NSW rejects hate speech law expansion; Victorian doctors strike

The New South Wales government has formally rejected a key recommendation to broaden the state's hate speech laws, declining to extend the offence of inciting racial hatred to cover religion, sexual orientation and gender identity – despite a major review calling for the change eight months ago.

Attorney General Michael Daley released the long-awaited report by former Supreme Court justice John Sackar on Thursday afternoon, ending months of speculation about the government's intentions. The report, first provided to the government in November, recommended that section 93ZAA of the NSW Crimes Act – an offence for inciting racial hatred introduced last year against the advice of the NSW Law Reform Commission – be amended to include all attributes currently protected under section 93Z.

What the report recommended

Section 93Z already covers offences committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, or HIV/AIDS status. Sackar suggested that the newer offence of inciting hatred – which currently applies only to race – should be aligned with this broader set of protections.

The recommendation came after years of community debate about whether hate speech laws should be strengthened in NSW, particularly in the wake of rising concerns about discrimination and vilification targeting minority groups.

Government's decision

In his statement, Daley said the government had carefully considered the Sackar Review but decided not to expand the offence. He argued that extending the racial hatred offence to other attributes raises complex questions about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the consistent application of the criminal law across the community.

Daley emphasised that “there is no place for hatred in NSW” and that everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from intimidation, regardless of background, faith, sexuality or identity. However, he stopped short of outlining any alternative measures the government might pursue to address these concerns.

Context and criticism

The existing offence of inciting racial hatred was itself controversial. It was brought in by the NSW government last year despite the NSW Law Reform Commission's recommendation against it. Critics at the time warned that such a law could have a chilling effect on free speech and be difficult to enforce consistently.

Legal experts and civil liberties groups have also pointed out that the uneven protection – where race is protected but other attributes are not – creates a hierarchy of vulnerability. The Sackar Review was meant to address this inconsistency, but the government's rejection means the disparity remains.

Victorian doctors strike

In a separate development, Victorian doctors are expected to go on strike, according to reports. The industrial action is likely to place additional strain on the state's healthcare system, which has been grappling with staff shortages and growing patient demand.

Details of the strike, including its duration and the specific hospitals affected, have not yet been confirmed. The Victorian government and doctors' unions are expected to negotiate further in the coming days to try to avert the action.

The NSW decision on hate speech and the Victorian doctors' strike highlight two very different challenges facing state governments: balancing legal protections with civil liberties, and managing industrial disputes within critical public services.