In connection with the Bondi Beach shooting in Sydney, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people celebrating Hanukkah, dominated by labourists, the Australian Parliament adopted 2 draft laws introducing strict rules on weapon control and alleged hatred crimes.
On Tuesday, the initiators of the draft regulation on arms control and extending the rules on "hate crimes" argued that they aim to "fight anti-Semitism, extremism and firearms violence".
The Australian authorities have already tried to tighten up the regulation on these issues, but due to social opposition, for example, they had to abandon the draft on “hate speech”. The events of December opened the space for the introduction of laws related to the fight against anti-Semitism, alleged hatred speech and extremism.
Both regulations establish a National Arms Repurchase Programme, introduce a fresh crime qualified for promoting spiritual violence, and strengthen immigration and import legislation. They besides envisage limiting the issue of arms permits to Australian citizens.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after a shooting in the Bondi Beach district, which was committed by an Indian-born man and his boy already born in Australia, killing 15 participants in the judaic vacation on December 14, concluded that it was a "terrorist incident" inspired by the muslim State and the most tragic mass shooting in Australia for almost 30 years. The perpetrators of the shooting were to legally get firearms, although the service had their eye on a younger man since 2019.
Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people died in the island state of Tasmania, the Australian Parliament passed strict rules on firearms control, alleged National Firearms Agreement. At that time, more than 700,000 weapons were taken.
The second act on the fight against hatred is already controversial, given the possible to restrict freedom of speech and religion. The opposition leaders recalled that freedom of expression and religion are protected by global law in Articles 19 and 20 of the global Covenant on civilian and Political Rights (MPPOiP) and in Article 116 of the Constitution of Australia.
The regulation on the fight against "hate crimes" is intended to let the illegalisation of organisations which could not be banned under the current anti-terrorism legislation.
What group can so be declared banned on the basis of fresh regulations? This will be decided by the Governor-General, who will issue the applicable regulation on the basis of the opinion of the Australian national Police Minister.
The Minister must, in turn, have reasonable grounds to consider that the group has committed or has been linked to a ‘hate crime’, specified as preparing, planning, helping or calling for it.
Furthermore, the Minister must have reasonable grounds to prohibit the activities of the group in order to defend the Australian community from "social, economic, intellectual and physical harm". It should be noted that specified "damages" can consist of the existence in general of a group in Australia that has committed or has been linked to a ‘hate crime’. Needless to say, it is the minister who will decide who to ban.
The 3rd condition is that the Minister obtains an opinion from the Director-General for safety recommending that the group be banned.
The manager is to be convinced that the group's activities endanger to increase the hazard of political or spiritual violence. It is adequate that there is simply a hazard that a group may commit future violence.
The Minister must besides get the approval of the lawyer General to ban the group's activities and organise a briefing for the opposition leader in this matter. 1 home of Parliament will be able to repeal any regulation prohibiting the activities of a group.
Any conditions set out will be easy circumvented by appointing the key positions of an ideologically defined individual and convincing that any opposition to the actions proposed by officials to delegate the activities of certain organisations threatens with force and "damaging" society.
The codified "hate crime" is defined as covering acts of force against individuals due to their race, colour, national or cultural origin, and serious harm to their property. It includes threatening or calling for force or harm to property, as well as displaying symbols of Nazi or terrorist organizations, etc.
There is much controversy over criticism of the actions or policies of another country. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland was asked on ABC's 7.30 program whether the group could be banned if he accused Israel of genocide or apartheid, making Australian Jews feel intimidated. Rowland replied that a number of another factors would request to be met, including the opinion of the Director-General for Security. This would besides depend on the evidence collected.
Further indagoated, if protesters find that “Israel commits genocide or condemns Israel, claiming it should not exist”, and thus Australian Jews may feel threatened, can they be banned from their activities? She replied that ‘if these criteria are met, then yes’.
Due to concerns about specified interpretation, amendments to the legislature Act were tabled. 1 of them states: “In accordance with the judgement of the national Court in Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720, criticism of the practices, policies and actions of the State of Israel, the Defence Forces of Israel or Zionism is not by nature a criticism of the judaic people and constitutes a protected political speech alternatively than a speech of hatred.” However, the amendment was rejected by 43 votes to 12.
It is highly likely that freedom of expression on abroad policy of another countries will be limited unless the constitutionality of the fresh regulations can be undermined.
Under the fresh rules, the government must make a weapons buy-in programme to make amends to those who are forced to give it.
The government initially planned 1 bill, but divided these issues into 2 draft laws. Both initially passed through the home of Representatives, where the centre-left Labour organization has a majority. The Firearms Act was the first which the legislature – no organization has a majority in it – adopted by 38 votes to 26. Then, in the 76-man advanced chamber, 38 senators were voted against in the anti-hate crimes bill.
It is already known that the states of Tasmania and Queensland and the Northern territory are opposed to the national force to launch a fresh arms buy-out program that would half-charge states and territories. In this case, the Australian authorities are to negotiate.
Source: jurist.org, pbs.org, theconversation.com
AS
