What Happens When “Promoting Hatred” Becomes A Crime - Professor Ben Saul UN Special Rapporteur

We sit down with Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, to unpack Australia’s post-crisis push for tougher hate and extremism laws and what that signals for democratic debate. We dig into where international human rights law draws the line on speech and why vague drafting and executive power can chill legitimate political criticism while failing to stop real violence. 

• Australia’s lack of a federal Bill of Rights and why that leaves freedoms exposed 
• what a UN Special Rapporteur does and how counterterrorism is meant to protect rights 
• how the ICCPR treats freedom of expression and when limits can be lawful 
• incitement to violence versus “glorification” and why the boundary matters 
• problems with criminalising “promoting hatred” rather than inciting hatred 
• the danger of subjective “fear” standards in a plural society 
• religious texts and why religion should not shield incitement 
• prohibited hate groups, ministerial discretion, procedural fairness and weak avenues to challenge listings 
• why bans can push extremists underground and create a chilling effect 

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. 
If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. 
If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.

Transcript

Welcome And Why This Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for uncensored conversations and free speech news from New Zealand and beyond.

SPEAKER_01 0:16

I am your host, Dane Giroud, Councilmember of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. And joining me today is Professor Ben Saul from the University of Sydney, uh, and who is also a uh UN Special Reporteur. That's correct, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 0:32

That's right.

SPEAKER_01 0:34

Great to have you with us. Uh great to be with you. So I wanted to talk to you, Ben, because I uh found a very interesting, uh, well, very compelling document that you produced, only five pages long, probably a reflection of the uh speed that you had to work at uh that was uh pushing back on the combating anti-Semitism, hate and extremism bill, which was basically the the package of hate speech laws that the Albanese government was pushing through post-the-Bondide tragedy. That's correct, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 1:09

Uh that's right. So obviously the Bondi tragedy was uh a terrible terrorist attack on the Jewish community here in Australia, and uh politicians uh obviously wanted to respond and to be seen to be uh cracking down on uh any potential uh sources of uh of that kind of terrorism or or radicalization. Uh so there was a federal government uh bill. It was long, over 130 pages. Um, and that's in addition to a lot of other measures being taken at the level of our state governments, uh also to restrict freedom of expression and the freedom to protest uh as well.

SPEAKER_01 1:50

Yeah, it's it's quite alarming, really. I I was born in Australia. I've been away from Australia for a long time. My father was there on visit. I was quite surprised to learn that how sensorial Australia has become. Uh, culturally, what would you put that down to if you you wanted to feed into that or comment on that?

The Risk Of No Bill Of Rights

SPEAKER_02 2:10

Certainly, there's a a kind of rising populism here in Australia at the moment uh that was really accelerated, uh, I guess, by the Bondi terrorist attack, the you know, the worst uh attack we've had here on Australian soil. And so uh that coupled with uh the war in Gaza and all kinds of political and social division over that has made all of this a very hot, uh, hot issue uh at the moment. Uh structurally, Australia doesn't have a bill of rights in its constitution or at the legislative level. Uh, so it also means that fundamental rights and freedoms are very vulnerable to uh political erosion when these kinds of security emergencies happen uh and politicians can too readily get carried away and be tempted to adopt uh unnecessary and disproportionate responses. Now that's fascinating.

SPEAKER_01 3:10

I didn't realize that. So no bill of rights.

SPEAKER_02 3:12

That's right. We we've got some very, very limited rights in the constitution. Uh a high court, for example, has implied uh freedom of political communication into the constitution, but that's much more limited than the human right to free speech recognized under uh international law. And there are very few other rights in the constitution. So uh it really does depend upon the the whims of the government of the day as to how far uh they will protect the rights of people in Australia.

SPEAKER_01 3:45

Fascinating and pretty frightening, I've got to say.

SPEAKER_02 3:49

That's right. Um it has been a campaign for a Bill of Rights for a very long time, uh, but uh unfortunately the you know, both sides of politics, uh uh, at least federally, have not been keen to go down that path because they would obviously see it as limiting their power to legislate uh, you know, based on whatever uh popular mandate they they think they have. Um it's a little bit different at the state level. So SAR, an increasing number of the states have adopted uh bills of statutory bills of rights at the state level. And that has been making a difference in in some states, but still at the federal level, where we're missing one.

What A UN Special Rapporteur Does

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Wow. So so you're a UN special reporteur. So could you just explain what that is?

SPEAKER_02 4:36

So uh uh United Nations Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the member states uh of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Uh, we have a mandate ultimately driving from the United Nations Charter to monitor and provide advice to states uh about complying with international human rights law in our different areas of competence. Now, I'm the special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, so my focus is on uh ensuring that states respect uh the full range of human rights uh while countering terrorism. That means in their laws, policing, border security, intelligence, and military operations, uh measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. So it's a pretty broad remit, and in part that's because the United Nations Security Council, since uh the terrorist attacks of 9-11, have required all countries to take certain measures to uh prevent and counter terrorism.

Free Speech Under International Law

SPEAKER_01 5:39

Interesting. So what does the UN say about free speech? I mean, I've read it in the charter. It'd be good to hear it from you because what I find fascinating about that is uh if you look at the UK, uh there there was a case a few years ago where uh a young man was arrested for calling uh a policeman's horse gay. In New Zealand, I don't think we we do have some hate speech laws uh on the books, but um I think the last one uh uh the last time anyone was arrested, it it was to do with the Vietnam War or something like that. It's we just don't have a culture of arrest here. Um so what does the the what does the UN say and can they even really enforce it? I mean, would they have a problem with the UK? Do they think the UK is going too far? Has there ever been talk about that at that level?

SPEAKER_02 6:30

So under uh international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights uh way back in 1948 and the the current kind of key treaty, which is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which most countries are parties to, uh, there's a a very extensive right to freedom of expression. Um, it prote it requires governments to uh themselves not interfere in free speech, uh, uh, but also to protect uh people in society from uh private interferences in in free speech uh as well. Political speech gets a very high level of protection. Uh, but like most human rights, free speech is not, of course, it's not absolute. It can be subject to uh necessary and proportionate limitations in a democratic society. And the uh international law gives uh some key reasons why speech might be restricted. So uh on grounds of national security or public safety, public order, uh, and critically also to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Uh so international law doesn't protect uh hate speech, which incites violence uh or hatred or uh discrimination against other groups on the basis of their uh ethnic ethnicity, nationality, religion, uh, etc. Um, but as we know, there are there are you know other kinds of accepted limits on free speech, defamation law, for example, you know, protects the right to reputation of other people in in certain circumstances. So there's a whole lot of jurisprudence and and case law on how you interpret all of that and what the limits are. And certainly uh there are real difficulties at the margins, particularly when it comes to deciding what kind of speech or expression uh should be limited or should be permitted in the context of uh preventing terrorism, uh preventing people saying radical things which uh might lead to violence against others.

SPEAKER_01 8:36

Yeah, see, because what I find fascinating about that, and I could be just showing my ignorance and do call it out if if um you you feel the need to, but uh like in Germany, the the SS in the rock band KISS was actually banned. Their t-shirts were banned because the the the two S's were too similar to the you know, the SS, the Nazi SS. Is that I mean, that seems very extreme. How would they get away with something like that?

Incitement Versus Glorification Debates

SPEAKER_02 9:02

Yeah, look, I'm I'm not familiar with that case and uh would need to look uh more closely at the circumstances, but uh certainly in Germany there's uh uh an under understandably heightened sensitivity to any kind of symbols or expression associated with Nazism because of because of Germany's history. And even the European Court of Human Rights has upheld restrictions in certain European countries uh on, for example, denial of the Holocaust, you know, denial that it happened or denial of the, you know, its its scale and and so on. And uh ordinarily, of course, we we wouldn't accept restrictions uh on discussion of historical matters, uh, but because of the uh you know very peculiar characteristics of of the Holocaust, uh, that has been seen as uh as permissible. Where it's difficult uh these days is that uh international law uh uh accepts that uh you can limit speech that incites violence. So if a person uh intends their speech to lead to the commission of violence or terrorism by others, and if it's likely in the circumstances that violence would result. Uh like I said, it's it's also permissible to limit uh hate speech in in certain circumstances. But the the big debate in counterterrorism over the last 20, 25 years is whether it's also permissible to go beyond those accepted categories and uh also limit speech, which uh, for example, praises terrorists or terrorist acts, uh glorifies terrorist organizations, uh, promotes the uh ideologies or of terrorist groups in circumstances where uh that kind of speech is not directly inciting violence or is not hate speech in the way we've we've usually understood it. So can you, for example, say Osama bin Laden was a was a great guy? Now, that's not me, that's not me telling anybody to go and commit terrorism. That's not expressing hate speech against a particular group. Uh, but some people in a in a pathway towards radicalization or uh who are vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organizations, uh, some governments would say uh speech like that is uh is a is a step in kind of plowing the field towards eventual recruitment, radicalization, uh, etc. And there's a whole lot of speech um uh in that uh in that category. There was one, you know, just today here in Australia where uh there's a debate about uh a number of um uh organizations in Australia who've posted tributes to the uh recently killed uh Ayatollah of Iran. Uh, you know, they're mourning his death. Now, uh, you know, is that promoting terrorism? You know, if you if you mourn the death of a person who allegedly was supporting Hezbollah and sponsoring terrorist attacks against uh uh other peoples and countries, um, is that something which should be banned? Is that uh is that a kind of glorification of violence or or terrorism?

SPEAKER_01 12:22

Yeah, I'd be very concerned about that. I'd be very concerned because I don't think you're gonna be addressing the underlying support. You're just gonna be driving it underground and maybe making the problem harder to identify in within your society. And also I can see it being misused at some point. I can see people in power with a wrong type of government singling out uh legitimate political voices at some point. I don't know how you'd wade through that. It would be it there's a level of subjectivity there that I think is extremely problematic.

SPEAKER_02 13:01

Well, I think that's right. I mean, it it certainly doesn't fit in the, you know, within the accepted limitations on speech under uh traditional human rights law. But these are the kinds of cases where some governments are uh trying to push the boundaries. I mean, Australia is not proposing to ban that kind of activity.

SPEAKER_01 13:19

Um But but some of these conversations are happening.

SPEAKER_02 13:22

Exactly. And and some you know, some Jewish groups in Australia have said these people should be investigated for uh support for a terrorist organization, for example, because uh parts of the Iranian regime, so the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, uh earlier this year were listed by the Australian government under a legal process as state sponsors of terrorism. So some are are suggesting that this kind of sympathy for the ayatollah is uh is support for a state sponsor of terrorism.

SPEAKER_01 13:54

I think surveillance could be justified, but maybe speech suppression is could be harder to justify.

SPEAKER_02 14:02

Um Yeah, I th I think um uh it's it's absolutely always a concern. Whenever you restrict speech, whether whether whether or not it's lawful under human rights law, there's a separate question whether doing that is counterproductive, right? Uh I mean Australia recently banned uh neo-Nazi groups under the new federal law uh uh that you mentioned. Um, and one argument against that is of course it, you know, they're not going to disappear, they're just gonna go uh underground and become more difficult to detect and to keep tabs on, and that could make them ultimately more dangerous uh in uh in organizing violence. Um, you know, the flip side, of course, is well, do you really want neo-Nazis running around as lawful organizations and being able to spout you know all of that ideology publicly, uh, which then runs the real risk of uh recruiting and radicalizing lots of other people who see that kind of stuff on the on the internet. Um and and certainly Australia, you know, has has absolutely had a uh a rising neo-Nazi problem in in recent times.

SPEAKER_01 15:15

Never caught on here. We just don't really have a lot of movements like that. They're very, very small. Very, very small.

SPEAKER_02 15:22

Unfortunately, in in your uh uh Christchurch attack, uh it was uh it was an Australian who who brought that uh ideology to your shores.

The Bill And The “Promoting Hatred” Problem

SPEAKER_01 15:32

Yeah, well it was a yeah, it was a real shame. Um okay, well, look, um, this is this is good stuff, but I know that we are we do have a a time limit. Uh I think we could talk all day. So I'll I'll get to your uh submission. So this was a submission against the combating anti-Semitism, hate, and extremism bill. I think there's some interesting points here that I'd just like to talk through, which I think are quite interesting. So it starts with you saying there's the use of promoting hatred instead of inciting hatred. So what were you thinking there?

SPEAKER_02 16:08

Yeah, so uh uh essentially the the federal government was proposing uh a new offense uh of uh racial hatred, basically. Uh at the moment, under Australian law, there uh is a um uh uh uh that there's a there are provisions against hate speech, but they require complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Uh there's then a civil uh cause of action, uh, but it's not uh it doesn't involve a criminal offense. So this was an attempt, and this has been talked about for a very long time, uh, the the need to create a criminal offense of hate speech. Uh but in the end, although the government proposed this, uh there was sufficient opposition uh in the parliament uh so that this offense actually never got adopted. So we're we're in that sense back to back to square one. Personally, I think uh um uh a sufficiently narrowly defined criminal uh hate speech offense would be a positive thing uh in Australia, but the way this offense was drafted was was uh was not great. Um uh so you know uh under human rights law we would say uh hate speech should involve uh incitement to violence and hatred. Uh whereas uh this in, as you mentioned, this uh offense included merely promoting hatred, which in the explanatory notes the Gelfman said uh includes conduct that uh somehow endorses, advocates um uh hatred, even if it doesn't directly incite other people to act. So it's it's like I was uh saying before, it's it's kind of speech which lays the groundwork for hatred, but is not itself inciting violence or or hatred. Um so I uh we we uh I thought that was that was too broad. It's not consistent with um the mainstream approach in uh in international uh human rights law. Um uh and uh uh these terms like promotion are are really vague and overbroad and don't know what it's going to capture.

SPEAKER_01 18:26

No, we we don't. It could be what it's one of those situations where you could be arrested for something you said, but not quite not know yourself whether you'd committed the crime. I think that to me is a really good sign of when these things aren't going well. It's like a burglar knows they burgled, you could be saying all sorts of things and and not knowing where you you broke the law. And no one involved may know until the the gavel comes down at the end of the case.

SPEAKER_02 18:55

Um Well, the other, I mean the other problem in this uh proposed defense was that it it also referred to um speech which creates a fear of harassment or a fear uh for personal safety uh in others, but in a way which uh involved a kind of an an element of uh a subjective standard. So uh the test in part was what uh the person hearing the message would feel, as opposed to whether uh there was objectively uh uh uh harassment or uh uh a concern for safety. Um uh so in a you know in a very diverse plural society like Australia, with people from you know 160 plus countries and many more subnational groups than that, um, you know, how can an ordinary person uh in Australia possibly know how people from you know every other uh social group in Australia might feel about something they say? Uh it just becomes uh, I think an unworkable and ultimately an unfair standard uh for people to be judged by.

Subjective Fear Tests And Political Speech

SPEAKER_01 20:06

Well, even within a community, uh there's a lot of diversity there. Like I was gonna say about the neo-Nazis, uh, when I'm on X, I I do get some traffic from people like that. I am inclined to engage with them actually, um, in the hope that some back and forth and humanization may do some work of deradicalization. I'm probably a little hardier. Not everyone's gonna want to do that. So even there, I'm not subjectively, I'm not gonna feel the fear maybe some other people might.

SPEAKER_02 20:39

So it's a bit of you think about some of the examples in recent public debates uh over the you know the the conflict in Palestine. Uh, you know, parts of the Australian community have said if if people accuse Israel of genocide, we interpret that as anti-Semitic commentary. We uh that makes us uh fearful as as Jewish Australians, uh, you know, people criticizing uh war crimes by the the by the Israeli state. And uh, you know, so if you take that approach, uh, you know, potentially these kinds of offenses, if uh interpreted in that subjective way, uh, could lead to entirely legitimate criticism of foreign policy, uh of policies of foreign governments uh being captured by hate speech provisions.

SPEAKER_01 21:26

Well, the other thing is with that, uh I don't believe there's a genocide, but if someone does, say I was correct, right? Um, and and someone else was not correct, but they were using the term, it might not be used maliciously. They might just be wrong. You know what I mean? I don't think people should be criminalized for being wrong.

SPEAKER_02 21:45

Well, that's right. And that goes to the fundamental point that uh the right to freedom of expression uh protects all kinds of speech, not just that which is true or or or accurate or substantiated by evidence. Uh Unfortunately, we we do live in a world of misinformation and disinformation and propaganda and uh but that's you know that's the nature of living in a in a democracy. You shouldn't ban it unless it's inciting violence or hate speech.

When Religious Texts Become A Shield

SPEAKER_01 22:14

It yeah, it's gotta hit that level for me. It's gotta be clear, uh very clear incitement, I think, to be banned because yeah, truth isn't a defense and that that becomes super problematic. So so moving on to the subject. So we covered the subjective um uh standard there too. Now, this is an interesting one. Uh I wonder if you had a bit of blowback on this. Religious text defense. You wanted to delete the defense allowing religious texts if they incite racial hatred. Religion should not shield incitement. That's a very strong stance. Now, my what I I'm an absolutist pretty much for free speech, but I will I I do want to commend you on this because this is an absurdity that a lot of people who are pro-free uh hate speech sort of run into and don't really account for. And you seem to be accounting for that. So how did you come upon that? What was your thinking behind that?

SPEAKER_02 23:18

Well, it's it's obviously a tricky one because it involves balancing competing human rights to freedom of speech on the one hand and freedom of religion on the other. Uh, but for me, in a you know, in a in a plural society where you have people from you know all different kinds of faiths living together, uh, you certainly shouldn't tolerate speech which uh invokes religion to incite hatred against other people or groups in society. I think that that's gotta be a uh a hard public policy limit for uh for any country. Um uh you know, even definitions of terrorism um uh uh uh uh make criminal offenses out of violence, which is inspired by religion. And in in the same way, if hate speech is is uh inspired by religion, then we we absolutely shouldn't tolerate that.

SPEAKER_01 24:18

So so what happened in the end with this? This didn't go through, is that right? Or or this in the end this didn't go through?

SPEAKER_02 24:25

Well, so the the whole offense didn't go through. And so yeah, the exceptions, defenses, qualifications, the the no none of these are on the the statute books uh at uh at the moment either.

Banning Hate Groups And Minister Power

SPEAKER_01 24:37

Okay, interesting. Yeah, because I mean if if if if it is religious terrorism that's inspiring it, but you're not wanting to target, that's the violation of equality, I think that happens when when you sort of get cute with this stuff. So uh you pointing it out, I think, is a really, a really good point, even though I don't agree. Like I I wouldn't, you know, I'm an absolutist pretty much, but people don't address this, and I think they need to a lot more. Um uh you know, if something's uncomfortable on the fringes, they say, oh, we just won't think about that. Well, it sort of makes a mockery of the whole process, really, doesn't it? And that to me is where it's it's a a massive issue when you try to put these laws in because you do get that violation of equality. You know, some vo voices will be called out, some voices will not be called out, they'll get a a type of immunity. And I think that's um yeah, good of you to sort of point that out. So the prohibited hate groups is another very problematic one. So, what what were they doing thinking with that?

SPEAKER_02 25:42

So this was uh really uh prompted by the fact that for a long time Australia has had laws for banning terrorist organizations. And then last year we adopted a law to ban state sponsors of terrorism, as I mentioned, to target uh Iran. Uh, but uh, you know, based on a kind of analogy with those uh existing legal powers to ban terrorist organizations, the government wanted to uh tackle groups which it you know it called primitive hate groups, uh, who may not meet the definition of terrorist organizations because they're not actively involved in committing uh terrorist acts. But nonetheless, you know, uh again, they're kind of uh tilling the field for people to become radicalized, uh maybe one day get recruited into a terrorist organization because these are groups spouting uh racial or religious hatred, essentially. So uh really tackling on a bunch of different groups, really. I mean, in concrete terms, it was targeted at certain neo-Nazi groups who had been, you know, even rallying, showing Nazi symbols outside uh Australian parliament houses, um, uh, as well as uh uh what were perceived to be extreme uh Islamic-oriented groups like Hisbet Turier, uh, who didn't meet the criteria for a terrorist organization, because they're not involved in violence, uh, but nonetheless, whose ideas were uh seemingly inciting hatred against uh against other groups. So um uh in that sense, it was intimately connected to the hate speech offense, but could still stand apart from it. And this this was passed, so this power to ban these groups was passed, unlike the hate speech offense. Uh, and it was was based on, as I as I mentioned, um elements of the existing uh civil law against uh against hate speech. Um and it provides a process for uh a federal government minister to uh list certain groups if they've been involved in uh hate crime. Uh and the minister thinks it's reasonably necessary to ban them in order to prevent uh the continuation of uh of those kinds of hate crimes.

SPEAKER_01 28:10

So it it it went through as is, basically. So the the concerns that you had weren't addressed because there wasn't a lot of um pathways to to um to challenge if you were to say, hey, we're a motorcycle club, they say no, I'm sorry, you don't get a chance, you know, we've made our call and that's it. Uh was any of that addressed?

SPEAKER_02 28:33

So there's a a couple of problems with it. What one is the grounds for listing. So uh, you know, even if you accept uh the definition of of hate crime, which is which is not not terrible under under the law, uh, for me the the first problem was that um there's there's no requirement that the organization be substantially or regularly involved in hate crime. So potentially, you know, one member of a group uh says something hateful uh in the extreme case, that could lead to the whole group being banned. And you know, if you think of large organizations, uh including, you know, religious groups or or uh community groups, social groups, you you can have all kinds of loose canon saying things. It doesn't mean uh the organization and should be banned and uh everyone, you know, every other innocent member of the group, uh not responsible for what someone else says, uh, you know, should have their rights restricted uh along the way. Um so there's there's no kind of proportionality uh in the in the Well that feels conscious to me.

SPEAKER_01 29:35

That feels like that really feels like bullying, state bullying, really. Because what they're doing with that is saying, you know, keep your house in order because one person can get you banned. I mean, that to me is they must know that that's unfair. I mean, is that just a uh are they wanting to just just to sort of appear tough with that? I mean, it's that's that to me is state bullying, very clearly.

SPEAKER_02 30:00

Certainly the the the problem is it um uh it it just gives the minister a huge discretion. Uh I mean you you you'd hope it would be exercised responsibly and only organizations that are you know systematically spouting hate speech of a of a of a very serious kind would be would be banned. But as you say, it it it does have this uh uh very significant chilling effect and deterrent effect because nobody can really know uh you know how the power is going to be exercised when it is uh exactly so wide. Um the other um uh the other problem as you as you mentioned is the the kind of due process concern. Um uh you know, there doesn't have to be any kind of underlying criminal conviction. Um the minister expressly does not have to respect procedural fairness, uh, you know, giving people an opportunity to be heard, presenting them with the uh the evidence uh uh allegedly supporting uh the the listing. Um uh and uh although, of course, ultimately there is judicial review available uh under Australian law, um, that only goes to errors of law. It's not a uh a merits review on the substance of the grounds for listing. So there can be a a kind of uh gap there if the minister's judgment is uh is off, it's it's wide of the mark, uh, and you might not might have no real recourse to challenge that.

SPEAKER_01 31:33

I don't know why they remove any right of appeal there. Uh that seems it's very, very harsh and and very concerning in a democracy to do that. Um it feels like an emergency law that that definitely needs, you know, the right of appeal to it. Um so that's that of great concern. And that went through.

SPEAKER_02 31:57

That's right. And it's it's it's certainly, I mean, as you suggest, it's uh it's certainly a uh a wider trend in counterterrorism and national security, that uh the executive is given uh very uh severe powers to make these kinds of decisions rather than giving that that power to make the decision to a court, which you know would would be a more independent and impartial process.

Closing Thoughts And How To Connect

SPEAKER_01 32:24

If you're not a fan of the state to begin with and you're treated this way, I don't think you're being de-radicalized in a hurry. You know? I I think we have to be very careful with laws like these because we can be putting, you know, throwing fuel on the fire. It's a real concern. Um so look, we've been going 32 minutes now. Um there's more I I I would ask, but I don't want to take more of your time. So um shall we wrap it up there, Ben?

SPEAKER_02 32:50

Uh great. Thanks so much, Dane. That's uh it was a great, great conversation.

SPEAKER_01 32:54

Yeah, I'd I'd love to do it again sometime and uh check in on Australia and see um how it's all going over there because it's been quite instructive for us. So thanks again for your time, Professor Ben Saul of um University of Sydney and uh UN Special Rapporteur on Free to Speak.

SPEAKER_00 33:13

Thank you for listening to Free to Speak. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.