The summer evening of December 14, 2025, began in the soft, amber glow of Hanukkah candles at Archer Park. It ended in the staccato rattle of rifle fire and the scent of sea spray mixed with shotgun powder. Fifteen lives were extinguished by Sajid and Naveed Akram; a night that exposed not only the fragility of security, but the deeper frailty of Australia’s political imagination.
In the wake of that horror, the Albanese and Minns governments promised resolve. What they delivered instead was the familiar choreography of risk-aversion: the committees, the taskforces, the talking-points, and finally, a version of the old dingo fence. What began as an act of collective grief has metastasised into a tinpot tyranny, a prison guard or police patrol’s vision of order.
From Public Grief to Private Fear
By February, that perimeter has hardened into a siege. Sydney’s once open streets have become the staging ground of a security politics that no one voted for. The images from Town Hall; men dragged from prayer mats, Greens MP Abigail Boyd coughing through pepper spray—belong to a country that has quietly rewritten its own story of tolerance. A pluralist democracy does not kneel beneath its police lines for long without losing something essential.
The truth is simpler and harder: we have allowed fear, dressed in the high-vis vest of “public order,” to set the terms of our morality, proscribe our speech, define the living sinews of our commonwealth.
The Invisible, Myopic Pragmatists
Who, then, is running this show? Increasingly it seems to be the invisible, myopic pragmatists; those faceless avatars of modern Labor who mistake managerial caution for moral intelligence. This is the small-target governance of realpolitik, the gutless risk-avoidance that flatters itself as prudence. Yet it turns out to be a type of costly false economy; in the refusal to confront or even name the deeper moral crises beneath Australian politics; it proves a costly wrong, right turn.
Labor still governs as if haunted by ghosts: of Murdoch’s tabloids, of Trump’s shadow, of talkback nationalism. So fearful of offending the pro-Israel lobby or a resurgent Washington, they have allowed Australia’s political stage to be colonised by a foreign narrative. It is one thing to host Isaac Herzog on a “healing tour.” It is another to pretend that such theatre constitutes diplomacy while Gaza still smoulders and UN inquiries speak of mass dispossession.
Under the banner of “social cohesion,” the government has transformed mourning into a managed event and dissent into security risk.
The Ritual of Control
January’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act is the latest iteration of this logic; a law that inflates “incitement” until speech itself becomes suspect. Under the euphemism of protection, dissent becomes pathology. This is governance as theatre: motion without moral movement, legislative vigour masking ethical paralysis.
Paul Keating warned of the “instant band-aid”—politics mistaking activity for achievement. The current government has perfected the art. It calls Parliament to ban protest chants overnight, but remains paralysed before the “recreational hunting” loopholes that armed the Akrams. You can now go to prison for carrying a certain flag, but not for stockpiling a .308 rifle under the name of sport.
The Day of Kettling
And so came February 9, the day that Albanese and Minns kettled not only citizens, but independence of mind itself. In those 24 hours, freedom of expression was pinned beneath riot shields, freedom of association shoved into police vans, and the rights of conscience, democracy, and common decency were trampled into the wet asphalt of George Street.
Australia has always prided itself on a kind of decent moderation; the belief that even in our disputes, there existed a shared moral floor. What unfolded yesterday suggests that floor has given way. The government’s instinctive use of force against non-violence didn’t merely reveal insecurity—it revealed contempt. For protest, for plurality, and for the ordinary intelligence of the public.
History will not remember this as a day of security. It will remember it as a day of surrender; the moment when a Labor government, raised on the language of solidarity, chose the comfort of coercion over the courage of care.
The Moral Reckoning
We are witnessing the normalisation of the riot shield as a symbol of civic order, a transformation as swift as it is insidious. When a government greets a vigil with chemicals and batons, it is not protecting its people. It is protecting itself.
True cohesion is never policed; it is nurtured. It grows when governments address inequality rather than manage optics, when they embrace dissent as a sign of health, not heresy. It exists in the old Australian compact between decency and fairness; an agreement far older than Parliament and infinitely more fragile.
Labor, if it still remembers, must left heel; breaking from the intellectual, moral and spiritual shipwreck of the Shoppies bloc and return to its real heritage: the workers and communities who built a nation out of solidarity, common care, and the stubborn conviction that a free people stand tallest when they stand together.
Until then, we remain a country barricaded from itself.
Urban Wronski Writes 