Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Duniam supported the bill after amendments, noting that the original racial vilification laws had been removed. Duniam highlighted that the legislation increases penalties for religious leaders inciting violence and strengthens hate symbol offences, with reviews scheduled after two years. Duniam argued that the hate group listing regime targets serious criminal conduct and prevents groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir from operating, while ensuring procedural safeguards such as disallowable legislative instruments.

Stewart supported the bill, outlining its provisions to increase penalties for hate crimes and ban extremist organisations. Stewart criticised the coalition for opposing racial vilification measures recommended by the Special Envoy, calling their stance hypocritical given their earlier calls for urgent action. Stewart argued that hateful words normalise hatred and that the removal of vilification laws failed to protect Jewish Australians and other targeted communities.

Faruqi opposed the bill, describing it as flawed, divisive, and dangerous to civil liberties and free speech. Faruqi argued that the legislation disproportionately targets Muslim and migrant communities while ignoring other forms of racism and structural inequality. Faruqi cited concerns from legal experts and community groups about the lack of procedural fairness in the hate group listing regime and the potential for the laws to suppress peaceful protest and political dissent.

Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing that it scapegoats migrants and criminalises peaceful protest against genocide. Shoebridge stated that the coalition amendments expanded the scope of the laws, creating legal uncertainty and allowing retrospective application of offences. Shoebridge claimed that the migration changes were unnecessary as existing character tests already covered the conduct in question, and he warned that the bill undermined procedural fairness and natural justice.

O'Neill supported the bill, emphasising the need for immediate legislative action to combat hate and extremism following the Bondi attack. O'Neill argued that the laws address threats from both within and outside Australia, including foreign-funded terrorism. O'Neill criticised the removal of racial vilification provisions but maintained that the bill was necessary to dismantle extremist networks and protect the community from violence and hatred.

shadow minister

Scarr supported the bill, arguing it was in the national interest to prevent future attacks like the one at Bondi. Scarr defended the removal of the racial vilification offence as a response to stakeholder concerns about freedom of religion and expression. Scarr emphasised that the prohibited hate group provisions had high thresholds and parliamentary oversight, and he supported changing the migration character test from 'would' to 'might' to allow for earlier intervention against potential risks.

Payman condemned the Bondi attack but criticised the government's rushed legislative process and the politicisation of the crisis. Payman argued that the bill's hate speech provisions were vague and that the prohibited hate group framework granted excessive executive power. Payman moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, citing insufficient time for scrutiny and concerns about freedom of expression.

Sheldon argued that the bill addressed the root causes of antisemitic violence by increasing penalties for hate crimes and banning extremist organisations. Sheldon highlighted the disbandment of the National Socialists Network as evidence of the bill's effectiveness and criticised opposition members for stigmatising Western Sydney. Sheldon commended the bill for protecting vulnerable communities and strengthening national security.

Whitten opposed the bill, describing it as a rushed restriction on free speech that failed to address the enforcement of existing laws. Whitten argued that the government had the power to deport terrorists but was using the bill to silence dissent and promote a globalist agenda. Whitten moved an amendment to reject the bill, citing concerns about its constitutionality and lack of clarity.

McKenzie criticised the government for failing to act on antisemitism prior to the Bondi attack and for rushing the legislation through parliament without adequate scrutiny. McKenzie argued that the bill lacked bipartisan support and adequate safeguards for civil liberties. McKenzie foreshadowed an amendment to refer the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry by 2 March 2026.

Brown supported the bill as a necessary response to the Bondi attack, arguing that it strengthened penalties for hate crimes and disrupted extremist organisations. Brown defended the decision to split the legislation to ensure urgent reforms were not delayed. Brown emphasised that the bill protected communities by addressing the organised nature of modern extremism and improving migration settings.

Pocock opposed the bill due to the lack of proper scrutiny and consultation, noting that crossbenchers received the text only hours before the vote. Pocock cited community concerns about the bill's impact on freedom of expression and the lack of protections for other marginalised groups. Pocock moved amendments to broaden protections, clarify that criticism of foreign states is not hate speech, and remove mandatory minimum sentences.

Collins supported the bill as a critical step in disrupting extremist organisations and strengthening border controls. Collins argued that the legislation was a necessary response to the Bondi attack and criticised the government's previous approach to combating antisemitism. Collins emphasised the bill's role in protecting national security by deporting individuals posing extreme risks.