I INTRODUCTION

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 responds to the violent 2025 Bondi terror attack through reforms to the criminal law; the Act attempts to satisfy a public outcry rather than implementing evidence-based or practically enforceable measures to combat hate crime. As a reactive intervention with limited capacity to provide substantive results to the public, the legislation’s effectiveness is undermined by low prosecution outcomes, an overreliance on penalty increases that quantitative evidence suggests only provide short-term deterrent impacts, and inadequate police training that has led to significant underreporting of hate crimes. Furthermore, the amendments examined in this essay include Part 1, titled “Aggravated Offences for preachers and leaders”, which focuses on increased imprisonment penalties, alongside the creation of a new offence. Additionally, Part 5 introduces ‘Aggravated grooming offences’, presenting an effective recognition of youth radicalisation and two newly introduced provisions. Although the amendments propose a response to hate crimes, the escalating extremism demands a more comprehensive approach to counter a neglected problem.[1] Ultimately, thorough police training in areas of hate crime, targeted empirical research into the spread of extremism online, and institutional accountability measures are necessary to combat violent extremism and hate crimes.[2]

II REFORMS TO THE CRIMINAL LAW

A Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders

The public outcry following the Bondi Beach terror attack served as a primary catalyst for legislative reform. However, the reforms to ‘Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders’ predominantly serve to appease public concern rather than function as evidence-based measures aimed at preventing further violent crimes. Although reforms to the criminal law include increased penalties across Subdivision C, empirical evidence undermines the assumption that harsher penalties equate to an effective long-term deterrent. The amendments further dismiss an underlying issue of low prosecution outcomes, significantly limiting their practical effectiveness.

Quantitative data challenges the traditional approach of increasing penalty terms, as a study conducted by the University of Canberra monitored offenders over four years and concluded that:

“Longer prison sentences appear to have a short-term incapacitative effect relative to shorter sentences. However, the effect is illusory, and offenders given longer prison sentences eventually catch up to those serving shorter sentences. The longer prison sentences being served in NSW will therefore have no impact on public safety”.[3]

Although longer prison sentences demonstrated initial deterrent effects, increasing penalties by 2 to 3 years would only produce a short-term impact, highlighting the insufficiencies of penalty reforms to “Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders”. Thus, the amendments appear politically reactive rather than evidence-based, primarily functioning as a response to public pressure and raising doubts about their capacity to effect positive social change.

Furthermore, the increase in penalties across Subdivision C is ineffective in addressing racial vilification due to the extremely limited number of prosecutions to begin with, leaving harsher sanctions unaffected. In addition to the theoretical shortcomings of deterrence, the success of penalty increases is further undermined by enforcement failures. This is evident in the 66 hate-related charges in NSW during 2024-25,[4] a figure that is highly disproportionate to the 1,654 reported anti-Jewish incidents alone during that same period.[5] Figure 1 illustrates the hate-related offences under NSW legislation for which an offender was charged between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025, with only three charges related to publicly threatening or inciting violence on religious grounds.[6] The inconsistency between reporting rates and prosecution outcomes reveals systemic inadequacies within enforcement and prosecutorial processes. This demonstrates that increased criminal sanctions have minimal practical impact when systemic enforcement failures prevent the majority of reported incidents from progressing to prosecution.

Although the data exhibited in Figure 1 presents extremely low prosecution rates for NSW hate crimes (compared to incident rates), this correlates with a broader international trend of systemic underreporting. The OSCE reports that ‘25 per cent of member countries consistently fail to meet their basic commitment to reporting hate crime data to ODIHR’,[7] reflecting the severity of global under-prosecution rates.[8] Similarly, the EU finds that due to reporting limitations seen in resource-poor areas, these ‘hate crimes remain unidentified or unrecorded - and thus unprosecuted’,[9] suggesting that under-prosecution is a pervasive enforcement issue. Thus, the reliance on increased penalties alone is challenged as deep-rooted enforcement insufficiencies are yet to be addressed.

The Act also creates a new offence (80.2DA), targeting religious officials, spiritual leaders, and those providing instruction, whether religious or secular. This offence applies a two-tier structure: 12 years imprisonment where the ‘underlying offence’ threatens the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, and 10 years imprisonment where it does not. The ‘underlying offence’encompasses offences set out in Subdivision 80.2A - 80.2BE, ranging from “Urging or threatening violence” to “Offences against groups or members of groups.” These reforms strengthen a strategy of general deterrence as they focus on individuals in a position of authority and power, identifying the influence of religious officials and spiritual leaders in inciting extremism. Furthermore, the Act effectively defines both ‘religious official’ and ‘spiritual leader’ in an all-encompassing manner, acknowledging individuals acting in both an informal and formal capacity. The expansive nature of these definitions reflects a pragmatic approach by identifying how the incitement of violent extremism also operates outside of traditional institutional structures.

Whilst the creation of section 80.2DA provides an all-encompassing offence targeting influential individuals through which radical extremism spreads, the increase in penalties to ‘Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders’ has limited capability to create long-term transformative change. Consequently, the penalty reforms appear to merely satisfy public dissatisfaction with minimal regard for the practicality of these amendments. The penalty increases represent a traditional response to a volatile issue of extremism, and as proven by quantitative data, their minuscule impact suggests a need for greater institutional reform.

B Aggravated grooming offences

As part of the criminal law reforms, the creation of two new aggravated grooming offences aims to combat the advocacy of violence by adults that targets or reaches children under the age of 18. The first offence, inserted at the end of Subdivision C of Division 80 of the Criminal Code, is 80.2DB; “Aggravated offence - advocating violence or property damage, etc. to a child”. The offence carries a penalty of 12 years imprisonment where the crime threatens the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, and 10 years imprisonment where it does not.

A distinct aspect of this new provision is the emphasis on “whether or not one of those other persons actually is less than 18 years old”, indicating that the offender’s recklessness is the key distinguishing element to consider. By requiring only a standard of recklessness to be established regarding the potential presence of a child under 18, the legislation aims to criminalise the risk of advocating violence to young people. Consequently, the provisions are an effective approach to addressing contexts of online advocacy as they broaden the criminalisation of situations where young people are at risk of exposure to extremism. Although offenders may not specifically intend to advocate violence toward young people, criminalising conduct where individuals under 18 may be exposed establishes a preventative mechanism. The success of this offence would begin to address situations of radical extremism, targeting youth exposure as a significant factor in the spread of violence.

However, a practical limitation of these offences lies in their enforcement, as the effectiveness of the intended objective relies on policing and institutional procedures. Whilst the aggravated offence broadens criminal liability to a lower benchmark of recklessness, policing measures should be taken into consideration, as enforceability remains an area of concern. An article by the ABC titled “Hate crime laws rarely used by Australian authorities, police figures reveal” discusses the flaws present in NSW policing systems, pointing out inadequate training for identifying and dealing with hate crimes.[10]

NSW Police personnel were interviewed and expressed similar concerns relating to systemic flaws.

"Nothing changes until somebody dies … until the day a white supremacist walks into a mosque”.[11]

This statement was recorded two years before the Christchurch massacre, and similarly applies to the current Bondi terror attack, where fatalities are required to necessitate change.

Tim Soutphommasane, former race discrimination commissioner, comments:

“If police did not record and act on common cases of racial vilification and abuse, it made it harder to prevent major hate crimes”.[12]

The failures of NSW police to record reported hate crimes due to inadequate training further correlate with the prevalence of escalating major hate crimes. Therefore, for the effective application of the amended offences and newly introduced offences, a similar extent of reformation is required to address the policing issues present within the NSW criminal justice system.

Furthermore, the second introduced offence titled 474.45BA “Aggravated offence for using a carriage service for violent extremist material”, criminalises the transmission, publication, distribution, and similar promotion of violent extremist materials when the offender is reckless as to whether individuals under 18 may be exposed to such content. This provision specifically targets the online aspect of sharing extremist and violent material, acknowledging the digital sphere’s role in facilitating the transmission of violent extremist material.

An Australian journal article titled “Determining the Role of the Internet in Violent Extremism and Terrorism” reports that:

“Today's Internet does not simply allow for the dissemination and consumption of “extremist material” in a one-way broadcast from producer to consumer, but also high levels of online social interaction around this material. The reality, however, is that insufficient substantive empirically grounded social science research has been undertaken”.[13]

Therefore, the effectiveness of this provision remains uncertain, as the absence of empirically grounded research hinders the law’s ability to accurately profile and identify emerging settings where extremism occurs.[14] Overall, the reforms to the Aggravated grooming offences demonstrate an attempt to address youth radicalisation through preventative mechanisms relying on a standard of recklessness. However, practical limitations compromise their potential, as a lack of adequate police training and insufficient research into online extremism pose a problematic enforcement issue. A thorough examination of how youth radicalisation spreads would enable more targeted legislative measures and provide police with the specificity needed for effective enforcement, leading to just prosecutions.

III CONCLUSION

Whilst the new reforms acknowledge an increasingly prevalent crisis, the current social landscape requires a much larger cultural reformation, as the delayed attempt to counteract racial hate crimes reveals a neglected cultural problem now infiltrating workplaces, religious locations, and public settings.[15] Due to the unattended issue of violent extremism by the NSW government for over three decades, Australia’s response to hate crimes is behind comparable Western nations.[16] Although a primary characteristic of legislation is its inherently reactionary nature, general indicators of an escalating issue are nonetheless capable of triggering political reforms; relevant metrics include media reporting, complaint data, and crime statistics. Consequently, the recent reforms to the criminal law, specifically Part 1 - Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders and Part 5 - Aggravated grooming offences,demonstrate minimal capacity to address a deeply rooted problem when systemic obstacles to enforcement and the proven ineffectiveness of deterrence-based strategies remain unresolved. Ultimately, the Act represents a traditional approach of performative politics, a reactive legislative gesture aiming to satisfy public distress in the wake of a high-tension situation; however, a complete institutional reformation is essential to combating an escalating issue of violent extremism and hate crimes.

IV FOOTNOTES

[1] Hawila, M. (2021). The need to criminalise hate crimes. Edu.au. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2021/102.pdf

[2] Ibid

[3] Tait, D. (2001). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS: A NATURAL EXPERIMENT, REPORT 33/96-7 TO THE CRIMINOLOGY RESEARCH COUNCIL. UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA Division of Management and Technology. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/33-96-7.pdf

[4] National Hate Crimes Database. (2025). Gov.au. https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/national-hate-crimes-database

[5] Kidd, J. (2025, December 2). Report shows violent attacks and street abuse “the norm” for Australian Jews, peak body says. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-03/nsw-anti-jewish-incidents-report-2025-antisemitism-australia/106095142

[6] Ibid

[7] “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world's largest regional security-oriented intergovernmental organisation, with 57 participating states across North America, Europe, and Asia. It serves as a comprehensive forum for dialogue and practical cooperation on a wide range of security-related issues, operating through a consensus-based, non-binding political framework.”

[8] OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2021). Lack of comprehensive approach to hate crimes leaves them invisible and unaddressed, OSCE human rights head says. Osce.org. https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/504244

[9] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2018). Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU. https://doi.org/10.2811/239809

 [10] Cohen, H., & Mitchell, S. (2019, May 2). Hate crime laws rarely used by Australian authorities, police figures reveal. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/hate-crimes-rarely-prosecuted-in-australia/11055938

[11]Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Conway, M. (2017). Determining the role of the internet in violent extremism and terrorism: Six suggestions for progressing research. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 40(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2016.1157408

[14] Ibid

[15] Hawila, M. (2021). The need to criminalise hate crimes. Edu.au. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2021/102.pdf

[16] Ibid