Australia’s newly passed hate crime laws have drawn sharp criticism from Human Rights Watch, which has warned that key provisions of the legislation lack procedural fairness and could undermine fundamental human rights if left unchecked.
In a statement released this week, Human Rights Watch said the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill significantly expands the federal government’s powers to ban organisations and impose harsher criminal penalties, while removing basic safeguards that allow affected groups to respond to allegations against them.
The legislation was passed following the deadly Bondi Beach mass shooting in December, in which 15 people were killed during Hanukkah celebrations. The government has framed the new measures as necessary to combat rising hate crimes and extremist violence.
However, Human Rights Watch cautioned that while states have an obligation under international law to protect people from discrimination and violence, such laws must be implemented in ways that respect freedom of expression and association.
Under the new framework, the home affairs minister is empowered to designate and ban “hate groups” if they are believed to have threatened people on the basis of race, nationality or ethnicity, or publicly supported such actions. Members of banned groups face prison sentences of up to seven years, while organisers, recruiters and financial supporters could face up to 15 years in jail.
Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes the requirement for procedural fairness, allowing groups to be banned without being notified of the allegations against them or given an opportunity to challenge the evidence. Human Rights Watch warned that this opens the door to arbitrary decision-making and misuse of executive power.
The law also grants the minister broad authority to deny or revoke visas on the basis of alleged hate speech, extremist associations or involvement in hate crimes. Critics say the vague thresholds for these decisions risk creating a chilling effect on lawful speech and peaceful civic activity.
Human Rights Watch further noted significant gaps in the scope of protection offered by the legislation. While it targets hate crimes linked to race, nationality and ethnic origin, it does not extend comparable protections to victims targeted because of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability.
Although the laws are scheduled for parliamentary review in two years, the rights group has called for immediate and ongoing monitoring of their human rights impact from the outset, rather than waiting until harm has already occurred.
The controversy has also reignited calls for a national human rights act in Australia. Human Rights Watch argued that a federal charter of rights would require governments to assess the human rights implications of legislation before it is introduced, helping to balance security concerns with civil liberties.
“Without strong safeguards,” the organisation warned, “Australia risks joining a growing list of countries that have used hate and extremism laws to target peaceful civic groups and dissenting voices”
