Australia’s new Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 might protect preachers of hate due to a clause stating that if religious scripture is being quoted, the rhetoric does not constitute a hate offence.
The Attorney-General’s Department released the draft bill on Tuesday, and it will go to the Australian Parliament next week.
Encompassing a comprehensive package of reforms, the bill sets out to further criminalize antisemitic, hateful, and extremist conduct, and to ensure that those who seek to spread hate face penalties that reflect the seriousness of the conduct.
It comes in the wake of significant terror events in Australia, including the recent Hanukkah Bondi Beach massacre.
It’s new amendments to the criminal law act – called the racial vilification offence – stipulate that a person commits an offense if they promote or incite hatred of another person (the target), or a group of persons (the target group), because of the race, color, nationality, or ethnic origin of the target or target group.
These amendments also hold accountable those who disseminate ideas of superiority over, or hatred of, another person (the target) or a group of persons (the target group) on the basis of the target’s or target group’s race, color, national or ethnic origin.
The example given is “inciting antisemitic hatred against Jews in a public place where a reasonable member of the Jewish community would be intimidated or fear violence.”
This was primarily received in a positive way. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), for instance, commended the fact that a prosecutor will now only need to prove that an accused person has knowingly promoted racial hatred, rather than be required to prove incitement of an audience.
Legal loophole for preaching religion-based hate
However, many were quick to point out significant flaws in this amendment. It includes a legal cover for extremists to preach hate by stating that the offense of publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred does not apply if the individual is quoting or referencing a religious text.
Case in point, a Muslim preacher quoting from a Hadith saying that “the hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him,’ would be provided with legal coverage, as this is a religious text.
The ECAJ picked up on this loophole, stating that “the entire concept of a religious exemption for racial hatred is a relic of outdated thinking. None of the world’s recognized religions promotes racial hatred knowingly and deliberately, and to the extent that any religion were to do so, it would be thoroughly shameful.”
Beyond this, the ECAJ noted, the proposal does not cover instances where a person recklessly promotes racial hatred. “Experience has shown that requiring proof of intention beyond a reasonable doubt might be setting the bar too high,” it added.
Further, the amendment stipulates that the serious vilification offence will be established only if a prosecutor proves that the conduct would put a reasonable member of the targeted group in fear for their safety.
As ECAJ assessed, this would mean guilt is determined by whether the victim is made to feel fearful, rather than by the offender’s conduct alone. “Guilt or innocence should be decided solely based on the conduct of the offender,” it said. “The impact on the victim should be relevant only in determining the sentence.”
Another issue raised regarding the bill concerns a subsection on Prohibited Hate Groups. That section states: “The AFP minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”
To put it simply, a collective could be designated a hate group if a relevant minister determined that this was “reasonably necessary to prevent harm,” and this could be based on intelligence assessments, with no procedural fairness required.
Additionally, the definition of a hate crime applies even if the conduct occurred before the bill commenced, meaning past behavior can now be considered an offense. There are also no references to radical Islam in the entire bill.
Australia’s Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, said the laws would be “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”
“They will specifically target those who seek to spread hatred and disrupt social cohesion in our community. And this will send a clear message that this conduct will not be tolerated,” Rowland said.
However, others, such as former Australian MP Craig Kelly, said, “The wording of the legislation will have the exact opposite effect of what [Prime Minister Anthony] Albanese is claiming – it will put in legislation protection for Islamic hate preachers, but place anyone arguing that hate preachers should not be allowed to migrate to Australia at risk of being arrested and jailed.”
Nevertheless, soon after the draft bill was published, the Australian neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network (NSN) and its co-projects White Australia and the White Australia Party announced they were disbanding.
“If the laws pass, there will be no way to avoid the organization being banned,” the group announced on Telegram. “The legislation allows the government to ban any organization that has given Roman salutes in the past.” (As mentioned, an offence can have occurred in the past, effectively backdating the legislation.)
NSN called the bill “the most draconian the West has ever seen” and blamed the “Jewish lobby” for “criminalizing peaceful opposition groups.”