Coalition split: Nationals MP explains stand against Labor-Green-Libs speech and gun control Bills

By MICHAEL SLOVANOS

NATIONAL Party MP for Wide Bay Llew O’Brien has explained why he voted against both versions of the Albanese Government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026, the Criminal and Migration Laws Bill, and the Firearms and Customs Laws Bill, while his Coalition Liberal colleagues crossed the floor and voted with Labor.

Three National Party Senators – Ross Cadell, Bridget McKenzie and Susan McDonald – defied Shadow Cabinet rules and opposed the legislation, widely viewed as the most draconian attack on free speech since Robert Menzies attempted to outlaw the Communist Party.

According to The Guardian, Nationals MPs had discussed a “one-in, all-in” approach in which all of their shadow ministers – including Littleproud – would quit the frontbench if Opposition leader Sussan Ley sacked the three senators for breaching shadow cabinet rules.

Cadell, McKenzie and McDonald were subsequently forced to resign and Ley accepted their resignations, telling media that cabinet solidarity was a non-negotiable principle underpinning the agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals. But the Nationals’ threat appears to have been half-hearted.

So apparently, the leader of the Liberals believes “cabinet solidarity” is more important than the historic political rights and freedoms of Australians. If the Nationals have any principles, they should

O’Brien was silent on the betrayal of conservative and freedom-loving Australians by his Coalition Liberal and some National Party colleagues. Conservative Nationals and Liberals should be thinking more seriously of splitting with Ley and her neo-Teals who are calling the shots at the moment.

Victorian activist Monica Smit said the Australian Parliament had “just passed the most comprehensive legislation against freedom of speech that the world has ever seen” thanks to the major parties working together on it.

“This legislation can declare any group a ‘hate group’, which makes the group illegal. It means that the leaders of that group can go to prison, it also means that the members of this ‘hate group’ can also go to prison,” she said on a social media post.

O’Brien said the two Bills began life as a single Bill just seven days ago before being hastily modified and split apart.

“They were introduced in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December, an alleged act of Islamic extremism that killed fifteen Jewish Australians and wounded many more,” O’Brien said on his social media page.

“Antisemitism and violent extremism, is a vile curse. It must be confronted decisively and without hesitation, something this government has failed to do for the past two years.

“When I came to Canberra for this debate, I hoped the Parliament would deliver legislation that was proportionate and effective. The original draft of the Bill was deeply flawed, but there was an opportunity to fix it. Instead, what we witnessed was an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process.”

O’Brien says the two complex Bills, carrying severe criminal penalties including lengthy jail terms, were forced through Parliament following a truncated committee inquiry.

“The public was given just 48 hours to make submissions, and expert evidence was limited. Members of Parliament were afforded an extraordinarily narrow window to scrutinise and debate laws that will have long-term consequences.

“A different Bill to the one originally released was introduced to Parliament, and it continued to be amended within hours of the final vote. That is no way to legislate, particularly when fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake.

“I support strong and decisive action to cancel visas, deport extremists, and prevent those who spread hatred or violence from entering Australia. Those powers are necessary, and they already exist in part. Strengthening them can be justified.

“But those measures were bundled together with other laws that are vague, not fit for purpose and risk serious unintended consequences. When governments regulate speech, the law must be precise, narrow, and subject to rigorous scrutiny. These laws are not.

“I am also not convinced that existing laws are being properly enforced in a way that would justify rushing through broader offences that risk chilling lawful debate and ensnaring ordinary Australians who have no connection to extremism or violence.”

O’Brien says the firearms Bill is a prime example because it punishes lawful firearm owners and does nothing meaningful to address illegal guns in the hands of criminals, gangs, or extremists, while imposing enormous costs on taxpayers.

“For all these reasons, I am confident I made the right decision.

“We must confront antisemitism and violent extremism, but we must do so with laws that are clear, robust, and fit for purpose. Rushed and poorly scrutinised legislation risks doing lasting harm to everyday Australians while failing to deliver the safety Australians rightly expect.”

.