Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

While the Canberra Declaration agrees that antisemitism and terrorism are serious societal issues, we have grave concerns about the government’s proposal in this legislation. Read our submission to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026.

The Federal Government is pushing to pass the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 within days, despite only allowing the public two days to respond. Christian leaders, legal experts, and even Jewish organisations say the Bill is too broad, too vague, and too rushed — warning it could silence ordinary Australians while failing to stop genuine threats.

The Canberra Declaration, representing nearly 97,000 signatories committed to Christian values and freedoms, has urged Parliament to reject the Bill in its current form. Our message is clear: Australians stand firmly against antisemitism, violence, and hatred — but the proposed law contains serious risks of undermining free speech, religious freedom, and democratic integrity.

A Christian Stand Against Violence — and Government Overreach

The Canberra Declaration has continued to be very vocal about the evil of anti-Semitism, publishing multiple articles from many different authors of the past two years. Scripture calls believers to “love your neighbour” (Matthew 22:39) and “do justice” (Micah 6:8). Protecting Jewish Australians — especially in the wake of the tragic Bondi Beach terrorist attack of 14 December 2025 — is both a moral and national duty.

But concern over the Bill does not stem from reluctance to protect the Jewish community. Rather, it stems from the Bill’s sweeping reach.

The legislation stretches far beyond combating antisemitism. Curiously, the word “antisemitism” doesn’t appear once in the entire bill outside of the title, which is astonishing considering this is its stated aim. Instead, the Bill introduces new offences, new police powers, restrictions on speech, visa reforms, online controls, and firearms changes — all in one enormous package nearing 500 pages.

The question many Australians are asking is simple: Why must a Bill supposedly about antisemitism regulate so many unrelated areas of public life?

Jewish Voices Raise Alarm

Perhaps the most striking development is that some Jewish organisations are themselves warning that the Bill could make things worse.

The Australian Jewish Association (AJA) has publicly criticised the proposal, questioning its purpose, its timing, and its likely effectiveness. The AJA notes the Government has still not acted on the 2025 Segal Report on antisemitism — yet is now rushing through new laws not directly tied to the ideological motivations behind the Bondi attack. Why this government-commissioned report into combatting antisemitism, along with its recommendations, has been entirely ignored, while at the same time this Bill, which doesn’t use the word ‘antisemitism’ within its pages, is proposed to be the solution, beggars belief.

AJA STATEMENT

The Australian Jewish Association (AJA) is urging all Members of Parliament to reject the draft ‘hate speech’ bill

AJA CEO Robert Gregory said:

“Antisemitism has surged in Australia under the Albanese Government, and it is clear that decisive action is required.… pic.twitter.com/z2bQ7vjbUo

— Australian Jewish Association (@AustralianJA) January 15, 2026

The Bondi massacre, carried out by two radicalised Islamist men, highlighted failures in enforcement — not gaps in the law. Existing laws already make incitement to violence and terrorism illegal. They simply were not used.

The AJA warns that by avoiding the real drivers of antisemitic violence while expanding government control over speech, the Bill may ironically “increase antisemitism” rather than reduce it.

When the very community supposedly being protected expresses fear about the Bill’s consequences, our parliamentarians, and indeed all Australians, should pause.

Dismissal of the Democratic Parliamentary Process

A major concern is the unprecedented speed with which the Government is moving.

Public submissions were due within 48 hours. The Parliamentary Committee is expected to report almost immediately. The Prime Minister intends to pass the Bill through both chambers next week, which is the reason parliament will return earlier than scheduled. This means there is no intent by the Government to carefully consider this Bill, consult or engage the broader community in any meaningful and practical way.

For legislation that changes criminal law, alters police powers, defines hate speech, restricts symbols, expands visa cancellations, and rewrites firearms rules, such haste is extraordinary and reckless. Such sweeping changes to the law routinely take several months to go through the parliament. This Bill could take just days.

Good lawmaking requires transparency, consultation, and scrutiny. Laws affecting fundamental freedoms should not be created overnight.

The Bondi terrorist attack is now the subject of a Royal Commission. The proposed Bill ignores this Royal Commission entirely, and in this sense, makes it redundant. If this Bill is the answer to the Bondi attack, then what is the point of the Royal Commission?

Vague Definitions and Subjective Standards

At the heart of the controversy is the Bill’s reliance on undefined or poorly defined concepts such as “hate,” “phobia,” or “extremism.” These terms vary widely in interpretation and are increasingly used to discredit legitimate debate and criminalise political opponents. This is not a fear-based assertion, but a statement of fact about what is currently happening. The Daily Declaration continues to publish many instances of such ‘law-fare’.

Without clear definitions, police and courts are left to guess what Parliament intended — opening the door to selective enforcement and politicised prosecutions.

A concerning example is the proposed offence in section 80.2BF, which criminalises the “dissemination of ideas of superiority or hatred” based on race, nationality or ethnicity. Yet the Bill states it is “immaterial” whether:

• anyone was actually harmed,

• anyone felt intimidated, or

• the targeted group even possessed the attribute mentioned.

In other words, a person could face prosecution even when no harm occurred and no person found a statement “intimidating”.

Such an approach is outrageously unjust. Without hesitation we write that this is an unjust Bill. It must not be passed into law.

What About Religious Freedom?

For Christians, a major issue is the threat to preaching, teaching, and moral expression.

Christianity teaches respect for all people, but it also makes objective truth claims that differ from other religions and from secular culture. Pastors, evangelists, academics, and parents must be able to express those beliefs without fear of criminal penalty.

The Bill attempts to offer a “religious text” exemption — but the wording is narrow and confusing.

It is unclear whether quoting Scripture in a sermon is protected, or whether discussing other religions, warning about harmful ideologies, or criticising extremist teachings would fall outside the exemption. Ironically, the exemption may even shield radical Islamist preachers who could fall under the protection that they are simply teaching from a religious text. Yet Christian pastors who critique Islamist extremism could face prosecution that this is ‘hateful’. This shows how confusing this ‘religious text exemption’ is and how it might be applied.

True religious freedom means far more than being able to quote a religious text within a ‘religious teaching’ context. Religious freedom means Christians can live out their faith in private and public. It is not limited to an half-an-a-half inside a building for ‘religious’ purposes. In this context, the ‘religious text’ exemption is far, far too narrow if its purpose is to safeguard freedom of religion.

In addition, the religious text exemption potentially gives those who follow the Bible (or the Qur’an) a basis to have discussions, but leaves Australians with a secular worldview without such a provision (since they have no formal ‘religious’ text). This is grossly unfair, and a two-tier justice system. True freedom means all Australians — Christian, secular or otherwise — must be able to speak openly about beliefs and ideas in the pursuit of truth.

Real Threats Need Clear, Targeted Responses

The Canberra Declaration submission maintains:

• Existing laws against incitement to violence have not been enforced. When angry mobs should, “Gas the Jews” and “Death to the Jews” on the steps of the Opera House after the deadliest attack on Jewish civilians since WWII, those who made these clear statements of incitement to violence should have had the full force of the law used against them. They did not. If the Government is serious about stamping out anti-semitism, the question must be asked why new laws are required while our existing laws have not been implemented.
• A Bill addressing antisemitic violence should be narrowly tailored to actual antisemitic threats and must address the Islamist ideology that fuelled the Bondi attack. But this Bill is nothing of the sort.
• Definitions should be precise and not open to vague interpretation.
• Any new offences should require proof of real harm or genuine incitement.
• Religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association must be safeguarded.
• Matters like firearms regulation should not be hidden inside a hate-speech Bill. Differing aspects of law must be treated separately. This Bill conflates multiple issues into one massive proposal.

Australia Must Choose the Better Path

Australians overwhelmingly reject antisemitism. They want safe streets, cohesive communities, and fair laws. But safety does not mean and can not come with the destruction of liberty. Free nations must guard against both violence and overreach.

Scripture reminds us that truth and justice belong together. Laws that are rushed, unclear, or overly broad threaten that balance. As the Canberra Declaration notes, strong enforcement of existing laws — not sweeping new restrictions on speech — is what will keep communities safe.

If this Bill passes, it will be a huge step backwards for both truth and justice. As Christians, this is not something we can stay silent about.

As Parliament prepares to vote, we must pray for wisdom, courage, and discernment — for our leaders, for our Jewish neighbours, and for our nation. And as citizens with the moral responsibility of governing our nation for its good (which is what ‘democracy’ means), we must speak out against injustice. This Bill contains many instances of injustice that must be opposed.

Read the Canberra Declaration’s submission here.

___

Image via Adobe.