Ahhhh, you can always count on Sussan Ley to take an actual issue deserving of further inspection and then take it to the lowest dominator possible. She does it here with this question:

In October 2019 the now Attorney General said in this place, and I quote, ‘Labor’s opposition to mandatory sentencing is well known. It is no secret. It is spelled out in our national platform. Let me be clear, we do not support mandatory sentencing’ with this in mind, and having been steamrolled by the Prime Minister on a bill that passed the House last week, can the Attorney General please detail the benefits of mandatory sentencing, which he now strongly supports?

Now Labor amending the hate speech law to include minimum mandatory sentencing, which goes against the Labor platform and takes away powers from the courts and the use of discretion for those who have the facts of a case, is an issue deserving of more attention. But like this? Cheap political points cheapen politics.

Mark Dreyfus starts by taking some political shots of his own, before moving on:

The Liberals are still baying and shouting and talking while this government acts on anti-Semitism. We have legislated to ban the Nazi salute and hate symbols. We have legislated to criminalise the glorifying of terrorist acts and possessing violent extremist material. We’ve legislated to criminalise doxing. Those opposite voted against that, and now the parliament has come together to pass a bill which criminalises hate speech.

It’s legislation that represents the toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes. The legislation is a direct response to the hateful conduct happening on our streets, at our schools and our in our communities. We’re sending a clear and unambiguous message that advocating or threatening violence is not acceptable. It is criminal behavior order, and it will be treated as such.

We want all Australians to feel safe and valued in our community, and that’s what good governments do.

(Getting ahead of a point of order on relevance, Dreyfus is asked to stay relevant and so moves on to this part of his speech)

In the past few months, I’ve stood in the shadow of the main gate at the Auschwitz death camp. I’ve stood on the field where a music festival in Israel was turned into a blood bath, and I’ve stood in the ruins of a burnt out synagogue in my hometown, but those often opposite, have taken every opportunity since the 7th of October 2023 to politicize the trauma and the experiences of the Jewish people.

What a I do not need the leader of the opposition or any of those opposite to tell me what anti-Semitism is or how seriously I should take it.

Michael Sukkar then moves that Dreyfus ‘no longer be heard’ which is another political move to shut down speech.

It won’t work, as the government has the numbers in the house, but it cuts the momentum of the speech and also cuts any potential grabs the 6 o’clock news would have used this evening.