Australia: A Case Study On Hate Speech And A Worrying Global Trend

DAILY DEEP DIVE

Australia: A Case Study on Hate Speech And a Worrying Global Trend

Australian hate speech laws have now come into full effect, a little over a month after the Bondi terrorist attack that killed 16 people. Today, we’ll provide context on what both the new gun laws and hate speech laws are focused on. But I also want to express concerns about these measures and the short-sightedness behind how such laws are often implemented.

Australia’s new federal hate group laws, passed on 20 January 2026, significantly expand the government’s powers to designate and criminalise organisations deemed to promote hatred or violence. Introduced following the Bondi attack, the legislation was supported by Labor and the Liberals, while the Greens, Nationals and One Nation opposed it over civil liberties concerns.

The laws do not criminalise general hate speech. Instead, they establish a formal framework for listing “prohibited hate groups.” A group can be listed if it has engaged in, planned, assisted, or advocated conduct defined as a hate crime. Hate crimes are broadly defined and include actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated, fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety, based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin.

Crucially, a group can be listed without any member being convicted of a crime. The Home Affairs Minister may recommend a listing based on advice from the ASIO Director-General, with final approval by the Attorney-General and Governor-General. The process does not require procedural fairness, meaning affected groups are not entitled to prior notice, hearings, or an opportunity to respond before designation.

Once listed, serious criminal offences apply. Membership carries penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment, while directing, recruiting for, funding, training, or supporting a prohibited group can carry sentences of up to 15 years. These provisions closely mirror Australia’s existing terrorism organisation laws.

The government argues the laws are aimed at groups such as neo-Nazi organisations and extremist Islamist movements that previously fell below criminal thresholds. Critics, including legal scholars and civil liberties groups, warn the breadth of definitions and absence of judicial safeguards could allow future governments to target protest movements or politically contentious organisations.

In practice, the legislation concentrates substantial discretionary power within the executive, with limited oversight until after enforcement actions occur. How narrowly or expansively these powers are used will depend heavily on future political and security judgments.

Australia’s new gun law bill tightens access rather than overhauling the firearms system. It strengthens background checks, expands police powers to suspend or cancel licences on public safety grounds, and improves information-sharing between agencies. Penalties for illegal possession and trafficking are increased, and storage and transport exemptions narrowed. The government says the reforms close gaps exposed by recent incidents, while critics argue they expand discretionary powers without clear evidence the changes would have prevented the attack.

An Opinion At its core, the problem with the term “hate speech” is that it functions as a catch-all rather than a precise concept. When the phrase entered mainstream political discourse in North America over a decade ago, it was primarily used against right-wing figures and movements. By 2025, it had been deployed against the left following the Kirk assassination. This shift is not accidental. It reflects the inherent ambiguity of a term that is difficult to define objectively and often depends on perceived harm rather than clearly bounded conduct.

Because “hate speech” lacks a fixed definition, almost any form of expression can be framed as such under the right political conditions. This creates a structural vulnerability: laws designed to protect one group today can be repurposed against another tomorrow. Political power changes hands, but the legal tools remain.

This is why hate speech and surveillance laws are rarely opposed in principle by opposition parties. Despite public rhetoric, these measures are often bipartisan. From a realist perspective, the explanation is straightforward. Governments, regardless of ideology, have a natural incentive to reduce dissent, manage instability, and maintain social control. Legal frameworks that expand state discretion over speech serve that purpose.

Once established, such laws rarely shrink. Instead, they persist as instruments of authority, justified by shifting threats and moral narratives, but ultimately aligned with the enduring interests of the state rather than any single political faction.

Another point worth noting is the speed at which these laws were introduced. The knee-jerk nature of the response is telling: measures with long-term consequences for civil liberties and social norms were drafted, debated, and passed in under a month. For legislation of this magnitude, affecting speech, association, and state power, that pace is extraordinary. It is reasonable to ask whether there was sufficient time for public consultation, legal scrutiny, and sober assessment of unintended consequences, or whether urgency and political pressure simply overrode caution.

A Worrying Global Trend As the old world order continues to fracture and we slide back toward an era of spheres of influence reminiscent of the 19th century, another trend is re-emerging alongside it. Civil liberties across the West are being steadily reduced. And this is not limited to the West alone — many middle powers and great powers are moving in the same direction. But I specifically want to highlight liberal democracies. They are increasingly recognising how vulnerable mass opinion has become — to external influence, information warfare, and internal fragmentation — and are responding not by strengthening public trust, but by attempting to control narratives through law, regulation, and enforcement.

To me, this signals increasingly turbulent times ahead. Historically, periods of crisis almost always lead to the erosion of civil liberties, justified in the name of national security and stability. As we move deeper into the 21st century, the opinions and political weight of the lower classes appear to be shrinking further. Political elites are increasingly open (through their actions, corruption, and brazenness) about how little these voices matter. In many ways, it feels less like progress and more like a return to the age of the plebs. Sources News/Journal sources available upon request, not shown to maintain visual integrity of page.