Yet, Australia lacks a clear, consistent standard for when speech crosses the line from free expression to conduct that drives hate and can contribute to violence. That is the bright line the Commonwealth must now set after the Bondi massacre.

Our hate speech laws are a patchwork of overlapping state and federal regimes, civil and criminal provisions, varying standards of proof and penalties depending on where you live. It is unsurprising that community expectations about what is acceptable, and even policing responses, can be confused.

A question I have been asked repeatedly by Jewish constituents since October 7, 2023: How can extremist preachers who openly call for things such as the “final solution” for Jews not be breaking the law? How can people feel safe when such rhetoric is tolerated without consequence?

At the federal level, the Criminal Code, modestly strengthened in February 2025, criminalises urging or threatening violence but stops short of conduct that intends to incite hatred. That gap gives extremists room to operate, and they know it.

Civil actions exist under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as demonstrated by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s successful case against hate preacher Wissam Haddad. But civil proceedings are slow, costly, and place the burden on victims.

Haddad, one of whose followers was allegedly one of Bondi attackers, was ordered just to pay court costs and remove “fundamentally racist and antisemitic” online sermons two years after they were published. That has meant two years of antisemitic extremism circulating freely online.

State criminal laws have been strengthened recently, but address vilification inconsistently, with varying thresholds and definitions. The absence of a national standard is untenable.

Concerns about free speech are legitimate and must be taken seriously. That is why, when I proposed stronger hate speech offences last year, I drew on well-established precedent. Western Australia has had a criminal offence for inciting hatred and animosity for more than 20 years, with successful prosecution, while also filtering out trivial cases. Few would argue Western Australians enjoy less freedom of speech as a result.

The strength of Australia’s democracy lies in our ability to question freely. That mindset is one of the great gifts of the Enlightenment. But there is a clear difference between questioning and debating and deliberately inciting hatred against parts of our community.

In February last year, after a summer of antisemitic graffiti and firebombs in my electorate, I proposed amendments to introduce stronger hate speech laws addressing vilification. Both the government and opposition declined to back these, despite support from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Equality Australia and other groups, such as disability organisations, calling for such protections.

The government has now proposed law reform to address vilification – this is a step forward but, regrettably, it will also create an unjustifiable double standard.

As announced by the prime minister on Monday, the most important components of this reform – the new offence for serious vilification and, to a lesser extent, the inclusion of hatred as an aggravating factor in sentencing – will be restricted to cases involving racial hatred.

There is no principled reason for the same abuse to be lawful or unlawful depending on to whom it is directed. All Australians deserve protection from those who seek to incite hatred.

Jewish community leaders, to their great credit, have made clear that they believe protections should not be confined to just protect race (which protects Jewish people), but include other characteristics such as religion and sexuality. Neo-Nazis target Jews, but they also target Muslims and the LGBTQ+ community.

This is not only about deterrence. It is about declaring who we are: a pluralistic, tolerant society. Hate speech reform draws a bright line in our community, in our psyche, and in our culture, setting clear standards for disagreement.

We must strive to be a country where Jewish Australians do not live behind security fences, where they can wear a Star of David as freely as others wear a cross, and where all Australians, regardless of faith, ethnicity, sexuality or any other characteristic, feel safe.

We can vehemently disagree, protest, criticise and even offend. But we must draw the line where speech is intended not to debate, but to dehumanise and incite hatred against fellow Australians.

Following Bondi, Australia is united in unequivocally condemning such abhorrent hatred. We should use this moment to pass laws that protect us all.