The bill to reform counter-speech laws and gun control legislation in Australia has sparked a major controversy. Coalition parties have become painfully divided over the proposed changes. Senior Liberal figures such as former Deputy PM Sussan Ley have signalled real alarm. That’s because they don’t want the proposed bills to not address the most pressing concerns, such as antisemitism and radical extremism. In our campaign Against Power Outages, as the renewable energy debate intensifies, Deputy PM Michael McCormack has pointed to increasing opposition within the Nationals to the bill. With this legislative effort stretching over 500 pages and not mentioning “radical Islam” a single time, perhaps that’s too far-reaching.
These proposed changes have received disapproving responses from both sides of the aisle and from advocacy organizations. Jewish Australian organizations have overwhelmingly welcomed the government’s approach. They continue to worry about the possibility of creating specific exemptions for quoting religious texts in classrooms. As these discussions develop, it is still not certain how the Coalition will position itself ahead of the vote next week.
Internal Divisions Within the Coalition
The Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack, suggested the bill wouldn’t succeed. He described the bill as being rushed through the parliamentary process, stating, “This is being rushed through as an omnibus bill, and we’re expected to vote and make the changes in just two days. That is not enough time.” McCormack was making the bigger point—arguing that the massive upheaval threatens to violate everyone’s First Amendment rights.
Additionally, Ley blasted the legislation for its lack of clarity to explicitly define terms related to hate speech. She observed, “There are over 500 pages of legislation and not one time does the term radical Islam appear. If the prime minister does not know the problem, he can’t solve it. Ley’s sentiments found allies among other senior Liberal figures such as Angus Taylor and Paul Scarr. Strangely—and perhaps predictably—the bill’s authors dismissed the bill’s ability to curb free speech as a point of contention.
As these discussions unfold, Liberal sources revealed that concerns regarding the inciting hatred offense have spread from backbenchers to senior shadow ministers following Labor’s initial draft presentation. This very shift reflects a deepening concern within the party about some of the potential consequences of changing everything that they’re proposing to change.
Responses from Jewish Organizations and Political Leaders
An overwhelming majority of Australian Jewish organizations have come together to support the government’s planned legislation to prevent racial hatred. This enthusiastic support continues despite still-heated controversy on the Coalition’s inside. Racial justice organizations and LGBTQ advocates have recently called attention to one provision that would allow charter schools exemptions from quoting religious texts during teaching or discussion. This loose definition of hate speech in the legislation could have dangerous and unintended impacts on free speech.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was outraged, declaring the incident “totally unacceptable.” He was flabbergasted that the Coalition had withdrawn their support for the omnibus bill. He remarked, “They’re still playing politics, and I’m just stunned that they are saying they will vote against legislation, a number of their members, without even looking at it.” Albanese’s remarks highlight his anger at a lack of bipartisan cooperation across the aisle when it comes to combatting the most salient social issues of our time.
In response to these changes, Tim Wilson, Field’s Director of Policy and Research, expressed his fears about the bill’s punitive thresholds and enforcement intent. He stated, “We need courage and leadership to get the law right because freedom is rarely recovered once lost.” Wilson’s remarks express a growing fear among some legislators who feel the need to protect their democratic liberties from a wave of introduced authoritarianism.
Political Implications and Future Considerations
Yet as the debate heats up, opponents like Andrew Hastie have already made clear their willingness to publicly speak out against the legislation. Hastie stated, “This bill is an attack on our basic democratic freedoms,” reiterating concerns that it would not effectively combat antisemitism or radical Islamic extremism.
Sussan Ley’s convening of a Liberal leadership meeting highlights growing apprehension about Labor’s approach to these critical issues. Ley is the first to admit that the proposed legislation doesn’t go far enough to combat antisemitism, radical extremism and hate in general. Her position reflects the concerns of lots of members of her party that all the backroom dealing might trump substantial legislative change.
Appropriations the Greens have not officially announced their positions on the bill. When expanding protections against incitement to hatred, they have supported including minority groups. With input often coming from a range of industry stakeholders, this changing environment means more discussions between parties will likely be needed to reach agreement.
