Explainer: NSW’s proposed laws on hate crimes and places of worship
On Tuesday 11 February 2025, the Minns Government introduced a suite of new laws which would criminalise a range of activities outside places of worship, give police new powers in regard to protests in or near places of worship, and increase penalties for certain acts of racial hatred.
The laws, if passed, would have wide-ranging implications for the right to peaceful assembly and may lead to the criminalisation of conduct which does not impact on the rights of people to practice their religion and be protected from racial or religious hatred. There is also nothing to suggest that these laws are related to, or targeted at addressing, the recent spate of antisemitic incidents in NSW or Victoria.
Summary of the proposed laws
The Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 (‘the Bill’) proposes to create a new criminal offence to:
without reasonable excuse, intentionally block, impede or hinder a person accessing or leaving a place of worship; or
harass, intimidate or threaten a person accessing or leaving a place of worship.
The Bill will also amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to authorise a police officer to issue a move on direction to a person who is participating in a protest in or near a place of worship. These amendments contain limited exclusions and are also subject to provisions related to “authorised public assembly” and the provisions of Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Racial and Religious Hatred) Bill also:
Increases the penalties for displaying a Nazi symbol by public act, including graffiti, on or near a Synagogue, Jewish school or the Sydney Jewish Museum;
Aggravates sentences when a person’s conduct is partially or wholly driven by hate; and
Provides that it is an aggravating factor for a graffiti offence to be committed on a place of worship.
The right to exercise and practice religion
International human rights law protects the right of every person to exercise and practice their religion, including the right to worship, practice, teach and observe religious beliefs.¹ All governments have an obligation to protect the right to expression of religious beliefs without interference, including an obligation to take proactive steps to protect people of faith from hate crime and discrimination.²
The right to peaceful assembly
International human rights law protects the right to peaceful assembly.³ The right to peaceful assembly is not absolute and can be limited in narrow circumstances. To be compatible with international human rights law any restriction on the right to peaceful assembly must be:
lawful, the restriction must be made by a law of sufficient precision, and be
necessary, the restriction must address a pressing social need through the least intrusive means available, and also be
proportionate to at least one of the permissible grounds for restriction, for example, to protect the rights and freedoms of others.⁴
The right to peaceful assembly does not extend to the advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.⁵
Are the restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in the Bill lawful, necessary and proportionate?
The Premier has stated that the aim of the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 is "to ensure people of faith can attend their place of worship in safety”.⁶
However, the proposed laws restrict the right to peaceful assembly, including granting broad police powers, in ways which go beyond protecting the right to worship free of interference and the right to be protected from racial or religious hatred. The NSW Government has also referenced recent antisemitic incidents in NSW and Victoria when referring to the need for these laws. However, there is no evidence that peaceful protests outside or near places of worship have any connection to these incidents.
Any restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly should also be sufficiently precise, so that individuals can regulate their conduct accordingly.⁷
The language used in the Bill, for increased police powers “near” places of worship, and the criminalisation of conduct which “impedes” or “hinders” access to places of worship, is ill-defined and broad. The term ‘places of worship’ could also apply to schools or hospitals which have places of worship on their premises. This lack of clear legal thresholds, and overly broad terms, could lead to arbitrary enforcement by police.
The Bill contains exceptions for “authorised public assembl[ies]” under the Summary Offences Act 1988, which is a system for notifying authorities of an assembly commonly known as the Form 1 regime. To be compatible with human rights law notification systems, if they exist at all, must be to facilitate, not authorise, peaceful assemblies.
However, the Form 1 regime in NSW has been increasingly treated as a requirement for permission—a clear violation of international human rights law.⁸ Moreover, notification is simply not possible for spontaneous assemblies, which are also protected under international human rights law.⁹ The Supreme Court of New South Wales and also human rights groups, have criticised the Form 1 regime for imposing substantial limitations on the right to peaceful assembly.¹⁰
The broad and vague language of the Bill, combined with the expansion of police powers, creates significant risks of arbitrary enforcement and unjustified restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly.
The laws are unlikely to meet the threshold for lawfulness, as they lack the precision required for individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly. They also fail the necessity test, given that they are not targeted at addressing a clear social need. Moreover, the laws are not proportionate, as they impose blanket restrictions on assemblies near places of worship, regardless of whether they pose any actual risk.
The inadequacy of the criminal law to deal with issues of racism
The proposed laws aim to tackle racism and social incohesion through criminalisation.
There is no evidence that criminalising acts of hate and racism has an impact on reducing rising racism and hatred, or curbing radicalisation. Issues of systemic racism within policing systems, as well as that many racialised communities do not have trust in criminal legal approaches, mean that criminalisation responses are likely to have unequal impacts on different marginalised communities.
There is also no evidence that current criminal laws have been insufficient to appropriately investigate and apprehend the perpetrators of recent antisemitic incidents. Existing laws also already allow for police to issue move-on orders where an assembly threatens public safety or order.¹¹
The need for principled responses to rising racism and far-right extremism
As highlighted by the Australian Human Rights Commission’s recently released National Anti-Racism Framework, it is important to recognise both the interconnectedness and difference between various forms of racism and to adopt a coherent and principled anti-racism approach.
Our recommendations for how the government can improve these laws
Given the significant human rights concerns raised by these laws, we recommend that the Government consult with experts and community groups to ensure transparency and proper scrutiny of the Bill’s impacts on human rights, as well as to ensure the laws meet the objectives of addressing racial and religious hatred. In present form, its incompatibility with human rights law means that it should not pass.
If the Bill is to proceed, it must be substantially improved to ensure it meets the requirements for limitation of the right to peaceful assembly under international human rights law. Specifically, we recommend the following changes:
The new offences and police powers in the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 should explicitly state that conduct will only be criminalised when it is intended to or directed at:
restricting the right of a person to practice their religion by worshipping; or
Is motivated by racial or religious hatred.
The words “impede”, “hinder”, and “harass” should be deleted or clearly defined.
The word “near a place of worship” should be altered such that it only applies to assemblies which are targeting worshipers exercising their right to worship at a place of worship.
Police should only be able to exercise move-on orders for assemblies outside places of worship which intentionally interfere with the right of people to practice their religion or are inciting racial or religious hatred.
The words “impede”, “hinder”, and “harass” should be deleted, as they are too vague and could include activities which regularly occur as part of peaceful assemblies, such as chanting or placards used by clergy sexual abuse survivors.
The word “near a place of worship” should be replaced with “at a place of worship” or limited to activity which targets a place of worship.
The words “place of worship” should be clearly defined.
The government should consult with experts and human rights groups to enact policies which are actually targeted at addressing racism and far-right extremism, including investment in communities working to tackle all forms of racism, measures to address online hate and early detection, intervention and rehabilitation of individuals at risk of radicalisation.
The laws should have a sunset clause and / or a review in 12 months.
Amendments to incitement offences and racial vilification laws
The government has also announced that it will introduce a new criminal offence of intentionally inciting racial hatred, but it has not yet released details of this proposed law.
The 2024 Review into Hate Speech Laws, conducted by Tom Bathurst KC, the chair of the NSW Law Reform Commission, recommended that criminal vilification offences included in the NSW Crimes Act 1900 should remain unchanged. In coming to this conclusion, the Commission highlighted the limitations of criminal offences in achieving and maintaining social cohesion, that low number of prosecutions under existing offences alone does not justify legislative reform, and the potential unintended consequences of criminalising a wider range of conduct including impacts on already marginalised communities.¹²
The proposed changes would also be of concern if they fail to protect other communities in NSW who experience hatred on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.
At a time of rising hatred, including dramatic rise in islamophobia and anti-LBGTIQ+ prejudice, hate speech and vilification, there is a risk that selective protection of such hatred will further entrench existing inadequate, and inconsistent legal protections against discrimination, hate speech, and vilification.
This summary was written and produced by the Human Rights Law Centre’s Democratic Freedoms team. You can read more about their work here.
Become a regular donor and support the Human Rights Law Centre’s work here.
This explainer is not legal advice
Note that this is a guide to provide general information only. It is not intended to be legal advice — seek legal advice if necessary.
References and footnotes
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) art 18; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 18; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, GA Res 36/55, UN GAOR, 36th sess, 73rd plen mtg, Agenda Item 64, UN Doc A/RES/36/55 (25 November 1981).
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, GA Res 36/55, UN GAOR, 36th sess, 73rd plen mtg, Agenda Item 64, UN Doc A/RES/36/55 (25 November 1981) art 4.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 21.
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 37: Article 21 (Right of Peaceful Assembly), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/37 (2020) [36]–[40].
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 20.
New South Wales Government, ‘New Laws Strengthen Penalties for Antisemitism, Boost Protection for People Attending Places of Worship’ (Media Release, 4 February 2024)
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 37: Article 21 (Right of Peaceful Assembly), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/37 (2020) [36]–[40].
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 37: Article 21 (Right of Peaceful Assembly), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/37 (2020) [70]–[73].
Ibid.
Kvelde v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1560.
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 1197.
NSW Law Reform Commission, Serious Racial and Religious Vilification (Report No 151, November 2024) [3.5]