https://x.com/VoteLewko/status/2011640092251865143
My Submission to the Exposure Draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026
Secretariat
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS)
[email protected]
This submission responds to the Exposure Draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (the Bill).
The objective of reducing antisemitism and racially motivated violence is legitimate and important. Antisemitism is a persistent and serious social harm that warrants firm, proportionate, and effective legal responses. Antisemitic ideology has already resulted in lethal violence in Australia.
I note that the public has been given only a few days to consider and respond to a document exceeding 140 pages. I consider this timeframe extraordinary. I ask the Committee’s indulgence for any infelicities or omissions in this submission given the practical impossibility of thorough public consultation within that period.
Process and scope concerns
I hold grave concerns that this legislation has been rushed with only a minimal nod to public consultation. It is evident that the Bill itself is the product of weeks or months of work, yet the public has been afforded only days to scrutinise it.
The Bill also spans an extremely broad range of subject matter while ostensibly targeting a specific problem. In my view, this breadth takes the legislation outside the core threats currently facing Australian Jews and risks undermining its stated purpose.
I am a Jewish Australian. Since 7 October, I have watched with alarm as governments at multiple levels hesitated to act despite warnings from the Jewish community that the prevailing climate would likely lead to physical harm. This is a lesson Jews have learned repeatedly through history.
I am therefore concerned that, having delayed action for years, the government is now proceeding at full speed without adequate consideration of the secondary risks created by this approach. I strongly urge that the Bill be deferred to allow proper review, submissions, and debate.
Despite the ongoing threat to Jewish safety, no solution in this Bill will be implemented quickly. The problem is already entrenched. Rushing complex legislation under these circumstances is imprudent. Moreover, if existing laws have not been enforced effectively, it is reasonable to ask what confidence the public should have that new laws will be enforced, or are even necessary.
I also note that the government has previously declined to proscribe a number of groups that have been proscribed overseas, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, Samidoun, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Palestine Action Group (recently banned in the United Kingdom). This raises further questions about enforcement priorities.
It is noted that at least three of these groups have been engaged in conduct on Australian university campuses which adversely impacted Jewish staff and students.
Retrospective operation and ICCPR compliance
Section 114A.3(2) defines a “hate crime” to include conduct engaged in before the relevant offence existed, provided the conduct would have constituted an offence had the provision been in force at the time. While framed as a definitional or administrative device, this retrospective definition is central to:
the listing of organisations as prohibited hate groups; and
the triggering of serious criminal offences relating to membership, direction, funding, training, and support.
Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence … at the time when it was committed.” The narrow exception in Article 15(2) applies only to conduct that was criminal under general principles of international law at the time it occurred (for example, genocide or war crimes). It does not extend to hate speech, association offences, or symbolic expression.
By allowing past lawful conduct to form the legal basis for present-day criminal liability via organisational listing, the Bill risks circumventing the prohibition on retrospective criminal punishment. This creates a serious compliance issue with Australia’s ICCPR obligations and exposes the scheme to constitutional and international challenge.
The retrospective aspect of the Bill strikes me as a profound departure from fundamental human-rights principles. I say this as someone deeply frustrated by the failure to prosecute extremist hate preachers under existing law, many of whom could already be prosecuted without resorting to retrospective criminalisation.
Racial vilification and free speech
Proposed section 80.2BF criminalises publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred where a reasonable person would feel intimidated or fear harassment or violence.
While antisemitic harassment and intimidation are serious harms, the breadth of this provision risks capturing:
legitimate political speech;
controversial historical or theological commentary; and
non-violent nationalist or ideological expression.
There is a real risk that such provisions may operate in practice as de facto blasphemy laws, as has occurred in overseas jurisdictions with disastrous results. Paradoxically, legislation intended to protect Jews from Islamist incitement may instead be used, via “lawfare”, to suppress legitimate criticism of religious extremism.
This approach has demonstrably failed in the United Kingdom’s attempts to address Islamist extremism. Overbroad criminalisation of speech risks:
driving antisemitic views underground rather than confronting them;
creating grievance narratives about “silencing”; and
generating test cases that may ultimately weaken antisemitism protections if struck down.
Effective responses to antisemitism depend not only on enforcement, but on public legitimacy and moral authority.
Provisions unrelated to antisemitism
Large parts of the Bill bear no direct connection to antisemitism, including:
the national firearms buyback scheme;
extensive firearms and customs import restrictions;
expanded AusCheck and background-checking regimes; and
aggravated grooming and carriage-service offences involving minors.
While these matters may warrant legislative consideration in their own right, bundling them into an antisemitism-branded omnibus Bill creates unnecessary policy confusion.
It also risks backlash from individuals affected by these measures (for example, sporting shooters), who may—however irrationally—attribute these losses to Jewish influence. This is despite many Jews, including the author, opposing such measures.
Risk of increasing antisemitism through misattribution
retrospective powers; and
to legislation explicitly framed as Combatting Antisemitism, the Bill risks positioning the Jewish community—unfairly and incorrectly—as the perceived beneficiary or instigator of controversial state powers.
We have already seen how this creates fertile ground for antisemitic narratives alleging disproportionate influence, suppression of dissent, or collective punishment.
Comparable overseas frameworks demonstrate that when minority-protection laws are perceived as overreaching or politically instrumentalised, they can increase resentment and radicalisation, including against the very communities the laws aim to protect.
Failure to address the principal ideological driver of contemporary antisemitism
My central concern with the Bill is that it avoids confronting the primary ideological driver of contemporary antisemitic violence in Australia: Islamism.
Islamism is a political-religious ideology that must be clearly distinguished from Muslims as people or Islam as a faith. The vast majority of Australian Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who themselves suffer from extremism. This submission does not seek to stigmatise Muslim communities.
However, the refusal to specifically name Islamist ideology as a distinct and observable driver of antisemitic violence undermines the Bill’s effectiveness.
Recent antisemitic intimidation, The Bondi mass murder of Jews, glorification of mass murder after both October 7 and Bondi, threats against Jewish institutions, and mobilisation following overseas terrorist attacks have overwhelmingly drawn on Islamist narratives that:
promote violence as a sacred duty,
legitimise attacks on Jewish civilians, sometimes via euphemisms such as "Zionists",
and frame Jews collectively as enemies.
By treating antisemitism as a diffuse, ideology-neutral form of “hate”, the Bill risks:
misdiagnosing the threat,
dispersing enforcement resources,
and expanding powers over speech and association generally, rather than targeting the ecosystems that actually generate violent antisemitism.
This avoidance appears driven by political sensitivity rather than actual threat assessment. While understandable in an electoral context, it is counterproductive from a national security perspective. The security of Australian citizens must take precedence over the job of any minister.
Legislation that fails to name the ideology most responsible for contemporary antisemitic violence risks being both overbroad and under-effective.
The goal of reducing antisemitism is both necessary and urgent. However, legislation addressing such a sensitive issue must be:
With respect, this Bill does not meet those standards.
raises serious ICCPR Article 15 concerns;
departs from core rule-of-law principles;
extends far beyond antisemitism, despite its title;
risks counterproductive social consequences; and
fails to directly confront the principal contemporary ideological driver of antisemitic violence, namely Islamist extremism, instead treating antisemitism as a diffuse and ideology-neutral phenomenon.
It is respectfully submitted that the Bill would benefit from:
removal of retrospective elements;
restoration of procedural-fairness safeguards;
narrowing of speech-related offences to violence or incitement;
Specific reference to Islamist threat (noting clear differentiation between Islamism as a political-religious ideology and Muslim communities as a whole); and
separation of unrelated policy measures into standalone legislation.
As well as sufficient time for proper public review..
I note again that this submission was prepared under severe time constraints imposed on the public and ask that any errors or omissions be viewed in that context.
