Sentencing Amendment (Aggravating Factors) Bill 2025 (No. 41)

Thursday 25 September 2025

[4.04 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I first thank those who briefed us this morning, who came along and gave us their opinions. It's really important to have stakeholders and people in the community come along and brief us on bills - certainly ones as important as this.

This is a very important bill that goes to the heart of community expectations. It is rare that we get the opportunity in this place to express the wills of our communities so directly, and I feel privileged to be able to speak on a bill that will hopefully make a real difference to people and to disincentivise some crimes before they occur. I have had constituents come to me with situations like this, where neighbours have been giving them a terrible time because of a circumstance like the way they look or the way they may be, and it is great that we now have this bill before us.

The Sentencing Amendment (Aggravating Factors) Bill strengthens the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to hatefully prejudicial, targeted offending, and offending against people because of their background, their identity or because they are vulnerable or perceived to be easy targets. The Leader was absolutely correct in saying that offences that are motivated by hate are completely unacceptable and have no place here in Tasmania or against anyone in Tasmania. Everybody belongs here.

This bill is the result of an extensive process undertaken by the Sentencing Advisory Council and has come about thanks to the input of many from our community. I acknowledge anyone and everyone who participated, especially any person who has been the victim of a crime motivated by hate or prejudice. While not every submission to the SAC fell within the scope of its report on aggravating factors, I am extremely thankful and grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views and improve the policies which inform the bill we have before us.

It is our collective responsibility as lawmakers to ensure that crimes motivated by hate are appropriately deterred and remedied by the Tasmanian criminal justice system. Three of the four recommendations from the SAC, which this bill responds to, relate to section 11B of the Sentencing Act. This bill seeks to expand the scope of this section by providing, in addition to race, a non‑exhaustive illustrative list of other attributes as relevant when considering the application of this section.

The creation of lists in legislation presents a slight conundrum because a list, by its nature, includes some things and necessarily excludes others. Emphasising that the list being inserted into the act by this bill is non‑exhaustive and illustrative is, therefore, extremely important. Our community rightly expects that legal protections are extended to everyone and enabling the court to exercise discretion to other forms of hatred or prejudice not expressly listed in this section is also extremely important.

The Leader stated that this bill also introduces an alternative test that can be used to establish the presence of a hateful or prejudicial motivation without having to prove the subjective state of mind of the offender. As the Leader mentioned, proving a subjective motivation for offending can be difficult, especially when there may be multiple motivations for an offender to commit an offence.

The test in clause 11B(2) provides that a demonstration or expression of hostility, malice or ill will can be used to prove that the offending was hateful or prejudicial. As the Leader said, it allows the prosecution to set out the facts of what the offender did or said around the time of their offending to support the presence of these motivations without having to prove the offender's subjective state of mind. These expressions of hostility, malice or ill will must occur during the offence or immediately before or after it, with the aim being to establish a causal link to the offending.

I ask the Leader whether there's any scope for the prosecution to establish a systematic type of hostility, malice or ill will that isn't temporarily close to the offending, but which might still show causation. What comes to mind for me, perhaps, is something someone might publish on social media hours before an offence is committed. Is there a sufficient causal link in circumstances like that or would that perhaps fall under a different offence? Thinking of all the different ways a person could express hostility, malice or ill will, I wonder how widely applicable this new section 11B(2) could be. Any insight into this would be appreciated.

Finally, I know this bill provides that a review is to take place into these new sections after being enforced for five years. It is important to capture lots of data during that time. I hope that the government is working with the relevant departments, stakeholder groups, the SAC, and seeking the input from our community during that time.

Hate crimes are a symptom of a bigger problem within our communities and we need to condemn in the strongest possible terms any crime which is motivated by hate or prejudice. It has no place in Tasmania, and it never did. Every person deserves to participate in society free from the fear of being targeted because of any attribute they possess. Every person has a place here and anyone who commits an offence motivated by hate or prejudice needs to understand that there will be appropriate and commensurate penalties.

This is one symptom we can treat, but there's much more we need to do collectively to send the message that hate and prejudice are not okay. I'm pleased to support the bill today.

Ms Rattray - Would the member please adjourn the debate?

Ms ARMITAGE - Mr President, I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.