What happened Sunday 26 May 2024
With that, we’ll end our live coverage of the day’s news.
Here’s a summary of the main news developments:
The federal Greens leader, Adam Bandt, has dodged questions about whether his party supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. His position prompted criticism from the Albanese government, with the assistant foreign minister, Tim Watts, saying “despite all their slogans about the war, the Greens have nothing of substance to say about ending the cycle of violence and achieving lasting peace”.
Meanwhile, the federal government has spoken about its planned laws against hate speech, against the backdrop of fears of rising levels of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
The Queensland government has announced a six-month trial of charging just 50c for all public transport trips in the state, regardless of trip length, in an ambitious move aimed at getting more commuters off roads and giving cost-of-living relief before the October state election.
The federal government has launched a $40m sexual consent campaign to combat “confusion”, hoping parents will educate themselves so they can teach their children “to have safe, healthy relationships”.
A Queensland police officer has shared a sexist post on social media weeks after receiving “formal guidance” for engaging with lewd and offensive Facebook content.
Thanks for following along. Have a pleasant evening.
Updated
Government’s hate speech penalties still unclear
Let’s return to comments we brought you earlier from the communications minister, Michelle Rowland.
Rowland confirmed the government was working on legislation against hate speech, but declined to outline what penalties would apply because it remained an “active discussion” within the government.
The Sky News political editor, Andrew Clennell, asked the following hypothetical:
That incident outside the Opera House where people are yelling, ‘F the Jews’ – would that be subject to this sort of charge potentially?
Rowland replied:
Potentially – because if that satisfied the criteria for hate speech, then this would operate in any scenario.
The answer appears to be circular and non-definitive, because it hinges on the criteria to be defined in the yet-to-be-released legislation.
Updated
