Labor and the Coalition have faced criticism for their joint effort to enact stringent hate crime legislation in response to a series of antisemitic incidents, including a recent revelation of a “fake terrorism plot.” The Alliance MP’s also supported a review or re-evaluation of these laws following the exposure of the caravan plot.

The Australian Federal Police disclosed on Monday that the caravan found on the outskirts of Sydney, loaded with explosives, was allegedly a fabrication by criminals aiming to instigate fear for personal gain, intending no “mass casualty event” in Sydney.

According to Krissy Barrett, an AFP Deputy Commissioner, investigators immediately considered the caravan, discovered on January 19, as “a fabricated terrorism plot – essentially a criminal con job.”

The Labor government’s hate crimes legislation passed parliament on February 6, eight days after the discovery of the caravan in Dural was made public. This legislation received bipartisan support after Labor agreed to Opposition demands to introduce mandatory minimum sentences despite it contradicting their party’s stance.

The new laws introduce minimum jail times, including six years for terror offenses, three years for financing terrorism, and one year for displaying hate symbols or performing a Nazi salute. These laws remove rules around intent, meaning individuals acting “recklessly” without necessarily intending to threaten violence can be charged. The laws are set for review after two years.

Tony Burke, the Home Affairs Minister, described these changes as “the toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes.” However, the Australian Law Reform Commission has previously cautioned that mandatory sentencing leads to increased incarceration, is costly, ineffective as a crime deterrent, and disproportionately affects marginalized groups.

Government sources indicate that minimum sentencing powers were introduced as a last-minute amendment to swiftly pass the laws, following opposition demands. The changes were opposed in the lower house by the Greens and several independent MPs, including Monique Ryan, Helen Haines, Zali Steggall, and Zoe Daniel. In the Senate, an unlikely group of Senators, including David Pocock, Fatima Payman, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, and Alex Antic, also voted against it.

Rennick, describing the change as a “political stunt,” criticized the Opposition for politicizing the debate and forcing Labor into adopting minimum mandatory sentencing to jump on a “bandwagon.”

Pocock criticized both major parties for ramming through laws that “pollute good policy with bad politicking,” despite broad support for hate crime laws from minority communities who have long yearned for these new protections. He would support a reversal of the minimum sentences in light of new details about the caravan plot.

Labor’s national platform opposes mandatory sentencing, arguing it does not reduce crime but undermines the judiciary’s independence, leads to unjust outcomes, and is often discriminatory in practice. During the debate in February, Liberal MP Julian Leeser acknowledged this stance but argued against mandatory minimum jail times, referencing the caravan plot as an example of the need for deterrence.

Freelander, a Labor MP, also expressed skepticism towards mandatory sentencing but trusted the legal process. Ryan found the last-minute amendments “hugely disappointing” and supported a review of the laws, criticizing the major parties’ competition to appear tough on crime as “petty, point-scoring politics.”

Juliana Warner, the Law Council of Australia’s president, highlighted the importance of “robust and transparent consultation processes” in good lawmaking, which she felt was missing in the debate on this legislation. She expressed concern over the increasing trend of rushed legislative reform processes lacking transparency or public scrutiny.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/13/bad-hate-laws-quickly-passed-after-terror-con-job-must-be-reversed-crossbenchers-insist