New hate laws have passed parliament. What do they actually do?

Parliament has just passed the toughest federal hate speech laws in Australia's history.

Labor has been open that the legislation, introduced in the wake of the Bondi terror attack, is primarily aimed at tackling "hate groups" that promote antisemitism — and that revisiting the laws to include other minority groups is not a priority.

The legislation passed with Liberal Party support, though the Nationals, Greens and One Nation voted against it, citing various concerns around free speech.

Where did the laws land?

Labor's draft legislation included a provision to criminalise the promotion or incitement of racial hatred, which was a recommendation of antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal and broadly supported by Jewish groups.

Despite calling for Ms Segal's report to be implemented in full, various Coalition members raised concerns the draft bill would excessively impinge on free speech — a position shared by the Greens, constitutional lawyers and various faith leaders.

After both the Coalition and Greens rejected the new offence, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dumped it.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke this week said the government "would have liked the laws to be even stronger" but what has passed represented "the strongest hate laws Australia's ever had".

The laws grant powers for the government to list so-called hate groups, more easily deport or cancel the visas of individuals associated with hate groups, increase penalties for hate crime offences, and create new aggravated penalties for hate preachers and leaders who advocate violence.

What's a hate group?

The legislation defines hate groups as organisations that publicly incite hatred or communal violence against a person or group due to their race or national or ethnic origin.

To be designated, the home affairs minister must be satisfied that the group has engaged in, prepared, planned or assisted in a hate crime, which is now defined as conduct that would "cause a reasonable person … to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety".

Critically, the minister cannot act without advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) director-general.

Before recommending a group be listed, ASIO must be satisfied that the group has engaged in activities that would likely increase the risk of politically motivated or communal violence or advocated for such violence, including in the future.

The director-general and minister do not need to observe procedural fairness in either providing advice or listing a hate group, meaning affected parties will not have the right to dispute allegations against them before they are listed as a hate group.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland described the legislation as "tight" and "capable of interpretation not only by a court, but also by our agencies".

Will the laws really stop 'hate'?

The government has said the changes are primarily intended to capture groups like Neo-Nazi-aligned National Socialist Network and radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose actions have so far fallen below the legal threshold of criminal conduct.

Within hours of the legislation passing parliament, Hizb ut-Tahrir erased its online presence, while the National Socialist Network announced it was disbanding last week in anticipation of the laws.

During a parliamentary inquiry, ASIO chief Mike Burgess conceded the laws would likely see such groups simply move underground.

"Of course, individuals don't cease to exist, they're still there in society and obviously the problematic ones we will continue to watch if they continue to be problematic," he said.

"But our job is to find the people who are hiding themselves in society — and we're good at that."

What does it mean for protest rights?

The Greens, who voted against the legislation in the Senate, described these changes as a "chilling" attack on political debate, protest and civil rights.

"This will silence legitimate criticism of foreign nations undertaking human rights abuses," Greens leader Larissa Waters said.

"It is not antisemitic to call out the actions of the Netanyahu regime in conducting a genocide."

Barrister Greg Barns said the laws would "inevitably" have unintended consequences and would fall subject to legal challenges.

"To be frank, when you read the bill, even to senior lawyers its unintelligible," he said.

"The great concern we have about banning organisations is there is no requirement for procedural fairness, known as natural justice.

"The executive always has to be subject to checks and balances, including by the courts — not to do so breaches the rule of law and is fundamentally undemocratic."

'Not designed' to prevent differences of view

When asked repeatedly if the laws would capture groups that accuse Israel of genocide or apartheid, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said "there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied".

"I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in or ruling out specific kinds of conduct," she said.

"We have been clear from the outset about the kinds of groups that we are seeking to bring within this regime … they are groups such as the National Socialist Network and Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the legislation was "very clear about trying to crack down on those who are seeking to incite criminal behaviour motivated by hatred".

"It is not legislation which is designed to prevent differences of views and freedom of speech," she said.

Ultimately, though, protest organisations could be captured under the laws if ASIO deems they meet the criteria of "inciting hatred" or causing a reasonable person to be intimidated.

Will the laws stop radicalisation?

Among the other key changes in this legislation is the introduction of a new aggravated offence for adults who seek to radicalise children.

According to Australian Federal Police data, 48 youths aged between 12 and 17 have been investigated by joint counterterrorism teams since 2020, with 25 charged with one or more Commonwealth terrorism-related offences.

Of those, 54 per cent identified as being religiously motivated, 22 per cent as ideologically motivated, and 11 per cent had a mixed or unclear ideology, with 13 per cent yet to be determined.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has outlined a "a growing trend towards ideologically motivated, mixed or unclear motivation", highlighting the difficulty authorities face in identifying and monitoring potential violent actors.

Levi West, a counterterrorism researcher at the Australian National University, said the legislation was unlikely to shift the dial on this complex social issue.

"It is unclear to me which aspects of this legislation would have prevented the Bondi attacks from taking place," he said.

"Youth radicalisation is something that can happen to anyone in the right circumstances.

"It's very difficult to monitor or know at what point someone who may be ideologically radicalised might turn to violence, or if that will ever happen."

The AFP has tasked a senior operational psychologist to undertake analysis of the 48 youth matters to help identify trends and behaviours among them. They are due to report later this year.