The Albanese government’s hastily-drafted “Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026” has been met with a broad array of criticism, with conservative politicians, the U.S. undersecretary of state, Jewish, and Muslim groups uniting to criticise it.
The new omnibus-style law was drawn up in the wake of the Bondi Beach terrorist mass shooting attack that targeted a Jewish celebration, killing 15 people and injuring 40 others.
Along with creating a new national gun buyback scheme and an additional layer of security checks when approving firearms licences and reviewing current holders, the 144-page draft also introduces a new framework under which the Minister for Home Affairs can list and criminalise “hate groups.”
It will only be open for public submissions for two days.
The bill also expands the definition of hate symbols to include those of any group prohibited under the new legislation.
The minister also gains expanded powers to refuse or cancel visas, which he can already do on “character grounds.”
This includes people who have previously publicly spread hatred or extremism even online or overseas; have alleged links to prohibited groups; appear motivated to commit related offences; or have allegedly been involved in committing such offences in the past.
Extremist preachers and spiritual leaders found to have advocated or threatened violence against groups will face up to 12 years’ imprisonment, while the penalty for anyone else threatening violence against members of a group, their property, or a person close to them will be increased from 5 to 7 years.
A key provision makes it illegal to “publicly promote or incite hatred” or “disseminate ideas of superiority or hatred towards another person or group of people based on their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.” Anyone encouraging the expression of hatred towards someone else, making them feel intimidated or in fear of violence, could be imprisoned for five years.
However, the bill exempts from the racial vilification rule anyone referencing a religious text “for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”
US Under Secretary Cautious on Exemption
Few who’ve spoken publicly about the bill appear to support it.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Sarah B. Rogers, noting the exemption for people quoting from religious texts, said on X that “a statute that imprisons you for calling to deport jihadist extremists—but provides safe harbour if you are a jihadist extremist—would be deeply perverse. Let’s hope this isn’t what Australia intends.”
The Free Speech Union (FSU) is working on a submission on the bill, but on social media issued a harsh assessment of the law, calling it a “horror show.”
They said “it is very clear that the goal of the Australian government is to emulate the UK and start to arrest people for comments on social media. One foolish tweet and that’s it … unless the judiciary do their job and intervene (and they might be too cowardly to do so).”
The FSU claims the bill could expand to capture things such as a “positive account of the British Empire … about Bruce Gilley’s case for colonialism? Or Lord Biggar’s excellent book ‘Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (2023).'”
If the legislation passes in its current form, the Union says to “expect a lot of people being selectively prosecuted.”
One Nation picked up on a similar theme, asking on X whether voicing or displaying “a patriotic slogan like ‘Australia is the best country in the world’ get you five years in prison under Labor’s new hate speech laws?”
Meanwhile, its leader, Pauline Hanson, called the bill “an unworkable mess.”
“We don’t need new laws to protect Australians from antisemitism,” she said. “We need to enforce existing laws, something the Albanese government—to its eternal shame—didn’t do.”
‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’: Rule of Law Institute
Chris Merritt, vice president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, told 2GB that exempting religious leaders who quoted from texts amounted to “a get out of jail free card.”
“If you are a religious teacher and you stand in your pulpit and you promote racial hatred, but you then link that back to a religious text, that’s your get out of jail card. If you don’t do that and you simply stand in the pulpit and advocate violence without any link back to a religious text, you trigger the offence [which leads to] 12 years in prison.”
Jacob Mchangama, from The Future of Free Speech at America’s Vanderbilt University and author of the book “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” (2022) said the proposed law “threatens to reach far beyond violence or direct incitement—reshaping how speech, protest and political dissent are regulated in the wake of terrorism.
“The freedom to dissent and protest is the most fundamental difference between democracies and authoritarian states. The vagueness of hate speech laws risks blurring that bright line. Moreover, the very minorities that hate speech laws are supposed to protect can easily become their targets.”
Opposed by Jewish and Muslim Groups
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), welcomed the new law, but says it still has “some significant shortcomings which will limit its effectiveness.”
“The entire concept of a religious exemption for racial hatred is a relic of outdated thinking. None of the world’s recognised religions promotes racial hatred knowingly and deliberately, and to the extent that any religion were to do so, it would be thoroughly shameful,” said ECAJ co-CEO Peter Wertheim, in a statement.
“Invoking religion as an excuse to dehumanise and mistreat others simply on the basis of who they are, must surely be a thing of the past.”
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) also called on the government to delay its introduction, saying the 72-hour consultation process undermined the “principles of democratic engagement.”
It says the legislation is being introduced despite “the lack of any clear evidence that current legal provisions are inadequate and the absence of any public explanation of why existing laws cannot be enforced more effectively.”
It’s also concerned by the minister’s expanded powers to cancel visas or restrict entry on the grounds of “hate, without due process or transparent criteria,” and the introduction of criminal penalties “without sufficient clarity or safeguards, which risks overreach or selective enforcement.”
Friends Read Free
Copy
Facebook
Tweet
