View from The Hill: Sussan Ley wedged by her own troops on Albanese omnibus legislation

Anthony Albanese’s omnibus bill on hate speech and gun reform is once again exposing Sussan Ley’s lack of authority over her colleagues.

Ley on Thursday declared the bill was “pretty unsalvageable”, flagging the Coalition’s expected opposition in next week’s special two-day sitting of federal parliament.

The Coalition had a choice – to adopt “a glass half-full” or a “glass half-empty” approach to the legislation. It could have raised objections but devoted itself to negotiating changes. Instead, it is showing little interest in trying to get a deal.

One central reason seems obvious. The rebels in Ley’s ranks have thumbed their noses at the leader, publicly indicating they’ve already decided they’ll go their own way on the legislation. Most of them could not be brought into line to back any deal.

Former home affairs spokesman Andrew Hastie said, “I’ll be voting no to this bill” because, he said, it attacked freedom of speech and religion. Right-wing Liberal Alex Antic said, “I have absolutely no intention, regardless of the position adopted by the Coalition frankly, of supporting this bill and all of the hate crimes stuff that goes with it”.

Nationals backbencher Matt Canavan described the measures as the “biggest attack on free speech since Robert Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party in the 1950s”.

The Nationals generally are also objecting to the tougher gun provisions in the other half of the bill.

No doubt the prime minister had wedging the opposition in mind when he combined the two parts of the bill. But more importantly, Ley clearly is being wedged on multiple fronts by a significant number of her own colleagues.

It’s a familiar Ley story. Before Christmas the opposition could have reached an agreement on the government’s biodiversity legislation. But faced with internal division, it failed to do so, leaving it to the Greens to do the deal.

Ley had already had to fall in behind her colleagues’ demand for a retreat on the policy commitment to net zero emissions by 2050.

In the wake of the Bondi massacre, Ley has gone from the being on the front foot, when the opposition was part of forcing a reluctant Albanese into belatedly calling a royal commission, to seeming like she’s just playing politics.

The opposition had demanded parliament be recalled before Christmas, urging immediate legislation to crack down on the promotion of radical Islamic ideology. Now it not only says the proposed legislation is flawed, but that it is being too rushed.

There are legitimate points on both fronts. But the opposition does not look like it is making its arguments to reach a constructive agreed outcome, but to give itself an excuse to oppose legislation on which it could not achieve internal unity.

As various critics (not just the opposition) have pointed out the exemption in the bill for those quoting religious texts for teaching purposes is a can of worms.

The Executive Council for Australian Jewry has said, “Invoking religion as an excuse to dehumanise and mistreat others simply on the basis of who they are, must surely be a thing of the past”.

Albanese urges critics of the exemption to read the Old Testament, but that doesn’t take us far in practical terms. With or without the exemption, the question of quoting religious texts raises potential issues.

The opposition, and others, are also right in arguing this legislation is being pushed excessively fast. But Ley has no credibility on this, given she said in a statement on December 18, “The Coalition calls on the Prime Minister to immediately recall Parliament to pass urgent legislation to eradicate antisemitism and strengthen Australia’s counter-terrorism laws”.

On Thursday Ley found herself subject to a further wedge – this time from the peak Jewish body, the ECAJ (though it would reject the “wedge” description).

Its co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said in a statement: “Some of the Opposition’s criticisms of the Bill are valid and repeat concerns which we ourselves have expressed about the Bill’s shortcomings. However, there are also some important positives in the Bill, including the introduction of a new listing regime to proscribe extremist hate organisations.

"The ECAJ would urge the Coalition not to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. By all means seek to amend the Bill to remove its shortcomings, but a wholesale rejection of the Bill would not at all be warranted. In our view, the defeat of the Bill would be a retrograde step.

"The status quo is no longer tolerable after the antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi. We need legislative reform now even if it is less than ideal.”

This is a hard appeal for an opposition that has repeatedly said it is devoted to use all means to combat antisemitism to resist. But so far Ley remains unmoved.

If the opposition does hold out, the government will need to rely on support from the Greens if it is secure its legislation. They will have their own demands, including extending the protections against hate to women, LGBTIQ people and others.

At the moment, however, the bill is an orphan.