In the wake of the Bondi terrorist attack, the Australian Government has announced its intention to introduce the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. The draft Bill consists of 144 pages, and the Explanatory Memorandum, which accompanies it, is 319 pages long, so condensing its contents into a few key paragraphs is somewhat challenging. Nevertheless, let’s address some key points and concerns. 

In summary, the Bill seeks to comprehensively bring reform to three key areas:

• further criminalise antisemitic, hateful, and extremist conduct, and ensure that those who seek to spread hate face penalties which reflect the seriousness of the conduct;
• introduce new powers to allow for the cancellation or refusal of visas for those who spread hate or division in Australia, or who may do so if granted an Australian visa; and
• establish the National Gun Buyback Scheme and introduce a range of firearms amendments relating to intelligence use for background checking, importing, and online material for the manufacture of firearms and explosives.

In speaking about the Bill, Prime Minister Albanese said, “The terrorists at Bondi Beach had hatred in their minds but guns in their hands. This law will deal with both, and we need to deal with both.”

In attempting to deal with hate offences, the new laws would apply broadly to speech, symbols, gestures, and online content which incites hatred towards a person or group of people because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The trouble is, Mr Albanese may be acting quickly, but many are concerned that he is not acting properly, particularly when it comes to ensuring the laws are appropriately designed and do not unfairly reduce freedom of speech.

One of the key areas of contention is the fact that the proposed Bill does not apply to conduct connected to somebody directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion. When asked why the Bill exempted religious texts, Mr Albanese told journalists that the proposed laws would apply a “principle-based test” for conduct and speech that incites racial hatred. In other words, there is a mechanism in the Bill which allows a “hate preacher” to defend themselves against prosecution if they are quoting from a recognised religious text.

The major problem is that the Bill does not define “religious text.” Presumably, that means that any false prophet could compile written notes and claim they constitute “religious texts,” thereby allowing them to carry on with their hate-filled rhetoric without fear of prosecution. This anomaly caught the attention of the Trump administration, with Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah B. Rogers, writing on X: “A statute that imprisons you for calling to deport jihadist extremists — but provides safe harbor if you are a jihadist extremist — would be deeply perverse. Let’s hope this isn’t what Australia intends.”

In attempting to clarify the exemption, the Prime Minister said, “We want to get the broadest possible support for this bill. I don’t know if you’ve read the Old Testament, but I refer you to that.” Since the statement made little sense to those present, the Prime Minister was again pressed to clarify the Bill’s position on the carve-out provisions. He responded by saying, “I just answered the question. I can answer it again by referring you to the Old Testament and to various religious texts. I encourage you to read the Old Testament and see what’s there and see if you outlaw that, what would occur. So, we need to be careful.” 

Although it is typically the case that only Anthony Albanese can truly interpret what Anthony Albanese says, he appears to be arguing that, were it not for the carve-out provisions, preaching from the Old Testament would immediately breach the new laws. So, in trying to heal the rift with the Jewish community, he actually ends up offending them (and Christians) by specifically pointing to the Tanakh and intimating that it is so contrary to acceptable public discourse that it would be banned if it were not for a supposedly benevolent government who allows it to be read and quoted from. 

Then there are others who, as usual, will use any occasion to accuse and criticise Israel.  You see, part of the Explanatory Memorandum says this: “Hate crime conduct, while violent and offensive, generally falls short of terrorism, and is distinct from genocide. As such, advocating terrorism and advocating genocide should not be captured in this framework and are best criminalised through existing frameworks within the Criminal Code.”

One Sydney lawyer who examined the Bill in detail wrote an extensive article asking why advocating genocide (which would generally qualify as hate speech) should be specifically excluded from the Bill. His conclusion? The Australian Government is protecting Israeli interests. He wrote: “Israel and several of its government’s leaders are under indictment for genocide. Pro-Israel lobby groups have spent the past three years monstering anyone who dares whisper that the country might be perpetrating a genocide while staunchly defending every genocidal step the Israeli state takes. It would perhaps be in their interest to not risk being labelled a hate group on the basis of advocating genocide.”

The enemies of Israel frequently issue calls for the annihilation and murder of Jews, yet they always seem to escape censure. In the modern day, it seems that the blame always lands back on Israel. As fellow Harbinger’s Daily contributor, Thomas Fretwell, said last year: “The charge of genocide against Israel is not merely a legal or political issue but a deeply moral one. It is rooted in a phenomenon known as Holocaust inversion—a distortion tactic that equates Israelis with Nazis, thereby perpetuating antisemitism and historical revisionism.” 

You see, the irony is that the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill will do little to address the root cause of antisemitism. Instead, as demonstrated, it has already led to people finding new and creative ways to demonise Israel. 

However this all unfolds, it is a solemn reminder that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). An evil heart produces evil results. Governments the world over may attempt to regulate hate speech, but the reality is that since man’s heart is deceitfully wicked, that remains the source of the problem. Whether or not these laws are required can and will be debated in Australia’s Parliament. What is not up for debate is the fact that there is only one true solution to this dilemma: Jesus Christ. After all, if you change a man’s heart, you will change his speech.

Dean Dwyer serves as a Senior Columnist at Harbinger’s Daily, where his thought-provoking articles engage a global audience of millions. With more than two decades of leadership as Pastor and President of Eiser Street Baptist Church in Toowoomba, Australia, Dwyer brings sophisticated Biblical discernment and analysis to examine world events and issues through the lens of God’s Word.