Submission to Parliament

Combatting Antisemitism, Hate & Extremism Bill 2026

Executive Summary

Turning Point Australia is an organisation dedicated to educating and assisting Australians in promoting freedom through public policy education, legislative analysis, and the creation of educational resources that support democratic participation. Its work includes political commentary and analysis designed to assist voters in understanding the consequences of government policy.

Turning Point Australia is a registered third-party campaigner and one of the largest digital political communication organisations in Australia. Across its own and associated channels, Turning Point Australia:

• has generated in excess of one billion views of social media posts and video content,
• maintains just under one million followers across multiple platforms,
• in 2025 alone reached 221.8 million views,
• it is the largest third-party campaigner in Australia by social media following, and at the most recent federal election its “how-to-vote” materials were downloaded more than half a million times.
  
  

As a result of this reach, Turning Point Australia plays a significant role in contemporary political discourse, particularly through online publication. Its ability to operate depends on freedom of political communication and association, freedoms that are directly engaged and placed at serious risk by this Bill.

Turning Point Australia unequivocally condemns all forms of racial hatred and political violence. The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach was a grave crime that demands a serious and effective response. While the Jewish community was targeted, the attack affected all Australians. However, legislation enacted in response to tragedy must strengthen the rule of law and democratic resilience, not weaken them.

Turning Point Australia is deeply concerned that the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate & Extremism Bill 2026 has been drafted as a broad omnibus bill, combining fundamental changes to criminal law, speech and association offences, executive powers, firearms regulation, migration law, and intelligence frameworks into a single legislative package.

The advocacy of violence, threats, intimidation, and property damage is already comprehensively criminalised under existing Commonwealth and State law. Rather than addressing a legislative gap, the Bill introduces unnecessary and disproportionate expansions into the regulation of lawful speech, political association, and civil society participation. In its current form, it:

• Criminalises speech based on subjective fear rather than intent or harm
• Permits executive listing of “hate groups” without adequate due process
• Allows adverse legal consequences to flow from past or overseas conduct
• Exposes lawful political commentary, including debate on immigration and population policy, to criminal sanction
• Creates religious carve-outs vulnerable to exploitation while failing to ensure consistent protection
• Risks criminalising political association and party formation
  
  

Turning Point Australia urges Parliament to withdraw the Bill in its entirety and rely on the existing legislative framework, which already provides sufficient tools to address hate-motivated violence and criminal conduct without eroding democratic freedoms.

1. Existing Commonwealth Law Already Criminalises Hate-Motivated Violence

The Commonwealth Criminal Code already provides a comprehensive framework to address hate-motivated violence, threats, and property damage.

Division 80 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 criminalises advocating or threatening physical force or violence against individuals or groups distinguished by attributes including race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, and political opinion.

Sections 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BA, 80.2BB and 80.2BE make it an offence where a person:

“intentionally advocates the use of force or violence against a group, a member of a group or their close associate,”

while being reckless as to whether that force or violence would occur.

These offences:

• Require intent
• Are limited to physical force or violence
• Attract penalties of up to 5 or 7 years’ imprisonment
• Include mandatory minimum sentences in limited circumstances
  
  

Sections 80.2BC and 80.2BD further criminalise advocating or threatening damage to places of worship or property owned or occupied by protected groups.

Additional Commonwealth offences already prohibit:

• advocating terrorism (s 80.2C)
• publicly displaying prohibited symbols (s 80.2H, s 80.2HA)
• using a carriage service to menace or harass (s 474.17)
  
  

Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that the Commonwealth already possesses extensive and effective legislative tools to address hate-motivated violence, threats, and intimidation. Against this existing legal backdrop, the necessity and proportionality of introducing new speech-based offences must be carefully scrutinised.

2. New Hate Speech Offence Based on Subjective Fear

The Bill introduces a new offence in proposed section 80.2BF, criminalising conduct that promotes or incites hatred on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Under section 80.2BF(1)(c), liability arises where:

“the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, or a member of the target group, to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

This offence is not directed at a gap in existing law. Rather, it represents a significant expansion of criminal liability beyond conduct involving violence or threats and into the regulation of lawful expression.

Criminal sanctions may be imposed without intent, without harm, and without proof that hatred occurred. Such a standard is incompatible with legal certainty and creates a strong disincentive to lawful public expression.

3. Suppression of Freedom of Political Communication

The Bill defines “public place” so broadly that virtually all online communication is captured.

Political commentary published via websites, social media, podcasts, videos, and articles is therefore exposed to criminal liability under proposed section 80.2BF.

Legitimate debate on immigration, population growth, multicultural policy, national identity, or social cohesion may be characterised as causing fear or intimidation, even where it is fact-based and non-violent.

Freedom of political communication is essential to democratic accountability. Laws that deter lawful political debate undermine democracy rather than protect it.

4. Direct Impact on Civil Society and Political Commentary

Turning Point Australia exists to provide political commentary and analysis. Under the Bill’s framework, commentators, contributors, and speakers may face criminal prosecution and imprisonment for expressing views that are controversial or unpopular.

This risk arises because:

• Online publication constitutes public conduct
• Intent is irrelevant
• Fear need not be genuine or objectively verified
  
  

The deterrent effect arises long before any prosecution, leading civil society organisations to self-censor or withdraw from public debate.

A democracy cannot function where lawful political commentary carries the risk of imprisonment.

5. Retrospectivity and Legal Certainty

The Bill permits serious criminal and regulatory consequences to flow from past conduct, including conduct occurring outside Australia, particularly through the interaction of the proposed hate speech offence and the hate group listing regime.

Proposed Division 114A allows an organisation to be declared a “hate group” by reference to conduct that occurred before the commencement of the legislation, and in some cases conduct occurring overseas. While criminal liability attaches only after a listing is made, offences such as section 114A.7 may be triggered by membership, association, or support in circumstances where the conduct relied upon to justify listing substantially predates the offence itself.

In addition, proposed section 80.2BF applies to conduct communicated in a “public place”, a term defined broadly to include online platforms.

Taken together, these provisions create a framework in which past online publications, statements, or commentary may later be relied upon to justify enforcement action, investigation, or executive listing decisions, even where that speech was lawful at the time it was made.

This raises particular concerns for Australians who have previously engaged in lawful political commentary online, including debate or criticism of government immigration policy, population growth, multicultural policy, or social cohesion.

Legislation that permits historical conduct to be reassessed under expanded criminal and regulatory frameworks undermines fair notice and legal certainty, which are core principles of the rule of law.

6. Executive Listing of Hate Groups and Absence of Due Process Safeguards

Proposed Division 114A grants the Minister the power to declare an organisation a “hate group”, triggering serious criminal consequences for membership, association, or support.

The Bill does not require:

• prior judicial authorisation
• procedural fairness obligations
• clearly defined evidentiary thresholds
• robust or meaningful parliamentary disallowance mechanisms
  
  

The concentration of power within the executive creates a substantial risk of arbitrariness, error, and politicisation, particularly where listing decisions intersect with political association or public debate.

7. Political Association, Party Formation and Democratic Participation

Australian law has long recognised the importance of political association and political expression to representative democracy. The High Court has repeatedly affirmed the implied freedom of political communication, and Commonwealth electoral law expressly contemplates the lawful formation of political parties.

The Bill’s listing powers, when combined with criminal offences for membership or association, can have the practical effect of criminalising political association, even in the absence of violence or incitement.

While violence must be prohibited, suppressing political association through executive discretion undermines democratic participation and the constitutional principle that political ideas are to be contested through democratic processes rather than executive prohibition.

8. Religious Carve-Outs, Radicalisation Risk and Uneven Protection

Proposed section 80.2BF(2) provides a defence for:

“directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

Turning Point Australia supports genuine religious freedom. However, in the context of the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, which authorities have identified as being motivated by extremist ideology rooted in radical interpretations of religious teachings, this carve-out raises serious concerns.

The primary offence in section 80.2BF(1) applies only to conduct directed at groups distinguished by:

“race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.”

Judaism is recognised as an ethno-religious identity and therefore receives protection. Other religious communities, including Australian Christians, do not receive equivalent protection unless conduct can be characterised as racial or ethnic hatred.

This uneven protection risks undermining social cohesion and may create exploitable loopholes for extremist ideology.

9. Risk of Abuse, Uneven Enforcement and Suppression of Lawful Participation

The combination of vague definitions, subjective fear-based liability, retrospective reliance on conduct, and broad executive discretion creates a framework highly susceptible to abuse and uneven enforcement.

Where existing offences already prohibit violence, threats, and intimidation, expanding criminal liability into subjective assessments of speech risks diverting enforcement resources away from genuine threats and toward lawful political expression.

Australians are likely to withdraw from lawful public debate due to uncertainty and risk, diminishing democratic engagement and weakening public confidence in the law.

Final Observations and Recommendations

Turning Point Australia recognises that advocating violence is already criminal and should remain criminal. The problem is not a lack of law, but the unnecessary expansion of criminal liability into subjective speech regulation and executive control.

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate & Extremism Bill 2026 is unnecessary, overly broad, and structurally dangerous. Existing Commonwealth and State legislation already provides sufficient powers to address hate-motivated violence and criminal conduct.

Turning Point Australia urges Parliament to:

• Withdraw the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate & Extremism Bill 2026 in its entirety
• Rely on existing criminal law to address violence, threats, and intimidation
• Avoid introducing new speech-based offences that undermine legal certainty
• Preserve freedom of political communication and association
• Ensure executive powers affecting criminal liability are subject to strong judicial and parliamentary safeguards
  
  

Turning Point Australia welcomes the opportunity to participate constructively in further consultation to protect Australians without dismantling the democratic freedoms that define our nation.

If there are any other opportunities to attend an enquiry or any other meetings pertaining to this Bill, Turning Point Australia would like to be involved.

—

Read the draft bill at ag.gov.au.