Facts on Free Speech

FACTS ON FREE SPEECH

You may have seen claims that the Liberal Party of Australia “supported hate-speech laws”.  That claim is false and it is being pushed deliberately to mislead Australians.

So before anything else, here is the truth in plain English.

THE NEW LAWS ARE NOT “SPEECH POLICING”

Claims that these laws are about controlling speech are wrong.

These are counter-extremism laws, not ideological censorship. They target organised violent extremist activity, not lawful debate, political disagreement, or unpopular opinions.

They are about protecting Australians from violent extremist organisations not policing what people think or say.

In short:

❌ No policing of political debate

❌ No targeting of political parties

❌ No punishment for lawful opinions

✅ Yes to disrupting violent extremist organisations

✅ Yes to strong national-security powers

✅ Yes to safeguards, thresholds and oversight

The final laws are narrow, tough and targeted and the Liberal Party is the reason Australia strengthened its defences without surrendering free speech.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

The truth is the opposite of what is now being claimed.

After the Bondi terrorist attack, Australians rightly expected a strong national-security response. Labor’s first proposal was not that.

Labor initially rushed forward a rambling “hate-speech” package that:

• blurred the line between criminal conduct and lawful speech

• weakened safeguards and expanded the law beyond violence

• risked chilling legitimate political debate and free expression

The Liberal Party made our position clear: we would not support laws that could be used to police opinions or lawful expression. We forced Labor back to the drawing board to achieve a genuine national security/counter terrorism approach.

As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I scrutinised the legislation closely. Together with Senator Jonno Duniam, Angus Taylor MP and Phil Thompson MP, we made it clear in a formal dissenting report that the Liberal Party would not back Labor’s free-speech overreach.

You can read that dissenting report here:

Coalition Members’ Dissenting Report (Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026) – Parliament of Australia

Because the Liberal Party drew the line, Labor was forced back to the drawing board.

WHAT THE LIBERAL PARTY SUPPORTED

Our position was clear and non-negotiable:

We would support tough laws against violent extremist ideology but we would never support laws that punish Australians for what they think or say.

What ultimately proceeded was a tight, targeted counter-violent-extremism framework focused on:

• violent extremist ideology

• radicalisers and recruiters

• organised violent extremist groups that pose a genuine risk to national security

That is what the Liberal Party supported.

WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY DOES

First, it strengthens migration powers so visas can be refused or cancelled where a non-citizen is assessed as posing a risk due to links to violent extremism or serious violence-related conduct.

That helps ensure Australia is not a safe haven for radicalisers or extremist hate preachers.

Second, it creates an organisational disruption mechanism aimed at violent extremist organisations that fall short of terrorism-listing thresholds but still pose a real risk.

Australia has long faced a dangerous gap. Terrorist-listing thresholds are high and rightly so but that has left space for some extremist organisations to operate openly: recruiting, radicalising, fundraising and intimidating Australians while staying just short of a terrorism designation.

This new disruption framework is designed to close that gap.

WHAT THE LAW DOES NOT DO

Because Labor was forced to narrow its approach, the law we supported does not do the things critics now claim.

It does not:

• create “thought police” or make it a crime to hold unpopular opinions

• ban robust political debate, including criticism of government or immigration policy

• criminalise ordinary religious discussion or lawful preaching

• target comedy, satire, art, or genuine political advocacy

• empower police to knock on your door because of a harsh post or lawful disagreement

It also does not create new “speech offences”.

The framework relies on existing criminal offences and violence-risk thresholds. In other words no new free-speech crimes.

This is about strengthening action against conduct that is already criminal and disrupting violent extremist organisations that pose a real threat to our way of life.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir have no place in Australia.

They promote an ideology that rejects democracy, rejects Australian law, and seeks to replace our system with a global Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law. That worldview is fundamentally incompatible with Australia.

These groups do not need to plant a bomb to be dangerous. Their role is ideological warfare radicalising minds, legitimising hatred, and laying the groundwork for violence by others.

That is why disruption powers matter: to deal with violent extremist organisations that recruit, radicalise and intimidate Australians while falling short of terrorism-listing thresholds.

WHAT ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES?

There have been claims that political parties - particularly conservative ones - could be targeted under this framework.

That is wrong.

A political party cannot be targeted because its views are conservative, controversial, blunt or unpopular.

The disruption framework is not triggered by opinions. It is triggered by serious criminal conduct and a real risk of violence.

Any designation requires:

• advice from ASIO

• a ministerial decision based on statutory violence-risk criteria

• safeguards and oversight

Ordinary Australians are not targeted for lawful views. People remain free to:

• argue politics

• criticise government

• protest peacefully

• hold conservative, progressive or unpopular opinions

Being offensive, provocative or politically incorrect is not a crime.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Australians deserve two things at once: real security and real freedom.

That is exactly what the Liberal Party fought for and delivered.

We stopped Labor’s original overreach.We forced the Government to narrow the approach.We insisted the law focus on violent extremist organisations, not speech and not opinions.

So remember the three facts that matter:

1. The Liberal Party stopped Labor’s “hate-speech” overreach.

2. The final framework targets violent extremist organisations - not lawful debate.

3. No new “speech crimes” were created -  thresholds are grounded in existing criminal law, with safeguards and oversight.

Australia is a free country, and the Liberal Party will always defend that freedom. But freedom does not mean giving violent extremists a safe place to organise, recruit and radicalise against our way of life.

We will keep drawing the line: tough on violent extremism, unwavering on free speech.