Anthony Albanese, under fire over spiralling anti-Semitism, and NSW Premier Chris Minns secured Coalition support for their laws. The Victorian legislation, arguably the most concerning, still faces Coalition resistance.
The speed with which these laws are being rushed out contrasts with sluggish government responses to the anti-Semitism crisis. Governments that failed to act on university anti-Semitism, ignored warnings to properly screen immigrants and delayed calling a national cabinet meeting are acting with new-found urgency.
Some Jewish organisations champion hate speech laws as a solution to surging anti-Semitic attacks. As a frequent target of anti-Jewish threats, I understand their motivation but restricting free speech isn’t the answer.
No decent person wants to hear words of hate but there’s a vast difference between offensive speech and actual harm. Banning speech that directly incites violence is reasonable, but these laws go much further.
Victoria’s legislation criminalises inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule, with penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Protected attributes include sex, gender identity, sexual characteristics and the ever-expanding category of sexual orientation. Christian leaders fear traditional views on marriage and sexuality may be criminalised.
The federal laws allow courts to determine whether someone was reckless and should have realised their words could harm a protected group.
Thankfully, teal MP Allegra Spender’s even more extreme amendments were rejected.
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley ominously foreshadowed further expansion of his laws “down the track”.
Restricting free speech allows governments to avoid addressing difficult issues. Much of the anti-Semitism in Australia stems from parts of the Islamic community, including recent arrivals. This was evident when two Muslim nurses, one a refugee from Afghanistan, made outrageous comments about Israeli patients at Bankstown Hospital. Equally despicable, many Muslim organisations dismissed the outrage as an over-reaction.
In what many see as a political ploy to secure votes in western Sydney, the Albanese government is welcoming thousands of refugees from Gaza, where anti-Semitic views are rampant. Labor refuses to expel Iran’s ambassador despite his history of inciting anti-Semitic hatred.
Even with these new laws, there won’t be a crackdown on extremist mosques. Ironically, it’s possible someone even raising these concerns may be prosecuted instead.
Governments prefer passing laws to tackling uncomfortable conversations about immigration and multiculturalism or making diplomatically sensitive decisions.
We’ve seen this before. In recent years, Australian governments have passed laws banning Nazi symbols and salutes, touting them as proof they take anti-Semitism seriously. The problem? There’s no evidence these laws work; I am unaware of any instance where banning symbols has reduced anti-Semitism.
Nazi symbols have become more prevalent since the bans. Laws can backfire.
Criminalising speech rarely increases admiration for protected groups. Already, in dark corners of the internet, Jews are blamed for restricting free speech and even accused of orchestrating anti-Semitic attacks to justify these laws. These laws restrict rights and may fuel backlash but won’t curb anti-Jewish attacks.
Many suspects charged in recent attacks have lengthy criminal and drug histories but no record of anti-Semitism or hate speech. The attacks themselves are unprofessional, targeting the wrong places or featuring misspelled graffiti. Some offenders seem to be acting on orders from organised crime gangs or foreign actors, neither of whom will be deterred by hate speech laws.
The world is dividing into two camps. Many European nations are imposing draconian speech restrictions, inching closer to the autocracies they claim to oppose.
British authorities arrest hundreds over social media posts and memes.
Conversely, the Trump administration has prioritised free speech, as European leaders rebuked by Vice-President JD Vance recently discovered. Australia may face scrutiny next. In 2024, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner drew billionaire Elon Musk’s ire after attempting to censor the internet globally.
When Peter Dutton opposed and ultimately killed Labor’s “misinformation” laws in 2024, he tapped into strong public sentiment against censorship. On hate speech, however, the Coalition is more timid, likely out of a genuine but mistaken desire to curb anti-Semitism. Voters will reward parties that stand up for free speech.
Jewish leaders should remember the law of unintended consequences. Jews were instrumental in the creation of international law infrastructure, only to see it co-opted to persecute the Jewish state and issue an arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister. Jewish history shows how censorship can suppress Jewish ideas such as Zionism, as in the Soviet Union.
Locally, bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission have been useless on anti-Semitism, while claims of vilification have been used to refuse a visa to Israel’s former foreign minister and hound senator Pauline Hanson.
Criminalising speech is a slippery slope and it is only a matter of time before these laws are used far beyond their original intent.
Robert Gregory is chief executive of the Australian Jewish Association.
How to treat the next pandemic: apply trust
We will have no excuse not to be prepared for the next global health emergency. And yet, five years after it was declared a pandemic, there is no surety that we have learned the lessons of Covid-19.
Politician’s spendathon takes voters for mugs
Very little attention is now paid to the trade-offs inherent in government spending. If it looks like a political winner, this is generally considered to provide a green light to proceed.
In February there was a flurry of “hate crime” legislation rushed through the federal, NSW and Victorian parliaments.