We may not be a party to the closed-door ideological struggles of the Liberal Party, but we do know they exist.
They have been very touchy over the omnibus bill. Sussan Ley’s leadership is almost certainly under pressure, no doubt made worse by the shadow of One Nation infringing on their duopoly status.
Real or not, this visual aid for the collapse of the Coalition must sting.
How many times have we heard disparaging comments from the Liberals over the years? Comments that imply One Nation is far-right, fringe, engaged with conspiracies, racist, not a serious party, or in some other way unworthy of public support…
Losing face to what they framed as an inferior entity hurts them more than it hurts One Nation and is almost an identical character arc to the rise of Reform.
(The Tories are now begging for a coalition they once scoffed at. How long before the Liberals buckle and suggest a Menage à Trois Ministry with Pauline Hanson?)
It is no secret that the Liberals always saw themselves as the inheritors of Menzies’ legacy.
Increasingly, they have been trading too heavily on the nostalgia of a long-dead generation rather than seeking fresh ideological and policy achievements.
Voters want conservatism, not the memory of it.
The Voice to Parliament was a test of character they barely scraped through thanks to the efforts of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Even then, it was a dogfight to the decision following far too much confusion about a simple conservative value regarding racial equality.
Labor’s Post-Bondi legislation is another chance for the people of Australia to determine the health of the Liberal Party.
This isn’t a question about the leader, those can be replaced, it is more about the bulk of the party room and how the machine of the party thinks. Does it have the moral courage to uphold freedom of speech without bowing to the rabid media mob, keen to silence conservative conversation?
Originally, it appeared the Liberals were keen to corner Labor over the terror attack, as is only right. There were obvious policy issues and security failures that led to the events of that tragic day which must be addressed in an urgent fashion. Whether that requires new legislation or a backbone to enforce existing law is another matter that has not been answered.
In wanting an inquiry or Royal Commission, the Liberals found safe ground. The trap was not to push the government hard enough on the terms of reference which have already been massaged away from radical Islamic terror and into the preferred progressive territory of hate speech. This should not be allowed, if only to prevent Labor from wasting taxpayer money on the wrong topic.
The biggest challenge for the Liberals last week was how to vote on the omnibus legislation.
They built a narrative of urgency, demanding Albanese do more fast or else it would mean the Labor Party had failed. Recalling Parliament early makes it look as though something big is being done.
In my opinion, unless it is a matter of immediate national security (such as the invasion of a foreign power or an inbound asteroid), such rushed sessions are a mistake.
The state of the legislation Labor offered up is proof of that general rule.
Massive, sprawling, dangerous, and far-reaching, it read as a leftwing wishlist with little, if any, relevance to the event it promised to address.
This has led to speculation that the legislation is not new, but rather old legislation that has been adapted and re-branded with a Bondi stamp.
Is this something written as part of the appointments of special envoys against Islamophobia and antisemitism? Or is it even older than that, dating back to the Liberal era when government was flirting with United Nations hate speech policy… If the previous Liberal government had any part in the drafting of that legislation, it will be damning. No one knows, of course, but parties such as One Nation have vowed to find out where this monstrosity came from.
Why does it matter? Well, if the omnibus bill was written for a purpose other than Bondi, voters would like to know the original intent. If it wasn’t written to stop Islamic terrorists, was it designed to shut down political communication? Even though it has been put on hold, these hate speech laws will certainly come back in one form or another. For the sake of transparency, something Labor promised when they came to office, the public should know the origin story.
Until last night, this bill was on the table. After much deliberation and a few public cries of dissent from the handful of faithful freedom-loving Coalition members, Sussan Ley finally announced that the Liberals would be voting no to the bill.
This flies contrary to the position put forward by some high-ranking members of the party.
‘Opposition frontbencher Julian Leeser has warned Liberal MPs that they are at risk of “ceding the moral high ground” if it didn’t ensure Anthony Albanese’s antisemitism laws are passed.
‘The Liberals’ most senior Jewish MP told a Friday meeting of opposition MPs that there were deep flaws in the bill and the most ideal outcome would be for more time to drastically change the reforms and come to an agreement with Labor.
‘But Liberal sources said that Mr Leeser also urged colleagues to consider what would happen if the Coalition failed to pass the laws with Labor and another terror attack targeting Jewish Australians occurred.’
The quote finishes:
‘“He said that we would cede the moral high ground and that if a further event happened, Labor would say ‘we tried to fix this and the Liberals didn’t let us,’ one MP said.”’
In my opinion, this is not good advice and thankfully, the Liberals didn’t cede any moral ground, they defended it. A rare, but worthy achievement.
Creating laws is a very serious and sober process and it should only be done if it is the best possible law, not as a best-fit for that moment.
Too many laws in recent years, particularly digital and security laws, have been passed with known problems. Parties play games with each other, bargaining over amendments and agreeing to put legislation through they don’t agree with in exchange for other bits of legislation that they can take back to their electorate. This selfish process creates a mess of law that no one really supports. The longer you watch this, the less faith you have in the Parliament.
In the example above, if another terror attack were to take place while the Parliament is in debate over these laws, it would only confirm the need for careful consideration as to what the problem truly is. In this case, many Australians believe there is a security failure and a migration policy problem, not a free speech issue.
Migration practices are not even on the table, nor is the long-called-for return to assimilation over multiculturalism.
Andrew Hastie is reported to have pointed this out.
It is also worth considering what happens in the other version of this reality where a rushed law is passed and the terror attack takes place anyway, do we keep adding bad laws? There is almost no chance of a revision or retraction, just a never-ending pile of more regulation.
Indeed, none of the draconian laws put forward in the recent decade have stopped or slowed the spread of radical Islam and I am prepared to guess this is because the legislation was written far too generally out of fear of offending people.
Penny Wong is in a similar position to Leeser. Shortly before it all went to heck for Labor, the Foreign Minister described Sussan Ley’s leadership as ‘unsalvageable’ if the Liberals failed to support Labor’s bill.
‘[Ley] continues to say this bill is unsalvageable. This is also whilst her frontbenchers are out claiming they want to work with the government, but just need more time.
‘Ms Ley has also promised alternative legislation. That’s what she said. It’s not actually clear whether anyone in her party has seen this alternative.
‘She says the legislation is unsalvageable. I think what is becoming increasingly clear is that it is Ms Ley’s leadership which is unsalvageable.’
Penny Wong might be right about Sussan Ley’s leadership, but not because of the party position on this bill. If anything, Labor is in trouble and perhaps even the Foreign Minister herself.
Now comes the hard bit for Sussan Ley and the Liberals.
Just because Labor has split the bill up, it doesn’t follow that it is now fit for purpose. Evidence suggests that it is not. The gun laws, in particular, look exactly like Jacinta Allan’s useless machete bins as they propose wasting a billion dollars disarming law-abiding citizens instead of seeking out the 260,000 illegal firearms in this country.
If the Liberals are smart, they will twist this bill around on Labor and ensure it targets criminals while leaving everyone else alone.
