Parliament has been recalled to debate the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 next week.
Emeritus Professor Patrick Parkinson has written a submission to the current inquiry into the Albanese Government’s proposed law responding to the Bondi massacre, in “general support” of the bill. Parkinson is the author of the recently published Unshaken Allegiance: Living wisely as Christians with diminishing religious freedoms (Matthias Media, 2025).
“I support the religious freedom exemptions contained in this Bill, which I consider necessary and appropriate,” Parkinson writes. “While there has been some criticism of these clauses since the Bill was introduced, there is in reality, only one new religious exemption, and it is very narrowly drafted.”
Parkins supports the provisions that define hate groups. narrowly, to groups advocating hate on the basis of race, or national or ethnic origin. “Any extension beyond the narrow confines of this provision as it stands in the Exposure Draft could lead to a range of problems and undermine social cohesion. This is because the term ‘hate group’ has been given a very broad interpretation by activists in other countries, and has been weaponised against respectable organisations on the basis only of their opinions on contested issues. We do not want to see this happening in Australia.”
Similarly, Parkinson supports a narrow, carefully drafted definition of hate speech. “The new provision on hate speech must be narrowly and carefully drafted and confined to promoting or inciting hatred of another person or a group of persons because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The term ‘hate speech’ has come to be used in a very broad way to attack ideas that someone hates, however reasonably expressed. It is important, therefore, that any legislation concerning hate speech is drafted in such a way as to avoid misuse.”
He would like to see a small change to a provision (s.80.2BF) on intimidatory conduct that “‘makes it an element of the offence that the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, or a member of the target group, to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.’
“What is the difference, if any, between fearing violence and fearing for one’s safety? It would be clearer if the clause said ‘to be intimidated, to fear harassment, or to fear for their physical safety’.
“I have added the word ‘physical’ here to avoid drift in the meaning of the term to encompass an idea such as ‘psychological safety’ which is a vague and uncertain term.”
Quoting from a religious text
A controversial provision of the bill provides an exemption from a charge of hate speech if an accused person is directly quoting from a religious text or referencing that text.
Parkinson argues that the exemption should remain.
“This is reasonable not only on general grounds of not wanting to constrain appropriate religious education, but also because no-one could reasonably be intimidated, fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety, by reason only of quoting a religious text. Even if a religious text, for example, seems to advocate violence against members of a particular religious or ethnic minority, the question arises as to the interpretation of that text in modern circumstances. So it is the preacher’s commentary on such a text that could lead someone to fear for their safety. Were it to cause such fear, then it may well be that a prosecution could be brought under the new s.80.2.DA, for which there is no religious exemption.”
Bishop Michael Stead says the Bill needs futher scrutiny
Bishop Stead’s opening statement to the inquiry:
“I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear, but I’d like to register at the outset my
grave concerns about the rapidity of this process. The bill—144 pages—and the explanatory memorandum—319—were only received yesterday morning, and it is unreasonable to expect any adequate analysis of the bill in the space of a bit over a day, let alone written submissions by 4 pm tomorrow. I’m going to be arguing that the committee ought to recommend to the government that the bill needs further scrutiny and therefore can’t be voted on next week.
The bill raises very serious concerns. To list just three: there are multiple competing definitions of what
constitutes hate, a hate crime and hate motivation. There is retrospective hate crime in relation to prohibited hate groups, and there are overly broad ministerial powers in relation to those groups, overriding the normal requirements for procedural fairness. But the thing that really concerns me most about the bill is the new offence of publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred in section 80.2BF.”
[80.2BF. is on page 26 of the exposure draft og the bill https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026.pdf]
“Section 80.2BF seeks to criminalise speech that is neither violent nor extreme. It sets the bar way too low for any offence that could result in five years imprisonment, with a high degree of uncertainty. Whether an act is criminal or not depends on the inferred response of a reasonable member of a target group. If my conduct would make a reasonable member of a target group apprehensive of facing harassment, then I am within the scope of 80.2BF. I think that it is extraordinary that we would consider a five-year criminal prohibition on that. This is an unwarranted limitation of freedom of thought, conscience and belief and also of freedom of expression, and those issues are simply not adequately covered in the explanatory memorandum. What it says about those sections, actually, is a joke—except it’s not funny.
“It’s worth noting that a similar proposal for a serious vilification offence has already been considered by the federal government, and it was rejected for that very reason. It was rejected by almost all of the faith groups who were consulted. The original draft of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 did have a section that proposed serious vilification—inciting or promoting serious vilification. In June 2024, a diverse group of faith leaders wrote to the Attorney-General expressing our grave concerns about that, and it was pulled for that reason. Now, in the space of two days—in fact, if anything—a much worse version of this provision is being put up without any significant discussion or clarification.
“I also note that Ms Spender, the member for Wentworth, has put up amendments to introduce the same kind of serious vilification offence in February of 2025. At the time, that was rejected by both the government and the opposition. Now, less than 12 months later, without any indication that, suddenly, the freedom of religion concerns expressed then have been dealt with, this is now being rushed through the parliament. I would advise the committee to urge the government to delay—to give time for proper consideration—or to excise section 80.2BF from the bill, if it is to proceed at haste. Thank you.”
Stead: We should not ban quoting religious texts
Bishop Stead was asked by Senator Duniam if the Bill’s exemption for quoting a religious text should be maintained.
“I’d like to argue that it is absolutely essential to maintain the religious text exemption and, in fact, that the present form of it isn’t sufficient. That comment stands with the bill in its present form, and it’s magnified if the bill were to include other protected attributes. But even in its present form—well, let me state the obvious. I think the desire to remove the clause is because there is a concern about some passages in the Koran that are understood to be denigrating of Jews or antisemitic.
“It sounds noble to have a law that says we’re going to ban antisemitism in scriptures, but I think we need to be aware that that won’t just ban the Koran; it will ban, for example, quite a bit of the New Testament. Lillian Freudmann, in her book, Antisemitism in the New Testament—it kind of tells you from the title—argues that Jesus’s words about the Jews in John 8:44, ‘You are the devil,’ in her
words: … make antisemitism respectable and encourage aggression against Jews. With “inspiration” like this, pious churchgoers have considered it acceptable at a minimum, and perhaps even their Christian duty, to join in massive attacks on Jews.
“There is an argument that John’s gospel is antisemitic. I’m a theologian, and I’m not conceding that point; I don’t believe it is antisemitic. But the point is that there is an influential scholar who could invoke section 80.2BF on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of fear that people are going to ‘join in massive attacks on Jews’.
“As soon as you say there are passages in the Koran that are denigrating of the Jewish people, a similar charge could be levelled against the scriptures. In fact, to be just a little bit facetious, I’m an Old Testament scholar and I would say the same thing; a lot of the Old Testament is actually antisemitic. Ezekiel 34 is a scathing critique of the leaders of Israel.
“So if we’re going to ban all things which are critical of Jewish people or people on the basis of race, we are going to be banning a whole lot of scriptures. As I said, that is magnified if you were expand to other protected attributes, which is not presently in the bill, but it has been flagged. It seems that there is every likelihood that this will become a stepping stone to expanding this out, and the bill will step up.
The religious text exemption becomes even more necessary on two different fronts. One is because of the exclusive truth claims of one religion against another. In the UK, where they have similar provisions, you end up going to court because Muslims are offended about what Christians say about the prophet and Muhammad, and
vice versa.
“By their very nature, religions make truth claims about superiority. I believe that Christianity is superior to Judaism. I don’t believe that Christians are superior to Jews, but I believe that Jesus is the way to
heaven. Let me put it out there. If that’s going to end me subject to a five-year criminal sanction, there is a real problem with this law from those competing truth claims, as well as the statements that religions make about sexuality and gender, where those things cause offence, where those things might lead someone to fear harassment or fear violence. Again, that comes within the ambit of the clause if it’s not limited to racial hatred.”
Stead: Bible study leaders could be included in the bill’s definition of religious leaders
Dr Gordon Reid MP ALP NSW aked Stead: “Thank you for your attendance at this committee hearing today. I’m just going to jump straight in; I do apologise. This is a question open to the entirety of the panel. Are there any concerns that you’d like to make note of with the aggravated sentences for religious and other leaders?”
Stead “It all turns on what we understand to be ‘hate crimes’. If what we’re talking about as ‘hate
crimes’ remains constrained to what’s presently in sections 80.2BA(2), 80.2BB(2)—you know the ones I’m talking about—and the offence we’re talking about is force or violence or advocating force or violence, then those things are already crimes. I struggle to see why they’re worse crimes if they’re committed by a person who is doing religious teaching. The ‘religious leader’ definition there is so wide that it would capture most of the people who are doing anything in a church. If these things are a crime, you just bump up the sentence, which you’ve already done. I can’t see that it needs further for the aggravation factor.”
Dr Reid: “Part of the question I’m indirectly asking is if you think leaders in positions of influence have a
greater degree of culpability, which should be reflected in any sentencing.
Stead: “Yes, leaders do. But the definition of leader there is so wide that it will include somebody who runs a midweek Bible study group. It probably, in any context, could include half of your congregation if you include people who lead a Bible study or who lead Sunday school. The definition is so wide. I’m okay with the idea that you apply a higher standard to me, as somebody who is theologically trained and in a position of leadership. If it were limited to people who are congregational leaders, I could see the warrant for that. But what we describe as people in leadership in Christian circles encompasses people who are not theologically trained. Therefore, we are putting a degree of culpability upon them which isn’t commensurate with their understanding.”
Submissions to the inquiry into the Bill can be read here.
Image: Banksy. Image Credit: Banksy Instagram