In the wake of the devastating Bondi terror attack, the Australian government has reached a compromise on new hate speech legislation, set to be the strongest the country has ever seen. After late-night negotiations, Labor’s proposed laws are expected to pass parliament on Tuesday, with the support of Liberal MPs.
The new laws will grant the government increased powers to legally designate extremist organisations, while also introducing tougher gun control measures. This includes a major firearm buyback scheme, the largest since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke expressed cautious optimism about the legislation’s passage, stating: “I think we’re really close. The laws won’t be as strong as what the government wants them to be, and that’s been public for a while. But importantly, this will still involve the strongest hate speech laws that Australia’s ever had.”
The compromise comes after concerns were raised by the National party about the breadth of the new powers to ban extremist groups. Attorney General Michelle Rowland defended the provisions, arguing they are based on existing laws targeting terrorist organisations and state sponsors of terror.
Opposition leader Susan Ley met with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday to discuss potential amendments, with negotiations continuing late into the night. Liberal frontbencher Julian Leeser said the party would support the legislation as “a step in the right direction”, but warned the government’s implementation would be closely scrutinised.
The new gun laws are expected to pass with the support of the Greens, while the Nationals have criticised them as a distraction from the issue of antisemitism. Party leader David Littleproud claimed the authorities failed to act against the alleged IS-inspired terrorists responsible for the Bondi attack.
The parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has urged politicians to work collaboratively to combat hate and extremism, though Coalition members issued a dissenting report criticising the legislation as “poorly drafted” and lacking sufficient safeguards.
