This bill became law.
Immigration, border & security
People who advocate or threaten violence face higher maximum prison terms, up from five to seven years or seven to 10 years.
The government said the bill was needed to counter rising antisemitic hate, other hate speech, violence and extremism. It presented the package after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack killed 15 Jewish people. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland (Labor) said the aim was to dismantle extremist networks and prevent violence before it occurred.
Australia already had federal hate-related offences and recent reforms targeting hate-fuelled conduct, but antisemitic speech, intimidation and violence escalated after 7 October 2023, culminating in the 14 December 2025 Bondi Beach terrorist attack that killed 15 Jewish people. The government responded with this bill, introduced by Michelle Rowland MP, to raise penalties, target hate organisations and symbols, and give ministers wider visa powers, and Parliament passed it on 20 January 2026.
David Shoebridge (Greens) argued the bill could scapegoat migrants and threaten peaceful protest. He said groups could be banned using secret security advice without a fair chance to respond. David Pocock (independent) said senators received the final version only 12 hours before the vote. He also warned that its protections did not cover every community commonly targeted by hatred. Tyron Whitten (One Nation) said more than 7,000 submissions followed a 48-hour consultation on the earlier draft, yet the replacement was still rushed.
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. In the House final vote, support came from Labor, Liberal, some crossbench members; opposition came from Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, One Nation, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Final passage
Recorded final vote
2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
Same day
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People who advocate or threaten violence face higher maximum prison terms, up from five to seven years or seven to 10 years.
Religious and spiritual leaders who use their position to commit these offences face maximum terms of 10 or 12 years.
People sentenced for federal crimes can receive tougher punishment when racial or ethnic hatred motivated their conduct.
Organised hate groups can be officially banned for serious race-based crimes or publicly encouraging those crimes.
People who direct, recruit for, fund or support a banned hate group face new offences with maximum terms of 10 to 15 years.
People displaying Nazi symbols or symbols of banned hate groups face broader offences and stronger police seizure powers.
Non-citizens can have visas refused or cancelled for hate crimes, specified group links or public race-based hatred that risks harm.
1 Subsection 80.2BA(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty and note) Repeal the penalty and note, substitute: Note 1: For intention, see section 5.2. Note 2: A person might commit an aggravated offence if the person is a religious official or spiritual leader etc. (see section 80.2DA). Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years. 2 Subsection 80.2BA(2) of the Criminal Code (penalty and note) Repeal the penalty and note, substitute: Note 1: For intention, see section 5.2. Note 2: A person might commit an aggravated offence if the person is a religious official or spiritual leader etc. (see section 80.Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
7 At the end of Subdivision C of Division 80 of the Criminal Code 80.2DA Aggravated offence for religious officials or other spiritual leaders etc. (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person commits an offence against subsection 80.2A(1), 80.2B(1), 80.2BA(1), 80.2BB(1), 80.2BC(1), 80.2BD(1) or 80.2BE(1) (the underlying offence); and (b) the conduct is engaged in by the person in the person’s capacity as: (i) a religious official; or (ii) a spiritual leader; or (iii) another leader (however described) of a group, who provides religious instruction or pastoral care (whether religiCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
Crimes Act 1914 10 After paragraph 16A(2)(ma) (i) the person’s conduct constituting the offence was motivated, whether wholly or in part, by hatred of another person (the target person) or a group of persons (the target group); and (ii) that hatred was because of the person’s belief that the target person or persons in the target group are distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin; that fact as a reason for aggravating the seriousness of the criminal behaviour to which the offence relates; 11 After subsection 16A(2AA) (2AAB) Paragraph (2)(mb) does not apply in relation to an ofCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
114A.4 Regulations specifying prohibited hate groups (1) Before the Governor‑General makes a prohibited hate group regulation specifying an organisation, the AFP Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that: (a) the organisation: (i) has engaged in, prepared or planned to engage in, or assisted the engagement in, conduct constituting a hate crime; or (ii) has advocated (whether or not in Australia) engaging in conduct constituting a hate crime, other than an offence against section 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BC or 80.2BE (advocacy offences); and (b) specifying the organisation as a prohibCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
Applicable disallowance period (4) The applicable disallowance period for a House of the Parliament means the period of 15 sitting days of that House after the disallowable legislative instrument, or a copy of the disallowable legislative instrument, was laid before that House in accordance with section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003. 114B.1 Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person intentionally directs the activities of an organisation; and (b) the organisation is a prohibited hate group; and (c) the person knows the organisaCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
30 Paragraph 80.2H(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Omit “applies; and”, substitute “applies.”. 31 Paragraph 80.2H(1)(d) of the Criminal Code Repeal the paragraph. 32 Subsection 80.2H(1) of the Criminal Code (note) Omit “subsection (10)”, substitute “subsections (9) and (10)”. 33 Subsection 80.2H(2) of the Criminal Code Omit “paragraphs (1)(c) and (d)”, substitute “paragraph (1)(c)”. 34 Subsection 80.2H(9) of the Criminal Code Repeal the subsection, substitute: Defences—religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary, scientific or journalistic purpose (9) Subsection (1) does not appCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
10 After subsection 501(6) Spreading hatred and extremism (6A) This subsection applies to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects that: (a) both of the following apply: (i) the person is, or has been, a member of an organisation; (ii) at any time the person was a member of the organisation, the organisation was a terrorist organisation, a state sponsor of terrorism or a prohibited hate group; or (b) all of the following apply: (i) the person has, or has had, an association with an organisation; (ii) at any time during the person’s association, the organisation was a terrorist orgaCombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) as-passed text
Context
Australia already had federal hate-related offences and recent reforms targeting hate-fuelled conduct, but antisemitic speech, intimidation and violence escalated after 7 October 2023, culminating in the 14 December 2025 Bondi Beach terrorist attack that killed 15 Jewish people. The government responded with this bill, introduced by Michelle Rowland MP, to raise penalties, target hate organisations and symbols, and give ministers wider visa powers, and Parliament passed it on 20 January 2026.
Federal hate-crime offences are broadened
A 2025 amendment added sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability to the protected attributes in a federal hate-crime provision, giving the new package an existing legislative base.
Australian Taxation Office ↗Antisemitic conduct escalates from words to violence
Parliamentary accounts said antisemitism developed from words into protests, intimidation, harassment and firebombings before the later Bondi attack.
Hansard ↗Bondi Beach terrorist attack kills 15 Jewish people
The attack targeted Jewish people celebrating in peace and became the immediate shock behind demands for stronger hate and extremism laws.
Hansard ↗Government announces hate-law reforms after Bondi attack
The government recalled Parliament and proposed a package combining a new hate-speech offence, stronger existing offences, a hate-organisation listing regime and gun reforms.
ABC News ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill, completing the parliamentary response to the Bondi attack.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
Referred to Committee (12/01/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Committee report (20/01/2026)
Report tabled 20 Jan 2026
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (19/01/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026
Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026
APH bill page notesThe 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 chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail 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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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
Recorded vote: 38 to 22.
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
Considered by scrutiny committee (04/03/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 2 of 2026
Report 2 of 2026
APH bill page notesKey criticism
David Shoebridge (Greens) argued the bill could scapegoat migrants and threaten peaceful protest. He said groups could be banned using secret security advice without a fair chance to respond. David Pocock (independent) said senators received the final version only 12 hours before the vote. He also warned that its protections did not cover every community commonly targeted by hatred. Tyron Whitten (One Nation) said more than 7,000 submissions followed a 48-hour consultation on the earlier draft, yet the replacement was still rushed.
Rowland said lawful debate, criticism, religion, comedy and art were not targeted. She said the group-banning test required serious criminal harm and a security risk, not mere offence or disagreement.
Rushed scrutiny and overreach
Critics warned that passing the bill after limited scrutiny increased the risk of broad definitions, unintended restrictions on expression and inadequate safeguards around migration powers. A statutory review was added, but proposals for a fuller committee inquiry before passage were defeated.
Unequal and incomplete coverage
The prohibited hate-group scheme focuses on race, nationality and national or ethnic origin, leaving hatred directed at Muslims and groups defined by religion, sexuality, disability or other protected attributes outside that listing framework. Critics also said dropping the proposed federal vilification offence left the law less effective against harmful hatred that does not reach violence-related thresholds.
Listing without prior procedural fairness
A group may be listed after ministerial and ASIO assessments without giving affected parties a prior opportunity to dispute the allegations. Because listing triggers serious offences for membership, recruitment, training and funding, critics worried that parliamentary review alone may not provide enough protection against an erroneous designation.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 116 to 7. Support came from Labor and Liberal. Opposition came from Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and One Nation. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Michael McCormack (Nationals) voted aye. Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, Nationals
Passed 38 to 22. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Nationals, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 39 to 18. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Passed 44 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 45 to 94. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed offence was defeated by 45 votes to 94 and was not added to the bill.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, Nationals
This amendment would add a note stating that the hate-crime definition concerns serious criminal conduct or threats and must be consistent with the implied freedom of political communication.
This amendment would add a note stating that the hate-crime definition concerns serious criminal conduct or threats and must be consistent with the implied freedom of political communication.
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.
This amendment would require a Senate committee to review the hate-crime provisions after their second anniversary and report its findings to the Senate.
This amendment would require a Senate committee to review the hate-crime provisions after their second anniversary and report its findings to the Senate.
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.
The House carried the government amendment without recording individual votes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The House carried the government amendment without recording individual votes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 16 to 43. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected this critical statement by 16 votes to 43; the vote did not directly alter the bill's text.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
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.
The Senate rejected the proposed inquiry by 6 votes to 52, allowing the bill's consideration to continue without that referral.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 12 to 49. Support came from Nationals, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, 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.
The Senate rejected the referral by 12 votes to 49, so debate proceeded without the proposed inquiry.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 26 to 36. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected the proposed offence by 26 votes to 36, so it was not added to the bill.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 9 to 49. Support came from Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. 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.
The Senate rejected these additional safeguards by 9 votes to 49, leaving the bill's listing process unchanged.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 21 to 42. Support came from Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and Australia's Voice. 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.
The Senate rejected the narrower test by 21 votes to 42, retaining the bill's existing scope.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 14 to 46. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected the proposal by 14 votes to 46, so the specified mandatory minimum sentences remained.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 17 to 42. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected the package by 17 votes to 42, so these review and expression safeguards were not added.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 13 to 50. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation.
The Senate rejected the broader protections by 13 votes to 50, leaving the bill's narrower list unchanged.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 12 to 46. Support came from Nationals, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, 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.
The Senate rejected the safeguard by 12 votes to 46, leaving listings able to take effect without that approval requirement.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 22 to 36. Support came from Greens, Nationals, One Nation, Australia's Voice, 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.
The Senate rejected the expiry date by 22 votes to 36, so the provisions were not given that sunset.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 12 to 43. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and UAP.
The Senate rejected the package by 12 votes to 43, so those express protections were not added to the bill.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Tammy Tyrrell's amendment was defeated without recorded vote counts.
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
Rowland urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that stronger criminal penalties, prohibited-hate-group powers and visa controls are needed to combat extremist violence and racial hatred while preserving legitimate speech.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock says he cannot support the bill because the rushed process left too little time to assess its risks to free expression and protest.
Read in Hansard ↗Duniam supports the bill, saying its strengthened criminal and migration measures are needed to curb violent hate, extremist groups and visa holders who spread hatred.
Read in Hansard ↗Payman opposes the bill in its current form and seeks further committee scrutiny, arguing that its rushed process, broad migration powers and hate-group framework threaten procedural fairness, peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
13 speakers · 14 contributions · 13 support
“The passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill will be a decisive step forward in achieving this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's vital and it's necessary that we pass this bill to tackle hateful groups. We cannot keep waiting while the next extremist individuals start or continue brewing a concoction of fear and hatred that targets decent, ordinary, law-abiding Australians. We've seen, under the current structure of laws, malign groups that have strategically flouted the law by staying just—ever so marginally just—under the current test of criminality. We cannot allow that to continue. Sadly, the resistance that we're seeing to the necessary change to protect the people of Australia, surely our first responsibility—we've seen members in this parliament seek division, find division, push for delay. I said yesterday:”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 ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Rowland urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that stronger criminal penalties, prohibited-hate-group powers and visa controls are needed to combat extremist violence and racial hatred while preserving legitimate speech.
“The passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill will be a decisive step forward in achieving this.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
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 ↗
“There are a number of reasons that I support this bill. But I want to take a moment to also reflect on the missed opportunity that we have had this week, here in parliament—a moment in time that we've had to actually do something that'll protect so many Australians—relating to the antivilification measures that were contained in previous iterations of this bill that were removed.”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 ↗
“I commend the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to the House, knowing that we could and should have done more as an institution. We had the opportunity to stand up to hate speech and vilification, and we fell short. Sadly, the political reality of this parliament means that we couldn't get done everything we thought we needed to; however, this is an important step. It should be uncontroversial that hate groups should not be given the capacity to spread that vile hate across our community and to undermine social cohesion in some of the most heinous of ways. It should be uncontroversial that people in positions of power should be prevented from spreading that hate to vulnerable young people and using their positions to inflict the worst of pain on fellow members of our community. It should be uncontroversial that people who come into Australia as guests be expected to conduct themselves in a way that does not undermine social cohesion or act as a direct attack on our nation's values. We need to ensure that we are addressing opportunities and loopholes that exist in the current law and that have enabled organisations that have preached hate for a very long time to fall just under the criminal thresholds. It's time that we stand up as a parliament and address these obvious evils in our society.”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 ↗
“It is just an absolute shame that we come in here today and the full suite of laws aren't what they should be, because the Liberal Party refuse to support the very things that they said they supported. 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 an 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 ↗
13 speakers · 14 contributions · 10 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed · 1 unclear
“Of course, there are other provisions around the immigration laws and changes to the Migration Act around refusing visas to those who do spread hatred and extremism in our country, including involvement in a hate crime, hateful public statements or links to terrorist and prohibited hate groups. Can I tell you, that is an important part of these laws. We have dealt with the concerns that have been raised through the information that I have offered to the Senate tonight—by making amendments, by tightening definitions and by putting in place review mechanisms to ensure that we minimise risk and that this does not unintentionally catch groups of Australians who should not be caught. This is about dealing with those people in our community who hate Australia, who hate the way our country operates.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I note that the amendments proposed to the Migration Act reflect the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism's recommendations with respect to changes to migration laws, and the coalition made a promise—a commitment—that we would do everything we could to see those recommendations enforced. Ms Segal, in her report, recommended government actions to screen visa applicants for antisemitic views or affiliations, consistent with a risk based approach. As I've set out, the amendments to the Migration Act do just that. Also, ensuring the Migration Act and associated decision-making review processes effectively facilitate visa refusals or cancellations for antisemitic conduct and rhetoric—the proposed amendments do that. The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government in relation to these changes, and I'm very, very pleased that we're in a position this evening where this bill will be passed with the support of the coalition. That is in our national interest, and that is in the interest of protecting the safety 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, 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 have been 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 will foreshadow an amendment to the second reading debate on this bill 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.”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 ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Barnaby Joyce on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Consideration in detail speech
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 ↗
Second reading speech
Joyce opposes the bill because it extends beyond antisemitism into broadly defined hate crimes tied to state and territory laws, and he argues it has been rushed through without proper committee scrutiny.
“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 ↗
“I'm very much in support of targeting hate preachers and hate groups. We've got all the advisers here today. One thing, though—and I'm putting my detective hat on here—when it comes to social media, I notice the proposed hate speech laws are going to target comments made on public social media platforms. What about private WhatsApp groups—for example, I'm on one with 200 members—that you are invited to join? When it comes to this Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—and I've heard this before—the government is really rushing this through.”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 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 says 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, and 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 ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill, if passed, represents the greatest restriction on free speech that Australia has ever seen. It will result in drastic and draconian restrictions. Hate speech has always been about preventing discussions and censoring opponents. Banning free speech is not the answer, banning more of our rights is not the answer and banning more guns is not the answer. Banning terrorists is the answer.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 11 contributions · 4 support · 3 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 rate 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 ↗
“I have a range of concerns with these bills—some of which I outlined in my submission to the needlessly and dangerously rushed PJCIS inquiry—and, to summarise, there are a few points I'd like to raise. Much of the hate speech changes are window dressings, through increased sentences for existing offences and new aggravating factors for existing offences. The changes to the Migration Act would allow the minister to cancel or deny visas to people who might incite division. Stopping hatred is one thing—and it's a good thing—but kicking people out of Australia based on speculation is quite another.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Allegra Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Consideration in detail speech
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 ↗
Second reading speech
Spender supports the bill's stronger measures against hate offences, symbols, preachers and extremist groups, but says these modest changes will not eradicate antisemitism or fully protect the Jewish community and calls for broader federal laws against vilification.
“I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let us be completely honest: neither this bill nor any of the actions of the parliament to date will eradicate antisemitism or keep the Jewish community safe in the future. There is much, much more work that needs to be done.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, the process of passing this bill is very poor. 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. Building social cohesion will require more than a change of law, but this is a start. Importantly, I'm glad to hear that an amendment will be agreed to in the Senate for a two-year review of this rushed legislation. I will drop my proposed amendment to this effect, to ensure this review, because it will happen in the Senate. It's essential that we review the impact and adequacy of this bill after the conclusion of the royal commission. Thank you.”Read the full speech 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 Monique Ryan, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Ryan supports the bill's tougher hate-crime penalties and restrictions on extremist groups, but criticises the rushed process, inadequate scrutiny and removal of racial vilification protections, which she says will weaken the law.
“The bill does include measures that I and my community support. I support the government's move to include tougher penalties for hate crimes. I commend the government on taking action to constrain the radical hate groups that divide and harm us. I welcome new aggravated offences for community leaders who choose to incite violence. This morning I supported measures to improve the control of firearms in this country. But there are things that we're not debating today that we should be talking about. We're not protecting all Australians from serious vilification based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics. Hatred doesn't discriminate based on those characteristics, and neither should the law. The need for these protections was agreed on by the Jewish community, the Australian Human Rights Commission and Equality Australia, but the government has caved on this issue to a coalition that is in ethical and political freefall. The removal of racial vilification elements from this legislation renders it less likely to be effective in its aim of banning hate groups.”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 ↗
“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 ↗
“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 ↗
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 · 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
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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
Recorded vote: 38 to 22.
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.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Report tabled 20 Jan 2026
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)
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (19 Jan 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Exposure draft of Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 2 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (4 Mar 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 2 of 2026
APH bill page notes
