1 month ago
4
January 28, 2026 — 5:00am
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has advised the Australian National Imams Council, the leading body representing Muslim religious leaders, that new hate laws will not prevent criticism of foreign countries or political ideologies despite concerns the laws could silence debate.
In a letter seen exclusively by this masthead and co-signed by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, Rowland told ANIC president Imam Shadi Alsuleiman that the legislation would not “prevent legitimate, non-violent criticism of the actions of a foreign country or of particular political ideologies”.
The laws, introduced by the Albanese government last week in response to the Bondi terror attack, allow the government to ban hate groups, tighten visa rules and increase penalties for existing hate crime offences.
The hate groups section of the law gives the home affairs minister the power to ban groups that publicly incite hatred that causes a reasonable person who is a target “to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety”.
Rowland clarified in the letter that the new legislation did not “expand criminal offences for hate speech”, but had only increased penalties and incorporated “aggravating factors for particularly egregious and insidious forms of hate crime offending”.
“Crucially, those existing offences apply only where a person advocates or threatens force or violence against a group, members of a group, or their property or places of worship,” she wrote, adding that the measures do not “introduce restrictions on the ability of faith communities to practice and teach their religious and cultural beliefs”.
Rowland was responding to a scathing letter sent by Alsuleiman last Thursday, in which he criticised the new laws and their impact on political expression and protest in Australia.
The imams’ specific concern was whether the new measures would criminalise criticisms of Israel or Zionism.
ANIC is the leading religious body in the Muslim community, representing more than 350 registered imams and appointing Australia’s grand mufti.
Alsuleiman said the new legislation “fails to address the underlying drivers of violence and extremism” and “disproportionately focuses on religious expression, creating the real risk that lawful speech, religious teaching, political advocacy and humanitarian activism may be captured or chilled by its provisions”.
He also referenced Rowland’s appearance on the ABC’s 7.30 on January 20, where she was asked if a group such as Hizb ut-Tahrir would be banned under the measures if they condemned Israel but stopped short of promoting violence.
She replied that if there was fear or intimidation as a result, and that passed a “reasonable person test”, the group would be banned.
“If those criteria are satisfied, then that is the case,” she said at the time.
Alsuleiman said in his letter that the remarks “caused significant alarm within the Australian Muslim and pro-Palestinian community ... given their potential implications for freedom of political expression”.
He wrote that at a meeting on January 15, staff from the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Home Affairs advised him that “criticism of Israel as a state, including political criticism of Zionism as a political ideology, would not in itself constitute hate speech under the proposed framework”.
A representative of the Imams Council said the response from the government did not do enough to address their concerns, adding that they believed the laws could be “weaponised”.
“The lack of precise legislative boundaries and the broad language employed leave open the real possibility of overreach, especially in charged political contexts,” the spokesperson said.
They added that there was a “heightened anxiety” among Muslim religious leaders that “sermons grounded in religious teachings on justice, oppression, or international affairs could be misconstrued or selectively interpreted, exposing them to legal or reputational risk.”
“Many within the community perceive that their political expression and religiously informed moral positions are being subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
Professor Luke McNamara, an expert in laws addressing racism from the University of NSW, said he understood the concerns raised by ANIC, but added that he believed the government provided reassurance that the new laws were “not designed to inhibit the legitimate practices of faith communities”.
But he added that there were “conflicting messages circulating in the wider community about what the legislation does and does not do”, and that it was “incumbent on a government that leads the introduction of new laws of this sort to really explain to the community what it covers and what it doesn’t cover”.
He said the “likelihood of overreach is modest”, but there was “genuine concern and anxiety” at the potential for “demonisation of particular communities”, particularly in the media.
“It’s right to be concerned that the media, or some portions of the media, that engage these new laws, deploy them for their own purposes, which may not produce prosecutions ... but they can certainly contribute to demonisation of particular communities.”
Both the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Zionist Federation of NSW were approached for comment.
The new laws were passed in federal parliament last week after the Albanese government abandoned several changes it proposed after the Bondi attack, which included provisions to stamp out antisemitism with anti-vilification laws.
Those changes were dropped after the government failed to win support from the Greens or the Coalition.
A spokesperson for Rowland said the new laws “do not affect lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”.
“The government’s hate speech legislation specifically targets those who seek to spread hatred, including those who seek to radicalise our youth, and disrupt social cohesion in our community.
“Criticism of a foreign country or of that country’s government is not sufficient to meet the thresholds for listing.”
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
