Rushed scrutiny
The bill was criticised for moving too fast for normal parliamentary scrutiny and careful testing of its risks.
This bill became law on Jan 21st, 2026.
Immigration, border & security
The Act raises maximum prison terms for several federal hate offences.
The bill was introduced amid concerns about violent hateful and extremist organisations, serious risks to the Australian community, and a significant recent increase in children planning and engaging in terrorism. It raises penalties for serious hate offences, creates aggravated offences for abusing influence or targeting children, and speeds hate-group listings and some ministerial migration decisions.
Over the previous year, antisemitic threats and violence had escalated from attacks on Jewish institutions to a broader national security concern, prompting police operations and a wider policy push on social cohesion. The Bondi Beach attack in December 2025 turned that trajectory into an acute crisis, leading the government to fast-track a broader package of national responses, including recalling parliament early.
The main criticism was that the bill was rushed and drafted too broadly, creating risks to free expression, protest rights, equality protections and some migration powers without enough safeguards. These concerns came mainly from crossbench and scrutiny voices, while some members still supported the core hate-crime measures if they were more tightly targeted and properly reviewed.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal; opposed by Greens, One Nation, UAP, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 21 Jan 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
Same day
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Act raises maximum prison terms for several federal hate offences. It also creates aggravated offences for certain leaders who commit those offences, and for adults who direct violent advocacy at children.
The Act creates a way to officially list some organisations as prohibited hate groups. These are groups involved in race-based hate crimes, helping plan them, or urging them. Once listed, it becomes a crime to run the group, join it, recruit for it, train with it, support it, or move money to, from or for it.
Courts must treat hatred based on race, national origin or ethnic origin as an aggravating sentencing factor for many federal crimes. Police also get a new power to seize publicly displayed prohibited hate symbols.
A visa can now be refused or cancelled more directly because of hate-related conduct by a non-citizen. This includes conduct linked to hate crimes or public statements spreading racial hatred that show a risk to the community, even if there has been no criminal conviction.
The version that passed added some safeguards and oversight. It says one new hate-crime definition is aimed at serious criminal conduct, or serious threats of it, and requires Senate committee review of a new hate-offence subdivision after about two years.
This includes creating aggravated offences for sections 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BA, 80.2BB, 80.2BC, 80.2BD, and 80.2BE, punishable by up to 12 years imprisonment... The proposed amendments would also increase penalties in the Criminal Code... Schedule 1 creates aggravated offences for sections 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BC, 80.2BE, and 474.45B, where an adult commits an offence and the conduct is directed at a person under 18 years of age.Explanatory memorandum
Additionally a new legislative framework would be introduced in new Part 5.3B to enable the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Minister to recommend the specification (listing) of an organisation as a prohibited hate group where the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation has directly engaged in, prepared or planned to engage in, or assisted the engagement in, conduct constituting a hate crime targeted at a person or persons distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin, or advocated engaging in conduct constituting such a hate crime; and specifying that the listing of the organisation is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community from social, economic, psychological and physical harm. Under new Division 114B of Part 5.3B, new criminal offences would be established for directing the activities of, membership of, recruiting for, training involving, providing support to or getting funds to, from or for a prohibited hate group.Explanatory memorandum
Schedule 1 would provide that, in determining a sentence, a court must—if the conduct was targeted at a person distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin—regard that fact as a reason for aggravating the seriousness of the criminal behaviour to which the offence relates. ... introducing a power in Division 80 to allow police to seize a prohibited hate symbol if it is publicly displayed, to complement the existing power to direct a person to remove the symbol from display at section 80.2K.Explanatory memorandum
These amendments provide new and specific grounds that will expressly capture hate‑motivated conduct and offences relating to the spread of hatred and extremism in the Criminal Code as the basis for the visa decision. The intention is that these new grounds will address the risks that a non-citizen may pose to the safety of the Australian community through conduct that promotes hatred and extremism, including in circumstances where community risk is evident, or a hate crime has been committed, but there is no criminal justice outcome.Explanatory memorandum
Note: Consistent with the implied freedom of political communication, subsection (5) is directed at serious conduct or the threat of serious conduct of a criminal nature. ... The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must: (a) begin a review of Subdivision CA of Division 80 of Part 5.1 of the Criminal Code as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of this item...Final Act text
Context
Over the previous year, antisemitic threats and violence had escalated from attacks on Jewish institutions to a broader national security concern, prompting police operations and a wider policy push on social cohesion. The Bondi Beach attack in December 2025 turned that trajectory into an acute crisis, leading the government to fast-track a broader package of national responses, including recalling parliament early.
Adass Israel synagogue firebombed
An arson attack on Melbourne's Adass Israel Synagogue drew condemnation and was later treated as a terror attack.
ABC News ↗Operation AvaliteAn AFP investigation into antisemitic threats, violence and hatred targeting Jews and parliamentarians. launched
The AFPThe Australian Federal Police, the national policing agency. launched Special Operation AvaliteAn AFP investigation into antisemitic threats, violence and hatred targeting Jews and parliamentarians. to investigate threats, violence and hatred targeting the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians.
Australian Federal Police ↗Segal antisemitism planSpecial envoy Jillian Segal's 13-recommendation plan to combat antisemitism across schools, universities, media and government. released
Special envoy Jillian Segal released a wide-ranging plan to tackle antisemitism across schools, universities, media and government settings.
ABC News ↗Bondi Beach terrorist attack
Two gunmen attacked a Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and triggering an urgent national response.
ABC News ↗Government adopts Segal planSpecial envoy Jillian Segal's 13-recommendation plan to combat antisemitism across schools, universities, media and government.
The government adopted the special envoy's plan and said it would implement all 13 recommendations while developing new legislative reforms.
Prime Minister of Australia ↗Royal commission announced
A Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social CohesionA formal public inquiry announced to examine the Bondi attack and wider antisemitism. to examine the Bondi attack and broader antisemitism.
Prime Minister of Australia ↗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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
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 House agreed to two government amendments during detailed consideration of the bill.
Consideration in detailThe parliamentary stage where members examine a bill clause by clause and vote on amendments. debate
Recorded vote: 116 to 7.
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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Recorded vote: 39 to 18.
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 agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
It examined the exposure draft and supported quick passage of the hate crime and migration measures. It said they were an appropriate and proportionate response, while noting concerns about the rushed process, some migration powers and effects on lawful gun owners.
Referred; report published
Committee report (20 Jan 2026)It had not finished considering the bill at that point and deferred comment in that report.
Deferred in published report
Report 1 of 2026It looked at whether the bill was compatible with human rights and raised concerns about children's rights, fair criminal process, and equality and non-discrimination.
Considered in published report
Report 2 of 2026Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill was rushed and drafted too broadly, creating risks to free expression, protest rights, equality protections and some migration powers without enough safeguards. These concerns came mainly from crossbench and scrutiny voices, while some members still supported the core hate-crime measures if they were more tightly targeted and properly reviewed.
Support for the criminal measures often remained conditional rather than outright opposed.
Rushed scrutiny
The bill was criticised for moving too fast for normal parliamentary scrutiny and careful testing of its risks.
Speech and protest risks
Some provisions were seen as needing tighter drafting so they would not chill lawful speech, protest or political communication.
Broad migration powers
The migration and hate-group powers were criticised as too broad and in need of clearer limits and constitutional caution.
Rights protections
Human rights scrutiny raised concerns about impacts on children, fair criminal process, and equality and non-discrimination.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate 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 116 to 7. Support came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals. Opposition came from One Nation, Katter's Australian Party, and Centre Alliance. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Colin Boyce (LNP of Queensland) and Llew O'Brien (LNP of Queensland). LNP of Queensland had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 39 to 18. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, UAP, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Expand any amendment to see the party breakdown or, where it passed on the voices, how that works.
House
Moved by Phillip Thompson Oam, (Liberal Party of Australia). Defeated 45 to 94. Support came from Liberal, LNP of Queensland, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating it left no new federal flag-desecration offence in the bill.
Would have added a note clarifying the hate-crime definition targets serious criminal conduct or threats, consistent with political communication freedom.
Would have added a note clarifying the hate-crime definition targets serious criminal conduct or threats, consistent with political communication freedom.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
Would have required a Senate committee review of the new hate-offence subdivision about two years after commencement.
Would have required a Senate committee review of the new hate-offence subdivision about two years after commencement.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
Senate
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 16 to 43. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and LNP of Queensland.
Defeating it added no criticism or committee referral to the motion.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 6 to 52. Support came from One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal, and Nationals.
Defeating it avoided delaying the bill for committee scrutiny.
Defeated 12 to 49. Support came from One Nation, Nationals, UAP, LNP of Queensland, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeating them let the Senate keep legislating without that extra inquiry.
Moved by Matt O'Sullivan (Liberal Party of Australia). Defeated 26 to 36. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and LNP of Queensland. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating it left no new federal flag-desecration offence in the bill.
Moved by The Hon Bridget McKenzie (The Nationals). Defeated 9 to 49. Support came from One Nation, Nationals, UAP, and LNP of Queensland. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeating them kept the bill’s original hate-group listing process.
Moved by The Hon Bridget McKenzie (The Nationals). Defeated 21 to 42. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Nationals, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating them kept broader hate-group definitions and harm tests.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 14 to 46. Support came from Greens, UAP, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals.
Defeating it kept the existing mandatory minimum penalties.
Defeated 17 to 42. Support came from Greens, One Nation, UAP, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and LNP of Queensland.
Defeating them left the bill without those added review, speech-protection and merits-review provisions.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 13 to 50. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals.
Defeating it kept the new sentencing factor narrower.
Passed 44 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Carried; items 3, 6 and 9 of schedule 2 stayed in the bill as printed.
Moved by The Hon Matthew Canavan (The Nationals). Defeated 12 to 46. Support came from One Nation, Nationals, UAP, LNP of Queensland, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeating it kept executive listing without prior parliamentary approval.
Moved by The Hon Matthew Canavan (The Nationals). Defeated 22 to 36. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Nationals, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeating it made the hate-group regime ongoing unless Parliament changes it.
Defeated 12 to 43. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and UAP.
Defeating them left the bill without those added statements about protected political speech and rights.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Michelle Rowland moved the bill’s second reading and argued it is an urgent response to the Bondi attack and rising antisemitism, strengthening criminal and migration laws against violent extremism, hate advocacy and prohibited hate groups.
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock argues the bill is being rushed without proper scrutiny, raises concerns about impacts on free expression, protest rights and equal protections, and says he cannot support it in its current form.
Read in Hansard ↗Duniam supports the bill’s passage, arguing that after removing the original hate speech provisions and tightening definitions, the remaining criminal and migration measures are necessary to target violent hate groups, extremist recruiters and visa holders who spread hate.
Read in Hansard ↗She condemns antisemitism and says she supports carefully targeted measures, particularly on firearms, but argues these bills were rushed and contain serious problems around free expression, migration powers, drafting and executive overreach.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
15 speakers · 20 contributions · 14 support · 1 unclear
“That this bill now be read a second time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 6 separate contributions by Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 - Second Reading
Michelle Rowland moved the bill’s second reading and argued it is an urgent response to the Bondi attack and rising antisemitism, strengthening criminal and migration laws against violent extremism, hate advocacy and prohibited hate groups. She said the measures target serious criminal conduct and security risks, not legitimate political debate, religious discussion, satire or lawful free speech.
“That the bill be now read a second time.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
She moved government amendments to require a Senate committee review of the new Criminal Code provisions after two years and to clarify that the offence provision is aimed at serious criminal conduct, not lawful debate, religious discussion, political advocacy, satire or artistic expression.
“The government's amendments will require the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to conduct a review into subdivision CA of division 80 of part 5.1 of the Criminal Code as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of this item. In doing so, this review will ensure there is an appropriate assessment of the effectiveness of these provisions, with a report tabled before the parliament. The government's amendment would insert a legislative note to clarify the remit of subsection (5) of section 114A.3 to explain that it does not seek to capture lawful debate, robust criticism, religious discussion, genuine political advocacy; nor to target legitimate comedy, satire or artistic expression.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
She says the government rejects the proposed amendment and argues the bill should proceed because existing Criminal Code protections already cover other targeted groups and will be strengthened by this legislation. She frames the bill as part of the government's priority response to serious antisemitic harm, including the recent deadly terrorist attack in Australia.
“I thank the member for her contribution and acknowledge her constructive engagement with the government. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The government is focused as a priority on measures to respond to antisemitism noting the Jewish community has been subjected to serious and significant harm, most recently with the deadly terrorist attack on Australian soil. Existing offences in the Criminal Code, including for advocating or threatening force or violence, already protect other groups, including those distinguished by religion, sexual orientation and disability. Those provisions will be further strengthened by this bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
Rowland says the government opposes the proposed amendments because the bill already provides substantial penalties for leaders of prohibited hate groups and extending the aggravated religious-leader offences would be unnecessary. Her remarks defend the bill’s existing framework rather than seeking to alter or delay it.
“I thank the member. The government does not support these amendments for the reasons provided in response to the amendments of the member for Wentworth. In addition, leaders of prohibited hate groups would already be subject to penalties of up to 15 years under this bill, so it is unnecessary to extend the aggravated offences for religious leaders, which carry penalties of up to 12 years, to them.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
The speaker says the government opposes the proposed amendment because the bill already provides sufficient oversight through committee review, parliamentary disallowance and judicial review.
“I thank the member for her contribution. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill already contains robust oversight, including the ability for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review a listing decision. The parliament retains its ability to disallow a listing, and nothing in this bill precludes judicial review.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
The speaker rejects the proposed amendment, arguing it is unnecessary because the bill is already properly confined to conduct intended to assist hate organisations or help them continue and grow. This indicates support for the bill in its current form.
“I thank the member for her contribution and appreciate the intent of her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill is already appropriately limited to situations where someone intends for this conduct to assist the organisation to engage in hate crimes or to support the organisation to continue to expand or exist.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“That is why we need legislation that gives powers to this parliament and the parliaments that follow to protect the good people of this nation from the evil ones, be they born here or born somewhere else. These laws are needed to protect us from the ones filled with hate, from the ones spewing their vile hatred into our community. That is why I speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 this evening.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's the Australia we know. That's the Australia we must stand up for and protect. That is why these reforms matter—to draw a clear line in the sand that hate won't be excused or allowed to grow unchecked. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. On 14 December last year, Australians experienced the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil at Bondi Beach. Fifteen people were murdered by terrorists with hate in their minds and guns in their hands. The impact of that day will stay with us for a very, very long time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Organisations that proffer hateful ideologies must be outlawed and their members held accountable. We know one such group has already announced an intention to disband in anticipation of the effectiveness of these laws. Our Senate, our parliament, can send a strong message to a grieving nation tonight, and we must. We stand together against hate, and, together, light will prevail over darkness. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a sensible bill. I commend it to the House, and I hope it receives support from across the parliament.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does not do everything—no single piece of legislation ever does—but it does something important. It moves the law forward. It responds to a real threat. The Jewish community has asked this parliament to act. This government has listened. Where consensus was possible, we have sought it. Where delay would have left Australians less safe, we have chosen progress. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But these bills as they stand will have a significant impact, and I commend them to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation strengthens penalties for those who incite hatred and violence. It provides law enforcement with clearer tools to intervene earlier. It criminalises organised hate groups that exist to radicalise, recruit and intimidate. It holds leaders and authority figures to account when they abuse positions of trust to spread hate, and it recognises and criminalises the serious harm caused when adults deliberately radicalise children. I support this legislation, as should everyone in this place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are key reforms presented in this bill that I want to highlight because a few constituents have reached out to me with claims about the bill's effects that are untrue and inflammatory. Such claims stem from online disinformation and, sometimes, from those across the chamber. I'm glad we've come together as a parliament to make these changes. Let's be clear about what they do and not fall into a dangerous echo chamber that seeks only to divide this nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, is about combating antisemitism. It's about combating hate. It's about making sure that we have legislation that backs in those Australian values that we hold so dear in this country. These reforms are about making sure that another piece of the puzzle is put in place so that this never happens again. It's a bill that will introduce new aggravated offences to ensure that very serious penalties apply to those in positions of influence and authority who commit hate crimes. It's a bill to ensure that we have increased penalties for the offences involving advocating or threatening force or violence against protected groups, members of groups, their close associates and their property.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Antisemitism, hate and extremism have no place in Australia, and I certainly support any changes that will help ensure that no parent or family experiences the trauma of Bondi again. This bill is about confronting extremism, protecting social cohesion and safeguarding our communities. It is about protecting the loss of life, preventing violence and hate. This bill, together with related firearms and customs law reforms, delivers strong, targeted action against those who spread hate and violence. The bill strengthens hate crime laws by introducing aggravated offences for those in positions of influence, including religious leaders who advocate violence and adults who radicalise children. These provisions reflect the serious harm caused when authority is being abused. Penalties for hate crimes will be increased to ensure they reflect the gravity of these offences.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's see this as an opportunity for us to unite as a nation, to come together and grieve with our Jewish Australian community and to reaffirm that in this great country of ours, whatever issues we confront, there's still no other country you'd rather be in. That's the nature of our great nation. Light will triumph over darkness. I thank the House—and I thank the Senate as well—for the adoption of these laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will advise the House that, in terms of speeches, I've got a procedure, which I'm hoping to not move, that we deal with all remaining amendments without debate. If we can get through this relatively quickly, then we'll be able to make sure that everybody gets to present their amendments properly, but I'm just flagging that, if people could be conscious of the time, that'd be great.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
13 speakers · 11 support · 1 oppose · 1 unclear
“Voting against these laws enables people who come here to spread hate to stay here on a visa. We can't deal with them. They can come in. We can't stop them. That's why these laws are important. It's important to take back control of this situation, so we can actually deal with the hate these people have brought here.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, taking on board Senator Payman's comments. I listened very carefully to Senator Payman's speech. I do so because I believe this bill is in the national interest. I sincerely believe there's an imperative that we pass this bill, and I believe there's a great risk—some people have been talking about the risks in some of these provisions, the risks of the process et cetera. I say: consider the risk of us not passing this bill. Consider the risk of us not including these additional offences in the Criminal Code. Consider the risks of us not strengthening the visa cancellation and refusal processes in the Migration Act. Consider how those risks could be manifested again in the future, as they were on the beach at Bondi on 14 December. That is a risk we have to all carefully consider. In doing so, and after great careful consideration, I support this bill. I sincerely believe this bill is in the national interest and in the interests of all Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australia is a free country, but it is not a sanctuary for extremists, and it should not be a safe operating environment for vile extremist hate groups. Australians want to see Islamic hate preachers gone, they want to see the minister given the ability to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and they want Neo-Nazis off our streets. These laws will achieve that, and that's why I'm supporting them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Unfortunately, despite the many positive elements of this legislation, the government has not been able to convince my party room, that of the National Party, that adequate safeguards are in place for the proposed hate crimes. We do want to ban extreme organisations that would seek to do our community harm. We would have liked to be able to have the opportunity to participate robustly in a timely way with expert advice to get to that place. It is for this reason that I foreshadow an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to refer this legislation to the scrutiny of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee of the Senate for inquiry and to report swiftly by 2 March 2026—a public process, unlike the sham PJCIS inquiry that was run, where submissions had not even all been uploaded as the bill was passing the House of Representatives. Stakeholders across this country took the time, in the limited time they had, to put in their views, and the public, senators and the House of Representatives haven't even been able to avail themselves of that wisdom being made public in time for votes to be cast. This government makes a mockery of their Bondi response in how they treat this parliament and in how they treat the parliamentarians that Australians have sent here to work hard on their behalf.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I now turn to the criminal law provisions that remain before the House and which we support, in principle—subject to the safeguards and amendments we've sought, to ensure these measures are targeted, proportionate and lawful. Schedule 1, part 1 introduces new aggravated offences for religious, spiritual or other leaders who provide religious instruction or pastoral care, applying to the existing offence of threatening force or violence under part 5.1 of the Criminal Code. Religious leaders occupy a position of trust and authority. With that influence comes a higher duty of care and a greater responsibility. This is a sensible and overdue deterrent, particularly against radical Islamic preachers and other figures who exploit religious settings to radicalise, groom and incite violence. The message must be unmistakable: abusing religious authority and using the pulpit to threaten force or violence will attract serious criminal consequences. Importantly, we ensured that this provision captures anyone who stands up in a religious setting and promotes extremist violence, whether or not they hold a formal religious title.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The migration amendments in this bill sharpen the focus of existing character powers so that they clearly capture extremist advocacy and antisemitic behaviour, including where that conduct occurs online offshore. Antisemitism today is often transnational in nature, spread through digital platforms, imported through overseas networks and amplified by individuals who have no permanent stake in Australia. The coalition supports clearer grounds for refusing or cancelling visas where a noncitizen has demonstrated that they promote racial or ethnic hatred. We have pushed for additional safeguards to address the risks, and we have worked to ensure that there are additional protections contained in the legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said, Bondi represents a moment of choice, and the choice the Liberal Party makes this morning, as we have always done, is to stand with the Jewish community and law-abiding Australians. It's the choice to be constructive, to pass this legislation as a step in the right direction. That's the choice the Liberal Party has made. But the choice for the government of the day does not end today. The choice for the Albanese government is in the implementation. The test for the government is how it uses these new laws. It must expel or jail hate preachers. It must list Hizb ut-Tahrir and its prayer halls. It must protect our borders from radical Islamists and the insidious propagandists who use Jews as a way of attacking Australia. It's a choice that doesn't end with these laws. The government must root out antisemitism from our schools, from academia and the universities, from the arts, from the trade union movement and from its own political base. Unless we do that, Bondi will not be the end of the story; it will be the midpoint of a story that gets so much worse.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Jewish community has expressed their anger that the firearm provisions were a deliberate distraction from the broader issue. I'm happy to support the migration amendments, but the minister already has wide-ranging powers. The minister has been using them, of course, and we know he's been using them against Israeli visas. My hope is that he will use them against those who preach Islamic hatred and extremism instead.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This amendment sends a clear and unequivocal message: we stand united under our flag, the Australian flag. Introducing a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment is a proportionate and necessary deterrent to this hateful and disgraceful act. Every time another grub on the street puts a torch to our national flag without consequence, it is an insult to every Australian, especially those who wore the flag on their shoulder while protecting our nation and those who were buried beneath it. I commend this amendment to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The amendments proposed are reasonable and proportionate by the coalition, and they will enhance the ability of the government to cancel the visas of those who engage in antisemitic rhetoric, Islamic extremism—which is the extremism underpinning Islamic State and other terrorist organisations—and other extremist ideologies which pose a risk of harm to the Australian people. This is not about politics; it's about community safety, confidence in the rule of law, standing with Jewish Australians and confronting Islamic extremism honestly and directly. Australians expect their parliament to name the problem and tackle it properly, and I'm confident that we can do that today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These changes strengthen the law. They close loopholes and they restore clarity and accountability. The Liberal Party will always strongly defend freedom of thought, freedom of worship and freedom of speech, because those freedoms define who we are as a nation and they must be defended, even when the task before us is confronting hatred and extremism. The Liberal Party will always act to keep Australians safe, defend our freedoms and put the national interest first—as we have in passing this bill. I look forward to the nation pausing tomorrow, on the day of remembrance, to reflect and to unite behind a shared determination to take the strong actions that we know we need to take as a nation to tackle radical Islamic extremism and to eradicate antisemitism. We must unite with determination, focus and overall action.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Back in, I think, 2008, I was out there saying that we need to target hate preachers. The reason for that is my background with Victoria Police. When I look at laws and legislation, I'm looking at how police can find a conviction. I've had concerns in the past. For example, going back to September 11, you had radical preachers out there talking about how the September 11 attacks were justified and saying that it's a good thing when infidels die. It's not actually going far enough to be incitement or threats. That's why this legislation here today is very important: to make sure we capture people who are trying to influence younger people to commit hideous attacks.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 is the first of many steps the coalition is taking to make sure that the national tragedy at Bondi never happens again. Now, let's get the facts straight: the intent of this bill is to designate and disrupt extremist ideological organisations that are radicalising Australian people to commit terror on our land. It will increase border control by deporting or refusing visas to people posing extreme risk to our national security.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“Can I finish with this on migration. This bill dangerously lowers the threshold for visa cancellations from requiring that a person would engage in hateful conduct to merely that they might. That's not a test. I want to thank the ASRC for their continued positive engagement with this. When the government say they need these changes to ban hate preachers from this country, they know that's false. Every single one of those could already be banned under the character tests. There are two separate legal provisions under the Migration Act that would fully cover all of the conduct that's covered in these migration law changes. The government is lying when it says otherwise, and the coalition is covering itself with pretend political cover when it says otherwise. We won't accept those lies. It's a false narrative. At the core of the narrative on the migration changes, they want to blame migrants for the violence and failures of security agencies, for the gaps in our gun laws. We won't let them scapegoat migrants, we won't support these changes to the Migration Act, and we won't support the rubbish politics that is trying to give them cover when they do it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The utter hypocrisy of the Labor and Liberal parties is here on full display. To pretend to celebrate multiculturalism, praise migrants when it suits them and then propose laws like this is just disgusting. The Bondi attack has devastated the nation. Our response to it should be carefully considered to show compassion, care and solidarity at a time of crisis. We should, as a society, try to achieve the structural and cultural change needed to reject hate and extremism and weed it out at its roots. This legislation definitely does not do that. Scapegoating migrants does not make anyone safer. Undermining the right to protest does not make anyone safer. Criminalising those who raise their voice against injustices is just plain wrong. Saying that one group is worthy of protection while others are not does not make anyone safer. The Greens vehemently and strongly oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 oppose
“This bill is being rushed through this parliament without proper scrutiny or debate. We've come to expect this from Labor. It seems the least transparent government ever is at it again. It seems there have been a lot of backroom parties and One Nation wasn't invited. Now we will be told we didn't support the bill. Well, the bill is fundamentally dishonest, as it diverts attention away from Labor's incompetence. Australia doesn't need new laws; we need a government with the courage to enforce the current laws. As the government have already proven they can't enforce our current laws, we have no confidence in their being able to enforce this bill. Labor's incompetence has led to this mess, and now they are using it as an excuse to rush through a vague bill that doesn't define the very matters it should be addressing. The bill is so vague and rushed that the Australian Jewish Association was urging all members of parliament to reject the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Joyce on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
He argues the bill has expanded far beyond its original antisemitism focus and creates an overly broad, dangerous framework by sweeping in state and territory offences. He moves amendments to narrow it and says he will vote against the bill at the third reading.
“This issue has only just appeared. If I had had a little bit more time than receiving this at around 10 o'clock and now having a guillotine, I suppose, for the next half hour, we could have probably gone through this with a little more depth. I don't intend to divide on this, but I will be calling a division on the third reading to vote against the bill. This is incredibly dangerous and goes way beyond what we were supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be dealing with antisemitism, the hatred of Jews, and people who murder people of the Jewish faith. That was where it was supposed to be.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 - Second Reading
He argued the bill was rushed, had not received proper scrutiny, and was drafted too broadly beyond a focused response to antisemitism. He said those added elements made the bill unacceptable and that it should be voted down.
“We're starting to get an awfully wide net on what was supposed to be succinctly dealing with the issue of antisemitism. If we had had a clarion focus on antisemitism—that is, the hatred and attacking of the Jewish people, which has been done in this instance by fundamental Islamic terrorism—then this would be so much cleaner, but you have broadened this in such a form that stapled to a very noble cause is a whole range of peripheral issues. That really causes great concern. When people vote against this—and they will—it has to be understood that it is because of the mischievous nature of attaching other circumstances to the bill that it has to be voted down in bulk.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 12 contributions · 3 support · 4 oppose · 2 unclear
“I cannot in good faith support this bill today. From the 12 hours in which I've had this bill, I cannot confidently say that the benefits outweigh the risks. I cannot confidently say that this bill strikes the right balance between stopping hate speech and preserving a person's right to express themselves freely and to protest. I will try to move amendments that I think go some way to improving the bill, but I still feel overwhelmingly that more time should be taken to study its merits and its impact. I will also move an amendment that broadens the protections to capture other people who experience racism and violence every day, including to people with disability, LGBTI Australians, religious communities and our culturally diverse communities. I'll move another amendment to clarify that criticising the policies, actions or institutions of a foreign state alone cannot be taken as hate speech for the purpose of these laws. Protest and the right of people to criticise our government and foreign governments is not hate speech, and my amendment will make that clear. I'm also putting forward that an independent review of these laws commence in two years so that there is at least an opportunity for someone to review these laws properly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“(b) the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS;Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;Consideration in Detail - 20 Jan 2026
Spender supports the bill and moves amendments to broaden the aggravated sentencing factor so it covers hatred based not only on race or ethnic origin but also religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability and association. She argues the bill should protect all Australians equally and that limiting this part of the law to narrower categories is inconsistent and undermines the message that everyone is equal before the law.
“I rise today in support of the bill, but also to put forward amendments. I'm introducing an amendment to part 3, the aggravated sentencing factor. This provision is a matter which must be considered by the court when sentencing persons for federal offences if the factor is relevant and known to the court. This factor is whether the offender's conduct was motivated by hatred of another person or group and, if so, whether that hatred was because of the person's belief that the target person or target group is distinguished by race or national ethnic origin.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 - Second Reading
Spender supports the bill as a necessary but limited response to antisemitism and extremism, backing its aggravated offences, stronger hate-symbol measures and powers targeting hate preachers and extremist groups. She argues parliament must go further with stronger anti-vilification laws and a broader strategy against radicalisation and social division.
“We know that violence does not start with weapons. It starts with words. It starts with hate. I acknowledge that in this bill there are some important steps to deal with the spread of hate, which leads to the spread of violence. I support the bill. I support the aggravated offences measures, particularly for hate preachers. I support the strengthened measures in relation to hate symbols. I support the actions in relation to hate preachers, and I support the fact that the home affairs minister now has the framework to proscribe certain groups—which should include, in my mind, groups like the National Socialist Network and Neo-Nazis and Hizb ut-Tahrir, who openly spread and promote virulent antisemitism as well as vile hatred against other groups in our country. These groups do not merely offend; they normalise dehumanisation and incitement. Their rhetoric corrodes our social fabric and creates a condition in which violence becomes possible.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Chaney, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 - Second Reading
She criticises the rushed process and says the bill has gaps, especially in protections for other at-risk groups and in safeguards around listing hate groups, while backing amendments on those points. Despite those concerns, she supports the bill because she says it helps signal that antisemitism is unacceptable and may modestly reduce the risk of hate-motivated terrorism.
“But, despite it not extending protections to other groups and lacking some important safeguards, I will be supporting it because it sends a message to arrest the normalisation of antisemitism, and it may reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks by criminalising the structures that could support these attacks.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
Kate Chaney moved an amendment to make the AFPThe Australian Federal Police, the national policing agency. minister’s decision to designate hate groups reviewable on the merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. She argued the bill grants a significant power that needs stronger safeguards against misuse or error, particularly because procedural fairness is excluded.
“This amendment introduces a provision to ensure that the AFP minister's decision regarding hate groups is reviewable on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill introduces a significant power for the AFP minister which needs safeguards against misuse or mistake. We have to make laws for bad governments, not assuming that we will have good governments, and, when we look overseas, we can see authoritarian figures are rising. Banning organisations is a typical strategy of authoritarian figures and is frequently associated with democratic backsliding, so we need to ensure that a power like this has sufficient safeguards. Some safeguards do exist—the agreement of the Attorney-General and judicial review of the AFP minister's decision about whether the proper process was followed—but it explicitly exempts the application of procedural fairness, so there is no right to be heard. If someone believes that their group has been wrongly designated a hate group, this amendment would give them the ability to seek an ART review of that decision on its merits.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“In relation to my amendments, the revised bill circulated just recently is intended to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism. That is something I would hope we are all united about, but the execution is flawed and unacceptable. The bill continues to define hate crimes narrowly, focusing on race, nationality and ethnic origin. I certainly welcome that, but it is clear that we have hate crimes that are done on the basis of faith, sexuality, gender, sexual orientation and disability. Why these are not included in the definition of 'hate crime' for the purpose of prohibited groups I do not understand. I know that for many in Australia, in such a multifaith country, why hate crimes done on the basis of at least religion are not included is really quite astounding.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Ryan, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 - Second Reading
Ryan condemned the rushed handling of the bill, arguing that major criminal and migration law changes were introduced without adequate consultation or scrutiny and risk unintended consequences and limits on legitimate debate. While she supported some tougher hate-crime and firearms measures, she argued the bill had been watered down and should not be passed immediately in its current form.
“The government has further watered down the bill overnight to ensure it can be passed today, but we don't have to pass this law today. We could consult with our communities, faith groups and human rights and legal experts and get this right. The government is letting politics be the enemy of policy. If the legacy of Bondi is a memory of division and inadequacy, then we will have failed this country. Yesterday so many of us spoke in this House of our great sadness at the tragic loss of 15 Australian lives. We have a unique opportunity with this legislation to make the greatest of differences on their behalf. If we don't do that, it will be a moment of darkness for this country, and it will reflect poorly on us all.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
She moved an amendment to require annual, anonymised reporting on hate offences under the Criminal Code, arguing that better evidence is needed to assess prosecutions, sentencing and whether current thresholds are too high. Her remarks focus on strengthening oversight and evaluating the hate crime regime rather than clearly stating whether she supports or opposes the bill overall.
“At the eleventh hour, earlier today, the government agreed with the opposition to include reporting on new aggravated offences for hate preachers and listings of prohibited hate groups within this legislation. Those additions are welcome, but they relate to only two new hate provisions. They are too limited in scope, and they won't take effect for two years. The amendment I now put in front of the House requires the government to provide annual reporting on the effectiveness of existing hate offences under the Criminal Code—those reported to the police, those referred to prosecutorial agencies, those finalised with and without court proceedings, and the details of any sentences imposed. With this I call for anonymised reporting on the substance of those alleged or prosecuted offences and the reasons why some may fail to result in a prosecution.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“It's for this reason that I have moved an amendment which introduces a sunset clause to this bill. My amendment means that the bill would automatically be repealed after two years. This is one step beyond a mere review clause, which must happen, and it will force the government to go back to the people and say, 'This has worked and it is still necessary.' If that is indeed the case, passing the laws again will be a simple matter. It is also relevant to note that the offence of publicly inciting racial hatred was introduced to New South Wales by the New South Wales government last year and contains a three-year sunset clause.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In many respects, I can live with the haste of this. I did not come here with the intention of standing in the way of immediate action on the serious issues this bill is intending to address. But the reality is that the report of the inquiry into this bill was only tabled this morning. The consequence of haste as a legislator is the missed opportunity to carefully consider and improve this significant legislation. That leaves me with considerable risk concerns. It truly does. I recognise that acts of antisemitism have left the Australian Jewish community living in terrible fear. I've spoken with Jewish leaders, and I understand the urgency of the parliament acting. I take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. I do have genuine concerns, but I have heard the call for urgent action.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This amendment clarifies that offences relating to training, funding or support would apply only where the conduct is intended to facilitate or is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime. This amendment responds to the recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It provides better balance, better targeting and better alignment with human rights principles, and, for that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.”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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
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: amendments considered
Government amendments agreed
The House agreed to two government amendments during detailed consideration of the bill.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 116 to 7.
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
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 39 to 18.
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 · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Referred; report published
It examined the exposure draft and supported quick passage of the hate crime and migration measures. It said they were an appropriate and proportionate response, while noting concerns about the rushed process, some migration powers and effects on lawful gun owners.
Referred to Committee (12 Jan 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Committee report (20 Jan 2026)
Committee report (20 Jan 2026)Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Deferred in published report
It had not finished considering the bill at that point and deferred comment in that report.
Report 1 of 2026; Defer
Report 1 of 2026Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It reviewed the bill and made no comment.
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026; Bill No Comment
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It looked at whether the bill was compatible with human rights and raised concerns about children's rights, fair criminal process, and equality and non-discrimination.
Report 2 of 2026; Ministerial Advice Only
Report 2 of 2026