Hate crime and vilification laws in the ACT, and the 2026 reform Bill.

Is hate speech a crime in the ACT?

The ACT deals with vilification on two levels, and the difference between them matters. Most vilification is unlawful rather than criminal. Under section 67A of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) a person must not, by a public act, incite hatred toward, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group on a protected ground. The protected grounds include race, religious conviction, disability, sexuality, gender identity, sex characteristics, and HIV or AIDS status. The section is on the ACT legislation register.

Because this is unlawful rather than criminal, a complaint runs through the ACT Human Rights Commission and, if it is not resolved, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The remedies are civil. A tribunal can order a person to stop the conduct, to publish an apology or correction, or to pay compensation. There is no charge, no arrest, and no criminal record. The Review found that the ACT already has one of the broadest civil vilification frameworks in the country, and that it is the only Australian jurisdiction with a positive duty to eliminate unlawful vilification.

What is serious vilification under section 750 of the Criminal Code?

The criminal line is serious vilification under section 750 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It has the same starting point as the civil test, a public act that incites hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on a protected ground, but it adds a further element. The act must threaten physical harm to a person or to their property, or incite others to threaten that harm. That threat of violence is what turns unlawful vilification into a crime. The section is on the ACT legislation register, and decisions touching on serious vilification are collected on JADE.

The current maximum penalty is 50 penalty units. That is a fine, with no term of imprisonment attached to the offence. The Review pointed to that gap between the seriousness of the conduct and the penalty available, and the 2026 Bill responds to it by adding imprisonment to the maximum. Much online hate crosses into related Commonwealth territory as well, through the offence of using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence, which is covered in the note on using a carriage service to menace or harass.

Is it illegal to display a Nazi symbol in the ACT?

Yes. ACT law already makes it an offence to display a Nazi symbol in public, subject to exceptions for a genuine academic, educational, artistic, or similar purpose. The offence is aimed at the public display of the swastika and other Nazi hate symbols. What the current law does not clearly reach is the gesture and one further symbol, and that is the gap the Bill targets.

The Bill would widen the prohibition to include the Nazi salute and the Nazi double-sig rune, known as the SS bolts. The effect is to put the gesture and that symbol on the same footing as the swastika, so that a public performance of the salute is treated as the display of a prohibited symbol. Prohibited symbol offences share ground with the wider counter-terrorism and extremist material offences, which are set out in the note on advocating terrorism and violent extremist material.

What does the Hate Crime and Vilification Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 change?

The Bill gives effect to the central recommendations of the Review, which made nine recommendations in all. Four of them are legislative and would change the offences and how they are sentenced.

First, it clarifies that the civil and criminal protections apply when a person is targeted for a protected attribute they are perceived to have, whether or not the perception is correct. A person attacked because the offender believed them to be of a particular faith is protected even if that belief was wrong. Second, it simplifies the serious vilification offence and raises its maximum penalty to include imprisonment. Third, it widens the Nazi symbol prohibition to the salute and the SS bolts. Fourth, it requires courts to consider hate motivation toward a protected attribute when they sentence an offender.

Beyond those four, the Government has said it will consult further on a new offence aimed at the use of false or misleading representations to lure people into homophobic or other prejudice-motivated attacks. That proposal is not part of the December Bill and would follow later. Targeted consultation for the Review ran from February to March 2026, with about 100 stakeholders invited and 26 written submissions received. The Bill is scheduled to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly in December 2026.

Does hate motivation make a sentence heavier?

When a court sentences an offender in the ACT it works through the matters set out in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). A court can already treat hostility toward a victim because of a protected attribute as a feature that makes the offence more serious, drawing on general sentencing principle rather than a specific direction. The section is on the ACT legislation register.

The reform would put that on a firmer footing by requiring the court to consider hate motivation toward a protected attribute as part of the sentencing exercise. In practice this means that where an assault, a property offence, or a public order offence was driven by hostility to a person's race, religion, disability, sexuality, or gender identity, that motivation becomes a stated factor the court must weigh. It does not create a separate offence. It changes how an existing offence is punished. How ACT sentencing outcomes are structured, including good behaviour orders, is set out in the note on good behaviour orders in ACT sentencing.

Where is the line between free speech and vilification?

This is the question that decides most cases, and the answer is that the bar is high. Offence, insult, and strong disagreement are not vilification. The civil test asks whether a public act incited hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on a protected ground, which is a demanding standard, and the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) carries exceptions for fair reporting, academic and artistic work, and public interest discussion done reasonably and in good faith. A heated opinion, even an unpopular one, will often fall inside those exceptions.

The criminal offence sits higher again. Serious vilification needs the threat of physical harm, or incitement of others to threaten it, on top of the incitement of hatred. Words that are ugly but carry no threat of violence do not meet the criminal test, though they may still be unlawful on the civil side. The Government's own framing of the reform stresses that the laws must remain necessary, targeted, and proportionate, which reflects the balance the courts already draw between free expression and protection from harm. For the person on the receiving end of a charge, the practical point is that not every hateful statement is a serious vilification offence, and the elements have to be made out.

What to do if you are charged.

If you are facing a serious vilification charge, a prohibited symbol charge, or an assault or public order charge said to be hate-motivated, the first task is to separate what is alleged from what can be proved. Get the police facts and any statements early, and check each element. For serious vilification, that means the public act, the incitement of hatred, contempt, or ridicule, the protected ground, and the threat of harm. A charge that reads as obvious on the summary can turn on whether the act was public, whether it incited the relevant feeling, or whether any threat of physical harm was really made or incited.

Where the allegation is that an ordinary offence was hate-motivated, the motivation itself becomes a live issue at sentence, so the evidence for it should be tested rather than accepted. If the reform passes, that question will carry more weight, because the court will be directed to weigh it. Whether the right course is a plea, a contest, or a submission that the alleged motivation is not made out depends on the facts. Advice early, before the first court date if possible, keeps those options open.

Frequently asked.

Is hate speech a crime in the ACT?

There are two layers. Most vilification is unlawful rather than criminal. Under section 67A of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) it is unlawful to do a public act that incites hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on a protected ground such as race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender identity, sex characteristics, or HIV or AIDS status, handled as a civil complaint. The criminal line is serious vilification under section 750 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which needs a threat of physical harm or incitement of others to threaten harm.

What is serious vilification under section 750 of the ACT Criminal Code?

It is the criminal form of vilification. A person commits the offence under section 750 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) if they intentionally do a public act that incites hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on a protected ground, and the act threatens physical harm to a person or their property, or incites others to threaten that harm. The current maximum is 50 penalty units, a fine with no imprisonment. The 2026 Bill proposes to add imprisonment.

Is it illegal to display a Nazi symbol in the ACT?

Yes. ACT law already makes it an offence to display a Nazi symbol in public without a legitimate reason such as an academic, educational, or artistic purpose. The Hate Crime and Vilification Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 would widen that prohibition to the Nazi salute and the Nazi double-sig rune, the SS bolts, so the gesture and that symbol are treated like the swastika.

What does the 2026 Bill change?

It clarifies that protections apply where a person is targeted for a protected attribute they are perceived to have, correct or not; simplifies the serious vilification offence and raises its maximum to include imprisonment; widens the Nazi symbol prohibition to the salute and the SS bolts; and requires courts to weigh hate motivation at sentence. The Government will also consult on an offence for using false or misleading representations to lure people into prejudice-motivated attacks. The Bill is due in December 2026.

Does hate motivation make a sentence heavier in the ACT?

It can now, and the reform would make it express. When a court sentences under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) it can already treat hostility toward a person because of a protected attribute as making an offence more serious. The 2026 Bill would require the court to consider hate motivation toward a protected attribute, so it becomes a stated part of the exercise rather than a matter left to general principle.

Where is the line between free speech and vilification?

The bar is high. Offence, insult, and disagreement are not vilification. The civil test needs incitement of hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on a protected ground, and the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) carries exceptions for fair reporting, academic and artistic work, and public interest discussion done reasonably and in good faith. The criminal offence needs a threat of physical harm on top of that. Strong debate on its own does not meet either test.

To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.

This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Brady & Associates Lawyers, as at 25 September 2026. It is commentary and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. Any matter referred to may be before the court and any person charged is presumed innocent. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.

More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.

← Back to all news