A serious debate must be undertaken in Australia to amend our Constitution to include protection of free speech for all Australians.

Modern politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are all too willing to restrict free speech rather than use it.

Albert Einstein said, ‘The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.’

Australia is in the middle of a culture war. It began after the Bondi massacre in December 2025. The combatants of the war are those who love Australia and its culture, and those who do not embrace it.

In such a conflict, open debate and the marketplace of ideas, must be the battleground and free speech is the weapon of choice, otherwise countless more people may die.

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said recently you can have a multicultural society, or you can have free speech, but you can’t have both.

We must choose free speech.

A democracy cannot exist without free speech, and a dictatorship cannot exist with free speech.

Freedom of speech is a responsibility.

It means that you should listen to someone who is saying what you disagree with so much that you think it is vile, but you listen, because you can exercise your right of reply.

We need to expressly protect that right because far too often, the more we need freedom of speech to express opposition to changes imposed upon us so quickly that do not align with populist thought and way of life, the more governments seek to eliminate it.

In his recent book, The indispensable right, free speech in an Age of Rage, Professor Jonathan Turley, sets out many occasions in USA history, where even a country that embodies in its Constitution a First Amendment prohibiting laws being made ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ have sought to make laws restricting free speech and have done so in a time when free speech is needed most. The only reason they were unsuccessful was because of the clear terms of the Constitutionally enshrined First Amendment.

The Australian Constitution may have implied freedom of political communication, but it is not made certain by clarity. Such lack of clarity will be no match for the dark forces festering within the Australian community which have no such reverence for free speech.

Professor Turley considers free speech to be a human right, and free expression of thought is at the very essence of being human. ‘It is the natural condition for humans to speak.’ It is compelled silence that is unnatural.

John Stuart Mill, when discussing the silencing of expression, said, ‘The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more to that those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clear perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.’

In a democracy such as Australia, the people, not the government possess the absolute sovereignty. It is therefore not possible for the government to determine what is good speech and what is bad speech.

Australia as a nation is experiencing an Age of Rage never before seen in its 125-year history.

The brutal murders at Bondi Beach on December 14, 2025, are proof positive of that fact. On that infamous day, 15 Australians were gunned down by alleged Islamist extremists. They were reportedly targeted because they were Jews. They were killed because they were perceived to follow a different culture. They were the first casualties of the culture war.

All Australians should be outraged, and they should have the right to express their outrage by using their God-given right to speak without fear of being branded a hateful racist, charged with a criminal offence and jailed for 15 years.

The response to the Bondi disaster by the Albanese government, with the support of the Liberal opposition was to enact the Combating Antisemitism Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 also known as the ‘Hate Speech’ Law.

This law seeks to control speech. Its object is to protect social, economic and psychological harm. The test for what is social, economic or psychological harm is what the Home Affairs Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds. If the Minister is satisfied, then it is reasonable.

Clearly, it is the government who decides what is harmful hate speech.

Section 80 provides the alleged offences under the act incur a strict liability where the prosecution need not prove intention. This is contrary to the criminal law principle of mens rea, which is broadly defined as a person cannot commit a crime unless they intend to commit the crime.

Criminal penalties apply even if there is no victim and harm is hypothetical. Section 114 imposes penalties of up to 15 years in prison and no procedural fairness is required. There may be a Constitutional issue with that as Section 80 of the Australian Constitution Act guarantees a right to trial by Jury for indictable offences against the Commonwealth.

Section 114 provides hate crimes can be prosecuted even if they occurred ‘…before the passage of the law.’ They are retrospective. Since no prosecutions have been commenced for words uttered before January 2026, the Minister must be satisfied that no hate crimes have hitherto been committed. On that point the Australian people may not be in full agreement with the Minister.

Australia is a nation that tolerates its population having many different lifestyles. These varied expressions of life could be described as cultures. American economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell said, ‘Shielding cultures from criticism under the guise of respect can be incredibly harmful.’ Culture is about values. ‘By promoting all values are equal, weakens the clarity necessary for self-governance.’

Instead of shackling citizens with restrictions on free speech, encourage open debate so that democracy has a chance to work,

Discussions about migration from Islamic countries, antisemitism, climate change, abortion, transgenderism, Aboriginal treaties and many other modern controversies should be free topics that encourage conversation without the prospect of imprisonment hanging over your head like the Sword of Damocles.

Recently, three Senators wished to stifle free speech in the Senate, because they believe the upper house of Parliament is a haven for racism. Perhaps Senators should try debating, which is precisely what the English language was designed to do. Parle in the Chamber of Parliament. It might be a novel approach to their Senatorial careers.

Freedom of speech is not without respect, but it is about robust debate.

Former Senator Linda Reynolds once said, ‘Our own unique liberal-democratic culture recognises that society is improved by individuals thinking for themselves and imparting their views, and then having them contested in open and robust debate so that good ideas gain traction and bad ideas wither away and die and changing social norms are reflected in the legislation of the day.’

Promoting free speech elevates individual articulate thought, clarity and logic in expressing opinion, courageously with a view to benefit yourself and the people around you. Those who seek to suppress free speech, deny individual thought, refute clarity, ignore logic and prefer to cowardly move away from debate, for fear of having people around them see the error of their opinion.

If we don’t preserve our right of free speech now, we will lose it forever.