Wednesday, 5 February 2025

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (14:58): I am delighted to return to what is an incredibly important bill really to clarify some of the things that were brought up during my previous contribution. The member for Brighton raised an objection that in some way I was impugning members from the other side, and I just want to be really clear here that in fact what I was talking about was directly from Hansard, that these were things that they said. The member for Warrandyte in talking about the need for these new laws was talking about ‘immutable attributes’ and also discussed matters of conscience. I just want to make it really clear that those of us on this side of the house understand that ‘immutable’ refers to something fixed or unable to be changed. For those on this side of the house that includes race but also sexual orientation, disability and all of those people that need protecting and are protected under this bill.

I also made reference to the member for Mornington, and again this was taken from Hansard and a contribution that he was making. In that contribution he made wild claims about journalists, writers, comedians, academics, artists, entertainers – they could all be caught by the reforms. But what he did not really look at was understanding the bill and that in fact all of those cohorts do have exemptions to them.

Again I would like to remind the member for Brighton, who in his what can only be described as hysterical contribution suggesting that these laws would allow a person in a hotel to slap someone and call them a Zionist, that slapping is an assault and that furthermore there are protections in this legislation which say that there can be no other ulterior motive, so the said person doing the slapping would have to prove that there was no other motive for his actions.

Perhaps, rather than bringing this hysteria, those on the other side could support this bill.

When we did the original committee meeting a Melbourne Law School professor, Beth Gaze, who is an expert in equality and discrimination law, said that the proposed legislation would bring Victoria in line with the other states. But she also said that vilification law is controversial and is often used as a political football. I can only say that those on the other side have done exactly that by opposing this bill and coming up with spurious reasons why this bill should not go forward. They are turning their backs on the most vulnerable in our community – all of the people that came and presented to us at that committee. I want to thank all those people for their courageous effort in coming forward. Stop turning your backs on them.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:01): I too rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. From the outset can I thank the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, for the power of work he has done on this piece of legislation behalf of the opposition, making sure that we have a very well informed position and are well briefed on the risks this piece of legislation poses to the wider community.

Can I begin by talking about the need for reform. It is the case that the need for reform in this area of law is clear, and we accept that the current set of anti-vilification laws need to be reformed to provide greater protections against incitement and hate in this state and to enhance social cohesion in Victoria. My colleague the member for Malvern has already pointed out that we have only had four convictions under the current system, and we know that, sadly, there have been numerous serious incidents in this state that would fall under this area of law. It has been particularly concerning to see the appalling rise of that ancient, persistent hatred of the Jewish people. The spike in antisemitic sentiment across this state and across this nation is of deep concern to the coalition.

I note the work of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, who provided a road map for reform in this space, but unfortunately the bill before us does deviate significantly from the recommendations of that committee, which I will return to shortly.

I want to start by outlining the parts of the bill that we do support, because as I said earlier, the coalition absolutely accepts the need for reform in this area to strengthen protections and improve social cohesion. We acknowledge the need to modernise this area of law to better protect those in our society who are subject to unacceptable, hateful and prejudicial behaviour. That is why we support the measures in this bill that expand the protected attributes under the act.

Unfortunately, there have been a number of vulnerable people who, because of a particular attribute or belief, can be and have been subjected to hatred and incitement on the basis of that attribute or belief. Currently only the attributes of race and religion are protected. The coalition supports the measures contained in this bill to expand that list of attributes to include disability, gender identity, sex, sexual characteristics and sexual orientation. I note that these attributes and characteristics are protected under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, so aligning the anti-vilification law with these definitions is sensible reform.

Again I want to say very clearly that the coalition supports these measures to protect potentially vulnerable members of the community and to improve social cohesion in Victoria by expanding the list of protected attributes. However, we do have genuine concerns about areas of this piece of legislation, and they relate to the ‘political purpose’ defence. Unfortunately, despite our unambiguous support for the expansion of protected attributes in this bill, there are some measures contained in it that the coalition cannot support.

The creation of a ‘genuine political purpose’ defence to the criminal charge of incitement is, in the words of my colleague the member for Malvern, a green light to incitement and a step in the wrong direction. I note that the Legal and Social Issues Committee did not make any recommendation to suggest that a ‘political purpose’ defence was necessary.

I also note the opposition to this measure by several faith groups, including the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and the Islamic Council of Victoria. Indeed let me put on the record some of the concerns of the Jewish and Islamic communities. The Jewish community are concerned that simply substituting the term ‘Israel’ or ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ will avail antisemitic protesters of the ‘political purpose’ defence on the basis that attacking Israel or Zionism is a political activity. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria wrote of this concern that this defence would become:

… a catch-all measure that renders these new laws unworkable.

As Mark Dreyfus, the federal Attorney-General, has said:

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.

Similarly, the Islamic Council of Victoria has warned that the 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. This new defence will provide legal protection for all manner of hate speech, creating a loophole that completely undermines the other worthy measures that are contained in this bill.

Mike Burgess, the director-general of ASIO, in his annual threat assessment last year highlighted the concerning rise in politically motivated violence in this country. He said that more Australians are embracing a more diverse range of extreme ideologies and that politically motivated violence is now one of Australia’s principal security concerns. Given we know political motivations are driving much of the extremist sentiment in this country, it is inconceivable that the Labor government would seek to provide a political defence to incitement in this bill.

According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, in the two months following the devastating attack of 7 October by terrorist organisation Hamas we saw a 738 per cent rise in antisemitic incidents compared to the same period last year. Unfortunately, this steep and ugly rise in antisemitism has been particularly apparent here in Victoria, where we have seen protests and violence conducted in Jewish neighbourhoods, outside synagogues, designed to intimidate the Jewish community here in Victoria and target them for their faith. We are now seeing this antisemitism spilling over into some of the most atrocious acts of violence and hatred, such as the firebombing of a synagogue right here in Melbourne. We have heard antisemitic chants in this place, not to mention the intimidatory acts we have witnessed targeting Jewish schools here in Victoria, here in Melbourne, like Mount Scopus, where there is now a fear among students, parents and staff at those schools. For that reason, we simply cannot support any bill, no matter how well intentioned, that effectively creates a legal cover to allow hate speech to exist and potentially even grow because of this ‘political purpose’ defence.

Another area of concern that I will touch on briefly relates to the civil anti-vilification provisions contained in this bill. In particular the harm-based civil protection measures in this bill introduce a highly subjective element of the law. Rather than the test being what a reasonable person would find to be hateful, the test under this bill will be whether a reasonable person with the protected attribute would be reasonably likely to find it hateful. What this means in practice is that different groups of people with different protected attributes will now have different protections under the law. The introduction of a subjective element to vilification laws means courts must assess the perspective of a person with the attribute instead of the perspective of a reasonable person. I give the example of the Christian faith: that will come down to whether someone is a Catholic member of the faith, Church of England, Baptist or Presbyterian, and you can drill down even further into those faiths. Concerningly, the courts will also need to assess how sensitive groups and subgroups are in order to assess whether particular conduct is illegal. This is an affront to the foundational principle that all Victorians are treated equally under the law in this state. It is erosion of the fundamental principles that underpin our legal framework, and the coalition opposes this attempt to unpick the fabric of that foundation.

The member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, has moved a reasoned amendment pointing to the fact that we should focus on how to improve social cohesion here and now, and that is in relation to move-on laws. This is a missed opportunity to strengthen protections for vulnerable Victorians, to build social cohesion and ensure that lines in the sand can be effectively drawn against some of the more horrid incidents we have witnessed in this state in recent times. It is a missed opportunity to look at ways we can strengthen existing laws to better tackle antisocial and vilifying behaviours. This includes the move-on laws, which must be on the table for any discussion when it comes to improving social cohesion in this state.

The coalition stands ready to work with the government. We have introduced a private members bill to put those laws back in place so police have the power to stop the weekly disruptions when it comes to protestors making it hard for families to come into the CBD, putting at risk last year the Myer Christmas windows and Australia Day here in the CBD. Unfortunately the government has completely missed the mark with this bill. We cannot support laws which will only protect hateful speech and encourage more of it.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:11): I am very, very happy to stand up and speak on this bill this afternoon. It is something to stand here and reflect upon the contributions of some of those opposite that I think at times do not show an understanding of the bill or of community expectations. We have seen quite a number of issues in Australia over the last couple of months. We have seen that as a reflection of what is happening overseas. I will not go into some of those conflicts and wars. We have all got our opinions on them, whether we support people politically, but I think we can stand here today and say we all support humanity. This bill supports humanity and it supports people’s safety. It supports people who are the most vulnerable in our community, some of the minorities, and that is why I stand here today knowing that this bill will deliver a tranche of reforms to expand and strengthen Victoria’s anti-vilification laws to better protect all Victorians.

Sitting here today and listening very, very intently to this debate, it appears to me that we are looking for excuses not to do what we are here to do. I say to some of those people opposite – there are only two people opposite at the moment – that if you are not here to make positive change for your community, get another job. If you are here to sit on your butt and enjoy the status quo and the car, get another job. You need to be brave. Your community expects you to lead. You are in a leadership position. While I admit that the position of an MP is a leadership position, we do not all fill that spot as leaders. We need to grow into that, and I ask those opposite to grow into their positions as leaders. Show some leadership. It will not come overnight, but this is a good place to start. This is a good place to exercise that muscle.

We have heard from those opposite that this bill will expand anti-vilification protections from race and religion to also include the attributes of disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and personal association with a person who has a protected attribute. It will repeal the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 and move criminal vilification offences to the Crimes Act 1958 and civil anti-vilification protections to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. It will improve how serious vilification offences operate, including by introducing new serious vilification offences, and it will improve how civil protections operate, including by modifying the civil incitement-based protection, introducing a new harm-based protection and retaining the civil exceptions with minor amendment. It will retain the key features of the RRTA, including protections from racial and religious vilification, and it will make a technical amendment to the Bail Act 1977 to ensure that bail decision makers can remand a person who is charged with intentionally performing a Nazi gesture.

Just on that, I am absolutely shocked that people in the media – and Sam Newman would be one of them – would come out today and say, ‘These people who I let on my show and gave a platform to are ugly, terrible people.’ Well, why did you give them a platform on your show? Why did you show people that this is acceptable behaviour?

The other issue that I take umbrage with is people saying, ‘It’s not a Nazi salute, it’s a Roman salute.’ Those who know their history – the member for Essendon is not here at the moment, but he is a bit of a history buff; he has been quoting the Greeks and Romans for many years in this chamber – would know that saying that this is a Roman salute is not a great thing, because the Romans did some pretty terrible things. I would like to see us agree that whatever the case, whatever this salute represents, it is not good, and we should come together and agree that it should be banned and that there should be consequences for those who use it.

The Liberal Party have come out and they have told us their position on this bill. Again, sitting here today, I am not quite clear what that position is. I know that they are not going to support the bill, but I am not quite sure why.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: Absolutely, member for Point Cook. We have heard the bill being politicised. We have heard from various members about slaps and about things that are offences under the Crimes Act and that are totally separate from this. I know the member who was speaking about that has a degree in law and knows better than that, so I cannot help but think this is some obfuscation to make it so this bill is used as a political tool and weaponised, rather than putting the safety of our community first, which is why we are here.

It is very disappointing to hear a shotgun approach of opinions about why this bill should not have bipartisan support in this house. For goodness sake, isn’t that why we are all here? This is one of those bills, and we have had a few of them before, where I stand up in this house – and I am really proud to be in this house. I am really proud to know people on this side of the house but also people that I work with in a bipartisan nature on committees – people that I respect and people that I even to some extent trust. I can see the looks on some of those people’s faces on the opposite benches. They are being told one thing, and they are not quite understanding why they are expected to stand up and not support a bill that protects people in their community.

This bill of course gives effect to 15 recommendations of the 2021 Victorian parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections. We just had a shadow minister stand up and say that it does not take those recommendations in totality and it does not represent them in totality. I think again that is one of those grey areas where they are saying, ‘Here’s a reason not to support the bill.’ I would like those opposite to tell us some of the reasons that they would support the bill. I think if they did go out and they did consultation with their community, they would not find many people who would not support this bill. Of course there are some people giving misinformation to members of the community out there. We have all had emails, and there are some genuine emails from people with real concerns. There are some genuine emails from people with real concerns about issues that actually are not issues – issues that are very hypothetical and issues that may never, ever be tested in a legal court.

This bill I think shows the best of us, and we here today, much like with a few other bills we have passed in this place, should be showing our community that we are the best leaders we can be. We need to expand protections. Over the last couple of months we have seen a changing environment. Much like in the IT environment at the moment with AI, we have to take leadership and expand and change to cope with that. We have seen a renewed threat, we have seen a different threat and we have seen this threat on various platforms, whether it be social media or whether it be these army GI Joe wannabes going to country towns and marching.

We do not have laws that protect our community enough against these kinds of idiots. When I say ‘idiots’, it is probably wrong thing to say, because a lot of these people know what they are doing. They have terrible beliefs. They sit there and they know the history, but it is all about division, it is all about stoking hate. I would hate to think that there are people on the other side of the chamber that have anything to do with these people, but I know that is not true. I am not going to make any allegations here today, but I would like to know that everyone in this chamber would stand in unity and solidarity and say, ‘We need this bill to protect the people of Victoria.’ Because at the moment these new threats that are developing are scary, and they are scaring our community. We have seen so much hatred against migrants. We have seen so much racism. And we are seeing what is going on in the United States where people’s passports are being taken off them over gender issues and they cannot travel. We cannot go down that path. We need to make sure that this bill passes.

For those on the opposite side of the chamber: please take the time to read the notes. Please take the time to question what people tell you. I think you will find that it makes sense. I think you will find you would vote for this. I commend the bill to the house.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (15:21): For a long time the Greens have called on the government to expand Victoria’s anti-vilification laws to protect LGBTIQA+ people and disabled people from hate speech, because at the moment a person is only protected from vilification – hate speech – on the basis of their race and religion.

In March 2023 we saw neo-Nazis standing on the steps of Parliament with a horrific sign, a call to violence and a clear vilification of a vulnerable and marginalised cohort. In response we accelerated our work to protect the community. We introduced our own anti-vilification bill to push the government to expand the list of attributes that are protected under our law. Now, after years of advocacy from the Greens and the community, the government has finally produced a bill.

There are really important things contained in this bill. It expands the list of attributes that are protected from just race and religion to cover gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, disability and personal association. We call on the government to listen to calls from across the community to also include additional attributes – gender expression, HIV and hepatitis status, homelessness, immigration status and lawful sexual activity – as part of the protected attributes.

These laws also lower the threshold for civil vilification, making it easier for someone to seek a remedy through the courts when they have been vilified – compensation for damages, an apology, an injunction. We are in favour of that, because up until now only a handful of civil vilification cases have been successful because the bar is too high. This bill changes the operation and the scope of the civil protections to change that, and that is something we support.

There are also other barriers, though, to accessing civil protections. To have your case heard – to access the protections afforded by civil anti-vilification law in the first place – a person needs to be empowered, supported and financed to start proceedings against someone who has vilified them. Those who are most marginalised, most vilified and most vulnerable are the least likely to have the means to take someone to court, and vice versa. That is why we urge the government to also strengthen the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s powers to investigate systemic vilification and compel information from online platforms so that the system is less reliant on people who have suffered from harm prosecuting cases to bring about change, and to institute a positive duty for organisations, including in particular the police, to actively prevent vilification, not just punish it. We call on the government to increase funding for the critical work that our community legal centres do to support marginalised communities and ensure equitable access to legal protections.

This bill also seeks to make changes to the criminal provisions. Most notably it significantly lowers the threshold and increases the penalties and expands police powers in relation to criminal vilification. That is the kind of serious vilification that is an indictable crime punishable by imprisonment. There are a number of things that are proposed. The maximum penalty that can be imposed has been increased from six months currently to a proposed three to five years imprisonment.

At the same time as increasing the penalty, this bill also lowers the threshold in a number of ways. Currently to prove criminal vilification you would have to prove that somebody intentionally incited hatred, contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule and threatened to do physical harm and property damage to meet that definition of criminal vilification. Under the proposed changes you only have to prove one or the other – incitement or threat. Also a recklessness fault element has been introduced, so a person does not have to actually intend for what they do to have the consequence; they will just have to know or believe that their conduct will probably have that effect. The explanatory memorandum says that the lower thresholds are intended to be able to capture a broad range of conduct both overt and subtle.

The bill also removes the requirement for the police to obtain consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed to prosecution. Removing this guardrail gives the police the power to arrest, charge and prosecute without third-party oversight from the DPP. In theory, lowering the threshold should make it more likely that the laws will actually have an impact on people’s conduct, and hopefully for the better. We know that one in two trans people experience anti-trans hate. The far right have shut down family friendly library events for queer families and converged on the steps of Parliament to rally against trans people’s very existence. There is a rise in far-right extremism, a rise in racism and a rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism. LGBTIQA+ people, disabled people and people from diverse backgrounds and faiths have had to put up with daily targeting and abuse because of who they are or who they love. This is unacceptable.

Something needs to change, and protecting people in law is one important way to send a clear message that this kind of hate speech will not be tolerated. But without proper safeguards, education, political leadership and checks and balances on power, human rights, legal and community stakeholders have warned us that the criminal provisions could in fact be weaponised against the very people that they are meant to protect – people from marginalised and overpoliced communities, including First Nations people. Many stakeholders have expressed support for the expansion of attributes and the strengthening of the civil provisions but also expressed significant concerns around the increased criminalisation and the risk of unintended consequences.

The Victorian Council of Social Service urges caution in regard to strengthening criminal offences. They say it is important that the proposed reforms mitigate any risk of increasing criminalisation of the cohorts of Victorians that the reforms are designed to protect. The Federation of Community Legal Centres and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service said community legal centres have expressed concern over anti-vilification laws being inadvertently used to silence legitimate public protests in breach of the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and the Federation of Community Legal Centres are concerned about risks that new provisions may be weaponised against overpoliced and minority groups experiencing systemic injustice, especially Aboriginal people, who the anti-vilification bill is designed to protect, without amendments. The Jewish Council of Australia urges against criminalisation as an approach to combating racism and other forms of bigotry. Liberty Victoria support civil vilification changes and expansion of attributes but oppose the bill’s expansion of criminal offences to address vilification. In their response to the inquiry in 2019, Thorne Harbour Health and the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby questioned the introduction of criminal penalties.

When it comes to marginalised communities, we can see signs of how police might apply these laws in ways that they are not intended, with their lowered threshold, to silence or punish political expression or to criminalise those that they should protect. The Police Accountability Project has ample evidence of systemic racism, violence and overpolicing of marginalised groups in Victoria, and divisive political rhetoric, like we have seen emerge from both the government and the opposition, plays a part in polarising communities into those who ought to be protected and those who ought to be policed. Too often we have seen the police get it wrong and target those who are vulnerable.

Community legal centres have been expressing concern that anti-vilification protections may inadvertently be used to silence legitimate public protests in breach of rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression following recent examples of the way that police have used their powers at protests. They specifically name the serious concerns around Victoria Police’s recent response to the anti-war demonstrations outside the Land Forces weapons expo, including the use of force, the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons and the unjustified exercise of police powers under anti-terror laws. At the anti-trans rally on the steps of Parliament in 2023, where neo-Nazis held up that violent and vilifying anti-trans sign – one that under our current laws is actually already a crime – we saw police not arresting or even questioning those holding it up. No-one has been charged for the violent threat that it contained. No, police instead were seen shaking hands with those neo-Nazis while pushing and pepper-spraying the trans people who turned up to assert their right to exist.

The framing and the context in which this bill has been introduced is important, and we are really concerned about some of the ways that the Premier has spoken about this bill, because it is instructive about how the Premier and this government would like to see these laws applied. For months the Premier has suggested that it is her intention to use this bill to silence protests and to silence the pro-Palestinian movement. Whether it eventually stands up in court or not, the Premier is giving a strong signal to the police about how she would like this bill to be applied: against rights – the right to political speech and the right to public assembly, rights protected internationally and in Victoria and Australia. Without the proper safeguards in place, the potential weaponisation of these laws could have dire and unjust consequences. That is why human rights, legal and community organisations have expressed those serious concerns about the government’s move to significantly increase the criminalisation of public and private conduct, increase the penalties and remove guardrails around police accountability, because without the consideration of the political and social and historical context, without consideration of power dynamics when policing and protecting our communities, these laws could be misused, misapplied and weaponised.

That is why we are grateful, in consultation with these stakeholders, we are in conversation with the government about some potential amendments that will ensure that we get the balance right, because we absolutely must do more to protect LGBTIQA+ people and disabled people and to protect people from being vilified on the basis of race and religion. This bill is about human rights, and we must get it right. If it puts the very communities that this bill is supposed to protect at risk of discriminatory policing and arbitrary criminalisation, then I would argue that this bill has not yet struck that balance.

The amendments that stakeholders from legal, community and human rights groups have proposed broadly address three main issues: the omission of some attributes from protection and increasing the access to protections, safeguarding against misapplication and the unintended consequences of criminal provisions. We are grateful for the time that the AG’s office has given us so far to discuss these amendments. We do want to work with the government to ensure that these important reforms that have been fought for for so long by the LGBTIQA+ and disabled communities are successful and ensure that this bill is not delayed or made worse by the Liberals, so that we can work together and get a bill that does what is supposed to do and ensures that our communities can thrive and that our right to be who we are without vilification is protected, as is the right to political communication and public assembly.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:35): I should know that the member for Richmond never fills out her speaking time. If this was something that the Greens party felt so passionately about, they could spend 20 minutes talking about it.

I want to get back to talking about the bill at hand. I have to say that I am not very happy to rise and speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This is something that we should not be having to do in this place, because we should not be having the kinds of commentary and the behaviour here in this state or indeed across the country or the world that appear to be going on at the moment. This is not something that can, should or will be tolerated, not just here in Victoria but here in Australia.

In thinking about making a contribution to this bill, a bit of an incident happened over Australia Day, and I am going to read out some of the commentary that was made in relation to a post that I put up of me congratulating an awesome new Australian – he was so excited; we had a thumbs up – and another one where I welcomed a group of school students at Garrang Wilam Primary School, a wonderful local primary school that Labor went ahead and funded and built and I opened a couple of years ago, a great local school. I had a photo with grade 6 students, who were very happy to talk to me about what is and what makes a really great leader. These comments are disturbing, but I am going to read them out because this is what this is about, and this needs to stop. These types of comments escalate, if left unchecked, into some of the most abhorrent behaviour that we are seeing not just in Victoria but across the country. They say:

Spot the Aussie

Which country is this please !!

Nice multiculturalism. I only see one culture there, and it isn’t Whites.

Had to check this was in Australia.

… it’s so sad. 4 Aussie kids in the midst of multicultural madness.

Trying breed out white Australia that for sure, reverse racism

A grim portent for “our” future.

Where is this school? Hardly a white child in sight? Who exactly are you supporting????

Is this the new children’s prison? –

that was in relation to a photo of children in grade 6 –

Is that school in pakistan …

These are some of the comments – just a few. Some of the others I will not read here in this chamber; it is entirely inappropriate. This is why we need to get behind and pass this bill. The bill delivers on our government’s commitment to delivering much-needed reforms to our anti-vilification protections and it strengthens our ability to tackle hate speech and keep Victorians safe.

It saddens me to say that we have seen such a disturbing increase in the frequency of hateful and divisive rhetoric over the past couple of years. It has not happened overnight; it has been creeping in. We have seen this manifest – I mean, there is no other word for it – dangerously overseas. Just a few weeks ago, as the member for Frankston pointed out, one of the richest men in the world, and a close confidant to the new President of the United States, stood on the steps of the US Capitol and performed a Nazi salute. He tried to say it was something else; we know what it was. He did not do it once, he did it twice. This same person then spoke at a rally for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, encouraging Germans to get over their Nazi history. This same person owns one of the largest social media platforms, which I do not use anymore because it has all become such a cesspit of cruel and nasty hate. It is easy to bring out your worst, darkest impulses when you can hide behind a social media profile.

Those Australia Day posts and the last one of the children that I posted were met with a swarm of trolls and haters. I would like to say that these folks had faceless fake profiles; I do not think they live in the western suburbs. Conveniently for them, the accounts are locked.

I spoke earlier this week in my members statement about the Australia Day dramas. I was doing what any MP would normally do on Australia Day: attending a citizenship ceremony in my local community. It is a day of pride, whether you call it national pride or in being an Australian, and joy for so many of our newest Australians. They were overwhelmed. People had tears in their eyes, and I am not exaggerating. It is a big deal because we are not just welcoming new citizens, we are celebrating what makes Australia a great country, and that is that we tolerate and we celebrate diversity and who we are and we accept people from all different walks of life. We embrace them.

The commentary that I received ended up being a toxic debate on immigration. I had never seen anything like it. It was so disappointing. The biggest gripe that people had was that they could not see an Australian flag in the background of a photo of me with a guy I had just welcomed as an Australian citizen. Imagine that: a full-blown social media tantrum over whether or not a politician was waving a flag. What is worse is that we have seen this same old and tired culture war each and every single year, and it is certainly something that has been endorsed and has been emboldened and rolled out by the federal Liberal Party and Peter Dutton, who each year has had major tantrums over Australia Day. Last year there was the Woolworths boycott over Australia Day merchandise, of all things; the year before that I think it was about forcing councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day; and just a few weeks ago he made some bizarre announcement on not including the Indigenous flags at national press conferences.

At a time when people are worried about the cost of living and when they are worried about housing affordability, interest rates and climate change, the right wing in this country want to have a debate about flags. All this might seem trivial – banal even. I am an MP; I can expect a few nasty comments on my Facebook feeds and even racist comments, which we try to hide. But the real sadness here is that these people then spread their hate and their vitriol onto other posts that families are watching because their children are there with the local MP celebrating a wonderful conversation about what it is to be a leader in this country and how they can improve at school. That then spreads over onto those pages, and their parents read those comments.

In the past I have had to go back to school posts – innocent posts – of children at our very multiculturally diverse schools in Wyndham. They are Australian kids; they were born here. They are as Aussie as it gets. They are ruined by racists jumping into the comments. Like I said, I do not think the majority live in our community. It is not who we are in the western suburbs.

Reading these comments out today was to highlight that these kinds of people who say these sorts of things are looking for a platform, and they have been emboldened, whether it is by the election of a new president over in the US, whether it is by someone doing a Nazi salute twice and then pretending it was something else, or whether it is by the dog whistling of a federal opposition leader talking about Australia Day and what it is to be an Australian. As soon as these leaders are making these statements and engaging in this kind of behaviour, it brings people out of the woodwork, and it certainly has here in Victoria.

This bill is all about repealing the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. It establishes two new serious vilification offences that will instead sit in the Crimes Act 1958. There has been a lot of conversation about that and the changes in the bill and why we are doing it, but I do hope me reading out those comments makes people reflect about the disgusting language, disgusting racism and hate speech that is happening at the moment. It does need to stop. It is why bills like this before the house are so important.

I would urge those opposite to support this bill. Let us stamp out antisemitism, let us stamp out Islamophobia, let us stamp out vilification of our LGBTIQ community. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:45): I also rise to address the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. I think most in this place will agree that Victoria is arguably the most successful multicultural state in the most successful multicultural country in the world. Our character is defined by those who have made the choice, often – some have not made the choice, but most have made the choice – to come to our shores and to be part of us. I think one of the great things about our state and one of the great things about our nation is that our character is defined by those people who have made that choice. They come here with their customs and they come here with their culture. They come here with their traditions, and they make our nation a much, much better place, and we who are born here are the beneficiaries of that. But we also know that in more recent times there have been great threats to our social cohesion, and I understand that it is for that reason that the government has brought this bill forward to the Parliament for consideration today. We have seen over the last little while extreme views on the left and the right disturbing the rules-based order and the general social cohesion that for many, many decades we have enjoyed in this state and in this country, and it is for that reason that I believe the government has brought forward this bill.

This bill, according to the government, intends to expand the grounds of attributes protected under anti-vilification law and intends to lower the civil and criminal legal thresholds for vilification cases and it also introduces a new political defence to the incitement offence. As my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General and member for Malvern has so eloquently put, in large part the opposition agrees with what the government is proposing, but we do have some concerns. In our judgement, and on the recommendation of the Shadow Attorney-General, we will not be supporting this bill, because we believe that some of the concerns which we have expressed in our contributions today outweigh any potential benefit of this bill. There are a couple of concerns, and I will go into some depth on just two of those.

The first is the introduction of a new ‘genuine political purpose’ defence, a defence for hate crime which the opposition finds highly problematic. The new defence will enable people to circumvent Victoria’s anti-vilification laws, claiming their views are expressing a genuine political opinion – effectively green-lighting more hate speech in this state. We believe that this particular part of the bill will make things worse and not better. It is a defence to a charge of the offence if the accused engaged in the conduct for a ‘genuine political purpose’.

Both the Jewish community and the Islamic community have also expressed concerns about this new defence. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria wrote of its concern that:

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

Similarly, 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.

It is for these reasons that we do not agree with this bill. I will go into an example within the Jewish community. I have deep respect, actually, for the federal Attorney-General Mr Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs, a neighbouring federal electorate to mine, who is quoted as saying:

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.

So we have a deep concern, and we believe a legitimate deep concern, that antisemitic behaviour will be allowed to continue in this state by simply interchanging the words – removing ‘Jew’ and saying ‘Zionist’ instead. But we know the purpose of the interchanging of those words. Given the current circumstance and after the terrible, terrible events of 7 October we know that that is not the best thing for social cohesion in our state. We know that, and we implore the government to do better when it comes to this quite obvious error in their proposed law.

Just further on that point, I was reading in the Herald Sun on 26 November last year an opinion piece by Menachem Vorchheimer, who is a Melbourne human rights advocate, who wrote:

But the Allan Government’s proposed laws want to change that by introducing a “political purpose” defence to a charge of incitement. It is a dangerous proposal because it risks empowering people hostile to our society’s values, including the Judaeo-Christian values upon which our legal system is founded.

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”.

This is deeply concerning. We can do better than this and we must do better than this, and I encourage the government to consider doing better than is currently the case.

The second concern that I would like to express in this contribution this afternoon is in relation to the government’s deletion or omission of the term ‘proselytising’ from the non-exclusive definition. The bill provides a number of exemptions to new sections 102D and 102E. The person must have acted reasonably and in good faith. Part (b) of that clause reads:

in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for any genuine academic … religious or scientific purpose …

That differs, however, from the definition in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which provides that:

… a religious purpose includes, but is not limited to, conveying or teaching a religion or proselytising.

I know that there have been groups is in the community, including the Australian Christian Lobby and other Christian groups, that have expressed concern that this change will lead to religious sermons or proselytising not being protected. The legitimate question to ask is: is this government by not including the exemption of proselytising in this law before the chamber today in fact telling faith communities that they can only practise their faith quietly at home? Just think about the practical implications of this. If I go to my local, for argument’s sake, Catholic Church and the priest is preaching a sermon which is entirely in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church but which may be offensive to someone who is sitting in the pews, does that mean that this matter that they are offended by could be taken down a legal track to the point where the person giving the sermon is potentially under legal attack at a later stage for simply stating the views and the teachings of their religion? I think this is a legitimate question. I think legitimate questions have been asked about this, and to this point I think it is unclear what the government’s response is to that. So those legitimate concerns continue, and I would encourage the government to also take a look at that.

For these reasons I am entirely supportive of the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment that the bill be refused to be read until the government does a couple of things, including urgently considering additional options, including those available to Victoria Police as a practical means of tackling antisocial and vilifying behaviours, and 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 we are going to do this, we have got to do it once and we have got to do it well for the betterment of every Victorian.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:55): It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. I would like to begin my contribution by thanking all the previous speakers for sharing their firsthand experiences, and the strong emotions that come with that lived experience are really important in this debate. Those personal stories remind us of why this legislation matters not just in principle but in real, tangible ways for the people in our communities and indeed for those in my community of Tarneit. It takes courage to speak out against vilification, and I deeply appreciate the insights and lived experiences that have been shared in this debate so far.

The reforms in this bill have been developed to carefully balance the rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, including the right to freedom of expression, equality and freedom of religion and belief. The freedom to engage in robust discussion reasonably and in good faith is an important pillar of an open liberal democracy and democratic society, and these laws are indeed not intended to prohibit that.

In recent times we have seen a troubling rise in vilification and hate speech, and it is our responsibility in this chamber to do everything we can to protect the safety of all Victorians while encouraging respectful debate regardless of race, religion or disability status. What today is about is protecting the freedom for all Victorians to participate in public life, the freedom for all Victorians to be seen, the freedom for all Victorians to be heard, the freedom for all Victorians to be equal.

Any discussion of a legislative response to vilification in Australia requires us to take into account the unique features of our legal framework. To illustrate this, I will take a look at two areas where the charter provides for rights for all Victorians. Section 18(2)(a) of the charter – the right to vote and be elected – is not just about my right to vote but the right of all Victorians to vote and have their voices heard. It is every person’s right to elect a member of their choosing and to be respected and equal no matter where they cast their votes. If someone were to try and take my right to vote away, I would fight for my rights to be protected. Equally the charter protects the rights of my political opponents. Victorians may hold views that I find completely offensive and entirely objectionable, but they have the right to vote and be respected just the same as I, so I stand here today and say that I want the right to vote and the right to be free and equal for me and for every Victorian.

Section 24 of the charter – if I am charged with a criminal offence, I am entitled to a fair hearing and a public hearing by a competent court. All Victorians have the same right regardless of how heinous the crime may be. I would fight for the right of all Victorians to a fair trial, so I stand here today and I say that I want the right to a fair trial for me and for every Victorian.

But who will stand here today and say that they would like the right to vilify someone? Who among you will stand and say that you want to direct hate speech against a group because they are First Nations people, because of their religion, because they are LGBTIQA+ communities or indeed because they are disabled? I would trust that no-one in this place would say that, but if they did, how would they reconcile that desire to vilify with the charter protection at section 18 to take part in public life? The rights I talked about earlier – the right to vote, the right to a free and fair trial – are rights we all hold equally. They are fundamentally human rights. The exercise of the right –

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business for the grievance debate. The member will have the call when the matter is next before the Chair.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.