1. Introduction
Women Speak Tasmania (WST) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) regarding the Exposure Draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026.
WST is a volunteer-led, non-partisan women’s organisation based in Tasmania. We advocate for the protection of women’s sex-based rights, freedom of expression, and evidence-based public policy. Our work includes engagement with law reform processes, parliamentary submissions, and public education on matters affecting women and girls.
WST unequivocally condemns antisemitism, religious hatred, and all forms of violence or intimidation directed at individuals or groups. We recognise the seriousness of genuine hate-motivated crimes and support proportionate, targeted legal responses to such conduct.
However, we oppose the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (Exposure Draft) in its current form. Our concerns relate to the Bill’s breadth, vagueness, and potential to undermine fundamental democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression, association, and lawful advocacy — particularly for women’s and LGB organisations engaged in contested public policy debates.
This submission addresses aspects of the Exposure Draft that risk unintended consequences beyond the Bill’s stated objectives.
2. Summary of Key Concerns
WST’s primary concerns are that the Exposure Draft:
- Creates overly broad and subjective hate speech offences that may criminalise lawful, non-violent political expression.
- Introduces administrative powers to list “hate groups” with insufficient procedural safeguards or judicial oversight.
- Expands executive discretion in migration law in ways that lower evidentiary thresholds and weaken due process.
- Risks chilling legitimate advocacy, including women’s sex-based rights advocacy and LGB advocacy, through uncertainty and fear of sanction.
- Bundles unrelated policy areas (criminal law, migration, customs, firearms) into a single omnibus bill, reducing scrutiny and democratic accountability.
3. Hate Speech Offences and Freedom of Expression
3.1 Overly Broad and Subjective Thresholds
The Exposure Draft introduces new federal hate speech offences that rely on whether conduct would cause a “reasonable person” to feel intimidated, harassed or fearful.
WST is concerned that this standard:
- Does not require proof of intent to threaten or incite violence.
- Does not require evidence of actual harm.
- Relies heavily on subjective interpretation of emotional impact rather than objective conduct.
In practice, robust debate on sex, gender, religion, migration, or public policy — even when peaceful and evidence-based — may be interpreted as “harassing” or “intimidating” by some audiences. This creates legal uncertainty and risks self-censorship.
3.2 Insufficient Protection for Lawful Political Speech
While the Bill contains limited exemptions for academic, religious or artistic discussion, these exemptions are narrow and do not clearly protect:
- Feminist advocacy based on sex as a biological reality.
- LGB advocacy that discusses same-sex attraction.
- Policy criticism of legislation, government agencies, or institutional practices.
Women’s organisations such as WST regularly engage in contested public discourse. Under the proposed framework, lawful advocacy could be exposed to criminal investigation based on perceived offence rather than unlawful conduct.
4. Prohibited Hate Group Listing Powers
4.1 Administrative Listing Without Conviction
The Exposure Draft allows for the listing of “Prohibited Hate Groups” through executive action. Listing consequences may include criminal penalties for association, support, or membership.
WST is deeply concerned that:
- Groups may be listed without any criminal conviction.
- The threshold for “advocacy” of hateful conduct is unclear.
- Judicial oversight appears limited or retrospective.
This framework risks conflating ideological disagreement with criminal extremism.
4.2 Chilling Effect on Civil Society
Women’s and LGB advocacy groups frequently challenge dominant policy frameworks and institutional narratives. The possibility that advocacy organisations could be administratively labelled as “hate groups” — even erroneously — would have a profound chilling effect on democratic participation.
Civil society must be free to criticise law, policy and ideology without fear of criminalisation.
5. Migration Law Amendments and Procedural Fairness
The Exposure Draft significantly expands powers to refuse or cancel visas based on perceived risk of hateful or extremist conduct.
WST is concerned that:
- Decisions may be made without criminal conviction.
- Lower evidentiary thresholds apply.
- Non-citizens may face serious consequences based on predictive assessments rather than proven wrongdoing.
This creates a two-tier system where speech and association attract different legal consequences depending on citizenship status, undermining principles of fairness and consistency before the law.
6. Bundling of Unrelated Legislative Measures
The Bill combines:
- Hate speech and criminal law reforms
- Migration law amendments
- Customs provisions
- Firearms regulation and a national buyback scheme
WST submits that this omnibus approach:
- Limits effective parliamentary scrutiny.
- Reduces public understanding of each policy area.
- Forces acceptance or rejection of unrelated measures as a package.
Each of these areas warrants independent consideration.
7. Risk to Women’s Sex-Based Rights Advocacy
Women Speak Tasmania is particularly concerned that the Exposure Draft may disproportionately affect women who advocate for sex-based rights, including protections under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Women are already under-represented in public discourse and disproportionately targeted for silencing and intimidation online. Laws that further constrain lawful speech — even unintentionally — risk exacerbating this imbalance.
Protecting vulnerable groups must not come at the expense of silencing women.
8. Recommendations
WST respectfully recommends that the Committee:
- Reject the Exposure Draft in its current form, or substantially amend it.
- Narrow the definition of hate speech offences to require intent, seriousness, and a clear connection to violence or criminal conduct.
- Introduce strong procedural safeguards and judicial oversight for any group-listing regime.
- Ensure explicit protections for lawful political, feminist, and LGB advocacy.
- Separate unrelated policy reforms into distinct legislative processes.
- Engage in broader consultation with civil society, including women’s organisations, before proceeding.
9. Conclusion
WST recognises the importance of addressing genuine hate-motivated violence and religious hate. However, laws that are overly broad, vague, or reliant on subjective harm risk undermining the democratic freedoms they seek to protect.
A free society must be able to confront hatred without criminalising disagreement, suppressing advocacy, or weakening fundamental civil liberties.
We urge the Committee to carefully reconsider the Exposure Draft and ensure that any legislative response is proportionate, precise, and firmly grounded in the rule of law.
Source:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/CASHEBILL26