Today in Parliament, Abigail contributed to the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 debate, arguing that real leadership after the Bondi attack lies in empathy, unity and evidence-based responses, like addressing gun access and extremism at their roots, rather than fear-driven, opportunistic laws that scapegoat communities, suppress protest and deepen division while failing to keep people safe.
Abigail said:
As I reflect since the day of this horrific attack, I keep coming back to what the role of politicians should be in this moment and what real leadership looks like. Jacinda Ardern's response to the Christchurch massacre is considered by many to be the defining moment of her time as New Zealand Prime Minister. After 51 Muslims were killed by an Australian man, Ardern's response was unifying. She said of the victims, "They are us. The person who perpetrated this violence against us is not." One of the survivors of the Christchurch shootings, Temel Ataçocuğu, said afterwards, "She did not talk like we were from different faiths or different nationalities. It felt like we were part of New Zealand." It was Ardern's empathy and compassion, her rejection of violent rhetoric and her calm inclusivity in a time of national crisis that characterised her response and set the tone for a whole nation to express kindness, acceptance and connectedness and to work towards making all people feel safe no matter their religion, nationality or other background.
In the wake of the Bondi massacre, the responses from Australia's political leaders have been varied. Much has been made of the way in which the bipartisanship that existed in response to the Port Arthur massacre has been lacking following this latest atrocity. But I am less interested in this so-called bipartisanship of response and more interested in the sentiments that people are conveying publicly and their impacts on broader society at this incredibly sensitive moment in our history. On that front, there has been a distinct lack of leadership from our so‑called leaders.
It took less than a day for Australian politics to descend into an ugly mudslinging match and for blame, hatred and ignorance to be given free rein. Far from seeking to unify the community, those responses only serve to further divide: Blame immigration and migrants, blame pro-peace protesters, blame each other. Lean into racism by wilfully misinterpreting the Arabic language, pit one group of people against another, act as though kindness is some zero-sum game. The political opportunism has been sickening. How can it be anything other than bare political opportunism for Sussan Ley to attend Bondi the day after the attacks and talk about what she would do if she were Prime Minister? Could it get any more desperate than to attack other members of Parliament for not publicly crying, for not showing sufficient compassion, while you yourself are seeking to hurt and offend another person while angrily smacking the lectern you are standing at?
In New South Wales the lack of real leadership shown by Premier Chris Minns has been predictable, given his track record. Ever the right-wing media's weathervane without seemingly any real political or ethical principles to guide him, the Premier will do whatever he thinks will be popular in the moment. Over the last two years we have been calling on the Premier and his Government to show real leadership on the war in Gaza and its impact here in Australia. The whole of civil society, the union movement—we have all been asking for an end to simplistic, populist right-wing responses that seek to silence and that serve to bolster misinformation and ignorance, instead calling for governments to open up space for honest, fact-based discussion on the complexities around war in the Middle East, how it impacts our diverse communities here and what Australia's role in the conflict is.
By conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, to conflate peaceful protest with acts of hatred, to deny space for the real compassion and kindness of the vast majority of people in our State to be expressed, the Minns Labor Government has made matters worse, not better. But rather than the self-reflection needed at this moment to acknowledge that the countless heinous anti-protest and other anti-democratic kneejerk legislative responses continuously rushed through by this Government have, predictably, not kept people safer, the Minns Government is doubling down on its mistakes at a time when we need, more than ever, real leadership of our State. Why would you take a moment of self-reflection to consider if there is something that could have been done better within the existing frameworks, when that would only indicate that the Government and agencies had fallen short in their duties? Much better, in the eyes of this Government, to claim that they are being hamstrung by insufficiently draconian legislation.
That does not mean leadership has been entirely lacking at this time. I have seen so many examples of real leadership that have inspired and comforted a grieving State: the leadership of the First Nations groups who brought people together for a peaceful vigil in Hyde Park the day after the massacre; the moment Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins and Australian National Imams Council special advisor Bilal Rauf shared an embrace during the vigil, a shining symbol to all that you are not alone; all of those who put their own lives at risk to help others on the night of the shooting, shielding each other from bullets, rushing to put their hands over wounds to stop victims bleeding out, seeking to disarm gunmen despite being shot multiple times themselves; those who opened their doors to shelter others running from the attack; and those who have come together to support all those grieving and offer kindness to strangers. It is in those acts that we see real leadership.
I have seen incredible leadership from those in the Jewish community—despite so many of them experiencing pressure to be silent, both outside and within their own community—standing unwaveringly in support of people in Gaza, still dying every day, and patiently explaining to all who will listen that standing against genocide and criticising the actions of Israel is not and cannot ever be antisemitic but, rather, equating the actions of the nation state of Israel with collective responsibility of all Jewish people is itself antisemitic.
I have seen incredible leadership from my colleagues. Dr Amanda Cohn in particular has responded to this event with such grace and compassion, despite the way it has impacted her personally. The clarity and patience with which she has expressed herself have been inspirational. It must be particularly excruciating for her, as a member of the Jewish community, to have to listen to the hatred and offensive remarks being expressed by some of our right-wing colleagues in this place at this time. As Dr Cohn pointed out after neo-Nazis rallied outside our Parliament, our response to extremism needs to be considered and evidence based.
Extremism does not happen in a single moment; it happens over many years, across generations, as a result of numerous intersecting factors. An effective response to reduce the threat of extremism means supporting those at risk and doing all we can to avoid them going down that path. It means well-resourced community and mental health services. It means ensuring that people have the basics they need to survive, like housing, food and shelter. It means measures taken to knit connections between individuals and broader society. It means so much complex social work that needs to be led by governments at all levels and embraced by all of us as essential.
Instead, we are here debating this rushed kneejerk reaction of a bill in which the Minns Labor Government has shamefully combined the one piece of sensible reform in response to the Bondi attack—a clampdown on the ease with which people can accumulate murderous guns—with measures that have no sensible connection with the horrific Bondi terrorist attack. Fear-driven legislating substitutes symbolic reassurance for genuine risk reduction. The literature is very clear on this point. Policies enacted after terrorist attacks frequently serve an aesthetic and a political function—like projecting strength, demonstrating resolve or shielding leaders from blame—rather than producing measurable improvements in safety.
Once a dramatic event captures attention, we see media coverage, political rhetoric and public anxiety feeding off one another in a self-perpetuating cycle. In those environments, dissenting voices who urge caution, proportionality or delay are mischaracterised as indifferent to the suffering of the victims, insufficiently committed to public safety or somehow naive or irresponsible. This is a misapprehension. Deliberation is not paralysis; it is a safeguard against irreversible mistakes made under emotional pressure. When fear makes rational governance politically costly, our democratic societies are most at risk. Fear-based legislating invariably imposes disproportionate burdens on specific groups, particularly minority groups, migrants and the politically outspoken. In the moment of fear and reaction, moral focus is narrowed and groups lacking political power find their rights under greatest threat. This is a structural feature of reactionary lawmaking, and these are reactionary laws.
In these moments of immense pain and suffering, politicians all too often fall victim to the siren song of harm and division. It is incumbent on us all to open ourselves up, not shut things down. To open our hearts, to sit and hold one another in mourning and together raise one another up. Instead, what we are seeing is not elevation, but a shameful race to the bottom, with parties across the spectrum rolling in the mud. What is needed most in the aftermath of a public tragedy such as this—a brutal act of targeted violence by two individuals against members of the Jewish community—is to build bridges of connection and community. Common bonds of community and understanding need to be nurtured in order to grow, but how can anything grow in the long shadow of State overreach? How can we open ourselves up to connection when legislators are doing everything in their power to close things down?
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. The ideology that motivated these two men—who appear to have demonstrated their support for the terror group Islamic State—is a repellent and hateful ideology. It is the same ISIS ideology that inspired the Lindt Cafe attack in 2014, long before the anti-genocide protests began. It is not a Palestinian organisation. On the contrary, it violently opposes all the major Palestinian factions, including Hamas. Any reasonable person would immediately instinctively know that the hateful ideology of Islamic State has nothing to do with anti-genocide protests in Melbourne or Sydney. These protests have, over more than two years, demonstrated the longest sustained street mobilisation in Australian history. The longevity and continued broad support is a testament to the urgency of their calls for an end to the relentless campaign of devastation being inflicted upon the Palestinian civilian population.
A tragedy such as this demands justice. But the public will be denied true justice as long as there is no transparency, no accountability and no reflection. True justice cannot be achieved without a culture of truth: truth about what happened, about the events that led up to this tragedy, and about the social conditions and the ideologies that motivated this act of destructive hatred. These laws that curtail speech and protest have no grounding in truth. What evidence has been presented other than the personal opinion of the Premier that there is any link between the protest movement against the ongoing genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people? What evidence has been presented that the gunmen ever participated in a protest march or were engaged with any of the organising groups?
It is galling to see the Premier single out the peace and Palestinian justice movement as particular targets of his so-called response. I echo the words of Arthur Rorris, Secretary of the South Coast Labor Council, in the council's letter to all members in anticipation of this legislation. He wrote, "The suspension of democratic rights of the people to demonstrate against their government or, for example, against massacres here and abroad does not sit well with the Australia that we all know and love. There are only two winners by suspending democratic rights like these: political leaders who want to shield themselves from the voices of the people and the terrorists who want to attack our freedoms." The tragic act of violent hatred that was inflicted on the community in Bondi on 14 December this year has unleashed the worst of politics. The response has been characterised by political opportunism, scapegoating of innocent publics and a turn towards authoritarian reaction. Cass Sunstein wrote of the possibility of authoritarian backsliding in liberal democratic societies that:
… it can be masked with a veneer of legality, it can be cloaked with plausible deniability. It is always possible to justify each incremental step.
Nevertheless, those steps retain their authoritarian character. There are real and pernicious forces of antisemitism and extremist and violent ideologies in our society that need to be faced head‑on. Those ideologies are cultivated and grown in darkness, and we need to bring them into the light. My real and sincere concern is that by misapportioning blame—by cracking down on movements for peace that repeatedly denounce antisemitism at every public opportunity—we leave the real dangers of genuine antisemitism and violent extremism unaddressed. That does nothing to keep the Jewish community safe. The Premier himself has acknowledged exactly that point in expressing his support for a royal commission:
"I think we need a royal commission right now," he said.
"Until we've got a full and accurate picture of exactly how this happened, with a plan to ensure that it doesn't happen again, then I don't have answers [for] the people of New South Wales about what happened on Sunday.
The Government has explicitly acknowledged that its suite of legislation has been advanced in the absence of a full and accurate picture of exactly how this happened, and without a plan to ensure it does not happen again. The legislation is not a plan for safety; it is a projection of intimidatory strength. However, an appearance of strength is not the same as genuine community resilience.
Tragically, one of the few things of which we are certain and confident is that those terrible actions were carried out with the use of multiple high‑powered firearms lawfully possessed by people living in a suburban home. We know that the firearms were lawfully allowed to be held in the home of a family whose son had been investigated by intelligence services for the risk of violent, ISIS‑inspired ideology. An evidence-based response to this tragedy includes a restriction on the ownership and use of firearms. I am in full support of that. The Greens have advocated for decades for a significant restriction on the number and types of firearms that can be legally possessed in this State and country. There are now more firearms per person in our community than before the Port Arthur massacre—another tragedy that shocked our community. It is a shame on us as legislators that we have allowed that to occur.
Thomas Birkland's foundational work After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events speaks of such moments, and he particularly identifies terror attacks as focusing events. Focusing events are rare, dramatic shocks that concentrate public and political attention. In their best form, they bring things that were previously unclear and hazy into focus. The public response to the proposal to tighten gun ownership laws, with three‑quarters of Australians believing the laws must be tightened, proves that the underlying public anxiety over gun violence has been brought into sharp relief. There is evidence and a mandate for tightening gun laws. However, it is unclear how much of that evidence is borne out in the version proposed by the Government.
Despite that, The Greens recognise that imposing limits on firearms is a measure that will materially make us safer, and we support those limits. I acknowledge that there are members who have an entirely inverse view of this legislation to that of The Greens—members who oppose the firearms legislation but who support the restrictions on speech and protest. I think they are entirely wrong, but I recognise that they have perceived constituencies who elected them to represent their interests. Those members, like The Greens, have been put in the untenable position of having to balance one set of major responses to this tragedy against another because of the Government's decision to progress the response in one omnibus legislation. That decision is exclusively about politics. It is grubby politics, trying to wedge political parties at a time when we are being implored by the community to work together.
Words cannot contain the enormity of the grief and sadness we feel in the face of the evil act of antisemitic violence that occurred in Bondi on 14 December. The fear and anxiety experienced by Jewish people in Sydney and across the country is real and heartbreaking. Those actions were designed to inflict fear and to sow disharmony through our beautiful and culturally diverse community. The very worst thing we can do now, in these days and weeks after that senseless attack, is to lean into that division. Antisemitic hatred and violence are abhorrent and an assault on our shared values of inclusion, justice and equity. They hold no place in the diverse, inclusive and accepting Australia that I know, and do not reflect the values the overwhelming majority of our population hold dear.
In the wake of this act of mass violence, we must sit and share in the grief of so many who have felt that act of violence as a bolt right into the hearts of their lives and communities. As we recommit ourselves to forcing out antisemitism and all forms of racist discrimination and hatred, we cannot allow ourselves to be pulled into hasty actions driven by anguish or by opportunists that will only serve to deepen, not bridge, fractures in our community. Amy Remeikis wrote it simply and perfectly:
The assumption that you cannot care about the loss of Jewish life if you care about the loss of Palestinian life is like saying you must choose between air and water. It assumes that people see life in binary terms, rather than feeling compassion and justice for all. It assumes most people hate. Pushing back against that assumption will take all of us.
Compassion, love and care is not zero sum. To claim that humanitarian universalism is impossible diminishes us all. Real leadership is in the empathy, compassion and kindness being shown by so many in the midst of intense pressure to do otherwise. It is in every embrace, in every reaching out and in every moment that we listen, question and think before speaking. As Audre Lorde writes:
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.
The bill is not leadership. It is political opportunism at its worst and a shameful attack on our democracy at a time when our democratic norms matter more than ever. Leadership is within those who, in the face of hate, violence and division, instead choose love, peace, connection and solidarity.
Read the debate in Hansard here.
23 December 2025