Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has expressed support for new state laws that restrict the wearing of masks or head coverings during protests, in response to the rising number of extremist gatherings. This move follows a recent neo-Nazi rally in New South Wales, which sparked public debate over both safety and freedom of speech.

The incident took place outside the New South Wales Parliament, where around 60 men dressed in black held banners and shouted extremist slogans. Police stated that the gathering had been notified seven days in advance under the Summary Offences Act and was not prohibited by any court, making it a “legal assembly.” New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon explained that, after assessment, police initially saw no reason to intervene, but due to public backlash and insufficient internal communication, he will reassess the decision.

In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Albanese stated that hate speech and Nazi slogans should have no place in society, and he supports state regulations on covering one’s face during protests. He noted that wearing masks makes it difficult to identify participants, which could facilitate illegal or hate-driven activities, whereas people engaging in legitimate political action should not be threatened simply because their identity is concealed. On whether the move impacts freedom of speech, the Prime Minister emphasized that free speech does not include inciting hatred, anti-Semitism, or violence.

Responses from legal and community organizations have been mixed. Jewish community groups in New South Wales strongly condemned the rally and called for a review of its legality, while the New South Wales Civil Liberties Council warned that excessive restrictions on protests could infringe on the right to peaceful assembly, particularly affecting those with medical, religious, or privacy needs. Critics argue that a blanket ban on masks could hinder peaceful demonstrations, increase enforcement risks, and make vulnerable groups more susceptible to surveillance and retaliation.

Australia’s opposition coalition is nearing a final decision on whether to abandon its 2050 net-zero emissions commitment, with internal divisions deepening between moderates and conservatives.

Nationals leader David Littleproud has appointed outspoken anti–net zero senator Matt Canavan to lead negotiations with the Liberal Party ahead of a joint party meeting on Sunday, where both sides will send three representatives to decide the coalition’s climate policy stance.

The Liberal Party is set to hold a party room meeting on Wednesday to debate whether to completely remove the term “net zero” from its platform or retain a softer version of emissions reduction goals. Conservative members argue that opposition to net zero now represents the majority view, calling instead for a focus on “cutting emissions without cutting the economy,” stressing that energy costs and grid stability must not be compromised.

However, moderate Liberals have warned that abandoning the target would be a serious political and moral mistake. South Australian senator Andrew McLachlan said it would be “logically inconsistent” to remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement while walking away from net-zero commitments. “Australia must have clear emissions goals,” he said, “to leave a healthier planet for future generations.”

Insiders suggest that if the party formally withdraws from the 2050 target, NSW senator Andrew Bragg and several moderates may resign from frontbench positions in protest.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton is expected to announce the party’s final position on Thursday, before entering formal negotiations with the Nationals. The outcome could mark a historic policy shift, signaling a complete departure from the Morrison-era commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.

The Victorian government is preparing to introduce sweeping criminal law reforms that would allow juveniles as young as 14 to face the same penalties as adults for serious violent offences — including life imprisonment.

The proposal, titled “Adult Time for Violent Crime”, is part of the government’s response to what police describe as a surge in youth crime. According to official figures, overall crime in Victoria has risen 15.7% in the past year, with a sharp increase in theft, aggravated burglary, and repeat violent offences involving young offenders. Police data show that around 1,100 juveniles aged 10 to 17 were arrested 7,000 times over the past year, prompting concerns about escalating youth violence.

The reform mirrors Queensland’s 2024 legislation, enacted after a 2022 home invasion murder case, which mandates life imprisonment for juvenile murderers with a minimum 20-year non-parole period. Victorian officials argue that similar measures are needed to address repeat violent behaviour and restore public confidence in the justice system.

However, the proposal has drawn strong backlash from the legal community and human rights advocates. Former chair of the Law Institute of Victoria’s Criminal Law Section, Mel Walker, denounced the plan as “unusual, dangerous, and illogical,” warning that sending minors to adult prisons risks inflicting long-term psychological harm. Walker noted that many young offenders come from traumatic or unstable family backgrounds, often driven by “a search for belonging rather than malice.”

Critics further argue that children’s cognitive development is incomplete at age 14, making it unfair and counterproductive to subject them to adult sentences. “They simply lack the capacity to fully grasp the consequences of their actions,” Walker said.

The debate underscores a growing tension between public safety and rehabilitation in Victoria’s criminal justice system. While government officials frame the reform as a necessary deterrent, opponents warn it could entrench cycles of disadvantage and undermine Australia’s international human rights obligations on the treatment of juvenile offenders.