Wednesday, 5 February 2025

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (18:01): We know that vilification and the right to vilify is not a zero-sum equation. It does not happen in a vacuum. It comes at a cost, and there is a personal price paid by those that have been vilified. Amongst disabled Victorians, the labour force participation rate for people with a disability is 60.5 per cent, and the unemployment rate is 56.1 per cent. The labour force participation rate for people without a disability is 84.9 per cent.

An inquiry undertaken by the Legal and Social Issues Committee right here in the Victorian Parliament in 2021 had a submission that found that over 10 per cent of Victorians believe that disabled people should be able to be discriminated against by employers and that employers should have the right to essentially not interview or not employ people because they hold a disability. That is vilification. That is vilification of disabled Victorians, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation aims to stamp out.

The opposition, as per usual, have a reasoned amendment. I think the member for Mordialloc yesterday during the government business program put it pretty well – it is lazy. It is kind of bone lazy. It is, you know, ‘We’ve got this reasoned amendment, and we just want to stop debate completely so we can go out and we can consult more.’ To be frank, they have had several months to consult. We foreshadowed this several months before we introduced it to the Parliament. It is not so as to go and consult, it is to go out into the community and stoke fear and stoke division about a piece of legislation that is aiming to help and support some of Victoria’s most vulnerable people. The interesting thing from my point of view is that several members of the Liberal party room are on record as flatly opposing this legislation – just flatly opposing it. Do not worry about the political freedom aspect of it, do not worry about consultation – they just flatly oppose the idea that there is anti-vilification legislation here in Victoria.

I will use one example. The member for Mornington, in his ongoing quest for relevance, sitting up there – a leadership aspirant and somebody that somehow got more votes in a leadership ballot than the member for Kew, which is mind blowing – is on the record as saying –

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask you to return the member to speaking on the bill and not attacking members of the opposition.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Tarneit to continue on the bill.

Dylan WIGHT: He stands up there and on the record speaks about his concern that this may affect comedians, journalists, academics, artists and entertainers. Honestly, if they are going to get up and espouse hate speech, it may potentially affect them – that is the entire point of the legislation. There are members of their party room that flatly do not believe in anti-vilification legislation. That is on the record; that is a fact. To be frank, I sort of get it because it might impede some of their favourite pastimes – that is, standing on the steps of Parliament with neo-Nazis; that is, hanging out at a park in Berwick with neo-Nazis. Yes, this legislation might affect that.

Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member has defied your ruling. Could you please bring him back to the bill?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member was talking about the bill in relation to what he sees as the opposition’s –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I will just finish my ruling. The member was considering how the opposition are considering this bill, and that would be a matter of a point of debate. So I do not rule the point of order in order, but the member’s time has expired.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (18:06): Thank you, Acting Speaker; that was gripping. I rise today to speak on the Justice –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! I ask if the member reflected on the Chair.

Annabelle CLEELAND: I was talking about the member for Tarneit.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member to continue.

Annabelle CLEELAND: I have got some time, so I will start again. I rise today to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to implement a number of recommendations made in 2021 by the Legislative Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee, including lowering the threshold for civil anti-vilification protections, expanding protections, reviewing maximum penalties and moving criminal provisions from the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 into the Crimes Act 1958. Under this proposed legislation these recommendations will be applied by strengthening and reforming anti-vilification law. This means a series of changes to existing legislation, as we have heard today, including amending the Crimes Act 1958 to include serious vilification offences, amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to include civil anti-vilification protections, amending the Bail Act 1977, repealing the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 and making consequential amendments to other relevant acts.

At present the only two attributes protected from vilification under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act are race and religion. This bill expands that list to include disability, personal association, gender identity, sex and sexual orientation. While these characteristics are already protected under the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent discrimination, this bill seeks to expand protections even further to cover both criminal and civil offences. While I support ensuring more people are protected from vilification, I have concerns about how this bill will be applied, particularly regarding the way convictions can now be reached.

There are also some broader concerns about crime and safety in our communities that this government has failed to address. Unfortunately, reform of our criminal justice system is needed on so many levels, especially with crime on the rise across Victoria. While Melbourne-based crime has dominated the headlines, regional areas like ours are feeling the impact, and it must be addressed as a matter of priority. One way to do this is by properly supporting our police. Many regional Victorians feel unsafe due to this government’s continued under-resourcing of Victoria Police, which has resulted in more than 1000 police vacancies, 900 officers off duty for illness and injury and, concerningly, the closure of 43 police stations. In towns like Benalla, Seymour and Kilmore residents are telling me they no longer feel safe in their own homes. They no longer feel safe in our community. Businesses and families are taking matters into their own hands, investing thousands in CCTV because they live in fear every single day.

I met with officers at the Benalla police station when they temporarily walked off their posts at the end of last year. They were at their breaking point, frustrated by ongoing pay disputes and the government’s failure to provide them with resources needed to keep our communities safe.

Officers were writing messages on their vehicles and displaying banners during their stop-work action, making it clear they are not receiving enough support from this government.

The impact of this under-resourcing is evident across my electorate. Just recently, a family in Violet Town had their home broken into twice in the same month, and police were so stretched that it took hours to respond. Businesses in Broadford and Euroa have been broken into, and it took police several days to take fingerprints, because they were occupied with critical incidents.

A farmer near Colbinabbin told me he had had equipment stolen multiple times, and vehicles, and he felt like reporting it was pointless because nothing ever came of it. We now see vehicles stolen on nearly a daily basis throughout the region, and you can see this across all of our community pages. We have had to take crime into our own hands because we are so under-resourced. In Seymour, local businesses have been targeted by repeat offenders who seem to face no real consequence for their actions.

I have too many stories from the community, of people living in fear, and this is backed up by the Crime Statistics Agency data, which paints a pretty dire picture for 2024. In the Mitchell shire, total criminal incidents have spiked by nearly 32 per cent, with 851 more incidents than the previous year. Crimes in Seymour, Kilmore and Broadford have surged. Rates in Benalla have spiked nearly 12 per cent in total criminal incidents and 23 per cent in recorded offences. Strathbogie has suffered a staggering 34 per cent increase in criminal incidents, with spikes in Euroa, Nagambie, Avenel and Violet Town. Tragically, family violence incidents have spiked 28 per cent in Greater Shepparton and 24 per cent in Mitchell shire. Family violence incidents are up 18 per cent in Strathbogie.

These are not numbers, these are real people – our neighbours, our family. We all feel unsafe in our own homes and our businesses. Instead of repeatedly denying the crime problem in Victoria, this government should be doing more to protect our communities and ensure our police are properly resourced. Undervalued, overworked and always there – that is what our officers are saying. But crime is up, and police resourcing is down. It simply is not working, and it is leaving our communities vulnerable.

The Allan government must step up and take real action to protect Victorians beyond the provisions in this bill. As it stands, there is too much uncertainty surrounding this legislation. There are highly problematic implications within both the criminal and civil protections listed in the bill, including the ambiguity of new political defences and subjective views on what qualifies as vilification.

One of the biggest questions is the introduction of a ‘genuine political purpose’ defence. This does not come from the original recommendation made by the Legal and Social Issues Committee nor from community stakeholders who were consulted. As my colleague the member for Malvern put it, no-one knows where this came from, and no-one knows who wants it.

A reasoned amendment has been proposed to reintroduce move-on powers for our police and to conduct further consultation with faith groups to help some of the ambiguity in the bill. Without these amendments, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (18:14): I rise to also support the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, which, as we have heard, increases protection from vilification for all Victorians. I would like to begin by just reflecting on the way that the Victorian public service and a lot of large organisations now manage the issue of vilification with respect to race, ethnicity and religion in particular. Certainly through the cultural sensitivity and awareness training programs that I have seen, the advice from most organisations now is simply for people to not make generalisations based on race or religion at all. I was certainly taught that even seemingly lighthearted jokes, like Germans being punctual or Catholics liking a drink, are not an appropriate thing for people in positions of responsibility to make, and certainly if you are going to make a more serious charge, and an example I was given was that if you are going to say the Chinese cheat at swimming, you should never use a phrase like that. You do not say China cheats at swimming. You would be very specific and not make a generalisation. You would say, ’23 Chinese swimmers have tested positive for a banned substance,’ or something that was very specific in order to ensure that people in your organisation and your community do not feel unfairly vilified.

Unfortunately that approach of being careful to be specific about more serious issues of race and religion has not been the approach taken by some political figures and media commentators in this country. Unfortunately over a long period of time we have a dark history of people winning votes, selling newspapers and more recently attracting social media followers to their accounts by making crude generalisations about race.

I think back to when I lived in Sydney many years ago and the right-wing shock jocks of that era were busy urging the government to end ‘Lebanese gang rapes’ in relation to the awful crimes of Bilal Skaf and urging the government to end ‘Islamist migration’ in relation to the terrorist attacks of Osama bin Laden. I remember even then people sort of noticed that the mainstream media did a slightly better job of getting Osama bin Laden’s name out there, which may have taken some of the edge off the Islamophobia of the time, but they really did not get Skaf’s name out there. To this day I think those gang rape allegations are still incredibly unfairly associated with thousands of innocent Lebanese Australians. Unfortunately I do not think that we have learned the lesson of that era about being more specific with respect to these serious allegations and ensuring that we do not generalise about the relative race or religion. I note that up in our part of the world the phrase ‘end Zionist genocide’ is syntactically equivalent to ‘end Lebanese gang rape’, and it has exactly the same effect.

I will return to that, but I do want to touch on the substance of the conflict that has taken place in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and now Syria as well. Many of us have had conversations with people whose loved ones have been killed or hurt or displaced in that conflict. We have obviously talked in this place about the civilian deaths – approximately 30,000 Palestinians, 800 Israelis, 4000 Lebanese – and the collective punishment people felt from being cut off from food, water and power, the use of unguided munitions in densely populated areas and the broader context of the now 18-year blockade of Gaza by both Israel and Egypt and the fundamental point that those living in the occupied territories did not have the same basic rights nor basic living standards of those on the other side of the green line and the effect that has had on passports and visas and so forth. Some of us have also been involved in discussions about the MOU and the Elbit arrangements. I should say I think they are secondary considerations for most local Palestinians compared to the perception that people just do not think their lives matter.

But in all that work I have been conscious that as a Labor politician I cannot give what some of those people want. They really want to have a conversation where the person is 100 per cent on their side and 100 per cent condemns the other side. I understand that. We have all been in situations in life where that is what you have needed – someone 100 per cent in your corner. I think it is a simple fact that the Liberals and the Greens in this place have played that role for the two respective sides, but I think there is a lot to criticise about the way they have both gone about that, criticisms that are very relevant to the direction of today’s bill.

Firstly, the contributions from Liberals and Greens on the issue of Gaza have been lightweight. They have failed to engage with the detail of this issue or even to engage with the short list of issues I gave early in this contribution. I would put it to you that if you go and listen to any podcast on Gaza – be it by Jonathan Spyer or Rashid Khalidi or Richard Boyd Barrett, whoever your favourite podcaster might be – whatever their views, you will get more information about Gaza out of a single podcast than you would get out of every contribution by the Greens and the Liberals in this place on this issue. As someone said to me, it has basically been ‘You’re antisemites’, ‘You’re pro-genocide’. Those four words encapsulate about 90 per cent of the debate in this place. I think that has been very unfortunate about what is a serious issue for this state and very unfortunate that a large part of the broader debate has had the same character.

I think people like Adam Bandt and some of the Victorian Socialists been playing a very dangerous game of been deliberately vague. They know that their statements about genocide are giving many young people the impression that all Israelis want to kill all Palestinians to steal their land and steal their fossil fuel reserves. When you talk to the organisers about this and you pressure them, they say, ‘Oh, no, we don’t really mean that. We don’t mean genocide in the Rwandan sense; we mean it in the narrower sort of Raphael Lemkin sense’ and they point to some 2000-word article they wrote in Red Flag magazine about it.

If people think that it is the narrower sense, they should say the narrower sense in their social media. I think it is deliberately disingenuous. You see the same thing when you read reports from Al Jazeera of an attack on the Kuwaiti peace camp or whatever it might be. Two hours later the Greens post about the same thing. They copy and paste all of the facts but they drop the fact that there were one or two Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters found there. I do not understand why they have to omit that. If Amnesty International can accurately depict it, if the South Africans in their contribution to the International Court of Justice can accurately depict it, why did the Greens feel the need to inaccurately exaggerate it to give the impression that the children were killed for no reason at all?

The starkest example people might remember is that the International Criminal Court said it would issue arrest warrants for five people: Gallant, Netanyahu, Mohammed Deif, Ismail Hanyeh and Yahya Al-Sinwar, five people. Everyone following the issue knew there were five names on the media release, and yet the Greens walked into this place and said we should condemn the two war criminals identified by the ICC: Gallant and Netanyahu, the two Israelis, and just blatantly left the other three off. I feel that that one-sidedness means that they cannot ever recognise the humanity of the people on the other side, and I feel neither the Liberals nor the Greens have ever done this in this place. It also means they can offer no vision of peace beyond the disappearance of the side that they do not support, and ultimately I think they have done it for the reason that that sort of ethno-nationalist campaigning, which is what that sort of deliberate distortion and omission is, wins you votes and recruits you members.

We all know and we are all watching what is going to happen in the federal election, but I will say right here, right now: the Greens and the Victorian Socialists will be strongly up in areas that have a high proportion of Muslims, and the Liberals will be very strongly up in areas that have a high proportion of Jewish voters. Everyone knows the maths in Wills and McNamara and the fifth Northern Metro spot. Everyone knows what is going on. To be fair, and I am going to be fair here to the Victorian Socialists of all people, at least they have been a little more consistent. But the thing you really notice with the Greens is when they are north of the Yarra, when they are in our part of the world, as we saw in the Darebin council elections, Gaza is the number one issue and they talk to everyone about it. The second sometimes literally the same people walk south of the Yarra and are campaigning one month later in Prahran, they appear to have totally forgotten about the death of 30,000 Palestinians. What happened when they crossed back south of the Yarra? I think it is very difficult for the Greens to explain why it is their candidate for Wills talks about this issue all the time but their candidate for McNamara does not.

So therefore I strongly support the bill that we have in front of us in this place because I think the bill does a very important thing, which is that we have to more strongly restrict everyone but particularly ourselves – politicians, and media commentators – from using crude, racial generalisations to advance their own self-interest. I would like to see a future Victorian society in which people can condemn war criminals – terrorists, criminals – in the strongest language that they possibly want to, and appropriately condemn them, but do so in a way that does not impugn everyone of the same nationality and does not impugn everyone of the same religion or the same ethnicity, and in fact takes an effort, as I hope we would all do, to actually say positive things about those people at the point where many in the public are unfairly associating them with negative acts that they had nothing to do with. Many of us tried after 9/11 to be as positive as we could about the Muslim community. I think we have an obligation to be as positive about the Russian migrants to this place, Israeli migrants to this place, Palestinians – you name it. I strongly support this bill, which will go in the direction of us being fairer to those people in our society.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (18:24): We debate this bill at a time when the decorum that has for generations buttressed our democratic traditions and institutions that safeguard our human rights in what we describe as a vibrant democracy – the greatest in the world – have been under great assault. We have seen that on our streets and we have seen it in acts of rising antisemitism that we have seen over recent weeks – the Adass Israel synagogue but elsewhere as well around the country. We live at a time, particularly here, where we do have to have a discussion about what the right to free speech means. For many people it seems the right to free speech is some right to say whatever you like, regardless of the consequences and regardless of whether you dehumanise others in the course of expressing itself.

I think it is important to remind ourselves that with the freedom of speech that we hold so valuable and which is a cornerstone of Australian democracy there comes a responsibility. It is too often neglected, and we see so much evidence of that in Victoria today. I have said in recent times that the types of protest, if we can call them those – the acts of violence we see on our streets under the cover of some freedom of speech that apparently has no limitations and no obligations – are simply unacceptable. It is with that backdrop that I say that whilst there are some things in this bill which we do wholeheartedly support, and the Shadow Attorney-General and member for Malvern articulated those quite eloquently this morning, the bill fails to strike the right balance in a number of key respects. Its intention I think is sound. It wants to ensure that people are not dehumanised, and I use ‘dehumanised’ because it is a word which for me expresses what vilification really is: it is stripping others of their dignity in a way which demeans us as a civilised people. That is why measures to counter rising acts of vilification, whether it is online or whether it is on our streets or in and around places of worship, are an imperative we cannot fall short on. But this bill does not strike that right balance.

It is also a missed opportunity in that climate I have described for the government to actually reconsider the move-on laws and any other measures which can help impose on the public square those normative influences which are a better reflection of what our democracy should be. Our democracy should not be a silent majority that has people going about their daily lives while others think that they can engage in whatever acts they like – more often than not, acts of violence in our community in the name of free speech – while we have to sit by idly and consign ourselves to the idea, misplaced though it may be, that people have a right to do that. They do not have a right to physically impede others. They do not have a right to dehumanise others like we have seen on our streets.

Unless we do something about that, we are going to see people live in fear. I had a principal of a Jewish school say to me just recently that kids going to and from school have been apprehensive, as their parents have been, and I understand, Acting Speaker Hamer, that you know this yourself. Whatever your background, spiritual or not, cultural or other, you have a right to live in peace and security. So there have been calls from the opposition, constructive calls, for the government to work with us and vice versa to introduce those measures that will say to our broader community, but particularly those who think it is acceptable to engage in that type of behaviour I have described, that it is not acceptable and there are measures. We need to do more to impose those normative influences on the way we engage in political exchange. As I said, whether it is online or in the streets and throughout our communities, people need to understand that they are as much responsible as they are free to engage in political exchange.

In terms of the move-on laws, there are some obvious things the government could and should have done. When this government came to office, it stripped the move-on laws of some important provisions that the Baillieu and Napthine governments had introduced into those measures. Taken out was the ability of police to move people on when protesters or others cause a reasonable apprehension of violence or when they engage in undue obstructions or physically impede people. They are very reasonable things for police to act upon. The government removed the requirement to provide a name and address where you are engaging in such behaviour. And there were opportunities to use exclusion orders to ensure that recidivist protesters who engage in violence or the types of behaviour that we find unacceptable could be restrained from continuing to engage in that conduct. But those opportunities have been missed.

I will not rehearse everything the Shadow Attorney-General said, but I do want to focus on the ‘genuine political ground’ defence that is in this bill and just point out some features of that. We do have existing offences around serious racial and religious vilification in the existing Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 in sections 24 and 25. They have not often been used, as has been pointed out in the debate, but what is interesting about the bill that is before us is that the chief provision in all of the provisions that are in the bill, which relates to criminal acts of vilification, ironically and sadly, if it passes, will actually be weaker than the existing provision, because the existing provision for serious racial and religious vilification, which carries a criminal penalty under the existing act – less of a penalty, it must be said, than in the bill – actually does not contain a ‘genuine political belief’ defence.

When you look at the bill, which contains the political defence in relation to acts of vilification, then you have to wonder why the government is giving on the one hand, that is lowering the threshold, expanding the range of protected attributes, which we support – no problem there – but then taking more back with the other hand, with a defence that will be almost universally applied. It is very easy to articulate a political ground defence in these types of matters. We understand from the government briefing that there was a concern that omitting that defence in the bill would somehow expose the bill to the risk of a High Court challenge. Well, on the face of it I can at least understand that may have been the motivation for including the defence in this bill, but then why was it not included in the existing legislation, which has been on the statute book since 2001? It is something that is actually going to eviscerate the very provision, which is likely to be one of the more important provisions in the bill, intended to address the scourge of vilification that we are seeing, whether it is online or on our streets.

The government says that it has consulted. – well, I doubt it. To see Jewish community leaders and Islamic community leaders, amongst others, come out harmoniously to express their opposition to this bill for that very reason tells you that the government has not done enough to consult. Bear in mind that the genesis of the bill preceded the climate that we have seen erupt, particularly since 7 October 2023 but even before that, it may be said. It is just lamentable that the government has not been agile enough to recognise that this is part of a broader issue and that we need to foster a better sense across our community that the right to protest, the right to engage in political exchange, carries with it enormous responsibilities.

For those who think that free speech means that you can say what you like, as I have said, it does not entitle you to dehumanise. Those who want the benefit of free speech but then argue that others’ differing views are illegitimate equally cannot sustain that argument. Ultimately, our democracy hinges on a sensible and abiding balance between those two interests: the interests of protecting the ability of each of us to express ourselves within faith, in our orientations, who we love, what we do; and then that sense of citizenship that comes with living together in a community which, if it is as civilised as we want it to be, means that we respect each other and uphold each other’s rights even when we are different to those we engage with or disagree with them as vehemently as we do.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (18:34): I rise in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. It is legislation that will deliver the strongest anti-vilification protections in Victoria’s history, giving effect to 15 recommendations of the 2021 Victorian parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections. I have listened to the debate today, and while it has sometimes been heated, I have nevertheless been heartened to hear that there is overall a general consensus about the need to do more to protect Victorians from rising and alarming levels of hate speech and conduct. That reflects the sentiments in my own community of Northcote too. I support this bill after having spoken to a great many people in my community, people with a diversity of views on this topic, people who have valid questions and even reservations but who on the whole have a genuine hope that these new laws will curb the disturbing trends that we have seen and allow us to collectively demonstrate that hate has no place in Victoria. Hate will not define who we are.

People in my community are deeply concerned about the rise of extreme views and groups. In conversations around dinner tables, in classrooms, in the office kitchen or over drinks with friends people are talking about the far-right movement, about online agitators and bots spreading misinformation, about people being radicalised and about coordinated campaigns of harassment designed to stoke division and destabilise democracies. These are not abstract concepts. They are real threats – real, frightening threats to our social cohesion and our way of life.

ASIO currently assesses our terrorism threat as ‘Probable’, having increased it from ‘Possible’ in August last year. Director-General of Security Mike Burgess explained:

More Australians are being radicalised and radicalised more quickly. More Australians are embracing a more diverse range of extreme ideologies and more Australians are willing to use violence to advance their cause … we are seeing spikes in political polarisation and intolerance, uncivil debate and unpeaceful protests. Anti-authority beliefs are growing. Trust in institutions is eroding. Provocative, inflammatory behaviours are being normalised.

And he went on:

Many of these individuals will not necessarily espouse violent views, but may still see violence as a legitimate way to effect a political or societal change. All of this creates a security climate that is more permissive of violence.

People are genuinely worried. I am worried. We are here in this Parliament, in this great hall of democratic debate, with the privilege and the honour to debate legislation in peace and safety. We live in a country that has largely been buffered from so much of the terror and horrors we have witnessed on our screens. We cannot take that for granted – not ever – and frankly, we have absolutely no reason to believe that democracy will ultimately win the day overseas or here at home. History is not on our side. Democracy is not the rule, it is the exception, and there are no guarantees that it will continue to prevail against its resurgent competitors of authoritarianism and anarchy.

What holds our form of government together? What preserves the sovereignty of our people and our precious ability to go to the ballot box and cast a vote on who will represent us and to change that vote if our trust is broken? It is a culture of respect. Democracy breaks down when hate takes the place of disagreement. I may have differing views to my opponents across the way, but they are not my enemies, they are my opponents. Politics is not war, it is the alternative to war. And yet what we have seen – what we are seeing increasingly – is divisive rhetoric taking the place of genuine discourse. Political extremism thrives in this environment, driven by the promise of simple solutions and fuelled by stigmatising otherness. The targets? People of colour, people with disabilities, women, LGBTIQA+ Victorians, people of faith and, lately, Victoria’s Jewish communities. Jewish families in our community have woken up to find neo-Nazi stickers on their letterboxes. We have seen not only Jewish schools and synagogues defaced with racist graffiti but also, terrifyingly, a firebombing. This is not just offensive; it is targeted, it is deliberate and it is dangerous.

History teaches us that hate left unchecked does not go away – it escalates. This bill is about confronting that reality. It is about ensuring that those who seek to incite hate, threaten harm or target people based on their identity face serious legal consequences. It is about making our communities stronger, safer and more united. I want to make it very, very clear that in our state every Victorian has the right to protest peacefully without putting others in harm’s way, and we will always defend that. As someone with Labor values, I will always defend the critical right to protest, to political expression and to collective action.

We owe so many of our precious advancements in this state to these movements and those who stood up for what they believed in. Equally, we are a party that upholds the rights, dignity and safety of all Victorians. No-one should have to see neo-Nazis parading their hateful ideologies in the street nor be subject to violent activity or criminal property damage by the far left. When that is occurring we need to step back and reflect, because when that is occurring it means that anger, fear and cynicism have won the day. It means nuance is lost in policy debates, because in hate there is no room for disagreement.

The struggle between democracy and authoritarianism does not just happen on a big, global scale. It happens in the day-to-day actions that we take and the decisions we make to either honour human dignity or to dehumanise. That is a decision that every single one of us needs to make, and political parties need to make it when they consider how they conduct themselves and whose voices they seek to elevate and platform, because frankly there are some who have really shown their dark side this last year, some who, rather than offering compassion or constructive dialogue or peaceful protest, have preferred to be complicit in undemocratic acts of hate and violence. Or rather than actually offering aid, they have opted to fetishise and exploit the suffering of others, often simply to attract a social media following for their political party. It is an ugly, toxic thing to witness, and Victorians deserve better from people who are meant to be the custodians of their democracy.

Hate speech, incitement and vilification have no place in our community, and victims need clear pathways to justice. That is what this bill delivers by expanding protections to also cover attributes of disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and people associated with a person or group with a protected attribute. It introduces two new serious vilification offences under the Crimes Act 1958. These are: the incitement offence applying to conduct that is objectively likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion towards or severe ridicule of another person or group of persons on the grounds of a protected attribute; and the threat offence. This offence applies if a person threatens physical harm or property damage against a person or group on the grounds of a protected attribute. Both offences capture intentional and reckless conduct. We are talking cases of extreme, serious conduct, not just unkind or offensive conduct. There are, as others have outlined, a range of defences that can be utilised, including the defence of genuine political purpose.

Unlike those opposite, we have taken the time to carefully consider this bill and to respect the feedback and the findings we have had from community stakeholders, from members of the public and from the inquiry itself. Of course there will be varying views on where the balance needs to be struck, but I believe this bill represents a goal that is supported by the majority – a modern, diverse, safe and free state that does not tolerate vilification. I want to thank the member for Preston for his contribution as well tonight. His concerns about the polarisation of public debate and the reductionist politics being played out in particular by the Greens and the socialists, which is so damaging and stigmatising, was incredibly well articulated and something that we are living in the inner north. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard and enable dialogue to win over division. I commend the bill.

Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (18:44): I rise today to address the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. It is a very important bill, an immensely important bill, because it seeks to protect our communities from the vilification and hatred that we have sadly seen far too much of in recent times. The bill has the potential to stand as a beacon of justice for vulnerable groups right across our state, but as with any piece of legislation that seeks to address complex social issues, there are parts of the bill that raise some concerns. Victorians are presently protected from vilification on the basis of their race and religion under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.

The bill seeks to build upon that legislative foundation and introduces a new crime of serious vilification. In addition it amends other acts to expand the list of protected attributes to include disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics and sexual orientation – so that is in addition to race and religion. It also protects people with a personal association with someone with a protected attribute.

All Victorians deserve to feel safe and equal. All Victorians deserve to live their life free from hate for who they are or what family they were born into. Sadly, and as I think you know most particularly, Acting Speaker, there has been a significant uptick in antisemitism in the past 18 months following the brutal attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023 – attacks perpetrated against innocent civilians, many of whom remain hostages of that terrorist organisation. We have seen places of worship attacked in Melbourne in order to intimidate, and we have seen people attacked for who they are, and schools – schools – attacked. It is vicious antisemitism and the worst period of antisemitic behaviour that I can recall in my lifetime, and I suspect in yours too, Acting Speaker. These incidents seem all too familiar. Every day when we open the newspaper or scroll through social media we are confronted with yet another antisemitic attack, a stark reminder that this form of hatred continues to infiltrate our communities and poison our society – poison the very debate that we ought to be able to have in a mature, sensible and enlightened fashion without the shadow of hate and vilification being brought to the table.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

In my electorate of Ringwood I have had constituents raise their concerns time and again over hatred being shown in our community, and indeed last year a constituent, Joe, called my office and alerted us to some public displays of antisemitism. The Hakenkreuz, the swastika, was graffitied in public places in Mitcham. I was gobsmacked. My first reaction was to go and grab cleaning gear and get down there and literally start scrubbing it off the pavement it was on. Similarly, constituents have raised concerns over Islamophobia, which is just as abhorrent. These incidents of hatred are powered by hate speech, but sadly this bill as drafted would allow this sort of speech if it is done for a genuine political purpose. So it is with something of a heavy heart that for the first time I formally disagree with the government in this place. As a result of that disagreement, I will be moving an amendment to the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘until’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘the government conducts community consultation on the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence.’

If adopted, my amendment to the reasoned amendment would narrow the reasoned amendment to defer the second reading until the government conducts community consultation on the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence. This is community consultation that should have occurred already and has not or certainly has not to anything like the depth and scope it ought to have been. I will just foreshadow to the house that the rules of the Parliament require me to move it in this way as an amendment to an amendment. I am sure the Shadow Attorney-General is not going to be too offended by me taking that particular route. That is the only route, regrettably, that is open to me. As the amendment to the amendment, effectively what I am putting is a reasoned amendment to defer consideration of this bill until that consultation occurs, because I have enormous problems with the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence. That is why today as an independent I remind the government that we have a duty in this place to protect those at risk. This ‘genuine political purpose’ defence, which is in subparagraph 195N (4) of the bill, states:

It is a defence to a charge for an offence against subsection (1) if the accused engaged in the conduct for a genuine political purpose.

‘Genuine political purpose’ is such a vague term. It is open to interpretation that could justify almost any action, no matter how harmful, no matter how hateful, under the guise of political expression. Think for a moment how easy it would be to simply become a candidate in any election – local, state or federal – and say, ‘That is a political purpose and I am now protected by this defence. I can vilify as hard and as often as I like.’ This defence enables Trots and Nazis alike to access that protection simply by being a candidate and to be able to say, ‘The purpose I’m engaged in, whether it is an uprising, whether it’s simply to get elected to public office, is a political purpose, and I can now vilify to my heart’s content.’ It actually takes us backwards from where we are today, and today is the day I am decrying it in this place because of the extraordinary, painful, outrageous uptick we have seen particularly in antisemitic attacks.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in decrying these attacks. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in calling out those who would pretend that there is some agenda of Australian Jews that is utterly synonymous with whatever decisions the Netanyahu government might make on any given day. They are not synonymous bodies politic.

That actually brings me to a really important matter, about the use of the word ‘Zionist’. The Shadow Attorney-General in his contribution quite rightly pointed out that 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. He quoted Mark Dreyfus, who 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.

I say this. Zionists simply believe that the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland, and the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence effectively functions to allow bait and switch antisemitism. It renders this bill useless, because it is too easy to characterise. If I am talking about Zionism, I am talking about an ideology. That is a genuine political discussion, which allows me to access the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence. The defence simply should not be there. It simply should not be there.

Members of this Parliament would be aware that they have been written to by a number of eminent Jews and Jewish organisations, including Philip Zajac from the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, Elyse Schachna from Zionism Victoria, Jeremy Leibler from the Zionist Federation of Australia and Daniel Aghion from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. They are similarly concerned that this proposal should in effect legalise that very nasty conduct if it is done for a genuine political purpose. We cannot allow that to happen. It is for that reason that I am also moving an amendment to the bill itself, which will be considered if we move to consideration in detail. Under standing orders I wish to advise the house of an amendment to this bill and request that it be circulated.

Amendment circulated under standing orders.

Will FOWLES: So the government has got some choices to make. They can either defer consideration of this bill to get the consultation right – to speak to members of the community and to understand fully the implications of this silly inclusion in the bill as it stands; or they can take up my amendment, and that amendment simply removes the ‘genuine political purpose’ defence. It removes new section 195N(4). Both of those amendments I urge the house to consider.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (18:54): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024. I want to start by thanking the former Attorney-General for her work on this important bill. More so than ever we need to address harmful impacts of hate speech. I listened to the comments in the contribution of the member for Laverton about social media and what was happening there. I share her concerns. I have experienced some pretty horrible things on Facebook and other areas of social media – really vile, hateful, racist comments – and I think, ‘What are these people thinking to be putting those words out there on social media for people to read?’

Those sorts of things have to be addressed, but it is not just on social media – it is out on our streets, as we have heard in many contributions here in this place today.

I am pleased to be a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, which undertook the inquiry into anti-vilification protections. The inquiry examined current anti-vilification laws and the effectiveness of the operation of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The committee also considered any evidence of increasing vilification and hate conduct in Victoria, the possible extension of protections or expansion of protection to classes of people not currently protected under the existing act and any work underway to engage with social media and technology companies to protect Victorians from vilification.

This bill comes as a result of that inquiry but also as a result of the extensive consultation that was undertaken. All of that has indicated that it is clear we need to do a lot more. That consultation certainly showed that. That parliamentary committee heard from many brave people who stepped up to tell their stories and their experiences of what was happening to them. I again want to thank them for their contributions during that inquiry and to thank the many others who contributed to the government’s consultation process, which included submissions, consultation papers, surveys on Engage Victoria and consultation with key stakeholders. That feedback is what has gone into the development of this bill.

I do want to point out how concerning it is that there are those in our communities – personalities, leaders – who incite this hateful conduct by supporting neo-Nazis or questioning the welcome to country or the Aboriginal flag, which then incites people to put out this hateful speech and to have a go at people on the street. It is almost like it gives them licence to be vile and hateful, and they thrive on that division that occurs in our communities.

I have been chatting to a few people over the last couple of weeks about this bill and what it means. As people said to me, back when I was a kid growing up – and I know that was a long time ago – multiculturalism was a thing and we supported new migrants coming into our communities. I grew up on a public housing estate, so we had lots of different multicultural communities living in our community. Maybe I missed it, but there was not that hateful racism. I am sure there was some, but I never experienced that amongst my friends, and many of them were from multicultural communities or Aboriginal communities. It seems like over the last couple of years this has grown and people feel that they have the right to use hateful, vile speech against others in our community. This bill is really important in continuing to do more to protect those people who are subjected to that sort of behaviour.

I know during the referendum on the Voice to Parliament the experience of the Aboriginal community, who are still feeling the impacts of that and are also feeling the impacts of those hateful, vile comments that come through because of 26 January and the debate around that and what is being put out there now around the welcome to country, the use of the Aboriginal flag and the concerns that the community have about those. I commend the bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will have the call when the matter returns should she wish it. I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.