Since the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, Australia has maintained stringent firearm regulations, largely preventing mass-casualty attacks. However, the Bondi terrorist attack on 14 December 2025 prompted renewed scrutiny of Australia’s counterterrorism, migration, and firearms policy, resulting in rapid legislative reform.
Have these ad-hoc reforms changed Australia’s political climate for good? You can be the judge.
Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
On 24 December 2025, Parliament passed its initial counter-terrorism reforms.
These include:
-
- It is an offence to knowingly display prohibited terrorist organisation symbols without reasonable excuse (such as for educational purposes).
- Police were granted expanded powers to direct protestors to remove face coverings where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
- If a terrorist attack is declared and a public assembly (such as a protest) would likely risk community safety, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may issue a public assembly restriction declaration to ban such assemblies.
- Stricter firearm controls, including ownership limits, weapon recategorisation, shorter licence terms, and citizenship requirements.
Royal Commission
The Labor government initially resisted calls for a royal commission, instead favouring an internal review of ASIO and AFP operations. However, Coalition Senator James Paterson told ABC News that “only a royal commission can identify whether or not operational failures occurred here.”
Following intense scrutiny, the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was announced on 8 January 2026. The terms of reference largely focus on investigating antisemitism in Australia and the circumstances of the Bondi terrorist attack, while seeking recommendations “that would contribute to strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism.”
The Commission is due to deliver an interim report by April 2026 and a final report by December 2026.
Omnibus Bill Proposal
On 13 January 2026, Parliament released a draft of the Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, described the bill as “clumsy and deeply flawed”, which “divided the Parliament and risked encroaching on fundamental freedoms.”
A controversial aspect of this Bill was the proposed ‘racial vilification offence.’ The Law Reform Commission has previously reported on this, claiming that it would “introduce imprecision and subjectivity into the criminal law.”
Part of the Bill reads as follows:
“80.2BF Publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred etc.
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct in a public place; and
(b) the person engages in the conduct intending to:
(i) promote or incite hatred of another person (the target), or a group of persons (the target group), because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the target or target group; or
(ii) disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person (the target), or a group of persons (the target group), because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the target or target group; and
(c) the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, or a member of the target group, to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”
…
“Defence—religious teaching or discussion
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3).”
Faith leaders wrote a joint letter to the Labor government expressing their concerns, writing that “it is dangerous to criminalise expression just because a person or group feels intimidated.”
The prescribed defence was also criticised for undermining the rule of law. It was proposed that hatred imparted in the context of religious discussion is immune, while political protest or discussion which may constitute hatred is an offence.
On 20 January 2026, Parliament passed an amended version of the Bill as two separate pieces of legislation – one for ‘Criminal and Migration Laws’ and the other for ‘Firearms and Customs Laws’. The latter aims to establish a national firearm buyback scheme, while the criminal and migration law reforms ought to be considered in more detail below.
Changes to Criminal and Migration Law
The new legislation introduces the following:
- It is an aggravating sentencing factor if conduct constituting an offence is racially motivated.
Although motive is not required to establish guilt, racial motivation may now attract harsher sentencing.
2. Hate crime has been defined as any conduct or threat of conduct which causes serious harm to a person, group, or property which can be distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.
3. The AFP Minister may specify that an organisation is a prohibited hate group if there is targeted conduct or threats of conduct that causes harm based on race.
However, the AFP Minister is not obliged to accord procedural fairness. This means the AFP Minister need not give notice or an opportunity to respond if an organisation is specified. This has raised concerns about the expansion of ministerial power.
4. Where there is evidence of a person spreading hatred and extremism, or disseminating ideas of superiority over others on the basis of race, the Minister is granted powers to refuse or cancel visas.
The Jewish Council of Australia commented that the expanded ministerial powers to deport migrants is “an alarming and counter-productive response […] which risks further inflaming racism.”
Current Status
The introduction of these amendments were not free from scrutiny. The rapid passage of both Bills through Parliament created an impression of rushed law-making and political opportunism.
Some argue that Parliament’s enforcement of political correctness undermines transparent and deliberative politics. Others raise concerns over the government’s perceived refusal to address the threat of radical Islamic extremism, prioritising social cohesion at the expense of community safety.
Regardless of their ultimate merit, these reforms warrant close scrutiny as they continue to unfold.
