Queensland Law Society has urged the State Government to refine its proposed new hate‑speech laws as much of the conduct is covered under existing criminal offences and that Queenslanders could be confused by ambiguity.
QLS and the Bar Association of Queensland appeared before the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee at yesterday’s public hearing in Brisbane.
Bridget Burton, Co-Deputy Chair QLS Human Rights and Public Law Committee, appeared via video link while QLS Criminal Law Committee Member Adam Moschella attended in person as part of a panel along with Bar President Cate Heyworth-Smith KC and Deputy Chair, Criminal Law Committee, Laura Reece KC.
The committee is examining the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026, with the report due on 27 February.
In its submission, the QLS said: “While the objective of stamping out extremism and enhancing social cohesion is vital, it is imperative that these laws are precise, clear and do not result in unintended consequences.
“We highlight that much of the criminal conduct targeted by the Bill, such as threats of violence or property damage, is already criminalised under the Criminal Code. Introducing new provisions for this same conduct will not lead to meaningful change and instead adds unnecessary complexity to the law.
“It is our strong view that the preferred approach is to strengthen and harmonise anti-discrimination and anti-vilification regimes across state and federal levels before resorting to further criminalisation.
“The Society calls for the implementation of changes to Queensland’s anti-discrimination laws contemplated by the Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Act 2024 (Amendment Act).”
Mr Moschella, an QLS Accredited Specialist in Criminal Law, told the committee that the nature of vilification and hate crimes were “complex social problems which are rarely solved by the introduction of criminal offences”.
“Meaningful consultation is essential to ensuring that counter terrorism and public safety and cohesion objectives are achieved in a manner consistent with the rule of law, proportionality and established principles of criminal justice,” he said.
In a response to question about the effectiveness of legislation to combat anti-semitism, Mr Moschella said: “I think the main point is that where you have laws aimed at or draft laws aimed at addressing a certain element of a certain type of conduct or a certain issue in society, the consultation and the development of those laws needs to be comprehensive to ensure they meet the legitimate end that it was aimed to meet.
“Where you rush through legislation, ultimately that’s where you see gaps or you see issues in terms of defining definitions and there’s unintended consequences generally.
“So really it’s that consultation and that stakeholder engagement that I think should be in the forefront, especially with this type of legislation where it does impact such a cross-section society.”
In response to a question from the Member for Gaven Meaghan Scanlon about whether the expansion of criminal liability was a proportionate response, Mr Moschella referred to his original point with respect to what already existed as a starting point for law reform.
“You look at current legislative frameworks and look at how they may or may not be working and start there. Something very simple is that the law should be clear. People should effectively know what the law is,” he said.
“Where you continue to introduce offences to effectively rectify societal issues in circumstances where there are already offences which could be appropriately either amended or do already appropriately address a circumstance, it starts to become confusing.
“People don’t know what they can and can’t do. People don’t know what the limits are with respect to their conduct.
“That’s one of the big things with this legislation is there’s a lot of subjective tests and there’s a lot of those types of offences drafted into the bill.
“Quite often, for example, with the prohibition on expressions, if the minister can prohibit certain phrases, people need to be aware of what they can and can’t say.
“That’s not something that I think most people would be genuinely aware of when subordinate legislation is passed, or either, and often we’re telling people for the first time that’s something you can’t say or that’s something you can’t do in a conference with us when they’re sitting in front of us charging with an offence.”
People don’t know what they can and can’t do. People don’t know what the limits are with respect to their conduct.
Accredited Criminal Law Specialist Adam Moschella
He said laws around slogans, chants or phrases would need to be well publicised as the general person on the street might not understand the details.
“How many general members of the public sit down and read legislation? Not many of them.”
QLS stated the Amendment Act reforms were highly relevant to the core intent of the Bill and were the product of a four-year, community driven process initiated by the Cohesive Communities Coalition in 2020, marked by extensive consultation, evidence gathering and careful legislative design.
“The Bill should be assessed against the broader trajectory of anti-discrimination and anti-vilification reforms to ensure their necessity and functionality and to avoid unintended consequences.
“This Bill will increase the workload of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. lf the Bill is passed, QCAT must be provided with the additional resources required to perform this additional work.
“Criminal law alone cannot address the root causes of rising levels of antisemitism in Australia. Any new legislative measures must be accompanied by steps to address issues through a strong focus on prevention and community education.
“Appropriate oversight and review mechanisms are crucial to ensuring the proposed amendments represent a measured and suitable means of addressing the drivers of antisemitic and extremist behaviour.
“We recommend the Bill be amended to include a post-implementation review period after two years.”
Ms Burton highlighted the value of consultation undertaken from 2020 to 2024 saying it was “a very extensive and multi-layered process”.
“There are provisions that have come out of that community driven consultation that exist within a law that’s currently paused and could be unpaused to improve our civil vilification provisions,” she said.
“I think that the role of legislation, we are looking at criminal matters today, but when you’re looking at the role of legislation generally, to answer your question, there are other ways as well of addressing these same concerns and that have come out of communities’ requests.”
Share this article