Brisbane artist James Hillier (aka Nordacious) recently reported that he had been contacted by Queensland police and compelled to remove artworks from his website under new Queensland hate speech laws introduced earlier this month.
‘These laws carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. I have removed those listings while I seek legal advice,’ Hillier announced on Instagram.
Coupled with reports that police are investigating a mural by Scottie Marsh in Brisbane, Hillier’s case raises serious concerns about how Queensland’s new laws are being interpreted and enforced, according to the National Association for the Visual Arts and the Australian Cartoonists Association.
Hate speech laws – quick links
Queensland’s new laws ‘hastily designed’
The Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026, which came into effect in Queensland on 11 March 2026, bans specific phrases and enables words, symbols and expressions to be criminalised if deemed to ‘menace, harass or offend’.
‘These cases are showing how unclear these laws are in practice,’ said NAVA’s Executive Director Penelope Benton. ‘The works reference a banned phrase through a well-known song lyric, alongside a portrait of John Farnham and a watermelon graphic. Yet they are being investigated or removed.’
Given that Hillier is also a cartoonist who sells his artworks in the form of prints and on merchandise, and that his work is frequently political and satirical, the ACA noted that he works independently and is not represented or protected by an organisation or employer.
ACA President Cathy Wilcox and Vice President David Blumenstein called Queensland’s new laws ‘hastily designed’ in a joint statement released yesterday (30 March).
They continued: ‘Following complaints to police, Hillier has been cautioned that some of his artwork, potentially even artwork that makes visual reference to the phrases but does not use them directly, is in violation of the law, and could land him in prison.
‘This is impossible to know for certain, since the brand new laws have not yet been tested. The wealthy can afford to test such laws in court. Freelance artists have to take their work down, hide and hope not to incur a huge legal bill.
‘The new law is doing its intended job, which is to chill protest and frighten people who, as far as they are concerned, are furious at the actions of a foreign state, and not at people of a particular religion.
‘This must be recognised as an inversion of the notion of safety and an impingement upon peoples’ rights to free speech and artistic expression. Suppression of dissent is a key characteristic of an authoritarian state, and one which we as a democratic country should strenuously resist.’
Calls for an urgent review of Queensland’s new laws
NAVA’s statement noted that artists are being asked to take down or alter work without clear guidance on what crosses the line, raising questions about how these laws are being applied in practice.
Benton said: ‘Visual art often engages with contested language and symbols, it is part of how artists reflect and respond to the world around them. If even this kind of work is being scrutinised, artists cannot reasonably predict what will be considered unlawful. Free expression will be diminished if these laws are applied in this way. If we don’t address this now, we risk normalising the policing of artistic expression.’
NAVA is calling for urgent review of the legislation and clear protections to ensure artists are not unfairly targeted.
Similarly, the ACA’s statement concluded: ‘We call upon the government of Queensland to withdraw its draconian new laws, and we call upon the other state, and federal, governments of Australia to recognise and uphold the rights of citizens and artists to dissent, as befits an open democracy.’
