The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has launched a blistering attack on Queensland’s proposed hate speech laws, warning that the "nebulous" legislation could weaponize censorship under the guise of protecting minorities.

The sunshine state is in the grip of a fierce culture war. The Queensland government’s push to criminalize "hateful" speech has united an unlikely coalition of critics, from civil libertarians to the right-wing IPA. The controversy centers on the proposed bill's reliance on a subjective "reasonable person" test to define hate speech.

Margaret Chambers, a research fellow at the IPA, described the bill as a "Trojan horse" for state overreach."This bill confers extraordinary power on a single minister to criminalize opinions and debate," she argued. "What is 'hateful' to one person is 'robust debate' to another."

The "Vague" Standard

Under the new laws, speech can be outlawed if it is deemed to incite "discrimination, hostility, or violence" against protected groups (race, religion, sexuality, gender identity). The government argues this is necessary to curb rising antisemitism and extremism. Critics, however, point to the lack of judicial oversight.

• The Concern: The Attorney-General would have the power to proscribe specific phrases.
• The Slippery Slope: The IPA warns that legitimate political slogans (e.g., during the Voice referendum) could be retroactively criminalized.
• The Rush: Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey has criticized the "unduly rushed" seven-day public consultation period.

A Global Trend?

This debate mirrors similar struggles in the UK and Canada, where governments attempt to police the boundaries of acceptable speech in an increasingly polarized online world. For Queensland, the risk is creating a law so broad that it chills all speech, rather than just the hate it aims to stop.

"We are replacing the rule of law with the rule of hurt feelings," Chambers concluded.