Tuesday, 29 October 2024

Anti-vilification legislation

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (19:15): (887) My adjournment matter is for the Attorney-General, and the action I seek is for the government to extend the consultation period on the proposed changes to Victoria’s anti-vilification laws to ensure that all Victorians can have a say. I have received many emails from constituents in my electorate who are concerned about the government’s proposed changes to Victoria’s anti-vilification laws, which would be some of the most far-reaching changes since the laws were legislated. My constituents are concerned about their ability to speak freely on matters of conscience and to adhere to their religious beliefs without the risk of being dragged before a tribunal in costly legal battles. Their concerns are justified. If enacted without amendments, these changes would be a direct and egregious assault on free speech in Victoria under the guise of protecting citizens from harm. The proposed laws would lower the standard for illegal behaviour or speech simply to that which is likely to incite hatred and expand the list of protected attributes from two to 10, including sex and gender identity. Even if the harm had not occurred, the simple fact that something was likely to cause harm would be enough to put Victorians on the line for up to three years in prison.

It is absolutely important that we have strong laws that protect people from discrimination based on their immutable attributes. However, it is equally important that such laws are not based on vague legal definitions and are not open to be weaponised. The problem with making speech illegal based on vague perceptions of hate is deciding who gets to determine what qualifies as hateful speech and what does not. In a democratic society many people passionately disagree about important issues. Therefore freedom of speech is a civil liberty that we cannot take for granted. For example, in the Voice referendum last year there were claims on both sides that the other side was spouting hate, yet scores of Australian supported both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. If these laws had existed then, it could have restricted Australians from genuinely debating a very important issue.

Criminalising harmful speech is not an objective standard, and it will only lead to censorship and self-censorship for fear of saying something that could be misinterpreted as offensive. The proposed laws would cover all forms of communication, including speech, signs, gestures, clothing, social media and even events held on private property, potentially criminalising religious teachings in churches, mosques, synagogues or schools if someone finds them offensive. Many Victorians, including those in faith and multicultural communities, have deeply held and deeply personal beliefs on sensitive issues like faith, sex, gender and sexuality, and their right to discuss and express these views must be safeguarded. Freedom of speech is critical to our multicultural society in Victoria.