The New South Wales government has decided against expanding hate speech laws to protect a wider range of vulnerable groups, rejecting a key recommendation from a review it commissioned. The decision means that inciting hatred based on characteristics such as sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, and religion will not be criminalized under the state’s Crimes Act, while incitement to racial hatred will remain an offense.
Review and Rejection of Key Recommendation
The review, conducted by former Supreme Court judge John Sackar KC, was initiated by the Minns government to assess whether hate speech protections should be extended beyond race to encompass other vulnerable communities. The report was completed in November of the previous year but was kept confidential by the government for several months, leading to clashes with upper house MPs who sought its release. Ultimately, the government released the report and its response, formally rejecting the central recommendation to broaden the scope of hate speech offenses.
Attorney-General Michael Daley stated that the government’s stance is based on the view that extending the existing racial hatred offense to cover additional attributes raises “complex questions about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the consistent application of the criminal law across the community.” While inciting violence against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, intersex status, or HIV status is already illegal, the government’s move means that inciting hatred against these groups will not be legislated against.
Background and Calls for Protection
The government’s initial legislative push in 2025, following a series of antisemitic incidents, focused on amending the Crimes Act to criminalize incitement to hatred based solely on race. This approach diverged from the NSW Law Reform Commission’s prior recommendations against altering existing laws. However, this limited scope prompted advocacy from various groups, including disability and LGBTIQA+ organizations, who argued for equivalent protections against hate speech.
In response to these calls, the government commissioned Mr. Sackar’s review. His report highlighted an inconsistency between the groups protected against incitement to violence and those protected against incitement to hatred. Mr. Sackar argued that this disparity is “detrimental to social cohesion” and recommended that both offenses should protect the same groups to avoid any perception of a “hierarchical, two-tier model of protection.” He specifically recommended that disability be included as a protected attribute against incitement to both hatred and violence.
Further Recommendations and Government’s Position
Beyond the core recommendation on expanding protected attributes, Mr. Sackar’s report also put forward other suggestions. These included measures for improved reporting and education concerning hate-based conduct, as well as specialized training for police officers. The government indicated that it would “continue to consider” these remaining recommendations.
Attorney-General Daley emphasized the government’s commitment to safety and respect for all citizens, stating, “There is no place for hatred in New South Wales. Everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from intimidation, regardless of their background, faith, sexuality or identity.” He also noted that future government policy would be informed by an ongoing NSW Law Reform Commission review into anti-discrimination laws and the recommendations emerging from the royal commission into antisemitism.
Criticism Regarding Secrecy and Delays
The Greens party has strongly criticized the government’s handling of the report, accusing it of employing “childish tactics” to suppress the findings. Greens MP Amanda Cohn voiced concerns that marginalized communities are facing “worsening hatred and division,” exacerbated by the government’s “months of secrecy” surrounding the review. Ms. Cohn pointed out that the report has been with the government since November and that a significant portion of its recommendations do not necessitate legislative changes. She characterized the government’s ongoing consideration of the remaining recommendations after seven months as a delay tactic on critical issues of safety and inclusion.
Conclusion
The Minns government’s decision not to expand hate speech laws beyond racial incitement marks a significant point in the ongoing debate about protecting vulnerable groups from hatred. While the government cites complex legal and ethical considerations, critics argue that the rejection, coupled with the initial secrecy surrounding the review, falls short of addressing the growing concerns of marginalized communities in New South Wales.
