Aletho News

Australia Passes New Hate Speech Law, Raising Free Speech Fears

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a broad new legal package targeting hate, antisemitism, and extremism, passing the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 with strong majorities in both chambers.

The bill has several implications regarding free speech.

The House of Representatives approved it 116 Ayes to 7 Noes, and the Senate passed it 38 Ayes to 22 Noes, sending it into law after an expedited process in response to rising public concern about hate-motivated violence.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The government framed the legislation as part of its response to the deadly December terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead and focused debate on enhancing public safety and national unity.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland and other ministers repeatedly described the new framework as needed to strengthen legal tools against violent hate and extremism.

In earlier official statements, Rowland said of the proposal: “Once these laws are passed, they will be the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

Under this new law, a range of conduct tied to hatred or perceived threat can trigger criminal liability, including organizing, supporting, or being involved with groups that authorities designate as engaging in hate-based conduct.

A new framework allows the Australian Federal Police Minister to recommend that such groups be listed as “prohibited hate groups.” Being a member of such a group, recruiting, training, or financially supporting it are offenses with penalties that can extend up to 15 years in prison.

The Bill grants the executive branch power to designate organizations as prohibited hate groups through regulation. This decision is made by the AFP Minister, based on reasonable satisfaction, with advice from intelligence agencies.

Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes any requirement for procedural fairness in this process.

An organization may be listed even if:

• No criminal conviction has occurred
• The relevant conduct occurred before the law existed
• The organization is based outside Australia
• The evidence relied upon is classified and undisclosed

Once an organization is listed, the consequences are severe. Membership, recruitment, training, funding, or providing support becomes a serious criminal offense carrying lengthy prison terms.

The criminal provisions for hate conduct are built around whether specific public behavior would cause a reasonable person in the target group “to feel intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

This standard can apply even where there is no evidence that anyone actually experienced fear or harm. The definition is tied to subjective perceptions of risk, rather than solely observable incitement to violence.

The Bill expands the “reasonable person” test used in hate-related offenses. Speech may now be criminal if a so-called reasonable person in the targeted group would consider it offensive, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating. Violence or threats of violence are not required.

This standard introduces subjectivity into criminal law. Political speech on immigration, religion, nationalism, or identity frequently causes offense or humiliation to some audiences.

Under this framework, harsh criticism, protest slogans, or satire could attract criminal liability based on emotional impact rather than demonstrable harm.

A democratic society depends on the ability to offend, challenge, and provoke. Criminalizing offense risks sanitizing public debate into only what is officially acceptable.

The legislation also expands the existing ban on “prohibited hate symbols,” creating criminal offenses for displays of banned symbols unless justified on narrow grounds such as religious, academic, journalistic, or artistic use.

While proponents argue this targets conduct that fuels hatred, similar symbolic bans in other jurisdictions such as Germany have often ensnared educational or historical contexts.

The Bill also significantly alters existing offenses relating to prohibited symbols. Previously, exemptions for religious, academic, artistic, or journalistic purposes operated as clear carve-outs. Under the new framework, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proving that their conduct was for a protected purpose and was not contrary to the public interest.

This reversal matters. The presumption shifts from lawful expression to presumed criminality unless the speaker can justify themselves after the fact.

Journalists must demonstrate that they were acting in a professional capacity and that their reporting met an undefined public-interest standard. Artists, educators, and researchers face similar uncertainty.

Such burden-shifting mechanisms are well known to chill speech, particularly in investigative journalism and political commentary where legal certainty is essential.

Migration rules have been significantly altered. The law amplifies the Home Affairs Minister’s powers to refuse entry or cancel visas for non-citizens judged to be associated with extremist groups or hate conduct.

Free speech defenders have warned that the combination of low subjective thresholds and expanded administrative powers creates risks that lawful expression, dissenting views, or controversial speech could be swept into criminal or immigration sanctions.

They argue that this effect stems from how the law equates emotional or perceived intimidation with actionable hate, a departure from frameworks where provable harm or incitement to violence is required.

Taken together, these provisions produce a powerful chilling effect across political communication, journalism, academic inquiry, religious teaching, and civil association.

The cumulative structure of the Bill incentivizes silence, conformity, and disengagement from controversial debate. In a country that relies on an implied, rather than explicit, freedom of political communication, this legislation tests the outer limits of democratic tolerance.

January 20, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Australia, Human rights, Zionism