Queensland Free Speech Laws
The Queensland Government has introduced the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026. It was introduced to Parliament on 10 February 2026 and immediately referred to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee. Submissions close on 17 February, with the committee required to report back by 27 February. That is not a lot of time. For legislation of this scale and consequence, the speed of the process alone should give Queenslanders pause.
The Bill follows the Bondi terror attack in December last year, where 15 people were killed by two terrorists. It is framed as a response to antisemitism and extremist violence. Those are serious issues that demand serious attention. But one of the most significant features of this Bill relates to freedom of speech.
This legislation represents a major expansion of criminalised expression in Queensland. It creates two new offences:
- the public display, publication or distribution of terrorist symbols, and
- the public recitation, display or publication of certain prescribed expressions.
One of the phrases expected to fall within the scope of a prescribed expression is “from the river to the sea”. However, the Bill’s Explanatory Notes make clear that the offence will also include “substantially similar expressions” to prevent people avoiding the law through minor wording changes. That is extraordinary.
If an expression is prohibited, anything considered “similar enough” may also become unlawful. This introduces uncertainty into criminal law, and uncertainty is dangerous when custodial sentences apply. Criminal offences should be clear, narrow and predictable. When the boundary of legality depends on interpretation rather than precision, the risk of overreach increases.
Consider a simple example. John Farnham’s song Two Strong Hearts:
Two Strong Heart
We’ve got two strong hearts.
We stick together like the honey and the bee. You and me.
We’ve got two strong hearts.
Reaching out forever like a river to the sea
Running free
Consider the line: “Reaching out forever like a river to the sea, running free.” On its face, it is absurd to suggest that such lyrics would fall within the scope of extremist expression. Most people would dismiss that possibility immediately. But what if that song were played at a protest or rally? What if police formed the view that it was “similar enough” in context? The problem is not that this outcome is likely. The problem is that the wording of the law leaves space for interpretation.
When speech becomes criminal, ambiguity becomes power. And that power sits with the State.
In 1755, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The world has changed since then, but the tension between security and freedom has not. Governments often act in moments of crisis. The laws they pass in those moments, however, remain long after the crisis fades.
So the question must be asked plainly. What illness are we trying to remedy with this proposed legislation? And is this the right solution to that problem? Will banning slogans prevent violent extremists from committing evil? Or will it gradually expand the capacity of the State to regulate expression more broadly?
Queenslanders should be paying close attention. Freedoms are far easier to defend before they are taken than to reclaim once they are gone.