Labor’s outrageous omnibus bill, Combatting Antisemitism, Hate, and Extremism Bill 2026, casually known as the WTF is this Stalinist Nightmare (2026), has been shelved.

‘We will not be proceeding with the racial vilification provisions because it’s clear that they will not have support,’ said the Prime Minister.

While we would prefer to think this is because the Labor Party happened upon a mirror and saw Joseph’s bushy moustache stuck to their upper lips, we suspect it has more to do with the Greens.

When the Greens officially withdrew their support, Labor had to split the omnibus apart.

It should be noted that there were plenty of groups and individuals looking to escalate the veil of silence. These individuals wished to expand censorship laws to cover all minorities, including LGBTQ+, women, and the disabled. What better way to win an argument than standing across from a person who cannot speak?

When the discarded entrails of the omnibus reappear as a new piece of legislation, I am willing to bet that Australians of colonial descent will be the one minority left out of the hate speech protections.

Do you imagine the government supporting a law that might jail people for defacing and/or destroying statues of Captain Cook, chanting ‘the colonies must fall’, demanding people of a certain race ‘pay the rent’, or any of the racially discriminatory language and provisions laid out in state treaties?

Exactly.

This is the problem with so-called ‘hate speech’ and ‘offence’, it is always applied politically, always used to persecute an identity group, and always employed when a government becomes frightened of losing the argument.

The existence of ‘affirmative action’ (aka deliberate discrimination based on collective guilt) shows that progressives have no business infringing on free speech because they view discrimination as a reparation.

Too many groups, activists, and political representatives view dissent, discussion, truth, and reality as hate when what they mean is inconvenience.

And of course, it goes without saying the Greens and Labor would never ban ‘from the river to the sea’ or ‘globalise the intifada’ despite these chants causing alarm and unease within the Jewish community.

One person’s fear is another person’s anti-colonial struggle.

So far, my favourite rant from Albanese is this one:

‘[The Coalition] have, up to this point of course, called for Parliament to be recalled and then opposed it. When we did it, they called for hate speech laws. When they’ve seen them, they’re now against them.

‘We want to know what their position is on these measures, because what we don’t want to happen in this Parliament is for there to be an ongoing debate or conflict.’

The Prime Minister is smart enough to know this is a bad faith comment.

Being asked to do something about Islamic terror following an attack is not a free pass to enact wishy-washy, broad-based censorship more severe than our communist neighbours.

Labor was asked to fix a small hole in the wall and instead sold the house and pocketed the profit.

Yes, the Coalition have trouble finding ideological clarity, but the people of Australia were direct in their instruction.

Labor knows what it has to do, but it can’t complete the task without losing an election and the support of its gangrenous left flank. Our rattled leader is stumbling through the headlines, wondering why he can’t catch a break. This is what happens when a Prime Minister manages PR instead of the problem.

What now? The Parliament is being recalled early next week for a special sitting, and they’ll have to vote on something.

From what we know, there will be two bills.

The first proposes to ban groups alleged to be hateful that were previously out of reach by removing the requirement that they incite violence. As The Australian reports:

‘One bill will ban hate groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and the neo-Nazis, as well give the Home Affairs Minister power to reject the visas of foreign antisemites.’

That will pass because every man and his dog has been asking Labor about Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Their stated aim is to establish a unified global caliphate governed by strict Islamic law. It has been banned in the UK, Europe, Indonesia, China, and parts of the Middle East.

The group has denied any intention of working toward a caliphate in Australia and then accused ASIO head, Mike Burgess of, ‘Islamophobic tropes painting Muslims as fifth columns in this country.’ They also said the legislation was drafted ‘after intense pressure by genocidal advocates to outlaw pro-Palestinian activism’.

A tad unlikely, given the number of keffiyehs on display in Parliament.

Representatives of the group maintain that they are neither hateful nor violent.

‘Hizb ut-Tahrir is a set of ideas rooted in Islam. Unless the government is proposing to ban Islam, you cannot ban the ideas of Hizb ut-Tahrir.’

Mike Burgess makes the point, ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir wants to test and stretch the boundaries of legality without breaking them. As with the neo-Nazis, this does not make its behaviour acceptable. I fear its anti-Israel rhetoric is fuelling and normalising wider antisemitic narratives.’

The National Socialist Network, by comparison, is friendless in the halls of media, activism, and power and so made immediate plans to shut down. In my opinion, this revealed what we all suspected, that their influence and power was vastly over-stated.

At least the new bill is less toxic to the wider community. The threat of censorship spreads fear but also empowers the snitches as it did during Covid. Some Australians have spent the week facing intimidation online. I have personally seen accounts commanding followers to screenshot and keep lists of people who criticise religion, culture, or even mention the history of caliphates so that they can be prosecuted later under the omnibus bill.

What is the goal here? I find it disturbing.

We are not saying this was the government’s intention, only that the proposed bill created an environment in which people felt they could behave in this manner. Drawing up lists of people you wish the government to punish has happened before and it never ends well.

As for the second bill on offer next week, it involves a billion-dollar gun buyback.

You heard that right. In the middle of a financial crisis, the government thinks it has a billion dollars free to buy back guns when what they were actually asked to do is find out how many more people on, or adjacent to, ASIO and security watch lists have access to weapons.

And bonus points if they fund police to start raiding criminals and securing the 260,000 illegal guns in this country.

Buying back guns at huge public cost from law-abiding farmers and recreational hunters is a fit of madness.

It might pass, however, because city voters don’t need, use, or come into contact with guns.

Those who own guns see this more as the Machete Bin Approach in that it won’t take any weapons out of the hands of a dangerous people. Terror groups are not going to line up to hand their guns in, are they?

There is a general and dumb belief amongst lawmakers that targeting criminals is scary, so it is better to legislate for a broad group of innocent people which includes the actual target. Those bystanders are used as padding for the law.

Personally, I would prefer legislation to be honest, accurate, and as small as possible.

What are your thoughts? Are you relieved that the omnibus bill is dead, or do you suspect it will be back with sharpened teeth?