Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Andrew Hastie’s vote on the antisemitism bill is defended as principled pragmatism—achieving the least harmful outcome, protecting core freedoms, and showing real political courage amid misinformed backlash.

Andrew Hastie has been subjected to relentless attacks and denigration by Christian and conservative keyboard warriors and social media activists over his decision to support the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. The Daily Declaration added to the flood of criticism,  publishing an article by Dave Pellowe of Church and State fame, entitled: ‘Andrew Hastie is not on our side’.

When the exposure draft of the Bill was made public, Hastie said he would vote against it. He gave his reasons for his opposition in a short video which he posted on Facebook on January 14th. All the reasons he gives are sound. Many supported his stance.

The Liberals negotiated for major changes to the Bill. The heavily modified Bill was introduced to parliament on the morning of 20^th January. Hastie had no time to communicate with his supporter base that day. Along with most of the Liberals, Hastie voted in support of the revised Bill that day. Within minutes, the vitriol erupted on Hastie’s Facebook page.  Many did not realise the Bill was different to the exposure draft.

Courage Under Fire: Why Hastie’s Vote Was Not a Betrayal

As Hastie posted the next day, the reality was that if the Liberals had not supported some form of the Bill, Labor would have negotiated with the Greens, which would have been a worst possible outcome. Yet Pellowe claimed it is “… very hard to believe he’s on the side of authentic Christians, conservatives or common sense” and that there is “… little evidence of Hastie’s political courage…”. I would suggest it took more courage on Hastie’s part to vote for the revised Bill, as voting against the Bill would have played to the feelings and sentiments of much of his supporter base.

Sadly, when it comes to politics, the populace has a very short memory. Christians and conservatives seem to be no different.

In September 2025, Andrew Hastie said he would resign from the shadow cabinet if the Liberals did not abandon the 43 percent renewables by 2023 target and the Net Zero target of 2050.  Thanks to his efforts along with others, the Liberals abandoned that policy in November 2025. That took courage and energy in the face of a hostile media that bows at the altar of climate catastrophism.

Andrew Hastie resigned from the shadow front bench in October 2025 over disagreement with Sussan Ley over immigration policy. His portfolio, Home Affairs, included immigration. After he spoke out on immigration, Ley told him he would not be party to the development of the Liberals’ policy on immigration. Rather than be silenced, he resigned, so as to be able to speak his mind on this important policy area.

These are hardly the actions of a ‘good little foot soldier’ who has ‘kept his head down – playing the long game’ as Dave Pellowe suggests.

Dave Pellowe writes, “I am not saying he’s never stood up, but he’s certainly kept his head down – playing the ‘long game’ – while true political leaders have charged the enemy lines.”

Freedom Preserved: Key Wins Secured Through Liberal Negotiations

Having been an MP myself, I know you can’t fight every battle. There is no point in expending your limited political capital on things that you can not win, or where others in your team are effectively engaging the enemy. There have been times when I wish Andrew Hastie had been a bit more vocal – on things like gender ideology. But I am not privy to all his activities or reasoning. Often, the most effective MPs are the ones who are not in the headlines, but who negotiate behind the scenes and get good outcomes, or at least better outcomes.

The exposure draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 which Hastie said he would not support, had a provision that would have made ‘publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred’ a criminal offence, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The problem was that ‘inciting racial hatred’ was defined as anything that ‘a reasonable person’ from a targeted group might feel ‘intimidated’ or ‘offended’ by.

Thanks to the strong opposition by the Liberals (including Hastie), Nationals and One Nation, along with some independents and key church leaders, this ‘racial vilification’ was removed by Albanese in its entirety. This was a huge win for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Who said Hastie was not on our side?

Let’s be clear: Had this not been removed, you could have been imprisoned for simply saying (for example) that you consider that the Government should not let so many Palestinians from Gaza come into the country because you are concerned that radical Islamists might come in with them. A ‘reasonable Palestinian’ could have been ‘offended’ or ‘felt fear’ by that statement, and thus you would be a criminal for simply expressing that opinion. Thanks to Hastie and others, that was deleted.

Hastie (along with others) also successfully argued that the ‘religious text’ defence had to go. A Muslim, reading the section from the Hadith which calls for the killing of Jews, could have called for the killing of Jews with impunity by referring to that passage. Do I still hear people saying Hastie is not on our side?

While the Liberals were busy negotiating, trying to get the worst parts of the legislation deleted, the Greens were opposing the exposure draft of the Bill because they considered it did not go far enough!  Voices were saying that anything that ‘offended’ the LGBTQI+ should also be included as hate speech!

The Greens’ position on the exposure draft put the Liberals and Nationals in an awkward position:  Should they oppose the revised Bill, because it still has sections in it that are of concern? Or, do you support it to prevent a worse outcome from a Greens/Labor Bill? If the Liberals had opposed the revised Bill, Labor would have been forced to negotiate a form of the Bill that met the Greens’ demands, or abandon it. Labor abandoning the Bill would have been most unlikely. One thing is for certain: Any legislation acceptable to the radical Greens would be far more damaging for our freedoms than even the exposure draft!

The Nationals made the call not to support the revised Bill and risk a Green/Labor Bill. I respect their decision, but don’t think it was wise. I would have opted for the choice that Hastie and the Liberals made, namely, to support the revised seriously flawed Bill, rather than risk a totally disastrous Bill that would have met the demands of the Greens.

Had the Liberals opposed the Bill, a Greens version of the Bill would have passed. The keyboard warriors could very justifiably then have blamed  Hastie and the Liberals for allowing such a freedom-destroying law, far worse than the original exposure draft, to be foisted upon the Australian people!  And they would have been correct!

The Liberals (including Hastie) opted for what I still think was a morally sound approach: Achieve the least bad outcome. And they did achieve that. It defies logic for keyboard warriors to want Hastie to vote in a way that would maximise the erosion of our freedoms.

After spending five hours studying the law that was passed, it became clear to me that many keyboard warriors and social media activists have conflated the exposure draft with what actually passed.

Negotiating the Least Bad Outcome in a Hostile Parliament

Let’s be clear as to what the legislation (as passed) actually contains:

A hate crime, as defined in the legislation, can only be committed on the basis of a person’s race, national origin or ethnic origin. Just those three. Thus, the scaremongering that this could be used to close down ACL, Binary or similar groups because of their stand on LGBTQ+ matters, is unfounded. Greens wanted LGBTQI+ included – which would have made the ACL and Binary and similar groups very vulnerable had a version of the Bill acceptable to the Greens been passed.

In what I consider to be an otherwise acceptable definition of a ‘hate crime’, the inclusion of  ‘psychological harm’ is problematic. This, to me, is far too vague and subjective! But remember, this does not relate to gender issues – only issues related to race, ethnicity and national origin.

The Act allows the Minister to ban a ‘hate group’ (e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, who provide pastoral and ideological support to terrorists), but he can only do this on the advice of the Director General of ASIO, and both houses of parliament will have the right to overturn any such ban. That is the same safeguard we put on the power of all ministers, where legislation gives them the power to make regulations. This is nothing unusual. So why the panic now?

As I read the legislation, I cannot see how Christian groups like ACL or Binary could possibly become designated hate groups, as they do not speak negatively about people on account of their ethnic or national origin, nor race.  The Liberals even managed to negotiate to have a note inserted into the legislation that spells out what kind of groups are intended to be caught up by the legislation, and which are not.

Some people (including Hastie and myself) are rightly concerned about how some of the other provisions of the Bill will play out in practice. For example, a group can be banned if the ASIO Director believes that the continued activities of the group are ‘likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or result in the promotion of communal violence.’   The group itself may have a history of being totally peaceful, but if police think that others may be violent to them, technically, the legislation allows them to be banned. That is a serious problem. But remember it must relate to race, ethnic or national origin.

The Bill was rushed, and so did not get the level of scrutiny it deserved. In that regard, it is good to see that the Act requires the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) to conduct a review of the law after two years, by which time any recommendations of the Royal Commission should be available. At that time, this legislation is almost certain to be amended to incorporate some of those recommendations.

This piece of legislation is best seen as a hastily prepared stop-gap measure that provides a vehicle that makes it easier for the police to stop certain groups from spreading their hate and violence. Only time will tell how effective it is. Only time will tell if there are unintended consequences.

Truth, Charity and Christian Conduct in Political Disagreement

One thing that bothers me as a pastor and as a former MP is how quickly Christians, who are often not well-informed, jump to false conclusions and publish scathing negative judgements about a fellow believer.  I love the answer that the Heidelberg Catechism gives to the question: What is God’s will for us in the 9^th commandment, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour? Part of the answer is:

God’s will is that I… twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone without a hearing or without just cause. … I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it,
And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbour’s good name.

Giving more attention to this commandment in political commentary would lift the quality of political discourse and would result in a far stronger testimony to the world of the life-transforming power of faith in Jesus Christ.

One of the many issues MPs have to deal with is this: How do we best balance freedom and security? Not all Christians will draw the line in the same place. It is OK to disagree. But let’s be respectful of our brothers and sisters. Even of the unbeliever, for they too are made in the image of God. For this reason, I encourage you to keep Andrew Hastie and all our MPs in your prayers, praying that God would give them wisdom and insight so that their decisions will reflect His wisdom and His heart.

Rev Peter Abetz
Member for Southern River in the WA Parliament 2008-2017
WA State Director of the Australian Christian Lobby 2017-2024
City Councillor 2017-present

___

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.