Australia’s debate over hate speech laws has returned to the national spotlight after former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus urged the country to consider expanding existing legislation as part of ongoing discussions about community safety, antisemitism and social cohesion.

In a submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Mr Dreyfus argued that Australia’s current criminal provisions focus largely on conduct involving violence, threats or incitement, but may not adequately address other forms of serious public vilification that can have lasting impacts on targeted communities.

Rather than proposing immediate legislative change, the submission forms part of the evidence currently being considered by the Royal Commission, which has been gathering views from politicians, legal experts, community organisations and members of the public before making recommendations to government later this year.

Mr Dreyfus said one possible reform would be creating broader offences covering severe public vilification, even where speech does not explicitly involve threats of violence. Supporters of stronger protections argue that harmful rhetoric can contribute to intimidation, discrimination and social division before it escalates into criminal behaviour.

His submission also calls for tighter firearm regulations. Among the proposals is requiring people seeking to own more than one firearm to demonstrate a specific reason for doing so. The recommendation reflects broader discussions about balancing public safety with Australia’s long-standing firearms framework.

The submission comes during hearings of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, established following the Bondi terror attack and rising concerns about antisemitic incidents, online abuse and community tensions. The inquiry is examining how governments, institutions and digital platforms respond to hate-related behaviour and whether existing laws remain fit for purpose.

Throughout the hearings, witnesses have described experiences ranging from online harassment to threats and intimidation directed at Jewish Australians. Community organisations have argued that existing legal tools do not always provide sufficient protection, particularly where harmful conduct falls short of direct threats but still creates fear or contributes to hostility.

At the same time, proposals to broaden hate speech legislation have historically generated debate among legal scholars, civil liberties advocates and political leaders. While many agree on the importance of protecting vulnerable communities, some have argued that any expansion of criminal offences must carefully balance those protections with Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication and freedom of expression.

Because of those competing considerations, any future reforms would likely involve detailed legal drafting and parliamentary scrutiny. Recommendations made by the Royal Commission do not automatically become law; they instead provide advice that governments may choose to adopt, modify or reject through the normal legislative process.

The firearm proposals are similarly part of a broader policy discussion rather than an announced government decision. Australia’s gun laws have long been among the strictest in the world, but reviews continue as policymakers consider whether additional safeguards are needed in response to changing security risks and recent acts of ideologically motivated violence.

For now, the Royal Commission continues to receive evidence from a wide range of witnesses. Its final recommendations are expected to address not only hate speech laws, but also policing, online safety, community education, counter-extremism measures and other policies intended to strengthen social cohesion across Australia. Whatever recommendations ultimately emerge, any significant legal changes would still require parliamentary approval before taking effect.