Submissions shared with me as well as my own Submission-Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026

Thank you to those who have already shared their submissions. When you write in, if you feel so inclined, do consider sharing it with me at this email address. As you can see, it should not take a long time to write but it IS very important to do so! You can make your submission here - pjcis@aph.gov.au

Submissions against: Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026

To whom it may concern

I am a concerned citizen and a Christian. I am pleased that the government wants to tackle extremism, which of course led to the awful tragedy at Bondi were radical Muslims killed many innocent victims.

My concern with this Bill is twofold. Firstly it is rushed and this always leads to unintended consequences and secondly that it opposes free speech which is the bedrock of any genuine democracy.

I believe Australia already has laws against violence, incitement to violence and genuine threats. Violent behaviour should not be tolerated. This Bill seems to target any speech the government doesn’t approve of instead of facing the very real threat of radical Islam, this Bill is going to bring harm to patriotic Australians who may want to call this out. Vague language and unclear definitions may lead to selective enforcement. This Bill may stifle debate, which cannot be allowed to happen! Laws need to target behaviour, not opinion!

I kindly request that you delay this Bill to allow for broader consideration and consultation because this Bill deserves more scrutiny.

I kindly request that you narrow definitions to target direct threats and criminal conduct.

I kindly request that you strengthen safeguards for lawful speech, including political and religious expression.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my views.

XXXXXXXXXXX

Townsville

Submission to the Roundtable - Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026

I am writing as a concerned Australian Citizen against the coming co-called “Hate Laws” that are currently being proposed by the Australian Labor Government.

It is difficult to see why these new, intimidating laws are required when there are existing laws already for behaviours such as incitement to violence, harassment, when threats are made and for criminal extremist activity. I totally abhor violence and intimidation and especially when genuine threats are made.

There are a number of issues which I consider are of concern. These are the “hate speech” definitions which are vague. Broad language runs the risk of criminalising lawful speech, for example. Unless the language used in the definitions are clear, these may lead to selective or inconsistent enforcement. They generate fear that lawful criticism, debate, satire, religious expression or political speech could cause unintended consequences, and especially generate a constant fear of prosecution – which has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, which Australia currently enjoys.

We need robust debate – it is essential in a democracy. Laws should target conduct, not opinion. Surely free speech protections exist to defend unpopular or minority views and not just the popular ones. How can this be part of our democracy? Further, once expanded, speech laws are rarely rolled back and may (hopefully not) be widened further over time, and that would be a disgrace.

A further concern is that the legislation is being fast-tracked and so there has been limited time allowing for public consultation. Complex laws require careful drafting, scrutiny and amendment because rushed legislation risks unintended consequences.

With the above statements in mind, I respectfully ask the Committee to delay passage of the legislation to allow broader consultations. Further time is also required to narrow the definitions to focus on direct threats and criminal conduct, not the normal speech of the average law-abiding Australians who could certainly do without the fear this legislation will certainly generate. Lawful speech must have strong safeguards allowing for clearly protected political, journalistic, religious, academic and artistic expression!

In closing, I respectfully ask the Committee to take the above concerns into account, and I thank you for considering my views.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

West Australia

Dear Members of the Committee,

I am writing as a concerned Australian citizen who values both community safety and the democratic principles that underpin our society. This proposed legislation matters to me because it touches directly on freedom of expression, public debate, and the ability of ordinary Australians to speak openly without fear of unintended legal consequences.

I wish to state clearly that I oppose violence, intimidation, harassment, and genuine threats of harm. I recognise that Australia already has laws addressing incitement to violence, criminal threats, harassment, and extremist activity, and I fully support the enforcement of those laws to protect individuals and communities.

My concern lies with the proposed expansion of “hate speech” definitions. Broad or vague language risks criminalising lawful speech and may lead to inconsistent or selective enforcement. There is a real danger that legitimate criticism, political debate, satire, religious expression, or academic and journalistic commentary could be chilled, causing people to self-censor out of uncertainty or fear of prosecution.

Robust and open debate is essential to a healthy democracy. Laws should focus on harmful conduct rather than opinions or beliefs, particularly as free speech protections exist to safeguard unpopular or minority views as much as popular ones. Once speech laws are expanded, they are rarely rolled back and may be broadened further over time, with long-term consequences for democratic norms.

I am also concerned about the speed at which this legislation appears to be progressing, with limited opportunity for public consultation and scrutiny. I respectfully ask the Committee to consider delaying passage to allow broader consultation, narrowing definitions to focus on direct threats and criminal conduct, and strengthening safeguards that clearly protect lawful political, journalistic, religious, academic, and artistic expression.

Thank you for considering my views, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this submission.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern,

As a 72 years young pensioner and concerned private citizen, who is coincidentally Jewish, I am writing in haste (because it appears the new hate laws are being rushed through before most average Australians have woken up to what’s in the pipeline), to express my dismay at what is being proposed.

Many of my relatives lived through Nazi oppression in Europe and experienced censorship and literal book burning before the Second World War came to an end, and I fear similar parallels are not far off as I read through the intended legislation.

My concern is that this is a knee jerk reaction to the Bondi murders and is a case of deflection rather than considered efficacy. Of course I was appalled by the events in Sydney and oppose any form of violence or intimidation…. I even read recently that a famous TV chef has had to close his profitable bakery in Sydney due to threats and fears for his family’s safety but please tell me how the new laws will make citizens feel safer? All I can see is that people who came to Australia to enjoy freedom including freedom of speech will no longer enjoy that luxury and be fearful to express any point of view that dares to ask questions. Robust debate is essential in a democracy and a big part of what has made Australia great over the years.

I am also concerned that this legislation is being fast tracked with limited time for public consultation, let alone parliamentary debate, and that this rushed bill requires much deeper scrutiny and amendment.

I respectfully ask the committee to delay the passage of the legislation to allow for broader consultation and to take these concerns into account.

Thank you for considering my views.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern:

My name is Meryl Dorey and I am a dual Australian and US Citizen, living in Australia for nearly 38 years.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 legislation.

As an American citizen, I was raised to understand, value and cherish the right of Freedom of Speech whose protection was enshrined in the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment to the Constitution. That’s how vital the Founders considered this freedom to be - they made it the very first amendment. Without the freedom of expression, debate and thought, a society descends into tyranny very quickly.

I fear this is the path Australia is heading down.

Even though we do not have a Bill or Statement of Rights in Australia - a shameful omission in my opinion - there have been at least 2 High Court decisions that have enshrined the absolute right to freedom of political speech and expression.

This rushed legislation does not seem to have considered legal precedent and, as a result, can probably be overturned relatively easily. However, the fact that it is even being considered is a testament to the rushed nature of this Bill and the pressure being exerted on Parliament to pass it without proper debate and time taken to look at the many issues raised by any legislation that tries to restrict personal freedom.

I would like it understood clearly that I, as a Jewish person and human being, absolutely abhor what took place at Bondi Beach. I mourn for those innocents who were killed and for those who were injured as well. The entire Australian community was harmed that day - not just those at one of our most beautiful beaches who were celebrating a religious festival.

Speech did not kill those people. Speech did not shoot them. Radicalised Muslims were responsible and we already have laws that should have protected these people. The problem is that the laws already on the books in Australia have not been enforced, and Islamic extremism has been allowed to flourish in our wonderful country.

Instead of looking at the failures of our government when it comes to protecting the lives and freedoms of law-abiding Australians, this legislation appears to be concerned only with criminalising those who question why it happened and who is actually responsible. History has clearly shown that government who use censorship to protect themselves are never on the right side.

If this legislation passes - and it is indeed retroactive as I interpret it to be - then just my stating that Islamic extremists were responsible for this massacre - a fact borne out by the evidence - could see me jailed for 5 years. A ridiculous and unjust outcome indeed!

We don’t need new laws - especially not such draconian laws that will have a negative influence on the day-to-day lives of everyday Australians. What we need is a government that is open to examining problems without fear or favour, and that will enforce the laws we actually already have on the books.

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey