Will the Coalition oppose the government’s hate speech laws? | 7.30

Key Concepts

• Anti-Semitism & Violent Extremism: The primary impetus for the proposed legislation, stemming from increased incidents following the Israel-Gaza conflict and culminating in the Bondi attack.
• Omnibus Bill: The government’s proposed legislation combining anti-hate speech measures with gun law reforms.
• Free Speech vs. Incitement: The central debate surrounding the criminalization of hate speech, with concerns about potential overreach and impact on legitimate expression.
• Gun Law Reform: Proposed changes including increased scrutiny of firearm buyers and a national gun buyback scheme.
• Coalition Dynamics: The internal tensions within the Liberal-National coalition regarding the bill, particularly between libertarian/conservative factions and the National Party’s concerns about rural constituents.
• Royal Commission: The ongoing Royal Commission into the Bondi Beach terror attack and the argument for delaying legislation until its findings are released.

Parliamentary Response to the Bondi Attack & Proposed Legislation

Following the Bondi Junction attack, the Opposition Leader immediately called for Parliament to be recalled to pass legislation addressing anti-Semitism and violent extremism, stating, “We demand that the parliament is recalled to pass legislation to eradicate anti-semitism and counter violent extremism. That can happen as early as next week.” This call was repeatedly made, with criticism leveled at the government for not reconvening Parliament before Christmas, contrasting it with the actions of the New South Wales Parliament.

However, as a parliamentary committee examined the government’s proposed anti-hate speech changes, the Opposition began to express reservations, questioning the need for immediate passage and suggesting a more deliberate approach: “Is it better that we try and take our time to get the elements of the legislation that um need fixing now right instead of just passing it as is?” Senior Liberals are now leaning towards opposing the bill when Parliament reconvenes, despite the potential for accusations of political hypocrisy. The government countered this stance, arguing that delaying action would undermine their commitment to addressing the issue, stating, “For everyone who's made a speech or everyone who's uh sought to say that the government hasn't done enough, well, those words will be very hollow if the Liberal Party doesn't come in and support us.”

Two Key Headaches for the Opposition

The government’s omnibus bill presents two significant challenges for the Opposition. Firstly, the inclusion of gun law changes, specifically increased scrutiny of firearm buyers, risks alienating the National Party and its base of support. Concerns were voiced by those representing rural communities: “We're lawabiding farmers. We haven't done anything wrong and um it they I don't think they'll tolerate us if we started voting for greater regulations on how people live out here. What problem are we trying to solve here? Taking guns off law-abiding citizens is not the appropriate response.”

Secondly, the proposed criminalization of incitement of hate is viewed by libertarian and conservative factions within the Coalition as an infringement on free speech. This was described as “The biggest attack on free speech since Robert Menses tried to ban the Communist Party in in the 1950s.” Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has already declared his opposition, stating, “From the top, I'll be voting no to this bill. I'll be voting against it for two main reasons. The first is this bill is an attack on our basic democratic freedoms. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.” He also criticized the rushed nature of the legislation, arguing that waiting for the Royal Commission’s report would be prudent.

Potential for Alternative Arrangements & Greens Support

The Liberal Party’s resistance to the bill could prompt the government to seek an alternative deal with the Greens. This would likely involve expanding the bill’s protections to include groups beyond those currently covered, such as Muslims, with a focus on Islamophobia and the vilification of religion: “This is something that we've raised in the past that we would like Islamophobia to be added and the vilification against uh the vilification vilification against religion to be included as part of the bill.” The Greens indicated willingness to consider extending the bill’s scope further once initial protections are established: “Once we get those bills through, of course, we would be open to considering an extension of the details of that bill to other areas of of hatred.”

Expert Opinion & Historical Context

Former Home Affairs Chief Mike Bazulo emphasized the significance of the proposed reforms, stating, “It's the most consequential change in this area of law since 9/11,” and argued for their timely implementation, questioning why similar measures weren’t pursued earlier when anti-Semitism was already rising: “I would argue some of them were important things we needed to do two years ago… But they're also important 2 and 1/2 years ago. Why weren't they pursued then?”

National Party Concerns & Coalition Unity

In an interview with 7:30, former Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack articulated the National Party’s concerns. He criticized the bill’s structure as an “omnibus bill” combining unrelated issues (gun reform and hate speech) and the rushed timeline for debate: “You can't roll those two in together because they really need to be separate and they need to be debated separately… we're expected to make nationally significant reform in just two days.” He highlighted the lack of thorough public consultation and parliamentary process, contrasting it with previous significant reforms like the Marbo decision, same-sex marriage legislation, and the Voice referendum.

McCormack also raised concerns about the potential impact on law-abiding citizens, particularly farmers and recreational shooters, regarding the gun law provisions: “Guns don't kill people. It's people with murderous intent and hatred in their hearts who killed people.” He questioned whether the legislation could inadvertently criminalize legitimate criticism of government policy. He acknowledged the possibility of the National Party voting differently from the Liberal Party on the bill, but expressed reluctance to fracture the Coalition, referencing a previous unsuccessful attempt to do so.

Conclusion

The government’s proposed anti-hate speech and gun law reforms are facing significant opposition within the Coalition, driven by concerns about free speech, the impact on rural communities, and the rushed legislative process. The bill’s structure as an omnibus bill exacerbates these tensions. The potential for the government to seek support from the Greens by expanding the bill’s protections raises further complexities. The situation highlights the delicate balance between addressing urgent security concerns and upholding fundamental democratic principles, and the challenges of maintaining Coalition unity in the face of deeply held ideological differences. The outcome of the parliamentary debate will likely shape Australia’s approach to combating hate speech and regulating firearms for years to come.