Last month, I wrote about how Australia’s federal government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, had failed the country by not heeding the warning signs of a possible terrorist attack that led to the Bondi Beach massacre. I also argued that the government’s response to tighten gun controls and hate speech laws, rather than dealing with root causes of Islamist extremism, would result in greater control over ordinary Australians and especially the curtailment of free speech. So it has proved.

After initially steadfastly resisting calls for a royal commission into this terrible tragedy, on 8 January Albanese finally announced one. The commission is set to report by 14 December, thus giving it less than a year to figure out which failings of the government and security agencies may have led to the needless loss of 15 lives and serious injury to 49 others.

But rather than wait for the conclusion of the inquiry, the Prime Minister announced that he was recalling parliament to pass an omnibus bill dealing with hate speech and gun control. On 12 January, the government published its draft Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. Public submissions, including a parliamentary inquiry, were due for completion on 15 January. Despite this extremely limited timeframe, what became clear is that the bill is a significant threat to freedom of speech and religion in Australia which does nothing to stop the importing of extremist ideology or combat terrorism.

Naturally, the commission will ask serious questions about the government’s commitment to adequately funding intelligence agencies. Indeed, the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO), has warned of being stretched due to lack of resources, while the Australian Federal Police closed its terrorism unit because of funding shortages just weeks before the Bondi massacre.

There are, however, obvious limitations to the inquiry. The terms of reference do not include any investigation of Australia’s immigration system, which too often prioritises volume and ideology-blind process over integration and national security. Nor will the inquiry address the lack of enforcement of existing laws around inciting violence or hateful conduct against any person or group. Instead, its focus is limited to “antisemitism and social cohesion” in order to “make recommendations for strengthening social cohesion […] and countering the spread of ideological and religiously motivated extremism in Australia”. That seems reasonable, yet there is still a failure to grapple with Muslim antisemitism. For example, an Islamic cleric who celebrated October 7 as “a day of courage” previously spoke at a community event with Albanese.

Meanwhile, opposition Liberal Party MP and Afghanistan veteran Andrew Hastie yesterday criticised the bill, saying he does not think the new laws will help to prevent a future terror attack. “I can’t see an urgent capability gap that needs to be addressed in the AFP, ASIO or any other Commonwealth agency responsible for counter-terrorism,” he declared.

The bill not only drew significant criticism from all parties, but also legal and human rights bodies, which said it was rushed, overly broad, and liable to limit debate on topics such as migration and terrorism. For example, the bill makes a criminal offence of incitement or vilification “immaterial whether the conduct actually results in any person feeling intimidated or fearing for their safety”. In fact, the conduct does not have to cause any actual violence, intimidation, fear or apprehension. It is not even required that the person bringing a case be a member of a target group which might “feel intimidated”. Anyone can bring a case, even if they are not targeted.

Further, the legislation defines the “public place” where such vilification takes place so broadly that it may occur on the internet, even overseas. The legislation also proposes that it shall be an offence to “disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person” on the basis of race or nationality, thereby leaving open the possibility of shutting down legitimate debate regarding religion and cultural norms. For instance, this bill, broadly interpreted, could make it illegal for Australians to say they prefer their secular democratic way of life to Iran’s theocratic Islamist state.

Additionally, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher — along with Muslim, Buddhist and Sikh representatives — wrote an open letter to the government to abandon its bill. “A rushed legislative process of this nature undermines confidence, increases the risk of unintended consequences, and does not assist community unity or social cohesion,” the letter said. The pushback has worked for now: Albanese has reneged on the anti-vilification part of the legislation.

Both the rushed bill and the inquiry will fail to combat radical Islamic terrorism, but may succeed in criminalising innocuous speech and thoughts. What better way for a government to avoid discussions it would rather not have than by banning them?