Fighting antisemitism with sloppy hate laws is a dangerous example
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay warns that having tough laws on paper is not, by itself, enough to keep people safe.
Opinion piece summary
- Author: Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner
- Published in: Australian Financial Review
- Publish date: 15 January 2026
- More: Access the full article.
Australia is at a turning point.
The Bondi terror attack was a tragic reminder that hatred and extremism are not abstract threats. They cause real harm to real people. At the same time, antisemitism has surged across Australia over the past 2½ years. Jewish Australians have the right to live free from fear and violence – as does every Australian.
Against that backdrop, the objective of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is both necessary and right. Australia must not allow antisemitism, hatred and extremism to be normalised. Doing nothing is not an option.
But how we respond matters just as much as whether we respond at all.
The bill substantially impacts some of the most fundamental values that define Australia – freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, equality before the law and the rule of law itself. When legislation engages so many core rights, precision is not a luxury – it is essential. And careful scrutiny is critical.
It is welcome that the government is taking action to address conduct that has no place in a democratic society. Explicit incitement to violence, extremist hate preaching and threats or intimidation aimed at Jewish Australians – or any other group – should be condemned and punished.
The concern lies in broad and uncertain wording that potentially extends the new offences and powers beyond their intended targets, producing uncertainty and risking unintended consequences.
Take the proposed new racial vilification offence, which uses “hatred” as the threshold for criminal liability. That sounds simple – but in law, it’s not. The Bathurst Review – which examined options for strengthening hate speech laws in NSW – warned last year that introducing concepts like this into the criminal law risks imprecision and subjectivity.
That warning has not been sufficiently addressed. For example, the exposure draft itself does not adopt a single, consistent standard for “hatred”. In some provisions, it is tied to intimidation, fear of harassment or violence, or fear for safety. In others, there is a lower and more subjective threshold of “hatred” being the demonstration of “hostility, malice or ill will”.
How can people know what conduct is criminal when the standard shifts within the terms of the law itself? Criminal offences carrying penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment should not leave people guessing where the line is drawn.
Clear and precise laws are essential when creating new criminal offences, particularly those carrying significant penalties.
While the goal of tackling hate and protecting communities is vital, legislation that relies on broad and shifting standards risks uncertainty, inconsistency and unintended consequences.
In the end, strong laws must not only condemn harmful conduct – they must also uphold the rule of law by being clear, proportionate and firmly grounded in principle.
Similar concerns arise with the proposed expansion of ministerial powers to refuse or cancel visas. It is essential that Australia has robust mechanisms to prevent extremists from entering or remaining in the country. But these new powers are framed in language that is too broad and flexible.
For example, the minister for home affairs could refuse a visa if someone has “endorsed” a statement involving ideas of superiority or hatred, and there’s a “risk of harm” to the Australian community.
But what counts as endorsement? Is liking or reposting something on social media enough? Does the risk of harm need to meet a minimum threshold, or is any conceivable risk sufficient? Without clear thresholds, already significant executive powers risk overreach and inconsistency.
There is also a deeper question that must be directly confronted. Australia already has broad discretionary powers allowing the minister to refuse or cancel visas, and we already have tough hate speech laws. And yet, antisemitic violence has still escalated significantly.
That reality tells us something important: having tough laws on paper is not, by itself, enough to keep people safe.
Before introducing new laws and powers, we need to clearly understand where existing laws are falling short and how new measures will address those gaps in practice. Otherwise, we risk expanding the statute book – and restricting key human rights – without meaningfully improving safety.
Finally, the process matters – and here the process has been profoundly flawed.
The exposure draft was only released on Tuesday. The very next day, parliamentary hearings were held with witnesses asked to provide a detailed analysis of a bill spanning 144 pages, supported by a 319-page explanatory memorandum. Parliament is expected to vote on the legislation next week, exactly seven days after it was publicly released.
This is not enough time to properly scrutinise legislation of this complexity and consequence. Rushed lawmaking is how errors are made and trust is eroded. When dealing with laws that substantially affect our rights and freedoms, getting the wording right is not a technicality – it is the substance.
The goal of this legislation – combating antisemitism, hate and extremism – deserves strong support. But unless we fix its flaws – and take the time to do so – we risk passing a law that sounds strong but fails in practice.
We need to take the time needed to do this properly and make sure that any law passed will not only protect our safety, but also the values that define us.
Getting this wrong would serve no one, least of all the communities this bill is meant to protect.
About Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner
Lorraine Finlay
Human Rights Commissioner
Media contact
Email: media@humanrights.gov.au or phone: 0457 281 897
