Bondi still haunts us. In the wake of such horror, the instinct to act, swiftly, decisively, legislatively, is irresistible. Prime Minister Albanese’s move to recall parliament and rush through new hate speech laws is understandable. Yet in that haste, Labor risks undermining the very freedoms that have made Australia a beacon of pluralism and open discourse. One wonders, with a quiet apprehension, whether the law can ever distinguish between true threat and the mere discomfort of speech.
The proposed Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is ambitious in scope. It criminalises conduct that promotes hatred against individuals or groups based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, punishable by up to five years in prison. It allows for the formal proscription of organisations deemed “hate groups,” with leaders facing up to 15 years’ imprisonment.
At first glance, this legislation seems protective, even humane, aiming to shield marginalised communities from harassment, intimidation, and fear. Yet beneath its surface lies a troubling expansiveness: its language is imprecise, its reach profound.
Conduct definition
Conduct’ is not limited to speech. Gestures, symbols, clothing, flags, and emblems are all included. Whether the target belongs to the specified group is ‘immaterial.’ Liability rests on whether a ‘reasonable member’ of that group could feel intimidated, insulted, or humiliated. Courts are empowered to interpret criticism of ideas, ideologies, or even state policies as inherently hostile toward an ethnic or religious community. Reasonable criticism of Israeli foreign policy could be construed as anti-Jewish sentiment; analysis of radical interpretations of Islam could be deemed advocacy of hatred toward Muslims.
Religious texts beyond judicial scrutiny
Religious texts, meanwhile, remain beyond judicial scrutiny. Passages in the Quran or Hadith invoked by extremists, including those responsible for the Bondi attack, are untouched by the law. Most Muslims are never moved to violence by these texts, yet extremists are. And still, the law shields these sources of radical ideology while ordinary citizens risk prosecution simply for questioning, debating, or criticising them.
Australia already has robust laws punishing the incitement of violence. Criminalising ‘hatred’ itself is perilously vague, an invitation to overreach, a law too easily twisted to punish thought rather than action. Hatred cannot be legislated away. If we are to remain a truly progressive society, we must retain the courage to confront dangerous ideas openly. Only in the fearless exchange of thought, in the trial of ideas against reason and debate, do our convictions prove their worth.
The draft legislation places enormous discretionary power in the hands of courts, creating a landscape where ordinary political, social, or religious commentary could be deemed criminal. Bondi was a tragedy, but it was not a failure of statutory imagination: individuals capable of extreme violence will not be restrained simply by broader definitions of hate speech.
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech was long the clarion call of progressive movements. Labour organisers, suffragists, anti-war protestors, and civil libertarians defended the right to speak, even for ideas they found abhorrent, recognising that democracy is forged in the clash of perspectives. Speech, no matter how offensive, is never a legitimate ground for imprisonment. This is not a partisan principle, it is the architecture of liberal society itself. To abandon it in pursuit of social cohesion is to betray both pluralism and justice.
The United Kingdom offers a stark warning. Every year, thousands are arrested for ‘offensive’ online posts, a reminder that the law can be wielded against ordinary citizens as easily as against extremists. Attempts to control discourse often inflame the very resentment they aim to suppress. Populists step into the breach. Nigel Farage in the UK. Pauline Hanson in Australia. Once marginal, they have surged by channeling public frustration, fueled by perceptions socially destabilising mass immigration and overreach of government censorship and control. The political left need not surrender this ground, yet as long as freedoms are curtailed and immigration is poorly managed, these movements will find fertile soil to grow.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism cannot rest on the suppression of speech. Genuine social harmony arises through open debate, education, and the patient cultivation of civic virtue, not the coercive hand of law. Hatred and bigotry are best confronted where they can be exposed, reasoned, and challenged, alongside an immigration policy attentive to the values newcomers bring.
Bondi demands a response, but not simplification. Rushing to criminalise ideas, symbols, or gestures in the hope of preventing violence is sympathetic, human, but ultimately naive. Radical ideology is never defeated by law alone; it is confronted, dissected, and rendered powerless through reasoned debate, education, and public scrutiny.
Successful multiculturalism and liberty are inseparable. A society as diverse as ours can only flourish when its beliefs, practices, and traditions are open to examination and challenge. Only in the light of free debate can we forge a unifying Australian culture that blends the best values of every community, while confronting regressive ideas or practices that threaten equality, human rights, and the freedom of all to live without fear.
Albanese should pause and listen. A free Australia meets hatred with words, not chains; with conscience and conversation, not coercion. Bondi whispers a harder truth: it is courage, shown by ordinary people on that tragic day, that alone preserved the soul of our nation, not statutes, not speeches, and certainly not politicians who would try to police thought itself.
♦ Chaiy Donati holds degrees in Law and Political Science from the University of Queensland. He is President of the Mullumbimby Brunswick Valley ALP Branch.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
