The Labor Government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has now passed both Houses and received assent.

This bill, which was revised from its original draft, still poses significant threats to fundamental freedoms.

The bill moved through the Senate late Tuesday, with the Coalition split: the Liberal Party backed the anti-hate measures while the Nationals opposed them. Reports also indicate Senator Alex Antic crossed the floor. Crossbench opposition included Senator David Pocock.

There is an important goal at the heart of this legislation: giving police and prosecutors sharper tools to disrupt genuinely dangerous extremist movements, including groups that seek to radicalise and recruit. Jewish Australians should be able to live, worship, and participate in public life without fear, and there are valid concerns about a climate of growing antisemitism.

But as we noted last week, this bill is fundamentally flawed and poses several threats to freedom of speech, conscience, and religion.

A significant risk comes from the vague drafting, including of poorly defined and intangible concepts such as “social harm” and “psychological harm”, and no clear definition of what constitutes “hate”.

The bill’s “prohibited hate group” framework is tied to this vague concept of “hate crime”, and it empowers the executive to list and criminally punish organisations in ways that can have sweeping consequences. Notably, a group can be targeted without anyone having been convicted, and the AFP Minister “is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness” in deciding whether the threshold is met.

The Government says these powers are designed for speed. While the desire to stop violent movements before they grow is understandable, the question is how these powers will be applied in practice and whether they can avoid overreaching and violating fundamental civil liberties.

Another concern remains the aggravated offences for religious leaders, with a new aggravated offence targeted at “religious officials”, “spiritual leaders”  and "other leaders (however described)” while lifting maximum penalties to 10-12 years. Penalising speech more harshly because of who says it (rather than what was said) risks creating a chilling effect on lawful religious practice, expression, and teaching by faith leaders.

HRLA exists to defend fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. We will continue to advocate for laws that target real threats without normalising vague drafting, executive overreach, or double standards for people of faith.

We remain committed to serving Australians of all faiths, and we pray that antisemitism would be stamped out and that Jewish people would feel safe in Australia once again.