Just to recap on how the coalition got into its current pickle.

In the wake of the Bondi massacre (December 14, 2025), Sussan Ley, seeking political advantage, demanded the government urgently recall Parliament to pass hate speech legislation.

‘The Coalition calls on the Prime Minister to immediately recall Parliament to pass urgent legislation to eradicate antisemitism and strengthen Australia’s counter-terrorism laws.’

To me, it was like there was a plane crash and before the air crash investigation team have been to the crash site there were demands for specific redesign of planes.

Be careful what you wish for.

The government responded with hate speech legislation which Ley subsequently decided was rushed but then voted for. This legislation was opposed by Nationals sitting in Shadow Cabinet, despite being bound by principles of Cabinet solidarity. They resigned, Ley accepted the resignations, and the Nationals, reacting to a surge in the One Nation vote, quit the Coalition. It should also be noted that another Westminster Cabinet principle is consultation…

The principle of collective responsibility can only operate effectively if all members of the Cabinet are well informed and well advised (including by their departmental officials) about the decisions they are being asked to make.

Of course, a lower level of information and advice would apply to an opposition but given there had been no formal post-mortem of the Bondi massacre, it strikes me as rash to commit to demand changes to free speech in advance of an understanding of the causes of the disaster. As things stand, the government, aided and encouraged by Ley, acted and will review the causes of the Bondi massacre through a Royal Commission.

Ley’s opportunism got her cornered. She had demanded urgent legislation – how could she oppose it?

The Orwell inspired Hate Crimes legislation passed and it provides for more ministerial discretion on who and what is hate crime. We don’t know how this could apply to other groups and settings. Although the legislation was seemingly in response to an act of Islamic terrorism it’s remarkably broad in its coverage…

‘They are reckless that the targeted person or group was distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion, or was a close associate of a person distinguished by any of those attributes.’

This may have been the government’s way of saying this isn’t about Islamic extremism. Alternatively, it was about pandering to its green left wing.

As Anne Twomey has highlighted, there are several obvious issues with the Hate Crimes changes to the Criminal Code. No defence of truth applies to the offence of inciting or promoting racial hatred. If someone:

‘…accurately describes atrocities committed by a person of a particular race or national or ethnic origin. The person who makes the communication who wishes the world to know of the horrors that have been perpetrated, and presumably genuinely feels anger towards those who do it, might be said to intend to promote hatred of that group as this is the likely consequence of publicising what happened and a reasonable person of that group might also feel intimidated or fear harassment or fear violence for their safety as a consequence.’

So now telling the truth is actionable if the person telling that truth is aware that a reasonable person from that group would feel intimidated or fearful by the telling.

The race hatred changes go beyond even the rights defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, as Twomey says, section 80.2BF of the code:

‘…is likely to have the effect of shutting down discussion about any political matters that concern race or people of particular racial or ethnic groups due to fear of prosecution.’

Returning to the Libs, a party that ostensibly believes in ‘the separation and distribution of powers as the best protection for the democratic process’ is here in favour of the further concentration of powers with the Minister. As well they are for ‘the basic freedoms of thought, worship, speech, association, and choice’ but rush to constrain that freedom before a proper appraisal of the problem has been done.

I can’t understand why the Libs felt compelled to rush to do something in such a complex field in an area so fundamental to democracy. I can’t help but conclude that it was only for the political expediency of demanding the government do something. Having challenged the government, Sussan Ley made the Liberals hostage to Labor’s solution. Can we really say that had these hatred provisions existed prior to Bondi that act of terrorism would have been averted?

Luckily at a time of challenge Scott Morrison was on hand to lend Sussan a hand.

‘It is time for nationally consistent, self-regulated standards: recognised accreditation for imams, a national register for public-facing religious roles, clear training and conduct requirements, and enforceable disciplinary authority.’

This idea stinks. For starters there is little evidence of the Morrison government doing any great policy engineering. In fact, the evidence is that his government made the worst public policy decision of the 21st Century in gifting Western Australia billions of dollars to shore up Liberal seats now lost to Labor.

Basically, Scomo’s solution to murderous Islamic extremism is to introduce a national accreditation, training and disciplinary authority for Islam. Since the 7th Century, Islam hasn’t been able to arrive at a consistent approach to its interpretation of the revelations of Mohammad so I don’t see how it could happen in Australia. As a Pentecostal he might like to consider the journey that Protestantism took to free itself of control of Catholicism. Part of that journey lead to the creation of secular states like the United States and Australia with constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion. I’m no constitutional lawyer but Section 116 of the Australian Constitution should be considered. It says that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. In the Jehovah’s Witness vs the Commonwealth case the Commonwealth is licensed to pass laws necessary:

‘…for organising the citizens of the Commonwealth in national affairs into a civilised community, not only enjoying religious tolerance, but also possessing adequate laws.’

If that blocks Scomo’s plan then state constitutions (excluding Tasmania’s which has a religious freedom provision) might be an option but that won’t be a national solution.

Michael McCormack, past leader of the Nationals and current MP, was asked whether this regulatory approach might apply to other religions. I assume his thinking was that it probably wouldn’t because the other religions aren’t presenting the same integration problem. That probably is the right political answer when One Nation and its band of northern banjo players comes a knocking on National doors but it doesn’t suggest the depth of thinking we need from an opposition on this subject. McCormack didn’t reflect on what would happen if there was regulation of Islam. Wouldn’t that invite the possibility of regulation of other religions? Wouldn’t we be doing what an Islamic government would do? As for hate speech can we be confident that a future government might not regulate against religious prohibitions on abortion, homosexuality, and trans rights? If we move into the world of state-defined religions, are we are no longer a democracy and instead a theocracy?

Once again, the right of politics doesn’t seem to fully appreciate its responsibilities as an opposition. Legislation once passed can morph and the Coalition isn’t always in power to stop that. That people of the right should so eagerly pursue a regulatory approach to religion when they are supposedly for small government only reminds us how unprincipled the right-wing political class has become.

We are apparently seeing a contest between conservatives and moderates on the right of politics. Both conservatives and moderates are in survival mode and intervention resulting in positive polls trumps principles sadly. It’s not clear to me that anyone including the Liberal Party has liberty’s back. All the while Hanson and One Nation are polling well. I find her prescriptions simplistic, inconceivable, and misguided but what Hanson demonstrates is authenticity, courage, and consistency. The Coalition needs to demonstrate that – and soon.