In the chaotic aftermath of the Bondi terror attack, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government scrambled to push through the Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2025 — a sprawling piece of legislation bundling tougher hate speech rules (lowering the bar from inciting violence to promoting hatred, focused on racial vilification) with gun buybacks, visa powers, and hate group listings. The intent: protect Jewish communities from rising antisemitism and signal decisive action. Noble on paper, but the bill's rushed drafting and narrow scope sparked immediate backlash.
Enter the Greens, the self-appointed guardians of progressive purity. Rather than rubber-stamping Labor's proposal, they've declared they won't support it in its current form. Why? Because it's not expansive enough! The Greens demand the vilification protections be broadened beyond race to cover sexuality, gender identity, religion, and more — including explicit safeguards against Islamophobia and LGBTQ+ discrimination. In their view, a bill born from antisemitism must evolve into a comprehensive "hate" shield for all marginalised identities, or it's insufficiently woke!
This sets up one of the most delicious ironies in recent Australian politics: the Greens, champions of ever-expanding identity-based protections and speech restrictions, are poised to torpedo Labor's already restrictive hate speech law precisely because it doesn't go far enough in restricting speech. If the bill fails in the Senate — where Labor needs crossbench support after the Coalition branded it "unsalvageable" over free speech fears — it will be progressive overreach defeating progressive overreach. Woke cannibalism at its finest.
Picture the scene: Labor's bill, criticised by faith leaders (including Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher, Anglican bishops, and Muslim council presidents) for risking religious freedom and expression through vague "promotion of hatred" thresholds and inadequate religious exemptions, gets sunk not by conservatives defending free speech, but by Left-wing allies insisting on more categories of protected speech and more potential censorship. The very forces pushing for broader vilification laws could accidentally preserve a sliver of breathing room for open debate — by killing a narrower, but still dangerous, version.
Yet let's not pop the champagne just yet. This defeat, should it happen, is almost certainly temporary. Albanese has signalled openness to amendments and negotiations with the Greens. If the current bill dies, the likely sequel isn't retreat — it's escalation. Labor could return with a revamped package that incorporates the Greens' demands: expanding vilification to gender, sexuality, and religion, perhaps layering in even stricter online enforcement or lower evidentiary bars. The Greens, having flexed their muscles, would then likely back it enthusiastically, delivering the tyrannical upgrade they crave while Labor gets its "win" on antisemitism.
The pattern is predictable. Progressive politics thrives on escalation — each "insufficient" measure becomes the floor for the next, more intrusive one. What starts as targeted racial hatred protections morphs into a web policing identity grievances, where subjective feelings of offense trigger legal consequences. Free speech advocates already warn of chilling effects: preachers quoting scripture, academics debating cultural issues, or protesters voicing controversial views could all fall foul under broadened definitions.
The real tragedy? Genuine hate — antisemitic incitement, violent extremism — gets diluted in the noise of overbroad laws that ensnare innocents while failing to stop true threats. Australia already has mechanisms like Section 18C and state vilification laws; rushing federal expansions risks bureaucratic overreach without proportional gains in safety.
So yes, if the Greens kill this bill, savour the irony: woke purity tests defeating woke legislation, buying time for free expression. But mark my words — Albo won't walk away defeated. He'll come back swinging with a bigger, broader, more "inclusive" hammer. And next time, the Greens might just hand him the nails. The fight for sensible, narrowly targeted protections against real hate — without handing governments a blank cheque to police thought, continues. Delay, debate, and defend the line before it's redrawn forever.