Australian Greens' additional comments

1.1The Greens welcome the opportunity to contribute additional comments to the committee report and thank the witnesses and those who made submissions for the time and expertise contributed to the inquiry process.

1.2Right-wing extremism is a real and growing threat that targets marginalised communities, including migrants, refugees, Muslims, First Nations people, Jewish people, racial and ethnic minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, disabled people, and women, among others.[1] Right-wing extremist actions undermine the safety and sense of community for these communities, while also intensifying the racism, discrimination, and hatred they already face.

1.3Of serious concern is the way in which politicians and the media contribute to the platforming, mainstreaming, and legitimising of right-wing extremist views by themselves engaging in racist and dehumanising rhetoric.

1.4The Greens are supportive of most of the recommendations of the majority report, but we do not support Recommendation 5.

1.5The Greens have advocated for a national hate crimes database for some years now and are pleased to see the committee make Recommendation 6. A hate crimes database should be established without delay. It should include better data collection on racism and the meaningful engagement of communities with lived experience of racism and also far-right extremism in co-designing this national approach.

1.6The Greens also believe that the majority report is a missed opportunity as the recommendations don’t really go to the core of tackling far-right extremism and white supremacy, which requires approaches grounded in intersectionality, are explicitly anti-racist, and shaped by targeted communities.

1.7That responses to right-wing extremism and white supremacy be intersectional, explicitly anti-racist, and shaped by targeted communities.

Christchurch Masjidain Massacre

1.8The majority report rightly notes that the Christchurch terror attack in 2019, in which an Australian man attacked two mosques and murdered 51Muslims, was a major event in the evolution of right-wing extremism in Australia and internationally.[2] It fails to acknowledge, however, the lack of action that has been taken in Australia since this attack, despite clear and undisputed evidence that the perpetrator of the attack was radicalised in Australia. It similarly fails to acknowledge the impact of this attack on the Muslim community that lives in this country.

1.9The New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch Masjidain confirmed that the attacker, an Australian, was driven by an extreme, right-wing Islamophobic ideology. This is something that the Australian government must grapple with and must respond to.

1.10In their evidence, academics Dr Jordan McSwiney and Dr Imogen Richards criticised the lack of action taken by the Australian government following the Christchurch massacre.

1.11In terms of specific action, they noted the role the media has played in publicising or sensationalising right-wing extremist and violent views. Theyraised the inclusion in the Christchurch Call of a recommendation to develop best-practice media guidelines that promote responsible reporting and avoid sensationalism and the unintentional amplification of violent extremist content. It was noted that while they are not suggesting governments tell the media how to do their jobs, we already have these kinds of guidelines for topics such as suicide, and that these principles can be adapted to ensure the harm caused by reporting on right-wing extremism is minimised.[3]

1.12Additionally, Dr McSwiney noted that one of the commitments of the Christchurch Call was to support research and academic efforts to better understand the threat of right-wing extremism, and this is a 'gap' in Australia's response so far.[4]

1.13That the Australian government publicly commit to implementing the recommendations of the Christchurch Call.

The role of politicians & the media in normalising hate

1.14There must be recognition of the underlying and systemic racism that normalises hateful views and contributes to violence. As Ms Rana Ebrahimi of the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia (MYAN) stated in her evidence '[a]culture of hate breeds when cultures of violence are not addressed'.[5]

1.15The evidence to the committee made clear that politicians and the media play a role in normalising and mainstreaming hateful and racist rhetoric that lends legitimacy to right-wing extremist movements.

1.16The majority report notes evidence from Mr Mike Burgess, Director-‍General, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), that Australian politicians espousing extremist views risks giving those views greater legitimacy.[6] Themajority report similarly notes the Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Right's (AMWCHR) submission that media and politicians are partly responsible for normalising the 'targeting and scapegoating of Muslim and migrant communities' which has 'provided cover for far-right movements to flourish'.[7]

1.17In Chapter 6, the majority report acknowledges the evidence to the inquiry that, in combatting violent right-wing extremism, there should be a focus on 'the underlying social and structural issues that are fuelling systemic inequality, injustice, racism'.[8] In the recommendations, however, the report fails to engage further with this issue and recognise the clear link between behaviour of politicians and media that is racist and exclusionary, and the mainstreaming of right-wing extremist views.

1.18There are obvious and clear examples of this, many of which are referred to in AMWCHR’s submission to this inquiry. A former senator has called for a final solution to immigration and a return to white Australia, and has blamed the Christchurch massacre on Muslim immigration. The AMWCHR's submission at page 9 notes that the former senator's 'comfort with expressing such sentiments immediately after a racially and religiously motivated mass shooting is demonstrative of a high level of tolerance of extremist Islamophobic rhetoric in Australia'.[9] Another senator has labelled Islam a 'disease' and a former minister has called the decision to accept immigrants from Lebanon 'a mistake'.

1.19Politicians also legitimise far-right extremists by giving them a voice and platforming them in Parliament. Last year, Elijah Schaffer, a far-right US media figure known for racially abusing minority groups, appeared at a political conference featuring a former Prime Minister, and earlier this year, Tucker Carlson, a known white supremacist, was invited to an event hosted by a senator at Parliament House.

1.20Academics Dr McSwiney and Dr Richards noted in their opening statement to the committee that 'in Australia, right-wing extremism is…inseparable from the violence of colonisation, the legacy of the White Australia policy and the Islamophobia driven by the so-called war on terror'.[10]

1.21Dr McSwiney went on to say that 'a serious conversation about right-wing extremism cannot overlook the everyday manifestations of extremism and authoritarianism that feed right-wing extremist movements'.[11] He later noted that 'it would be great to see some care in political rhetoric' among politicians to 'avoid inadvertently normalising, promoting or endorsing right-wing extremist discourses or ideas' and described the instances of right-wing extremists being invited to speak at Parliament House as 'deeply shameful'.[12]

1.22When asked about dog whistling and racism contributing to legitimising far-‍right extremism, Dr Rachel Sharples of the Challenging Racism Project, responded that 'this is one of the most important recommendations to make'. She gave the example in the US of the 'huge spike' in race hate groups and racist attacks following Donald Trump's election in 2016, stating 'there was a direct correlation between the racism has was talking about…and the rise of race hate in the community as a result'.[13]

1.23Recent political debates on Palestinian refugees, international students, and migration have unfortunately continued this political dog whistling practice. For example, international students have been conflated with and blamed for a housing crisis they have not caused, and they have been called modern day illegal boat arrivals.

1.24In addition to politicians' rhetoric, the media continues to publish racist dog-‍whistling and anti-migration content that inflames these issues and feeds white supremacist ideology. Over many years, asylum seekers have been wrongfully labelled as 'queue jumpers', minorities have been denigrated, and the right-wing media has whipped up anti-migrant hysteria, in search of clickbait and profit instead of quality journalism. Any conversation about addressing right-wing extremism cannot overlook the racism, discrimination, and dehumanisation that is perpetrated by politicians and media.

1.25This rhetoric harms marginalised communities and contributes to feelings of fear and exclusion. It also lends legitimacy to right-wing violent extremists. Addressing this must be at the heart of addressing dangerous right-wing extremism and white supremacy.

1.26In addition, the Australian Human Rights Commission's (AHRC) National Anti-‍Racism Framework makes specific recommendations for the media including media adopting guidelines that are grounded in an anti-racist approach to reporting and strengthening media regulations on reporting related to First Nations people and other negatively racialised communities.[14]

1.27That anti-racism training be mandated for all MPs and their staff.

1.28That guidelines are developed for media that are grounded in an anti-racist approach to reporting and to minimise harm from sensationalist reporting.

Grounding in anti-racism

1.29The majority report, at (4.57), notes the recent finding of the AHRC's report, Mapping Government Anti-Racism Programs and Policies, there is a reluctance on the part of governments to use the term 'racism', which has weakened anti-racism work. Despite this acknowledgement, the majority report perpetuates this issue, focusing on social cohesion rather than the racism and white supremacy that underpins the views held by right-wing extremists.

1.30The same AHRC report found that the burden to address racism is predominantly borne by people and communities who experience racism, rather than the systems, structures, and institutions that perpetuate it. The same is true for combatting discrimination and hate against the LGBTQIA+ and disabled communities. This position was echoed by Associate Professor Mario Peucker of the Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies, who stated that the communities who are targeted by right-wing extremism should not be responsible for dealing with far-right extremism, but 'they should have a much bigger voice in shaping the response'.[15]

1.31Professor Peucker gave evidence that:

…the concerns of communities [targeted by right-wing extremists] have been censored in this debate. It’s often a debate among people who are not part of the targeted communities, and that’s a problem in the perception of the threat level.[16]

1.32What is similarly concerning is that, in Parliament and in this country more broadly, the existence of racism is denied, while those calling it out are silenced and vilified. There are recent examples from the Senate of this practice. In order to eliminate racism from society, it must be called out. Parliament must set the highest standards with respect to racism and racist commentary inside its chambers, especially given the role political rhetoric plays in legitimising and normalising racism and hate, as highlighted above.

1.33The recently published National Anti-Racism Framework provides a blueprint to achieving an anti-racist Australia. The report begins by stating:

It is beyond clear that racism has been entrenched in the systems, structures, and institutions of Australia since colonisation. It is pervasive and causes real harm to people every single day. But it is a concerning reality that racism is treated by many in Australia as an anomaly, an aberration, or something to be outright dismissed or denied.[17]

1.34The Framework calls for the Australian government to 'lead a national response to eliminating racism that begins with truth-telling for First Nations peoples and embeds their right to self-determination' and outlines clear steps for doing so.[18]

1.35Right-wing extremism feeds on racism and white supremacy. Unless we are able to name this for what it is, we will be unable to address hate and right-wing extremist violence. Implementing the recommendations of and fully funding the National Anti-Racism Framework should and must be an urgent priority of the Australian government. This can start with the government establishing a standalone portfolio and minister for anti-racism.

1.36Over the past year, there has been a rise in racism, as Israel's genocide in Gaza has unfolded. The dehumanisation of Palestinians by politicians and the media over the past year has serious consequences for local Muslim and Arab communities and their levels of safety and inclusion. The Australian Greens firmly believe that dismantling racism in all forms is best achieved by working in solidarity with all groups who face hate and racism.

1.37That the Australian government commit to fully funding and implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework.

1.38That the Australian government establish a standalone anti-racism portfolio.

1.39That Parliament conduct a public inquiry to review standing orders and any changes to their language and interpretation in order to eliminate racist, exclusionary and discriminatory behaviour.

The importance of intersectionality

1.40The majority report acknowledges that many participants highlighted the intersectional nature of the threat posed by violent extremism in Australia, but fails to include this in the final recommendations.[19]

1.41Right-wing extremism and nationalist and white supremacist ideology often intersects with misogyny. A recent report from the University of Melbourne highlights that racist and misogynist views are strong predictors of violent extremism. The report states: 'In Australia, attitudes hostile to women and supportive of violence against women, and racist attitudes make an individual much more likely to support various forms of violent extremism'.[20]

1.42The vile intersection of racism and sexism harm in particular women of colour. It should be noted that the recent rise in Islamophobia has been the most felt by Muslim women. Among other instances of violence reported to the Islamophobia Register, one incident in Sydney in recent months involved two young women in Sydney being physically attacked, with one having her hijab pulled from her head.

1.43As raised in the evidence of Dr John Byron from the Queensland University of Technology, many people experience discrimination along different dimensions, for example, a woman who is also queer, and also disabled.[21] Eachof these groups are targeted by right-wing extremists, and those that fall into multiple targeted communities are most at risk of violence from these extremists.

1.44It is critical that all approaches to combatting violent extremism are intersectional and embed community-led approaches.

Committee Recommendation 5: Access to encrypted communications

1.45The Australian Greens do not support Recommendation 5, that legislation should be introduced that would enable law enforcement agencies to access encrypted communications.

1.46The Australian Greens have strong concerns about the broader impacts of allowing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to break encrypted communications.

1.47There is significant evidence these laws would undermine national security in the long term by weakening protections for encrypted information for all users, potentially introducing vulnerabilities in encryption that could be accessed by adversaries, including foreign governments and organised crime networks, and setting a dangerous precedent that would empower other governments, which may seek to oppress local opposition and minorities, to also demand such access to encrypted communications.

1.48When the Morrison government attempted to introduce similar laws in 2018, several civil society organisations and technology companies expressed serious concerns over how even small intrusions into encryption by government agencies could severely undermine individuals' cybersecurity, as well as their human rights, including the right to privacy.[22]

The online environment and young people

1.49The dissemination of far-right extremist material online is a significant concern, particularly as groups have been known to target vulnerable individuals online through recruitment campaigns. It is concerning that the eSafety Commissioner stated in their submission to this inquiry that extremism was not a focus of their activities.[23]

1.50Recommendation of the majority report advocates for more research to examine how online platforms may be used to spread extremist material, but more needs to be done to hold technology corporations to account.

1.51As academic Dr Richards noted in her evidence to the inquiry:

…these platforms are driven by commercial interests. We need to recognise that they are not designed to encourage nuanced debate but are architecturally designed to promote addictive material in pursuit of virality.[24]

1.52Ms Esheshka (Shae) Flanagan from MYAN similarly gave evidence about the need to make sure online spaces are safe and work 'with technology companies so that algorithms are not feeding people who are susceptible to radicalisation down rabbit holes' that would lead to them taking violent action.[25]

1.53The AHRC National Anti-Racism Framework calls for more effective action by all Australian governments to address far-right extremism and white supremacy, both in the online and offline world.[26]

1.54It is critical that young people are supported to engage safely in an online environment. The recent social media age ban, which was opposed by the Australian Greens, will not make social media safer, as the recent Parliamentary inquiry into social media heard time and again.

1.55The Australian Greens are advocating for technology companies to address toxic algorithms and be prohibited from the targeting, harvesting, and selling of young people’s data. The government should prioritise legislating the Digital Duty of Care.

1.56The Australian Greens are calling for measures that regulate global platforms and stop them monetising hate and profiting from the suffering of people using their platforms.

1.57It is crucial that, where strategies are developed on making social media safer for young people, it involves young people themselves. Young people are best equipped to advise on how they engage in social media. They must be listened to and heard in order to address these issues.

1.58That technology companies be held accountable for the proliferation of hate on their platforms through:

a ban on the targeting, harvesting and selling of young people’s data

a Digital Duty of Care on tech platforms

limiting the toxicity of algorithms and extreme content

stopping the monetisation and profit from hate

1.59 That developing strategies to make social media safer for young people must genuinely engage and involve young people themselves.

Recommendations

1.60Recommendation 1: That responses to right-wing extremism and white supremacy be intersectional, explicitly anti-racist, and shaped by targeted communities.

1.61Recommendation 2: That the Australian government publicly commit to implementing the recommendations of the Christchurch Call.

1.62Recommendation 3: That anti-racism training be mandated for all MPs and their staff.

1.63Recommendation 4: That guidelines are developed for media that are grounded in an anti-racist approach to reporting and to minimise harm from sensationalist reporting.

1.64Recommendation 5: That the Australian government commit to fully funding and implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework.

1.65Recommendation 6: That the Australian government establish a standalone anti-‍racism portfolio.

1.66Recommendation 7: That Parliament conduct a public inquiry to review standing orders and any changes to their language and interpretation in order to eliminate racist, exclusionary and discriminatory behaviour.

1.67Recommendation 8: That technology companies be held accountable for the proliferation of hate on their platforms through:

a ban on the targeting, harvesting and selling of young people's data

a Digital Duty of Care on tech platforms

limiting the toxicity of algorithms and extreme content

stopping the monetisation and profit from hate

1.68Recommendation 9: That developing strategies to make social media safer for young people must genuinely engage and involve young people themselves.

Senator Dr Mehreen Faruqi

Greens Deputy Leader & Senator For NSW

Footnotes

[1]Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights (AMWCHR), Submission 9.

[2]See paragraphs 1.58–1.59 of the majority report.

[3]Dr Jordan McSwiney, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 12.

[4]Dr McSwiney, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 15.

[5]Ms Rana Ebrahimi, National Manager, Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 17 June 2024, p. 12.

[6]See paragraph 2.30 of the majority report.

[7]See paragraph 2.31 of the majority report; AMWCHR, Submission 9, p. 2.

[8]See paragraph 6.5 of the majority report; Liberty Victoria, Submission 25, p. 10.

[9]AMWCHR, Submission 9, p. 9.

[10]Dr McSwiney, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 9.

[11]Dr McSwiney, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, pp. 9–10.

[12]Dr McSwiney, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p.12.

[13]Dr Rachel Sharples, Lecturer, Social Sciences, and Member, Challenging Racism Project, Western Sydney University, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 23.

[14]Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia, November 2024, p. 21.

[15]Associate Professor Mario Peucker, Project Lead and Executive Member, Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies (CRIS), Committee Hansard, 17 June 2024, p. 4.

[16]Professor Peucker, CRIS, Committee Hansard, 17 June 2024, p. 4.

[17]AHRC, The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia, November2024, p. 8.

[18]AHRC, The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia, November2024, p. 10.

[19]See paragraph 4.126 of the majority report.

[20]Sara Meger, Melissa Johnston and Yolanda Riveros-Morales, Misogyny, Racism and Violent Extremism in Australia, University of Melbourne, June 2024, p. 3.

[21]Dr John Byron, Principal Policy Advisor, Queensland University of Technology, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 15.

[22]See, for example: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), Review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 (Review of the Assistance and Access Bill 2018), Coalition of Civil Society Organisations & Technology Companies& Trade Associations, Submission 29; PJCIS, Review of the Assistance and Access Bill2018, Joint councils for civil liberties, Submission 63; PJCIS, Review of the Assistance and Access Bill 2018, 5December 2018.

[23]Office of the eSafety Commissioner, Submission 28.

[24]Dr Imogen Richards, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 24 July 2024, p. 10.

[25]Ms Esheshka (Shae) Flanagan, Acting National Director, MYAN, Committee Hansard, 17 June 2024, p. 17

[26]AHRC, The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia, November2024, p. 12.