Anthony Albanese was wise to split hate speech/gun control bill

The Albanese Government has made the right call in splitting its hate speech/gun control mega-bill.  

The original timeline left virtually no time for consultation or deliberation. The draft bill was only announced last week, and the bipartisan committee investigating the laws was given a scant two days for public inquiries.

That committee is exclusively reserved for Labor, Liberal and National politicians, another weakness of the inquiry. Furthermore, less than 48 hours was allowed for the public to make submissions.  

The draft legislation runs to 144 pages across 19 parts; the explanatory memorandum is 319 pages of dense argument and analysis. It conflates gun control with hate speech restrictions.

Both are important, and both must be done right, but they are completely different areas of policy with very different risks, benefits and stakeholders.  

The hateful mass murder targeting Jewish Australians at Bondi last month makes the task urgent. Of course it does. But stifling freedom of speech could make things worse, as Max Kaiser of the Jewish Council of Australia warns.  

Splitting the gun control elements of the legislation from the hate speech parts will allow for a thorough, measured review of the hate speech laws.

It suggests that Labor has learned from the damage done by past rush jobs. I observed back in October that Labor has tended to rush through controversial changes within a few days or weeks, or during the quiet period when the public is paying less attention.

The result has been short-sighted and flawed lawmaking.   

It takes two to tango, and bills can only be rushed into law with the cooperation of non-Labor senators.

Usually, that has been the Coalition: the CFMEU takeover in August 2024, social media age ban in November, unfair and undemocratic changes to electoral law in February 2025 and the Nauru deportation deal in August stand out.

So too do the floundering responses to High Court decisions on indefinite detention – proof that rushed and opportunistic changes are less likely to stick than consultative, measured reforms.  

On this issue, the Liberal–National Coalition has been brazen in its hypocrisy: spending weeks demanding that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recall Parliament early to deal with Antisemitism, then accusing him of “showing contempt” for proper parliamentary process the moment he does.  

Liberals and Nationals have made the reasonable point that Labor’s hate speech laws are undercooked and risky, but that’s what His Majesty’s Opposition ordered.

Even less sympathetic to my ears is the wailing and gnashing of teeth from right-wing commentators. It may have dawned on them that hate speech laws will apply to whomever is doing the speaking, not just to Islamist preachers they find objectionable. 

The Opposition have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.  

But while righteous anger has its place, the desire to punish would lead governments astray. It may have been gratifying to make the Coalition squirm by presenting the hate speech and gun control amendments together, but Mr Albanese is wise to split them.  

Freedom of expression is too important to gamble on a political manoeuvre.  

Serious and extensive concerns have been identified with the hate speech changes, including that they are ambiguous, may be too harsh, may be unconstitutional, and are blinkered – limited to race hatred when they should protect all vulnerable minorities.  

Splitting the bill into gun control and hate speech elements allows each to be considered in turn.  

I would recommend considering and debating the gun control elements first. Australian governments actually have a good record on acting quickly on gun control: it took John Howard less than a fortnight to strike the first National Firearms Agreement with states and territories after the Port Arthur Massacre.  

Unlike the hate speech components of the bill, Labor’s gun control reforms are limited, targeted and often based on precedent.

Australia has had several successful gun buybacks already. Safety testing and data sharing with the Criminal Intelligence Commission do not raise red flags.

And owning a gun is a privilege, while political speech is a human right – and one that is constitutionally protected in this country.

Gun laws that come into force promptly and consistently across the country may also reduce the risk of avoidance, for example stockpiling and on-paper ownership changes. 

Antisemitic hatred motivated the murders at Bondi. The murderers used guns that had apparently been lawfully acquired by a licensed firearm owner.

Both elements must be addressed swiftly and decisively – but to rush them is to court disaster.

The Albanese Government does not have a good track record with rushed laws, but on gun control at least the changes are limited and in line with a tradition of successful reform in this country.

Hate speech laws could fail or backfire if not done carefully and proportionately.