Latest news with #MigrationAct
The Age
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Age
Chinese drone boffin loses visa appeal over weapons claim
A Chinese drone researcher whose student visa was denied over claims he was associated with weapons of mass destruction has lost his appeal against the immigration minister. Xiaolong Zhu, 36, was in Australia on a tourist visa in 2018 when he applied for a student visa to begin studying for a doctorate of philosophy at QUT's Gardens Point campus. Zhu proposed focusing on surveying and studying the navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as UAVs or drones, in environments where GPS guidance was not available. The immigration minister's delegate rejected Zhu's student visa application in October 2020 due to the Home Affairs Department receiving information that he was 'directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'. On Monday, the Federal Court in Brisbane rejected Zhu's latest appeal of that decision and ordered him to pay costs. His barrister, Matt Black, had argued there was 'repugnancy or inconsistency' between the wording of the Migration Act and Australia's migration regulations, but that was rejected by justices Darryl Rangiah and Stephen Burley. 'In our view, no such repugnancy is demonstrated in the present case, and the learned primary judge did not err in so concluding,' the justices stated in their decision. The initial Federal Circuit Court decision from May 2024 noted that Zhu had a master's degree in aeronautical engineering and space vehicle guidance from Beijing's Beihang University, which is closely linked to China's People's Liberation Army. Judge Gregory Egan said in 2024 the section of the Migration Act used to deny Zhu a visa was also concerned with 'missiles or other devices that may be capable of delivering' weapons of mass destruction.
Sydney Morning Herald
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chinese drone boffin loses visa appeal over weapons claim
A Chinese drone researcher whose student visa was denied over claims he was associated with weapons of mass destruction has lost his appeal against the immigration minister. Xiaolong Zhu, 36, was in Australia on a tourist visa in 2018 when he applied for a student visa to begin studying for a doctorate of philosophy at QUT's Gardens Point campus. Zhu proposed focusing on surveying and studying the navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as UAVs or drones, in environments where GPS guidance was not available. The immigration minister's delegate rejected Zhu's student visa application in October 2020 due to the Home Affairs Department receiving information that he was 'directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'. On Monday, the Federal Court in Brisbane rejected Zhu's latest appeal of that decision and ordered him to pay costs. His barrister, Matt Black, had argued there was 'repugnancy or inconsistency' between the wording of the Migration Act and Australia's migration regulations, but that was rejected by justices Darryl Rangiah and Stephen Burley. 'In our view, no such repugnancy is demonstrated in the present case, and the learned primary judge did not err in so concluding,' the justices stated in their decision. The initial Federal Circuit Court decision from May 2024 noted that Zhu had a master's degree in aeronautical engineering and space vehicle guidance from Beijing's Beihang University, which is closely linked to China's People's Liberation Army. Judge Gregory Egan said in 2024 the section of the Migration Act used to deny Zhu a visa was also concerned with 'missiles or other devices that may be capable of delivering' weapons of mass destruction.
Perth Now
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
China drone boffin loses visa appeal over weapons claim
A Chinese drone researcher who had his student visa denied over claims he was associated with weapons of mass destruction has lost his appeal against the immigration minister. Xiaolong Zhu, 36 , was in Australia on a tourist visa in 2018 when he applied for a student visa to begin studying for a doctorate of philosophy at the Queensland University of Technology's Brisbane Gardens Point campus. Mr Zhu proposed to focus on surveying and studying the navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as UAVs or drones, in environments where GPS guidance was not available. The immigration minister's delegate rejected Mr Zhu's student visa application in October 2020 due to the Home Affairs Department receiving information he was "directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". The Federal Court in Brisbane on Monday rejected Mr Zhu's latest appeal of that decision and ordered him to pay costs. Mr Zhu's barrister Matt Black had argued there was "repugnancy or inconsistency" between the wording of the Migration Act and Australia's migration regulations, which was rejected by Justices Darryl Rangiah and Stephen Burley. "In our view no such repugnancy is demonstrated in the present case and the learned primary judge did not err in so concluding," the justices stated in their decision. The Federal Circuit Court decision from May 2024 that was appealed by Mr Zhu noted he had a Master's degree in aeronautical engineering and space vehicle guidance from Beihang University, which is closely linked to China's People's Liberation Army. Judge Gregory Egan said in 2024 the section of the Migration Act used to deny Mr Zhu a visa was also concerned with "missiles or other devices that may be capable of delivering" weapons of mass destruction. Queensland University of Technology's then pro-vice-chancellor for graduate research Helen Klaebe wrote to Home Affairs in June 2020 to deny Mr Zhu's research was related to weapons of mass destruction. "His research concentrates on decision-making theory and aims to develop an efficient system that uses three or four drones for civilian application scenarios in search for injured person in an indoor clutter environment during search and rescue mission," Professor Klaebe stated. "With the help of this system, a rescue team in Australia can precisely and quickly locate a person needing help inside a building in critical situations such as earthquakes and fires, without risking the life of a rescue team and reducing the time needed to find an injured person." Prof Klaebe said Mr Zhu would be working with drones weighing less than two kilograms that were equivalent to models widely available to the public. The Australian government's science agency CSIRO had offered Mr Zhu a two-year scholarship worth $37,596 a year, awarded from its Data61 unit that focuses on AI, robotics and cybersecurity. Queensland University of Technology's website lists Mr Zhu as a current PhD candidate at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The website states Mr Zhu works with two other academics and a CSIRO staff member.
West Australian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Free speech fight reignites as sparks fly in Australian politics
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. Last term, the Opposition constantly hammered the Government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a Sky interview that the legislation the Government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First, to the Burke admission. Burke said he had 'a lot of resources' dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But 'no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation.' For a long time, the Government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court. But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They can however be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. According to the Home Affairs department, 300 people had been released as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated. Some 83 had only a State or Territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a State or Territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet. The Government would have been under more pressure on the issue if Parliament were sitting. But the new Parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. That government was strongly opposed to 18C, which made it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Eventually PM Abbott retreated. A disappointed Wilson tweeted: 'Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.' In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson — who had been member for Goldstein in 2016-2022 — was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the Abbott government days, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt, who'd disparaged some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of 'hate speech' associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on 'free speech.' The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. In lectures, Haddad made highly derogatory comments about Jews. Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures 'were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.' Reflecting on the decision, George Brandis — who was attorney-general during the 18C furore — says, 'My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.' Wilson doesn't wish to re-enter the debate. The new Opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is 'my portfolio responsibilities'. It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
The Advertiser
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
How two once hot-button issues this week barely sparked media and political interest
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
