Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The Coalition has split after controversial ‘hate speech’ legislation was rushed through Parliament on Tuesday. From Liberal MP Andrew Hastie under fire for voting for the bill to the entire Nationals shadow ministry resigning, the effects of this legislation are only just beginning.

Australia’s federal Opposition has been plunged into public turmoil following the passage of amended hate speech legislation through both houses of Parliament this week.

On Tuesday, the Albanese government secured the passage of key elements of its controversial response to antisemitism and extremism. While Labor argues the legislation is necessary to curb hatred and violence, critics warn it risks criminalising lawful speech and expanding state power in ways that threaten freedom of belief and expression.

The vote has exposed deep fractures within the Coalition, ultimately triggering a formal split between the Liberal and National parties after three Nationals front-benchers chose to sacrifice senior roles rather than compromise their convictions.

A Divisive Vote in Canberra

The legislation was originally introduced last week as a sweeping omnibus package titled the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. It combined changes to firearms regulations, customs laws, migration powers, and racial vilification provisions.

Labor said the bill was essential to protect Australians from serious hate and violence. However, critics — including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott — argued it would do little to address antisemitism while granting the government broad new powers over speech, belief and association.

“I am very sceptical whether any of the laws that are passed today are actually going to stop the specific instances of Jew hatred that we have seen time and time again over the last two years,” he warned.

Facing resistance in the Senate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese split the legislation into two parts.

After negotiations with the Greens, Labor secured passage of the Firearms and Customs components, despite opposition from the Coalition, One Nation, and several independents. That bill passed the Senate by 38 votes to 26.

Labor then struck a deal with the Liberal Party on the Criminal and Migration law (‘hate speech’) amendments after making changes to the original proposal. That bill passed the Senate 38-22, with support from Labor and most Liberal senators. The Nationals, Greens, One Nation, and several independents opposed it.

Andrew Hastie’s Decision Draws Fire

Former Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie had publicly opposed the original version of the legislation. In a video posted on 14 January, he warned the bill posed serious risks to freedom of expression and could be weaponised against lawful dissent.

After the bill was split and amended, however, Hastie voted in favour of the revised legislation, drawing sharp criticism from multiple conservative supporters. His vote — or that of any non-Labor lower house MP — ultimately had no material influence on the outcome, as Labor holds a large majority in the House of Representatives.

Responding to the backlash, Hastie defended his decision in a Facebook post, arguing it was the least harmful option available.

“I’ve been through all the comments on my previous post,” Mr Hastie wrote. “Despite the nastiness, I would still vote the same way. The mission was to get the best possible outcome for the country, and we had to play the hand that we were dealt.”

Hastie claimed that if the Liberal Party had avoided working with the government, “Labor would have cut a deal with the Greens, with a far worse bill.”

Hastie likened politics to warfare, saying lawmakers are often forced to choose between “multiple bad options”. He rejected what he described as ideological “purity”, suggesting it was a luxury reserved for “keyboard warriors and paid influencers”.

Fear of a Greens-Labor Deal

Central to Hastie’s reasoning was the real prospect of Labor striking a deal with the Greens and progressive independents.

That concern was underscored by a proposed amendment moved by Senators David Pocock, Jackie Lambie, Fatima Payman, and Tammy Tyrrell. The amendment sought to dramatically expand the bill’s list of protected attributes.

Rather than focusing on race, nationality, and ethnicity, the amendment proposed including “religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status [and] disability”.

The Greens had made clear they would not support the bill unless its scope was expanded in such a way.

Christian leaders and civil liberties advocates warned that embedding such categories into federal law would expose Australians to penalties for expressing biblical beliefs, particularly on sexuality and gender.

Critics also highlighted the bill’s low and subjective threshold for criminality. Under the proposed wording, an offence would be determined by what a “reasonable person” would consider “offensive, insulting or intimidating”.

The amendment was ultimately defeated 50-13, though it was supported by multiple Greens senators and independents.

Nationals Dig In — At Personal Cost

While most Liberal senators backed the amended bill, the National Party decided to vote against it.

Three Nationals front-bench senators — Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald — refused to support the legislation after their proposed amendments were rejected.

As a result, they were asked to resign their shadow ministry roles, sacrificing around 25 per cent of their parliamentary salaries — approximately $50,000 per year.

Party Rules and a Leadership Storm

The decision to dump the three senators from the shadow ministry triggered a formal rupture, with Nationals leader David Littleproud withdrawing the party from the Coalition agreement.

Mr Littleproud blamed Ms Ley for the collapse of the Coalition, claiming he had sent a letter warning that accepting the resignations would cause the entire Nationals shadow ministry to resign.

“She understood the gravity,” he said. “She knew the consequence.”

Sky News commentator Peta Credlin, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and former shadow cabinet secretary, argued that the decision to accept the three resignations involved a clear lack of judgment on the part of Ms Ley and an ignorance of Coalition rules.

“Front benchers are bound by a decision of shadow cabinet where that decision is also backed in by their own party room,” she said.

“In this case, the Libs supported the second draft of the hate speech laws. The National Party continued to reject them.”

Astounded at Ley’s decision, Credlin continued, “What staggers me is that inside the Coalition right now, inside the office of Sussan Ley, no one appears to understand the rules or the long-standing precedent on how you’re supposed to deal with matters like this.

“If they did, no one would have made these three National Party front-benchers resign today.”

‘Moral and Legislative Decline’: Warnings About Expanding State Power

As the Coalition grapples with internal upheaval, critics continue to warn about the legislation’s broader implications.

Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), cautioned that the laws could be used to ban organisations under vague and expansive criteria.

“A group can be disbanded to protect the Australian community against so-called social, economic, psychological and physical harm,” he said in an interview with Tony Abbott.

Mr Abbott responded that such logic could be turned against mainstream political parties or policy groups. “Maybe the IPA could be banned. The Liberal Party could be banned… Particularly if it’s promoting ‘climate denialism’, for instance”, he said.

“Those Liberals that have gone along with this in good faith that it’s going to be used in a way that it is said are incredibly naive if they don’t believe it’s coming to them”, Wild replied.

“So, this is a very, very bad day for our democracy and our country.”

Abbott said he feared the laws would ultimately be used by activist groups to target individuals and organisations that had never promoted antisemitism.

“I think this could be yet another milestone in our moral and legislative decline,” he said.

A Defining Moment for the Opposition

The episode has left the Coalition fractured and its leadership under intense scrutiny.

South Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic, the only Liberal to cross the floor against the party’s position, expressed his dismay.

“The last 24 hours is as disappointed as I have ever been in politics,” he wrote. “We must drain the billabong.”

The last 24 hours is as disappointed as I have ever been in politics.

We must drain the billabong.

— Senator Alex Antic (@SenatorAntic) January 21, 2026

For Christians and others concerned with freedom of belief, the debate has highlighted how laws intended to restrain violence can rapidly expand into mechanisms that constrain truth.

Scripture warns against laws that punish righteousness while excusing injustice (Isaiah 10:1–2).

With the hate speech legislation now passed, Australians will soon see whether those warnings prove justified.

Senate Voting on Amendment to Include “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity”

Ayes (13)

Senate Voting on Hate Speech Bill

Ayes (38)

Noes (22)

___

Images via Wikimedia Commons.