Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Senior Coalition and crossbench figures revolt against Labor’s “hate speech” bill, warning vague, unnecessary laws threaten free speech, constitutional rights, and religious liberty.

LNP Senators Alex Antic and Matt Canavan will not back the Labor Party’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism “hate speech” legislation.

The two veteran senators who opposed COVID totalitarianism have similarly condemned the “hate speech” proposals as a mockery of Australia’s democracy.

Marking a big difference between their pro-life, liberty and livelihood dissent and this time around, the two Senators are not alone.

As Caldron Pool highlighted, Antic and Canavan are flanked by a rising tide of voices speaking against Canberra’s soulless obsession with cancel culture.

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, along with the LNP’s Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Andrew Hastie, will all vote against the bill.

Alternative Proposal

For their part, Antic, Canavan, Price and Hastie have made a clear break with other Liberals like Senator Jonathon Duniam and Opposition leader Sussan Ley.

Duniam told Sky News, “The Liberals want ‘hate speech’ laws and want to get them done right.”

Outside this, the party would not “stand in the way.”

Sussan Ley said, as it stands, the LNP would oppose the bill.

“It’s unsalvageable,” she told a press conference.

Ley will be submitting her own version of “hate speech” legislation instead.

The Liberals must oppose Labor’s disgraceful hate speech laws or hand the mantle of Opposition to the party that will https://t.co/opm5l0NVBR

— Rowan Dean (@rowandean) January 14, 2026

Also speaking to Sky, Senator Antic said he had,

“Absolutely no intention, regardless of the position adopted by the coalition, of supporting the bill and all of the hate crime stuff that goes with it.”

“I’m concerned about the slippery slope,” he added.

The proposed law “opens up new categories of crimes. It gives the ASIO director the ability to recommend that certain groups be designated as hate crime groups.”

“What this leads to is anyone’s guess,” Antic argued.

“Once the doors are opened here, it becomes a very difficult precedent for freedoms in this country, especially free speech.”

“I just don’t support any of it,” Antic said.

“These laws largely already exist.”

“The police already have the powers to take action against these sorts of crimes.”

“In most cases,” Antic observed, “none of the things in this bill would have done anything to stop the tragedy of the Bondi attack.”

“So, what are we talking about here? And what is this Prime Minister doing with these laws?”

Unnecessary

Likewise, Senator Matt Canavan took to Facebook, saying he considered the bill to be a Trojan horse.

Canavan smacked down the “hate speech” legislation as “undemocratic, unconstitutional, and so vague that the laws could easily be used to unjustly silence legitimate criticism of government policy.”

“I cannot support these laws,” he declared.

Australia does “not need new laws like this to defeat the radical Islamist extremism. We already have laws against inciting violence. They should be enforced.”

Sharing an article written for Central Queensland Today, Canavan argued,

“Politicians are once again acting under the delusion that we can defeat ideas (even repulsive ones) by criminalising them.”

“Just like the Menzies Government’s attempts in the 1950s to ban the Communist Party, it is the wrong approach.”

“The proposed laws are so vague that a wide variety of legitimate political communication could be banned,” Canavan further remarked.

For example, “My argument against mass migration could easily fall foul of the laws’ (vague, hate crime definitions) because what makes someone ‘intimidated.’”

These law proposals “provide no protections for political communication, which is a right due to all Australians under the Australian Constitution,” he determined.

“The Government’s proposed laws are not about outlawing hate against other persons. They are aimed at outlawing criticism of governments.”

This includes potentially criminalising Christianity.

As was exposed by Queensland LNP Senator Susan McDonald, “Christians would not be protected under Labor’s ‘hate speech’ laws.”

Christians will be offered no protections under Labor’s new hate speech laws. Watch this exchange with a senior bureaucrat and you’ll see why more time is needed to address serious issues in this legislation. pic.twitter.com/ASmnMPbefu

— Senator Susan McDonald (@SenMcDonald) January 14, 2026

Massive Pitfalls

Christian leaders responding to the legislation included the CEO of Australian Christian Schools, Daniel Pampuch, and Cathy Uechtritz, director of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

Pampuch warned that the scope was too broad, saying “Australia can and must confront racial hatred while also preserving freedom of belief, freedom of expression and democratic debate.”

Uechtritz went further, arguing that the law’s religious text exemption was “open to exploitation by bad actors, religious or otherwise”.

The bill “needs to be clearer about objective measures to determine when ordinary speech or religious teaching crosses over into hate speech,” she added.

“We must guard against the erosion of free speech, which is a hallmark of Australia’s cherished liberal democracy.”

Sydney Anglican Bishop Michael Stead reportedly joined some Islamic groups in describing Labor’s “hate speech legislation, as a “minefield of definitions.”

According to The Nightly, he voiced concerns to a hastily put-together parliamentary inquiry about the definition of a “hate crime.”

Here, Stead argued the law could lead to any Christian organisation being listed as a “hate group”.

He then asserted that “the bill placed an ‘unwarranted limitation’ on freedom of thought, conscience and belief.”

Opposed to Labor’s policy on the run, the Bishop said “debate in parliament over the bill should be delayed.”

This, Stead concluded, allowed time for the bill to be “properly scrutinised.”