Labor’s Selective Justice: When Politics Comes Before Law

The rule of law is supposed to be unwavering, the foundation upon which a just society rests. It should not be dependent on political calculations, shifting public opinion, or the sensitivities of certain voting blocs. And yet, in Australia today, we are witnessing something deeply corrosive: a justice system that appears to enforce its own laws selectively, dictated not by principle but by political cowardice.

In recent months, Jewish Australians have faced an unprecedented surge in violent antisemitism—synagogues firebombed, homes desecrated, open calls for Jewish extermination in our streets. And most chillingly, an attempted terrorist attack against a place of worship, which authorities are only now deciding to treat as an act of terror. Not because the facts have changed—those were clear from the start—but because political timing has finally made action unavoidable.

How did we arrive at this point? The law has never been ambiguous on these matters. Attempting to bomb a synagogue is terrorism. Calling for an “intifada” is not some abstract political statement—it is incitement to mass murder. Hate crimes against any group are not merely distasteful—they are illegal. And yet, when Jewish Australians are the victims, our institutions hesitate. They obfuscate. They delay.

The reason is depressingly simple: we are in an election year, and for the Albanese government, enforcing the law on antisemitic violence is politically inconvenient. They do not want to alienate certain sections of their voter base. They do not want to upset activist groups who have spent months spreading the vilest forms of anti-Jewish rhetoric. They do not want to be forced into difficult conversations about the mainstreaming of antisemitism within their own ideological camp.

Contrast this with the approach of the federal opposition. Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party have at least shown the willingness to call this crisis what it is. They have consistently condemned violent antisemitism, urged stronger action against those who incite and commit these crimes, and made it clear that in a functioning democracy, the law must apply equally to all. That, one might think, should be the bare minimum. Yet in today’s political climate, even that level of clarity is refreshing.

Meanwhile, the delays in New South Wales have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Australian Jews. The question is not just why action has been so slow, but why these attacks were allowed to escalate in the first place. If laws against terrorism, incitement, and hate crimes had been enforced properly from the beginning, could this have been prevented? The answer is almost certainly yes.

And now, almost as if by coincidence, authorities have suddenly decided to act. Not when Jewish Australians first reported the rising threat. Not when their homes and places of worship were attacked. But now, as we approach a federal election. As, Auschwitz Remembrance Day just passed. Suddenly, the political calculus has changed. Suddenly, it is no longer acceptable to ignore the problem.

This is not governance. This is not leadership. This is cynical political theatre, and it should be recognised as such.

A nation governed by the rule of law does not wait for the right moment to enforce it. It does not pick and choose when to protect its citizens based on political risk assessments. It applies its laws fairly, swiftly, and without hesitation.

The Labor government has failed in this most basic duty. And Australian Jews are left wondering: if even an attempted act of terrorism against them requires political convenience before justice is served, what does that say about the nation they call home?

We cannot afford to be a country where justice is conditional, where law enforcement is subject to polling numbers, or where a government will only act against antisemitism when the political cost of inaction becomes too high. Either we believe in the rule of law, or we do not.

And the Australian people would do well to remember which political leaders understood that from the outset—and which ones only found their moral compass when an election was on the horizon.