Wednesday, 5 February 2025

Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:42): This is an important bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. It is an important bill because it deals with a topic that sadly is very much at the forefront of Victorian civic life. We are seeing, to an extent I do not believe I have seen in my lifetime, incidents of prejudice-fuelled hatred, prejudice-fuelled violence and assaults taking place on our streets, and it is absolutely shameful that we are seeing this horrific behaviour taking place. It is shameful that Victorians of particular religious faiths feel that they cannot even come into their own central business district on a Sunday for fear of being targeted by protesters. It is shameful that people cannot attend a place of worship in Victoria without the fear that they may be attacked or that their place of worship may be attacked. We have seen recently a firebombing of a Jewish synagogue in Ripponlea. So this bill is an important bill.

In terms of the concept of strengthening anti-vilification laws and the concept of trying to support social cohesion in Victoria, it is a concept that I would hope every member of this house could comfortably support. But we are not voting on concepts, we are voting on legislation, we are voting on specific laws, and this bill has got flaws in it which actually mean it will contribute to diminishing social cohesion.

This bill will make things worse, not better, and it is for that reason that the Liberals and Nationals are unable to support this bill as it stands.

There are some aspects of the bill that I find laudable and that we do support, and I want to be very clear about that. We support the ability of Victoria Police to bring charges in relation to prejudice-motivated crimes without having to go through the Director of Public Prosecutions. One of the issues we have is that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which has been in place since 2001, does provide criminal charges, but they have been used very sparingly. I think there have only been four convictions under those provisions since 2001, and, sadly, we do know that in this state we have seen prejudice-fuelled crime a lot more than four times. I thank the Attorney-General’s office, both the former Attorney-General and the current Attorney-General and their staff, for their assistance with the bill briefing and for answering questions that arose at the bill briefing that they took on notice. They confirmed that in fact Victoria Police have sought to bring charges under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act but the DPP has rejected them. I think that it is better for the DPP not to have to act as a gatekeeper in relation to these matters, except when it comes to under 18s – we do think that is an appropriate safeguard. So that is an aspect of the bill that we support.

The bill also – and this is an important part of the bill – increases the list of protected attributes. At the moment there are only two protected attributes: race and religious belief or activity. This bill would seek to expand the list of attributes which are protected from vilification to include disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and personal association whether as a relative or otherwise with a person who is identified by reference to any of these attributes. Let me be very clear: the Liberals and Nationals support the expansion of protected attributes. Some of these people are very vulnerable, and sadly they are very vulnerable to prejudicial conduct, to hateful conduct, and they deserve the protection of the law. The Liberals and Nationals support that. But there are aspects of the bill that we do not and cannot support, because as I said, they will make social cohesion worse, not better. We will see more vilifying and hateful conduct because of this bill rather than it reducing that in our community.

Turning now to the criminal provisions of the bill, there would be two separate criminal offences created by this bill. The current serious vilification offence under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act requires proof that a person has incited hatred and threatened physical harm or property damage on the grounds of a person’s race or religious belief or activity. The government is amending those criminal provisions to effectively split them, so rather than having to prove there has been both incitement and threat, there will in fact be two separate offences, one limited to incitement and one limited to threat. The government notes that no private prosecutions may be brought for these criminal offences, and I do think that is absolutely appropriate, because there is a risk that some of the changes the government seeks to bring about through this bill will be weaponised by activists who, instead of promoting social cohesion, are more interested in using what is known as lawfare to try and prosecute political arguments against political opponents and other opponents as well, so I do think the government has got that right in terms of not allowing private prosecutions to be brought for these criminal offences under the bill. I do note that both offences are indictable offences – that is, they do carry serious potential jail terms of three years and five years respectively for incitement and threat – but they may be tried summarily, so in the Magistrates’ Court.

In terms of the incitement offence, the bill creates an offence of incitement on the grounds of protected attribute, and it does so in the Crimes Act 1958. This bill seeks to repeal the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 and to insert the criminal provisions into the Crimes Act. Again, I do not have a problem with that. I do think it seems a bit odd to have criminal provisions siloed in a separate act. I think consolidating them in the Crimes Act is a sensible move, and that is not an issue which meets with any objection from me.

What are the elements of the incitement offence?

A person commits an offence if –

(a) the person engages in conduct that is likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of, another person or a group of persons; and

(b) the person engages in the conduct on the ground of a protected attribute of the other person or the group; and

(c) the person either –

(i) intends that conduct to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of, the other person or the group; or

(ii) believes that conduct will probably incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of, the other person or the group.

This is a lower threshold than currently operates. Whether conduct is likely to incite hatred et cetera is to be determined objectively. It is a lower threshold than the current serious vilification offences, which require proof that the accused knew their conduct was likely to incite hatred and threaten physical harm et cetera.

The government says:

The offence is not intended to “capture mere contempt, distaste and ridicule”, or “seriously unkind” conduct or “bad thoughts” …

So the government is saying that this has a high threshold, and given we are talking about potentially somebody going to jail for three years, it absolutely needs to have an appropriately high threshold. How a court might interpret these words is of course something that is not within the control of the government, let alone this legislature. So there is a lower threshold than previously applied. It is enough that the accused intended that their conduct would have the stated effect or was reckless as to whether the conduct would have that effect. This offence applies to both public and private conduct, so it is no defence to say, ‘Well, I just said that in my own home.’ This applies to conduct anywhere and everywhere. As I said, there is a significant increase in maximum penalty. It is currently six months imprisonment; this would provide for a three-year maximum term.

We can argue the toss over whether the lowering of the thresholds is appropriate. There are many in this community, and many vulnerable groups in this community, who believe that not enough has been done to use the existing laws and that they have not been used as they might have been and that too much bad conduct has been, if not ignored, not sufficiently prosecuted under existing provisions. So we can certainly have a debate about whether lowering the thresholds in the way in which this bill proposes is appropriate.

But here is where we think the government has got this badly, badly wrong. The bill also provides for a defence to a charge of this crime:

… if the accused engaged in the conduct for a genuine political purpose.

A genuine political purpose – new section 195N(4): this is a new defence, and when I say ‘new’ I do not mean just novel in law; I mean it is new in that this was never, ever part of the parliamentary committee’s recommendations which were supposed to be the genesis of this bill. The Parliament’s Legal and Social Issues Committee was charged with investigating Victoria’s anti-vilification and discrimination laws in 2019. In 2021 the committee reported and made a number of recommendations, some of which have already been implemented – for example, in relation to the prohibition on flying the Nazi swastika. That is something that has received bipartisan support, and we are pleased to see that that offence has been prosecuted. Some of the other recommendations of the committee are incorporated into this bill.

But I will tell you what the committee never recommended – the committee never recommended a defence of genuine political purpose be inserted. This was never part of the initial discussion papers and never part of the initial consultation papers. In fact the first this was seen was when the government issued a further consultation paper pretty late last year and for the very first time this concept of a defence of genuine political purpose suddenly appeared. Nobody knows where it came from, nobody knows who asked for it, and this defence is what will make this bill worse in terms of antisemitic and antisocial conduct in this state.

The government needs to explain where this came from. I have my suspicions. I am not a suspicious man by nature but I have my suspicions. I do see the fingerprints of Trades Hall Council over this. I think Trades Hall quite like the idea of being able to vilify people and engage in conduct which is hateful and seriously contemptuous and vilifying, and they like the idea of being able to get away with it by simply saying, ‘Oh, we had a genuine political purpose in doing that,’ and that is not good enough.

It is quite ironic that with all the tensions we have seen on the streets of Melbourne and across Victoria, particularly since 7 October 2023, and the outrageous terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel, we have seen tensions amongst various faith communities in our state. But here is one thing that this government has bizarrely and unintentionally managed to do, because opposition to this defence has united our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters. Muslim and Jewish community groups have said they do not support this new defence and that it is going to undermine the entire purpose of this bill. The Islamic Council of Victoria warned:

Misuse of this defence has the potential to allow individuals openly preaching or inciting hate to evade responsibility by hiding behind a claimed political purpose.

That is the Islamic Council of Victoria. Here is what the Jewish Community Council of Victoria said. They wrote of their concern:

… this defence does not become a catch-all measure that renders these new laws unworkable.

And it was reported earlier this week that a number of prominent Jewish community groups and leaders have written to the government, pleading for them to remove this defence. You can understand why any person of goodwill who is concerned about increasing vilification and hatred on our streets – why would you give a green light to anybody to engage in hateful, vilifying behaviour and hide behind, ‘Oh, we’ve got a genuine political purpose in doing it’? It makes no sense at all – no sense at all. As I said, it is quite ironic that this bill has united Jewish and Muslim Victorians in their opposition to this aspect of the bill.

We know that the use of the terms ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ are often used as code words by people who simply do not like Jewish people and want to attack them grievously. I would like to put this quote onto the record:

The label Zionist is used, not in any way, accurately. When critics use that word, they actually mean Jew. They’re not really saying Zionist, they’re saying Jew because they know that they cannot say Jew, so they say Zionist or words [such as] Zeo or Zio.

That quote is from the federal Attorney-General, the Honourable Mark Dreyfus, a Jewish man himself and somebody who I have a great respect for. We have our political differences, but I have great respect for Mark Dreyfus as a person. He has made very clear: ‘Zionism’ or ‘Zionist’ is simply used as a code word for people who want to attack Jews. What this bill will do is give a green light to those people. It is actually going to give them more protection than they have ever had in the past.

You can attack Jews as much as you like. You can say hateful, vile, contemptuous, vilifying things about them and as long as you call them Zionists, that is okay. You possibly do not even have to call them Zionists. You could just attack Israel or Israelis on the basis of saying, ‘Well, that is a country. It is a political issue.’ No. Why would a bill that is designed to try and turn down the temperature in our streets give a green light to appalling, abhorrent behaviour? Why would it give a leave pass to hateful, bigoted people by saying, ‘As long as you call it a political reason, you can do what you like’? It is wrong. As I said, this never came out in the parliamentary committee. It never came out in the early consultations. This was dropped in at the very last minute. I detect the heavy hand of Trades Hall Council in this, and we will not stand for it because this will make Victoria a less cohesive place. This will make things worse, not better, and we will not vote for a bill that makes things worse, not better.

It is not just Muslim groups and Jewish groups that have raised concerns about this; many other groups have as well. I refer to Mr Menachem Vorchheimer, who was the subject of a horrendous antisemitic attack. I will find the date, but he wrote in the Herald Sun:

It will serve to empower members of the socialist left and other fringe groups opposed to mainstream societal values to continue to target events held dear by so many, such as the Myer Christmas windows and Carols by Candlelight.

They will also be empowered to continue to label members of Melbourne’s Jewish community terrorists and continue to call for the destruction of the state of Israel, under the guise of “political purpose”.

The proposed changes will not protect those worthy of protection, but protect those politically aligned to the Labor government and the socialist left ideology.

They are the words of Menachem Vorchheimer, and I believe the government should pay aid to them. The Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli has urged the government to clarify this bill on the basis that it is highly subjective and ambiguous.

That is the grave concern we have about this defence to the new incitement provision. The bill also includes a new offence of threatening physical harm or property damage on the grounds of a protected attribute. It covers both intentional conduct, where the accused intends for the person being threatened to believe the threat will be carried out, as well as reckless conduct, where the accused believes the person will probably believe the threat will be carried out. Ironically, it does not need the person to actually have believed that. The government has provided for a five-year penalty in relation to the offence that involves property damage or physical harm, and that is appropriate. It is appropriate that property damage or physical harm should carry a greater penalty than incitement.

Turning now to the civil provisions in the bill, the government refers to public conduct. That is where these civil provisions come into play. It includes any form of communication to the public, including social media. We all know what a cesspit social media can be, so I do not object to that aspect at all. It includes ‘actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia observable by the public’, as well as the distribution of any matter to the public. Conduct may be public conduct even if it occurs on private property or land or at a place not open to the general public; for example, at a school or a workplace. At the moment there is an incitement-based protection for religious and racial reasons. It provides protection where public conduct incites another person or group with a protected attribute to hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule.

In terms of the civil protections, this again lowers the threshold. It goes from the legal test being public conduct ‘that incites’ to public conduct ‘that is likely to incite’.

That is a lowering of the threshold.

Tim Bull interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: There is a very big difference, member for Gippsland East. We are concerned that that lowering of the threshold in relation to the civil matter is again simply going to encourage lawfare and activist groups to try and seek out and prosecute their matters through tribunals and through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and we are concerned that this could lead to a clogging of cases that are really not about resolving issues; they are about trying to police speech of others. It will not be necessary to prove the conduct actually incited hatred, for example – simply that it is likely to. That is the incitement-based protection.

Let me turn now to the new harm-based protection, as the government describes it. The bill proposes a new harm-based civil protection that would restrict people from saying or doing things in public that harm others. The provision is:

A person must not engage in public conduct –

(a) that is engaged in because of a protected attribute of another person or a group of persons; and

(b) that would, in all the circumstances, be reasonably likely to be considered by a reasonable person with the protected attribute to be hateful or seriously contemptuous of, or reviling or severely ridiculing, the other person or group of persons.

The conduct may be on a single occasion or on a number of occasions over a period of time. It may occur inside or outside of Victoria. This is very novel in legal terms because in Victoria – indeed across Australia generally – legal tests are applied on an objective basis, the legal concept of the reasonable person. But the government moves away from the reasonable person in this new harm-based civil protection, and now it is the reasonable person with the protected attribute. For people who have a protected attribute, for example religious belief, the law will now have to consider: how would somebody from this group perceive this? How would somebody from this group feel about this?

It is not just broadbrush attributes. I did ask the question in the bill briefing, ‘Are we talking about, for example, Christians and Muslims or people of the Jewish faith?’ The answer was, ‘No, no, no; it can go down into particular branches of those faiths’ – so the reasonable Anglican, the reasonable Catholic, the reasonable Presbyterian, the reasonable evangelical Christian, the reasonable Sunni Muslim, the reasonable Shia Muslim, the reasonable orthodox Jew, the reasonable liberal Jew. How on earth are Victorians supposed to know what the reasonable view of a person with a particular protected attribute would be, given that it is going to take the wisdom of Solomon to try and determine what a particular person of a particular branch of a particular faith might think at a particular point in time? When the law is uncertain, when the law is unclear, then the law is unfair, and that is what this law is. It is unclear and it is uncertain, and therefore it is unfair. Moving away from the reasonable person concept and delving down into, effectively, identity politics to the nth degree – not even protecting people on the basis of a broad protected attribute but having the law changed depending on that particular person’s subset of subset of subset of a protected attribute – gives no clarity, no certainty and therefore no fairness.

There have been some concerns raised about other aspects of this bill. In the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act it provides that a religious purpose includes but is not limited to conveying, teaching a religion or proselytising. I note that the government has left out the word ‘proselytising’ from the definition of ‘religious purpose’ in this bill. That has caused a great deal of concern amongst a number of faith communities.

I acknowledge the government referred to proselytising in the second-reading speech, but the fact that it has come out of the bill is something which is causing great concern amongst a lot of faith communities who do believe that proselytising should be absolutely a religious purpose.

Because this government has got it wrong, because the government has taken a concept that we could all agree with and turned it into a bill which will actually make things worse, I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the Allan Labor government:

(a) urgently considers additional options, including those available to Victoria Police, as a practical means of tackling antisocial and vilifying behaviours; and

(b) consults further with Victoria’s faith groups, including the Jewish and Islamic communities, who have warned the government that the proposed ‘genuine political purpose’ defence to incitement will damage social cohesion in this state.’

If the government was serious about helping turn down the temperature on our streets today, it could reintroduce move-on laws today. It could do it today and give the police the opportunity and the power to remove people from situations who are engaging in vilification and who are causing harm and distress and fear to other people. The government removed those move-on powers when they were first elected. The government has rejected every opportunity provided by us to reinstate them. But if the government are serious about protecting vulnerable people in our community, they need to look past their Trades Hall political masters and give police the power they need to turn down the temperature on our streets, and that is move-on powers.

This government should also listen to what Victoria’s faith groups are saying. Listen to the Jewish community. Listen to the Islamic community. They say the government has got it wrong with this genuine political purpose defence. It will make things worse not better. To give a green light to somebody to say hateful, vilifying, contemptuous, reviling things and to say, ‘That’s okay, because as long as you say you’ve got a genuine political purpose you can do what you like, you can incite whatever you like and you get a leave pass from us’ is no way to improve social cohesion in this state.

I am very disappointed that the government has gone down this path. The government had an opportunity to unite the Parliament and to help to unite Victorians. Instead the government has chosen not to. To give a green light to racists under the guise of a general political purpose is wrong. To change the law so that it is unclear, uncertain and unfair is wrong, and for those reasons the Liberals and Nationals will be opposing this bill.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (11:13): Can I start by saying from the outset how honoured and privileged I am to be here in this place and to have the opportunity to speak in absolute full support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This bill is actually the culmination of work over many years – four years worth of hard work, deep policy development and engagement. Can I first of all acknowledge the former Attorney-General and now Treasurer Jaclyn Symes in the other place for all of her hard work in getting the bill before us in the house today.

My heartfelt gratitude as well goes to every community organisation, every faith-based group and every Victorian who shared their lived experience in their contributions on and in the development of this bill. It is their stories, their experiences, that are real, and each of them – all of us – have the right to live free from hate, from discrimination, from intimidation and from harm.

I have listened closely to the member for Malvern. To say that I am disappointed that they are not going to support this bill is an understatement. If we step back for a moment and consider what we are seeking to do here – that is, protecting Victorians from harm, from hate and from the consequences of that hate speech and what we are seeing play out overseas with psychological impact, with people being silenced without being able to participate fully in public life – it is reprehensible that we could consider sitting back and opposing what Victorians have been asking and have been pleading with us to do. That is: please, as legislators, do something to show that Victorians will not stand for this kind of conduct that delivers so much harm and hate in our communities and that is a blight on everything that we stand for and hold so dear and precious to us as Victorians.

It is not just a matter of offensive words. It causes harm – real, lasting harm – for individuals, for communities and for societies. It undermines our social cohesion. It undermines our trust. It creates a fear of insecurity and instability. History has shown us the devastating impacts and effects. Left unchecked, it escalates into real-world violence. We have seen that playing out across the world. We have seen it playing out right here at home in Victoria. Fundamentally what we have seen is that it not only radicalises individuals but it starts to normalise that behaviour. It is that creep, and that is extremely concerning. When I speak to communities that is something they raise with me all the time.

They do not raise with me a defence of political communication. I am ashamed that the member for Malvern has used this as his platform to oppose this fundamental bill that seeks to bring into place in Victoria reforms to protect all Victorians from the harm that we are seeing – the harm that undermines our democracy, our way of life and everything that we stand for in this place. This is not a society we should accept. Those opposite need to stand up. Those opposite need to rise up above whatever infighting is happening within their party. Those opposite need to stop siding with those on the far right of our society and move away from that. Those opposite need to show some leadership on this issue. If not now, when? This is not a question of whether we should be introducing these laws. We must introduce these laws. On this side of the house we stand united with Victorians and with communities. We stand absolutely united with them to condemn hate speech and to condemn hate conduct. The bill before us does just that. We are saying no to hatred in Victoria, to the hatred the causes serious harm.

I say to those opposite: please do not turn your backs on Victorians, not now. Do not pass up this opportunity to put in place laws to deliver a framework for the benefit of all Victorians and to protect all Victorians. Do not ignore them. They are asking for our help. They are asking for our support. This is our opportunity to come together and to show that as a Parliament we are united in seeking to stamp out the kind of hatred that we are seeing and the harm that it is causing. I say to those opposite: rise above your internal party politics. Stop with the mischief, stop concocting these reasons to oppose this bill, and look within yourselves. Sometimes it is hard. Many of those in this place might be in a position of privilege, but recognise that these reforms are for the protection of all Victorians.

And of course recognise that these reforms have not been manufactured in a vacuum. As I said, this has been a long and painstakingly detailed process to get the bill to the house today. We have undergone significant consultation – perhaps the most consultation I have seen in my time as minister. I have met with community groups. I have met with constituents. I understand that there is fear, that people are living in fear in our communities, and that these reforms are fundamentally crucial to send that very strong message to all of our communities – that we stand with them, we listen to them and we are going to introduce reforms to better protect every Victorian.

Let us step back for a moment to 2021 when there was a parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections. That report was a bipartisan report. It is really difficult reading, and member for Malvern, I strongly encourage you and others opposite to read that report, perhaps for the first time, for some of those opposite. It is a sound base for understanding why these reforms are so very necessary. What it found was that the current protections are inadequate. Our current protections are no longer fit for purpose. They are not working, and we see this playing out to the detriment of all Victorians.

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Sonya KILKENNY: The member opposite was formerly a barrister. I would have thought, as a minimum, the member would understand the need to protect and preserve the implied right of political communication that has been recognised by the High Court. That is what the political defence is. That is exactly what the political defence is.

Those opposite are trapped by infighting within their own political party. They are going pass up this opportunity as legislators in this place, as leaders within our community, to step up. There is an obligation for each and every one of us in this place – a duty – to protect Victorians. Victorians are asking for that protection. This bill will be that protection. Victorians deserve absolutely nothing less. The time to talk is over. I commend this bill to the house.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (11:23:133:): I rise to stand and make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, and I thank the leading speaker, the member for Malvern, for his contribution and for the efforts that he has put in in really working on this bill and bringing some serious concerns to this chamber.

The term ‘vilification’ is more commonly known as hate speech or conduct but includes a broader range of behaviours that incite hurt and harm. At present there are only two attributes protected from vilification by the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which are race and religious belief or activity. The bill seeks to expand the list of attributes which are protected from vilification to include race, religious belief or activity, disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristic, sexual orientation and personal association with a relative or otherwise with a person who identifies by reference to any of the above attributes. There is no doubt that we need to address the increasing vilification and hate that is sweeping our nation and in fact internationally. There are many people in our communities and more broadly that are being subjected to the most extreme impacts of vilification and hatred, causing pain and fear – from many different walks of life. I was hoping like many others that this bill would make the changes that are needed, but as the leading speaker and member for Malvern pointed out, this bill is flawed in many cases and will be making things worse, not better. That is why this side of the house opposes this bill.

I have been contacted, like many others in this chamber, by many members of the community, those that are directly impacted by vilification and hatred and that also oppose this bill.

That should send a resounding message to the government that it has got many things in this bill wrong. This bill has been highly criticised by many groups in the community, including the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. This is in direct relation to the defence – voices that we have listened to. Contrary to the former speaker, we are absolutely listening to those that are directly impacted – and many of them – every single day. This bill notes that it is a defence to a charge against this offence if the accused engaged in the conduct for a genuine political purpose. This is a new defence. This has been highly criticised. As I said, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria has raised its concern that this defence not become a catch-measure. It renders that these new laws will be unworkable. The Islamic Council of Victoria has warned that misuse of this defence has the potential to allow individuals openly preaching or inciting hate to evade responsibility by hiding behind a claimed political purpose. Labor’s bill has united Jewish and Muslim Victorians, with them expressing serious concern about political defence.

The bill creates an offence of incitement on grounds of protected attributes in the Crimes Act 1958. Whether the conduct is likely to incite hatred is to be determined objectively. This is a lower threshold than the current serious vilification offences, which require proof that the accused knew their conduct was likely to incite hatred and threaten physical harm. Another significant change will be amending the legal test from ‘public conduct that incites’ to ‘public conduct that is likely to incite’, so it will not be necessary to prove that the conduct actually incited hatred but that it was likely to incite such conduct. This is a lowering of the test.

A number of faith groups have expressed concern that the deletion of ‘proselytising’ from the non-exclusive definition of religious practice in the bill may lead to that activity not being protected. Currently the criminal offence has an obligation to prove that a person’s action has both incited hatred and threatened physical harm or property damage on the grounds of a protected attribute. It is a concern that there is no obligation to demonstrate that impugned conduct actually incited hatred or that the impugned conduct actually led to someone feeling threatened for their person or property. This is a lowering of the legal threshold. It may make it easier to secure convictions. However, it could mean that people are convicted for intentional or reckless behaviour that falls short of the previous standards.

For the first time legislation will create a green light for people to engage in conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for or serves to ridicule a person or group on the basis of a protected attribute with no criminal consequence. Such a defence was not a recommendation of the parliamentary inquiry. It appears to have been adopted by the government very late in the process of the development of this bill.

What is a general political purpose will have to be determined by the courts. However, given Zionism is regarded as a political movement rather than a race or religion, any incitement against Jewish people that uses the term ‘Zionist’ rather than ‘Jew’ will likely be protected under this defence. This bill will act as a green light to the incitement of hatred against Jewish people by utilising this new genuine political purpose defence.

Recently there has been an alarming increase in reports of hate speech and conduct. The 2024 report Understanding Reporting Barriers and Support Needs for Those Experiencing Racism in Victoria reported that 76 per cent of people surveyed stated that they or someone in their care had experienced racism in Australia. Many of us experience displays of racism and hatred every day. Often you will hear stories of terrible incidents where people have felt that they have been discriminated against or they have had to experience circumstances of hate speech. Many of us in the community must stand up for other people’s rights.

The LGBTIQ+ community experiences high rates of poor mental health and suicide. Goulburn Valley Pride are a local organisation in my electorate who are doing great work in my community. It is so important that we all work harder so that people in our communities feel safe and respected and do not live in fear of vilification or hatred just because of who they are. Regardless of their culture, faith, sexuality, religion or circumstances, people need to live in a society where they feel safe, understood and respected.

I recall an incident at a supermarket very recently. As you know, I live in a very multicultural community. I was at the check-out where a Muslim girl was subjected to a disgusting display of racism. She had to get a price-check for the customer that she was serving. She was told to hurry up. The man was aggressive and pushing groceries at her. I was behind him, and I told him to stop.

He paid, snatched his bag, turned to her and said she did not belong here and to go back where she came from. These types of behaviours and discrimination continue and will escalate if we do not call them out.

The 2023 Victorian Antisemitism Report recorded that there has been a 220 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents. We are seeing an alarming display of antisemitism, hatred, targeting of people’s properties and acts and threats of terrorism. Community members do not feel safe in their homes, their workplaces, as I have pointed out, their schools, their places of worship and on the streets. In 2019 the eSafety Commissioner reported that around 14 per cent of Australian adults were estimated to have been the target of online hate speech in the previous year, with LGBTQI+ communities and First Nations people experiencing online hate speech at more than double the national average. In 2021 the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections examined the operation and effectiveness of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. The inquiry heard that vilification is commonly faced by many Victorians, including First Nations people, Muslims and Jewish people, women, LGBTQI+ communities and people with disabilities – many vulnerable people in our community who are facing fear, threats and hatred. It is devastating to see the level of hatred and acts of vilification that are happening in our nation, and we have to do better. It is disappointing that this bill is letting the communities down that need it most. Acts of hatred and the targeting of specific communities are distressful, and they should never be tolerated. If they continue to escalate, they will set a precedent, and the acts of hatred and vilification will continue. We have to get this right, and we have to put in place the right legislation that will protect people.

As I said, I live in a very multicultural community, one of the most multicultural communities in this country. In fact we have over 58 languages spoken daily. I will always stand up against discrimination and hate. There is work to be done, and communities have a role to play. But we have a role to play, and we must have the legislation in place to make the difference that we are all referring to today. Coming together united, standing shoulder to shoulder and striving to live in peace and harmony should be a given, not living in a world of hate and injustice. It is actually astounding to think that we have to stand in this chamber and make these changes and that this is actually happening in Australia, in a country that is supposed to be a country of freedom of speech, the Lucky Country and a place for all. For those that do choose hate, they need to be held accountable. From some of my closest friends from diverse and different backgrounds, cultures, faiths and beliefs, I have seen firsthand the impact of discrimination and hate and the pain that it causes. Often the hurt is hidden by the impact and is deep. I do support the reasoned amendments, and I hope that we can work together on this and that we deeply make the changes that need to happen.

Vicki WARD (Eltham – Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Natural Disaster Recovery, Minister for Equality) (11:33): On this side of the chamber we know, we feel and we believe that hate speech and vilification of LGBTIQA+, multicultural and multifaith communities, of people living with a disability, and words of hate, words of violence, absolutely cause real harm. They have no place in Victoria, and it is our role as legislators, as representatives in this place, to do all we can to stop this behaviour and find those who engage in this behaviour accountable, because it needs to stop. People cannot live like this, with the fear that goes all around them when they see, hear and feel this vilification.

It was great to see that there were a handful of those members opposite at the wonderful, vibrant, fun, amazing Pride march, the 30th Pride march, on Sunday, and it is immensely disappointing to see that they do not want to support this legislation. Every Victorian has got the right to feel safe, and that includes our vulnerable Victorians – the Victorians that we really need to stand up for. We really need to show that we are there for them, that we will support them however we can and that we will protect them from hate, from harm and from hurt.

Following the Victorian parliamentary committee’s inquiry into anti-vilification protections in 2021, the government supported or supported in principle 34 out of the 36 recommendations. It outlined that a person’s race, religious belief and activity would continue to be protected and that laws would be extended to also protect the attributes of disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation or personal association with a person with a protected attribute.

There was also a religious exemption to the civil protections ensuring that they would be retained.

These reforms follow the government’s ban on the display of the Hakenkreuz and the performance of any symbol or gesture used by the Nazi Party in 2022 and 2023. That meant that we acquitted and implemented inquiry recommendation 24. We know, as the Attorney-General has just said, that there has been extensive consultation with multifaith, multicultural, LGBTIQA+ communities across Victoria.

The 2023 neo-Nazi-led anti-trans protests and targeting of our rainbow community inclusive events, hate speech and ongoing vilification of our diverse communities are not welcome in Victoria. This behaviour is not welcome in Victoria. These people are not welcome in Victoria. I stand with those people, these vulnerable Victorians, who need us to stand up for them. I absolutely stand with them, and I will every single day, as will everybody on this side of the chamber. We want to do all we can to help Victorians feel safe, and in the context of the alarming increase in hateful attacks on members of our Jewish and Islamic communities, we need these protections that we are debating today more than ever.

In its submission to the government’s final consultation the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne stated:

At our core, we believe in the dignity of every human person – created in the image and likeness of God – and deserving of utmost respect.

…

Every attempt to incite violence or hatred against any member of the community must be rejected. Protections from vilification should include, but not be limited to, those with a religious belief.

Of course many of the vulnerable Victorians of which I speak have faith. They do have beliefs. They are a part of the religious community too.

Victoria’s commissioner for LGBTIQA+ communities Joe Ball has said to me:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

When neo-Nazis occupied the steps of Parliament to join anti-trans protesters with a banner reading ‘Destroy paedo freaks’ it made headlines around the world. That day, the Victoria I love, a place known for its diverse multicultural, multifaith and LGBTIQA+ plus communities, was cast into the shadow of hatred. I know we are at our best when we celebrate our difference, and I, as an LGBTIQA+ Victorian, know that the overwhelming majority of Victorians already embrace this diversity. But for the few wreckers in our community who want to terrorise people through deeply hateful words and actions, we need legislation that protects us from vilification.

I am good friends with an Eltham mum. She has a beautiful young trans son. I love this kid, and I have been witness to his journey to realising the entirety of who he is, of him living his truth. He has the right to live his truth in safety, without horrendous, hateful, violent words and actions around him. She said to me:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I have a deep fear that our society is going to make backward steps towards trans people. I fear for his physical and mental safety. I fear he will face violence and rejection purely for being himself. My wish for him is for him to be able to feel safe and loved and free.

This is what we all want for our kids, and trans kids are no different. Trans young people are no different. We have an obligation in this place to do all we can to make sure that they do have those rights and that they are not vilified. I would not be alone in this. But when I see things, for example, in my letterbox, which we often see during election times, from campaigners who want to harm trans people, we are all on the phone to her. We are messaging her, saying, ‘Check your letterbox before your son gets home,’ because we do not want them to see this harm – this terrible, terrible language of harm and hatred and intolerance.

No Victorian should be subjected to this. I am so glad to have this young trans man in my life and in the life of my family. He is one of my daughter’s closest friends and has been since year 8. Just as my daughter should not be vilified for being a young woman, he should not be vilified for being a young trans man. This legislation is about adding further protection for people in our community.

After the wonderful, beautiful, joyful Pride March on Sunday, I bumped into a friend of mine who is Jewish. She has said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I am a 33-year-old Jewish woman who has lived in Melbourne my entire life. I feel connected to my community, a part of its ebbs and flows and that as the granddaughter of refugees from the Holocaust I can mostly be safe in this community, in this city and in this country. For the last 16 months the sense of safety and comfort I have held so close has been shaken to its core. Since the December firebombing of Adass synagogue, it has been shattered. The promise of Victoria, its safety, its kindness, its fairness seems distant. A terrorist attack, an arson firebombing, in the middle of the streets that I grew up in, that my family shops in, that we walk the family dog in, across the street from where we get the train to go to the footy. It still doesn’t make sense to me. I hope that people look at this incident and realise how desperately we need to insert more reason and calmness into the discussion we are having about the Middle East. There should be no war overseas that impacts other countries like this, especially a country that has so prided itself on its multiculturalism, and for good reason. This country should be a shining example of how living together in harmony can work, not how communities can be destroyed through anger and hate. There are many examples of violence and destruction tearing apart societies around the world. Australia should not be another one.

She is absolutely right, and this is why we are putting forward this legislation. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria has stated publicly that they welcome the proposed vilification reforms in this bill.

Margaret Chambers from the Institute of Public Affairs has made the outrageous claim that this legislation will ‘make Victoria the censorship capital of Australia’. No. We want Victoria to be the safest place in Australia. We want Victorians to be free from harm in Victoria – free from hate, free from vilification, free from prejudice, free from feeling fearful when they walk about because they may be attacked because of who they are. We know that the IPA sends many of its alumni to sit on the opposition benches. We can see from this that for the Liberals and their fellow travellers the right to say harmful things is more important than the right to be protected from deliberate harm. Vulnerable Victorians – all Victorians – deserve better. They need and deserve this legislation. We are seeing the growth of Nazism and fascism around the world. We are seeing Nazis being more vocal in our country, and we want it to stop.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:43): Since I was elected to this Parliament one of the things that I have always been very, very focused on is ensuring that we call out hate speech, that we call out anybody that targets any individual, no matter who they are and no matter where they come from. I think probably a big part of that is because of my background. I am a proud Jew, and we know – I am not just talking about what has happened in more recent times but over centuries – that it has been the Jewish community that have been through their fair share of being targeted by hate. I think just about every Jew that I have ever met is the first when it comes to standing up for those that have been targeted, from other and different backgrounds, because we know what it is like. We will always stand alongside them. Whether they are being targeted for race, religion, gender, sex or whatever those people are being targeted for, our community has already been at the forefront.

That is why I asked to be part of the initial inquiry into this bill, and it really does sadden me the fact that we have got to where we have after years of work. This started back in 2019 with the initial terms of reference. We had the recommendations and the report finish up, and then for years it has really just sat on the shelf.

A lot of the issues that we were dealing with back then are different now, such as some of the issues, particularly as the new Attorney-General is referring to, in terms of extremism from the right. Nazis with swastikas were certainly very prevalent. To an extent they are now, but that was the biggest game in town. We have seen extremism now also on the left. I call it the horseshoe of hate because what we have seen is the far left and the far right come together to target people of different backgrounds – ‘If you’re not like me, we’re going to target you.’

Unfortunately since the events of 7 October we have seen the Jewish community come under the worst possible attack that I have ever seen. Already we have heard members of this house refer to that. It culminated in December with the firebombing of the Adass synagogue, the most visible synagogue that we have in my community. If you wanted to target anybody and make the biggest example of somebody, that would be where you would hit. Visibly Jewish individuals going about their lives in the heart of Ripponlea are being firebombed while individuals were in there setting up the service for morning prayers.

That is what it has come to, and we are sitting here today after years and years of work with a political defence that makes it okay to target a community that has been through hell since 7 October. How is it possible for a government to say they are going to stamp this stuff out yet green-light those that want to hate on Jews even further? How is that possible? How can the government get this wrong? It is not like this has happened overnight; this is years of work. We have had 7 October and 15 or 16 months later, with all the hate that goes with it, we have now got a political defence in this bill that says, ‘You know what? Take out the word Jew, insert the word Zionist, and we can say all Zionists are terrorists, all Jews are terrorists.’ ‘Bash the Zionists’ – they are the T-shirts that are being sold at the moment. What does that mean? ‘Well, that’s okay because Zionists don’t live here. We’re talking about those people in Israel.’ Are we? Because I can tell you most of the Jews I know call themselves Zionists, because they are proud Jews that believe in the State of Israel’s right to exist. That is what a Zionist is. We believe that the Jewish community and Israel have a right to exist, and that is Zionism. But according to the government it is a political movement that should have an exemption. Maybe Israel should have an exemption as well. If you call Israelites ‘evil Israelites’, does that mean Jews? How far does this go and how have we got to this in the first place? It seems odd.

I cannot remember when we have had a situation when we have rushed a bill in because it is so important but we are not voting on it this week. We are not voting on it, because the government stuffed it up. That is why we are not voting on it – because they have turned their backs on the Jewish community. They have green-lit antisemitism and hate. That is what they have done. I have asked during the briefings and I have asked on several occasions what happens if people down the street start referring to Zionists as terrorists. The word was, ‘It depends where they say it.’ That was the initial explanation that I got until two weeks ago, when all of a sudden magically we have got a political defence, which means they can say it anywhere because Zionism is a political movement. So we went from ‘it depends where’, which means maybe if they say it in the city it is okay but if they do it in the Jewish community or outside a synagogue maybe it is not okay, to now where is a political defence to say, ‘Knock yourself out. Jews are all fair ago. Zionists are all fair go.’ Well, that is hateful and hurtful, and it should not be in here in the first place.

Our Shadow Attorney-General made the comment: why? I know the Attorney gets up and says it is about rights.

What about the Trades Hall movement? Where are they on this? Why have they got so much power in the government to force them to have a political defence mechanism that green-lights antisemitism? That is the question I have got: why? Why are we here? Why do we have it? There are a number of great things in this bill. Expanding the attributes, as I started with, is so important for everybody. Not just Jews, not just race, not just religion, not just gender, not just disability – everybody, no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, should be protected. Great. That was part of what the committee looked at, and it was a recommendation, as it should be. The committee did great work. The banning of the Nazi swastika came from the committee. And the swastika was not just for the Jews. It was not just for that. The Asian community and the LGBTI community were also targets of the Nazi swastika, and it is great that it is gone, because now we see those from the extreme right not using that but using other things which are less visible and less offensive. They can knock themselves out. They will come undone in other ways.

But this is not good enough. There are things like police having to refer a vilification case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the Shadow Attorney-General has said, and that can take three months. This bill overrides that so police can actually charge people for vilification actions, which is good. We want police to have the powers so if somebody vilifies somebody else the police can act straightaway. We need that. Right now Victoria Police do not bother with vilification laws, because it is going to take them three months to hear back from the DPP, and in most cases the DPP says, ‘Don’t worry about it.’ That is why the police are using other mechanisms. That is why there have only been four cases since 2001 of successful vilification charges in this state – because it is too hard. We need it fixed. We need a number of things fixed. This is not the solution.

The government has failed. The Shadow Attorney-General has recommended a number of very important changes here. I hope the government will listen, and not just listen to the Shadow Attorney-General but listen to the community, listen to the Islamic Council of Victoria and listen to the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and others. Listen to Menachem Vorchheimer, who has been a victim of antisemitism attacks, saying that we should be using the police powers, we should be strengthening those and we should be enforcing those, and the government should be acting on a whole range of things to ensure all people are safe. It is not good enough to have somebody in Mill Park have stars of David scrawled on their fence and packs of bacon thrown at individuals only a week ago. It is not good enough to see synagogues burnt down. It is not good enough for anybody of any religion, background or sex, no matter who you are, to be targeted. We need everybody to feel safe in Victoria, but the government has failed in this bill.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (11:53): I also rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This bill has been brought in at a really crucial time in our society. As members have said previously, when the Legal and Social Issues Committee initially looked at the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 it was in a very different context, but one of the themes was that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was not fit for purpose. It was not seeing acts of vilification and acts of hate being prosecuted in the way that you would have thought they would be or making it easy for people who had been vilified to either bring civil claims or criminal claims or for the police to investigate criminal cases. The genesis of this bill was getting stronger powers for the police to investigate hate crimes, making it easier to bring criminal convictions, also broadening the protected attributes to capture more people under this legislation and allow more people to be protected by this legislation. Those are really important things.

I want to start by just having a look at particularly the civil protections. There are two changes to the legislation, one being the inclusion of anti-vilification protections into the Crimes Act 1958 and making it a criminal offence, and also the civil offences.

There is a statement at the beginning of part 6A that will be inserted into the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which reads:

The Parliament recognises the right of all Victorians to be free from vilification and to participate equally in a democratic society.

I think that really is a tenet that should be front and centre, not only when we are debating this bill but also in terms of how the legislation applies and how we should be approaching our society. It should not really even need to be stated that everyone in this society should be free to live without vilification. Upholding basic values should not be about tearing other communities down, and it should be possible to condemn all forms of extremism in Australia, wherever they are coming from. If you are targeting, if you are vilifying, if you are abusing another group, then that is vilification, and it should not be acceptable in any form in our modern society.

Sadly, since the Legal and Social Issues Committee was originally established, and even since the inquiry was released, a lot has happened in our society. Particularly since the events of 7 October 2023 we have seen a massive dislocation of social issues in the world and in Australia, including in Melbourne. Nowhere has this been more present than in the Jewish community. The relentless level of antisemitism that has occurred over the last 15, 16 months has been something that I never thought that I would experience or witness in a country such as Australia.

I talked at length in my inaugural speech about my family’s journey to Australia, particularly my father’s experience during the Holocaust, and my strong – I will not say desire – calling to try and call out and fight racism and vilification wherever it presents itself. Little did I know at the time the hate and vilification that we would be seeing directed to the Jewish community over the last 15 months. It is not just the firebombing of the synagogue that occurred in December; that was merely the culmination of months of vitriol and hatred that has been directed to Jews. Even this week we have seen an incident at someone’s home, targeting them again with antisemitic graffiti. We have been seeing it throughout the summer in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Perth, and there is just no place for any of this hatred and this animosity to continue to occur.

Regardless of what your views may be on a conflict that is occurring on the other side of the world, a Jewish person who runs a business in Melbourne, a Jewish person who works for a business that might be owned by an Israeli company or even a Jewish person who is just going about their day to attend synagogue services – none of these people deserve to be victims of vilification, of hatred or of animosity, and anything that we can do as a Parliament to stamp this out will be a step in the right direction. We know that the current laws as they present themselves are not protecting the community. We have seen this in the inability of the police to, I suppose, effectively prosecute these cases and arrest people on these vilification matters. Changing the legislation and enabling the legislation to make this happen is going to be a critical step in the right direction.

I also want to try to briefly identify the scale and the frequency of the problem that is occurring in the Jewish community. There have been a number of reports prepared by both the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and also the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. The most recent report I have came from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and was published in December 2024. It records that in the year ending 30 September 2024 the number of anti-Jewish incidents in Australia was more than 2000. This was five times higher than what had occurred in 2023, which had been the highest to date for many, many years. This spike shows how much of an issue this is in the Jewish community and how much fear the Jewish community now feel. Many people cannot bring themselves to identify publicly as a Jew in Melbourne, and that is a shocking, horrible situation that should not be allowed amongst any community. We pride ourselves on being a free and multicultural society, and it should be a free and multicultural society for all communities. If you are not able to walk down your street and freely practise your religion and freely identify yourself as a Jew, what society are we living in?

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (12:03): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This bill is before us today because we have a problem. We have a big problem in Victoria that has been left to grow and has been unaddressed for too long. There has been a rise in hate speech. There has been a rise in Victoria and Melbourne in hate crime, and safety on the streets, in Melbourne more specifically, is a big concern. We have too many people living in fear. Too many people are scared to go out – scared to even go to the city on public transport, scared to go to their places of worship. And for some they have reason to be, because of the rise in hate crime that we have seen. One of the most appalling incidents, as we saw recently, was the bombing of a synagogue in Ripponlea, and the Jewish community certainly have been subject to many relentless attacks recently.

But this is Australia; this is a country where we boast about our freedoms. At citizenship ceremonies we tell people how good it is to be in Australia and how great our local communities are because we have freedoms. More and more these freedoms are being compromised, so we do need to do something; we do need to protect people. For those that have been vilified recently and parts of communities that have been vilified, I feel very much for them. That should not be the case.

I think everybody in this chamber will agree that it is a problem and the current laws are inadequate. We know since 2001 there have only been four convictions, yet the incidents which shock us are increasing. Whether that is an incident against particular faith-based organisations, members of the rainbow communities or those with disabilities, we see these continued issues and this vilification, and something needs to be done. The laws around violence and hate must be strengthened. I think we are all agreed on that, and what the government has done here is wasted an opportunity and mucked it up. What they have done here is united the Jewish and the Islamic communities, because both of these groups have issues with the bill. Both of these communities have been subject to terrible vilification and hate speech, so we do need to do something.

There are three components to the bill before us. The first is about the expansion of the protected attributes beyond race and religion. There is a criminal component which is due to be in place on 20 September 2025. Interestingly, though, the civil component will be on 18 September 2027, well after the election, because I think the government have realised here that they have done some sort of stuff-up.

It has taken the government ages, and while it has taken so long from when this was first flagged through the Legal and Social Issues Committee, whose inquiry began in 2019 – yes, we are six years down the track – things have got worse. We can all tell you things have got worse. The Legal and Social Issues Committee in their report said the laws were ineffective and inaccessible. The government did an Engage Victoria stint, and of course it showed up what we know: people want this to change. We all want it to change. But perhaps that was not broad enough, because I do not think that they have listened to two of the major groups – as I have said, the Islamic and the Jewish communities.

I take exception to comments that the Attorney-General made earlier in relation to our position on this. Yes, of course we need to be united on this; yes, we do need to change. We know that the laws are no longer fit for purpose or effective. Yes, we need to be helping communities, and yes, we need to support communities. But the current form that the bill is drafted we cannot support, because they have not got it right. There needs to be a good balance, and it is not right. The Attorney-General accused us of concocting things. I suggest that she goes to speak to the federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, because he has issues with some of the terms that are being used and will continue to be used if this bill goes ahead.

With the protected attributes, rather than just race and religious belief or activity, which has been the case through the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, we now extend that to include disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and personal association, whether a relative or otherwise, with a person who is identified by any of the above attributes. As I said, race and religious belief are front and centre, but those with disability and gender identity issues need to be protected. The trans community and the LGBTI+ community also need to have the protections in place. That is something that we do not have an issue with. Those attributes are in line with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. We are happy for the police to be able to charge without the role of the DPP. The DPP is going to be maintained for those under 18, but for over 18s they do not need to be the gatekeeper, particularly when the experiences are that it adds three months to the process of whether or not a charge will be put into place. Acts of vilification and hate crime need to be dealt with immediately. Yes, we agree with increased fines and penalties.

There are a couple of areas that are of great concern. Firstly, political defence was not included by the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I do not think that it was even by the Engage Victoria committee. Having a political defence makes it okay to target a particular community. This is contradictory to the intent of wiping it out. It gives the freedom to use other terms that may not ordinarily be used. It lowers the test to make it easier to establish a case, but it runs the risk of less serious cases or more speculative cases being run due to the lower threshold.

One of these words is ‘Zionism’. It is an easy example to use, and that perhaps is a code word for Jew. It is a more polite term. It would be okay to say all Zionists are terrorists, and that is just not right. That is what is being said. I want to read out a quote from federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus:

The label Zionist is used, not in any way, accurately. When critics use that word, they actually mean Jew. They’re not really saying Zionist, they’re saying Jew because they know that they cannot say Jew, so they say Zionist or words [such as] Zeo or Zio –

to get around it, because that will be okay. Now, this has got to be tested in court rather than sorted out first. I am not convinced that that is the right path to go down. I think that we should be sorting these sorts of things out now, and these are the sorts of things that the communities have issues with.

I want to also talk about the protected attributes and the reasonable person test, because we have a reasonable person test that is used in court cases ordinarily and puts us all fairly well equal. But now we have got the new prescribed attributes we need to determine what a reasonable person with that protected attribute would consider to be hateful. This can become really, really murky, and I want to draw an example of how far down you drill for something like this.

We know within the Islamic faith that they have the Sunni and the Shia sects and that they might view things quite differently to each other, so that protected attribute has to go down not just to the fact that it may be within the Islamic faith but be protected for somebody of those views, which may be quite different from the other ones. This becomes very complicated and very murky. The reason that we have put forward a reasoned amendment is that we know this has to be fixed. The government have not quite got it right. They need to do a little bit more work. They need to consult further with the faith groups, including the Jewish and Islamic communities, who have warned the government that there are issues with the proposed ‘genuine political purpose’ defence, because they think that is going to incite more damage rather than create greater social cohesion.

We have such problems at the moment. Too many people are fearful for their lives on the street. That is just not good enough. The government has to get this right. They cannot wait for years and years for this to continue to fester or for courts to come down with some sort of decision so they have to go back and re-examine what words they have put forward in the legislation. They need to consider additional options, including those available to Victoria Police.

Natalie SULEYMAN (St Albans – Minister for Veterans, Minister for Small Business and Employment, Minister for Youth) (12:13): I rise today to make a contribution on the very important bill that is before this house. In 2021, as the chair of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, I had the great honour to table a historical report into protecting Victorians. To take a step back, I think we need to have some context.

The committee was charged with the responsibility of this inquiry into anti-vilification protections, and this really was after the tragic terrorist attack in New Zealand against the Muslim community at a local mosque and we saw a rise of hate incidents in our communities. The report did take some time to actually conduct, and of course during this period we had COVID. It was really important to note that we had so many submissions, so many courageous stories being presented to the committee. We also had the support of religious and community organisations, including our Jewish and Muslim communities. This report recommended numerous prevention initiatives – changes in legislation; importantly, school-based education; making sure there is responsible media reporting; and public awareness campaigns, just to mention a few.

This government, the Allan Labor government, is the one that banned the evil display of Nazi symbolism across our state, taking decisive action by banning Nazi salutes and symbols – those symbols of hate, fear, division and violence. We all know that we have seen a rise in global hate, and that has been portrayed on our streets and in our communities. We know that hate damages our vulnerable communities. These actions undermine our state, they undermine our democracy, and it needs to stop.

As parliamentarians we set a standard, and we must lead by example. This is an opportunity, again, for both sides of the house to unite and protect our vulnerable communities – those that have been attacked, those that need us to protect them in their day-to-day lives, in their businesses and in their local communities. We need to take strong action. Those on this side of the house, as I said, have started this process. We put a ban on the Nazi salute and the absolutely evil display of Nazi symbolism across our state, and the reforms before the house today show that we always stand up and protect our communities. Regardless of your race, regardless of your religion, regardless of who you are, your sex or your gender, you have a place in our state, and you are protected. We must have a society where your religion, your faith or the way that you look is not a reason for people to have a go at you or, even worse, to make dangerous attacks on our communities. For example, this bill seeks to protect A young woman who is of diverse multicultural background and who may be going through the same experiences. I know that many in this place would have seen or heard or have firsthand knowledge of family and friends that have been vilified for the way that they look, because of their religion, because they are practising their faith in our communities.

These are protections today that will protect our community members. In particular I thought that the other side of the house, on seeing the rise of right-wing terrorism in our community and in our country, would know that it must be stopped, that it must be called out. We can argue about the detail of the bill, but at the end of the day everyone in this house must do the right thing and support the absolute intent of this bill. Fundamentally what this bill does is protect Victorians from vilification and hate. I say to our Victorian community, whether you were born here or overseas, whether you are Jewish, whether you are Muslim, whether you are Hindu or Buddhist – it does not matter what religion or non-religion, what faith or colour or where you belong – we are all Victorians, and you have an absolute role in our community.

This is a real, historic moment when we can make a difference as members of Parliament and come together, like we did with the Legal and Social Issues Committee a number of years ago. That was a bipartisan report tabled in this house. We were able to work together and work with our community organisations and religious institutions and many other stakeholders to put forward protections and to make sure that those protections were in place. I know that there is the far right and there is this absolute conflict of debate in our communities and we are seeing so much hate and division, but as I said at the beginning, this is an opportunity for Parliament to take a stand and really support the intent of this bill before this house.

This is a bill that protects our most vulnerable. In particular, as many have said today, we are talking about the rise of hate speech and the rise of attacks, and this bill is about protecting and making sure that we can take action and that there is confidence in our community that they will not be attacked because of their faith, religion or gender. From my own personal experiences as someone of Muslim faith, I know how difficult it is when you are vilified for your faith or the way you may look, and it is extremely challenging. These communities rely on us all in this chamber to put forward protections, to put forward measurements and to have reasonable debates so that we can actually put forward actions that are able to protect them so that, most importantly, all Victorians can be successful and prosper in our communities, and it is so important that we do that.

Again I say this to the other side: this is an opportunity for you to show your support and fundamentally support and protect Victorians from vilification and hate. The details can be, as always, argued, but the intent of the bill deserves our support. Our vulnerable multicultural and multifaith communities deserve for this bill actually to be supported unanimously by parliamentarians in this house to show that we support our most vulnerable in our community and will protect them from vilification and hate crimes in our community.

Again I thank members for the contributions from this side of the house, and I do again say that this is a bill that will provide the safeguards and protections to our most vulnerable, our multifaith and multicultural communities, regardless of their gender and regardless of who they are. We are proud Victorians, and we deserve to be able to go about our lives in a safe and prosperous way in our state and to continue to practise our religion. It does not matter who you are, you have a place in Victoria. I say to the other side: you must support this bill and show that we can unite and send a strong message to those who want to bring fear into our communities. Today we support these legislative changes so that there are consequences for vilification on this side.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:23): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This bill is one that, for context, will not be considered at the end of the week by this government for being passed by this house. The government have announced in an unprecedented way, in a way that I have not seen before, that they do not intend for this bill to be considered in the final vote this week. I have never seen that before. What that tells us in this chamber is the government has already acknowledged that it will have to substantially change the bill. So when speakers from the government side stand up and talk about the need for this bill to be passed, the government has said it will not pass this week. They have determined it will not pass. The government made that choice. They have not announced yet that it is because there will be substantive changes, but there will be. There will have to be, because what this bill is about is trying to do something to address the breaking social cohesion in this state.

Unfortunately the way the government is trying to fix that breakdown through this bill has been shown to be wrong, to not work, to not be appropriate, to not be the way to fix the underlying breakdown of social cohesion. What I am sure about, so terribly sadly, is that not only in this state but in this country more broadly antisemitism is deeply embedded in a proportion of the community – deeply, deeply embedded. After the Middle East war started following the terrorist attack in 2023 there was a lot of talk from community leaders from the left about the need to not specifically call out antisemitism – not just call out antisemitism – but more broadly talk about antisemitism and Islamophobia. Of course any form of discrimination is wrong, but what we have seen, without any doubt, is a breakout of the most vile forms of antisemitism on a daily basis. We are seeing firebombings of kindergartens – firebombings of kindergartens – and of a synagogue. By the way, in New South Wales we have seen multiple arrests for those crimes. In Victoria for many of these heinous crimes there have been no arrests. This bill provides an excuse for ongoing antisemitism, and that is why the Jewish community has stood up bravely and said: ‘This bill is wrong.’

I know personally the people who have stood up. They did not do it with an easy decision. It was a very, very difficult decision for the community to stand up and say ‘No’. It was a very, very difficult decision. What they said was that this bill embeds a political exemption in behaviour, so now you will not hear the most vile people in our community calling out hateful attacks on Jews; you will hear them calling out vile, hateful attacks on Zionists – and that will be their political exemption. It is wrong. This bill does not fix the problem. There are things in this bill which we wholeheartedly support, and we have said that. We have said so strongly that we support it, including expanding the protected attributes. So strongly do we support it – but we do not support an excuse for ongoing antisemitism. The Jewish community has called out – and not just the Jewish community, by the way – this issue embedded in the bill. We cannot provide an excuse to allow behaviour of this nature.

Only in the last 24 hours a constituent of mine contacted me about having gone into a hotel, and when he arrived, the person behind the desk was frustrated as they were checking him in, walked around the front of the desk, slapped him in the face and called him an ‘effing Jew’, which of course has been referred to police. This is what people are dealing with every single day of the week. Now with this bill, how would that case have been dealt with if she had called him a Zionist? How would that have been dealt with?

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: This is not funny, government members. This is not funny! We can hear them laughing. For the record, Acting Speaker, they are laughing.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Order! This has been an important and wideranging debate. The member for Brighton, through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: Of course.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): And the member should direct his comments through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: I was. Thank you, Acting Speaker. I am making very, very reasonable points, and there have been other points raised by this side of the house, including on some of the legality issues with the bill – for example, the reasonable person test, the very longstanding legal test whereby the independent reasonable person’s view is assessed in relation to an issue.

Under this bill there will no longer be a reasonable person test, there will be a test by a person affected in that community. No matter how you see any issue, clearly it changes the longstanding concept of what is a reasonable person. I note that because it is something that has been raised by more than just our side of the place.

As I said, the issue with this bill is that it does not fix the problem that exists. What we have seen, what we are seeing and what we can be certain of is there is a breakdown of social cohesion. That is not unique to Victoria. We are seeing it around Australia, and we are seeing a lack of action from the federal Labor government on fixing it at a broader level. There is no doubt that the community can see that. I know that when a number of years ago the Parliament, through a committee that I was on, considered some of these issues, one of the issues that we talked about for a really long time was how you can put in place tests and frameworks that can ensure that people are protected. At no time during those discussions was there any thought that anybody could claim a political defence and somehow be exempt from antisemitism. At no time was that discussed, and neither should it be. We need a bill that addresses the problem, and that is what we have said as a coalition. We want a bill that addresses the problem.

May I say, because of the work of the member for Caulfield and me on the committee, in publicly calling on the committee to recommend banning the Nazi symbol – publicly, it was not privately, it was publicly, it was through published media at the time; you can you google it and look at up – the government was pushed into including it in its final report, and that is factual. The government did act, and so they should have, and we supported them. But we say to them now: there is a bill before the Parliament that the most affected parts of the community right now are saying they are deeply worried about. That is why, we know, the government is not proceeding with this bill. For the record, the government has chosen to park this bill. The debate is occurring now, but they are going to park this bill because there will need to be major amendments. Those major amendments should be transparently worked through with the community to make sure this bill is up to the standard that the Victorian community deserves. That is what the issue is. This bill needs to be of the standard that the community deserves to fix the broken social cohesion in this state.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:33): I probably will commence by looking to the purpose that underpins this legislative reform, and that is to better protect all Victorians from the serious harms of vilification and hate conduct. I think it goes without saying that both of those elements can be terribly – and have been proven to be terribly – damaging and certainly lower the tenor, and that is probably an understatement, of the community in which we live and love. I should also note that these reforms include implementing 15 of the legislative recommendations of the 2021 Victorian parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections. I think it goes without saying that the imperative for these reforms is absolutely paramount, and many in the chamber have reflected on very, very serious incidents that have occurred in many respects.

I will probably commence by just saying when we are looking at how these reforms are seeking to operate, I attended the Pride March at the weekend with many colleagues and I did so with pride as an ally of the LGBTQI+ community. Then we put together a reel and put it online to further share that sense of backing in the LGBTQI+ community and making sure that it is well known that we hear them, we see them and we are there for them at all times and in all ways.

I do not get a lot of time to confer with my social media, but I did take a little peek at some of the commentary coming through, because that particular post went far and wide, and I was nauseated at a section of the commentary. Most of the responses were positive, I have to say, which I am very buoyant about. I think that means that we are sharing something in a way that is, can I say, lifting the tenor and the respect within the community. However, there was some commentary on there – and I dare say it was not necessarily local – that was absolutely nauseating. It just gave to me a little fractional flavour, other than what has been reflected directly to me personally, of what members of the LGBTQI+ community suffer every day, day in, day out, and all the more reason why, now in its 30th year, we continue with such activities as the Pride march.

Further, I will say there is another aspect in which this bill is seeking to help lift, improve and ameliorate behaviour and conduct, and that is by condemning and, let us hope, seeing an end to hateful conduct, first and foremost. Certainly there was antisemitic conduct over the weekend in my electorate, and there has obviously been reflection in the chamber about the bombing of the synagogue in a neighbouring electorate. But whether it is in my electorate or a neighbouring electorate, any part of Victoria, none of it is acceptable, whether it is antisemitism or whether it is Islamophobia. I have also had some locals from the Indian community reach out with concerns about increasing vilification. The imperative is paramount, just to reinforce that point.

One thing I do want to pick up from the chamber is that, when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, I did have, I will say, the honour of being able to participate in some of the consultation. I must say it was genuinely engaging in terms of being absolutely multicultural and multifaith, and there was no stone unturned in that regard. I think there were some comments made that were suggesting in some way that that was not the case. That is not true. Very deep and profound consultation is underpinning this really important work in terms of improving the way that people treat each other, and fundamentally it is about respect at the end of the day in our community.

I must say, another thing that I want to reflect on and that I hope will be one of the beneficial outcomes of this legislation – certainly it is the purpose for which it is intended – is that it will help provide peace for persons who are currently really suffering. I am just going to zone in on the antisemitism, but that is not to only focus on that particular aspect when we are looking at protections for our community. I have some friends in the Orthodox community, and I know one in particular who is a lovely man who contacts me many times a day with different articles. I just feel for him, because he is the son of Holocaust victims. I think he lost most of his family, so he is deeply concerned at seeing what seems like, for want of a better word, a reignition of the deep hatred that stems back, honestly, for centuries but particularly to when Nazism really took hold – all the more reason for us to be collective in terms of driving out hate, hateful conduct and vilification from our community. It is extremely important for the benefit of all people now and into the future as well.

I want to point out an important caveat in the bill, and that is to do with one of a number of safeguards, because safeguards are always important, not least in something as sensitive and as nuanced as it should be when we are talking about the way we treat each other, particularly with such things as attributes and the like.

The bill provides that only Victoria Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to commence prosecutions, to ensure a level of experienced prosecutorial oversight and avoid the risks of vexatious private prosecutions. The bill also requires the DPP’s consent to charge an accused who is under 18 years of age, recognising the unique vulnerabilities of under-18s. Certainly when we are looking at the purpose and intent of the legislative reform, we want to make sure that it is appropriately targeted to mitigate the risk of vexatious actions, which could have been the case were it not for such important safeguards being included in the bill.

The bill also makes a minor technical amendment to the Bail Act 1977 so that bail decision makers can, if appropriate, remand a person who is charged with intentionally performing a Nazi gesture, as is already the case for the offence of publicly displaying the Nazi symbol – just to pick up on that nuance, because nuance is certainly critical in this discussion. I do not think I have to explain why, because fundamentally we are dealing with very delicate but nevertheless very important subject matter in terms of elevating the standards that we expect of a decent, kind, caring and compassionate community. I am going to exclude those who seek to provide and have exhibited the most hateful and horrendous conduct in community, but collectively I would like to think that the majority of Victorians do want to see a kinder, more compassionate, caring and considerate way and manner of treating each other. We all have gifts and jewels to offer each other and so much to learn from each other each and every day.

The protections being brought about here are seeking to honour what is the best of us as opposed to that which lowers everyone, because when you hurt one, you hurt all. I do not mean to be trite in that comment. It is absolutely the truth. I know whenever I see or hear or witness – I should say it is more so hear – despicable behaviour, it affects all of us. I do not want to see others treated inappropriately, because that does not make me happy. That does not elevate my life experience, and neither does it elevate the life experience of anyone else. On that note, I think we can all do this together to make Victoria even better.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:43:283:): I rise also today to talk about the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. Listening to others in the chamber that have got up and spoken today, as you said before, it has been quite wideranging what people have been talking about. What we are trying to do is protect people in our community. Most people are law abiding and want to do the right thing, and we are trying to protect those people from people that are not law abiding and want to go out and vilify people and use hate speech and standover tactics to make their life a misery. That is not right here in Australia, and it is definitely not right here in Victoria.

We have got legislation, and we are trying to change things here today to make sure that we do stamp that out, because that is what our role is here in this chamber – it is to get new laws and new legislation that protect the people of Victoria. I have been listening, as I said. This started back in 2019 after there were obviously ongoing issues, and in March 2021 the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Legislative Assembly tabled a report from that inquiry into anti-vilification protections following those terms of reference that were provided in 2019.

We see it on the television and listen to it on the radio, and we see on our social media feeds all the protests and the disharmony that these protests create as we work through. For people that are outside of the metropolitan CBD, where we actually see the front steps of this place used nearly every single weekend closing the city down, we also have these same protests that happen in our local communities, whether it be in the main street or whether it be out the front of post offices on a Saturday or a Sunday. We see these people turning up to protest.

I listened to the member for Caulfield and I listened to the member for Box Hill, and they have got to walk this tightrope every single day because they are representing their communities and living in fear with those people about how the hell – I withdraw that – have we got to this particular point in time where it is okay to vilify particular groups of people, particular persons? How have we got to this point? We need to make sure that the legislation that we are bringing in stamps that out, and as the Shadow Attorney-General pointed out today, a lot of the stuff that is in this bill is great and is going to improve our laws for police to be able to police and make a difference not in a couple of weeks time but actually straightaway.

But there are issues with this particular legislation amendment, and it is for us to bring up and highlight to the government that there is one clause in here that has been changed only recently that allows people – and we are not talking about good people, we are talking about people that want to take advantage of anything that they can – to negotiate their way around what we are trying to bring in so they can continue on their path of hatred and destruction of people with different religious views or people of different backgrounds. It just makes no sense at all that we are standing in the chamber today when the issue has been highlighted. I am sure there are people on the other side that are toeing the line but would love to be able to stand up with the freedom that I have here to point out there is an issue and we need to fix that issue so there is no grey area. And it is not even a grey area; it has been highlighted that this is what is going to happen. It is a fault in the actual amendment itself, and if we do not pick it up in here, the people that want to continue on have an out where they can still speak hatred. They can still make life uncomfortable for people that we are trying to protect.

It is just not good enough that we come here today and we are talking on a bill that we are not actually going to be voting on this week. We have got time to get it right. We have got a Premier that stood up on Monday, when we talk about legislation and amendments that we need to make, talking about bail and stuff that we did last year to make those bail laws better. We actually raised that there were issues with those bail laws at the time. We are going to be coming back to strengthen those bail laws because they are not making a difference. Well, we think we should learn from those mistakes and be able to work together. Here is an issue that we have picked up in this justice legislation amendment that is not going to work.

It is not going to make a difference, and we need to be able to highlight that. I know we are going to get howled down probably by the end of the day by people saying that we are opposing this amendment and that we are not going to be protecting the people that it sets out to. Well, that could not be further from the truth. We are pointing this out to the government. Get it right, because otherwise we are going to be back here in three months time or in six months time having to change it because it is not right and it is not just for the people that we are trying to protect. Do it once; do it right.

Look, mistakes are made and there are loopholes. We have picked it up. We are giving it to the government, saying go and change this particular loophole where we can use particular words and get away with it. It is not right for us to be here standing up in the chamber talking about it, putting legislation amendments forward for the good of the people of Victoria and it fails them. Let us not do the same here. Let us not do the same as what we have done with our bail laws and missed the mark – not by a little bit, by a lot. Let us make sure that we get it right.

The Attorney-General stood in the chamber earlier today and said that we need to stand united, we need to stand and stop hate speech and we need to protect our communities. She said we have a duty to protect the people. Well, as far as I can see we are getting it mostly right with this amendment that we are trying to do but we are missing the mark on one particular piece that needs to be changed, and because we are not voting on this we obviously have time to change that loophole. It is going to be like a green light for people that do not think like you and me in this chamber. We want to do the right thing and want to protect our Victorian people – mums and dads and children – as they go about their daily life whether they are walking down the street to the shopping centre or whether they are walking their kids to school or going to a place of worship. This is what this is about. This is to stamp hate speech out. As I said, we are missing the mark in doing that.

We do have time. I hope that the government does not ‘take up the challenge’ but just sees this loophole is going to cause grief. We are going to be back here again later in the year changing it because the people that are going to use the loophole do not think like us in here. They are looking for any way they can to continue their hate speech. That is why we are opposing it. That is why we have a reasoned amendment.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (12:53): I am delighted to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This is a bill that is particularly close to my heart. I had the honour of serving on the committee that looked into this legislation. I want to begin my contribution by thanking two people particularly for their contributions. Our Minister for Veterans affairs was the chair of the committee and worked very hard and in a considered fashion to make sure that that committee reported and could offer to government good ways forward. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Box Hill for his contribution, which was heartfelt and reflects many in his community.

This is such an important bill. We heard during our consultations from so many people about the desperate need for this bill, and I can only stand today and say that it is an absolute tragedy that the opposition are refusing to support this incredibly important bill. There has been lots of talk today about social cohesion, and I have to wonder about the social cohesion of the Liberal party room. On the one hand we are hearing from people –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, the party room of any party is not in any way relevant to the bill and frankly it is just cheap.

Michaela SETTLE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, if he would allow me to finish, it is about the contributions from his party room and their variance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I will rule on the point of order. Speakers have enabled members to compare and contrast different administrations, but I request that the member continue her speech.

Michaela SETTLE: I am talking about cohesion of opinion from those on the other side. We sat through the member for Eildon telling us that this has taken too long – that we had this long and considered inquiry and it has all taken way too long – and yet the Shadow Attorney-General put out a piece in October calling for longer consultation on this. I am trying to understand where the cohesion of these opinions is in that some want us to act quickly and some want us to take longer. There seems to be no cohesion there.

Even more terrifying for me in terms of a lack of cohesion from the other side is the fact that in listening to the Shadow Attorney-General’s contribution he talked about their bipartisan support for the expansion of protected attributes, and yet we have had to listen in this place to contributions from both the member for Warrandyte and the member for Mornington calling into question that expansion of protected attributes. I just wonder whether when they stand and say there is bipartisan support they can really guarantee that, because of course we have heard the objections of the member for Warrandyte and the member for Mornington.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is reflecting on other members in this place, which is a clear breach of the standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I am ready to rule on the point of order. I have been listening carefully to the debate. I do not believe there has been any imputation on members directly yet.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I am ruling on the point of order. Member for Brighton, let me conclude. In saying that, member for Eureka, I would urge you to ensure that your comments are confined to the bill rather than making imputations on members.

James Newbury: On a different point of order, Acting Speaker, the member has specifically referred to members in this place. I am not sure how much more –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): It was the same point of order. Please do not use this time as an opportunity to make vexatious points of order. The member referred to other members, but there was no imputation that I heard.

James Newbury: This is a protection racket.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Is that a reflection on the Chair, member for Brighton?

James Newbury: What are you asking?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, your comment was that this is a protection racket. Was your comment a reflection on the Chair?

James Newbury: I was speaking to the speaker who was on her feet.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, I ask you to withdraw.

James Newbury: What am I withdrawing for?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, comments are directed through the Chair, as you well know.

James Newbury: I withdraw.

Michaela SETTLE: I was referring to information that is in Hansard. They were speeches made in this place. But more importantly, I want to get on to the member for Brighton’s speech. In an alarmist fashion he told us a story about a friend who had been slapped and called a Jew and that under this legislation that would no longer happen if they chose to say the word ‘Zionist’. Can I just point out that being slapped, for starters, is assault, and they would still be protected. Furthermore, this legislation makes it very clear that there can be no ulterior motive, and I suggest that someone at a reception desk slapping someone and calling them either a Jew or a Zionist would fall within this legislation. The hysteria from the other side is about protecting themselves from the very fact that they are opposing this incredibly important bill. We worked so hard on the committee to form this legislation. I would suggest that the members on the other side are turning their backs on the 62 submissions that we heard. They are turning their backs on the people that came to us in a committee to tell us about their experiences.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.