The Australian government recently introduced new legislation to combat hate speech. This would be a major departure from the legal status quo. Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Tony Burke were trumpeting new laws. These laws focus on reducing the threshold for federal hate speech offenses, moving it from incitement to violence to incitement to hatred. This new legal framework will incite hatred for the first time ever at a federal level. It is a sign of our awareness that contributes to the discourse around the harmful effects of hate speech on communities.
The incredible legislation introduced in response to the surge in hate speech across the country aims to strengthen protections for marginalized communities. Albanese forced parliament back into session in order to pass this critical legislation. In addition to provisions for gun reform and violent extremism prevention, this bill establishes a national listing system for hate organizations. Under the proposed legislation, those convicted of committing hate speech would be sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. For aggravated offenses, even stiffer penalties are mandatory.
Legislative Changes and Implications
These newly amended statutes specifically aim to prevent advocacy for the use of force or violence against particular classes of people. Proponents contend that, in light of recent events, this is a critical measure. The previous hate speech laws were last updated in February 2025, and critics argue they have failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of hate speech in Australia.
Australian Attorney General Tony Burke said the thresholds were low enough to let organisations and individuals promoting hatred escape punishment. “Some groups or individuals who espouse hatred in Australia have so far managed to remain just below the current threshold for prosecution,” he stated. These new laws are a good start to fighting these hate preachers. They target in particular those disseminating antisemitic propaganda, such as radical Islamic preachers often charged with radicalizing minors.
Now that these laws have been introduced, they have been highly provocative. As Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has pointed out, the legislation doesn’t go far enough in tackling Australia’s growing problem with antisemitism. The Coalition is now positioned to vote in strong opposition to the proposed legislation. They are doing so because these laws are visibly ineffective and unconstitutionally chilling to free speech.
“It seems to be concentrated to protect one community and target another community,” – A spokesperson from the Coalition
Concerns Over Implementation
Legal experts have expressed serious alarm over the possible chilling effects of these sweeping new hate speech laws. Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert, cautioned that the legislation could be abused. “It may end up being used in ways that are not anticipated at the moment,” she cautioned.
Giridharan Sivaraman, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, voiced similar apprehensions regarding the uncertainty of terms such as “offend” and “insult” in the legislation. He pointed out how terms such as ‘religious text’ could result in difficulties with interpretation and application.
Nicole Shackleton, a fervent legal eagle on the frontlines, drove home the need to combat hate speech. She highlighted that as we work to achieve this goal we have to defend freedom of speech and work to protect at-risk communities. “Research consistently demonstrates that hate speech targets a significant number of historically marginalized communities who deserve to be protected by law,” Shackleton stated. She added, “It is important that we carefully strike a balance between freedom of speech, protest and debate, and the significant harms caused by extremist hate speech.”
Reactions from Advocacy Groups
The immediate reaction to the announcement of the new laws has been mixed from advocacy groups. Many of us are passionate in the belief that we do indeed need a legislative fix. Critics say that the suggested amendments would still fail to address nearly every nuance of hate speech.
Peter Wertheim, a former Jewish rights advocate, said there was urgency to change the laws after recent antisemitic outbursts. He stated, “The status quo is no longer tolerable after the antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi. We need legislative reform now even if it is less than ideal.” This anxious feeling is a reminder of how urgently we need to act as hate crimes continue to rise at an unprecedented rate.
Michelle Berkon from the National League of Cities warned of the preemptive overreach of such laws. “There’s a thin end of the wedge where these repressive laws are introduced and then that wedge is driven further and further in,” she warned. This illustration of the attitudes behind such laws is symptomatic of a wider fear among civil liberties defenders about how these laws would chill free expression.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils expressed their concerns. They contended that the proposed legislation would erode democratic participation by curtailing discussions on controversial issues.
