Creating New Hate Speech Offences
Australia is in the middle of one of the most serious national debates in decades about how far government power should go in the name of safety and social cohesion. In the aftermath of violent incidents and rising concern about antisemitism extremism and hate driven attacks the federal government introduced a major package of proposed laws called the Combatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill 2026.
This proposal has triggered strong reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters argue it is a necessary response to real threats and a way to prevent violence before it happens. Critics argue it grants sweeping powers to government and police without strong enough legal safeguards and that once such powers exist they are rarely reduced or removed.
This article explains the bill in simple language. It draws on publicly available information government fact sheets and reporting including ABC News. It sets out what the bill proposes why it matters the main arguments for and against it and the deeper concern many Australians have about executive power retroactive effects and the long term expansion of state authority.
Why This Bill Exists
The government says the bill is a response to a changing threat environment. Anti-Semitic incidents have increased. Online radicalisation has become faster and more decentralised. Extremist ideologies can spread without formal organisations. Lone actor violence has proven difficult to predict using traditional criminal law tools.
The bill was announced after a deadly attack in Bondi late in 2025 which was widely reported as having an antisemitic motive. That event acted as a catalyst for a broader legislative response that combined hate speech extremism and initially firearms reform into a single package.
The governments position is that existing laws are reactive and fragmented. They say the law needs to intervene earlier before harm occurs rather than waiting for violence.
What the Bill Is
The Combatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is not a single narrow law. It is a package of proposed amendments across several areas of federal law. It touches criminal law migration law national security and initially gun regulation.
The bill is currently an exposure draft. That means it is proposed law not enacted law. Parliament can amend it split it or reject it. However exposure drafts matter because they reveal the direction of government policy and the scope of power being sought.
The bill does five main things.
Creating New Hate Speech Offences
The bill proposes a new federal criminal offence for promoting or inciting hatred based on race ethnicity colour or national origin where a reasonable person would feel intimidated harassed or fear violence.
This is a major shift. Under this approach actual violence does not need to occur. The offence is triggered by the creation of fear or intimidation as judged by a reasonable person standard.
The conduct covered is broad. It includes spoken words written material online posts images symbols gestures and other forms of public expression.
The rationale is preventative. The government argues that hate speech often precedes violence and that waiting until physical harm occurs is too late.
Critics respond that fear is subjective even when framed as reasonable fear and that this moves criminal law away from clear tangible harm toward interpretation and perception.
Aggravated Offences and Higher Penalties
The bill increases penalties where hate or extremism is an aggravating factor. Leaders organisers or influential figures who advocate violence or intimidation could face significantly longer prison terms.
In the most serious cases penalties of up to fifteen years imprisonment are proposed for directing recruiting or materially supporting a listed extremist or hate group.
Supporters say strong penalties are needed to deter organised hate. Critics argue harsh penalties combined with broad definitions increase the risk of overreach.
Religious Text and Teaching Exemptions
The exposure draft includes a narrow defence for quoting religious texts in the context of teaching discussion or genuine religious practice.
This applies across religions and is not limited to any one faith. However it is not a blanket exemption. The protection does not apply if religious language is used to threaten intimidate or incite violence.
Supporters say this balances freedom of religion with protection from harm. Critics argue the exemption is vague and places religious speech at the mercy of interpretation by police prosecutors and courts.
Executive Power to Designate Hate Groups
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is the power it gives to the executive branch to designate organisations as prohibited hate groups.
Under the draft a minister can list a group if they believe on reasonable grounds that it has engaged in assisted or advocated hateful or extremist conduct.
Once listed severe consequences follow immediately. Membership funding recruitment leadership assistance or promotion of the group can become criminal offences with long prison terms.
Crucially this designation can occur without a prior court finding. Judicial review comes later after the listing has already taken effect.
This is the point many Australians find deeply troubling.
Due Process and Why This Matters
Traditionally in democratic systems the process is accusation then trial then judgment then punishment.
This bill reverses that order in practice for group designation. The punishment and restrictions come first. The legal challenge comes later.
Supporters argue this is necessary in national security contexts where speed matters and intelligence cannot always be disclosed in open court.
Critics argue this undermines due legal process and opens the door to political or ideological misuse in the future especially by governments with different values.
Once a mechanism exists it does not disappear when one government leaves office.
Visa Cancellation and Migration Powers
The bill expands existing migration powers to allow refusal or cancellation of visas for people who promote hate or extremism or who are assessed as likely to do so in the future.
This does not require a criminal conviction. It can be based on intelligence assessments or anticipated risk.
Supporters argue Australia has the right to control who enters the country and to prevent the importation of extremism.
Critics note that migration law already grants wide discretion and that expanding it further lowers the threshold for state action without transparent evidence or court oversight.
Firearms Law Connection
The original package included significant gun law reforms including buyback schemes tighter import controls and stronger intelligence based background checks.
Due to political opposition the government has indicated these measures may be separated into a different bill.
The fact that hate speech extremism and firearms were initially bundled together raised concern among critics who saw it as legislative overreach using a crisis to push multiple agendas at once.
Political Debate in Parliament
The bill has divided Parliament.
Elements of the Coalition have described the hate speech provisions as too broad and warned about free expression and due process.
The Greens have said they cannot support the bill in its current form and argue it does not go far enough in protecting some groups while going too far in restricting speech.
Independent members have raised concerns about civil liberties religious freedom and the concentration of power in the executive.
This debate is ongoing in the Parliament of Australia and the final shape of the legislation remains uncertain.
Views From Community and Advocacy Groups
Jewish community organisations have largely welcomed stronger action against antisemitism while also raising questions about implementation and scope.
Civil liberties groups warn that criminal law is a blunt instrument for dealing with social problems and that expanding state power has long term consequences beyond the immediate crisis.
Some faith leaders fear religious teachings could be misinterpreted as harmful under broad hate definitions.
Security agencies argue current laws leave gaps that extremists exploit.
All sides agree on one thing. This is not a minor change.
Free Speech in the Australian Context
Australia does not have a constitutional free speech right like the United States. Speech is protected through common law parliamentary tradition and implied constitutional principles.
That makes the role of Parliament even more important. When Parliament expands criminal speech laws there is no constitutional backstop equivalent to a bill of rights.
Critics argue this places enormous responsibility on lawmakers to draft narrowly and cautiously.
Retroactive Effects and Legal Uncertainty
The bill does not explicitly criminalise past lawful speech. However it creates practical retroactive effects.
Past associations online posts donations or memberships could become legally dangerous once a group is listed or conduct is reclassified.
People may be judged not for what was illegal at the time but for how past actions are interpreted under new rules.
This creates uncertainty and fear which itself can chill lawful political and religious expression.
The Central Fear About Power
The deepest concern expressed by critics is not about one government or one bill.
It is about precedent.
History shows that governments rarely surrender powers once granted. Emergency measures tend to become permanent. Thresholds tend to lower not rise.
Powers created to fight extremism today can be repurposed tomorrow. What one government defines as hate another might define differently.
This is not speculation. It is a pattern seen repeatedly across democratic systems.
Pros of the Bill
The bill attempts to address real and serious threats.
It aims to intervene before violence occurs.
It creates national consistency rather than a patchwork of state laws.
It acknowledges the harm caused by hate even without physical injury.
It includes some protections for religious teaching and discussion.
It strengthens tools against organised extremist networks.
Cons and Risks of the Bill
Definitions of fear and hatred are broad and subjective.
Executive power to ban groups lacks strong upfront judicial safeguards.
Religious and political speech may be chilled by uncertainty.
Visa and migration powers expand discretionary authority.
Retroactive practical effects undermine legal certainty.
Once enacted the powers are unlikely to be reduced.
Summary and Final Thoughts
The Combatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is one of the most far reaching expansions of federal authority in Australia’s modern legal history.
It is driven by genuine concern and real threats. It is supported by communities that have experienced hate and violence. It reflects a desire to prevent harm rather than merely respond to it.
At the same time it concentrates power in the executive allows punishment before judicial determination and lowers the threshold for criminal liability based on fear rather than harm.
The ability for government to classify groups without prior court judgment is particularly alarming to many Australians. Combined with retroactive effects and the historical reality that governments do not easily relinquish power this raises serious long term questions.
This debate is not about denying the reality of hate or extremism. It is about how a democratic society responds without undermining its own foundations.
The final version of the bill will matter greatly. Not just for those targeted by hate today but for everyone who lives under the laws tomorrow.
