Supporters of the legislation argue that existing laws have proven inadequate. Police representatives have testified that current statutes make it difficult to intervene early when language is used to escalate tensions at protests or intimidate targeted groups.

Opposition lawmakers have accused the government of rushing the bill under public pressure, warning that poorly defined speech restrictions often face constitutional challenges. Several have called for amendments that would narrow the scope of the law or introduce stronger safeguards for political expression.

The debate has not stayed confined to the state. National media coverage and commentary have turned the bill into a flashpoint in Australia’s broader conversation about free speech, protest rights, and the role of government in regulating language.

Online reaction has been sharply divided. Some Australians have applauded the move as a necessary response to rising social tensions, while others fear it sets a precedent that future governments could exploit to silence unpopular viewpoints.

Human rights advocates have pointed out that international law generally protects political expression, even when controversial, unless it directly incites violence. They argue the proposed law risks overreach by criminalizing language based on interpretation rather than clear harm.

The government has countered that safeguards exist, including prosecutorial oversight and judicial review. Officials insist the law targets behavior, not belief, and would only be applied in cases where the phrase is used in a threatening or coercive manner.

As the bill moves through the legislative process, amendments remain possible. Parliamentary committees are expected to hear testimony from legal experts, civil liberties groups, and law-enforcement officials before a final vote.

If passed, the law would make the state one of the most aggressive jurisdictions in Australia when it comes to criminalizing specific protest language, a distinction that has already drawn international attention.

For now, the proposal stands as a stark illustration of how language itself has become a legal battleground — one where the consequences could extend well beyond words.

More details on the proposed legislation can be found in national reporting on the bill’s introduction and analysis of the free-speech concerns raised by critics.