The Point Live: Liberals to pass government hate speech laws, Greens warn of impact on democracy

That’s it from us at The Point Live for this month – we will now put the blog to sleep until the next sitting of parliament in the first week of February. Make sure you check back at The Point though every day to see what is new, and what can help you make sense of the world, with facts, research and no spin.

Am I looking forward to parliament returning? No. Am I looking forward to seeing you all back here? Yes. Two things can sometimes be true at the same time, and you all make it worth it.

It is going to be a very hard year for a lot of people and one which is going to leave a lot of people feeling quite bereft and un-moored. Put your faith in people. Politics is always going to choose itself. But the one thing politicians are afraid of, is an educated, and motivated voter movement.

We will be here to cut through as much of the bullshit as possible and we thank you all for choosing to spend some of your time with us. It means the world as we build up this little project.

So until then, take care of you and those around you. Ax

But the debate over protections from hate speech is going nowhere:

Just.Equal Australia has called the passage of narrow anti-hate laws a political failure, and will now push for an inquiry into escalating hate against LGBTIQA+ Australians and other groups.

Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, said,

“Like other Australians we support strong measures against anti-Semitism.”

“But the anti-hate laws Federal Parliament has passed in response to the Bondi tragedy are much narrower than we advocated for and will do nothing to curb escalating hate against LGBTIQA+ people and many other groups vulnerable to hate.”

“The Prime Minister said ‘more could have been done’ to prevent the Bondi attack, but his Government has failed to seize this opportunity to do more to prevent future attacks whoever they are aimed at.”

“When judged against the growing problem of hate in Australia, this new law is a failure of political imagination and political will.”

Mr Croome said Just.Equal will press for a parliamentary inquiry into escalating hate against LGBTIQA+ people and other groups not already covered by the current bill.

“We owe it to LGBTIQA+ victims of hate speech and hate-motivated crime to keep the focus on the dreadful impact of hate.”

The bill passed by Parliament provides stronger penalties for threats of violence by religious leaders, allows racist groups to be banned and allows for harsher penalties for crimes motivated by racial hate. A vilification clause that was limited to race was dropped before the debate.

Just.Equal and other groups advocated unsuccessfully for the provisions limited to race to be widened to protect a range of attributes including sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, as well as other attributes such as disability, sex and religion.

David Pocock has released a statement following the passage of the bill and the failure of the amendments he co-sponsored:

Our job as parliamentarians is to listen, consult and vote on behalf of our communities. It’s a responsibility I take very seriously and have tried my best to do in the time available to consider this legislation.

Ultimately the feedback from the Canberra community was very clear that they wanted action in response to the Bondi terror attack but did not support the rushed passage of complex legislation that risked getting things wrong while making significant changes to hate speech and migration laws.

Canberrans want us to do more to stop antisemitism but are deeply concerned about laws that impinge on freedom of expression, including legitimate criticism of foreign governments, and the right to protest. 

They also wanted any new protections in these laws to apply to everyone equally.
Conversely, there was strong support across the Canberra community to pass the firearms reforms this week.

I met with and heard legitimate questions and concerns from responsible, law-abiding firearms owners who must not be treated as collateral damage in our response to terrorism.”

I moved as many amendments as I could in the time available to address concerns with both bills and thank those senate colleagues who supported them.

I want to thank the thousands of people across the ACT who engaged with me in good faith to share their views on these bills.”

After a final delay with an attempt at amending the bill, the final vote has been held. It is Labor and the Liberals on one side and everyone else who is still left on the senate, on the other.

It is 38 votes yes, to 22 votes no.

We are also going to see Tammy Tyrrells amendment that would force the parliament to approve the minister’s hate group designation voted down, and Matt Canavan’s attempts to have the legislation sundown in 2029 (which means cease to exist) also voted down.

And then it is the final vote, which is going to look like all the divisions, but in reverse.

Attempts from David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrrell and Fatima Payman to have the laws at least extend protections to marginalised groups, including the LGTBIQ communities have been voted down by Labor and the Liberals.

This was their amendment:

(1)     Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit “distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin”, substitute “distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or national or ethnic origin, or because of the target person or target group’s personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes”.

[additional attributes—aggravated sentencing factor]

(2)     Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 24 and 25), omit “race, or national or ethnic origin, of the target person or the persons in the target group”, substitute “race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or national or ethnic origin of the target person or the persons in the target group or because of the target person or target group’s personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes”.

[additional attributes—aggravated sentencing factor]

(3)     Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 26 to 28), omit subsection 16A(2AAD), substitute:

    (2AAD)  For the purposes of paragraph (2)(mb), it is immaterial whether:

                     (a)  the target person; or

                     (b)  members of the target group; or

                     (c)  a person whom the target person or members of the target group have a personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise);

actually are distinguished by the particular race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.

[additional attributes—aggravated sentencing factor]

And the vote?

Ayes, 13

We have just passed the ‘let’s criminalise burning or destroying the flag’ motion (a lot more standard than you would want to think about in these sorts of events) and while so far no one has tried to make a ‘let’s cement January 26 as Australia Day for all time in legislation’ yet, there are still pages of amendments to get through.

So the Nationals have now left the chamber after their amendments failed.

That is not a huge walkout – there are only four of them.

But it is the wider point they are making. They leave their Coalition partner colleagues in the chamber to pass the legislation.

Bridget McKenzie has blamed the government for the split in the Coalition on this bill, saying the government should have created a bill that they all could support, rather than divide on politics (paraphrasing, obvs) But the Liberals ARE voting for this bill. So the split is down the Coalition party lines, not the ideological ones.

So as expected, that amendment failed. The senate is now whipping through the other parties attempts at amendments, all of which have failed.

The bill is now being read for the second time.

The vote was all meant to be done by 10pm and yet, the divisions will mean it goes for longer. The suits in the senate, they are a-rumpled.

The sitting didn’t actually start until 2pm, so they can calm their farms. Also, parliament is not sitting tomorrow.

Signed: Your bleary eyed blogger who has been doing this since 5am.

We are getting to the crunch time in the vote. This amendment, from independent senators David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Fatima Payman, Lidia Thorpe and Tammy Tyrrell is up for division at the moment – it will fail with the government and Liberal party voting against it.

the Senate notes that:

(i)      this bill includes complex legislative changes that make significant amendments to hate speech and migration laws,

(ii)     independent senators have had the final text of the bill for less than 12 hours,

(iii)    the Government only undertook very limited consultation on the exposure draft legislation, only provided three days for public submissions on the bill and a week for parliamentary consideration and public consultation,

(iv)    time for parliamentary debate of this bill has been significantly curtailed with many senators not afforded an opportunity to speak on or ask questions about the bill on behalf of their communities,

(v)     there is strong community support for combatting antisemitism and all forms of racism, hatred and violent extremism however, a broad range of experts, community leaders, organisations and members of the community have expressed serious concerns about the bill and have called for more time for it to be considered,

(vi)    serious concerns have been expressed about potential unintended consequences and the bill’s potential to impinge on legitimate freedom of expression, especially in the absence of a federal Human Rights Act,

(vii)   serious concerns have been expressed about the failure to extend new proposed protections to other groups with protected attributes creating a two‑tier system of protections and potentially putting further stress on social cohesion,

(viii)  there is ambiguity and uncertainty about many of the definitions and provisions including serious matters like retrospectivity and inclusion of a ‘good faith’ defence, the introduction of recklessness‑based fault elements and a reversal of the burden of proof,

(ix)    the bill lacks procedural fairness safeguards, particularly in relation to changes to migration law, and

(x)     to be successful in advancing towards the Government’s worthy ambition of national unity, Australians and their representatives need a fair opportunity to be heard, to consider such significant legislative changes and the time and political will to develop and negotiate amendments in good faith while respecting parliamentary process; and

(b)     the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026”.

Bridget McKenzie says she will be moving amendments to the bill, but that she feels the Nationals can not support it. And then she blames the Labor government for playing politics and seeking to divide them politically, because there is not bipartisan support.

Except….the Liberals are support this bill. With no amendments (other than what Labor has already agreed to)

Meanwhile, if you want to know just how little this bill has won the Liberal party support, have a look at some of the social media posts of Sussan Ley talking about the bill (this ratio is….not good) and also the shock and disappointment of Andrew Hastie’s fans who feel betrayed he voted for the laws. Who do these people say they are turning to? One Nation.

The IPA are now running social media ads on why the hate group bill is so terrible. The hate group bill that the Liberal party is supporting, telling its ideological bed mates it is totally fine and not an issue. The hate group bill that is only passing because of the Liberal party support.

Just reading through this piece from Mick Foley at the SMH and it quotes Barnaby Joyce as saying:

There has been no massacres based on fundamentalist beliefs in Tamworth or Dubbo or Wagga Wagga. We have other problems, but this is not one of them,” Joyce said. “I just want to be left alone – a law-abiding citizen who is complying with all the things I’m supposed to.”

Which is very strange given Joyce’s key role in opposing marriage equality, the Gardisil vaccine against cervical cancer, the Voice, people who want renewable energy, people who want to live a different life to him…..etc etc etc

The tit-for-tat blame between the two parties who are VOTING for the legislation continues.

Penny Wong has just given the opposition, in particular, Michaelia Cash and Sussan Ley a serve for “hypocrisy” for demanding the laws and then walking away (sort of more a half crab walk now more than anything) and said the Jewish community deserved better.

This is after the Liberal party has accused Labor of having to be dragged to the laws.

These are the only two parties voting for these laws by the way. Pretty much everyone else has said no, it’s too rushed, there are too many unforeseen consequences, but the major parties are too busy slinging it out with each other over who supports the laws HARDER to care.

And oh goodie – it is retroactive.

Q: So Hizb ut-Tahrir, as ASIO boss Mike Burgess points out, has been condemning Israel and Jews, but has stopped promoting acts of violence. How would they be captured?

Rowland:

It’s because the threshold has been changed. So, that if there is that fear and if there is a reasonable person test in here, as well, so, if that is satisfied, then that would come within the scope of these provisions.

Q: OK. This comes back to the question I was asking, if they’re saying that Israel is engaged in genocide, or condemning Israel, saying it shouldn’t exist, and people – Jewish Australians – feel harassed or intimidated, they can be banned for that reason?

Rowland:

If those criteria are satisfied, then that’s the case. I would point out, though, it would have been a set of criteria that would have been easier based on all the facts to have satisfied, if we did have the serious racial vilification provisions in this bill. However, we understand that we deal with the Parliament as it is, and as the Australian people elected it last year. Which is why it is not there.

Then we get to the crux of the issue.

Q:Let’s just go to what it means in practice. Would a group be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid, and as a result, Jewish Australians do feel intimidated?

Rowland:

Well, there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied there. And what we seek to ensure with this legislation is that we give our investigative agencies like the AFP and also our intelligence agencies like ASIO the ability to be able to implement this law in a way that ensures that not only are we keeping Australians safe, but they are performing their responsibilities in terms of addressing anti-Semitism and root causes.

Which is a non-answer.

Q: Coming to the practical example, if a group is suggesting that Israel is guilty of genocide, what other measures or factors would need to be met before they can be banned?

Rowland:

Under the provisions now before the Parliament, there would also need to be able to demonstrate there are for example some aspects of state laws that deal with racial vilification that have been met as well. So the point I would make here, David, is that whilst these provisions have changed in response to the negotiations that have been undertaken with the opposition, they still represent a tight set of that can be implemented and are capable of interpretation, not only by a court, but also by our agencies.

Q: Just to be clear, if a group is saying Israel is engaged in genocide, or they’re saying that Israel should no longer exist, that’s not enough for that group to be banned?

Rowland:

Well, again, that would depend on the other evidence that is gathered. So, I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct that you are describing here.

Q: But surely we all need to know what will be against the law. This matters in terms of what your law will mean. So what would it take for a group that’s doing that, to be banned?

Rowland:

It certainly does. Your viewers have every right to know what the scope of this is. We have been clear from the outset about the kinds of groups we’re seeking to bring within this regime. This will include those groups that have so far managed to not do anything that is against the law, or would otherwise attract criminal conduct provisions. So they are groups such as the national socialist network and HUT. (Hizb ut-Tahrir.)

Yes, because state police would NEVER abuse these sorts of powers. Because remember – these laws DO NOT need a criminal conviction to be used against a group. So a particularly excised police force – let’s say NSW – could say ‘this meets our standard of vilification/hate’ and then ASIO could go – ‘no way guys! We were just thinking that! 10,0000 Aura points!’ and then what do you know – badda bing, badda boom – there is no pesky standard of proof to meet in a court and the minister signs off on it.

HOW ON EARTH COULD THAT BE ABUSED.

Michelle Rowland was on ABC’s 7.30 tonight, given that these laws sit under her as attorney-general. She was asked to describe how the hate group laws will apply and said:

There’s a series of criteria, but essentially they go to two factors. Firstly, the needs to be the type of conduct or threat of conduct and secondly, it needs to go towards harm and it needs to be one that is scrutinised by our intelligence agencies and there needs to be a recommendation to the responsible minister in this case, the responsible for the Australian Federal Police, but also there needs to be scrutiny given by the Attorney-General as well.

So, this is one of a series of measures that we have taken in this bill, that mirrors the existing frameworks that we have in place, regarding terror organisations and also regarding state sponsors of terrorism

Q: What do you say to the criticism it’s too broad, lacks procedural fairness and is the sort of stuff that you see in authoritarian states?

Rowland:

We’re responding to one of the worst things that we have seen in this country’s history, and indeed, the worst terror attack on Australian soil. And that demands that the Parliament take measures that ensure that our citizens are kept safe, and that we directly address anti-Semitism.

I would point out that there are provisions in this part of the legislation that also go to ensuring that there is oversight, not only by the Parliament in terms of disallowance, but also by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, but, also there be judicial review available as well. So there are those safeguards there.

It doesn’t matter on the numbers that the Coalition is split on the hate group bill. There are enough Liberal senators for it to pass on the numbers.

Where it does matter, is in the Coalition’s own unity and the fractures which already exist there. Sussan Ley’s lack of authority over the joint party room is once again shown up (as we predicted last week when this mess all started) the Nationals are angry over David Littleproud’s failure to calm their concerns over the bill (timeless story) and Queensland LNP MP Col Boyce, who is one of the MPs who would probably be worried about One Nation in his electorate (Flynn) is openly talking about joining Barnaby Joyce and defecting to the rebel party.

So not only have the Coalition NOT won any more votes or hearts or minds in this mess (and if anything LOST some to One Nation), their Facebook and Sky After Dark echo chamber has now cost them any lingering authority, unity, and potentially another MP to One Nation.

But hey – it is the children who are wrong.

David Shoebridge:

Is this how laws should pass in our parliament? Just with a wink and a nod? The vibe of Senator Cash? The nod of the prime minister? The hope of the attorney-general? The toxic politics of whichever part of the Coalition agreed to this?

Let him cook.

Shoebridge says the hate group provisions that the Liberal and Labor party are telling everyone not to worry about “will see the home affairs minister rely on secret advice from ASIO about potential future conduct of an organisation before banning them” without natural justice.

Greens senator David Shoebridge said a failure of ASIO and security agencies was being used to punish the multicultural community in Australia in his speech to the senate.

We will not stand quietly in the corner while these parties (Labor and Liberal party) stand together and make it a crime to stand against a genocide.

He says every stakeholder they spoke to had a new concern about the laws.

The debate in the senate is now Labor senators accusing the Liberal party of not doing enough to stop antisemitism because the bill was watered down to get the Liberal party’s support and then the Liberal senators accusing Labor of not acting fast enough and not calling out ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ in the original bill by name (you constitutionally can not single out groups that laws should only apply to, so this is just grand standing.

We will do this for the next few hours until Labor and the Liberal party come together to pass the laws.

The Greens are voting no, David Pocock has announced he will not be supporting the laws (because he says it has been rushed and the community should be listened to) and the Nationals are probably abstaining.

But the two parties who will vote for the laws will spend the next couple of hours trading blows about who has been worse over the laws. Good. Times.

Barnaby Joyce is posting this, because his former Nationals colleagues mostly abstained. Meaning they didn’t vote against the bill. They just didn’t turn up to the chamber.
He is making the point that he DID turn up and vote against the bill.

Now, Duniam is trying to own the Greens with this, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the concerns over this bill were coming from his side of politics.

And sadly, some of the misinformation out there around what these provisions do has confused a lot of people. This is not about restricting freedoms or penalizing people unduly. This is about dealing with people who use their position as a religious leader, as we’ve seen with some of the hate preachers, to incite violence in the way they have it increases penalties for using a post war similar service to menace or harass, increasing that penalty from two to five years.

It introduces aggravated grooming offenses for adults radicalizing or recruiting children again, I think, a very sound measure to have in place, adding aggravating a sentencing aggravating factor for hate motivated offending. It strengthens the hate symbol offenses that we passed at the beginning of last year, lowering the fault element to recklessness extends the bans to symbols of prohibited hate groups, which I’ll talk about in a moment, gives police stronger power to remove and seize symbols.

And again, the opposition sought a two year review of these provisions, because altering fault elements, lowering thresholds and reversing evidentiary burdens is a significant measure, and again, after a period of operation, we want to make sure this is operating properly and not unduly impacting on people in a way it should not.

Now, the one that has, of course, garnered most interest, is the one relating to the established establishment of a hate group listing regime.

There are several elements to this which I think are important to point out in the limited time available to me.

But in so there is no capacity for misunderstanding. We have sought to update the definition of a hate crime that would constitute an offense against a provision of the law under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and related to that, a number of state and territory provisions, we have insisted that there is a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

Of the opposition that the parliamentary Joint Committee on Security Intelligence Review this provision after two years.

That is on top of the fact that the director general of intelligence, has to make a recommendation to the minister, who then can only list a hate group by way of legislative instrument which is disallowable.

The thresholds in law are incredibly high and for the most serious of offenses in order for a hate group to meet that threshold and be listed.

This is not about targeting pro life groups. This is not about targeting people who might be seeking to advocate for a particular cause.

This is about people who are targeting a group identified by ethno national or racial origin and seeking to harm them in a violent way, as stepped out under the Criminal Code. And there is to be no mistaking about that.

Yes, I am sure that everyone will be very responsible with these powers for all time and we will never have to worry about them being used people in ways that were unintended. That has never happened in history and all of this is very normal.

So why is the Liberal party voting for them? Duniam says:

So what’s left in the laws? Well, there is the new aggravated offense for religious or spiritual leaders who advocate or threaten violence. Now the opposition has been able to agree with government on some changes to what was originally proposed, and that included the tightening up of the definitions of who would be included as a religious official or a spiritual leader, to end doubt and to ensure that there is a clear cut out for who would be impacted by this and the application and operation of those your laws would be reviewed by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security after two years.

Now, it is important to point out that these laws don’t create a new penalty. The existing criminal code provisions apply to people as they did before these laws passed. It is not catching new people out. It is not applying new laws to people that didn’t apply yesterday.

If people want to threaten violence and use their position as a religious leader to do so, they will have an increased penalty. That’s what these provisions do. I think they’re sensible.

Liberal senator Jonno Duniam (he prefers Jonno, which each to their own I suppose) is on his feet defending the Liberal party’s support for the laws, given the amount of people worried about civil liberties.

You know – those little implied rights that underpin most of democracy.

Duniam says those who are still criticising the bill don’t understand it. Which I guess includes the IPA which is also against the bill on principle?

Anyways, here is why he says the Liberal party is supporting it (which gives the government the numbers even without the Nationals, who abstained in the House and seem all over the place in the senate, despite there not being that many of them)

[To the] Community who are very worried about the reach, scope, the extent of the laws we are debating here today. And their concerns were not unfounded. Their concerns have not been ignored either.

I should say we’ve heard what’s been said, and as an opposition, we have acted.

Thankfully, of course, Labor’s hate speech laws, which were part of this, the racial vilification laws were dumped. They were an appalling approach to how to respond to this issue and the unintended consequences of those laws as drafted with seven days of being able to try and understand what these laws would do, what impact they would have on people’s capacity to exercise that loved element of our society, freedom of speech.

It was impossible to determine, and officials at the committee inquiry into this, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, could not give clarity around what the impact of those laws would be.

So they’ve dumped, they’re gone. They’re not part of this. And that is, thankfully a very good outcome. We could never support laws of that nature with such a wide scope.

It was a fairly quick debate in the end – Labor and the Greens blocked the attempted amendments to the bill put up by independent senators like Lidia Thorpe (who wanted the firearms of law enforcement monitored) and the coalition, One Nation and independents like Fatima Payman and Tammy Tyrrell who wanted the bill to be reviewed by March.

So the bill has passed pretty much intact.

Now the debate will move on to the hate groups bill.

AAP

A newly appointed territory administrator should apologise for his “reprehensible and offensive” social media posts, three federal Labor politicians say.

Indigenous Australians Minister Malarndirri McCarthy along with Northern Territory MPs Marion Scrymgour and Luke Gosling have issued a joint statement condemning David Connolly’s posts.

The former NT Cattlemen’s Association president is due to be sworn in on February 2 as the territory’s administrator, the equivalent of a state governor.

But his questionable social media posts on X, now deleted, have emerged in the media in recent days, sparking calls for his appointment to be put on hold and reviewed.

The posts included attacks on what he called Indigenous privilege, questionable comments about bikini-clad sportswomen and a repost describing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as an “arsehole”.

NT Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro is standing by her Country Liberal Party government’s nomination of Mr Connolly. 

In the joint statement on Tuesday, the three federal Labor politicians called Mr Connolly’s past social posts “reprehensible and offensive” and said he should apologise.

“The NT administrator plays an important role in the functioning of our democracy,” they said.

“More than that, they should stand as a unifying figure above party politics and represent all Territorians.”

Scott Morrison has responded to Anthony Albanese’s question time comments that the Morrison government did not act on antisemitism:

Which sigh. Haven’t we been through this?

Bill Browne
Director, Democracy & Accountability Program

An earlier update on the live blog confirmed Bob Katter is opposed to the gun law reforms, adding “no shock there, given who his son-in-law is, and also, because this is Katter we are talking about”.

I thought some readers might need an explanation to the reference to a son-in-law.

Bob Katter’s daughter Eliza Nioa is married to Robert Nioa, the head of the Australian firearms company NIOA. Mr Nioa is in President Donald Trump’s circle too, including having gone on a shark fishing expedition with Donald Trump Jr.

Katter’s Australian Party has received large political donations from NIOA over the years – but the company is not rusted-on, having brought on former Liberal minister Christopher Pyne and former Labor minister David Feeney as directors and sponsoring a $5,000 a head Liberal Party fundraiser with MP Scott Buchholz.

We are going to keep the blog open tonight while the senate debates these bills, and update you on any major movements/moments.

As it stands, both bills will pass the senate. The Greens will do the gun reforms, and the Liberals will do the hate speech reforms.

What will the Nationals do? Unclear. It doesn’t matter on the numbers, but it does make some of those internal issues within both the National party room and the joint party room a little more difficult.

So keep us open (if you are in a mood to, because Dolly knows if I didn’t do this for a job, I wouldn’t be here) and we will keep you up to date.

Grogs will most likely stay up and keep abreast of what is happening because he literally can not help himself.

So if you are leaving us now – take care of you. For anyone else sticking around, or popping in – feel free to break out the vodka.

See you soon. Ax

For millions of Australians living outside our major cities, Medicare-funded healthcare is not the safety net it’s supposed to be. Australians in big cities benefit from convenient access to GPs, allied health, and specialist services of their choice, while those in rural areas do not.

This is a fundamental failure of the Australian promise of a fair go. Our “universal” health system claims to guarantee access for everyone, yet rural residents get third-rate healthcare access and are more likely to die from causes that are avoidable.

The National Rural Health Alliance estimates that it is fuelled by a $8.35 billion health spend shortfall.

The cost of this shortfall is that rural towns have too few doctors, requiring long travel distances and out-of-pocket costs for the millions who call it home. For many, a simple GP or specialist appointment requires an overnight stay and significant time away from work or family. These factors discourage early intervention for preventable conditions or seeking treatment for acute injuries, such as fractures or sprains.

Without timely and affordable healthcare in the bush, living in a rural town might mean you die younger than those in major cities. For example, if you live in rural NSW, you can expect to live nearly six years less than someone in Sydney. And many of these deaths are from preventable diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and mental health conditions.

Until we close this gap in underspending and understaffing, and address poor health outcomes in the bush, the Albanese government’s promise of high-quality healthcare for all will stay out of reach for those living beyond the big cities.

What do you want to know about the gun/hate-speech legislation and last two days of parliament?

Comment with your questions and we’ll try our best to answer them on tomorrow’s episode of Follow the Money.

Host Ebony Bennett will be joined by Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst, and Bill Browne, Democracy & Accountability Director.

Episode drops tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon – subscribe to Follow the Money wherever you listen to podcasts so you don’t miss it!

Independent MP for Kooyong, Monique Ryan has also released a statement on the hate speech laws:

After the Bondi tragedy, it was critical that our Parliament united behind laws to protect Australians from gun violence and hate speech. Our communities – particularly the Australian Jewish community – have been shocked and traumatised by that senseless act of violence. They want us to take action to ensure their safety and their freedom. But I have serious concerns about this legislation. 

Australians want us to get this right. Poor policymaking won’t make our constituents safer. Terrorism isn’t only an attack on lives; it’s also an attack on our confidence in the idea that democracies can remain both secure and free. Legislation on the run will not engender confidence in our processes or our government.      

Members of Parliament saw this legislation only three hours before it was put to a vote.The concern expressed by many in the Kooyong community – supported by the Parliamentary report released only this morning – is that the broad application of many of this bill’s provisions could have a chilling effect on legitimate debate on political, social and religious issues. The speed with which the legislation has been developed means that legal inconsistencies and unintended consequences seem inevitable.  

The Bill includes measures I support. Laws that impose tougher penalties on hate crimes, constraints on hate groups, and aggravated offences for community leaders who choose to incite violence are improvements that will protect all Australians.  

What we didn’t do today was act to protect all Australians from serious vilification based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. Hatred does not discriminate on those characteristics; neither should the law. The need for these protections was agreed on by leaders of the Jewish community, Human Rights Commission, and Equality Australia. The removal of racial vilification elements from this legislation renders it less likely to be effective in its aim of banning hate groups. We need to revisit this issue as we see results from the Royal Commission. I moved an amendment today seeking better reporting of hate crimes and the outcome of their prosecution. We must revisit these issues at intervals to be sure that the legislation is effective.

If Bondi becomes another episode of finger-pointing and blame, followed by forgetfulness, we will have failed this country. If instead it becomes a catalyst for serious, evidence-based reform, Australia will emerge from it stronger and better.

Here is the statement the Greens have just issued, now that it is obvious the Liberals will pass the bill, even if the Nationals are still wibble wobbling over it:

The Greens have issued a stark warning about rushed Coalition amendments to Labor’s anti-association legislation. The changes represent an unprecedented expansion of political power to ban organisations and criminalise speech based on vague standards like “ridicule” and “contempt”. 

Amendments agreed to in secret between the Coalition and Labor have only made the laws more dangerous, greatly expanding their reach well beyond legitimate efforts to end violence, promote safety and reduce political and social division.

Sen. Mehreen Faruqi, Greens Deputy Leader and Antiracism spokesperson:

“The sham process that the government has undertaken on this bill is as appalling as the bill itself, and this last minute deal with the Coalition makes a terrible bill even more divisive and even more dangerous.

“With this bill the government is saying that they care about some communities but not others, and they have thrown muslims and migrants under the bus.

“This terrible deal between Labor and the Coalition will have a chilling effect on political debate, protest, civil rights, and people speaking up about civil rights abuses across the world. The Greens will vehemently and strongly oppose this bill.”

Senator David Shoebridge, Greens Spokesperson for Justice: 

“Coalition amendments expand the reach of Labor’s already dangerous crackdown on speech and political expression in unprecedented ways. Far from narrowing these laws, these changes expand the law to expressly cover conduct that falls far short of violence.

“The rushed changes expand the conduct that can lead to organisations being banned by including references to 7 different State and Territory laws. This raises multiple constitutional issues and significant uncertainty in how the laws apply across the Commonwealth.

“This Labor and Coalition deal may lead to organisations being banned, and people being criminalised across the country, if they ridicule or express contempt for a group or person.

“These laws cover much more than threats of violence, extending to ‘economic, social and psychological harm’ enforced not by courts but by ASIO and the Home Affairs Minister.

“Labor and the Coalition are intending to capture acts and statements done in the past with the retrospective operation of this law. Groups may be captured for actions or words said before these offences were even created.

“What was a rushed process last week has now become a farce. Unprecedented legal changes are being made law without even a cursory review by experts or the community.” 

While listing a group as a Hate Group will not require anyone in the group to have committee a hate crime, nor for the Minister of Home Affairs to show any procedural fairness, there is one limit.

They can only list a group once the head of ASIO has advised them that there is a case for doing so. Once that has been done, let ‘em rip.

Thankfully there has never been any problems in Australian history of ASIO targeting perfectly legal organisations…

As is par for the course for QT, not a lot.

The Coalition still think they are on a winning ticket by blaming the Albanese government for the 14 December antisemitic terror attack.

This is despite the events of the summer having resulted in nothing for the Coalition except a loss in the polls to One Nation. And while there is a lot of spin about the fall in Albanese’s personal approval ratings, this is not going to cause the government to lose any sleep when Labor is largely holding in the polls.

So what we have learnt, is that the Coalition is continuing to see much further it can fall. You have to wonder, what is the point?

Also worth noting – Ted O’Brien didn’t get any questions there.

The final dixer is on Iran where Richard Marles says:

The Australian government and the Australian people stand in solidarity with the brave people of Iran, who are demonstrating for their basic human rights against on oppressive regime.

And there is absolutely no legitimacy in the Iranian government killing thousands of its own citizens in order for the regime to maintain power, indeed this is an outrage and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

The Iranian people have been having their voice heard for many years now, particularly Iranian women. And our government has taken strong action against Iran. We have more than 200 sanctions in place against individuals and entities including those within the regime and members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corp.

We’re at the forefront of seeing Iran removed from a UN committee which was focused on discrimination against women, and because of Iranian interference in our own country we have expelled the Iranian Ambassador from Iran.

Now, we will continue to work with the international community to put pressure on the Iranian regime in respect of its treatment of its own people and the way in which it engages with the world. That said, there is a significant Iranian community in Australia, and there are Australians who are in Iran.

Since 2020, it has been the advice of the Australian government not to travel to Iran. For those Australians who are in Iran right now, our advice is that if it is safe to do so, leave and leave quickly. This is a volatile situation and it can change very quickly.

Our embassy in Iran suspended its operations back in August of last year, so there is little, if any, Consular assistance which can be provide right now to Australians who are which makes it very important for people to monitor safe traveller and keep abreast of its updates which we will endeavour to put up as soon as possible as well as availing themselves of the 24-hour emergency Consular phone line on plus 61262613305.

For far too long Iran has been a malevolent influence in the Middle East and around the world. We look with awe at those Iranians right now who are risking their lives to protest against the Iranian government and today our nation salutes the people of Iran as they bear the torch of freedom.

Julian Leeser adds the Coalition to those remarks:

On indulgence can I associate the Coalition with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Iranian regime is a criminal regime that commits human rights abuses against its own people as we’ve been seeing and they export terror and violence abroad as we have suffered in our own country and we stand shoulder to shoulder with the government in the condemnation of the Iranian regime and the support for those people seeking to support the regime and with the Persian people in the country.

And before anyone can ask or think any awkward questions about Australia’s consistency on international human rights and what regimes it criticises for abuses them, question time ends.

Kristy McBain then takes a dixer on the disaster response and then it is back to Ley who asks:

The Prime Minister told Australians that the National security experts advised against a Commonwealth Royal Commission. In establishing the Royal Commission is the Prime Minister defied national security advice or was he just making stuff up?

Anthony Albanese:

Mr Speaker the Leader of the Opposition said on December 23, “I will continue to call the parliament to be recalled it is a comprehensive package that we put forward”. On December 27 “every single day the Coalition stands ready to go into parliament and move our own legislation”. On December 30 “we have proposed a comprehensive package of laws that we should be debating in the parliament right now”.

Ley tries a point of order:

For the Prime Minister to be so defensive and dismissive on national security does him no good soever and I draw your attention in the prime ministers attention back to the question about national security advice and the Prime Minister’s sighting of that advice or not.

Dick tells Albanese to be directly relevant, but he is also annoyed at the tone.

Albanese:

I was asked about making things up and I have already said that what we did in the immediate aftermath of the 14 December attack…it wasn’t ‘why don’t we set up a committee’, what it was was how do we act, how do we keep people safe? What do we need to do immediately? That was the priority.

But the Leader of the Opposition during all of that time, all of that time and we see again today where in spite of the fact they voted for some of the legislation, they voted against the areas of national security. I tell you what, see if you can find a national security experts that does not support the gun laws that went through this parliament with the support of this side but not that side.

Because one of the problems we have had, Mr Speaker, throughout this is the gap between the rhetoric of those opposite and what they have actually done.

They said they had legislation and they did not…(there is another attempt at a point of order, but Dick is not having it)

…In the way that this government functions, which is orderly and getting things right and seeking advice including, including of the leaders of the Jewish community is a process that we put in place.

Whether it be the process of the legislation which they called for and then voted against vilification, when in all of the negotiations every single measure put forward by those opposite has not been how do we strengthen the legislation it has been over we have an internal problem can we weaken it a little bit here and there?

That is been the process, to be clear, Mr Speaker, of the legislation that will pass the parliament because we do not have the numbers in the Senate and we had to deal with either the Coalition or Greens support in the Senate which we have managed to do.

But the hypocrisy, Mr Speaker, to call for the parliament to be resumed, they said it was too soon. Call for vilification laws in the Siegel report. Called for all these measures to go forward including on security and guns and then voted against it. What we have done its work with the community in a collaborative way to get things done through this parliament inspired of, not because of, those opposite.

Independent MP for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie breaks up the tension when she asks Mark Butler about health care.

In 2022 there were 60 older South Australian stuck in Adelaide Hospital is waiting for residential aged care and as of yesterday there were 370 stranded, a 515 percentage increase. State health ministers are frustrated and so are older South Australians. When will the government act to take responsibility for elderly people in hospitals who need to be in aged care?

Butler:

I thank the member for her question and her deep care and her engagement with me and with other aged care ministers over the course of this time in government. As you would know there has been a deep public discussion about the issue of longer stay patients in public hospitals across the country, perhaps with the exception of Victoria where there is a strong state run nursing home system that takes a lot of those patients more directly but there is no question that the increase in longer stay patients across the rest of the country is quite significant and, frankly, it tracks the increase we are seeing in the number of very old Australians as a result of the ageing of our population that this is increasing demand for residential aged care and increasing pressure by extension on our hospital system.

From the first time, the first term of the Albanese government we have undertaken arrangements with different state governments to fund programs to divert older Australians from hospitals in the first place including in South Australia geriatric outreach teams who go out to aged care facilities to try to prevent admission in the first place.

Those are working very, very well and are subject to Commonwealth funding. We are trying to ensure as far as possible that people are able to leave a hospital if they are medically able to do so.

Ultimately in some cases it depends on there being an residential aged care bed available to them and we know there is a shortage of beds across the system and that is why we have put so much energy particularly under the former minister for aged care in designing a new aged care system that would stimulate new investment, investment that had fallen off a cliff, frankly, over the period leading into and certainly during the COVID pandemic.

We are still engaged with state government about that as a significant part of the negotiation that remains under way between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments for a new five year hospital funding agreement, explicitly a part of that negotiation has been to continue and maybe extend and expand arrangements including Commonwealth funding for older stay patients as I said to avoid them going to hospital in the first place and if they end up in hospital a smooth transition out of hospital into an alternative place whether that is home with a home care package or into a residential aged care facility.

Those negotiations are ongoing and we hope to strike a deal particularly before the South Australian government goes into caretaker and if we are unable to do that we will start to get right up against the end of this financial year given we only have a 1-year agreement so far and this will be a big part of those negotiations going forward.

Josh Burns gets a second question and it is on a particular case, which means the Albanese government wants this information out there, but with parliamentary privilege.

Burns:

How is the Australian Federal Police working to crackdown on anti-Semitic crime what progress has there been?

Tony Burke:

I think the member for the question and the answer goes specifically to issues around the arson attack against the Israeli synagogue in his electorate.

In October Australian Federal Police Commissioner Chrissy Barrett announced who the Australian Federal Police’s number one priority was.

She is not given him a name but his name has appeared in the media.

An alleged offshore offender who Australia had rightly deported as a national security threat to our country.

She referred to him as person number one – he was living offshore having been deported he thought he was out of reach. But he was not out of reach and is now locked up in Iraq.

The person has come up in investigations with respect to the illicit tobacco trade, violent and dangerous crimes, other crimes in Australia and came up in the investigation with suspected leaks to the firebombing of the synagogue.

After announcing this person number one is a priority the AFP worked with a number of agencies and the Commissioner had one-on-one conversations and late last year the Australian Federal Police provided information to law enforcement officials around the world specifically in Iraq about this alleged offender.

Australian Federal Police, using all its capability, partnerships and networks to help ensure this person faces justice system.

The person was announced as the AFP’s number one priority in October and was locked up in Iraq by January.

Iraqi officials made an independent decision following their investigations after they received information from Australia to arrest the alleged offender after launching their own criminal investigation. He thought he was out of reach and he was not.

He is now in custody in Iraq. I have been repeatedly asked does Australia have an intention to extradite him to make him face the full face of the law here in Australia.

I will be frank, he was deported because we do not want him here. We want him locked up and if the outcome is he is out of Australia and behind bars and that in our view that is the best outcome we could have.

The pattern continues – a dixer for the government to say what it has done, a question from the opposition on why it has taken so long/criticising for not doing enough.

We seem to have reached the point where Anthony Albanese has had enough.

Julian Leeser asks:

Prime Minister, if a Commonwealth royal commission is such a good idea why did you spend 25 days arguing against it?

Anthony Albanese:

We spent the immediate aftermath, as I have said, of the attack on 14 December making assessments based upon how do we ensure that this isn’t part of a cell, given ISIS’s recognition that were identified very early on, by these perpetrators, that we wanted to make sure we put in place the measures that kept people safe.

That was the first priority, as you would expect.

And we worked on the Sunday night.

The National Security Committee met on the Monday morning very early. We met as well with New South Wales police in Sydney, and we continued to meet on a daily basis. We established that we needed to have the Richardson review which would look into the operations of the AFP, ASIO, the security agencies, but also in the way that they interacted with state agencies as well, and we chose Mr Richardson as the person who is probably Australia’s pre-eminent expert on foreign international and defence and security issues.

We, at the same time, were then convening a process and announced what the principles would be in the legislation that we would bring before this Parliament that was passed…

Leeser has a point of order:

Mr Speaker, on relevance. My question was not about what were the other matters the Prime Minister was doing but why did he argue against a royal commission.

Dick:

Resume your seat. You specifically said about the time line and you gave a number of days and the Prime Minister is going through, from what I can hear, day by day, as to the reasons you asked him about so unless he he’s straying off I’ll make sure he’s being directly relevant but he is answering the question and giving reasons and argument.

Albanese:

The member would be aware also that the New South Wales government announced that they would have a royal commission and we responded by at the same time as we announced the Richardson review said there would be full Commonwealth cooperation including access to all personnel, all records and everything which would have made it effectively a Commonwealth royal commission as well.

We announced that, and said that very publicly. We then, of course, worked with the community on what a royal commission might look like because we wanted to make sure that we got it right.

There are risks with the royal commission given that a criminal case will be taking place at the same time and we needed to make sure that was covered.

We need make sure as well that we got the Royal Commissioner right and in choosing Virginia Bell I believe we did get it right.

We also needed to consult with the Jewish community and we sat down and went through line by line, days before the royal commission was announced, to make sure that that occurred.

The character assassination that took place in some sections of the media and was briefed out by some people associated with that side of politics in Virginia Bell shows the problem that would have occurred had we not announced, not just a royal commission but who the commissioner was, what the terms of reference was and had the support of the community for those terms of reference.

I thank EJAC for making sure that that occurred. They engaged respectfully. There was one meeting that went for over four hours. We engaged respectfully. The people who were critical of Virginia Bell did it on social media and publicly as well, very openly, and you know who they were.

During that answer, Milton Dick again asks for calm and says:

I am asking all members, I am pleading with all members to show restraint and respect to the people in the gallery, the hundreds of thousands of people watching this. Our words really matter. I am asking all the Parliament to come together

Which, look, he is not wrong that their words matter. But it is a pretty big exaggeration to claim ‘hundreds of thousands’ of people are watching this. There is not even 2,000 watching the YouTube stream and it has less than 25,000 subscribers.

Liberal MP Julian Leeser is next up and he asks:

New South Wales Labor premier Chris Minns has said sorry to the Jewish community for his handling of the anti-Semitism crisis that led to the murder of 15 people at Bondi.

The Jewish community wants to hear their prime minister say sorry. For the third time, why won’t you say sorry as well?

The third time is in reference to the number of questions the opposition has asked this question time.

Albanese:

As prime minister, something I’ve said consistently, privately, publicly, I am sorry [this happened and this happened while on my watch as prime minister. There are a lot of interjections, so it is hard to hear]

When Port Arthur happened, the Parliament came together, no-one saw that as a political opportunity, because Kim Beazley gave every support. The Leader of the Opposition indicated to me on the Sunday on 14 December, every support will be given to the government.

…We provided though every support to what was then the Abbott government at that time. When the Bali bombings occurred, people did not see that as an opportunity for politics, people for that as the need for the national interest to be put first.

I am devastated, as all Australians are, at what has occurred. The fact that I am primitive style while it occurred, I have acknowledged repeatedly, it is the source of sadness, and I am sad that every government has not done better on anti-Semitism. Including mine.

What I won’t say though is that anti-Semitism began when my government was elected. Because that is just absurd. What I won’t do is let the terrorists of the hook.

…We responded when 7 October happened. We came together in this Parliament and passed a resolution unanimously at that time. I won’t let the terrorists off the hook by pretending that the atrocity that they committed was not the result of their choices and their actions.

This was not a random event. This was an anti-Semitic terrorist attack inspired by ISIS, conducted by a father and son, perpetrated in the name of a perverted, murderous version as they saw it of Islam.

They bought the gun, they fired them into the crowd, they killed 15 innocent people and wounded dozens more.

And the idea that they are not responsible for those actions is something that I certainly will not do.

Josh Burns asks the next dixer which is very similar to the question Mark Dreyfus asked Albanese, but this one is to Richard Marles.

The independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender asks the first crossbench question:

Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms of hate is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December.

We have had de-radicalisation programs in place for many years but extremism is still taking root. How does the government measure the current effectiveness of these de-radicalisation programs and how effective are these programs at all?

We do have the Richardson review and part of the royal commission coming up but is the government planning to take any other actions in terms of de-radicalisation in particular before then?

Anthony Albanese takes the first part of the question:

I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. And I praise her unreservedly for her role as a local member in what has been a devastating time for her local community, not just the Jewish community but, of course, Bondi is such an iconic place, and the local member has shown extraordinary leadership and capacity in my view, and I thank her for that.

I will ask the minister to supplement, but I would say that radical Islamic extremism is a major problem. We know that that is the case.

We know that hate preachers can cause a real problem in distorting Islam and creating a circumstance where people are full of hate and we saw an expression of hate motivated by ISIS, an ideology that isn’t about any state. It is about an Islamic caliphate around the world.

Often this is difficult, as the examples come from what is a father and son. It’s much more difficult to detect as the ASIO Director-General has reported, a big threat is sole actors, an individual actor. In this case, a father and son discussing these things over the dinner table or in private quarters not engaging in electronic measures, communication that can be detected means it is much more difficult.

But the government has a range of programs, certainly something the written review will look at.

He then asks Tony Burke to supplement his answer:

The counter-terrorism and violent extremism strategy was released again last year when we reviewed the different programs. They are important programs and the challenge we have terrors terrorism itself is changing.

If I give these statistics, as at January, a couple of days ago we have hard since 2014 189 people charged as a result of counter-terrorism operations. Right now we have 35 people before the court. 18 of them, 18 of the 35 our children.

And so what we used to have to monitor in terms of organised cells of people often in their 20s and 30s is very different now.

In terms of the ideology, we are getting mixed ideologies. Seriously mixed ideology, you have someone for example whose ideology will be a durable Nazism, the thought of radicalisation you’ve described art environmentalism, this all mixed up, where the only common theme is violence. That means for our agencies the threat now is more complex, people are radicalised younger and faster and predominantly online.

Milton Dick asks for restraint “on today of all days”.

Mark Dreyfus asks what the government has done to address antisemitism, and Albanese’s tone changes as he reads out the list. Sussan Ley is back up and things start getting messy.

Ley:

After Australia’s deadliest ever terror attack in Bondi, the families of victims wrote to the Prime Minister and said, ‘We have endured more than two and a half years of relentless attacks. Our children feel unsafe at school, our homes, workplaces, sporting fields and public spaces no longer feel secure. It is an intolerable situation that no Australian should have to endure.”

Prime Minister I ask again. Will you apologise to Jewish Australians because you and your government did not listen?

Albanese:

I certainly acknowledge very directly the pain that Jewish Australians are feeling and that they have felt for some period of time. The idea that anti-Semitism began with the election of the government in 2022 is just not right.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, on 25 November 2018, said that the 12-month period ending 30 September 2018, saw a 59 per cent increase over the previous year in total anti-Semitic incidents in Australia involving threats or actings of violence.

Josh Frydenberg, the then Treasurer, said, on 10 May 2019, ‘Anti-Semitism is on the rise here in Australia and the number of incidents has increased quite dramatically.”

The member for Berowra said on 7 May, 2017, ‘I find it hard to believe in 2019 we are witnessing anti-Semitic incidents on Australian on an unprecedented scale.”

Senator Andrew Bragg at the same time, ‘I believe anti-Semitism is a rising problem.”

There is a point of order that is not a point of order.

Albanese continues:

Let me be very clear, Mr Speaker. All governments should have done better. That is my point.

The idea that anti-Semitism began two years ago, with the change of government, is false and it’s declared to be false by the comments of those opposite in senior positions.

Despite the surge in anti-Semitism on their watch, did the Morrison government appoint a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism? No. Did they establish a joint operation bringing together the AFP and ASIO to combat acts of anti-Semitism? No. Did they introduce Australia’s first ever hate speech laws? No. Did they legislate a crackdown on preachers and leaders who preach violence? No.

We also enacted a landmark ban on the Nazi salute and hate symbols. We criminalised them, something this those opposite voted against. We have appointed Australia’s first National Student Ombudsman. We have created and launched a national hate crime and incidents database. We have imposed counter-terrorism financing sanctions on the white supremacist terrorist network Terrorgram. We expelled the Iranian Ambassador for their interference in Australia. We directed the eSafety Commissioner to tackle the proliferation of hateful online content, and we have now established a royal commission on anti-Semitism and social cohesion. .

Anthony Albanese is ready for this question and responds:

What happened on 14th December was a targeted, evil anti-Semitic terrorist attack on Jewish Australians. And my heart breaks for every person in every family, every community that has been made to suffer because of the horrific hate filled pilot.

I have attended homes, synagogue private meetings, in their homes, in my home [and my] office with those families. I have not had TV cameras and reporters,

I’ve engaged respectfully with those people. I’ve said I feel the weight of response relative from atrocity that happened while I am prime minister.

As I have said, I am sorry that this occurred, sorry for the grief and pain the Jewish community in our entire nation have experienced.

Our responsibility is to turn grief, pain and anger into meaningful action, meaningful action, making a difference, and that is what I’ve driven to do.

I have said that we would implement in full the recommendations of the anti-Semitism Envoy’s report. Unfortunately some of those recommendations, the most serious ones about vilification did not receive the support of either the Coalition or the Greens in the Senate and therefore will not able to be pursued.

We did, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, our priority was unashamedly about the safety of Australians. If you look at what has happened with terrorist attacks overseas, what often occurs is that one attack leads to another coordinated attack somewhere else, as part of planning.

Our first priority unashamedly on the Sunday night, on the Monday, on the Tuesday, on the Wednesday, on the Thursday, was not to worry about politics.

Our priority was were these people part of a cell? Would there be another attack at another place in Sydney? Would there be a follow-up attack in Melbourne?

Were Jewish Australians being kept safe? Were the leaders of those communities being kept safe? We upgraded the security measures around the track.

We, our priority, was that.

What were the gaps that were missed in security as well through the National Security Committee that has met on almost a daily basis everyday since 14 December.

That was absolutely our priority, was to get that right. Our second priority was to make sure not that we do something in a year’s time or two years’ time but to do something immediately, and the Parliament, the House of Representatives, passed legislation not as strong as we would have liked in tackling anti-Semitism just before question time.

But what we could get through. That was our priority. Our priority, and we called a royal commission, once we had the Royal Commissioner in place, once we had consulted the Jewish community about the terms of reference as well

As expected, here is Sussan Ley’s first question:

My question as to the prime minister, the families of the Bondi terrorist attack victims had to back the prime minister through their grief and tears for a Commonwealth royal commission into anti-Semitism. The prime minister dithered and dallied and forced families to juggle unimaginable grief with national advocacy. It was callous, unfair and they are owed an apology.

The prime minister delayed with a host of bogus excuses, citing nameless experts, saying it would take too long and arguing it would platform hate. Not once has the prime minister admitted to and said sorry for his mistakes.

Can the prime minister humble himself once and simply say sorry.

Which honestly, is pretty close to what we just guessed it would be in the office.

We just re-watched the Bob Katter press conference and he has finally admitted the truth of his heritage (without threatening to punch anyone this time).

Katter put it on the public record that his grandfather “migrated from the Middle East”. He was using it as an example of how he believes there are exceptions to some of his hardline migration beliefs, but don’t worry – this is still Bob Katter and he doesn’t believe in exceptions enough for their to be a ‘general rule’ that Middle Eastern migration be banned.

Yuuup

While the politicians do their annual ‘if only we could do something’ about the climate speeches, we are taking bets on how unhinged the opposition’s opening question to the government will be.

But first, there is a motion about the natural disasters Australia has been experiencing over the summer, including the fires.

This is happening as the Labor government approves and extends fossil fuel projects, but apparently the two aren’t linked.

wE aRe aLl trYInG tO fiNd ThE pEoPle wHO dID tHis

The House is suspended and the senate is starting up.

There will be a QT and then the debate on the bills which passed the house, will begin in the senate.

Now that the Liberals are saying a firm yes, the hate bill will pass. The senate is scheduled to sit until 10pm tonight, but that will depend on how many attempts there are to extend the debate/amend the bill (although it won’t matter if the Libs vote with the government because that is enough votes to shut down any attempts to extend what they don’t want it extended.

Here is who voted against the hate speech laws, in the House.

The reasons given – too rushed, impacts on civil liberties, doesn’t address the issues.

Here is the statement from Sussan Ley on the hate speech laws:

In the national interest, the Liberal Party has today stepped up to fix legislation that the Albanese Government badly mishandled.

For more than two years, the Albanese Government failed to confront the rising tide of antisemitism and failed to keep Australians safe. 

That failure was exposed by the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil and when leadership was required, the Prime Minister did not provide it.

Instead, Labor produced a clumsy and deeply flawed package of legislation that collapsed under scrutiny, divided the Parliament and risked encroaching on fundamental freedoms. 

After months of exclusion and arrogance, the Prime Minister was forced to come to the Liberal Party to fix legislation he could not draft properly and could not deliver alone.

From the outset, we said we would be constructive, and we have been. 

As a result of Liberal Party action, the legislation has been narrowed, strengthened and properly focused on keeping Australians safe, not political point scoring.

The key changes secured by the Liberal Party narrow the legislative focus to combatting antisemitism and radical Islamist extremism by:

• Ensuring aggravated offences will capture radical Islamist extremist preachers and leaders, including visiting speakers, are captured by the law.
• Strengthening the role of Parliament in examining these extraordinary powers. Including by inserting mandatory two year reviews by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ensure new powers are effective, proportionate and accountable.
• Making the Prohibited Hate Groups Listing Framework more targeted to those most dangerous hate groups seeking to incite violence. 
• Ensuring in legislation that the laws are directed at serious conduct of a criminal nature that impacts our national security, not at free speech.  
• Requiring consultation with the Leader of the Opposition on both the listing and delisting of extremist organisations strengthening the bipartisan approach to national security. 
• Closing gaps in hate crime definitions so Commonwealth offences are properly covered and ensuring only the most serious state and territory legislation can be used to prescribe groups.
• Ensuring migration powers are used decisively to remove extremists who threaten community safety.

These changes strengthen the law, close loopholes and restore clarity and accountability. 

The Liberal Party will always strongly defend freedom of thought, freedom of worship and freedom of speech.

Those freedoms define who we are as a nation, and they must be defended even when the task before us is confronting hatred and extremism.

As a direct result of the Liberal Party’s veto, Labor’s attempt to criminalise free speech is no more.

The Liberal Party will always act to keep Australians safe, defend freedoms and put the national interest first.

We have succeeded in narrowing the scope of this bill to deal with what we said it should do — tackle antisemitism and tackle radical Islamist extremism.

In the new amended bill that is going to be passed because the Libs will vote with the ALP the big section to worry about is that concerning banning so-called “Hate groups”

Here’s the text:

Words like “reasonable grounds” make it sounds like the Minister in charge of the AFP (used to be the Attorney General but is now the Minister for Home Affairs) has to really have incontrovertible grounds before they band a group.

But no.

If we turn the page we get this little note:

Ahh so no need for anyone in the group to be convicted of a hate crime, or for the Minister to even bother with “procedural fairness”.

Well, that would never be abused to for example ban a group that actively supports Palestine….

Also in the first part there was the line that “certain steps must be taken before a prohibited hate group regulation can be made”

What are those steps?

Those steps are

So the director general of security to provide advice, but only MAY. Gee that’s strong!

And finally that

So wow. The Home Affairs Minister needs to get the Attorney General to agree and then they need to tell the Opposition Leader!

Love those checks and balances!

This morning, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) handed down its report into the gun control/hate speech bill.

With just a week to inquire into the 144-page bill (and 300-page explanatory memorandum), the report is necessarily limited and pragmatic. It recognises that the Labor Government has already decided to split the bill and drop the new racial vilification provisions.

It makes four recommendations:

1. Parliament to work together constructively.
2. The hate crimes/migration and firearms reforms proceed (excluding the racial vilification elements).
3. Buyback to avoid duplication; not unreasonably disadvantage farmers, rural and sporting shooters; provide clear guidance.
4. Add a defence for licensed firearm owners to manufacture, repair, maintain and modify firearms.

The main report is brief – about 11 pages. It includes this alarming quote from disgraced former Home Affairs head Mike Pezzulo:

“I think parliament simply has to accept that you’re not going to get perfection in the drafting.”

The Liberal and National MPs’ dissenting report criticises the Albanese Government, including for a lack of consultation, and emphasises the Antisemitic motive for the murders at Bondi.

“What we are left with is a Bill that leaves key concepts undefined, embeds foreseeable loopholes, risks chilling lawful speech, and fails to deliver the focused counter-terrorism response Australians were promised”.

The Coalition members flag support for parts of the bill, including aggravated offences for preachers and religious leaders; hate symbol provisions; and additional grounds for excluding non-citizens who support violent extremist organisations.

Minor party and independent MPs are excluded from the committee. 

How do committees turn around reports in such a short period of time?

The PJCIS went from first seeing the bill to handing down their report in seven days, including a two-day window for public submissions and two days of hearings.

The hearing days came before the close of submissions, meaning that the committee couldn’t make use of submissions in deciding who would be most valuable to invite for questioning.

By contrast, other recent inquiries have taken months or in excess of a year.

So how does the committee do it?

In part, by working in parallel.

The PJCIS report is keenly aware that much of the legislation has been decided in negotiations outside of the committee. After all, no Greens are allowed on the committee and yet Labor and the Greens have struck a deal on gun control.

In part, it does it by taking shortcuts.

There are only four recommendations in the main report from the committee – though in these 200 pages of rushed legislation there are surely many things that need to be improved. The committee only had the chance to publish 200 of the over 7,000 submissions received by the time the report was due. The final report sketches out broad concerns and makes a few pointed interventions, but cannot give the bill the thorough going over that it deserves.

And in part, it does it by working people hard.

It is a myth that politicians are only working when Parliament is sitting. These committee hearings happened outside of a sitting period, and no doubt included late nights and early mornings.  

So why is it a big deal if the Nationals say no, given the Liberals still have the numbers to pass it in the senate without them.

Short version – the future of the Coalition. While you might start to see some Liberals also back away, there is still enough to pass the legislation. But the cost could be what happens to the Coalition’s unity. It is already pretty fragile and if the Nationals wanted to, they could make this a big issue internally. Which is something both Sussan Ley and David Littleproud want to avoid.

The Nationals want the language and laws around how the home affairs minister can declare a hate group to be tightened, so it becomes about those inciting violence, not just offense or that a group feels targeted.

That work around means the Coalition can still target groups who are advocating for Palestine, or against the genocide in Gaza, but more ideologically aligned groups, like the ACL and those campaigning against trans people, can continue without fear of being labelled a hate group.

Politics is just dandy, isn’t it?

Amnesty Australia is commemorating the one year anniversary since Trump returned to the White House with a report on all the ways he has been eroding human rights and liberties.

In a new report released today, Ringing the Alarm Bells: Rising Authoritarian Practices and Erosion of Human Rights in the United States, Amnesty International documented how the Trump administration’s escalation of authoritarian practices, including closing civic space and undermining the rule of law, is eroding human rights in the U.S. and beyond.  

“We are all witness to a dangerous trajectory under President Trump that has already led to a human rights emergency,” said Paul O’Brien, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. “By shredding norms and concentrating power, the administration is trying to make it impossible for anyone to hold them accountable. There is no doubt that these authoritarian practices by the Trump administration are eroding human rights and increasing the risk for journalists and people who speak out or dissent, including protestors, lawyers, students, and human rights defenders.”  

The report includes twelve interconnected areas in which the Trump administration is cracking the pillars of a free society, including attacks on freedom of the press and access to information, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, civil society organizations and universities, political opponents and critics, judges, lawyers, and the legal system, and due process. The report also documents attacks on refugee and migrant rights, the scapegoating of communities and the rollback of non-discrimination protections, the use of the military for domestic purposes, the dismantling of corporate accountability and anti-corruption measures, the expansion of surveillance without meaningful oversight, and efforts to undermine international systems designed to protect human rights. 

As detailed in the report, these authoritarian tactics are mutually reinforcing: Students are arrested and detained for protesting on college campuses, entire communities are being flooded and terrorized with masked ICE agents, and the militarization of cities across the U.S. is becoming normalized. At the same time, press intimidation makes human rights violations and abuses harder to expose; retaliation against protest makes people afraid to speak; expanding surveillance and militarization increases the costs of dissent; and attacks on courts, lawyers, and oversight bodies make accountability harder to enforce. These tactics are clearly eroding human rights, including freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of the press, access to information, equality and non-discrimination, due process, academic freedom, freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to seek asylum, the right to a fair trial, and even the right to life. 

Amnesty International has long documented similar patterns in countries around the world. While contexts differ, governments consolidate power, control information, discredit critics, punish dissent, narrow civic space, and weaken mechanisms meant to ensure accountability. 

“The attack on civic space and the rule of law and the erosion of human rights in the United States mirrors the global pattern Amnesty has seen and warned about for decades,” said O’Brien. “Importantly, our experience shows that by the time authoritarian practices are fully entrenched, the institutions meant to restrain abuses of power are already severely compromised.” 

In the report, Amnesty International sets forth a comprehensive set of recommendations – to the United States Executive Branch, Congress, state and local governments and law enforcement agencies, international actors and other governments, corporate actors such as technology companies, and the public – aimed at reversing this embrace of authoritarian practices and preventing the normalization of increased repression and human rights violations. It calls for urgent action to protect civic space, restore rule of law safeguards, strengthen accountability, and ensure that human rights violations are neither ignored nor accepted as inevitable. 

“We can, and we must, forge a different path,” O’Brien said. “Authoritarian practices only take root when they are allowed to become normalized. We cannot let that happen in the United States. Together, we all have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to rise to this challenging time in our history and to protect human rights.”

Delayed report stokes volunteer firefighter funding row

Government funding for a state volunteer firefighters agency has been boosted for the first time in five years, a delayed report shows.

Victoria’s Labor government has faced scrutiny over bushfire preparedness after rampant blazes tore through communities in catastrophic conditions in early January.

Volunteer firefighters accused the Allan government of cutting funding to the Country Fire Authority, citing annual report figures showing government grants fell from $351.6 million in 2020/21 to $339.5 million in 2023/24.

The latest annual report, tabled by state parliament on Tuesday, showed government funding for the CFA rose to $361.3 million in 2024/25 despite Treasurer Jaclyn Symes previously estimating it would come in at $337.6 million.

The body nonetheless recorded a $51.8 million deficit and total volunteer numbers slipped from 51,949 to 51,796.

“We recognise that volunteer recruitment and retention remain a challenge, and we have an ageing volunteer profile,” CFA chief officer Jason Heffernan wrote.

The report said 147 emergency response vehicles were delivered in the past 12 months and eight stations were completed or under construction, pushing the value of the CFA’s assets $106 million higher.

In all, volunteers completed 202 planned burns and treated an above-target 4774 hectares.

Emergency Services Minister Vicki Ward, who said she received the report on December 18 after “delays in the process” to finalise it, accused the coalition of spreading “misinformation and conspiracy theories”.

“The leader of the opposition should apologise for her misinformation campaign,” she said.

“She should also withdraw from the Barnaby Joyce misinformation convention, which will claim climate change has nothing to do with fires and floods that are increasing in frequency and intensity.”

But Nationals leader Danny O’Brien said the latest figures still amounted to a $55 million cut to the CFA in “real terms”.

“Premier (Jacinta) Allan’s claim that her government has only ever increased funding to the CFA is wrong,” the shadow emergency services spokesman said.

“Under Labor, the number of CFA volunteers continues to decline because they are not being appropriately supported by this tired, out of touch government.”

Bushfires have burned more than 413,000 hectares across the state this summer and damaged or destroyed more than 1000 structures.

Blazes in the Upper Murray near the NSW-Victoria border and close to Dargo in Victoria’s east continued to burn at watch-and-act level on Tuesday.

Twenty-two firefighters from New Zealand arrived on Monday to support local and interstate crews’ efforts near Tallangatta, with another 74 personnel from Canada scheduled to touch down on January 27.

The Greens have called a press conference for just ahead of question time at 2pm. They have scheduled it for 1.20, which means they are not going to be in and out (it is a political favourite move to call a press conference with just 15 or so minutes until QT, so they have the excuse to call the press conference off after just a handful of questions).

This one will be on the gun laws the Greens will pass, but also on why they won’t pass the hate crimes bill, given this speaking list:

Sen. Larissa Waters, Leader of the Australian Greens
Sen. Mehreen Faruqi, Greens Deputy Leader & Antiracism spokesperson
Sen. David Shoebridge, Greens Justice spokesperson
Greg Barns SC, Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) spokesperson

In July 2022, Prime Minister Albanese declared a climate emergency in the Pacific.

Yet three and a half years later:

• Australia’s domestic emissions are still high and not dropping fast enough,
• Australia continues to be one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, and
• Australia is opening up new and expanded fossil fuel extraction.

In fact, in Australia, fossil fuel mining companies get subsidies to burn fossil fuels used in digging up even more fossil fuels.

How does this work?

While ordinary Australians pay fuel tax when they fill up their car, fossil fuel mining companies get this tax refunded when they burn fuel on mining sites. These are called ‘fuel tax credits’ and are a fossil fuel subsidy according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency.

Coal miners burn A LOT of subsidised fuel

In 2022-23, the coal mining industry used over 3.6 billion litres of diesel, which is about 12% of all diesel used in Australia. As a result of using all this carbon-emitting diesel, they dug up over 400 million tonnes of carbon-emitting coal, and generously received well over $1 billion in fuel subsidies.

While policies like this remain in place, it’s difficult to take the Government’s commitments to climate action seriously.

In his speech, Liberal MP Julian Leeser is very particular about saying the ‘Liberals’ will pass the hate speech legislation. Not the Coalition. So while some Nationals are trying to play down the split, it is obviously big enough that the Liberals don’t want to claim the Coalition is on board just yet.

Over in the house, Liberal shadow-attorney general Andrew Wallace is indicating support for the hate speech laws (depending on amendments) but isn’t committing to it just yet.

So it’s a pending ‘yes’.

Wallace is limiting his ‘hate speech’ to radical Islam in his speech, as well as linking it (completely without evidence, basis or fact) to the Coalition’s ‘Isis brides’ campaign from last year – when Australian citizens, returned to Australia from Syria. This was done without government assistance, but you can not stop Australians from returning to Australia (when the borders are open, the covid closures obviously being one of the exceptions) and these women were being monitored by security agencies. While some made the choice to go to Syria, others were taken as children, or tricked. They remain being monitored, but other than big scary headlines, there is no evidence these women or their children are doing anything but quietly trying to get on with their lives.

The Nationals have called their own party room meeting to try and work out their position on the hate speech laws. Some in the party, like Matt Canavan, want more boundaries on the powers for the home affairs minister to prescribe a hate group. Others, are happy to go along with what the Liberals have decided.

But Canavan is influential enough within the party that if he is making public noises, then Littleproud, who went through this with Barnaby Joyce and doesn’t want to lose any more authority in his partyroom, has to act.

So now they are trying to work out where they stand as a party in all of this.

Anyways, lets see how the UK’s hate speech laws are going shall we? (The UK Labour government also vowed to uphold free speech, which is not a right in Australia.)

This is from City Journal in September of last year:

British authorities are not slouching in enforcement. According to police records analyzed by the London Times, over 12,000 Britons per year are arrested for speech-related offenses—an average of 30 per day and nearly a fourfold increase over the 2016 figure. Recent cases have reportedly included arrests for derogatory comments about migrants, displays of the national flag that others found offensive, and even silent prayer near abortion clinics. Since 2014, police can record comments merely perceived as offensive as so-called “non-crime hate incidents,” which remain on the offending party’s record even if no charges are filed.

Attorney-general Michelle Rowland has introduced the hate speech laws into the house.

The hate group designation is still in there and while the Liberals are still leaning yes, my Nationals sources are telling me they are still a no. For now. There is nothing like a bitch and fold in Australian politics, and the moan and fold also gets a good going round.

Rowland said at the end of introducing the bill:

This bill should not be a moment for divisional political point scoring. This is a moment for national unity. The colour of someone’s skin or the God they pray to is not determinative of their worth. Legislation alone cannot be prejudiced from people ‘s minds.

Hate spreads it fosters and takes root every time it is not called out. It is our collective responsibility to stamp out this hatred wherever we see it.

Our nation is strongest when we choose respect over division and we must continue to invest in a community where everyone belongs, where everyone can thrive.

The passage of the combating anti-Semitism hate and extremism criminal and migration laws bill will be a decisive step forward in achieving this.

It will send a loud and unequivocal message to all corners of this country that we must stand united in the face of racial hatred.

More importantly the passage of this bill will send a message light will prosper over darkness, the passage of this bill will give us hope that Australia will continue to be a place of tolerance and our diversity can be displayed with pride.

While the Australian Parliament has been meeting to discuss gun control and hate-speech laws the world’s elite is preparing for this year’s meeting at Davos.

Bloomberg reports: “Gunboat capitalism. MAGA Marxism. Techno-feudalism — whatever you call it, Donald Trump is upending the global economy as it has been viewed from the Swiss resort synonymous with wealth and power.… On this new global stage, the US can treat allies like enemies; help itself to Venezuela’s oil; demand that Denmark surrender Greenland — with any country standing in the way facing more tariffs — and jolt businesses, markets and entire economies with the next Truth Social post.”

At last year’s Davos meeting Trump spoke remotely and this time he is expected to attend and personally address the participants. At least at Davos there is usually some discussion of climate change and other topics that ordinary people will find important and interesting. However we learn that this year, to get the President’s attendance, organisers had to promise they would downplay climate change and other topics Trump regards as “woke”.

Trump’s presence ensures a good attendance at Davos by the elite who are hoping to meet him and curry favour personally. For that there will be little criticism. Just like the organisers who keep climate change low key, we expect Trump’s justification and promotion of “gunboat capitalism, MAGA Marxism, techno-feudalism” will meet little resistance because no-one wants to offend the bully.

The independent MP for Indi, Helen Haines was the only regional non-government MP to pass the laws. Here is what she had to say about her support:

Responsible gun owners are not the problem – and this legislation does not target them or
lay blame for the horrific Bondi attack on them.
There are many legitimate reasons to own firearms, particularly in rural and regional
Australia. I live on a farm, and firearms are a practical tool for stock management, and pest
control.

These reforms are not about targeting farmers, sporting shooters or licensed gun owners.

They are about making sure people who pose a real risk – including violent extremists and individuals on an ASIO watchlist – cannot legally access firearms.

“In the wake of the horrific Bondi attack, Australians expect their leaders to act with care,
responsibility and foresight.
Law-abiding gun owners were as horrified by those events as anyone else – and they can be
part of the solution.

This bill does not ban firearms. And it does not blame licensed gun owners for acts of
violence.
What it does do is strengthen safeguards and help prevent guns from falling into the wrong
hands. That is common sense – and it’s what Australians expect.”

Here are the yeses:

And the Noes:

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has presented its report into the gun control/hate speech bill – a mere seven days after the bill was released.

The committee has supported “splitting the bill – one addressing hate crime provisions and the other addressing firearms reforms – and noted that the proposed racial vilification offence will not proceed”.

The report includes some substantive recommendations around the gun buyback and what kind of firearm modifications are permitted.

The report (including appendices etc) runs to 65 pages – spare a thought for the parliamentarians and parliamentary staff who have had to turn it around in an unnecessarily short time period.

The Liberal–National Coalition committee members prepared a dissenting report, which is longer than the main report. There is no contribution from Greens, minor parties or independents as they are excluded from the committee. 

More to come.

So the House is still debating the gun laws and the lines are drawn where you would expect. The inner city independents are hoping to see things go further in the future (like online gun registers so you can see how many guns are in your neighbourhood) citing community expectations. The Coalition is screaming the house down about guns not being the problem, radical Islam being the problem (because apparently no one other than Islamic extremists ever commit crimes in this country and people who own guns are never criminals until the crime fairy comes and visits them one day and turns them from law abiding gun owners to criminals, because all gun owners are law abiding until they are not. This is the circular argument we are in now.)

The senate won’t sit until 2pm, mostly because it has nothing else to do and that is a problem from a filling time point of view (this is an emergency session, so politically, they can’t do other bills other than the ones they have recalled parliament to pass) so the senate will sit, do a question time and then go into the debates.

It’s going to be a long night.

This is why you really should always read the financial pages if you want to know what power (both big and little P) is doing in this country – this was predicted, and reported in the Fin last year, after energy analysts looked at the landscape and went, yeah – this is not happening, these power stations are not going to close.

And what do you know?

As AAP reports:

Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will operate for nearly two years to support the national grid during the energy transition, its operator says.

Origin Energy on Tuesday said extending Eraring’s operation to 2029 would reduce risks to system security highlighted by grid operator AEMO in a recent report.

The decision provided more time for renewables, storage and transmission projects to be delivered, Origin chief executive Frank Calabria said in a statement to the ASX.

It also reflected uncertainty about the reliability of Australia’s ageing coal and gas fleet.

“We’ve taken the decision to extend Eraring’s operations after assessing a range of factors including the needs of our customers, market conditions and the important role the plant plays in the NSW energy system,” Mr Calabria said.

The Times of Israel have published this story overnight:

President Isaac Herzog will visit Sydney, Australia, on February 7, a source tells The Times of Israel, confirming earlier reports in Hebrew media.

Herzog accepted an invitation weeks ago from Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to visit the country and its Jewish community following last month’s shooting attack at Bondi Beach, during which two terrorists killed 15 people in an Islamic State-inspired attack targeting a Hanukkah event.

The visit goes ahead despite calls from members of Albanese’s Australian Labor party to rescind his invitation to Herzog, accusing him of being complicit in alleged Israeli crimes in Gaza.

Israel denies all accusations that it has broken international law in its military campaign in Gaza, and Herzog, as president, has no role in legislation or policy relating to the war.

The campaign against his visit was joined by number of left-wing Jewish groups, who argued that there would be “mass protests… [including] a very large contingent of Jewish participants” if Herzog visited Australia.

There had been rumours that Herzog would attend Australia for the national day of mourning which has been called for this Thursday, but they were always unverified and seem unlikely given the protests which are likely to follow (even if NSW continues trying to outlaw them)

Bob Katter has called a press conference (this should be good) to talk about his opposition to the gun laws (no shock there, given who his son-in-law is, and also, because this is Katter we are talking about) and also migration.

So that’s going to be very nuanced and fair and not at all a circus. Start taking bets now on which journalist asks him about his Lebanese heritage to start it all off.

Overnight the IMF released its update of the October World Economic Outlook.

Back in October the title was “Global Economy in Flux, Prospects Remain Dim”, so you know, Merry Christmas! Now a few months later the IMF is a bit more upbeat and the headline is “Global Economy: Steady amid Divergent Forces”

All up the IMF is of the view that things are sort of maybe not quite as bad as they projected they might be. The IMF likes to include a lot of caveats in their forecasts. For example, they suggest that the AI investment boom around the world is causing a lot of the economic growth. The problem though is that growth is largely job free. Data centres don’t employ a lot of people, they use an absolute gronk load of energy and water which causes electricity prices to rise. The IMF notes that

“Risks to the outlook remain tilted to the downside. Reevaluation of productivity growth expectations about AI could lead to a decline in investment and trigger an abrupt financial market correction, spreading from AI-linked companies to other segments and eroding household wealth.”

What does that econobable mean? Essentially, they are saying that all the hopes and dreams for AI to increase productivity might be total Bondi pooballs. And if that happens there might be a market crash like we saw during the DoctCom Buubble in the early 2000s and that will hit everyone.

The goodish news is the IMF does not think the AI bubble is like the DotCom bubble. They note that back then a lot of the rise in share values was totally unrelated to company earnings – it was all just based on expectations of shiny new things. This time round that is not as big of a case.

The problem of course is the DotCom bubble wasn’t based on absurd projections of energy use that are not possible given current electricity supply capacities of places like the USA. AI also involves an incredible circular amount of investment by companies effectively investing in themselves in the hope that their own business will spur more AI use.

The other problem is people so dislike paying for AI that Microsoft had to trick people into paying for it until the ACCC stopped them.

For Australia there was very little to get excited about in the update. The IMF didn’t change at all its projections for Australian economic growth, which means we remains at low levels, but above a lot of other major nations

But the big red siren that is going off throughout all of this is that this report was written before Trump decided to announce he wanted to invade Greenland and would be putting tariffs on all of Europe because they won’t let him play with his toys. The report doesn’t mention Venezuela. So sure, “steady”, but I think the IMF needs to have a rethink about those “divergent forces”

Matt Duss from the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss whether US threats over Greenland will end NATO, what the administration might do in Iran & its threats to prosecute political opponents.

Listen to the latest episode of After America now – find it wherever you get your podcasts.

Taking a break from the federal politics for the moment —

Over the weekend the Canberra Times was reporting “rumours” that the Liberals and Greens are in negotiations to replace the Barr Labor Government here in the ACT. Both parties hosed down those rumours, but confirmed that they were interested in finding common ground – Shane Rattenbury this morning pointed to examples last year like an inquiry into the health system and a review of the territory’s fiscal position.

Of course, the Liberals and Greens between them hold 13 of the 25 seats in the ACT Legislative Assembly, so they have the numbers to replace the government if they could reach agreement. Power-sharing parliaments are common in Australia, but it is historically very rare that they are replaced mid-term.

The ACT has had a Labor Government for the last quarter-century. That is unlikely to change any time soon, but it’s no bad thing that the Government faces a Parliament with the power to keep them on their toes.

David Littleproud is now speaking against the bill – he is claiming “we don’t have a gun problem, we have a radical Islam problem”. One of the gunmen had a legal gun licence.

But this is one of the arguments that Bridget McKenzie has been using to push against the legislation and her petition currently has over 60,000 signatures, so it is a line that is finding support.

It doesn’t matter in terms of the policy – the Greens will pass this legislation. But it is going to be a problem in terms of the gun buy back and public support.

The House is sitting and it is whipping through the debate on the gun reform bill. The Coalition is against it (no shock there, so are all the state jurisdictions the LNP controls) but the Greens will pass this one.

Helen Haines looks to be the only non-government regional MP who will support the bill in the house.

The senate won’t sit until 2pm and will open with question time, and will then debate both the gun laws and the hate speech laws until about 10pm.

At the moment, the Nationals are still a no. So if the Liberals are a yes and the Nationals break (and there is no guarantee that Liberal rebels like Alex Antic will vote in line) then that is a problem on the numbers.

Every now and then, principles align (albeit we often get there differently). You saw that with the Adelaide Writers’ Festival where authors from across the political and cultural spectrum boycotted the festival, not all for the same reason, but cementing around the principle of censorship.

The hate speech laws are another of those examples. You have libertarians like Matt Canavan defending the principle (for now) over the politics and saying no (for now) because of the provision to declare a hate group being so broad. Every now and then Canavan likes to remind people that he is capable of reasoned thought.

The IPA likes to do the same thing and its deputy executive director, Daniel Wild has also found issue with the revised hate speech laws – for the same principles as Canavan. We’ll let Wild explain:

The revised hate laws, which include provisions around banning so-called ‘hate groups’, are so broad and subjective that widespread censorship and banning of groups based on their political views is almost an inevitability.

Today, it is being reported that the Liberal Party will likely support legislation which states that an organisation can be outlawed in order to “protect the Australian community against social, economic, psychological, and physical harm.”

These laws are so broad they could capture political parties such as One Nation, and civil society groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs, Advance Australia, and even The Australia Institute.

If these laws had of been in place during the Voice to Parliament debate, the Albanese government could have easily banned the “No” campaign on the grounds of protecting against ‘psychological harm’.”

These laws remain profoundly illiberal, and have no place in a democratic nation such as Australia.

There is no doubt these laws will be used for political purposes by this government to shut down its political opponents, censor mainstream Australians, and curtail the contours of political debate.

This entire period in Canberra has been a shameful reflection of the ineptitude and failures of Australia’s political class to honestly address the issue of radical Islam, and the decades-long failure of our migration system*.

The only solution to religiously motivated violence is to stop bringing people into this country who hold these views, and, where possible, deport those who are already here.

*Until very recently, the IPA was all about migration, so you know, principles can also change because of the politics too. Also, the failure is in government policy – including in training workers, building infrastructure and keeping pace with population growth. Also, also, migration is pretty much back to where the Morrison government’s last budget predicted it would be, following the post-covid correction.

So while Barnaby Joyce is enjoying his maid of honour polling speeches, complete with some attempts at humility, one of the things he is feeling particularly gleeful about is the prospect of unseating Nationals leader David Littleproud from his seat of Maranoa.

Now, Maranoa was one of four seats which swung against Labor in Queensland at the 2025 election (the others being Herbert, Dawson and Flynn from memory) and One Nation finished second after the preferences were distributed (this is not unusual in that seat, One Nation also finished second in 2016 and 2019) Littleproud finished with 53% of the first preferences, so he wasn’t worried, but that was with a 3% swing against him. Which, given he was leader of the Nationals, isn’t a fantastic result. The One Nation candidate won about 12% of first preferences, but given the polling right now, and Maranoa’s conservative leanings, you would have to say that One Nation has improved its standing there. And it wouldn’t be for the first time – the 2016 One Nation first preference vote was about 17%. So, it is fertile ground.

And if that holds, that’s a problem for Littleproud, given Joyce is personally invested in making sure that Maranoa is one of the seats One Nation targets hard.

So let’s say Littleproud slips on his primary vote and One Nation continues to improve, and Labor does nothing. At the last election, more than half of the Labor candidate’s vote broke for the One Nation candidate. Which is how they finished second. But imagine for a moment that Littleproud sees his primary vote drop, and the One Nation candidate’s position improves. And they get the preferences from Labor voters, and the Shooters and Fishers party. Suddenly, Littleproud and the Nationals safest seat, isn’t so safe any more. Because – there is no such thing as a safe seat in Australian elections any longer.

And Joyce is personally motivated to see Littleproud, and the ‘Kingdom of Maranoa’ fall.

There is a reason electoral research is now looking at three pronged contests. One Nation winning Maranoa (on these numbers) is not a pipe dream.

Major hate speech reforms in response to the Bondi massacre are expected to pass parliament after Labor reached an agreement with the opposition leader.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the government will on Tuesday introduce the draft laws to the lower house after “constructive engagement,” indicating a deal had been struck after politicians held late night meetings.

Sussan Ley is expected to announce the coalition’s position later this morning, with the proposal heading to the party room.

“I don’t want to pre-empt any of those conversations, and particularly since they have been undertaken in good faith,” Ms Rowland told ABC Radio.

“I will point out that the removal of the serious vilification provisions do mean that these remaining provisions in the prohibited hate groups section do need to do a lot of work.”

Changes include cracking down on groups that voice hate against people of other faiths, bringing in stronger background checks for firearm owners, and setting up a national gun buyback scheme.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously said he wants the reforms to pass on the same day, and that he would walk away from reforms this term of parliament if they failed to garner support.

Labor originally planned to introduce the gun and hate speech reforms in a single package, but was forced to split the bill due to fierce opposition to proposed racial vilification laws from the coalition and the Greens.

After the prime minister and Ms Ley discussed the reforms on Monday morning, Liberal MPs met in the evening to formalise their position ahead of a joint partyroom meeting with their coalition partner the Nationals on Tuesday.

Liberal sources told AAP on Monday night their party had put forward a series of technical amendments which had been accepted by Labor.

But opposition education spokesman Julian Leeser, who is Jewish, wouldn’t confirm what details had been decided on.

“We want to see extremist organisations busted up. We want to see people brought to justice,” he said.

“That’s what we want to see. We want to see powers given to authorities to deal with those issues.”

Nationals MPs still have concerns about the impact the reforms could have on free speech, with Queensland senator Matt Canavan raising issues with the framework for hate group listing, arguing its too broad.

Senator Canavan said he could not support the bill drafted in its current form.

“Giving a power to a government to ban an entire group is an extremely serious change to our laws,” he told ABC Radio.

The bill tightens the definition of a preacher or religious leader, introducing mandatory two-year reviews of the legislation and requiring consultation with the opposition leader when listing an extremist organisation.

The Greens have said they will not back the hate speech legislation due to the effect it could have on political commentary including protests, leaving the coalition as the only viable partner to pass the bill through the Senate.

While provisions making it illegal to vilify someone based on their race have been dropped, the watered-down legislation would still allow the government to effectively outlaw groups that promote hatred, likely including neo-Nazi organisation the National Socialist Network and radical Islamist collective Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The proposed laws would also allow the government to refuse or revoke the visas of people who hold extremist views.

Having a chat to some Queensland MPs overnight and it looks like Queensland is going to join the other LNP led state governments in the NT and Tasmania and not participate in the federal government gun buy back scheme.

David Crisafulli had been criticised late last year for meeting with the gun lobby, while delaying recommendations from the inquest into the fatal Wieambilla police shootings, which included increased mental health checks for people wanting to buy guns.

Now, after what was a five hour or so cabinet meeting, the Queensland government look like they will be rejecting setting up the collection sites for the guns which is part of the gun back scheme due to pass today in the senate.

The ABC is now reporting the same thing, so yeah, Queensland is out.

The home affairs minister has appeared on Sky News, where he says a deal with the Coalition is almost done when it comes to what is left of the hate speech laws. That includes giving the home affairs minister the power to designate a ‘hate group’ which is one of the bigger worrying parts of the bill, given the politics that can be played with it – as we have seen in the UK, with the designation of Palestine Action.

Burke told Sky News a little earlier this morning:

[The] Laws won’t be as strong as what the government wanted 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. And what we want to make sure of is that the parliament is dealing with both the motivation of the Bondi attack and the method that was used. And the motivation was a deep form of bigotry, a deep form of antisemitism, and the method that was used was people in the suburbs of Sydney having access to six high-powered firearms, which anyone who knows the suburb of Bonnyrigg shakes their head as to how on Earth did you end up with with six firearms in a in a suburb like that?

Barnaby Joyce is enjoying a relevancy resurgence, fronting the media for the second day to talk about his new party’s rise in the polls. While Joyce is publicly shrugging off the ‘Barnaby bounce’ he is not so privately quite happy about the term for One Nation’s polling jump and is enjoying his time taunting his former colleagues.

But after Anthony Albanese called One Nation “a divisive lot” Joyce and party leader (for now) Pauline Hanson are on the offensive with the government (not sure what else you would call One Nation, given how it loves to divide people based on race, ideology and whatever batshit thing Trump is on, but apparently calling a spade a spade offends them. Snowflakes, amirite?)

Joyce told the Nine network this morning:

When he says that that in itself implicitly is a divisive statement, isn’t it? So he said your divisive and by so doing so, he’s divisive himself.

No, Prime Minister, we are part of the polity of Australia.

We are part of the democracy of Australia.

And you don’t own the voters, Prime Minister, nor anybody else.

You have to earn the voters rights, earn the voters respect. own them. You can’t tell them how to vote. They will make that decision at the ballot box. And you know when you see this, when they feel they’re in a corner, they scratch by saying, you know, the temerity of the Australian to have another choice. You know, gosh, they’ve got to stick what they’ve got. But those days are over.

On further hate speech laws, Jason Clare says:

Really, it is in the hands of others, whether it’s in racial discrimination laws or religious discrimination laws, it is important that we bring the major political parties together here, that we don’t have a fractious debate that pulls the country apart. Now more than ever what this country needs is for us to work together. We don’t need more hate or fear or division, we need to work together here, and I do hope that that day will come, but it’s not going to happen today.

On the taskforce that is going to be looking at antisemitism in schools and universities, Jason Clare says:

This is a taskforce led by David Gonski, a towering Australian, somebody is who, I think, is respected by all Australians, someone who understand the education system inside and out and he understand like I do and like most Australians do, whilst the legislation we are debating today is so important because it is about the sort of weapons used on December 14 and the sort of hate that pulled the trigger that day.

It’s true that children aren’t born racist, are not born with hate in their hearts, but it is something that is learned, taught and grows over time and our education system can play a role here. That work is about teacher training, about teacher resources, it’s about programs we run in schools. A lot of that will happen this year, but also work on the curriculum. The curriculum already has it in a lot of information about the Holocaust, but there is more we can add to it about the evils of anti-Semitism and Australian values, and the more we can do to give the university regulators to act where universities don’t.

It’s that last bit that has people so worried – because protesting a genocide is not antisemitism. But if criticising Israel becomes the basis of antisemitism, then that can be used to clamp down on any anti-genocide teachings, protests or stands.

The education minister has been sent out to spread the government’s messages this morning and the first message he has is that a deal has (mostly) been done with the Coalition on what is left of the hate speech laws.

He told ABC News Breakfast:

We’ve had very constructive discussions with the Opposition. Obviously it is not done until it’s done. These are difficult times for our country. The whole country are watching us right now. They expect us to come together today, to be bigger than the National parties and take action in the national interest, to keep Australians safe and I’m very confident that will happen today.

The IMF has released its first update on the world outlook since Jim Chalmers and Treasury updated Australia’s budget forecasts in December for MYEFO.

This update from the IMF isn’t an update on inflation forecasts for Australia, just an update on the budget position. The bits Chalmer and the government care about – inflation in Australia is not as high as the average across the globe (IMF expects global inflation to sit around 3.8% in 2026 and 3.4% in 2027, while Treasury has predicted Australian inflation to sit between 2-3% for the next financial year)

But then again – this is all dependent on a stable world. Something we can’t say for sure we have right now.

Chalmers said:

The global economy is incredibly uncertain with persistently high inflation still a challenge for many countries around the world, and that’s reflected in this report.

The three big economic priorities for the Albanese Government this year are addressing inflation, productivity and global uncertainty, and this report shows why that’s the right approach.

When we came to office, inflation was absolutely galloping at 6.1 per cent, it’s now much lower than that and interest rates have been cut three times.

Volatility in the global economy was a key feature of my discussions with international counterparts last week and it will continue to weigh heavily on Australia in the months and years ahead.

These global challenges put a premium on the type of responsible economic management that has been a hallmark of the Albanese Government from day one.

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live.

This is the second of two specially scheduled out-of-session sittings in response to the Bondi terror attack. Yesterday was the condolence motions (which will continue today) and today is about the legislation. Gun reforms is a lock – the Greens are on board there. But when it comes to the hate speech changes, that is a moving feast.

Sussan Ley and Anthony Albanese are talking again, which means the hate speech laws are back on the table, but there was no deal late last night.

What is going to happen? Well, that is a crap shoot. Yesterday the Albanese government was playing hard ball, claiming it was pass it now, or never. Some of the people who lost loved ones or community members in the Bondi attack then called on the government to pass the laws (along with independents like Allegra Spender) but the laws will apply to everyone (that is how the constitution works) which is not something that everyone wants.

As the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Timothy Roberts said last night:

You do not arrest your way to social cohesion and attempting to do so only increases division in the community. 

This legislation cuts across democratic freedoms and needs to be considered far more deeply than the current passage of time allows. The community must be allowed to continue to read the draft legislation so that we can be reassured that all concerns and reasonable consequences have been considered. 

This is far too much power proposed to be concentrated in the hands of the executive government, especially without access to procedural fairness or judicial review. 

While banning hate groups may sound appealing, the risk is that these laws facilitate, without check, the banning of groups our government hates, not actually reducing hate in our community.” 

Meanwhile, Pauline Hanson has continued her victory lap following a second very positive poll – although it must be said that not being seen is usually what makes people a bit more favourable to politicians and Hanson has now been EVERYWHERE – along with Barnaby Joyce. That has meant Hanson’s loyal off-sider, Malcolm Roberts, is now being pushed back in the press conferences, and well, judge this body language for yourself.

We will cover all the day’s events and a bit more. It is going to be a more normal blog today, so prepare for as much information as you can handle (and my brain and fingers can allow). I have coffee number two on the boil.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.