Predictions of dire outcomes have mushroomed across conservative websites, but a Christian expert on religious freedom says Christians have little to worry about.
For example, the Australian Family Coalition reports “Labor’s shocking ‘hate speech’ laws passed last week…
“Examples abound overseas of calls for churches and Christian organisations to be designated as “hate groups” because of their stance on man-woman marriage, or for defending biological reality.
“No one – not a single MP – can guarantee that our new laws are safe from abuse.
“There is nothing stopping a proposal that our own organisation, the Australian Family Coalition, be declared a ‘“’hate group’ – with all the attendant consequences.”
The Australian Family Coalition claims “The new [hate speech] laws give a frightening amount of power to the Federal Government, with many longstanding rights thrown out the window”.
This is one of a flood of commentarycastigating the liberal party and Andrew Hastie in particular for voting for the post-Bondi legislation that passed through parliament.
(Hastie, incidentally, has recently set out how he sees Christianity, and his upbringing in a Presbyterian manse influencing his politics in an insightful Substack post “The faith of our fathers and my hope for Australia” .)
Those pieces sighted by The other Cheek do not address the substance of the legislation to make a case for why Christians should fear the new laws.
But a detailed analysis by Associate Professor Neil Foster from the Newcastle Uni law school expresses a strong view that Christians have little to fear.
“Whenever there is a proposal to target ‘hate speech,’ there is always a potential danger that unpopular religious views will be caught up in the ban,” Foster writes. “However, it seems that the recently enacted changes will have little impact on religious freedom in Australia, except where religion is offered as a reason to justify calls for violence against others.”
Foster notes that “The new “hate speech” provisions are contained in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 (No 2 of 2026) (“the Act”), which commenced operation on 22 January 2026. (It should be noted that an earlier version of the Bill was amended at the last minute to remove provisions banning certain types of hate speech which were arguably too widely drafted- so it is important to note exactly what did become law when it was passed by the Parliament.)
“The Act is not easy to read, as much of it assumes knowledge of provisions that were already in force under the Commonwealth Criminal Code (contained in a Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)). See here for a previous comment I made when some of those provisions were introduced following the earlier wave of anti-semitic attacks, especially in Sydney. As I said then, these new provisions, in my opinion, did not really threaten religious freedom in significant ways. The same seems to be the case with the latest legislation.
Foster goes through the key provisions. Some of those alarmed by the new laws point to a provision for new penalties applying to preachers and leaders. However, these apply to teaching that supports violence against persons of protected groups (which includes religious groups)or property damage. So why attack a new law aimed at protecting religious groups (and other protected characteristics like race or sexuality) against threats of violence.
Foster, however is concerned about another provision, increased penalties for using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence. Foster notes “My concern is with the existing provision itself, rather than the increased penalty. Criminalising behaviour which simply is ‘offensive’ is, to my mind, inconsistent with important principles of free speech.”
However, this provision only applies to material through the postal service. If this writer ever returned to producing a printed newspaper, it might concern me.
A third provision cited by Foster applies increased penalties where hate of a particular racial group is involved. “As this amendment simply builds on existing offences, it does not of itself seem to have a significant impact on religious freedom. There could be an impact if one’s reason for hatred of persons of another race came from religious conviction. But for this provision to have effect, such hatred would have to have also lead to commission of an offence against the Crimes Act. In my view, where religiously motivated crime of this sort impacts on the “fundamental rights and freedoms” of other citizens (to quote art 18(3) of the ICCPR), such as leading to violence, it should be punished.”
The new legislation includes outlawing “hate groups”, which, as the example from the Australian Family Coalition’s fear of being banned probably relates to. hHowever Foster’s analysis dispels that fear.
Noting that the designation of a hate group will depend on whther they engage in a hate crime, foster notes: “What is a “hate crime“? This is defined in s 114A.3. There are three different versions, involving issues around urging violence, promoting hatred, or causing harm. A key point to note, however, is that the versions of “hate crime” refer to behaviour motivated by race or ethnic origin. Despite some suggestions made at earlier stages of the debate, the concept has not been extended to hate based on other discrimination characteristics such as sex, marital status, or gender identity. Most mainstream religions in Australia do not seek to incite hate against others on racial grounds. So most religious groups will not be caught by these provisions.”