Labor’s Heinous Hate Speech Laws

In my last newsletter, I warned that we must tread carefully as a nation in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre.

I wondered whether free speech would be the next casualty and pointed to the heinous UK-style “hate speech” laws that see tens of thousands arrested every year.

Now we’re seeing exactly how the Albanese Government has not trod carefully, and how freedoms essential to our happiness and prosperity are now in danger.

At the time of writing, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has just passed the Senate, handing sweeping new powers to the executive government.

As a state member, I don’t pretend to have tracked every moment of debate, but I’ve reviewed the legislation and cannot stay silent.

A wise colleague once shared a decisionmaking rubric with me: does something need to be said? Does it need to be said now? And do I need to say it?

Those questions have echoed in my thoughts ever since the Exposure Draft was released, and while I did wonder whether a WA Legislative Council backbencher had any place wading into this, my conscience is clear: I must.

I told my colleagues during my preselection speech that one thing they could rely on was my willingness to stand up for what matters. They entrusted me with that voice, and so did the WA public. I would violate that trust and my own conscience if I stayed quiet.

In the interests of brevity, I’ll limit myself to three key issues:

    (1) abuse of process,

    (2) procedural fairness, and

    (3) the redefinition of “reasonable person” and its impact on free speech.

Abuse of Parliament

It should alarm every Australian that such a lengthy, consequential, and potentially dangerous piece of legislation was rammed through Parliament in just two days.

The 136 page Exposure Draft had only been released late in the previous week—and was so poorly drafted and dangerous that it needed to be torn apart and rewritten.

I don’t know what stunt the Albanese Government thought it was pulling, but in my view, rushing this through is not only bad parliamentary practice; it shows utter contempt for the Australian people and their trust in the institution.

Make no mistake: they knew exactly what they were doing and will no doubt relish the division they’ve now sown across the centre-right, libertarian, and conservative landscape.

Procedural Fairness – Out the Window

Those in the WA firearms community know well how easily procedural fairness can be abused.

Under this new federal legislation, the Minister can list an organisation as a “prohibited hate group” without notifying it, without presenting the evidence, and without giving it any chance to be heard—yet listing instantly triggers severe criminal penalties, including up to 15 years’ imprisonment for things such as membership, support, or fundraising.

On my office wall hangs a translation of the Magna Carta. Chapter 39 says, in essence, that the Crown shall not act arbitrarily against a person without due process. This law violates that principle.

Several offences arising from a listing then shift legal or evidential burdens onto defendants—meaning people can be convicted on facts that have never been properly tested.

The hate symbol provisions reverse the burden of proof for legitimate academic, artistic, or journalistic use, chilling lawful expression. Police can seize items displaying prohibited symbols based on mere suspicion, with minimal oversight.

The new “reasonable person” test—once being, what we would call, the pub test, as it meant any ordinary member of the public,  is now defined as a “reasonable person belonging to the affected racial, ethnic, national, or religious group”—and so opens the door to claims between groups and individuals based on feelings about symbols or advocacy. 

It’s not inconceivable that someone from a minority group could claim to feel intimidated by the Australian flag and have it seized. Think that sounds absurd?

Look to the UK, where English flags are often confiscated, while terrorist organisation flags, banners and symbols fly freely.

Free Speech – What Is That?

Although some of the worst provisions of the Exposure Draft have been deleted, the final legislation still broadens restrictions on expression by expanding the “reasonable person” test in hate symbol and advocacy clauses.

Speech can now be deemed harmful if a reasonable person from the targeted group perceives it as disseminating ideas of superiority or hatred, or as inciting offence, intimidation, or even violence.

This shifts assessment away from the speaker’s intent to the subjective perception of the audience. It dramatically increases legal exposure for commentary, satire, political criticism, or cultural analysis that might be interpreted—fairly or not—as hostile or demeaning.

As with symbols, a group could find itself targeted simply because someone perceives harm.

And yes, vexatious claims are entirely foreseeable—just look at what has occurred for years under the Sex Discrimination Act.

The reverse burden of proof provisions, once unthinkable in a liberal democracy, are particularly concerning.

Closing Thoughts

It’s been a confronting start to the year, and these developments show how quickly our freedoms can be taken away if we’re not paying attention.

I will continue fighting for due process, free speech, and a government that puts your interests first—but your involvement is essential.

As we saw when the bill was split and gutted, things can change when people push back. In this case, it was certainly not perfect and much remains that is deeply concerning.  

One thing that is true however, is that, if the opposition did not enter negotiations to remove the worst of this bill, the Labor government with the Greens had the numbers to push the entire 136-page legislation through both houses of parliament in its original form (likely with broader free speech restrictions to ensure Greens support in the Senate).

We all wish change would happen on our terms. Change rarely happens all at once, and there is always much to do, but change is possible as long as we are on the field.

Speak up, write to your MPs, sign the petitions, and encourage others to stay alert.

Democracy only works when citizens make themselves heard.

I’ll keep working hard on on your behalf.

Warm regards,

Phil