The last sitting day in February extended to 18 hours as the House debated three contentious bills related to the criminalisation of “hate crimes”. With standing orders relating to the hard adjournment time of 10pm suspended, members remained in the chamber to debate the bills into the early hours of Friday morning.  

In a departure from usual process, the House agreed to defer divisions on two of the bills until the end of the committee of the whole process, allowing members to debate the proposed amendments while speeding up the division process during a particularly long sitting night.  Additionally, two more bills passed and two others were introduced in the Council – a sitting day chock-full of legislation!  

PASSED – PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FOGO RECYCLING) BILL 2024

Having passed the Council and been sent to the Legislative Assembly for concurrence during the previous sitting week, the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment (FOGO Recycling) Bill 2024 returned to the Upper House for consideration of a Lower House amendment on Thursday.  

In committee of the whole, the House agreed to the Assembly’s amendment. The bill, which originated in the Council, was then forwarded to the Governor’s assent.  

Read the full proceedings in the Hansard record. 

INTRODUCED – STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL) BILL 2025 

The Hon John Graham, in his capacity as Special Minister of State, introduced the Statute Law Amendment (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 in the House on Thursday.  

In his second reading speech, the Minister explained that the bill was designed to support the Commonwealth Government’s abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and establishment of a new Federal administrative review body, named the Administrative Review Tribunal. 

In order to ensure consistency with Commonwealth legislation, the bill would make consequential amendments to 13 State Acts and one regulation to remove references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace them with references to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It would also remove references to the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, replacing them with references to the Commonwealth Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. Minister Graham’s second reading speech can be read in full in the Hansard record. 

Following the introduction of the bill, debate was adjourned for five calendar days, according to standing order. 

INTRODUCED – TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (SYDNEY METRO GOVERNANCE) BILL 2025

Also introduced by Minister John Graham on Thursday was the Transport Administration Amendment (Sydney Metro Governance) Bill 2025. In his second reading speech, Mr Graham said the bill would introduce a new governance framework for Sydney Metro to better reflect the organisation’s emerging role in Sydney’s broader transport network. 

The bill would amend the Transport Administration Act 1988 to abolish the Sydney Metro board, providing instead for the establishment of the Sydney Metro advisory board. Consisting of three to seven members appointed by the Minister, the board would include the Transport secretary, allowing for strategic alignment with the rest of the Transport portfolio. Under proposed changes, the Chief Executive of Sydney Metro would report directly to the Minister, managing and controlling the affairs of Sydney Metro in accordance with any directions of the Minister and Transport for NSW. The Minister would also be responsible for appointing the Chief Executive.  

The bill makes consequential amendments to other provisions of the Act, reflecting the removal of the board and the changes to reporting lines for the Chief Executive. The Minister also noted that the bill includes a savings and transitional provision to ensure the current Chief Executive would remain in his role despite the changes to the governing board. Find out more about the bill in Mr Graham’s second reading speech. 

According to standing order, debate on the bill was adjourned for five calendar days following the bill’s introduction.  

PASSED – INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2025 

After passing the Legislative Assembly earlier in the week, the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 2025 passed the Council on Thursday, moved by the Hon Mark Buttigieg (on behalf of Treasurer the Hon Daniel Mookhey). 

The bill makes a series of minor amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and other related legislation to support the operation of the recently re‑established Industrial Court. It also makes a number of consequential amendments to various Acts, necessitated by the passage of the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2023. 

Amendments to the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 provide for appeals for offences under the Industrial Relations Act or the Work Health and Safety Act to be made from the Local Court to the Industrial Court. Changes to the Health Services Act 1997 will meanwhile require an arbitrator for certain disputes under the Act to be a judicial member of the Industrial Relations Commission, and inserts new considerations that the arbitrator must take into account in making certain determinations. The bill also enables the Minister to make regulations dealing with the refund or waiver of fees. It additionally provides for various savings and transitional provisions relating to several of the relevant Acts. Read more about the bill in Mr Buttigieg’s second reading speech.  

Contributions to the second reading debate were made by members of the Government, the Opposition and The Greens. Read all of the member contributions in the Hansard record here, and continued here.  

With the second reading of the bill agreed to on the voices, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole to consider amendments.  

Ms Abigail Boyd moved one amendment on behalf of The Greens, seeking to reinstate the rights of unions to prosecute breaches of the Work Health and Safety Act. The amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 5, Noes: 27).  

Read the full committee of the whole proceedings in the Hansard record. 

The bill’s third reading was agreed to on the voices before it was returned to the Legislative Assembly, ready for the Governor’s assent. 

PASSED – Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025

Also passing the Legislative Council on Thursday was the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill 2025. The bill, introduced by Minister the Hon Courtney Houssos, amends three separate Acts, in response to recent incidents of antisemitic graffiti and other criminal acts of antisemitism in NSW.  

The bill firstly amends the Crimes Act 1900, introducing an aggravated version of the offence of knowingly displaying Nazi symbols, to apply when a Nazi symbol is displayed on or near a synagogue, a Jewish school or the Sydney Jewish Museum. The aggravated offence carries a higher (doubled) maximum penalty, and graffiti is considered a public act for the purpose of the offences. Amendments provide that a statutory review of the bill be undertaken two years from commencement. 

Further, amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provide that when a crime is partially or wholly motivated by hate or prejudice, that motivation should be considered an aggravating factor when determining an offender’s sentence. An offence will be aggravated where hatred or prejudice is proved to be one of the offender’s motivations (it need not be the only motivation). Finally, the bill would amend the Graffiti Control Act 2008. Changes provide a new circumstance of aggravation for the offence of intentionally marking premises or property of another person without consent and without reasonable excuse when the premises or property that was marked is a place of worship. Read more about the bill in the Minister Houssos’s second reading speech.  

Contributions to the second reading debate were made by members of the Government, The Opposition, The Greens, The Libertarian Party, and Independent member the Hon Mark Latham. See all member contributions in the Hansard record.  

The second reading of the bill was agreed to on division (Ayes: 30/Noes: 7), with members of The Greens, the Animal Justice Party, the Libertarian Party and Independent member the Hon Mark Latham voting in the negative.  

When the House resolved into a committee of the whole… 

  • Ms Sue Higginson moved four amendments on behalf of The Greens, seeking to insert a ‘sunset clause’ which would see the new aggravated offence for displaying Nazi symbols lapse 12 months after commencement. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 28) 
  • The Hon Damien Tudehope moved fived amendments on behalf of the Opposition, seeking to extend offences to apply to all symbols of terrorist organisations. Amendments would also double the penalties for all public displays of such symbols and require offences to be dealt with on indictment (heard in a higher court). These were negatived on division (Ayes: 13/Noes: 24)
  • Ms Sue Higginson moved another three amendments on behalf of The Greens, seeking to reduce the time for review and report on the bill from two years to 12 months and allowing the review to be conducted by Portfolio Committee No. 5 – Justice and Communities instead of the Minister. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 28)
  • The Hon John Ruddick moved one amendment on behalf of the Libertarian Party, seeking to require that the effectiveness of the bill be reviewed in six months. This was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 29)
  • Ms Higginson moved two further amendments on behalf of The Greens, seeking to disallow the retroactive application of the aggravated offence to offences committed and proceedings begun before the bill’s commencement. These were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 29)
  • Ms Higginson moved one amendment, seeking to remove the provisions in the bill that relate to aggravated graffiti offences altogether. This amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 29) 

With no amendments made, the third reading of the bill was then agreed to on division (Ayes: 30/Noes: 7). Voting in the negative were members of The Greens, the Animal Justice Party, the Libertarian Party and Independent member the Hon Mark Latham.  

The bill was then returned to the Legislative Assembly, ready to be sent on for the Governor’s assent. 

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Partway through the committee of the whole process for the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025, Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council the Hon Penny Sharpe moved an instruction to the committee proposing that divisions be deferred until the conclusion of consideration of all amendments on the bill. This would vary the usual conduct of the committee, allowing members to fully debate each amendment but to speed up the division process on a particularly long sitting night. The House agreed to Ms Sharpe’s proposed instruction, with this variation to the way divisions are held used during debate of both the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 and the Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill 2025. 

Read Ms Sharpe’s instruction in full in the Hansard record. 

PASSED – Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 

The Hon Courtney Houssos also introduced the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 in the Council on Thursday evening. This bill amends two Acts, creating new offences for intentionally impeding access to places of worship, as well intimidating, harassing or threatening people as they access or leave a place of worship. It also grants police officers powers to issue move-on orders in the context of public assemblies near places of worship. 

Firstly, the bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 to insert new section 214B, making it an offence to intentionally block, impede or hinder a person accessing or leaving a place of worship; or harass, intimidate or threaten a person accessing or leaving a place of worship. The maximum penalty for both offences is a fine of up to $22,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. In her second reading speech, the Minister explained that offence would not apply in the case of industrial action, activity occurring at or outside Parliament House or an office of a member of Parliament, or activity that has the consent of the Commissioner of Police or the person in charge of the place of worship. Under new section 214C, the bill provides for review of these amendments by the Attorney General two years after commencement, with a report to be tabled in Parliament within three years of commencement. 

The bill secondly amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable police officers to issue move on directions in relation to a demonstration, protest, procession or assembly occurring in or near a place of worship. The new powers do not apply where the activity is an authorised public assembly, industrial action, occurs outside Parliament House or an office of a member of Parliament, or with the consent of the Commissioner of Police or the person in charge of the place of worship. 

Read more about the bill in the Minister’s second reading speech.  

Contributions to the second reading debate were made by members of the Government, the Opposition, The Greens, Independent member Mark Latham, the Animal Justice Party, and the Libertarian Party. Member contributions can be read in full in the Hansard record.  

The House divided on the second reading of the bill (Ayes: 28/Noes: 7), with members of The Greens, the Animal Justice Party, the Libertarian Party and Independent member the Hon Mark Latham voting in the negative.  

The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole to consider amendments, deciding partway through proceedings to defer division.  

  • Ms Sue Higginson moved one amendment on behalf of the Greens, seeking to replace the wording of ‘near’ a place of worship with ‘within 6m of an entry to a place of worship’. This was negatived on division (Ayes: 7/Noes: 26) 
  • Ms Higginson then moved four amendments on behalf of the Greens, which would clarify that an action must be done in such a way as to restrict a person’s right to practise their religion or otherwise demonstrate the action is motivated by racial or religious hatred to qualify as an offence. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 25) 
  • Ms Higginson moved two amendments, seeking to remove the broad terms “impede or hinder” from the bill, so that the offence is limited to actions that “block” a person from accessing a place of worship. These were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 23) 
  • Ms Higginson moved two amendments, which would limit offences to only apply when an action is intended to prevent a person from worshipping at the place of worship. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 24) 
  • Ms Higginson moved two amendments, seeking to omit “harass” from the offence and make it clear that a person must have an intention to intimidate or threaten a person accessing or attempting to access the place of worship. These were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 24) 
  • Ms Higginson moved one amendment, seeking to clarify that an offence is not taken to have been committed if the action relates to an apparently genuine demonstration or protest. This amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 20) 
  • Ms Higginson moved one amendment, which would revise the definition of a ‘place of worship’ to remove specific examples. This was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 22) 
  • The Hon John Ruddick moved one amendment on behalf of the Libertarian Party, seeking to exempt buildings ordinarily used for a civic purpose from the definition of a ‘place of worship’. This amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 22) 
  • Ms Sue Higginson moved one amendment on behalf of the Greens, which would insert a sunset clause seeing the new offence expire 12 months after commencement. This was negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 21) 
  • Ms Higginson moved four amendments on behalf of the Greens, seeking to require review to be conducted into all relevant provisions of the bill, not just the new offences. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 21) 
  • Ms Higginson moved four amendments on behalf of the Greens, seeking to cause the review into the relevant provisions to be undertaken by Portfolio Committee No. 5 – Justice and Communities rather than the Minister; require the committee to consider the human rights implications arising from the bill; and reduce the review and reporting timeframe from two years to 12 months. These were negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 21) 
  • Ms Higginson moved two amendments, which would strike out the bill’s changes to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act altogether. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 22)  
  • Ms Higginson moved one further amendment, seeking to limit the new police move on powers to only apply when there is an intent from a person to prevent another person from worshipping at a place of worship. This was negatived on division (Ayes: 8/Noes: 22) 
  • The Hon Damien Tudehope moved five amendments on behalf of the Opposition which would firstly insert a new section in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act requiring that a person in any public assembly must not hide their identity or disguise their appearance, including by wearing a face covering. Changes to the Summary Offences Act 1988 would require the Commissioner or Court to consider factors such as public amenity and the cost incurred by the State when determining whether to authorise a public assembly. Amendments would also enable the Police Commissioner or court, under certain conditions, to require the applicant to pay a specified amount as a condition of approval of the public assembly. These amendments were negatived on division (Ayes: 10/Noes: 20). 

With no amendments made, the bill’s third reading was agreed to on division (Ayes: 23/Noes: 6), with The Greens, the Hon Emma Hurst (Animal Justice Party), the Hon John Ruddick (Libertarian Party) and the Hon Mark Latham (Independent) voting in the negative. 

The bill was then returned to the Legislative Assembly, ready for the Governor’s assent.  

PASSED – Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill 2025

Also passing the Legislative Council on Thursday was the Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill 2025.  This bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 to make it an offence to intentionally incite racial hatred causing a person to fear harassment, intimidation, violence or for their personal safety.  

In her second reading speech, Minister the Hon Courtney Houssos explained that the bill creates an offence for publicly and intentionally inciting hatred on the grounds of race (Section 93ZAA) and establishes a statutory review provision (Section 93ZAB). To constitute an offence under Section 93ZAA, five key elements must be met. First, the conduct must be a public act, which includes speech, written material, social media posts, gestures, or the display of symbols. Second, the act must involve intentional incitement of hatred, meaning it actively encourages hatred rather than simply expressing personal dislike. Third, the incitement must be deliberate, rather than reckless or unintentional. Fourth, the incitement must be based on race, as defined in existing law, covering attributes such as colour, nationality, descent, and ethnic or ethno-religious background. Finally, under an objective fear test, a reasonable person in the targeted group must be likely to fear harassment, intimidation, violence, or for their safety. 

Other provisions in the bill clarify that incorrect assumptions about a person’s race do not constitute a defence, and it is irrelevant whether anyone was actually incited to hatred. A statutory exemption protects acts that solely involve quoting religious texts for teaching purposes. Additionally, prosecutions can only be initiated by the NSW Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, preventing private prosecutions. The bill also mandates a statutory review of the law after 12 months, with the findings to be tabled in Parliament. Read more about the bill in Minister Houssos’s second reading speech. 

During the second reading debate, contributions were made by members of the Opposition, the Legalise Cannabis Party, the Libertarian Party, the Government, The Greens, the Animal Justice Party, and Independent members the Hon Mark Latham and the Hon Tania Mihailuk. Read all member contributions in the Hansard record.  

The House divided on the second reading of the bill (Ayes: 20/Noes: 9) with members of The Greens, the Animal Justice Party, the Libertarian Party, the Legalise Cannabis Party and Independent members the Hon Mark Latham and the Hon Tania Mihailuk voting in the negative. The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole to consider proposed amendments. 

  • One amendment was moved by Ms Sue Higginson on behalf of The Greens which sought to remove the proposed exemption for offences committed by directly quoting or referencing a religious text. This amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 5/Noes: 23) 
  • One further amendment was moved by Ms Sue Higginson on behalf of The Greens which sought to add a sunset clause to the new offence, 12 months after its commencement. This amendment was negatived on division (Ayes: 9/Noes: 19) 
  • One amendment was moved by Ms Sue Higginson on behalf of The Greens which sought to include a review of the new clause by Portfolio Committee No. 5, Justice and Communities. This amendment was agreed to on division (Ayes: 18/10) 
  • One amendment was moved by the Hon Tania Mihailuk (Independent) which sought to extend exemptions under the Act to ‘discussions’ as well as ‘religious teachings’. This amendment was agreed to on division (Ayes: 18/Noes: 10) 
  • One amendment was moved by the Hon Damien Tudehope on behalf of the Opposition which sought to add a sunset clause to the new offence, 3 years after its commencement. This amendment was agreed to on division (Ayes: 18/Noes: 10) 

Read the full committee of the whole proceedings in the Hansard record. 

The House divided on the third reading of the bill (Ayes: 18/Noes: 10) with members of the Greens, the Animal Justice Party, the Libertarian Party, the Legalise Cannabis Party and Independent members the Hon Mark Latham and the Hon Tania Mihailuk voting in the negative. The bill as amended was then forwarded on to the Legislative Assembly for consideration of the changes. 

GENERAL MOTIONS

The following motions were agreed to without debate, during the morning’s formal business: 

PAPERS

Among the documents tabled and reported on Thursday were: 

2 thoughts on “In The House – Thursday 20 February 2025”

  1. Pingback: In the House – Tuesday 3 June 2025 – The House in Review
  2. Pingback: In the House – Tuesday 18 March 2024 – The House in Review

Leave a Reply