Albo, the Old Testament, and the Strange Shape of Freedom
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thought he was clearing up a tricky question this week.
Instead, he might’ve accidentally made the entire debate ten times messier.
Fronting cameras on January 13 about his government’s new Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill, Albo was asked why the bill includes a special carve-out for quoting religious texts - specifically scriptures like the Koran, Bible or the Torah.
After a few cautious answers, the Prime Minister went for the line that’s making headlines:
“I don’t know if you read the Old Testament… I encourage you to read it and see what’s there.”
Translation: Some of the Old Testament is pretty full-on - and without a special exemption, parts of it might technically break his own hate speech laws. Just like, oh, I dunno, the Koran.......
And there it is: The moment the mask slipped.
A Law That Needs a Shield
If you’re writing a law to clamp down on hate, and the first thing you have to do is carve out a loophole for a major world religions so they don’t get caught in the net… your law might not be ready for lunch, let alone Parliament.
Because what this exemption says - in plain language - is:
“Some religious teachings, as written, could sound racist, violent or exclusionary by modern standards. So we’ll protect them - just in case.”
You don’t need a legal degree to see the odd shape of that logic.
The Double Standard
Under this bill:
-
If a preacher quotes a harsh scripture passage, they’re protected.
-
If a an ordinary bloke says the same words, or makes a similar argument from a different source, they could be breaking the law.
So we’ve suddenly created a new legal category:
Approved Speech: Words backed by religion... Risky Speech: Words backed by anyone else
The government is basically saying, “It’s not the message - it’s who’s saying it.”
And that’s where ordinary Australians start to sniff something is off.
Remember this? Israel Folau was:
-
quoting scripture,
-
expressing a sincerely held belief,
-
saying it on his own social media - and he lost his livelihood for it.
No government shielded him. Corporate sponsors didn’t plead “religious exemption." The media didn’t shrug and say, “Well, that’s doctrine - nothing to see here.”
He was treated as if the words were invented on the spot - and he paid the price for speaking them.
Fast-forward to 2026 and suddenly government panic sets in.
Can’t risk someone quoting the Old Testament and landing in court under their own law - better carve out a special exemption for scripture and the Koran before the lawyers start sharpening their pencils.
So now we’re in a bizarre reality where:
-
quoting a religious text got a man fired,
-
quoting a religious text is now legally protected,
-
but if you express the same idea without religious cover, you could be in trouble.
Folau proved the point: It’s never been about the words - only who is permitted to say them.
Israel Folau didn’t invent anything. He quoted straight out of his Bible. He posted it to his own page. He expressed a belief millions quietly hold.
And the result? Career over. Reputation torched. Exile from the game he built his life on.
No Prime Minister rushed to defend his right to speak. No exemption appeared in a bill. No media panel murmured, “Well, it is scripture.”
Instead, every institution decided those words belonged to him - and they wiped him out for saying them.
Now leap to 2026, and the political class is suddenly nervous the exact same thing could happen under their own laws - so nervous they carve out a protective bubble just for religious texts.
Folau didn’t change - the rules did.
Two Kinds of Belief
Here’s what Canberra seems to forget: Most Australians are not sitting in pews, synagogues, or mosques every week. Many don’t have a formal religious identity at all. But that doesn’t mean they’re hollow or faithless. No one on this planet could argue with the beauty of this from the Old Testament:
-
Psalm 19:1
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” -
Psalm 8:3–4
“When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, what is man that you are mindful of him?”
People feel the sacred every day:
-
Under a star-rich outback sky
-
Watching dawn roll over a still ocean
-
Hearing kookaburras on a cold morning
-
Holding a newborn grandchild
-
Saying goodbye at a funeral
-
Waking up to embrace a new day
This is spirituality too - maybe the most honest kind.
It doesn’t need robes or scripture or someone telling you what it means.
Yet under this bill, that personal wonder - the instinctive sense that life is bigger than us - gets no special protection at all.
Only institutional religion gets the ticket.
The Awkward Implication
If the government protects formal religious speech because it fears outlawing parts of it, then it’s quietly admitting something it won’t say aloud:
Some religious ideas look pretty dodgy under modern rules - but we’re too scared to call that out directly.
So instead of facing that conversation, we create:
-
One law for believers (or at least recognised religions)
-
Another law for everyone else
That’s not equality under the law. It’s legal privilege dressed up as fairness.
Who Gets to Define Sacred?
Here’s the bigger problem:
By protecting only scripture and doctrine, the government is effectively deciding what counts as a “real” expression of belief.
A Christian Vicar quoting Leviticus? Protected. An Islamic preacher quoting from the Koran? Protected.
A poet talking about the divine in nature? Probably not.
A surfer describing God as the ocean? Tough luck.
A sceptic criticising religious ideas? Better watch your wording.
And just like that, the Parliament - not the people - becomes the referee of the sacred.
Australia was built on the idea that the state keeps out of the pulpit. This bill quietly pokes its nose right back in.
The Political Risk
Albo says the aim is avoiding “unintended consequences.”
But this exemption is the unintended consequence.
Because ordinary Australians - churchgoers or not - don’t like:
-
special lanes
-
special classes
-
special wording for special groups
They like a fair go.
Equal rules. Equal treatment. No favourites.
A Better Way
If you want a principle that sits comfortably with most Australians, it’s this:
Nobody - religious or not - should be able to use belief as a shield for hatred.
And every person - religious or not - should have the same right to speak thoughtfully, passionately, or spiritually about meaning.
Full stop. Clean lines. Same law for everyone.
In the End
Albanese may have meant well. Yeah, right.... but when the Prime Minister reaches for the Old Testament to explain a modern bill, it shows exactly how wobbly the ground is.
Because no government - not this one, not any - should be in the business of deciding which forms of meaning and wonder are safe, righteous, or legally blessed.
The Sacred belongs to people - not to Parliament.
And Canberra would be wise to remember it.
