Overview of ABC News Daily — "Was the doomed hate speech law really that bad?"
This episode examines the federal and New South Wales responses to the Bondi attack, focusing on proposed hate‑speech laws, new anti‑protest measures and political fallout after the Prime Minister abandoned a proposed racial vilification offence. Professor Kath Gelber (University of Queensland), an expert on regulating hate speech, explains what was in the now‑withdrawn federal provisions, why parts were controversial, how context matters in hate‑speech policing, and what narrowly targeted reform might look like.
Key topics discussed
- NSW government responses after the Bondi attack: new anti‑protest powers, moves to ban certain slogans and actions against so‑called “hate preachers.”
- The federal package originally proposed by Labor: criminal offences targeting hate groups and a broad racial vilification offence that included the word “promote.”
- Legal and constitutional issues: implied freedom of political communication, the importance of context in assessing slogans and symbols, and risks of overly broad criminalisation.
- Political dynamics: backlash from Greens and opposition figures, divisions within the Coalition, and the Prime Minister’s eventual decision to remove the racial vilification offence from the federal bill.
What was in the federal bill (as proposed)
- A new criminal prohibition on “hate groups” that promote a hate‑based ideology linked to violence.
- Gelber: principle is defensible, but the definition of “hate group” and “advocating” was too broad and needed tightening.
- A new racial vilification offence criminalising the promotion or incitement of racial hatred (the added word “promote” broadened the scope).
- Required intent, and that conduct cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to feel intimidated, fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety.
- Also covered dissemination of ideas of superiority or hatred toward a protected group.
- Concerns that the formulation pushed the boundaries of Australia’s constitutional implied freedom of political communication.
NSW measures and problems with blanket bans on slogans
- NSW anti‑protest laws: do not outright ban rallies but can deny authorisation and allow police to order participants to move on (failure to comply can result in arrest).
- Concern: laws may not adequately distinguish peaceful civil protest from violent activity; risk of chilling lawful protest.
- Attempts to ban slogans (e.g., “globalise the Intifada,” “from the river to the sea”):
- Gelber’s point: such phrases have contested meanings depending on context; they can be used both as calls to violence and as expressions of solidarity or human‑rights advocacy.
- Blanket bans oversimplify complex meanings and risk constitutional invalidity or misapplication—Australia already treats Nazi symbols as an exception, but extending that approach is legally fraught.
Political reaction and outcome
- Broad criticism from Greens and opposition figures (concerns both that the bill didn’t target radical Islam explicitly and that it overreached on free speech).
- Internal Coalition divisions — Nationals opposed gun buyback; some Liberals worried about free‑speech overreach.
- Prime Minister Anthony Albanese removed the proposed federal racial vilification offence after it lacked parliamentary support; gun laws to be handled in a separate bill.
Professor Kath Gelber’s main viewpoints and recommendations
- Support for narrow, well‑drafted laws that target extremist groups and genuinely incite violence; oppose overly broad criminal offences that sweep in political debate.
- Emphasis on context: meaning of slogans and symbols depends on who uses them, where and how—laws must reflect that complexity.
- Distinction between ethical standards for public debate and criminal standards: encourage political leadership to promote higher ethical norms in discourse rather than defaulting to criminalisation.
- Practical point: banning groups/symbols can drive extremists underground, but that is not, by itself, a reason not to legislate—intelligence and enforcement strategies need to adapt.
Notable quotes
- “Laws that try to oversimplify these kinds of complexities are likely to get it wrong.”
- “The standards of public debate are not the same as the standards we require for criminality.”
Bottom line / Takeaways
- There was legitimate public and political pressure to act after the Bondi attack, but crafting effective hate‑speech laws requires careful, narrow drafting to avoid unintended impacts on political expression and to withstand constitutional challenge.
- Targeted measures against extremist organisations and genuinely inciting conduct are broadly justifiable; broad criminalisation of promoted ideas or contested slogans risks chilling lawful protest and political speech.
- Non‑legal leadership—raising ethical standards in public debate and encouraging context‑sensitive responses—was recommended as a complementary approach to any legislative reform.
Who is the guest
- Professor Kath Gelber — Deputy Executive Dean and Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, University of Queensland; specialist in law and regulation of hate speech.