The legislation involved
The reforms originated as a single legislative package and were later split into separate Bills:
How laws are normally made
Major legislation that affects rights and criminal penalties is usually developed through an open process. This typically includes the release of draft legislation, public submissions, expert evidence, committee scrutiny and sufficient time for the Senate — including the crossbench — to examine and amend the text.
This process exists to ensure laws are clear, necessary and proportionate before they are locked in.
What happened in this case
In this instance, the final form of the Bills was settled through closed-door negotiations. The public did not have an opportunity to comment on the final versions before they were passed (and MPs received the final version the morning of Parliamentary debate).
There was limited time for independent legal experts, civil liberties organisations and affected communities to assess the final wording, and limited opportunity for Senate crossbenchers to scrutinise or amend the legislation.
A note on evidence, timing and public input
The government has announced a Royal Commission in relation to extremism and related issues. However, at the time these Bills were debated and passed, that Royal Commission had not even commenced. No hearings had been held, no evidence had been tested, and no findings or recommendations existed.
As a result, the Royal Commission could not have informed the drafting of the legislation, nor could it have informed Members of Parliament when they voted.
Similarly, while a public submission process was opened for earlier drafts, very few submissions have still been published, and the final form of the legislation was settled after closed-door negotiations. This means the public, experts and affected communities had limited visibility into how concerns were addressed, or whether they were addressed at all.
This raises legitimate questions about whether the legislation was evidence-led, and whether Parliament had the benefit of full public and expert input before making decisions with long-term consequences.
Legislative timeline
→ Exposure draft released (13 January, 2026)
→ Initial commentary and concern
→ Legislation split into separate Bills
→ Closed-door negotiations between major parties
→ Limited Senate scrutiny
→ Final Bills presented to Parliament and passed by Parliament (20 January, 2026)
Why were the Bills split?
The original package combined hate and extremism provisions with firearms restrictions and a gun buyback scheme. During negotiations, the package was split into separate Bills.
In practice, this allowed Anthony Albanese to garner support from wherever he could:
The Greens agreed to support the firearms and gun buyback Bill.
The Coalition agreed to support the hate and extremism Bill, subject to amendments.
Splitting the Bills made passage possible by assembling different majorities. However, it also fragmented scrutiny and made it harder for the public to assess the combined impact of the reforms as a whole.
What was removed from earlier drafts
Some of the most far-reaching proposals in early drafts did not proceed. These included:
- A standalone federal racial vilification offence that would have criminalised a broad range of speech.
- A general hate-speech offence not clearly tied to violence or extremist organisations.
- Proposed expansion of criminal hate provisions to additional protected attributes.
The removal of these provisions has been cited as evidence that the final law does not affect free speech. That conclusion overlooks what remains.
A note on the removal and relocation of the “fear” threshold
During negotiations, Labor and the Coalition agreed to remove references to “fear” from the most explicit hate-speech provisions that appeared in earlier drafts of the legislation. This change has been cited as evidence that free-speech concerns were addressed.
However, the concept of fear was not removed from the legislation entirely. Instead, it continues to appear within the criminal offence framework, particularly in relation to intimidation, threats and extremist-related conduct.
As a result, “fear” remains relevant to how offences are assessed and enforced, even if it no longer appears in the most overt hate-speech formulations. For ordinary Australians, this distinction is not always clear in practice, and the underlying concern about subjective thresholds and self-censorship remains.
What is still in the law
Even after amendments, the legislation that passed Parliament:
- introduces new criminal offences connected to speech, symbols and online expression
- relies on subjective concepts such as fear and intimidation
- defines public place broadly to include online spaces
- includes exemptions for religious preaching, but not for political, cultural or social commentary
The laws are not limited to particular ideologies or groups. They apply based on how conduct and expression are interpreted.
Why this matters for ordinary Australians
Extremist groups are not the people most affected by laws of this kind. They already operate anonymously, offshore, or outside mainstream platforms, and often disregard legal consequences.
The people most likely to change their behaviour are ordinary Australians — journalists, teachers, parents, professionals, community members and everyday social media users — who may decide not to speak on controversial issues because the boundaries are unclear and the consequences are criminal.
This dynamic is commonly referred to as a chilling effect: speech is not formally banned, but people self-censor to avoid risk.
Executive power to designate and ban groups
The legislation also expands the government’s power to designate and ban groups & organisations it deems a threat. Once a group is designated, membership, support or association can attract criminal penalties. This designation is made by the executive, not by a court at the outset, and takes effect immediately. While supporters argue this allows faster action against violent extremist groups, legal and human-rights bodies warn that the criteria are broad, association offences can capture non-violent conduct, and such powers have historically expanded beyond their original targets. The concern is not about protecting violent groups, but about ensuring extraordinary powers are tightly defined, transparent, and properly constrained.
Existing powers already in place
Australia already had laws allowing organisations to be banned if they advocate or incite violence. Existing immigration and security laws also allow visas to be refused or cancelled, and individuals to be excluded on character or security grounds.
These powers existed before this legislation. Critics argue that expanding domestic speech regulation was not the only, or necessarily the best, option available.
How the Senate voted on each Bill
Senators who voted YES to the Hate and Extremism Bill
Labor (28) Liberal Party (Askew, Chandler, Colbeck, Duniam, McLachlan, Paterson, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Smith)
Gratitude to these Senators who voted NO to the Hate and Extremism Bill
Australian Greens (10); Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (Bell, Roberts, Whitten); Independents (David Pocock, Tyrrell); Australia’s Voice (Payman); Liberal Party (Antic); United Australia Party (Babet); The Nationals (Cadell, Canavan, McDonald, McKenzie)
Senators who voted YES to the Firearms/Gun Buyback Bill
Labor (25) Australian Greens (Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, Barbara Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters, Whish-Wilson); Independents (Pocock, Tyrrell); Australia’s Voice (Payman)
Gratitude to these Senators who voted NO to the Firearms/Gun Buyback Bill
Liberal Party (Antic, Askew, Blyth, Brockman, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Collins, Duniam, Liddle, McGrath, McLachlan, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Ruston, Scarr, Smith); The Nationals (Cadell, Canavan, McDonald, McKenzie); Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (Bell, Roberts, Whitten); Country Liberal Party (Nampijinpa Price); United Australia Party (Babet)
These laws are now passed, but they are not settled or beyond challenge — as demonstrated today by the Queensland Premier’s refusal to participate in the national gun buyback scheme. We believe this legislation is flawed — in its scope, its process, and its implications for free expression and democratic participation — and Australians should not accept it quietly. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people, not to shield rushed decisions from scrutiny. We urge you to contact your Senators and MPs, ask how they justified supporting legislation negotiated behind closed doors, and clearly state your concerns about the long-term impact on free speech, accountability and civic life. Where representatives opposed these measures or raised concerns, it is equally important to acknowledge and thank them for doing so. Ongoing public pressure and direct engagement are among the few tools citizens have once laws are enacted — and they matter now more than ever.
