognised as symbols of hate, violence and intolerance. This has led other states and territories and, most recently, the commonwealth government to pass or introduce legislation to prohibit public displays of Nazi symbols and Nazi salutes.

On 8 January 2024, the commonwealth government's Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Act 2023 commenced operation, which includes a ban on the public Nazi salute. There is currently no discrepancy between the federal act and the proposed South Australian act regarding the interaction of the federal legislation with this proposed state prohibition. As is common practice for jurisdiction crossover, the commonwealth has indicated that the commonwealth act is not intended to interfere with or overrule state laws, and SAPOL will enforce SA's legislation.

Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT have all enacted legislation to prohibit Nazi symbols, although the laws in Queensland and Tasmania have not yet commenced operation. The commonwealth government also passed and commenced legislation to prohibit public displays of Nazi symbols. The proposed SA bill takes a slightly different stance from other jurisdiction models, such as how a Nazi symbol is described.

There has been extensive consultation in developing this bill. This proposal has been developed after considering the 28 published written submissions to the select committee from individuals and organisations, which include:

Adelaide Holocaust Museum and Andrew Steiner Education Centre;

History Trust of South Australia;

Multicultural Communities Council of South Australia;

Islamic Society of South Australia;

Buddhist society of South Australia;

Vishva Hindu Parishad of South Australia Incorporated, which is the World Hindu Council of Australia, South Australian branch;

several organisations representing the Jewish community;

Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations;

Victor Harbor RSL sub-branch;

various groups representing business and hobbyist dealers and collectors of war memorabilia; and

Australasian Living History Federation (stage historical re-enactment activities).

South Australia currently has criminal and civil prohibitions against racial vilification under the Racial Vilification Act 1996. It is already a criminal offence for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group on the ground of race by threatening physical harm to the person or group or to their property, or inciting others to threaten such harm. The maximum penalty for a person who commits such an offence is $5,000 or three years' imprisonment.

Some people will oppose this legislation because they say it is an attack on freedom of speech. I am a great supporter of freedom of speech; I believe it is an important part of our democracy. But it is not appropriate and we should totally reject any person or organisation who hides behind freedom of speech to spread hate. We should reject that and as such I support this legislation.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:55): After listening to the speech of Russell Wortley, people may wonder what there is left to say. From time to time we do feel this way when speaking last. I feel compelled to rise to speak because this is a very significant bill. In relation to a few matters raised in debate, Mr Pangallo raised a head-scratching issue on why you need to have state legislation if you already have federal legislation seeking to be put into place, which to some extent mirrors that.

As is commonplace for jurisdiction crossover, as the Hon. Mr Wortley went to some lengths to outline, the commonwealth will indicate that it does not intend to interfere or overrule state laws, so it behoves us in these circumstances to make sure that we put in place something which recognises the significance of the kind of problem we are facing.

This move would ensure that South Australia remains the kind of inclusive place in which I think we all want to live. I know that is the case because I think everybody who has spoken in this debate has felt the need to underline that. It is important that everybody within our community feels like it remains a safe and inclusive place, and that includes our Jewish community. There is a rise of extremist and hateful behaviour in this country, indeed internationally. The very rich diversity and cohesion of what we value in South Australia, which is our multicultural society, is not only one of our greatest strengths but also something that is under attack. We need to be careful and vigilant in protecting that.

This sort of hatred and division we have seen in our state. I am aware that in the other place the member for Playford, Mr Fulbrook, has outlined that he has seen very large signs placed in his community saying that multiculturalism is white genocide. That was placed over a very prominent highway running through his community. That sign was taken down and another one was put up after that. So to say or deny that there is an issue that needs to be addressed in our society, I think, would be stretching credulity.

Data collected by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has shown that there was a 591 per cent increase in reported incidences of antisemitism last year—591 per cent. Greg Adams, the chair of the Adelaide Holocaust Museum, has gone on record as saying that his staff have been extremely concerned for their safety after a number of recent antisemitic incidents, including people performing Nazi salutes outside that building. This is very concerning stuff.

I do reject somewhat the points raised by Mr Pangallo that somehow Labor does not support the Jewish community. I have personally attended many events organised by the local Jewish community in South Australia. Norman Schueler has remained a contact of mine for some years now. Indeed, I saw him, sadly, at many rallies last year. I say 'sadly' because I should not need to be there. We should not need to have rallies supporting our Jewish community. Our Jewish community should be supported without the need for rallies where we have to condemn antisemitic behaviour in our community.

So I have to say I really reject what was put by Mr Pangallo in that regard. I know I am not the only Labor member who supports our Jewish community, and I know I am not the only Labor member who has attended events supporting our Jewish community, so I find it a little bit rough from Mr Pangallo in that regard, and maybe he could reflect on those comments a bit. In regard to what we have in this bill, as I have said, the Hon. Mr Wortley has already gone to the substantive aspects of it and I think strongly regarding the consultation surrounding this bill.

I note that there was some point made by the Liberals that it is all based on the select committee which has informed the draft bill. I think it was tabled last year, and the report of that committee was tabled today. If so, that committee must have been very influential and very wide reaching to inform what we have here today. It is good that a great deal of the evidence provided to that select committee—which I monitored what I could from the distance I was at—indicated that the rise of far-right nationalism is something that affects not only the Jewish community but indeed many aspects of other religions and faiths in our community. Indeed, instances of anti-Muslim abuse reported to the Islamophobia Register in Australia have increased thirteenfold in recent times.

I think that, if we are looking at why we need legislation like we are seeing here, we need to protect the multicultural society that we have. In terms of aspects of this legislation, it does still allow the use of the Nazi symbol in good faith for instances such as educational ones. I agree with the Hon. Mr Wortley in regard to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's raising of Aldo, I think it was, and his collection. Perhaps I think that it still has great value. That may not be a financial one, but it certainly has great educational value and this bill continues to protect aspects of it, just as Mr Pangallo said, so I do not think there has been any great loss there. With that, and noting that I agree with absolutely everything that the Hon. Mr Wortley had to say, I support this bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:03): I thank members who have contributed and for their indications of support for this important bill. Certainly, the hatred, violence and intolerance that the display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute, promotes has to be stamped out. Everyone has said here that there is no place for it in our society today. There is no place for it, whether it be at rallies, whether it be on the steps of parliament, or whether it be at sporting events. The hatred and intolerance that these sorts of symbols are designed to incite, I think we can all agree ought to be criminalised as this bill proposes.

There were a number of contributions about commonwealth and state law. It is not uncommon that there are similar areas traversed by both areas of law: drug offences and terrorism offences, to name a few. I think it is useful to have an offence on our state statute books that can be properly investigated and prosecuted by the state as a state offence when the prosecutorial authorities see fit.

I think it is also helpful that there are similar, although not the same, offences at a federal level, and the commonwealth could take this up where there are significant implications, as the commonwealth does in terrorism or drug areas where it is of concern to them. I know prosecutorial authorities have in the past and will continue to liaise where there are offences where a course of conduct might traverse both state and federal jurisdictions. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to the second reading stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I just wanted to establish with the minister that, for example, Banksy has recently done a piece of art that has appeared on various streets where the swastika is used in that artwork. Would artwork like that be banned within the remit of this particular legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not be giving a view about a very specific example, but what I can say is that artistic depiction is certainly something we have taken into account in this bill. In terms of artwork that depicts prohibited Nazi symbols or performances of art that involve performing things like the Nazi salute, the bill provides a defence for where this occurs for genuine artistic purposes. The court will need to be satisfied that the particular circumstance of the depiction was for a genuine artistic purpose. The bill further provides, apropos section 32B(4), that:

…an act will be taken not to be for a legitimate public purpose where the act is for a purpose that a reasonable person would understand to be directly or indirectly encouraging, glorifying, promoting or condoning fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism or other related ideologies.

I say that as guidance. Of course, we recognise genuine depictions in artwork are provided for; there is a defence for it within this legislation.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I have a supplementary to the Hon. Tammy Franks' question. I note that the minister has provided some guidance if you like to new section 32B in relation to subsection (3), but is it possible for the minister to perhaps provide some clarification in terms of maybe a description of a scenario of what the government considers as a genuine academic, artistic or religious use? For the purpose of clarification, could he provide a scenario?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to provide a very specific example. That will be up to the courts to interpret but, as I have said just before, for the art exemption, for example, it is for performances that involve the Nazi salute or the Nazi symbol if it occurs for genuine artistic purposes. The court, as I have said, will need to take into account the particular circumstances of that performance or that artwork. It is where there is that genuine reason that includes not just artistic but academic, religious, educational, cultural, scientific or law enforcement, or journalistic purposes.

I know the Hon. Jing Lee has in her contributions talked about the use of the swastika—as it has been for thousands of years—as a symbol of peace, as a religious symbol in the Buddhist, Hindu and Jain faiths. The bill specifically contemplates their use in those sorts of religious contexts, where for thousands of years it has had a distinctly opposite meaning and connotation to what has been appropriated with the Hakenkreuz in Nazi ideology.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the Attorney-General about exemptions: who will issue them when applications are made?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the honourable member has misunderstood how this works and how many of these areas of the criminal law work. No-one applies for an exemption and is issued with an exemption, it acts as a defence to the offence that is created by this legislation.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT