1. Committee report
   1. The Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Tony Burke MP, wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) on 12 January 2026 to refer an Exposure Draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (the Exposure Draft legislation) for inquiry and report.

Background and context of the review

1.2On 14 December 2025 a horrific mass shooting occurred at Bondi Beach in Sydney, when two gunmen opened fire during a Chanukkah celebration, killing 15 people. More than 40 others were injured in the attack, many suffering serious and life-altering injuries.

1.3The incident was declared to be a terrorist attack, and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have alleged that the perpetrators were inspired by extremist ideology associated with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). One of the alleged perpetrators was shot by police at the scene, while at the time of this report the other was in custody awaiting trial on 59 charges, including 15 counts of murder.[1]

1.4The attack was one of the deadliest terrorist incidents in Australia’s history and represented an unprecedented act of antisemitic violence in a public setting. It profoundly shocked the nation and had a significant and lasting impact on Australia’s Jewish community and the broader Australian public.

1.5In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the Australian Government acted swiftly to respond to the national security, law enforcement and community safety implications arising from the incident. During December 2025 and January 2026 the Government announced a comprehensive package of measures, including the development of new laws to strengthen Australia’s response to antisemitism, hate speech, extremism and firearms regulation.

1.6On 8 January 2026, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a Royal Commission to examine antisemitism and social cohesion in Australia, reflecting the Government’s commitment to both immediate security responses and longer-term national reflection and reform.

1.7On 12 January 2026 the Prime Minister announced that Parliament would be recalled on 19 January to consider this urgent legislative response. The Prime Minister advised that the first day of the recalled sitting would include a condolence motion to honour the victims of the Bondi Beach attack and acknowledge the profound impact of the tragedy on their families, the Jewish community and the nation. The Prime Minister further announced that the Exposure Draft legislation would be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for a sharp and focused inquiry, reflecting the Government’s commitment to acting decisively while ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of significant national security reforms.[2]

1.8On 17 January 2026, the Prime Minister announced that following consultations, the Government would separate the Exposure Draft legislation into two bills—one on hate crimes and migration and the other on firearms—while the proposed new racial vilification provisions in the Exposure Draft legislation would not proceed. The Prime Minister further announced that Thursday 22 January 2026 would be a National Day of Mourning for Bondi.[3]

Conduct of the review

1.9Following the formal referral to the Committee on Monday 12 January 2026, as noted above, the Committee commenced its inquiry immediately after the Exposure Draft legislation was made public by the Government, on the morning of Tuesday 13 January 2026. The Committee invited submissions addressing the Exposure Draft legislation by 15 January 2026.

1.10A very large volume – numbering in the thousands – of submissions and items of correspondence were received by the Committee during the review. The majority of these were contributions from individuals raising concerns about the Exposure Draft legislation and the timeframe for its consideration. The Committee acknowledges the communications received from a large number of Australians, and thanks their authors for their contribution to the review.

1.11Due to the size of the public response and the short timeframe of the review, it was not possible for the Committee to verify and publish all submissions received prior to this report being presented. The Committee published a sample of the submissions, and a list of the submissions received and published by the Committee is provided in Appendix A to this report.

1.12The Committee held two public hearings and one in camera hearing, on 13 and 14 January 2026. Details of the public hearings are provided in Appendix B to this report.

1.13The Committee acknowledges and thanks the Committee Secretariat for its support in conducting this inquiry and preparing this report under an exceptionally compressed timeframe. The Committee also thanks Hansard and Broadcasting staff for their assistance in facilitating hearings and in ensuring the timely provision of evidence.

Report structure

1.14This report comprises one chapter. Given the large volume of evidence received by the Committee and its extreme time limitations, this report does not seek to discuss all evidence received, but focuses on the major issues raised in evidence and the Committee’s comments and recommendations on those.

Outline of the Bill

1.15The Exposure Draft legislation aims to further criminalise hateful conduct, expand powers to allow for cancellation or refusal of visas and set up a national firearms buyback scheme. The Exposure Draft legislation contained five schedules of amendments:

• Schedule 1 contained amendments to legislation regarding criminal law
• Schedule 2 contained amendments related to migration laws
• Schedule 3 contained customs amendments
• Schedule 4 contained amendments to firearms-related legislation
• Schedule 5 contained transitional rules.
  16. A factsheet summarising the Exposure Draft legislation in more detail, produced by the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), is available in Appendix C of this report. The factsheet is also available online at: www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/fact-sheet-combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026.

Key issues raised in evidence

Timeline and consultation process

1.17Concern about the very short time for consideration of the Exposure Draft legislation by stakeholders and the public, including this review, was a strong theme in submissions to the Committee, and was also noted by many witnesses, who emphasised that the timeframe did not allow them to comprehensively consider the Exposure Draft legislation and all its implications. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) told the Committee:

These are complex issues which are vital to get right. Allowing only three days for this inquiry to review and report on this significant draft legislation is insufficient. It creates risks that the legislation will not be as effective as it should be or that it will have unintended harmful consequences.[4]

1.18Mr Michael Pezzullo emphasised the significant work that would need to be done across several government agencies to effectively implement the legislation. He described the proposed changes as ‘the most consequential change in this area of law since 9/11’ and said ‘I think parliament simply has to accept that you’re not going to get perfection in the drafting’.[5]

1.19The Committee acknowledges the significant effort undertaken by Commonwealth officials to engage with stakeholders and jurisdictions over a short period and recognises that meaningful consultation continued even as urgent legislative development progressed.

1.20A related issue discussed during the review was the nature and adequacy of consultations undertaken by Government in the preparation of the Exposure Draft legislation. While some groups welcomed being consulted on the proposals, others lamented that they had no opportunity to contribute to development of the Exposure Draft legislation.

1.21In response to the Committee’s queries, the AGD advised that it held consultations and briefings with nine non-government stakeholders, and four meetings with states and territories, between late December 2025 and mid-January 2026. Ministers and their offices also engaged separately in their own consultations with stakeholders.[6] The AGD advised that it was unable to provide information on the content of consultations, noting that they were held in confidence.[7]

1.22The Department of Home Affairs advised that while it had been consulting ‘broadly’ with states, territories and some interest groups since National Cabinet agreed to pursue firearms reforms, it had not held consultations specifically on the proposed firearms amendments in the Exposure Draft legislation, noting the early stage of negotiations with states and territories on these reforms.[8]

1.23Evidence from Commonwealth officials clarified that, while consultation occurred under time pressure, the Government ensured key stakeholders were engaged. Officials explained that confidentiality in some sessions was necessary.

1.24Representatives of the AFP, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) confirmed that they had been consulted in the preparation of the Exposure Draft legislation.[9]

Racial vilification offence (Schedule 1, Part 5)

1.25Participants in the inquiry raised a range of concerns about the Exposure Draft legislation’s changes to hate crimes. This included broad concerns from many individual submitters that the changes would criminalise free speech or amount to political ‘censorship’. Other contributors emphasised the importance of strengthening criminal law responses to incitement of hatred, particularly in light of recent antisemitic violence.

1.26While many of the Exposure Draft legislation’s amendments simply increased penalties or introduced aggravating factors in relation to existing offences (see below),[10] the proposed new racial vilification offence in Division 80 of the Criminal Code generated the most comment. The racial vilification offence would apply in relation to:

publicly promoting or inciting hatred toward another person or group on the grounds of race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or for the dissemination of ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person on the grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, where that conduct would cause a reasonable targeted person to fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or for their safety.[11]

1.27The offence would carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.[12]

1.28While some contributors expressed strong support for the new offence, others were concerned that it would be too broad and risk capturing legitimate forms of expression. These concerns included the application of strict liability elements and the potential scope of the offence. For example, Mr Peter Kurti of the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) warned that, with strict liability applied to the fear element, the offence ‘invites subjective or politicised judgements about emotional impact rather than objective harm’.[13]

1.29In response, the AGD emphasised that the offence was directed at serious conduct only and not intended to capture trivial, frivolous or inadvertent expression. The AGD argued that the requirement for a prosecution to prove that a reasonable person would fear harassment, intimidation or violence would help ensure that the offence would not capture trivial or frivolous conduct. However, it explained that for sufficiently serious conduct, strict liability would mean the prosecution ‘wouldn’t have to show that the offender was aware that their conduct would cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to have that fear’.[14]

1.30Concerns were also raised about the availability of an offence-specific defence for ‘conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion’.[15] For example, Mr Peter Wertheim, of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), described the defence as a ‘very wide loophole that would be exploited to render the introduction of this offence ineffective’.[16] He called for the defence to be removed as it ‘suggests that somehow one can intentionally promote racial hatred and do so intentionally within the bounds of religious doctrine’.[17] A similar point was made by Liz Stone, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia, in her evidence before the Committee.[18]

1.31Other contributors argued that retaining a religious text defence is necessary, or that the proposed defence is too narrow. For example, Bishop Michael Stead of the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney said it was ‘absolutely essential’ that it be retained and argued that it was ‘insufficient’ in its current form.[19] Imam Shadi Alsuleiman, President of the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), similarly argued that ‘faith leaders must be given their freedom of right to express, quote, and also explain their religious scripture’.[20] Both also urged for the provisions to be delayed to allow more time for scrutiny and consultation.[21]

1.32Some participants noted the lack of a definition of ‘religious text’ in the Exposure Draft legislation, raising concerns about the potential for a wider range of texts to be captured than the core scriptures of established religions. The AGD explained that the term ‘religious text’ would take its ordinary meaning, which would be considered by the court, but noted the draft Explanatory Memorandum states that it would include ‘scripture, and translations of texts, which various religions consider to be of central importance to their religious practice’.[22] The AGD also clarified that defence would only be available if solely quoting, and would not protect from other offences:

The defence purely applies to a simple direct quote from a religious text for the particular purpose of religious teaching or discussion. If anyone was quoting for other purposes—the incitement of hatred, and their surrounding conduct indicated that—the defence wouldn't be available.[23]

… It's probably worth making the point that this defence is very specific to the vilification offence. There are a range of other offences that would apply, irrespective of whether there were quotes from religious texts. If you were, for example, an individual advocating for, or threatening, the use of force or violence, that would still apply.[24]

1.33The Committee notes that this evidence highlights differing views on how best to balance freedom of religion and expression with the need to prevent serious racial vilification.

1.34Many contributors also considered that the offence should be broadened to criminalise the vilification of other groups, not only those based on race, ethnicity or nationality. This included calls for protection against Islamophobic attacks, which have increased substantially in recent years. The AGD confirmed that the offence’s language of ‘race, colour, or national or ethnic origin’ draws upon language used in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and in that context the terms have been found to encompass Jewish people and other ethnoreligious groups—but would not encompass groups that are identified by their religion alone.[25]

1.35Other stakeholders recommended the offence be extended to protect against vilification on the basis of gender, sexuality or disability status. The Committee heard these concerns often framed in terms of implementation rather than opposition to the objectives of the reforms. For example, Equality Australia, in advocating for protection of the LGBTQIA+ community, told the Committee that ‘hate causes serious harm wherever it’s directed, and the law should offer equal protection to all communities at risk’.[26]

Firearms amendments (Schedule 4)

1.36Some participants in the inquiry raised a range of concerns about changes to firearms laws contained in Schedule 4 of the Exposure Draft legislation. This included broad concerns received from many individual submitters that the changes would impact farmers and other rural users of legal firearms as well as sporting shooters. In contrast some submitters expressed support for Schedule 4 and in particular, the gun buyback. The Committee notes that these reforms are directed toward enhancing public safety and national consistency in firearms regulation and do not represent a judgment on the conduct of lawful firearms owners.

National gun buyback (Schedule 4, Part 1)

1.37In relation to the national gun buyback some participants in the inquiry were concerned around the implications this may have for those, particularly in farming and rural communities, who use firearms as a tool much as a spade or harvester would be used. The Committee received evidence from Cattle Australia and the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) that firearms are an integral part of running a farming or meat production business. As one example they pointed to recent bushfires and the horribly burnt stock that need to be euthanised with a firearm.[27]

1.38Pressed on details as to how the firearms buyback would work Mr Andrew Warnes, First Assistant Secretary, Criminal Justice Division, from the Department of Home Affairs stated that:

Those details are still to be negotiated and worked through with the states and territories. What the bill does is provide a framework for the buyback to occur and for appropriation to happen. The details of what's referred to in the bill as the national firearms program will be determined.[28]

1.39Other inquiry participants stated that the proposed reforms are not an attempt to demonise legal firearm owners or to impede their legitimate work, hobbies or sports. Rather, the reforms represent a recalibration to meet contemporary community expectations around firearm management. Those submitters supported the Exposure Draft legislation and suggested that it prioritised community safety and met community expectations particularly by enabling a national buyback scheme of prohibited and unwanted guns.[29]

Other parts of Schedule 4

1.40Some submitters raised concerns around what they described as an expansive definition of ‘firearms and explosives manufacture material’. Several offences relate to this term, and submitters were concerned about this placing a range of legitimate actors in legal jeopardy, including service providers who are not firearms businesses but who handle technical or commercial documentation as part of their professional work. Submitters argued that these services are integral to the operation of the Australian firearms industry.

1.41Submitters argued that, if such providers withdraw or are unable to engage due to legal risk, the resulting disruption will have an immediate and material impact on domestic manufacturing capability and, by extension, Australia’s sovereign capability.

Other key issues

Other changes to hate speech and hate symbols laws (Schedule 1, parts 1, 3, 6 and 7)

1.42Apart from the proposed new racial vilification offence, some participants in the inquiry commented on the Exposure Draft legislation’s changes to existing hate speech laws or expressed their opposition to hate speech laws generally. A very large number of submissions received from individuals described the hate speech offences as ‘censorship’ of legitimate political expression or expressed concern about the criminalisation of legitimate protest activity.

1.43Some contributors raised concerns about the breadth of the provisions or the ‘vagueness’ of key definitions, as well as the proposed increased penalties and the new aggravating factors. Other contributors supported the amendments.

1.44One aspect that attracted particular comment was the proposed introduction of aggravated offences with higher penalties for circumstances where a person commits an offence in their capacity as a religious official or spiritual leader (however described) providing pastoral care or religious instruction.[30] Some participants were concerned that this would single out certain categories of person based on their status, rather than their conduct, or could apply to an unreasonably wide range of persons. For example, Bishop Stead told the Committee that while he could accept applying a higher standard to congregational leaders who are theologically trained, he was concerned the additional culpability would be extend to a broad range of untrained persons running, for example, a midweek Bible study or leading a Sunday school.[31]

1.45Relatively few contributors commented on the proposed changes aimed at strengthening the existing ‘hate symbols’ laws, although some indicated their support. At the public hearing, the AFP said the proposed removal of the ‘intention’ fault element from the existing offences would result in additional prosecutions.[32] The AFP also welcomed the proposed new ability for police to seize prohibited items.[33]

Prohibited hate groups (Schedule 1, Part 4).

1.46Some participants in the inquiry commented on the Exposure Draft legislation’s proposed framework for proscribing ‘prohibited hate groups’, to be inserted into new Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code. For a group to be proscribed, the AFP Minister, following written advice from the Director-General of Security,[34] would need to be:

satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation has directly engaged in, prepared or planned to engage in, or assisted the engagement in, conduct constituting a hate crime targeted at a person or persons distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin, or advocated engaging in conduct constituting such a hate crime; and specifying the organisation is reasonably necessary to prevent social, economic, psychological and physical harm’.[35]

1.47The Exposure Draft legislation included new criminal offences for directing the activities of, membership of, recruiting for, training involving, providing support to or getting funds to, from or for a prohibited hate group.[36]

1.48Although some submitters strongly supported the new framework, some raised concerns related to the threshold for proscription and the carve out of procedural fairness requirements in relation to the decisions of the Director-General of Security and the AFP Minister. Others were concerned about elements of retrospectivity being built into the new regime. The AGD explained that the criminal offences in relation to prohibited hate groups would not apply retrospectively and would only be applicable once a group had been listed:

It really reflects that, when a minister is considering listing an organisation, he or she can consider past conduct. So this definition is not talking about retrospective application of the criminal law. It's not saying that someone would go to prison if they engaged in this conduct before this provision came into force. What it is saying is that the minister can consider that past conduct where it occurred prior to this provision commencing.[37]

1.49The Committee notes that these provisions are modelled on existing counter-terrorism frameworks and include parliamentary oversight mechanisms, including review by this Committee.[38]

1.50The Director-General of Security advised the Committee that some groups ‘know how to stay on the right side of the law’ while inflaming communal tensions. ASIO stated that the prohibited hate group framework is an important tool to prevent such groups from being given ‘permission for violence’.[39]

Migration amendments (Schedule 2)

1.51Schedule 2 of the Exposure Draft legislation contained amendments to provisions relating to visas, principally amending the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act) to provide additional grounds on which the Minister for Home Affairs can refuse or cancel a visa, where any of the following circumstances apply:

• the person is, or was, a member or supporter of a terrorist organisation, state sponsor of terrorism or prohibited hate group, listed as such under the Criminal Code
• the person has been or is involved in committing a hate crime as defined in the Criminal Code, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence for it
• the person has made or endorsed public statement/s disseminating ideas of racial or ethnic superiority, and such conduct may risk harm to the Australian community or a segment of it.
  52. The Committee notes that these powers would operate within the existing framework of administrative law, including judicial and merits review where applicable.
  53. The Committee received some evidence expressing concern about these amendments, particularly the potential breadth of the ministerial discretions. At the public hearing, the AHRC suggested more clarity was needed about the new provisions, for example, whether liking or re-posting a statement on social media could create the grounds for a visa refusal or cancellation; and what the minimum threshold would be for a ‘risk of harm’ to the community.[40]

Committee comment

1.54On 14 December 2025, Australia experienced its deadliest terrorist attack. Fifteen innocent people lost their lives. While investigations and legal processes remain underway at the time of this report, it appears that this was an antisemitic terrorist attack aimed at Jewish Australians, and that the attackers were inspired by ISIS’s violent extremist ideology.

1.55The horrific attack at Bondi Beach shook our nation and reminded us of the very real harm antisemitism can cause. The Committee puts on record its deep compassion and concern for the Jewish community, who have felt this trauma most deeply. The Committee also applauds the courage of those who confronted the violence at Bondi, and mourns those who lost their own lives seeking to save others.

1.56Antisemitism is not just a threat to Australians of Jewish faith, it is a direct attack on their right to live safely, openly and with dignity. It strikes at the heart of the social fabric of our multicultural country. The Committee unequivocally condemns antisemitism and supports every effort to eradicate it from Australian society.

1.57National unity is vital to our national security. In its review of this important Exposure Draft legislation, necessarily short and focused, the Committee has been mindful of the urgent need to address a clear priority for our country: that acts of hatred and violence against any community will not be tolerated. The Committee is united in its determination to support efforts by the Parliament to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, while seeking to ensure that the proposed legislation will be as effective and proportionate as possible in doing so.

1.58After the Committee completed gathering evidence for its review, the Government indicated that, in order to secure timely passage of urgent reforms, the proposed legislation would proceed in separate bills and that certain measures, including the proposed racial vilification offence, would not be progressed at this time due to the absence of parliamentary support.

1.59Security agencies highlighted that the evolving threat environment – including increased online radicalisation and a rise in minors appearing in counter-terrorism case loads – necessitates strengthened legislative tools. Both ASIO and the AFP advised that the Exposure Draft legislation would materially enhance their ability to respond swiftly to serious antisemitic and extremist conduct.

1.60The Committee notes concerns raised in evidence to the review, including submissions about the timing of the legislation and the review, and recognises that the necessarily short timeframe constrained the ability of interested parties to carefully consider the Exposure Draft legislation prior to its enactment.

1.61The Committee also recognises, however, that these constraints arise directly from the imperative to respond swiftly and decisively to the serious risks identified following the Bondi attack.

1.62The Committee considers it essential that the Parliament proceed in a manner that strengthens national unity and social cohesion at a time of profound national grief. Evidence to the Committee, including from Australia’s security agencies, underscored the risks posed by heightened social tension and polarised public debate. This includes calls from national security leaders to lower the temperature of public discourse in order to reduce the risk of further harm. In this context, the Committee supports efforts to prioritise legislative measures that command broad parliamentary support and can be implemented without contributing to further division.

1.63The Exposure Draft legislation seeks to address the scourge of antisemitism through a range of measures, including through the proposed racial vilification offence.

1.64A Commonwealth racial vilification offence is a novel inclusion in the Criminal Code, and submissions surfaced the complex challenges that arise when drafting laws of this nature. It is essential that the right balance is struck and the Committee acknowledges the engagement of stakeholders with the Committee process. The contributions have been thoughtful and considered, and engagement has occurred in good faith to improve the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed offence provision. The Committee considers that the issues raised during this inquiry warrant continued consideration as part of Australia’s longer-term response to antisemitism and hate-motivated violence.

1.65Hate can lead to violence and the Parliament should seek to identify actions which attempt to address the spread of hateful ideologies within the community. Addressing speech that foments hatred towards individuals or communities is important, and the Parliament should unite to act in the interests of community safety and social cohesion.

1.66The Committee urges the Parliament to work together in a constructive and collaborative manner across all parties and crossbench members to ensure that the legislative response to antisemitism, hate and extremism is effective, proportionate and reflects a unified national commitment to community safety and social cohesion.

1.67Evidence before the Committee indicated that the Exposure Draft legislation intended to provide a comprehensive response to antisemitism and extremism through different policy levers. Recognising the complex nature of extremism and the need to address its various manifestations in a cohesive way, the Committee accepts there is considerable merit in this approach.

1.68However, throughout the Committee’s review, a number of stakeholders emphasised the value of separating these measures into more targeted legislative vehicles. Many argued that dividing the reforms would enable clearer scrutiny of distinct policy issues and facilitate more focused parliamentary debate.

1.69The Committee notes the announcement by the Prime Minister on 17 January 2026 of the Government’s intention to split the Exposure Draft legislation into two legislative vehicles: one containing hate crime and migration provisions and the other containing the provisions relating to gun reform. The Committee also notes the Government’s intention not to proceed with the proposed racial vilification offence.

1.70The Committee agrees, and believes that separating the Exposure Draft legislation into two legislative vehicles – one relating to hate crimes provisions and the other to gun reform – is a more appropriate means through which these proposals should proceed.

1.71Putting the serious vilification offence to one side, the Committee considers that the migration provisions in Schedule 2, and the proposed prohibited hate group listing regime and other aspects of the hate crimes provisions contained in Schedule 1, are appropriate and proportionate. Those measures collectively represent a strong and effective response to the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of extremism. Based on the evidence received through the inquiry, the Committee recommends that the measures contained in Schedules 1 and 2 be passed as a priority.

1.72The Committee further considers that the customs and firearms measures contained in Schedules 3 and 4 will make a meaningful difference to improving the safety of the Australian community and so should be progressed as a priority. The buyback, intelligence and customs measures form an impactful package that build on, and enhance, Australia’s bipartisan gun safety laws. The Committee recommends that, subject to Recommendations 3 and 4, all of the measures contained in Schedules 3 and 4 be passed as a priority.

1.73The Committee understands the Government’s intent in bringing forward one draft Bill to deal with all elements of its response to the Bondi attack. Noting the Government’s decision not to proceed with the racial vilification provisions at this time, the Committee makes no recommendation in relation to that aspect of the Exposure Draft legislation.

Consistent with the remaining elements of the Exposure Draft legislation, the Committee recommends that (1) the hate crimes and migration provisions, and (2) the firearms reforms, proceed.

Given the importance of the hate crime, migration and firearms provisions to addressing antisemitism, hate and extremism, the Committee recommends that these measures be passed.

1.74The Committee notes the concerns raised by firearm owners in Australia. The Committee accepts that the majority of firearms owners are law abiding citizens, and that the overwhelming majority use firearms responsibly and in accordance with the law. The Committee supports Schedule 4 of the Exposure Draft legislation encompassing the national gun buyback and strengthening provisions for the import, control, management and possession of firearms, across a variety of legislation. However, considering the concerns of legitimate gun owners in the community, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in implementing Schedule 4 including negotiations with States and Territories, ensure that farming, rural and sporting shooters are not unreasonably disadvantaged.

1.75Evidence from the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that firearms licensing remains a matter for states and territories, while the Exposure Draft legislation would establish a national framework to support consistency and intelligence‑sharing. Officials stressed that lawful firearm owners are not the target of these reforms, and the AFP advised that very few recent extremist investigations involved legally‑held firearms.

1.76The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in implementing the provisions contained in Schedule 4 of the Exposure Draft legislation, including negotiations with States and Territories around the national gun buyback, ensure:

• the avoidance of duplication, inconsistency and unintended enforcement outcomes;
• that farming, rural and sporting shooters are not unreasonably disadvantaged in their businesses, lawful pursuits or national and international sporting competition; and
• that clear guidance is provided to affected persons regarding new provisions and arrangements, and the requirements for compliance.
  77. The Committee acknowledges evidence received during the inquiry that elements of Schedule 4 — particularly the new offences relating to firearms and explosives manufacture material, including digital files used for 3D printed weapons — risk unintentionally capturing legitimate and longstanding industry activity.
  78. Expert evidence provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology also highlighted the increasing prevalence of digital firearms plans and 3D printed weapons and identified a correlation between the acquisition of such material and criminal histories or links to illicit firearms activity. This underscores the importance of strong offences targeting the illicit manufacture of firearms, while also ensuring a clear distinction between criminal conduct and legitimate, licensed professional work.
  79. The Committee considers that a narrowly framed, explicit defence is necessary to provide certainty and protect the integrity of lawful industry operations, while maintaining the Exposure Draft legislation’s objective of preventing the proliferation of illicitly manufactured firearms, including those produced through emerging technologies such as 3D printing.

1.80The Committee recommends that the [relevant] Bill be amended to include a specific defence for individuals who hold a valid licence permitting them to manufacture, repair, maintain or modify firearms, ensuring that possession or access to firearms- or explosives‑manufacture material is not criminalised where the material relates to conduct lawfully authorised under that licence.

1.81The Committee emphasises that legislation, while essential, cannot by itself eradicate antisemitism or violent extremism. Evidence before the Committee highlighted the complex cultural, social and ideological drivers of hate, including online radicalisation and the normalisation of extremist narratives. Effective responses must therefore extend beyond criminal law to include education, community leadership, prevention and efforts to strengthen social cohesion.

1.82The Committee believes that the Australian Government must continue to pursue non-legislative measures to combat antisemitism and violent extremism, including education, community engagement and prevention initiatives, alongside the implementation of legislative reforms.

1.83In the Committee’s view, it is now in the national interest for the Parliament to proceed promptly with those measures that have secured support, to honour the victims of the Bondi attack, to enhance public safety, and to allow space for national healing and reflection.

Senator Raff Ciccone

Chair

January 2026

Footnotes

[1]Bondi gunman formally charged by NSW Joint Counter Terrorism Team, Media release, 17 December 2025, https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGMTIyNTA0Lmh0bWwmYWxsPTE%3D; Commissioner Krissy Barrett, Australian Federal Police, Op Arques media conference statement – 30 December 2025,https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-statement/afp-commissioner-krissy-barrett-op-arques-media-conference-statement-30; both accessed 15 January 2026 .

[2]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister, Parliament to be recalled for national security legislation, Media Release, 12 January 2026, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/parliament-be-recalled-national-security-legislation, accessed 15 January 2026.

[3]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister, Press Conference – Parliament House, Canberra, transcript, 17 January 2026, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house-canberra-17-jan-2026, accessed 17 January 2026.

[4]Mr Hugh de Kretser, President, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14January 2026, p. 10.

[5]Mr Michael Pezzullo, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 18.

[6]Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 1.2, p. [4]. The non-government organisations consulted by AGD were: Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and Office of Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Extremism (twice), Law Council of Australia (twice), Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Australian National Imams Council, Jewish Council of Australia, National Council of Churches and Anglican Church Diocese, and Equality Australia.

[7]Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 5.

[8]Mr Andrew Warnes, First Assistant Secretary, Criminal Justice Division, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 8; Department of Home Affairs, Submission 1.1, p. [1].

[9]See Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, pp. 34-35, 38, 39.

[10]Schedule 1, pts 1-2, 6.

[11]Exposure Draft Explanatory Memorandum (EM), p. 3.

[12]Exposure Draft of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (Exposure Draft), Schedule 1, item 22 (proposed section 80.2BF).

[13]Mr Peter Kurti, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Independent Studies, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14January 2026, p. 22.

[14]Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 14.

[15]EM, p. 139 [261].

[16]Mr Peter Wertheim, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 4.

[17]Mr Peter Wertheim, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 3.

[18]Ms Elizabeth (Liz) Stone, General Secretary, National Council of Churches in Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 45.

[19]Right Reverend Doctor Michael Stead, Bishop of South Sydney, Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 48.

[20]Imam Shadi Alsuleiman, President, Australian National Imams Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14January 2026, p. 41.

[21]Imam Shadi Alsuleiman, President, Australian National Imams Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14January 2026, pp. 41; Right Reverend Doctor Michael Stead, Bishop of South Sydney, Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 44.

[22]EM, p. 139 [262]; Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 10.

[23]Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 10.

[24]Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 11.

[25]Ms Sarah Chidgey PSM, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 16.

[26]Ms Heather Corkhill, Legal Director, Equality Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p.31.

[27]Mr Chris Groves, Chair, Farming Systems Committee, National Farmers Federation, Dr Chris Parker, Senior Adviser, Cattle Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, pp. 35–39.

[28]Mr Andrew Warnes, First Assistant Secretary, Criminal Justice Division, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 18.

[29]Ms Sarah Davies, Chief Executive Officer and Mr Stephen Bendle, Senior Advocacy Adviser, Alannah and Madeline Foundation, Mr Timothy Quinn President and Mr Roland Browne, Vice President, Gun Control Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, pp. 25–30.

[30]EM, pp. 2–3.

[31]Right Reverend Doctor Michael Stead, Bishop of South Sydney, Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, pp. 48–49.

[32]Ms Krissy Barrett, Commissioner, Australian Federal Police, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 32.

[33]Mr Matthew Gale, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Counter Terrorism and Special Investigations, Australian Federal Police, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, pp. 32–33.

[34]EM, p. 117 [113].

[35]EM, p. 2.

[36]EM, p. 2.

[37]Mr Luke Muffett, Assistant Secretary, National Security & Criminal Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, pp. 21, 26.

[38]EM, p. 120 [133].

[39]Mr Mike Burgess, Director-General of Security, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 13 January 2026, p. 41.

[40]Dr Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 January 2026, p. 15.