NSW Govt Rejects Sackar’s Key Recommendation on Hate Laws – Why Are Only Some Worthy of Protections?

The NSW Government’s decision to reject the key recommendation of the Sackar review of hate laws is deeply disappointing. It not only leaves groups vulnerable to the harms of hate speech, but begs the question: ‘why are only some people worthy of protection?’

For those needing a refresher: in early 2025, the Minns Government hastily introduced new laws criminalising the incitement of racial hatred.

There was immediate backlash from other community groups frequently targeted by hate speech but who were excluded from the new legal protections. Attorney General Michael Daley asked Justice John Sackar AM KC to review this legislation, including to consider whether protections should be expanded.

Sackar provided his report to the NSW Government, on time, in November 2025. The Government sat on it for nine months, despite many calls for its release.

At the end of that lengthy gestation period, on 4 August 2026 the Government released the report and issued a one-page media release, announcing its rejection of Sackar’s core recommendation that the inciting hatred offence should be expanded to also cover religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, HIV/AIDS status and disability.

Sackar’s report is detailed, thoughtful and considered. Sackar considered input from a variety of stakeholders, including the Justice and Equity Centre, who argued that hate speech laws should protect all groups, not just some. He concluded: ‘I consider it difficult to dispute the principle that vulnerable groups should receive equal treatment under the criminal law.’

It seems that principle isn’t disputed by the NSW Government. According to the Attorney General’s media release: ‘Everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from intimidation, regardless of their background, faith, sexuality or identity’.

But when it comes time to act on that principle, the Attorney’s media release claims that expanding the offence to cover additional attributes would raise ‘complex questions’. The Attorney cites three factors.

One is ‘freedom of expression’. This is a valid consideration in determining what level of hatred warrants criminal sanction. But the Government has already made its choice to limit this freedom by making the incitement of racial hatred a criminal offence. There aren’t additional freedom of expression considerations just because different attributes are involved.

Another reason given is ‘the consistent application of the criminal law across the community’. Which we, and indeed most people, would agree with. But as the NSW Law Reform Commission points out, the current law actually offers a ‘hierarchical, two-tier model of protection’ depending on who the victim is. Ensuring the law is ‘capable of being applied consistently, regardless of who is involved’ instead requires that inciting hatred is made an offence irrespective of whether the target is First Nations, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTIQ+, people living with HIV or people with disability.

Finally, the Attorney appeals to ‘freedom of religion’. Some religious organisations have opposed expanding the inciting hatred offence to cover LGBTIQ+ people, with the Sackar report noting that ‘it was suggested that exemptions for religious purposes would be necessary if the attributes covered… were to be expanded – particularly if sexual orientation and gender identity were included.’

But just because some (though thankfully far from all) faith groups insist on freedom to engage in hate speech against members of the LGBTIQ+ community, that does not mean the NSW Government should pander to this prejudice.

It’s important that we look carefully at what is actually in issue.

The offence of inciting hatred applies where someone ‘by a public act, intentionally incites hatred towards another person or a group of persons’, and only where that act would cause a reasonable person or member of a group of persons who were targeted to ‘fear harassment, intimidation or violence, or fear for the reasonable person’s safety.’

The right to religious freedom is not absolute. Genuine religious freedom does not extend so far as to protect deliberately engaging in acts of hatred that cause other people to legitimately fear for their own safety. Vague appeals to ‘competing claims about freedom of expression, religion and identity’ do not justify failing to tackle additional types of hate speech.

Unfortunately, the NSW Government’s decision to reject Sackar’s recommendation to protect all groups equally, leaves its actions falling far short of its words.

If everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from intimidation, ‘regardless of their background, faith, sexuality or identity’, the law should say so.

Instead, the law – and the Government’s failure to act to fix it – suggests that some members of the NSW community have a greater right to feel safe than others.

Alastair Lawrie is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Justice and Equity Centre.