The Australian government is moving closer to finalizing new hate speech legislation, with the opposition Coalition indicating a willingness to negotiate terms that would address concerns regarding potential overreach. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced plans to split the controversial omnibus bill, which had previously faced significant criticism, into two separate pieces of legislation.
The Coalition’s shift in stance follows a period of mounting pressure from various stakeholders, including civil liberties groups and some members of the opposition. Coalition home affairs spokesman Jonathon Duniam emphasized their commitment to collaboration, stating, “We are here working with government in good faith, and we want this to succeed for the people of Australia who’ve asked us to do this.” As parliament prepares for an emergency two-day session starting March 4, 2024, negotiations are set to intensify.
The newly proposed hate speech laws would grant the home affairs minister the authority to designate certain organizations as illegal hate groups, making membership a criminal offense with strict penalties. According to a Coalition source who requested anonymity, Albanese is prepared to pass the provisions supported by the opposition while discarding others deemed unnecessary. Duniam highlighted the removal of the racial vilification offense as a critical factor in the Coalition’s concerns about the original bill.
In a significant concession, Albanese acknowledged the need to separate this legislation after realizing he could not secure support from both the Coalition and the Greens. This decision represents the government’s second major reversal following the Bondi Beach attack, which claimed 15 lives and prompted calls for immediate action.
The first bill in the split legislation will establish a national gun buyback program and introduce import restrictions on specific firearms and hate materials. Although the Coalition does not support the new gun laws, they are expected to secure passage in the Senate with backing from the Greens. On the other hand, the government requires Coalition approval to move forward with the hate speech laws.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke indicated last week that extremist groups, including Hizb ut-Tahrir and the neo-Nazi group Nationalist Socialist Network, would be among the first organizations targeted if the legislation is enacted. However, challenges are anticipated, as both Hizb ut-Tahrir and members of the White Australia Party have signaled plans to mount constitutional challenges should the laws pass.
Despite the Coalition’s stated commitment to uniting on this issue, internal divisions remain evident. Outspoken Liberal MP Andrew Hastie expressed his opposition to rushing the legislation through parliament, advocating for a delay until after the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion releases its final report in December. His remarks reflect a broader concern among some party members regarding the potential implications of the proposed laws.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils welcomed the removal of vilification clauses but expressed serious apprehension regarding the powers given to the home affairs minister to designate hate organizations based on undisclosed evidence. AFIC President Dr. Rateb Jneid criticized the lack of transparency, stating, “When power to outlaw organisations rests on secret evidence and political discretion, it stops being about the law and becomes ideology and politics with the force of the state behind it.”
Major faith groups have expressed mixed reactions to the proposed legislative changes. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry voiced disappointment over the removal of vilification offenses, arguing that it sends a troubling message about the seriousness of promoting racial hatred. Co-chief executive Peter Wertheim highlighted the urgent need for effective laws to combat antisemitism, particularly following a surge in incidents targeting the Jewish community in recent years.
In contrast, the Law Council of Australia raised concerns about the broad discretions afforded to the executive in outlawing associations without sufficient judicial oversight. Their submission emphasized the potential for these laws to infringe upon civil liberties and the importance of implementing meaningful safeguards.
As discussions continue, the Coalition will need to navigate its internal divisions and secure a unified position to reach a consensus with the government. With the potential for significant legal implications and societal impact, the coming days will be crucial in determining the future of hate speech legislation in Australia.
