Albanese government urged to halt expansion amid free speech concerns
Free speech advocates, civil liberties and religious groups are calling on the Albanian government to halt and substantially rewrite its proposed expansion of hate crime laws, warning that the legislation could cause lasting damage to freedom of expression if rushed through parliament in the wake of the Bondi terror attack.
Experts argue the omnibus bill goes far beyond what is necessary to respond to the atrocities at Bondi, lowering crime thresholds, reversing long-standing legal protections and expanding executive power in a way that will chill legitimate political debate and produce inequitable outcomes.
They warned that the government would recall parliament next week, still in the midst of national trauma and at a time when far-reaching reforms have not been sufficiently scrutinized.
Concerns are also gaining attention internationally, with a senior US State Department official criticizing the proposed laws as “inept” and warning that they could have adverse consequences by criminalizing legitimate thought while allowing extremists to benefit from exemptions written into the law.
Opposition is expected to expand in the coming days, with media and technology groups understood to be concerned that the new crimes could hijack public interest journalism, online comments and user-generated content, exposing publishers and platforms to legal risk under unclear and untested standards.
At the center of the debate are new offenses punishable by up to five years in prison for racial slur and “incitement of hatred”. Civil liberties groups warn that the bill’s language – including a ban on “inciting hatred”, glorifying past actions or behavior that could cause “fear or intimidation” – is worryingly broad and risks criminalizing mainstream political discourse.
They argue that a social media post questioning multiculturalism, immigration policy or religious practices could be against the law, encouraging widespread self-censorship among Australians who fear prosecution. Critics say the bill risks emulating the UK’s approach to online expression, where arrests for controversial posts are increasingly common, without addressing the underlying drivers of extremism.
Professor Anne Twomey, a retired professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, warned that the bill would conflict with the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution.
write in this threadTwomey said not all expressions that promote or incite racial hatred would be considered political communications, but “many could potentially be so”. If challenged in the Supreme Court, he said, the challenge would focus on whether the burden placed on political communication was proportionate to the benefit of protecting people from harm.
Twomey noted that the most controversial area is public communication (especially on social media or in public demonstrations) about acts of violence, terrorism, war crimes, or atrocities committed by people of a particular racial, national, or ethnic origin.
“Any communication about what happened, even if completely accurate, would likely promote or incite hatred against this group, causing them to fear for their safety,” he wrote.
Although the bill includes a defense for the publication in good faith of a report or comment on a matter of public interest that could protect professional media, Twomey warned that it was unlikely to protect people discussing such events on social media, where most modern political communication now takes place.
On Tuesday night, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan warned that he was concerned that legitimate criticism of immigration policy or integration could easily be interpreted as racist and lead to prosecution.
Legal groups warn that the combination of vague definitions, reversed burdens of proof and mandatory prison sentences will likely produce inequitable outcomes, forcing individuals to prove their innocence for educational or journalistic purposes and undermining the presumption of innocence.
Further concerns were raised about the bill’s expansion of already broad immigration powers. Under the proposed changes, visas could be refused or canceled if a person is judged to pose a risk because they might engage in behavior such as inciting conflict in Australia. Civil libertarians argue that this dangerously lowers the threshold for entering the realm of speculation and gives ministers broad discretion with limited safeguards.
Co-chairman of the Australian Free Speech Union, Dr. Reuben Kirkham said the law was an unacceptable response to terrorism in a liberal democratic society.
Kirkham described the bill as “UK legislation on steroids” and said: “In a liberal democratic society, we should not respond to terrorism by undermining our freedoms.”
“It is likely to fuel racial hatred, at least in the UK. The standard is so low here that someone might be afraid of being abused,” he said.
The Executive Council of Australian Jews said the draft legislation was “an important step in the right direction” but that “significant shortcomings” would limit its effectiveness.
Australia’s top Muslim body has also raised red flags about key aspects of the legislation, adding to widespread unrest among Australia’s faith communities over many controversial points in the bill.
Rateb Jneid, president of the Islamic Council Federation of Australia, said the body was committed to engaging constructively but had “serious concerns” about the “extremely limited 72-hour consultation process” undermining the principles of democratic participation.
“We also question who within the Muslim community the government consulted before drafting these proposals,” he said.
While several Christian groups have voiced concerns, South Sydney Anglican bishop and Freedom of Belief president Michael Stead warned racial vilification laws set the bar too low.
“If my behavior would make a reasonable member of the target group concerned about facing harassment, then I [the new law]He told the parliamentary inquiry on Wednesday: “This is an undue limitation of freedom of thought, conscience and belief, as well as freedom of expression.”
Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Civil Liberties Council, accused the federal government of conducting the investigation in bad faith and allowed only two days for applications; Liberty Victoria president Gemma Cafarella said it was particularly troubling that the government was continuing with new crimes while setting up a royal commission to investigate the causes of the Bondi massacre and antisemitism.
“There is no evidence that these laws will improve community safety,” Cafarella said. “Extreme violence and social cohesion are complex issues. Laws that inappropriately limit freedom of expression, religion, and association will only further increase division.”
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Rob Harris is the national correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, based in Canberra. He is a former European correspondent.Connect via email.
