The Minns Labor Government has rejected a key recommendation from its own independent review of hate-speech laws, refusing to extend NSW’s criminal offence of inciting hatred beyond race to include sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and other attributes already protected by the state’s incitement-to-violence laws.
The decision follows the long-awaited release of a review led by former NSW Supreme Court Justice John Sackar AM KC, who was appointed to examine whether criminal protections against hate speech should be expanded to better protect vulnerable communities.
Sackar recommended that section 93ZAA of the Crimes Act 1900, which criminalises intentionally inciting hatred on the ground of race through a public act, be extended to cover all attributes already protected under section 93Z.
Section 93Z separately makes it an offence to publicly threaten or incite violence against a person or group because of race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or HIV/AIDS status.
The distinction means NSW will continue to criminalise incitement of violence against LGBTQ+ people, but the newer offence specifically targeting the incitement of hatred will remain limited to race.
Government rejects key recommendation
The Minns Government released the Sackar Review on Tuesday, 4 August, around eight months after it was delivered to Attorney-General Michael Daley in November 2025.
The delay had already caused a significant confrontation with the NSW Legislative Council.
In May, Labor minister John Graham was suspended from the upper house after the Government refused to comply with an order to produce the Sackar report, arguing it was protected as a Cabinet document.
When the report was finally made public, the Government simultaneously announced it would not adopt its central recommendation to broaden section 93ZAA.
“After careful consideration of the Sackar Review and its recommendations, the NSW Government has decided not to expand the existing criminal offence of inciting racial hatred to apply to additional protected attributes,” Daley said.
“There is no place for hatred in NSW. Everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from intimidation, regardless of their background, faith, sexuality or identity.”
The Government said expanding the offence raised concerns that required further consideration.
“The Government’s view is that expanding the racial hatred offence to cover other attributes raises complex questions about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the consistent application of the criminal law across the community.”
A ‘two-tier’ approach to protection
The decision has been criticised by LGBTQ+ advocates who argue it leaves different communities with unequal levels of protection under criminal law.
The Sackar Review recommended treating the attributes protected by section 93Z consistently rather than maintaining a separate incitement-of-hatred offence protecting race alone.
Concerns about creating a “hierarchical, two-tier model of protection” had also previously been raised by the NSW Law Reform Commission, which warned in 2024 that differentiating between protected attributes would be a “backwards step for NSW”.
Equality Australia similarly criticised the Government’s response, arguing it had already demonstrated that freedom of expression and other rights could be balanced against protections from racial hatred.
“The government has already shown it can balance these rights when it comes to racial hatred,” the organisation said.
“Claiming that the same approach cannot apply to other communities is disingenuous, creating an inconsistent legal framework and a hierarchy of protections.”
‘Safety cannot be selective’
ACON Director of Policy, Strategy and Research Brent Mackie said LGBTQ+ communities had experienced increasing levels of hate-motivated rhetoric and violence in recent years and deserved equivalent legal protections.
“Over recent years, we have seen a disturbing rise in hate-motivated speech and violence towards our communities,” Mackie said.
“By refusing to extend these protections, the Government is ignoring the reality that words can cause real-world harm and exacerbate existing health inequities for our communities. We need comprehensive laws that protect all people in NSW from hate incitement, regardless of their background, faith, sexuality, or gender identity.
“Everyone deserves the right to feel safe, respected, and free from intimidation. By maintaining unequal standards of protection under the guise of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, the Government is failing to uphold that basic right for our communities.”
The controversy is particularly significant given Sackar’s previous role as commissioner of the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into LGBTIQ Hate Crimes, which examined decades of suspected hate-related deaths and the institutional responses to them.
For LGBTQ+ advocates, the Government’s decision raises a simple question: if deliberately inciting hatred on racial grounds warrants criminal sanction, why should intentionally inciting hatred against people because of their sexuality or gender identity be treated differently?
For now, NSW’s two levels of protection will remain.
