Did not go far enough
Several supporters argued the bill was only a first step and still left important gaps, especially around stronger protection for places of worship and broader offences for serious vilification or promotion of hatred.
This bill became law on Feb 7th, 2025.
Law, justice & rights
People can now face federal hate-crime charges for urging violenceA crime of pushing other people to use violence against a person or group because of who they are. against protected groups even if they were reckless about whether the violence would happen, not only if they meant it to happen.
Increasing hate speech calling for force or violence, plus federal laws that set the intent bar too high and missed direct threats, left serious hate conduct uncovered. The bill lowers the urging-violence test to recklessnessA lower fault standard than intent: the person knew there was a serious risk of violence and went ahead anyway., expands protected groups, and creates new federal offences for threatening violence against targeted groups and their members.
Before this law, the federal Criminal CodeThe main federal criminal law that this bill changes, especially the parts about urging or threatening violence and displaying hate symbols. already banned urging force or violenceA crime of pushing other people to use violence against a person or group because of who they are. against some protected groups, but the offences required intent and did not directly cover threats, leaving gaps as hate speech calling for violence became more prevalent. The bill was introduced in September 2024 to lower the urging-violence fault element to recklessnessA lower fault standard than intent: the person knew there was a serious risk of violence and went ahead anyway., expand protected groups and add new threat offences, then passed Parliament in February 2025 and became law the next day.
The main criticism was that the bill did not go far enough, with critics saying it still left gaps in protecting places of worship and in covering serious vilification and promotion of hatred. Those concerns mostly came from speakers who still backed the bill, so the case against it was limited and largely about scope, timing and safeguards rather than opposition to tougher hate-crime laws.
Hon Mark Dreyfus KC, MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposed by Australia's Voice, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 07 Feb 2025
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
148 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People can now face federal hate-crime charges for urging violenceA crime of pushing other people to use violence against a person or group because of who they are. against protected groups even if they were reckless about whether the violence would happen, not only if they meant it to happen.
Federal hate-crime protections now cover attacks aimed at people because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, as well as race, religion, nationality, ethnic background and political opinion.
Australia now has new federal offences for threatening violence against protected groups, individual group members, their close family members, and disability carers or assistants, with jail terms of up to 5 or 7 years.
People can now be charged for urging or threatening damage to homes, places of worship, cars and similar property when the target is chosen because of a protected groupA group the law gives extra protection to, such as people targeted because of race, religion, sex, sexuality, gender identity, intersex status, disability or political opinion., and even minor damage can count in one of the new offences.
The Act also extends hate-symbol protections and adds sentencing changes, including a required parliamentary review within 2 years of the new sentencing rules taking effect.
The Bill would amend existing sections 80.2A and 80.2B in Division 80 of the Criminal Code which cover urging force or violence against a group or a member of a group. The effect of these amendments would be that the offences would apply where a person is reckless as to whether the force or violence urged against a group, or member of a group, will occur; that is, if the person is aware of a substantial risk that the force or violence will occur and it is unjustifiable in the circumstances to take the risk.Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) explanatory memorandum
The Bill would also amend sections 80.2A and 80.2B to expand the scope of protected attributes to include a group, or member of a group, distinguished by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability. The offences currently protect groups or members of groups distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin and political opinion. Expanding protections to cover groups, or member of groups, distinguished by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability would acknowledge, and seek to remedy, the harms caused to these communities by the urging of force or violence. It also accords with Australia’s international obligations. This sends a clear message that such conduct is incompatible with Australia’s values of equality and inclusion and will not be tolerated.Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) explanatory memorandum
close associate of a person means:Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 final Act text
damage includes minor damage.Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 final Act text
(1) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security must review the operation and effectiveness of the amendments made by this Schedule.Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 final Act text
Context
Before this law, the federal Criminal CodeThe main federal criminal law that this bill changes, especially the parts about urging or threatening violence and displaying hate symbols. already banned urging force or violenceA crime of pushing other people to use violence against a person or group because of who they are. against some protected groups, but the offences required intent and did not directly cover threats, leaving gaps as hate speech calling for violence became more prevalent. The bill was introduced in September 2024 to lower the urging-violence fault element to recklessnessA lower fault standard than intent: the person knew there was a serious risk of violence and went ahead anyway., expand protected groups and add new threat offences, then passed Parliament in February 2025 and became law the next day.
Government introduces a hate crimes bill after gaps emerge in federal law
The bill was introduced with the government arguing that rising hate speech involving calls for violence and an intent threshold in existing urging offences left serious conduct uncovered.
Parliamentary timeline; Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill proposes broader protections and new threat offences
Its explanatory memorandumThe official document that explains what the bill is meant to do and how each change is supposed to work. said the changes would extend protection to groups targeted because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability, while creating new federal offences for threatening force or violence.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) explanatory memorandum ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed to the bill in the same form, completing the parliamentary response to strengthen federal action against urging and threatening violence toward protected groups.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the hate crimes changes law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, locking in the lower recklessnessA lower fault standard than intent: the person knew there was a serious risk of violence and went ahead anyway. threshold for urging violenceA crime of pushing other people to use violence against a person or group because of who they are. and the new federal threat offences.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (19/09/2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (12/12/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 41 to 6.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill did not go far enough, with critics saying it still left gaps in protecting places of worship and in covering serious vilification and promotion of hatred. Those concerns mostly came from speakers who still backed the bill, so the case against it was limited and largely about scope, timing and safeguards rather than opposition to tougher hate-crime laws.
Criticism was mostly conditional: strengthen the bill, rather than reject it.
Did not go far enough
Several supporters argued the bill was only a first step and still left important gaps, especially around stronger protection for places of worship and broader offences for serious vilification or promotion of hatred.
Too late and only part of the response
Some members said the legislation came too late after the rise in antisemitic attacks and warned that criminal offences alone would not solve the problem without wider anti-racism, prevention and rights protections.
Need clearer limits and review
Some proposed amendments sought narrower drafting or extra safeguards, including limiting 'force' and 'violence' to physical conduct, adding a review, or carving out children under 14 from the new offences, reflecting concern about how broadly the law could operate.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 41 to 6. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Nationals. Opposition came from Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) voted no. Liberal Party had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Passed 116 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This locked mandatory minimum sentencing into the bill before final passage in the House.
Passed 117 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This completed House passage after the House had agreed to amendments.
Government amendments expand the hate-crime offences to cover offences against groups, close associates and related conduct, and set mandatory minimum sentences with revised maximum penalties for the bill’s offences.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Opposition amendments create an offence for advocating force or violence through damaging property, with a 1-year minimum penalty and a 7-year maximum for the more serious form.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have limited the life of the new mandatory minimum sentences, but the Senate did not agree.
Passed 25 to 18. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This procedural vote cut off debate so the chamber could move straight to a decision.
Defeated 18 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This procedural defeat meant the chamber did not grant the shortcut the mover sought.
Passed 28 to 16. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This kept Schedule 2 rather than removing the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This package sought both drafting changes and a post-enactment review, but it did not pass.
Passed 28 to 16. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The selected offence provisions stayed in the bill.
Defeated 16 to 28. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have carved young children out of the offence provisions, but the Senate did not agree.
The Senate rejected Senator Canavan's proposal on voices, which would have added dictionary definitions limiting force to physical force and violence to physical violence.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Senator Canavan's proposal on voices, which would have added dictionary definitions limiting force to physical force and violence to physical violence.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is needed to respond to rising hate speech and hateful conduct by strengthening criminal laws against urging and threatening violence.
Read in Hansard ↗Faruqi says the Greens support stronger protections against hate crimes, but they oppose Labor's version of the bill because of the mandatory minimum sentences.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the opposition will support the bill because it strengthens penalties and makes hate offences easier to prosecute, but he argues it is only a first step and wants tougher amendments, including broader protections for places of worship and mandatory minimums for serious hate and terror offences.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink supports the bill and says it is a valuable response to hate crimes, but argues it is only one part of the solution and must be backed by stronger national anti-racism measures, early intervention, and a federal human rights framework.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
12 speakers · 12 support
“Hence, I support this bill, which builds upon all the other measures this Albanese government has delivered, from outlawing the Nazi salute to the trade of Nazi symbols to anti-doxxing laws—which, unfortunately, happened again in the aftermath of Jewish creatives being doxxed but will also benefit others, particularly women, because women are the ones who get doxxed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think this is a really important bill. I think it goes to that first part of the success ingredient for a multicultural society—that we need to constantly review and, where necessary, strengthen the legal foundations and the protections for Australians whatever their background. To me, the great promise of Australian multiculturalism is that great Australian promise of a fair go —that everyone gets a chance to fulfil their human potential and live their life in our country free from discrimination no matter their faith, their ethnicity, their circumstances, how long they've been here or their identity. That's what this bill is about—protecting Australians. I commend it to the House, and I hope, as the ASIO boss said, we can lower the temperature.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Those members have a choice: they can support this bill and take a stand against hate or they can continue to dog whistle and divide.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is not one I wanted to ever conceive of, but it is an important step forward to meet this moment and to set the standards of what is and is not acceptable in this country. No person of any race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability should feel anything other than equality before the law, and that is what this bill does. If you are going to try to incite hatred and violence against those people, you will be charged and potentially convicted under our criminal law. We might not be able to stamp out every discussion and conversation in this country. We might not be able to restore everything overnight. But what we can say is that, in the mainstream of our society, in the suburbs that we are all proud to represent, we will not tolerate this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I want to express my fulsome support for the legislation and go on record to say exactly what this legislation will do in the remaining five minutes of my speech.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Fundamentally, at a difficult time, when the temperature is high as far as division, a lack of cohesion and a sense that there's this febrile atmosphere that puts people under threat and at risk—particularly, recently, members of the Jewish community but not just members of the Jewish community—it's right that government and parliament take responsible action. As I said, we have done that in a very timely and responsive way at every opportunity over the last 18 months, and we're doing that again now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill expands, and builds upon, existing legislative protections against hate speech and extremism. These protections will support law enforcement's ability to intervene early to prevent acts of violence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, this hate crime legislation, builds upon the landmark steps already taken by this Labor government to protect Australians from hate symbols and salutes—and I will touch on some of the things that the Albanese government has done—including Nazi symbols and those of terrorist organisations. When that legislation was introduced, I said hate symbols were being used as beacons to influence and to spread hate. This bill ensures that those who use that foundation of hatred to threaten violence will face serious criminal consequences.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government introduced legislation to create new criminal offences that strengthen protection against hate crimes. This bill will make it clear that urging or threatening violence and force is unacceptable and subject to serious criminal penalties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's important that this parliament passes legislation like this before we depart this fortnight. It's critical that this federal parliament is seen to act and actually get through key changes because this is the sort of leadership that our communities are looking for. They see it as our responsibility. Whether you're coming from the regions or from the cities, whatever state or territory you might come from, these are issues that should be bringing us together. We have a responsibility to act together, and I support the resolution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's why I'm proud to support this bill. The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 will strengthen the law against hate speech in this country. It will create new criminal offences to stamp out violence and hatred. It's my hope that this law will send a really clear and unambiguous message that the threats that this community has experienced—these acts of violence, these acts of hatred—are utterly unacceptable in this country. I'll be supporting the bill because it's unacceptable to me and, on behalf of the people of Hotham, it's utterly unacceptable to our community.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the Bill to the Parliament.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
22 speakers · 23 contributions · 19 support · 1 mixed · 2 unclear
“While we support the bill, we believe it can go further, and the shadow minister for home affairs and the Leader of the Opposition have foreshadowed that we would be making some amendments to this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is unfortunately necessary because of the mixed messages from this government, which has allowed hate free rein. But it's not just the provisions of the bill which matter; it's the use of them, as my friend so rightly pointed out. Antisemitic displays must be prosecuted and antisemitic protests must be stopped. Existing laws have not been used. Protests in our street in which antisemitic displays have been paraded have dragged on for months. Universities have set up antisemitic camps. While this bill will mitigate some of the government's failures, we can only hope the provisions will be used. Existing provisions of the Criminal Code have not been used—like division 80, which makes it an offence to urge violence against individuals or groups on the basis of race, religion and the like.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill was introduced in the last sitting week of September 2024. Given the urgency, the coalition wrote to the government before parliament resumed in October, offering to pass the bill as written. The government did not take up that offer. So, instead, we engaged constructively in the committee process and in the community, working to a timetable of the government's choosing. We examined the bill carefully, and, when the committee reported back after the end of the 2024 sitting year as the government requested, we recommended that the bill be passed. But we also said that, in the process, it should be made stronger and should cover attacks against places of worship. We plan to move those amendments, and I hope the government supports them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Sadly, that is why we need legislation such as this. It's so that we can combat words and we can right the wrongs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill itself—the changes are welcome. I think they're too late, but we have to do this. We should have done it a long time ago, but we are doing it now. That's a good thing. There are some simple straightforward steps that the government are proposing to take. Those steps lower the threshold for criminality, particularly for those who urge violence against individuals or groups. Instead of proving that the person intended that the violence occur, the police now only need to prove that the person was reckless as to whether the violence would occur, and that is a welcome change. These laws remove the good faith defence for those urging violence. As the previous speaker, the member for Lynes, said, you can't urge violence in good faith, not in this situation. It's a welcome change. There's also some expansion of the offences that relate to the urging of violence in relation to a range of personal characteristics on the basis of which a person or a group is targeted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. In commencing my comments to the chamber, can I just say that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has once again led the way on a crucial issue of national security and social cohesion.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Now we've all got a job to put this fire out, and this bill is a part of that. It's a part of what we've done here.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Regardless, the changes made by these laws as introduced are welcome. I only hope they will be enough to start to stem the tide. Inaction is no longer acceptable. The scourge of antisemitism in this country must be stopped.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. It is beyond disappointing that the rise of antisemitism in this country has gotten to a point where we have to introduce legislation to counter it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What counts at the end of the day is that we not only make the changes but also require our courts to give appropriate sentencing. At this stage, I'm not aware of a court in Australia giving the kind of penalty for the behaviour we have seen—I'm not aware of any outcome that would meet my threshold. That's why it's important that we move to mandatory sentencing in this area, because it seems that the judiciary are not up to the fight—or they don't realise the gravity of what is happening here, don't think what is happening in Australia today is so different to what was happening in 1932 and 1933 in Germany or don't think that that thin veneer of civilisation can be stripped away from the most urbane of us. If it could happen there, it can virtually happen anywhere. We need to be on our guard right from the first step and stamp out that kind of behaviour. The legislation is good, although it doesn't go far enough, and, of course, I will support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The actual bill itself amends many things. Apart from a deterrent, it also gives the ability to remove the offender from the ability to recommit the same offence. While that's a good thing, that needs to be strengthened. I don't feel this bill is anywhere near strong enough. As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to commit such an evil act that is so against Australian values, Australian culture and traditions and the very essence of what we stand for as a country, the very accepting non-racist country that we stand for—if you are going to act and carry on like that, then there's no place for you here as far as I'm concerned. They're the sorts of measures that I think need to be looked at when we start being serious about developing this particular legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is an important step forward, but it is too little, too late. That should be the slogan of Labor's approach in office: too little, too late. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We welcome the belated changes. These changes seek to lower the threshold for criminality for those who urge violence against individuals or groups. Instead of proving that a person 'intended' for violence occur, police now only need to prove that the person was 'reckless'. Can I just say, as a former police officer, that words are key when you have 'must' and 'shall' and 'could'. It is a much higher threshold for the police to prove that the person actually intended for the violence to occur. Now it will be 'reckless'—whether they knew their actions could lead to violence—which obviously makes it a lot easier for police to prosecute. These laws, as currently drafted, remove the good faith defence for those urging violence. This too is a welcome move because you cannot urge someone to engage in acts of violence in good faith. These laws introduce new offences for threatening force or violence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I hope that, as a parliament, we can come together and support this bill. I hope that we can come together and make sure that all the amendments that will strengthen this bill are agreed to. There has never been a more important time for the unity of this country, for us to come together and defeat antisemitism. We need to act and we need to act now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I fear that this bill is too little, too late. The cynic in me says it's come about because we have an election coming up; I hope to God that is not true. What we've seen over the past 12 months is disgusting. It is disgusting to see in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As legislators, we should be doing everything in our power to make sure those same mistakes are never repeated and that we stop them when we see them in our universities and in our streets. Hopefully, this bill goes some way to stopping them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jenny Ware on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Ware supports the bill because she says stronger hate-crime laws are needed after attacks on Jewish Australians and rising antisemitism. She argues the government acted too late after 7 October 2023, but she still backs the legislation.
“What does this have to do with the legislation that is currently before us, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill? Well, this bill has been brought in because of the attacks on Jewish Australians and the rise of antisemitism in this country. At the moment, those attacks, vile in nature, have been on our Jewish Australians. But if we don't do something about it now, if we don't draw a line in the sand and speak up for our Jewish Australians, who's next? Is it the Hindus? Is it Catholics, Muslims or atheists? For all of those reasons, I support this legislation. However, this legislation has come about very late in the piece. I've referenced the Holocaust, which, of course, was the worst example of antisemitism that we have ever seen in the world, and, unfortunately, antisemitism does have a very long history. But the Albanese Labor government's failure to respond after 7 October 2023 has indirectly caused this increase in antisemitism. It wasn't called out immediately after 7 October. We then saw on 9 October, in my home city of Sydney, dreadful protests: Palestinian flags, Hamas flags and calls of, 'Get rid of the Jews; kill the Jews.' There was dreadful antisemitism. That has continued not only in my home state of New South Wales but also, of course, in Victoria.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Ware says the opposition will support the bill because stronger hate crime laws are needed after the attacks on Jewish Australians, but she argues the government brought it forward too late and only after failing to act on antisemitism. She also says her side wants amendments to make the laws even stronger.
“If we turn to the purpose of this legislation, its stated purpose is to extend the existing offences for urging force or violence and for displaying hate symbols and to introduce new offences for threatening force or violence against targeted groups and their members. I've already stated that this legislation has become necessary, and we are seeking some amendments to make this legislation even stronger in force because of the dreadful attacks that we have seen on Australian Jewish people. They were attacked simply because of their Jewish faith and ancestry, and it is completely unacceptable.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill is long overdue, and I support it. Let's hope that Australia gets its strength back and supports Israel. They have an existential question of survival. That's why they went to war against Hamas and Hezbollah. People don't realise that it's not just about the land and occupying areas on the West Bank. There is an administration called Hamas, and there is Hezbollah, which are backed by Iran. Their whole plan is not to just get back a bit of land. They want Israel wiped off the map, and we can't let that happen. What we can do in this country, though, is make it crystal clear that the behaviour we've seen should never have been tolerated and should've been called out when it happened, and then we wouldn't have let this monster out of the bag. We need to put it back in. Antisemitism has been through the ages: the pogroms in the Middle Ages, the pogroms in the Russian Revolution in and after World War I and then again with the Nazi Holocaust. The rest of the world, including Australia, supported the creation of the State of Israel at the United Nations. It has a right to exist, and we in Australia should be supporting that right. We shouldn't be tolerating any more of this horrible behaviour that we've seen in our own country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That being said, the changes made by the laws that are proposed before the House today are changes that the coalition welcomes and supports. We regret that it has taken so long to get to this point, given that the bill was introduced in the last sitting week in September 2024. We've made efforts to encourage the government to speed it up. It's good that we have this bill before us. There should be no doubt in the minds of anybody engaging in the kind of violent antisemitic conduct that we have seen, sadly, over the last year and a half, that they face serious jail time. The measures in this bill are strong but they are necessary. The scourge of antisemitism is something that we must be resolute in opposing. It is fundamentally at odds with the values which underpin the modern Australian nation, one of the world's great multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural and multireligious nations, and that is why strong action is necessary.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is a good thing that the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 will pass the parliament today. It will send a strong message to those who are responsible for the attacks against the Jewish community, in particular, in recent months, that there are very real consequences for their behaviour, that the Parliament of Australia does not tolerate it and that we want them to feel the full force of the law to deter them from engaging in any more terrorisation of the Jewish community.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We in the coalition look forward to being part of approving this bill and achieving the outcome we all want through its passage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 2 support · 1 oppose
“Of course there is a growing fear that our world is being overcome with hate and with violence. It is hard not to fear this when we are here in parliament, where the fearmongering and division goes on. But that means actually acting and using tools that are effective in tackling hate and racism, and that does not include mandatory minimum sentencing. So the Greens will be moving a motion to delete these egregious mandatory minimum sentences from the bill. We will also be moving an amendment for a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, for these laws to be reviewed by them. And we will be moving that if—as obviously is going to be the case, sadly—the deletion of the mandatory minimum sentences doesn't get up. If it doesn't then we want a sunset clause on these sentences, because they are cruel and they are discriminatory.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When you are extending criminal law, you must always be careful that you get it right because, when you try and legislate criminal law in haste, there is room for error and unintended consequences. We believe the bill as it stands at the moment has got the balance right, and it's been through an extensive and exhaustive Senate inquiry process. There have been people who have looked at it from the perspective of both ensuring that it doesn't attack the rule of law but also ensuring that it targets that hate that we all want to target, so the Greens support this bill as it's presented here in the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens know there are elements, particularly in the original bill, that are essential to deal with some of the hate crimes that we're seeing. We'll take some measurable good. We've been trying to say to the government, 'Work with the rest of the chamber here, the diversity of the crossbench, and don't just be dragged by Peter Dutton to the single lowest common denominator.' But Labor can't help themselves, can they? They just can't help themselves. They keep surrendering time after time. There's no principle that they won't sully, and that's why we're here with these mandatory minimums. We know mandatory minimums won't work. We know they're going to fight against all of the purported intent of this bill. Shame on you both for doing this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 5 support · 2 oppose
“Given this concern, while I ultimately support this bill, I also believe it is imperative that we are able to answer these questions, as they are reflective of a recurring we have in Australian lawmaking as we struggle to weigh up freedom of expression against the right to safety, freedom from discrimination and other rights.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Within this context it is commendable that legislation has been brought forward by the government. The current bill will modestly improve the existing federal Crimes Act by lowering the fault element for existing offences from intent to recklessness, as well as by introducing a new offence for threatening force or violence. But we should be listening more carefully when the people and groups that this legislation is designed to protect continue to protest its inadequacy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The events of the last 16 months firstly led to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which I supported when we legislated it in 2023. The new and additional measures included in the bill now before the House are a further response to the increasing prevalence of hate speech and hateful conduct in our society.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Subsequent events, especially those of the last 15 months, have indicated this, and that is why we now have this legislation before us today. It may be one step in the right direction rather than completely up to the task. I note the member for Wentworth's amendment to create a new offence of the promotion of hatred, which, in these troubled times, I will support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is a crucial element of our nation's response to the rising antisemitism the Jewish community faces. It's an addition to our Criminal Code that, frankly, is overdue. But it's not the start and end of how we as a parliament, as legislators from across the political spectrum, should respond to the problems that we face. In their submission, the Law Council of Australia warned:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Despite all this opposition to mandatory minimum sentences—including that of the Labor Party and, I assume, its rank-and-file members and most Labor voters—here we are. The government has capitulated to the coalition's politically motivated demands to add something that experts tell us doesn't work to a bill that, I think, had fairly broad support amongst the community. People have acknowledged that the parliament needs to act on this. In all of this, the communities that need the substance of the original bill are being overlooked. The Muslim community, the LGBTI community, the Jewish community, people with a disability and so many people who experience racism and bigotry have been desperate for the protections contained in this bill for so many years. They've been abused and subjected to hate speech in our streets and in our public spaces, and that's why this bill is important. They want to see this bill pass. But this practice from the government of corrupting positive reforms with terrible policy has to stop. Australians deserve better.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Today, I rise to speak against the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is the third week in a row that we have come to Canberra and the two major parties have tried to introduce laws that will prevent free speech in this country. I don't know about you, but I come down to Canberra to serve the people, not to control the people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 41 to 6.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (12/12/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (19 Sept 2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (12 Dec 2024)
APH bill page notes