What is in the ombatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill?

The home secretary will also be given the power to ban “hate groups”. Hate group leaders and recruiters, as well as anyone caught training or donating to them, face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. Members can be sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Home Secretary Tony Burke said groups such as the Nationalist Socialist Network and Hizb ut Tahrir were being targeted and could be outlawed.

Changes to immigration law will allow the immigration minister to refuse or cancel visas if a person is associated with hate groups or makes hateful comments, including online.

What is the engraved version of religious texts?

The new offense of racial libel does not apply to conduct that “consists of directly quoting or otherwise referring to a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

Some translations of religious texts can sometimes be considered hate speech, including a controversial section of the Quran that labels Jews and Christians as “the worst of all beings.”

Asked about the regulation on Tuesday, Albanese said: “I encourage you to read the Old Testament and see what is there and see if you are outlawing what is going to happen. So we need to be careful. We have consulted not only the Jewish community but also faith groups.”

Some interpretations of the Old Testament have been used to discriminate against people of different races through the interpretation of statements in the Book of Genesis about the Canaanites, whose genetic descendants include the Palestinian, Syrian, and Jordanian communities.

Sarah Chigdey, assistant secretary at the Ministry of Public Prosecutions, told a parliamentary inquiry into the bills on Tuesday that the exemption for religious texts was “very narrow” and would only apply to direct quotes from texts. It will not protect people who use religious texts to incite hatred or slander.

What legal hurdles do the laws face?

Home Secretary Tony Burke has repeatedly said a crackdown on hate speech would push the law to the “constitutional limit” and the government has acknowledged the law’s potential to face Supreme Court challenges.

Article 116 of the Constitution expressly prohibits the Commonwealth from making any law which may be regarded as “prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”; This means any ban on religious texts could face challenge in the highest court.

Some Supreme Court decisions have found that the Constitution includes rights to freedom of association and political communication.

Greg Barns, South Carolina Australian Lawyers AllianceHe said it was dangerous to rush through legislation without adequate consultation and called for caution because of the risks to civil liberties.

“Hashly drafted laws may miss critical details, fail to anticipate unintended consequences, or fail to adequately balance conflicting interests,” he said.

Barns noted vague language and a lack of definition of key concepts, including what “unacceptable risk” means and who gets to decide.

He said the law contradicted the long-standing practice of only considering criminal acts committed after the law was enacted and failed to observe procedural fairness when listing banned organisations, meaning defendants would not have a clear opportunity to respond to allegations.

What were the reactions?

Conservative Liberals, including Andrew Hastie, questioned whether the bill would impede religious freedom, while leading Coalition figures Michaelia Cash and Hastie supporter Ben Small said the religious exemption could allow Islamist extremists to continue preaching hatred. Their opposition to the bill will complicate decision-making if Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is inclined to back Labour’s amendments in the name of national unity.

Australian National Imams Council President Shadi Alsuleiman said the crackdown would disproportionately affect the Muslim community because it targeted religious leaders while not providing protection against Islamophobia. He said the religious text exemption should also protect faith leaders in articulating and explaining sacred texts.

He called for the debate, scheduled for Tuesday, to be delayed, saying the current timeline was unreasonable for proper consideration of the implications of the laws.

“We call for clear protection for religious instructions and teachings,” he told a parliamentary inquiry into the reforms on Wednesday.

“This includes quoting and interpreting texts from holy books and scriptures, recognizing Islamophobia in libel laws, and engaging in genuine consultation with faith communities.”

Executive Council of Australian Jews Co-CEO Peter Wertheim, Albanese’s closest Jewish ally, called for the laws to be extended to other minority groups. He criticized the exemption of religious texts because invoking religion, “using it as an excuse to dehumanize and mistreat others simply based on who they are should surely be a thing of the past.”

“None of the world’s recognized religions would knowingly and deliberately promote racial hatred, and it would be utterly disgraceful for any religion to do so,” he said.

Michael Stead, Anglican bishop of South Sydney and president of Freedom of Belief, said the bar was very low for what could be considered racial slurs.

“If my behavior would make a reasonable member of the target group concerned about facing harassment, then I [the new law]he told a parliamentary inquiry on Wednesday.

“This is an unjust limitation of freedom of thought, conscience and belief, as well as freedom of expression.”

William Redmond, speaking on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, expressed concern about the potential for race-based hate speech to spread to other minority groups.

“Once a broad, harm-based model is established in criminal law, expansion becomes much easier,” he said.

Federation of Islamic Councils President Rateb Jneid said he had not been consulted on the legislation and was concerned that the proposed racial libel offense did not also include religious discrimination.

“It is simply indefensible that laws designed to combat hatred exclude religion,” he said. “Hate fueled by religious bigotry can be just as dangerous and damaging as racial hatred. Any serious attempt to address hate speech needs to take this into account.”

The Nationalist Socialist Network, Australia’s largest neo-Nazi group, announced on Tuesday that it would disband its members by the end of the week to avoid long prison sentences.

Leaders described the laws as “draconian” and discussed plans for a new organization that could continue under the guise of a political party.

Opposition home affairs spokesman Jonno Duniam expressed concerns that the crackdown would push the group to go underground or rebrand. ASIO boss Mike Burgess acknowledged the risk but said the spy agency was “good” at tracking people hiding from the law.

The Greens have refrained from taking a public stance on the legislation while government briefings are ongoing, but they have long held a position of supporting strengthening hate speech laws.