Hate speech laws in Australia

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of skin colour, ethnicity, national origin or race. Some jurisdictions also give redress when a person is victimised on account of religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group." An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court.

In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.

Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to use a carriage service such as the Internet in a manner which reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.

Following the controversial 2011 Eatock v Bolt decision convicting right-wing columnist Andrew Bolt of violating 18C for his newspaper columns on "fair-skinned aborigines", then-Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott campaigned on a promise to repeal 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. In 2014, after Abbott's election as Prime Minister of Australia, then-Attorney-General George Brandis put forth a bill which would have significantly weakened 18C but not repealed it entirely.^{[better source needed]} The measure to weaken 18C failed, primarily due to extensive lobbying in favour of 18C from Australia's Jewish community.^{[better source needed]}

In 2012, under the Gillard government, then-Attorney-General Nicola Roxon proposed the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, which would have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, breastfeeding, disability, family responsibilities, gender identity, immigrant status, industrial history, marital or relationship status, medical history, nationality or citizenship, political opinion, potential pregnancy, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or social origin. Critics argued the law was too restrictive and would shift the burden of proof to the person accused of discrimination. While this proposed law was broadly supported by the Australian Human Rights Commission, many Australian human rights organisations and the Australian Greens (who opined that the proposed law did not go far enough), it was narrowly defeated in Parliament.

The Discrimination Act 1991 is similar to the law in New South Wales.

In 2016 the law was amended to include a proscription of actions inciting hatred toward, revulsion of, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of people on the ground of any of the following(a) disability; (b) gender identity; (c) HIV/AIDS status; (d) race; (e) religious conviction; (f) sexuality. Prior to the passage of these amendments, religion in particular was not included.