ADA

The NSW Law Reform Commission discussion paper on its review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA) reflects Terms of Reference regarding 

1. whether the Act could be modernised and simplified to better promote the equal enjoyment of rights and reflect contemporary community standards 

2. whether the range of attributes protected against discrimination requires reform 

3. whether the areas of public life in which discrimination is unlawful should be reformed 

4. whether the existing tests for discrimination are clear, inclusive and reflect modern understandings of discrimination 

5. the adequacy of protections against vilification, including (but not limited to) whether these protections should be harmonised with the criminal law 

6. the adequacy of the protections against sexual harassment and whether the Act should cover harassment based on other protected attributes 

7. whether the Act should include positive obligations to prevent harassment, discrimination and vilification, and to make reasonable adjustments to promote full and equal participation in public life 

8. exceptions, special measures and exemption processes 

9. the adequacy and accessibility of complaints procedures and remedies 

10. the powers and functions of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW and its President, including potential mechanisms to address systemic discrimination 

11. the protections, processes and enforcement mechanisms that exist in other Australian and international anti-discrimination and human rights laws, and other NSW laws 

12. the interaction between the Act and Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws 

13. any other matters the Commission considers relevant to these Terms of Reference. 

 The Commission states 

 This is the first of two consultation papers in which we will invite you to share your views on the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA). In this paper, we consider issues relating to the tests for discrimination, who is protected, the areas in which discrimination is prohibited and exceptions. We also consider harassment, civil vilification and other unlawful acts, as well as liability and measures to promote substantive equality. We ask if any of these aspects of the ADA should change and, if so, how. 

Next steps 

The NSW Attorney General has asked us to review the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA). Among other things, we have been asked to consider whether the ADA “could be modernised and simplified to better promote the equal enjoyment of rights and reflect contemporary community standards”. 

... In this consultation paper, we focus on the conduct that is (or should be) unlawful under the ADA. In summary, we seek your views on: • the types of acts and conduct that should be prohibited, and the circumstances in which the prohibitions should apply • the people and groups who should be entitled to the ADA’s protections • the people and organisations who should be held responsible for unlawful conduct, and when (if ever) their actions should be exempt from the ADA, and • whether the ADA should do more to promote substantive equality. 

Our second consultation paper will consider the procedural aspects of the ADA, including complaint pathways, enforcement options, remedies and options for preventing unlawful conduct. 

Background to this review 

The ADA was groundbreaking when it was enacted almost 50 years ago. As the first broad discrimination Act in Australia, it prohibited discrimination based on race, sex and marital status. When the legislation was introduced into the NSW Parliament, the Premier said “I am confident that this legislation is the most enlightened, and will be the most effective, legislation in this field in Australia”. 

Much has changed in NSW since 1977. By the 1990s, there were concerns that the ADA had not stood the test of time. This led to the NSW Government asking the NSW Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) to review the ADA in 1991. As the NSWLRC explained in it its final report:

The legislation as it currently exists tends to reflect the political and social climate at the time of its enactment. Although the ADA has been amended several times to reflect changing community values, these amendments have been piecemeal. ... Taking into account the length of time that has elapsed since the introduction of the ADA, and the law’s inability to deal once and for all with constantly evolving social, political and legal conditions, it is appropriate that there be a comprehensive review of the legislation. 

Our predecessors’ 8-year review of the ADA was indeed comprehensive. The NSWLRC’s 1999 report made 161 recommendations and contained a Draft Anti- Discrimination Bill. While some recommendations were implemented, most were not. 

In the years since 1999, there have been many changes to discrimination laws across Australia. Other states and territories have reviewed their discrimination laws. Some of these reviews have led to significant legislative reform. There have been developments in employment law and reviews of discrimination laws at the federal level too. 

In 2021, there were renewed calls by community and legal groups for a comprehensive review of the ADA. In announcing this review in 2023, the NSW Attorney General recognised that: There have been monumental shifts in society, demographics and attitudes since the Act came into force nearly half a century ago. … It is essential to conduct reviews of this nature to ensure our laws represent who we are today as a community. 

It could still be said, as the NSWLRC did in 1999, that many aspects of the ADA continue to “reflect the political and social climate at the time of its enactment”. In addition to concerns about its substantive content, many believe the ADA uses outdated and offensive language, and its style and structure is difficult for the community to navigate. 

Our role in this review is to examine the ADA thoroughly and, where necessary, make recommendations to ensure that this law serves our community effectively

The Commission's questions are 

3. Tests for discrimination 

Question 3.1: Direct discrimination Could the test for direct discrimination be improved or simplified? If so, how? 

Question 3.2: The comparative disproportionate impact test Should the comparative disproportionate impact test for indirect discrimination be replaced? If so, what should replace it? 

Question 3.3 Indirect discrimination and inability to comply What are your views on the “not able to comply” part of the indirect discrimination test? Should this part of the test be removed? Why or why not? 

Question 3.4: Indirect discrimination and the reasonableness standard (1) Should the reasonableness standard be part of the test for indirect discrimination? If not, what should replace it? (2) Should the ADA set out the factors to be considered in determining reasonableness? Why or why not? If so, what should they be? 

Question 3.5: Indirect discrimination based on a characteristic Should the prohibition on indirect discrimination extend to characteristics that people with protected attributes either generally have or are assumed to have? 

Question 3.6: Proving indirect discrimination (1) Should the ADA require respondents to prove any aspects of the direct discrimination test? If so, which aspects? (2) Should the ADA require respondents to prove any aspects of the indirect discrimination test? If so, which aspects? 

Question 3.7: Direct and indirect discrimination (1) How should the relationship between different types of discrimination be recognised? (2) Should the ADA retain the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination? Why or why not? 

Question 3.8: Intersectional discrimination (1) Should the ADA protect against intersectional discrimination? Why or why not? (2) If so, how should this be achieved? 

Question 3.9: Intended future discrimination Should the tests for discrimination capture intended future discrimination? Why or why not? If so, how could this be achieved? 

4. Discrimination: protected attributes 

Question 4.1: Age discrimination (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “age”? (2) What changes, if any, should be made to the age-related exceptions? 

Question 4.2: Discrimination based on carer’s responsibilities (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “responsibilities as a carer”? (2) Should the ADA separately protect against discrimination based on someone’s status of being, or not being, a parent? 

Question 4.3 Disability discrimination (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “disability”? (2) Should a new attribute be created to protect against genetic information discrimination? Or should this be added to the existing definition of disability? (3) What changes, if any, should be made to the public health exception? 

Question 4.4: Discrimination based on homosexuality What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “homosexuality”? 

Question 4.5: Discrimination based on marital or domestic status What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “marital or domestic status”? 

Question 4.6: Racial discrimination (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “race”? (2) Are any new attributes required to address potential gaps in the ADA’s protections against racial discrimination? 

Question 4.7: Sex discrimination (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “sex”? (2) Should the ADA prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy and breastfeeding separately from sex discrimination? 

Question 4.8: Discrimination on transgender grounds What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the protected attribute of “transgender grounds”? 

Question 4.9: Extending existing protections (1) Should the ADA protect people against discrimination based on any protected attribute they have had in the past or may have in the future? (2) Should the ADA include an attribute which protects against discrimination based on being a relative or associate of someone with any other protected attribute? 

5. Discrimination: potential new protected attributes 

Question 5.1: Guiding principles What principles should guide decisions about what, if any, new attributes should be added to the ADA? 

Question 5.2: Potential new attributes (1) Should any protected attributes be added to the prohibition on discrimination in the ADA? If so, which what should be added and why? (2) How should each of the new attributes that you have identified above be defined and expressed? (3) If any of new attributes were to be added to the ADA, would any new attribute- specific exceptions be required? 

Question 5.3: An open-ended list Should the list of attributes in the ADA be open-ended to allow other attributes to be protected? Why or why not? 

6. Discrimination: Areas of public life 

Question 6.1: Discrimination at work — coverage (1) Should the definition of employment include voluntary workers? Why or why not? (2) Should the ADA adopt a broader approach to discrimination in work, like the way the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) approaches harassment? Why or why not? (3) Should local government members be protected from age discrimination while performing work in their official capacity? Why or why not? 

Question 6.2: Discrimination in work — exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions to discrimination in work? 

Question 6.3: Discrimination in education (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the definition and coverage of the protected area of “education”? (2) What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions relating to: (a) single-sex educational institutions, and (b) disability and age discrimination in educational institutions? 

Question 6.4: The provision of goods and services — coverage What changes, if any, should be made to the definition and coverage of the protected area of “the provision of goods and services”? 

Question 6.5: Superannuation services and insurance exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions applying to insurance and superannuation? 

Question 6.6: The provision of goods and services — exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions to sex, age and disability discrimination in relation to the provision of goods and services? 

Question 6.7: Discrimination in accommodation — coverage What changes, if any, should be made to the definition and coverage of the protected area of “accommodation”? 

Question 6.8: Discrimination in accommodation — exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions for private households, age-based accommodation and charitable bodies in relation to discrimination in accommodation? 

Question 6.9: Discrimination by registered clubs — coverage What changes, if any, should be made to the definition and coverage of the protected area of “registered clubs”? 

Question 6.10: Discrimination by registered clubs — exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions for registered clubs in relation to sex, race, age and disability discrimination? 

Question 6.11: Discrimination based on carer’s responsibilities (1) Should discrimination based on carer’s responsibilities be prohibited in all protected areas of public life? If not, what areas should apply and why? (2) In general, should discrimination be prohibited in all protected areas for all protected attributes? Why or why not? 

Question 6.12: Additional areas of public life (1) Should the ADA apply generally “in any area of public life”? Why or why not? (2) Should the ADA specifically cover any additional protected areas? Why or why not? If yes, what area(s) should be added and why? 

7. Wider exceptions 

Question 7.1: Religious personnel exceptions (1) Should the ADA provide exceptions for: (a) the training and appointment of members of religious orders? (b) “the appointment of any other person in any capacity by a body established to propagate religion”? (2) If so, what should these exceptions cover and when should they apply? 

Question 7.2: Other acts and practices of religious bodies Should the ADA provide an exception for other acts or practices of religious bodies? If so, what should it cover and when should it apply? 

Question 7.3: Exceptions for other forms of unlawful conduct Should the general exceptions for religious bodies continue to apply across the ADA, including to all forms of unlawful conduct under the Act? 

Question 7.4: Exceptions for providers of adoption services Should the ADA have a specific exception for providers of adoption services? If so, what should it cover and when should it apply? 

Question 7.5: Private educational authorities employment exceptions (1) Should the ADA contain exceptions for private educational authorities in employment? Should these be limited to religious educational authorities? (2) If you think the Act should provide exceptions in this area: (a) what attributes should the exceptions apply to? (b) what requirements, if any, should duty holders meet before an exception applies? (a) what attributes should the exceptions apply to? (b) should they apply to prospective students, existing students, or both? (c) what requirements, if any, should duty holders meet before an exception 

Question 7.6: Discrimination against students and prospective students (1) Should the ADA contain exceptions for private educational authorities in education? Should these be limited to religious educational authorities? (2) If you think it is necessary for the ADA to provide exceptions in this area: applies? 

Question 7.7: Exceptions relating to sport Should the ADA provide exceptions to discrimination or vilification in sport? If so, what should they cover and when should they apply? 

Question 7.8: The charities exception Should the ADA provide exceptions relating to charitable benefits? If so, what should they cover and when should they apply? 

Question 7.9: Voluntary bodies exception Should the ADA provide an exception for voluntary bodies? If so, what should it cover and when should it apply? 

Question 7.10: Aged care accommodation providers exception Should the ADA provide an exception for aged care accommodation providers? If so, what should it cover and when should it apply? 

Question 7.11: The statutory authorities exception Should the ADA provide an exception for acts done under statutory authority? If so, what should it cover and when should it apply? 

8. Civil protections against vilification 

Question 8.1: Protected attributes (1) What changes, if any, should be made to the way the ADA expresses and defines the attributes currently protected against vilification? (2) Should the ADA protect against vilification based on a wider range of attributes? If so, which attributes should be covered and how should these be defined? 

Question 8.2: The test for vilification (1) Should NSW adopt a “harm-based” test for civil vilification? If so, should this replace or supplement the existing “incitement-based” test? (2) What, if any, other changes should be made to the incitement-based test for civil vilification? 

Question 8.3: The definition of “public act” What changes, if any, should be made to the definition of “public act” in the test for vilification in the ADA? 

Question 8.4: Exceptions What changes, if any, should be made to the exceptions to the vilification protections in the ADA? 

Question 8.5: Religious vilification What changes, if any, should be made to the protection against religious vilification in the ADA? 

9. Harassment 

Question 9.1: The definition of sexual harassment (1) Should the reasonable person test be expanded to include the “possibility” of offence, intimidation or humiliation? Why or why not? (2) Should the ADA expressly require consideration of an individual’s attributes, or the relationship between the parties, in determining whether a person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct? Why or why not? (3) Does the ADA need to define “conduct of a sexual nature”? Why or why not? 

Question 9.2: Other sex-based conduct (1) Should harassment on the ground of sex be expressly prohibited by the ADA? Why or why not? (2) Should the ADA prohibit workplace environments that are hostile on the ground of sex? Why or why not? (3) Are there any other options or models to prohibit conduct which may fall in the gap between sex discrimination and sexual harassment? What could be the benefits of these options? 

Question 9.3: Sexual harassment in the workplace Should the ADA adopt the Sex Discrimination Act’s approach of prohibiting sexual harassment in connection with someone’s status as a worker or person conducting a business or undertaking? Why or why not?  (a) areas of life that are protected from discrimination (b) all areas of public life, or (c) any area of life, public or private? 

Question 9.4: Workplace-related laws regulating sexual harassment (1) Are workplace-related sexual harassment laws and the ADA currently working well together, in terms of the definitions of sexual harassment? (2) Should the ADA and workplace-related sexual harassment laws be more aligned? 

Question 9.5: Expanding the areas of life where sexual harassment is prohibited (1) Should the ADA continue to limit the areas of life where sexual harassment is unlawful? Why or why not? (2) Should sexual harassment be unlawful in other areas of life? For example: 

Question 9.6: The private accommodation exception Should sexual harassment be prohibited in private accommodation? Why or why not? If an exception for private accommodation is required, how wide should it be? 

Question 9.7: Attribute-based harassment If the ADA was to prohibit attribute-based harassment, which attributes and areas should it cover? 

10. Other unlawful acts and liability 

Question 10.1: Victimisation (1) Should the prohibition of victimisation in the ADA expressly extend to situations where a person threatens to victimise someone? Why or why not? (2) Should the ADA provide that victimisation is unlawful even if it was done for two or more reasons? If so, how best could this be achieved? 

Question 10.2: Advertisements Should it be a defence to publishing an unlawful advertisement that the person reasonably believed publication was not unlawful? Why or why not? 

Question 10.3: The forms of liability What, if any, concerns or issues are raised by the ADA’s approach to the various forms of liability? 

Question 10.4: The exceptions for liability Should the ADA continue to provide two exceptions to vicarious liability (that is, the “reasonable steps” and “unauthorised acts” exceptions)? Or is a single “reasonable steps” exception sufficient? 

Question 10.5: Liability and artificial intelligence Does the use of AI challenge the ADA’s approach to liability? If so, how could the ADA be amended to address this? 

11. Promoting substantive equality 

Question 11.1: Adjustments (1) Should the ADA impose a duty to provide adjustments? If so, what attributes should this apply to? (2) Should this be a separate duty, form part of the tests for discrimination, or is there another preferred approach? (3) Should a person with a protected attribute first have to request an adjustment, before the obligation to provide one arises? 

Question 11.2: Special measures (1) Should the ADA generally allow for special measures? Why or why not? (2) If so, what criteria for a special measure should the ADA apply? (3) If a general special measures section is added to the ADA, should it replace the existing exemption and certification processes? Why or why not? 

Question 11.3: A positive duty to prevent or eliminate unlawful conduct (1) Should the ADA include a duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent or eliminate unlawful conduct? Why or why not? (2) If so: (a) What should duty holders be required to do to comply with the duty? (b) What types of unlawful conduct should the duty cover? (c) Who should the duty holders be? (d) What attributes and areas should the duty apply to?.

Universities

The 'Respect at Uni Interim Report' from the Australian Human Rights Commission states 

 The Australian Government Department of Education (DoE) has engaged the Commission to undertake a groundbreaking study into the prevalence, nature and impact of racism in Australian universities (the Study). The Race Discrimination Commissioner leads the Study. 

The Study aims to understand the prevalence, nature and experiences of racism at universities for both staff and students, at the individual and systemic level. At the conclusion of this work, the Commission will deliver comprehensive research findings and recommendations on how to effectively address and reduce racism, in all its forms, at universities. 

This interim report is the first deliverable of the Study. Its purpose is to outline how the Commission will undertake this work and provide initial insights that reflect stakeholder feedback, emerging themes and early issues for consideration. 

Part 1 provides an overview of the Study, its objectives, scope and deliverables. 

Part 2 is an environmental scan and analysis of recent developments in relation to racism in universities. 

Part 3 presents initial insights based on stakeholder feedback, expert advice, an environmental scan and desktop research. These initial insights have informed the Study’s research methodology. In its initial consultations, the Commission heard from First Nations and other negatively racialised staff and students that experiences of racism including antisemitism and Islamophobia are pervasive, and that systemic and structural racism is deeply entrenched within the university system. Themes emerging from consultation include the diverse nature of staff and student experiences of racism at universities, the dissatisfaction of staff and students with complaints mechanisms, the disjuncture between universities’ stated policies on racism and practice and the challenge of finding a common language and understanding around racism. 

Part 4 outlines the Study methodology and approach to data collection. Given the complexity of the research task, which involves investigation across all universities and various stakeholder groups, it is essential to establish a best practice approach that delivers cultural safety for surveys and fieldwork. The Interim Report will explain the crucial foundational work that underpins the success of the Study’s next phase. 

This Interim Report describes the establishment of the Study's governance and initial stakeholder engagement. Creating a solid conceptual framework, along with effective governance and stakeholder involvement, is essential for the success of the Study and the delivery of the Final Report. Achieving these foundations has been a top priority for the Commission. 

The Commission is undertaking this work with a strong commitment to anti- racism. The Study will centre lived experiences and perspectives, be designed and conducted through a trauma informed lens, facilitate cultural safety and will focus on the systemic nature of racism. 

Universities should foster a love of learning, challenge thinking and nurture talent. Underpinning this requires a culture of respect and inclusion and systems that enable safety and equality. Unfortunately, this is not the experience for all students and staff, with experiences of racism negatively impacting study and employment. 

Racism in universities is a long-standing problem, with research showing it is a persistent and systemic issue for students and staff from First Nations and other negatively racialised backgrounds. The broader socio-political context impacts the prevalence and patterns of racism in universities. First Nations communities experienced significant racism leading up to the Voice Referendum in 2023 and this has continued even following the result. 

Major world events also impact universities. Following the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas and the Israeli response, there has been an increase in reported antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. 

International students also report alarming levels of racism, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Racism in universities is certainly not a new problem, but action is long overdue. The severity of recent incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia, combined with other experiences of racism across different groups, create an urgent need to act decisively. 

The first step in an effective response is a robust, evidence-based understanding of the issue. There is no comprehensive data collection of experiences of racism in universities and current evidence about prevalence is limited. The Australian Universities Accord recommended a Tertiary Education Racism Study. Recommendation 33 of the Australian Universities Accord Final Report, released on 25 February 2024, states:

That to contribute to making the tertiary education system as safe as possible for students and staff, the Australian Government conduct a study into the prevalence and impact of racism across the tertiary education system, on campus and online, guided by an expert committee with representation from a wide range of stakeholder groups, with the Australian Tertiary Education Commission tasked with leading the response and acting on the outcomes.

The DoE engaged the Commission to lead this Study. 

This groundbreaking Study will provide an independent, comprehensive analysis of the prevalence and impact of racism in universities. Given the lack of comprehensive data and evidence, this Study is critical to building understanding and developing concrete solutions. 

The Race Discrimination Commissioner leads the Study, with support from the DoE and the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD). The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) is also providing advice on issues related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students. The DoE has allocated the Commission $2.5 million for the Study.

The interim report goes on to state

The Terms of Reference (Appendix I) outline the Study's objectives, scope, consultation, governance and timing. 

(a) Aim and objectives 

The Study will comprehensively investigate the prevalence and impact of racism in universities, establish a baseline of racism experiences and develop recommendations to create a safe, respectful and inclusive environment for all university students and staff. 

(b) Scope 

The Study has a wide-ranging scope and will identify prevalence and impact, including:

• The prevalence, nature and experiences of racism, including antisemitism and Islamophobia at universities for both staff and students at the individual and systemic levels. Universities with dual-sector operations that integrate higher education with vocational education and training (VET) are included in the scope of the Study. 

• Which cohorts of students and staff experience racism, including but not limited to the distinct incidences of antisemitism, Islamophobia and the experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, people from other negatively racialised backgrounds and international students. 

• The unique context and circumstances of racism for different groups of students and staff, including a specific focus on the experiences of Jewish, Muslim and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff.

The Study will also conduct practical research to develop recommendations for the Government, universities and other relevant stakeholders to address racism and discrimination. 

(c) Research questions and approach 

The Study utilises a mixed methodology, combining quantitative and qualitative data from the survey analysis with qualitative data from survey responses, focus groups, interviews and roundtable discussions. The Terms of Reference establish the areas for inquiry and scope. These areas have been operationalised into specific research questions to guide research design:

• What is the prevalence, nature and impact of racism on university staff and students? 

• How do different cohorts of students and staff experience racism? • How effective are current responses to racism? 

• Do current responses sufficiently understand and provide targeted responses to the distinct experiences of different cohorts? 

• How can universities embed anti-racism into policy and practice? 

• What can we learn from national and international promising practice and prevention? 

• How can Government, universities and other stakeholders prevent racism and improve responses to racism?

The Study is designed with a strong commitment to anti-racism, including centring lived experiences and perspectives, trauma informed, facilitating cultural safety, intersectional and focusing on the systemic nature of racism. In addition, upholding privacy and ethical principles are also important components of the Study methodology. 

(d) Deliverables 

The Study deliverables will include:

• a robust survey instrument (and associated technical reports) for broader use across the tertiary education sector and as the basis for ongoing, longitudinal use in higher education 

• a comprehensive literature review 

• a report that includes Study findings and a series of recommendations for further work and/or action, for the Government and the university sector.

NZ Hate Crime Inquiry

The NZ Law Commission is to review the law in Aotearoa New Zealand relating to hate crime, with a focus on whether the law should be changed to create new hate-motivated offences. 

 For the purpose of this review, “hate crime” means conduct that is already a criminal offence under New Zealand law and, additionally, is carried out because of hatred or hostility toward a group of people who share a common characteristic (such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender or sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability). 

Currently, the law in Aotearoa New Zealand responds to hate crimes at sentencing. If a person commits a crime because of hostility toward a group of people who share an “enduring common characteristic”, the court must consider this as an aggravating factor at sentencing (see section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002). 

The Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019 recommended the creation of new hate-motivated offences. In particular, recommendation 39 proposed that new hate-motivated offences be created in: the Summary Offences Act 1981 (corresponding with the existing offences of offensive behaviour or language, assault, wilful damage and intimidation); and the Crimes Act 1961 (corresponding with the existing offences of assaults, arson and intentional damage).

The review will include, but not be limited to, consideration of:

• Whether the current law in Aotearoa New Zealand adequately responds to hate crime (in particular section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002, which requires hostile motivation to be taken into account when sentencing an offender).

• Whether any concerns about the operation of the current law should be addressed through legislative (or operational) measures, for example, the creation of hate-motivated offences. 

• If hate-motivated offences should be created: which existing offences they should correspond to; which common characteristics they should cover; how the hatred or hostility element of the offences should be established; what maximum penalties are appropriate; and whether any amendments to the Sentencing Act are desirable to take account of the new offences and to ensure hate crime offenders are sentenced appropriately.

 The Commission will take into account te ao Māori and give consideration to the multicultural character of New Zealand society. 

 The review will not consider criminalising conduct that does not currently amount to an offence under New Zealand law. For the avoidance of doubt, the review will not consider recommendations 40 and 41 of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019, which concern: the law relating to hate speech, including sections 61 and 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993; and the definition of when a publication is “objectionable” in section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

Extremism

Chapter Seven of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report Right Wing Extremist Movements In Australia states 

7.1 Australia is a healthy and vibrant democracy. Freedom of speech is fundamental to Australia’s values. Political views become unacceptable when individuals or groups use fear, terror, or violence to further or achieve ideological aims. Ashift from peaceful political engagement to the promotion, or use, of violence is incompatible with liberal democracy. The threat or use of violence against specific groups of people is an attack against our shared values. Violent extremism must not be tolerated in Australia. 

Defining extremism 

7.2 It is challenging to precisely define right wing extremism. A wide range of defining characteristics were provided to the committee. This included hostility towards minority groups, liberal democracy, a pluralistic society, and equality. 

7.3 Some right wing extremists condone the threat or use of violence to further their goals or defend their position in what they see as a decaying social order. They justify violence to advance their extreme ideology. 

7.4Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies explained that it is not helpful to categorise extremism according to a binary left-right conceptualisation of political ideologies. Those agencies reported that extremists increasingly adopt hybrid ideologies that do not fit neatly on the political spectrum. 

7.5 Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have developed two broad categories of politically motivated violence that are further divided into more specific sub-‍categories. Those broad categories are: religiously motivated violent extremism; and ideologically motivated violent extremism. 

7.6 Ideologically motivated violent extremism is further divided into a range of sub-‍categories including: nationalist and racist violent extremism; anarchist and revolutionary violent extremism; and specific issue violent extremism. 

7.7 For the purposes of this inquiry, much of the evidence received by the committee related to individuals and groups who fall within the category of nationalist and racist violent extremism, including neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups. 

Nature and extent of extremism in Australia 

7.8 There is a long history of extremism in Australia. The views of Australian extremist movements reflect the sociopolitical context of the time and evolve according to that context. 

7.9 Ideologically motivated violent extremism is rising globally, and Australia is not immune to that trend. Disturbing evidence was received by the committee of communication between extremists based elsewhere in the world and those based in Australia, often in the online environment. 

7.10 Australian extremists have built links with international movements that reflect their ideological position. They have developed these links to create a shared community that can provide ideological, discursive, financial, and organisational support. 

7.11 Extremists opportunistically co-opt elements of mainstream culture to give their movements and ideological views greater credibility, to appeal to a wider audience, and to lure people into their extreme world view. Radicalised individuals can be encouraged to consider, or even commit, violent acts. 

7.12 The internet facilitates the rapid sharing of this culture and the creation of a globalised extremist movement. For some individuals, joining a large and active community can satisfy an unmet need for social connection. 

7.13 For example, the committee learned of the transnational so called active club network, which is used by extremists to build a community on shared principles. Those communities are designed to appear innocuous to outside observers as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

7.14 Active clubs are usually decentralised and are only loosely connected to each other. To outside observers they appear to focus on brotherhood and physical fitness. However, they may provide participants with an introduction to extremist ideologies and promote an extreme ideology. 

7.15It is noted that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) reported that it is aware of the active club model and, at the time of giving evidence to the committee, it had assessed that it presents a low risk of politically motivated violence. 

7.16Concerningly, in August 2024, during this inquiry, ASIO raised the terrorism threat level to PROBABLE. There is a greater threat of people radicalising and using violence to further their ideological cause. 

7.17 As at November 2024, there have been nine attacks, disruptions or suspected terrorist incidents in Australia. In ASIO's assessment, most of those incidents were motivated by nationalist and racist ideologies or a hybrid of ideologies. All those incidents involved lone actors or small groups and low-capability weapons. 

7.18 It is deeply concerning that law enforcement and intelligence agencies reported that many radicalised individuals the subject of their investigations are young people. TheAustralian Federal Police informed the committee that it has commenced investigations and conducted operational activity against a number of people under the age of 16, with the youngest person being 11 years old. 

Mainstreaming of extremist ideas 

7.19 The committee received evidence to suggest that extremists aim to make their ideas and ideologies more politically and culturally accessible and acceptable. They do that through the spread of propaganda both in physical spaces and on widely used online platforms. 

7.20 Mainstream online platforms can act as gateways to more radical or extremist content hosted elsewhere online. 

7.21 Some extremists overtly pursue radical social change using violence or through the distribution of vile propaganda material intended to vilify and instil fear in minority groups. Others adopt more nuanced tactical approaches, distorting and manipulating mainstream political issues to lure people, including young Australians, into their extreme ideological domain. 

The threat posed by extremism 

7.22 Extremist movements pose a threat to Australian society and Australian values. Certain communities and groups of Australians are at particular risk. Thecommittee received evidence that highlighted how these Australians are subjected to dehumanising propaganda and targeted by extremists. 

7.23 A range of communities were identified as being at particular risk from extremist actors. Those communities include: First Nations peoples; culturally diverse communities; religious communities; women; migrants; LGBTQIA+ people; and young people. 

7.24 Australians who belong to minority groups reported the feeling of alienation and exclusion associated with being targeted by extremists. Their evidence demonstrated that even non-violent actions can have severe consequences for their sense of belonging and participation in society. 

7.25 Nationalist and racist violent extremism is incompatible with Australian democracy. It is anathema to Australian values. 

Radicalisation 

7.26 The radicalisation process can be complex and idiosyncratic. There are a range of factors that could contribute to someone becoming susceptible to radicalisation. 

7.27 Those factors include: social isolation; a real or perceived loss of status or privilege; economic insecurity; a sense of marginalisation; 

7.28 Several inquiry participants cautioned against a simplistic approach to addressing radicalisation and violence. They warned that there is no straightforward 'conveyor belt' that carries individuals from exposure to extremist ideas, to radicalisation, to committing violent acts. 

7.29 The Australian Institute of Criminology identified three broad risk factors that contribute to radicalisation: sociodemographic characteristics, such as being male, young, unemployed or underemployed; psychological characteristics, such as low self-control, personal grievance, certain mental health conditions; and contextual characteristics, such as criminal history or associations with other radicalised persons. 

Measures to address extremism 

7.30 Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard that the criminalisation of extremist behaviour is unlikely to fully address the threat of violence and reduce the risk posed to the wider community. 

7.31 Some inquiry participants recommended that the response to extremism should primarily focus on addressing the potential for extremists to resort to violence and not on the ideology itself. People should be free to hold extreme ideas. However, they should be strongly deterred from using violence in furtherance of those ideas. 

7.32 Other inquiry participants suggested that a holistic approach is more appropriate. That approach would include providing resources that support civic engagement, strengthen civic institutions, and provide tools that weaken the appeal of extremist ideologies. 

7.33 Inquiry participants recommended that governments focus on: community outreach and engagement programs; deradicalisation initiatives; education programs that foster critical thinking skills, improve knowledge of civics, and instil a greater sense of empathy; and antiracism programs.  

Community outreach and engagement programs 

7.34 Civil society was recognised as an integral part of any response to extremism. Community organisations are often best placed to respond to extremism, asindividuals who belong to those communities often view those organisations as having greater credibility. The family also plays an important role. The committee received evidence regarding the effectiveness of involving parents in deradicalisation programmes. 

7.35 While government can provide assistance to community organisations, this does not necessarily provide a solution to the issue. Some individuals may mistrust government and government-led initiatives. 

7.36 Notwithstanding this, it was suggested that civil society organisations should be broadly supported so that they are able to continue to meet the social needs of individuals who may be drawn to radical ideologies. Civil society organisations provide individuals with meaning, connectedness, respect, and recognition. If they are not able to provide those outcomes, some individuals may turn to other sources and thereby become more susceptible to radicalisation. 

Deradicalisation initiatives 

7.37 The committee received evidence highlighting the importance of deradicalisation programs in countering violent extremism. 

7.38 A distinction was drawn between disengagement and deradicalisation. Disengagement refers to the disavowal of violence in the pursuit of an extreme ideology, while deradicalisation is a complete abandonment of a radical ideology. Individuals who have disengaged may still hold extreme beliefs but do not condone violence in the pursuit of that ideology. 

7.39 Violent extremists are often driven by emotion. Effective deradicalisation programmes may seek to engage people who have been radicalised on an emotional level to properly understand the factors in their lives that have motivated them to view violence as an appropriate means to further their ideological position. 

7.40 As individuals adopt extremist ideologies for idiosyncratic reasons, deradicalisation programs should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual. 

7.41 That support may require access to a multidisciplinary team of professionals depending on the unique needs of the individual. In some cases, it might also be appropriate to provide radicalised individuals with a mentor to help guide them on the path to rehabilitation. 

7.42 Some organisations with experience in providing deradicalisation programs suggested that former extremists who have been deradicalized may assist through the process. Their personal insights into extremism and radicalisation may be of particular benefit in some cases. 

7.43 The committee understands that deradicalisation and countering violent extremism initiatives require continuous evaluation and refinement to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose and responsive to the evolving threat environment. 

Recommendation 1 

7.44 The committee recommends that the Australian government undertakes periodic evaluation of Australian deradicalisation and countering violent extremism programs. That evaluation should involve experts engaged in those programs, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and organisations that research countering violent extremism and deradicalisation. Any such periodic review should draw upon the experience both in Australia and overseas in other liberal democracies. Education and youth engagement programs 7.45Education was repeatedly highlighted as an effective tool in reducing the appeal of extremist ideology and weakening the propaganda disseminated by extremists. 

7.46 Instilling empathy for others was identified as an important facet of education. Empathy helps individuals better understand the perspectives of others and avoid the adoption of hateful ideologies. 

7.47 Several inquiry participants commented that the increased use of online platforms required a new approach to, and focus on media literacy, and critical thinking skills. 

7.48 Young people are at particular risk of developing links with extremist movements, as extremists often tailor their messages to appeal to young people. 

7.49 Young people are often at a stage of their life where they are testing their sense of self and developing their unique identity. They may be in positions of vulnerability and susceptible to insidious targeting from those purporting to provide social connection. Sometimes extremists position themselves to meet those psychological needs and to draw young people into the thrall of their extreme and hateful ideology. 

Recommendation 2 

7.50 The committee recommends that the Australian government develops a national framework for engaging with young people to deter them from radical extremism. That framework should provide best practice guidance to the states and territories and the broader civic community on how to engage with young people to: assist them in identifying harmful ideologies promoting violent extremism; deter them from adopting harmful ideologies promoting violent extremism; and provide them with the means to engage with the wider community in a socially positive way. 

The online environment 

7.51 The committee heard evidence in relation to the difference between ‘in real life’ and online extremism. The anonymity of the online environment is conducive to the sharing of violent rhetoric and harassment of individuals belonging to minority groups. Some people feel comfortable to say things online that they would never consider communicating in public. 

7.52 Some individuals find social fulfilment in online communities. They can meet a strong psychological need to feel part of a bigger movement. In the vast majority of cases, many of those communities contribute positively to wider society and perform a valuable social role. However, violent extremists may prey upon the psychological need of vulnerable people to perpetuate hate and promote their destructive cause. 

7.53 The online environment is where people are most likely to be exposed to fringe ideas and extreme ideologies. Individuals are likely to be exposed to that material even if they are not actively seeking it. 

7.54 Extremists are drawn to the internet not only for the anonymity, but also for the low barriers to access and its global reach. The internet provides them with a vehicle to recruit, radicalise, and inspire new adherents or reinforce the beliefs of other extremists. 

7.55 Efforts to remove offensive or objectionable content from the internet can be difficult. The committee received evidence that video footage of the despicable Christchurch terrorist attack and the perpetrator’s twisted manifesto continue to circulate online despite the New Zealand Chief Censor classifying it as objectionable content that is illegal to possess or distribute. 

7.56 It is clear that offensive, objectionable, and harmful material is likely to continue to circulate online despite efforts to regulate the online environment and remove that material. 

7.57 The Office of the eSafety Commissioner stated that it had not conducted research into the presence of ideologically motivated violent extremism online. It has conducted research into online hate, including in relation to children and young people’s experiences of hate on online gaming platforms. 

Recommendation 3 

7.58 The committee recommends that the Australian government conducts research into violent extremism in the online environment, including on: social media platforms; gaming platforms; and gaming-adjacent platforms. That research should examine how those platforms may be used by extremist actors to spread propaganda and recruit members, particularly in relation to young people. 

Social media platforms 

7.59 Social media platforms use algorithms to deliver content to their users. Those algorithms often prioritise similar material to the same user. Hence, there can be a compounding effect produced by the continual receipt by a user of emotive, shocking, and salient content, which can include extreme material. 

7.60 Depending on how individual users of those platforms engage with that content, over time they can find themselves presented with a larger volume of similar content. 

7.61 Extremists often use mainstream social media platforms as an initial point of contact with potential recruits, including vulnerable young people. If individuals engage with extremist content in a favourable way on mainstream platforms, they can be invited to closed sites where plans for violence can be discussed or promoted. 

7.62 In relation to the use of algorithms for content filtering on social media platforms, the committee heard that social media companies have in many instances reduced the level of transparency around how their platforms operate. 

7.63 The Christchurch Call, to which many social media companies are signatories, called for greater transparency around how those companies operate and the measures they have in place to regulate their platforms. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner told the committee that no social media company operating in Australia is adequately meeting its expectations under the Christchurch Call. 

7.64 The committee was told that independent researchers are not able to access the social media monitoring tools that were once available to them. Social media companies have discontinued the use of those tools, which make it difficult, if not impossible, for their efforts to enforce terms of service to be assessed by outside observers. The eSafety Commissioner indicated that the discontinuation of those tools has decreased public transparency and limited her office’s ability to monitor the presence of hate speech, abuse, disinformation, and extremist content on social media platforms. 

Recommendation 4 

7.65 The committee recommends that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner engages with stakeholders in relation to the development of best practice guidelines in relation to transparent and independent assurance measures to verify that social media platforms are enforcing terms of service to exclude harmful extremist content. Encrypted communication applications 

7.66 Online anonymity was raised as a major concern during the inquiry, particularly by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The widespread use of encrypted communication applications allows violent extremists to conceal their identities and hide their communication from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

7.67 ASIO reported that virtually all of its priority counter-terrorism and counter-espionage investigations are frustrated by the use of encryption technology. 

7.68 While encrypted communication platforms may be used for nefarious ends, it is acknowledged that they can also have a socially beneficial role. Those platforms have been used to uncover information that has been suppressed by authoritarian governments and in investigations into corrupt or criminal practices by individuals and companies. 

7.69 Encrypted communications are integral to the proper functioning of the internet and play an important role in public transparency. Encryption protects privacy and assists in the investigation of wrongdoing. At the same time, encrypted communication technologies are used by violent extremist actors to conceal their activities from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

7.70 Law enforcement and intelligence agencies should be permitted access to encrypted communications in very specific cases that involve well-founded concerns for national security and where such access is regulated by the judicial system through the issue of warrants. That access is integral to those agencies being able to conduct their very important work that keeps Australians safe. As the extremist threat is globalised, Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies are increasingly expected to be able to provide operational intelligence to their foreign counterparts. To ensure that violent extremism can be combatted wherever and whenever it emerges, it is vital that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are equipped with the tools they need to effectively monitor and respond to national security threats, including those posed by extremists. 

Recommendation 5 

7.71 The committee recommends the Australian government considers introducing legislation that would enable Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access encrypted communications if there is a well-‍founded threat to national security and a warrant has been issued by a judicial officer to access those communications. 

National hate crimes database 

7.72 Some participants in the inquiry advocated for the establishment of a national database to better track hate crimes. There are currently private organisations which are performing this invaluable civic function. It was also highlighted that there is no nationally consistent definition of what constitutes a hate crime in Australia, which can frustrate responses from law enforcement and human rights commissions. 

7.73 The lack of a nationally consistent understanding of what constitutes a hate crime has resulted in a reluctance to report those crimes and incomplete data about the extent of the problem. 

7.74 A nationally consistent approach to what constitutes a hate crime would facilitate a nationally consistent reporting and data collecting system. That system would: provide quantitative evidence of the efficacy of legislative measures that address hate and violence against targeted communities; assist law enforcement agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of their policing and education and training programs; and assist human rights commissions in developing advocacy programs and providing victim support programs. 

Recommendation 6 

7.75 The committee recommends the Australian government adopts a nationally consistent definition of what constitutes a hate crime and consider establishing a national hate crimes database.  

7.76 The committee recommends its finding and conclusions to the Senate.

Vilification

The New South Wales Law Reform Commission report on Serious racial and religious vilification addresses s 93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Commission states 

1.3 On 14 February 2024, the NSW Attorney General asked us to expeditiously review and report on the effectiveness of s 93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) in addressing serious racial and religious vilification in NSW. Throughout this review, we heard about the significant impact that hate-based conduct has on individuals, groups and our wider community, historically and at the present time. We acknowledge public interest in the operation of s 93Z has increased following the events in Israel and Gaza on and after 7 October 2023. However, after consulting widely, we have concluded that s 93Z should not be amended in response to the specific issues raised by the terms of reference. 

Based on the concerns raised with us, we recommend the NSW Government consider:

• commissioning a separate review of the effectiveness s 21A(2)(h) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (Sentencing Procedure Act), which enables motivations of hatred and prejudice to be considered as aggravating factors on sentence, and 

• measures to improve the collection of data on hate crimes when offences other than s 93Z are charged for hate-related incidents. ...

It notes 

 concerns expressed by some community groups about the low number of prosecutions under s 93Z. In particular, some were dissatisfied at the criminal justice response to the experiences of individuals and groups when allegations of vilification and hate-based conduct have been reported. 

Data from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) shows that, as at July 2024, 7 people had charges under s 93Z finalised. Of these people: • 2 were found guilty of an offence under s 93Z, and • 5 had the charge(s) under s 93Z withdrawn. Both convictions were appealed before the District Court. Out of the 2 convictions: • 1 was quashed on 6 February 2024 after a successful appeal, and • 1 was upheld on appeal by the District Court on 7 June 2024 (that is, after this review commenced). There were 2 further convictions in 2020. However, they were annulled because the NSW Police Force commenced prosecutions without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which was required at the time. 

The requirement to obtain DPP consent before commencing a prosecution was removed from s 93Z in January 2024. This was intended to streamline the prosecution process. ... 

This report does not make recommendations about the ADA As we explain in chapter 2, s 93Z operates alongside the civil anti-vilification protections in the ADA. These cover other forms of vilification, that is, public acts that incite hatred, serious contempt or severe revulsion on the basis of: • race • transgender status • HIV/AIDS status • homosexuality, or • religious belief, affiliation or activity (or lack of such belief, affiliation or activity). ... 

1.29 A range of organisations argued that the civil and the criminal frameworks should be reviewed holistically, as part of our ongoing review of the ADA. Additionally, some suggested it was premature to consider reforms to s 93Z while the ADA was under review. For instance, the NSW Bar Association suggested that concerns about the operation of the criminal law may be addressed if the civil vilification regime was improved. 

1.30 We acknowledge the relationship between the vilification protections, and there are good arguments for considering them together in a holistic review. However, we are bound by our terms of reference which focus, in this instance, on the criminal law response to serious racial and religious vilification in s 93Z. 

1.31 Accordingly, this report does not consider several issues raised with us in submissions and consultations. These include whether: • the list of protected attributes in either s 93Z or the ADA should be expanded, including to recognise intersectional experiences of vilification21 • the terminology used to describe the attributes currently protected by s 93Z or the ADA should change22 • s 93Z and the ADA should be aligned in terms of the attributes protected and/or the way common elements are defined23 • the civil protection against religious vilification, introduced into the ADA in 2023, could be improved,24 and • the civil complaints mechanisms, and the framework for civil remedies, should be reformed. ... 

1.37 Summary of our key reasons 

Throughout this review, we heard about the significant and increasing effect that vilification has on our community. We outline these concerns in chapter 3. While we acknowledge these concerns, we do not recommend reform to s 93Z to address the issues raised by our terms of reference. 

Section 93Z needs to be understood as part of the broader legal system in which it operates. This includes other, general criminal offences and the civil vilification framework (outlined in chapter 2). Section 93Z has a protective purpose, in that it aims to protect identified groups from threats of or incitements to violence. It also has a symbolic purpose, signifying that the community does not condone this conduct.  There was widespread support for criminalising this conduct in a specific vilification offence, as s 93Z currently does. 

One of the factors that led to this review was the low number of prosecutions under s 93Z. However, the low number does not, of itself, make the case for reform. The fact that an appeal against a conviction under s 93Z has been dismissed demonstrates that the section is operable and has a role to play in appropriate circumstances. 

As we discuss in chapter 3, the low numbers of prosecutions may be due to a range of factors other than the elements of the offence. The factor most often raised with us is that police may prefer to charge general offences. In many cases, these offences are more familiar to police, are easier to prove and have higher maximum penalties. 

There is no clear community consensus, even among religious and multicultural groups, that s 93Z requires reform in response to the issues raised by our terms of reference. Indeed, many cautioned against such reforms.   

Expanded criminalisation comes with risks and is not always the best tool to achieve social policy aims. In particular, we are aware that extending the criminal law can have unintended consequences, especially for those groups already overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Specific concerns were expressed about the potential impact on Aboriginal people. 

There is also a need to be cautious of any reforms that might over-complicate the law and cause further uncertainty or litigation. 

In the following chapters, we detail the responses to the various options suggested in our Options Paper. While views differed in relation to various options, the weight of opinion was that none of these options should be pursued. 

The exception was the potential removal of recklessness as a mental element. Opinions in submissions divided more evenly on this issue. However, this change would not strengthen s 93Z or address the concerns that prompted our review. Finally, as we further explain in chapter 3, the law is only one part of a wider range of measures necessary to promote social cohesion in NSW. Non-legal measures may be more effective in achieving this aim. 

However, we agree that more could be done to improve the visibility and to track the effectiveness of the wider criminal justice response to hate crime. We recommend that the NSW Government consider commissioning a review of the effectiveness of s 21A(2)(h) of the Sentencing Procedure Act. 

We also recommend that the NSW Government consider measures to improve data collection in relation to the prosecution of general offences in response to hate crime.

Symbols

The national Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Recommendations has released its report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. 

The Bill would establish new offences in the Criminal Code for publicly displaying, and trading in goods that bear, prohibited Nazi or Islamic State symbols; and implement other measures relating to counter-terrorism offences and the listing of terrorist organisations. 

The Committee's recommendations are as follows 

1  that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be amended to remove the Islamic State flag from the definition of a prohibited hate symbol. The Committee further recommends that the Government give consideration to establishing a new offence that would prohibit the public display and trade of symbols associated with terrorist organisations. 

2  that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be amended so that the offence provisions for the trading of items bearing a prohibited symbol do not come into force for a period of 6-12 months, so that collectors have a window in which to dispose of part or all of their collections if they so wish. 

3  that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be amended to extend the journalistic purpose exemptions in sections 80.2H(9)(b) and 80.2J(5) include editors, producers and others involved in the news and current affairs reporting process. 

4 that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be amended so that the journalistic purpose defence in section 474.45D(1)(e) include editors, producers and others involved in the news and current affairs reporting process. 

5  that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be amended to clarify that any report by this Committee in respect of terrorist listings under the Criminal Code be presented to the Parliament. 

6  that, subject to the amendments recommended in this report, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be passed by the Parliament.