{"id":"BILL-r7422","name":"Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026","slug":"combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446059,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-r7422-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"royal_assent","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The bill received royal assent on 21 January 2026 and commenced on 22 January 2026.","complexity_score":8,"likely_questions":["What conduct can lead to an organisation being listed as a prohibited hate group?","How do the new migration character grounds affect visa applicants or holders?"],"complexity_factors":["New prohibited hate groups listing and offence framework","Multiple aggravated offences and penalty increases across criminal and migration laws","Expanded character test with new hate-motivated grounds"],"plain_english_summary":"The Act tightens criminal and migration law to target leaders who use their official roles to advocate or threaten violence, adults who incite children, and organisations that promote hate. It creates a regulated “prohibited hate groups” regime with offences for directing, recruiting or supporting listed groups, strengthens offences and seizure powers around prohibited symbols, and broadens the migration character test to bar association with terrorists or hate groups. It raises penalties and expands enforcement and visa grounds, affecting community leaders, group members and migrants."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":9,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The enacted Act aligns with the instrument’s originally stated purpose as summarised by parliamentary materials: it combines criminal law changes (aggravated leader and child‑directed offences, prohibited symbols), a new prohibited hate group listing and offence regime, and migration‑character grounds to address spreading hatred and extremism. It does not appear to have grown significantly beyond that stated scope. The Act does, however, extend the original elements in breadth and reach — notably by (a) creating a detailed regulatory listing machinery with specific administrative rules and limited procedural fairness for listings (Division 114A), (b) lowering prosecution thresholds in symbol offences and creating varied fault standards, and (c) importing the new criminal definitions into migration character tests (ss.5C(1A), 500A(1A), 501(6A)). Those extensions expand operational and administrative reach but are within the broader aims set out in the official explanatory material and the bill title rather than representing a distinct change of purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple new Parts and Divisions inserted across the Criminal Code and Migration Act (e.g. Division 114A and Division 114B — 114A.1–114A.9 and 114B.1–114B.7).","High number of new definitions and cross‑references (hate crime defined in 114A.3 and reused in Migration Act amendments; ‘prohibited hate group’ links Criminal Code and Migration Act).","Varied fault elements: mix of knowledge, recklessness, strict and absolute liability across offences (e.g. 114B offences have different fault standards; absolute liability for age in 80.2DB).","Reversal of evidential burden for public‑interest defences in prohibited symbol offences (changes to ss.80.2H and 80.2HA), creating nuanced evidential rules. ","Concentration of administrative discretion and non‑procedural requirements for listing (114A.4 removes procedural fairness obligations for AFP Minister), increasing judicial review complexity. ","Migration amendments insert broad, subjective ‘reasonable suspicion’ grounds (ss.5C(1A), 500A(1A), 501(6A)) and a wide definition of ‘association’ (single meeting/communication), creating large administrative scope. ","Extensive consequential amendments to multiple Acts and regulations (Australian Citizenship Act, ASIO Act, Surveillance Devices Act, Telecommunications Interception Act, Migration Regulations) increasing cross‑statutory interaction. ","New seizure power and police operational rules (s.80.2N) with procedural triggers and return/destroy rules (90‑day disposal), adding law‑enforcement procedure detail. ","Statutory review architecture and delayed review timelines (two‑year reviews under Intelligence Services Act and Senate committee reviews) create retroactive evaluation conditions to watch. "],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Act does (mechanical summary)**\n\n- Creates new and tougher criminal offences in the Criminal Code aimed at hate-driven conduct, expands what counts as a “prohibited symbol”, and raises maximum penalties for some advocacy and communications offences (Schedule 1: Criminal law amendments). Key additions include:\n  - An aggravated offence for people who commit certain advocacy offences when acting as a religious official, spiritual leader or other (pastoral or instructional) leader (new section 80.2DA). Penalty up to 12 years (see Schedule 1, Part 1).\n  - Aggravated offences where an adult advocates violence or damage to, or distributes violent/extremist material to, children; and aggravated offences for providing violent extremist material by carriage services when reckless as to recipients being under 18 (new sections 80.2DB, 474.45BA).\n  - Increased maximum penalties for using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence (s.471.12 increased to 5 years).\n  - New listing framework for “prohibited hate groups” (Division 114A of the Criminal Code) with a mechanism for the AFP Minister to cause regulations to list organisations, and related criminal offences for directing, membership, recruitment, training, funding and support of listed groups (Division 114B — offences 114B.1–114B.6). Penalties in many cases go up to 15 years.\n  - Changes to public-display/“prohibited symbol” offences: defendants must meet an evidential burden to show public‑interest defences (religious, academic, journalistic, etc.); the knowledge fault element is removed in some symbol offences; the definition of a prohibited symbol is extended to include symbols used by prohibited hate groups (changes to s80.2E, 80.2H, 80.2HA and related provisions).\n  - New police seizure power to seize items displaying prohibited symbols in public (new s80.2N).\n  - An aggravated sentencing factor is inserted in the Crimes Act 1914 so that if offending was motivated by hatred based on race or national/ethnic origin the court may treat that as an aggravating factor (with specified exclusions) (amendment to s.16A).\n  - Statutory reviews required of the new aggravated leader offences and the prohibited hate group framework (reviews by ASIO/Parliamentary Committee and by a Senate committee, Schedule 1, Part 7).\n\n- Extends migration and character grounds to address “spreading hatred and extremism” (Schedule 2: Migration amendments):\n  - Adds a defined, very broad set of grounds allowing refusal or cancellation of visas where the Minister reasonably suspects a non‑citizen has been a member of, or associated with, a terrorist organisation, state sponsor of terrorism, or a prohibited hate group; has engaged in conduct constituting a hate crime; or has publicly promoted ideas of racial/ethnic superiority or hatred (new limbs in ss.5C, 500A, 501 and related). \n  - Defines “association” with an organisation as meeting or communicating with it — the Act explicitly says a single meeting/communication can suffice (Migration Act s.5(1) definition).\n  - Consequential regulation changes so people refused permanent visas on character grounds face the same exclusion period as people who had visas cancelled on character grounds.\n\n**Who is directly affected**\n\n- Individuals who lead, preach to, instruct, or provide pastoral care (religious officials, spiritual leaders, other leaders) — may face aggravated criminal liability where underlying advocacy offences are committed in that capacity (80.2DA).\n- Members, directors, funders, trainers, recruiters and supporters of organisations listed as prohibited hate groups — new, serious criminal offences (Division 114B).\n- People who publicly display or circulate prohibited symbols or praise hate crimes — wider definitions and lower fault elements increase prosecution risk (s.80.2E, 80.2H, s.80.2HA).\n- Adults who disseminate violent or extremist material that is accessed by or solicited from children — new aggravated offences (80.2DB, 474.45BA).\n- Non‑citizens and visa holders — expanded character grounds can lead to refusal or cancellation of visas for “spreading hatred and extremism” including by single meetings or public statements (Migration Act amendments, ss.5C(1A), 500A(1A), 501(6A)).\n- Media, universities, religious institutions, charities, and community organisations — changes to defences and to the prohibited‑symbol rules affect how these bodies manage material, public discussion and fundraising; they may bear new compliance and reputational costs.\n\n**Why it matters (official purpose and how it operates in practice)**\n\n- Officially, the Act aims to protect communities from harms arising from antisemitism, hate and extremism by: making certain leadership advocacy and child‑directed advocacy harder to escape criminal sanction; creating a regulatory list to identify and disable organisations that engage in or promote hate crimes; strengthening rules on public displays of hateful symbols; and giving migration authorities tools to exclude or remove people who spread hate or are associated with such organisations.\n\n- How those aims are implemented creates the following concrete mechanisms and incentives:\n  - Listing power concentrated with the AFP Minister (who must be satisfied on reasonable grounds and obtain the Attorney‑General’s written agreement and brief the Opposition leader) but the Act expressly removes ordinary procedural‑fairness requirements for the Minister’s decision to be “satisfied” (see s.114A.4(4)–(5) and s.114A.6). The Director‑General of Security (ASIO) may only provide written advice under stated criteria (s.114A.5).\n  - Once an organisation is listed by regulation, a set of long prison‑term offences become available to prosecutors (114B.1–114B.6). Defendants face varied fault elements: some offences require knowledge, others permit reckless fault, and some are strict or absolute liability on particular elements (see 114B offences and notes).\n  - For public‑display symbol offences, the law shifts evidential burden to defendants to establish public‑interest defences (religious, academic, journalistic etc.) and lowers fault elements for offences tied to organisation symbols (changes to ss.80.2H, 80.2HA and 80.2E). That increases the prosecutorial advantage in these cases while preserving a formal defence for journalism and education (but placing an evidential burden on the defendant).\n  - Migration decisions can be made on the Minister’s reasonable suspicion; “association” can be a single interaction; conduct need not have led to convictions; and visa decisions may take into account past conduct (see Migration Act ss.5C(1A), 500A(1A), 501(6A), and related Notes). This makes exclusion/cancellation decisions administratively easier but places a wide discretion in the Minister’s hands.\n  - The Act requires statutory reviews (two‑year reviews) of the leader aggravated offences and the prohibited‑hate‑group regime to assess operation, proportionality and impacts on freedoms (see Schedule 1, Part 7), which creates an ex post oversight checkpoint.\n\n**Costs, incentives and trade-offs (practical effects to watch)**\n\n- Who pays: community and religious organisations, charities and advocacy groups will bear most of the compliance and legal risk costs (membership checks, fundraising controls, legal advice). Donors and service providers may de‑risk (decline transactions or withdraw services) to avoid liability. Law enforcement and immigration agencies bear enforcement and decision‑making resource costs.\n\n- Decision makers and concentration of discretion: the AFP Minister (with ASIO advice and the Attorney‑General’s written agreement) decides listings; the Migration Minister has wide character/cancellation discretion. That concentrates power to define which organisations are treated as prohibited and to act administratively against non‑citizens.\n\n- Behavioural effects and incentives:\n  - Organisations may change names, split, move activities offshore or online, or cloak membership and fundraising to avoid listing or criminal exposure.\n  - Religious and community leaders may self‑censor or change how they deliver sermons or instruction to avoid aggravated liability; educators and journalists may require legal clearance before publishing controversial material because evidential burdens for defences have shifted.\n  - Migration applicants and visa holders may avoid publicly expressing controversial views or meeting particular groups even once, because “association” can be a single meeting.\n\n- Legal and implementation risks:\n  - The new “prohibited hate group” list is made by regulation and can be amended by legislative instrument; lack of procedural fairness in the listing step raises litigation risk and human‑rights scrutiny (the Act explicitly removes procedural fairness obligations for the AFP Minister in s.114A.4(5)).\n  - Definitions such as “advocate”, “hate crime” and the reasonable person test require prosecutorial interpretation and will generate contested legal questions (e.g., what circumstances create an “unacceptable risk” that praise will lead others to commit hate crimes; see s.114A.2(2)).\n  - Shifting evidential burdens and lowering fault elements reduce prosecution thresholds but increase the risk of over‑reach or chilling of lawful speech; statutory reviews after two years are required (see Schedule 1, Part 7).\n\n**Net mechanics in one paragraph**\n\nThe Act builds a multi‑pronged enforcement framework: tougher criminal penalties and specific aggravated offences for leaders and child‑directed advocacy (Criminal Code); a regulatory listing mechanism that creates a criminal regime for involvement with listed “prohibited hate groups” (Division 114A/114B); stronger police powers to seize public displays of prohibited symbols and narrowed public‑interest defences for such displays; and broader migration character grounds to refuse or cancel visas on the basis of membership, association, public statements or conduct tied to hate and extremism. Operational control rests with the AFP Minister, with ASIO advice and Attorney‑General agreement required for listing, and broad discretion given to the Migration Minister in character decisions. The Act also mandates multi‑year reviews of the new measures.\n\n(For key provisions cited: aggravated leader offence new s.80.2DA; aggravated child/grooming offences s.80.2DB and s.474.45BA; prohibited hate group framework Divisions 114A and 114B (114A.1–114A.9; 114B.1–114B.7); prohibited symbol and public‑interest defence changes ss.80.2E, 80.2H, 80.2HA; migration grounds ss.5C(1A), 500A(1A), 501(6A); seizure power s.80.2N; statutory reviews in Schedule 1 Part 7.)"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026","history":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026/history","analysis":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-criminal-and-migration-laws-bill-2026/documents"}}