New Terrorism and Hate-Speech Laws in NSW: Post- Bondi Beach
After the Bondi Beach terrorist attack (14 December 2025), NSW has moved to fast-track a package of terrorism-adjacent and public order reforms (including protest restrictions and symbol bans), while also signalling a separate, upcoming 2026 push to criminalise certain hate slogans, including the chant “globalise the intifada”.
This is exactly the kind of legislative moment that creates legal risk for ordinary people: the public hears “they’re banning words”, but the real legal question is always narrower and sharper:
- Which offence, exactly?
- What mental element (intent/recklessness) must the prosecution prove?
- Is it “terrorism”, “vilification”, “incitement”, or just “offensive language”?
- Where does political communication end and criminal incitement begin?
This blog breaks down what NSW is doing now, what NSW says it plans to do in 2026, the relevant crimes already on the books, the terrorism principles courts apply, and the borderline scenarios most likely to become test cases.
1) What NSW has already moved on: post-attack “terrorism + public safety” reforms
NSW has announced and introduced reforms aimed at (among other things):
A. Temporary restrictions on public assemblies after a declared terrorist incident
NSW says it will restrict authorisation of public assemblies in declared areas for a limited period following a formally declared terrorist incident under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, via a “Public Assembly Restriction Declaration”.
Key practical consequence (as described by NSW Government):
- once a declaration is made, public assemblies cannot be authorised in the designated area (including by a court), and police can use existing “move on” powers where presence causes intimidation/obstruction.
This is not “word banning”, it’s time/place restriction powers that affect protest logistics and police discretion.
B. “Terrorist symbols” crackdown
NSW has described a crackdown on public displays of terrorist symbols as part of its response.
(There have also been earlier NSW parliamentary efforts around terrorist symbol display offences and Nazi symbol penalties, showing the direction of travel.)
2) The “globalise the intifada” issue: what’s actually being proposed
On current reporting, NSW’s Premier has indicated the phrase will be referred for consideration and that further reforms are expected “early next year”, with the phrase specifically singled out for attention.
Two critical legal points for readers:
- As at today (22 Dec 2025), the reporting describes this as a proposed future move (2026), not necessarily an offence that already exists in a neatly named “banned words” section.
- Even if NSW does legislate, it is unlikely to be a simple list of forbidden phrases; it will more plausibly be drafted as an offence targeting incitement / vilification / intimidation, where the phrase becomes evidence of the element (intent/recklessness), not a crime “because the words exist”.
So the legal risk won’t be “uttering a controversial phrase = automatic guilt”. The risk will be: did the words (in context) amount to inciting violence, serious vilification, threats, or intimidation?
3) The offences that already exist in NSW (and why “words” already get people charged)
A. NSW: Public threats or incitement to violence, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 93Z
This is already a heavy-hitter for speech-based prosecutions where violence is in play.
The section provides (in substance) that a person who, by a public act, intentionally or recklessly threatens or incites violence towards a person or group on specified grounds commits an offence.
This is the obvious charging pathway where prosecutors say:
- the words were not merely offensive,
- they were incitement, threat, or invitation to violence.
B. NSW: Offensive language, Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) s 4A
This is the lower-level “public order” charge people underestimate.
It prohibits using offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place (max penalty expressed in penalty units), and it includes a statutory defence of “reasonable excuse”.
In practice, this is often what police reach for in crowd situations when conduct is alleged to be inflammatory but may not meet the higher thresholds of incitement.
C. NSW: Inciting racial hatred reforms (2025)
NSW has also recently legislated in the racial hatred/vilification space (context: antisemitism and other hate-crime concerns).
This matters because any “new slogan” offence may be built by expanding or tightening existing vilification/incitement architecture rather than creating a “word list”.
4) Terrorism law isn’t just “hate speech”: the Commonwealth framework and what courts say (JudCom)
Most “terrorism” prosecutions in Australia are under Commonwealth law (Criminal Code (Cth)), not NSW, even if the conduct occurs in NSW.
The Judicial Commission’s Sentencing Bench Book chapter on Commonwealth terrorism offences is blunt about two things:
- Terrorism offences cover a range of criminality and have specialised sentencing consequences.
- For terrorism offending involving extreme violence or threats to create fear for an ideological cause, courts treat it as having “a seriousness all of its own”, and give greater weight to protective/punitive sentencing purposes.
JudCom also cites NSWCCA authority warning against over-labelling: terrorism categories are diverse, and courts caution that applying the wrong “terrorism lens” can be error.
Why does this matter for “words” and chants? Because governments sometimes speak in terrorism language (“terror slogans”, “radicalisation”), but prosecutions still need to fit specific statutory elements.
5) The “why now”: high-profile events driving the reform cycle
The immediate catalyst for NSW’s December 2025 emergency session and announced reforms is the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, including allegations of firearms and explosives.
Public debate and political pressure have focused on:
- antisemitism and community intimidation concerns, and
- whether protest policing and hate-symbol regulation are adequate.
That’s the real legal backdrop: these reforms are being shaped in the shadow of an event the state has labelled terrorism, and the state is explicitly linking “heated protest” dynamics to risks of intimidation and violence.
6) Borderline scenarios: where the new “words” laws are most likely to bite
Assuming NSW moves in 2026 to criminalise or target particular slogans as “hate speech” or “incitement”, the hard cases will look like this:
Scenario 1: Chanting a slogan at a rally (crowd context)
- Prosecution theory: words are used to incite violence or contribute to intimidation in a heated environment (s 93Z pathway; or new “serious vilification” offence if enacted).
- Defence theories (common): no intent/recklessness to incite violence; phrase used as political expression; context shows no call to violence; constitutional/free political communication arguments may be raised (fact-specific and complex).
Scenario 2: Online repost of protest footage with slogan caption
- Risk: “public act” is easier to establish online; prosecutors may argue broader dissemination increases harm/risk.
- Defences: lack of intent; journalistic/documentary/academic purpose; “reasonable excuse” style arguments (depending on the offence drafted) and contextual meaning.
Scenario 3: Slogan on a banner next to extremist symbols
If NSW (and/or Commonwealth) increases offences about terrorist symbols or hate symbols, the combination of:
- symbol display,
- and charged slogans,
may be alleged to show the required state of mind for incitement/advocacy offences.
Scenario 4: Statements aimed at a protected group (“go harm them”, “hunt them”, “attack them”)
This is where the line is clearest: direct exhortations to violence are the easiest fit for s 93Z (already law).
Scenario 5: “It was a joke / a meme / rage posting”
Courts tend to be sceptical where:
- the language is violent,
- the context is heated,
- the audience is primed,
- or the post is amplified.
But “intent or recklessness” still must be proved (and that’s where defences live).
7) Likely defences and legal pressure points
Because the proposed “banned words” reform is not yet in final statutory form (based on current reporting), the safest way to think about defences is to map them to the existing offence structures NSW already uses:
A. Element-based defences (the most important)
- No intent to incite/threaten/advocate violence
- No recklessness (did not foresee the risk of inciting violence and proceed anyway)
- Not a “public act” (rare, but can matter depending on medium)
B. “Reasonable excuse” (where available)
Some NSW public order offences expressly allow a reasonable excuse defence (e.g., offensive language).
If a new slogan offence is drafted with a similar safety valve, litigation will centre on what counts as “reasonable” in political speech contexts.
C. Constitutional challenges
NSW protest and speech regulation often attracts implied freedom of political communication arguments. The NSW Government itself anticipates pushback on its protest-restriction move.
These challenges are nuanced: not “free speech wins”, but whether the burden is reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate purpose.
8) The practical takeaway: what people get wrong
People assume three things that are legally unsafe:
- “It’s only illegal if I meant it literally.”
Many offences turn on intent or recklessness, and context can do a lot of work. - “If I’m political, I’m protected.”
Political communication is important, but it is not a licence to incite violence or intimidate communities. - “They’re just words.”
NSW already criminalises words in certain contexts (incitement/threats/offensive language). The debate is about where the threshold is, not whether law can ever regulate speech.
Final thoughts
NSW is currently moving quickly on post-terror incident powers and symbol enforcement, and it has signalled a coming 2026 focus on hate slogans, including “globalise the intifada”.
The legal battleground won’t be “words are banned”. It will be:
- definitions,
- context,
- intent vs recklessness,
- and how far NSW can go before the law becomes an overbroad net catching legitimate political protest.
📞 Call National Criminal Lawyers® on 1800 CRIM LAW
Because everyone deserves justice.
