A prominent Australian Jewish organization has expressed significant reservations about proposed national security legislation, warning that critical flaws in the government’s approach could undermine the effectiveness of new hate speech laws. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), while acknowledging positive aspects of the Albanese government’s omnibus bill, identified several concerning shortcomings that might necessitate further legislative revisions within years.
The comprehensive legislation, developed in response to the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, seeks to overhaul multiple legal domains including hate speech protocols, immigration procedures, and firearms regulations. Key provisions would establish new offenses targeting individuals who radicalize children or incite racial hatred, alongside criminalizing membership in banned hate organizations. The bill additionally facilitates a nationally coordinated firearm buyback program and empowers states to restrict gun licenses exclusively to Australian citizens.
ECAJ co-chief executive Peter Wertheim presented testimony during emergency hearings, highlighting four primary deficiencies in the proposed serious vilification offense. Notably, the legislation fails to address hatred directed at individuals based on gender identity and sexual orientation, excludes recklessness as a prosecutable mental state, and incorporates problematic exemption clauses for religious teachings referencing sacred texts. Most concerning to Jewish representatives is the requirement that prosecutors demonstrate affected individuals would experience genuine fear for their safety—a significantly high evidentiary threshold.
Wertheim articulated strong opposition to the religious exemption provision, characterizing it as “misconceived and outdated.” He argued that recognized global religions universally disavow promoting racial hatred intentionally, though acknowledging that textual interpretations might occasionally be misappropriated for such purposes. The ECAJ cited their successful litigation against Sydney preacher Wissam Haddad as precedent demonstrating how such exemptions could potentially shield hate speech under the guise of religious instruction.
The organization further expressed concern that the religious defense might deter prosecutors from pursuing cases where defendants could simply claim textual quotation context. Regarding the controversial phrase “globalise the Intifada,” which some Jewish groups interpret as advocating violence against Jewish people, Wertheim advocated for its explicit prohibition under the new legislation. He noted the challenge of contextual understanding among Australia’s predominantly non-Jewish population and judicial system.
Government officials defended the religious exemption as intended to protect genuine religious discourse involving historical text quotation without additional inflammatory context. Attorney-General’s Department representatives emphasized the legislation examines conduct holistically rather than targeting specific phrases. Both Australian Federal Police and ASIO leadership acknowledged the bill’s potential to enhance community safety while recognizing the inherent challenges in predicting prosecutorial outcomes until judicial testing occurs.