Hate speech laws after Bondi attack were rushed: report

Transparency and soundness in significant areas of federal legislation are increasingly lacking, according to the report into parliamentary practice by the Centre for Public Integrity.

"Rushed, opaque or selective law-making processes risk poorer-quality laws, increase the likely influence of vested interests and further erode already fragile public trust in political institutions," it states.

"Unfortunately, 2025 exemplified the problems of poor legislative process."

Neither have things improved in the first months of 2026, with parliament recalled to pass complex hate speech laws within 48 hours, in response to the Bondi terror attack.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insisted the legislation needed to be urgently implemented to strengthen national security in the wake of the shootings.

Senior minister Murray Watt also argued delays in the process would be damaging, while the attorney-general's department assured security and intelligence agencies had been widely consulted.

However their reasoning is at odds with the integrity centre's findings. 

"Most recently, the passage of the hate speech laws exemplified what we are most concerned about, with consultation and scrutiny that was grossly inadequate for such significant changes," executive director Catherine Williams told AAP.

The report also singles out a lack of consultation on recent controversial freedom of information amendments and a political deal struck between Labor and the Greens to pass major environmental reform rushed through parliament with little debate.

The public had little to no input into the freedom of information changes, which would effectively make it harder to access documents.

Neither did relevant government departments provide examples of the problems they cited to support the changes.

These included claims AI bots were inundating the system and that foreign actors could exploit it to damage the national interest.

"Claims relating to vexatious, AI-generated requests and foreign interference were unable to be publicly justified by credible material," the integrity centre concluded.

Its report found the laws were sprung on the public without input from stakeholders.

In the area of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, stakeholders were sidelined as Labor pursued a deal with the Greens and the coalition to secure Senate support.

"At a time of declining trust in government, the attempt to short-circuit parliamentary processes risked not only poorer-quality environmental laws, but also lasting damage to public confidence in democratic decision-making," the report said.

Dr Williams said the federal government could do better, and pointed to former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus' process for establishing the national anti-corruption commission as an example of proper process.

"Our hope in issuing this report is to support the government to reflect on the approach it's too frequently been using to law-making, and to support the parliament in its critical scrutiny function," she said.

"We know they're capable of it but we haven't been seeing it, and we simply can't afford not to have good governance in place when it comes to the making of the country's laws."

Independent MP Monique Ryan chastised Labor for using guillotine motions to cut off and gag debate and for not routinely releasing drafts of proposed laws. 

"Expedited legislation ultimately comes at the cost of greater transparency and better outcomes for Australians," she said.

The government has previously defended it's record on integrity, saying it is committed to transparency and accountability and pointing to initiatives like the national anti-corruption commission and additional whistleblower protections. 

However the integrity centre report recommends an independent policy development process with public consultation, releasing exposure drafts to adequately involve the community and robust parliamentary scrutiny.

Comment has been sought from the relevant government departments.