Case Explained: Legal experts flag concerns about toughest-ever hate crime laws – Legal Perspective

The legislation follows the devastating anti-Semitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, which authorities say exposed gaps in the nation’s ability to respond to ideologically motivated violence and hate-based radicalisation.

The sweeping reforms were passed following a prolonged and late-night sitting of the Senate on Tuesday (20 January), with the legislation securing approval shortly after 11pm.

At the centre of the reforms is the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026, which significantly broadens Commonwealth hate crime offences and increases penalties.

The legislation ramps up penalties for hate-motivated crimes, creates aggravated offences for leaders and preachers who incite or threaten violence, broadens prohibited hate symbol offences, and allows hate-based organisations to be formally listed as banned groups.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stressed that the reforms make clear that hate, division and the radicalisation of young people will not be tolerated, describing the legislation as a vital step towards a safer and more unified nation.

“The legislation sends a clear message that those who seek to spread hate and division, including those who seek to radicalise our youth, will be met with appropriate penalties,” A-G Rowland said.

“The passing of these laws to combat anti-Semitism, hate and extremism is another vital step towards a safer, more unified Australia.”

While the reforms have been widely described as necessary in the wake of the horrific and heartbreaking Bondi Beach attack, legal experts have raised concerns about the scope, precision and constitutional implications of the new offences.

Charles Darwin University forensic linguistics researcher Dr Awni Etaywe warned that the bill’s definitions of key concepts such as fear, hatred, and leadership could determine who is punished or regulated, questioning whether its wording is precise enough to target genuine extremism without inadvertently capturing legitimate political expression.

“Language is never neutral in law. How we define terms like ‘fear’, ‘hatred’, or ‘leadership’ directly shapes who is regulated, punished, or silenced,” Etaywe said.

“My submission examines whether the bill’s language is sufficiently precise to target genuine hate and extremism without capturing legitimate political expression.”

Etaywe also warned that focusing aggravated criminal responsibility primarily on religious leaders may misalign regulation with how anti-Semitic discourse operates across digital, political, and institutional spaces.

“Anti-Semitism, understood as hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group, is not simply religious hostility – it is a historically specific, racialised and conspiratorial discourse that operates across political, institutional, and digital spaces,” Etaywe said.

“Focusing aggravated criminal responsibility primarily on religious leaders risks misaligning regulation with how anti-Semitic discourse actually functions in society.”

He added: “Effective hate crime legislation must be both robust and restrained. Precision in language is essential – not only to combat anti-Semitism and extremism, but to uphold Australia’s commitments to freedom of expression and international human rights law.”

Professor Luke Beck, a constitutional law expert at Monash University, questioned how much truly new ground the legislation covers, warning that overlapping provisions and vague wording could create legal uncertainties and complex constitutional challenges.

“What does the government want to ban that isn’t already banned under existing federal and state racial vilification and hate speech laws?” Beck said.

“There is a lot of overlap with existing laws but with some slightly different and vaguer wording that gives rise to some uncertainties and complex questions.”