Wednesday,2 April 2025

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

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Insert the following New Clause before clause 1 –

“1AA Statement for this Act

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

The diversity of the people of Victoria enhances our community and Victorians embrace the benefits provided by this diversity and are proud that people live together harmoniously. However, vilification is still occurring in Victoria.

Vilification harms social cohesion through its inherent divisiveness and perpetuates the unequal distribution of power. Vilifying conduct is contrary to democratic values because of its effect on the people who are subjected to it. It diminishes their dignity, sense of self-worth and belonging to their community and can cause profound physical and psychological harm. It also reduces their ability to contribute to, or fully participate in, all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as equals, thus reducing the benefit that diversity brings to the community.

It is the intention of Parliament to enact law for the people of Victoria that respects the inherent dignity of all of us and promotes our equal participation in public life.”.

2. Clause 1, after line 5 insert –

“(ab) to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and others experiencing systemic injustice and structural oppression; and

(ac) to promote full and equal participation in an open and inclusive democratic society, without impeding robust discussion that does not vilify or marginalise others based on a protected attribute; and”.

3. Clause 2, lines 24 and 25, omit “18 September 2027” and insert “30 June 2026”.

4. Clause 4, page 7, line 27, before “A” insert “(1)”.

5. Clause 4, page 7, line 28, omit “195O(1) –” and insert “195O(1)”.

6. Clause 4, page 7, line 29, omit “(a)”.

7. Clause 4, page 7, line 29, after “by” insert “or with the consent of”.

8. Clause 4, page 7, line 30, omit “Prosecutions or a” and insert “Prosecutions.”.

9. Clause 4, page 7, line 31, omit all words and expressions on this line.

10. Clause 4, page 8, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

11. Clause 4, page 8, after line 5 insert –

“(2) In determining whether an offence against section 195N(1) or 195O(1) is to be prosecuted, the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all the circumstances (including the social, cultural and historical circumstances) surrounding the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence.”.

12. Clause 9, page 16, line 4, after “proselytising” insert “that is in conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of that religion”.

13. Clause 44, line 18, omit “18 September 2028” and insert “30 June 2027”.

That the amendments be agreed to.

Can I just say, first of all, this is absolutely landmark legislation. It is the culmination of so much work, so much consultation, so much engagement, so much collaboration with so many Victorians over so many years. The message today is very clear: whatever you believe in, wherever you are from, whoever you love, you deserve to be safe in our state, free of hate. These new anti-vilification and social cohesion laws are all about keeping Victorians safe and keeping Victoria united. Our new anti-vilification and social cohesion laws are all about improving our system, making sure that it works for all Victorians and keeps all Victorians safe.

The bill has come back to this place with some amendments, and I will speak briefly to those amendments. I should say at the outset that for the most part the amendments are ultimately minor, perhaps even cosmetic in part, and do not impact on either the purpose or operation of the new laws.

We have an amendment today that brings to the commencement of this act the act’s statement, and I want to read that statement. I think it is profound and important for all of this to go on the record. It reads:

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

The diversity of the people of Victoria enhances our community and Victorians embrace the benefits provided by this diversity and are proud that people live together harmoniously. However, vilification is still occurring in Victoria.

Vilification harms social cohesion through its inherent divisiveness and perpetuates the unequal distribution of power. Vilifying conduct is contrary to democratic values because of its effect on the people who are subjected to it. It diminishes their dignity, sense of self-worth and belonging to their community and can cause profound physical and psychological harm. It also reduces their ability to contribute to, or fully participate in, all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as equals, thus reducing the benefit that diversity brings to the community.

It is the intention of Parliament to enact law for the people of Victoria that respects the inherent dignity of all of us and promotes our equal participation in public life.

That is exactly what our laws will do. They will protect all Victorians from vilification – the very worst kind of hate speech or conduct – that profoundly harms people and undermines social cohesion in this state. The new law will do this by strengthening civil protections against vilification and providing more options for people to seek remedy and resolution if they have been harmed. The new law will also create two criminal offences to respond to serious vilification. It will be an offence to incite hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against another person or group based on their protected attribute, and it will be an offence to threaten physical harm or property damage against a person or a group based on their protected attribute. These offences will be placed in the Crimes Act 1958, where they absolutely belong. They will apply when incitement or threats occur in Victoria in any context – private, public or online.

A further amendment before us today further highlights that in determining whether to prosecute an offence against section 195N(1) or 195O(1):

… the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all the circumstances (including the social, cultural and historical circumstances) surrounding the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence.

It is important, indeed as it is in existing practice, to consider all of those surrounding circumstances – because as we know, everything has context, and that is exactly what these laws are about.

I should say it is not right for the rest of us to judge what is harmful to someone with a protected attribute. That in fact has been the very problem. That is why our laws do not properly protect all Victorians. I might like to think I can understand what is harmful to a member of the Jewish community or the Islamic community or the LGBTIQA+ community or the disability community or the Aboriginal community. This is why the amendments put forward by the opposition are just so plainly wrong. It is not up to us, without those protected attributes, to judge what is or is not harmful. I am not a member of those communities. Whilst I can empathise, whilst I can sympathise, whilst I can acknowledge that harm, I am not – and I can never fully, truly understand nor feel the impact like someone who is – part of that community. That is why it is so important that when we are considering conduct, particularly in relation to the civil harm based test, the test must be an objective one but namely one where that conduct would in all the circumstances be reasonably likely to be considered by a reasonable person with the protected attribute to be hateful or seriously contemptuous of or reviling or severely ridiculing the other person or group of persons.

I would also like to acknowledge and note an amendment moved by Rachel Payne in the other place to Clause 44, and this is to bring forward the commencement date for the changes to the civil protections to 30 June 2026. This is important, especially because those opposite were proposing to remove the civil protections in their entirety. I would like to thank Ms Payne for her support of this bill, which has been instrumental in achieving what we have achieved today.

I do want to add that during the course of the passage of this bill we have seen attempts by others to water down this bill. What we saw earlier this morning was those opposite voting against this bill. Thankfully they did not succeed, and they did not succeed because those opposite are out of step with Victorians, especially those for whom these laws are just so very, very important. They did not succeed because those opposite are not acting in the interests of Victorians. They did not succeed because those opposite have failed yet again to focus on the interests of the community, on the interests of Victorians and in particular on the interests and in support of the safety of marginalised Victorians. What kind of leadership is that?

I really think now it is up to Brad Battin, it is up to those members of the opposition, to look in the eyes of those community members from the Jewish community and the Muslim community, the LGBTIQA+ community, the Aboriginal community, the disability community – look them in the eyes and say to them that the opposition were prepared to act against the interests of those communities. Those opposite were acting against the interests of those people living their fullest lives and fully participating in society here in Victoria. They need to explain to those communities, to those Victorians, why the Leader of the Opposition thought that the far right of his party was more important than the interests of these Victorians. This is a proud day for Victorians. Those opposite –

Members interjecting.

Sonya KILKENNY: I must say those opposite are revealing their true colours right now. What we have seen through this debate and what we have seen through discussion with community groups is the moving of goalposts by those opposite. We have seen disingenuous attempts at working through these laws, which are fundamentally about protecting the safety of Victorians. They have failed to engage in good-faith negotiations. I think it is fair to say they have been disloyal to these very community groups who have turned to us as leaders in this place and as leaders in our community and asked for our support to enact laws for their safety, something that has been worked on with these communities for years and years and years. These laws are for people for whom our current laws were not working to keep them safe and to keep them free from harm. How completely unedifying from those opposite, the attempts that they have made to water down this bill and to block this bill from protecting Victorians. But I have to say, how completely predictable by those opposite. It is simply a case of: we know better than people with those protected attributes to say what is harmful to people within their groups who share those attributes.

We stand here proudly today in support of all Victorians. This is landmark legislation. Yes, it is coming back with amendments – those are minor amendments. Those are minor amendments to this bill, and those opposite know it. Those opposite are saying this, and do you know why they are saying this? Because they are on the wrong side of history. Those opposite have let down so many members of the Victorian community who have simply asked us for our help in making sure that the laws are there to protect them equally, the same as all other Victorians. We are passing these rules to unite Victorians ‍– to unite them, not to divide them. That is what those opposite do. We are doing this today at a time in history when it has probably never been more important to show leadership and to join with all communities to say, ‘We hear you, we are acting, we are bringing in these laws to protect you as equal Victorians in this state.’

A member interjected.

Sonya KILKENNY: It is not wrong. I take up that interjection. It is entirely not wrong to introduce and bring in laws to protect all Victorians from the kind of hate speech and hate crime that we are seeing throughout our community.

These laws will pass, and those opposite will have missed a historic opportunity to join together as a Parliament united against the kind of hate speech and hate crime that members of our community are experiencing every day – every day. What a missed opportunity for them. We stand united on this side of the house, in kindness and in compassion, and join with all Victorians in protecting them from hate speech and hate crime. This is a proud day for Victorians. I commend the motion, I commend the amendments and I commend this bill to this house.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I should not have to stand up. Members will come to order. The incessant niggling across the chamber had better be stopped. Members are warned.

Michael O’BRIEN: To hear the sanctimony dripping from the Attorney-General –

Juliana Addison interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wendouree can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Wendouree withdrew from chamber.

Michael O’BRIEN: This Attorney-General and this Premier had an opportunity to act in a bipartisan way, and they chose not to do so. Instead they went home to the Greens. They went home to their ideological mates in the Greens, who are far more interested in encouraging hate speech. Who has been out there with the people saying Zionists are terrorists? It has not been members of the Liberal Party or the Nationals, no. Members of the Greens have been out there, and that is whom the Labor government have thrown their lot in with on this bill. That is exactly who the Labor government have partnered with, have done a dance with, and it is appalling. It is disgraceful.

Let me go through what these amendments mean and why they fundamentally undermine all the protections that the government claims are in this bill. First of all, let us turn to the criminal changes. It was a recommendation of the Legal and Social Issues Committee of this chamber that the DPP not have a veto on the ability to bring charges – very important. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 has seen very, very few criminal charges brought over its more than 20-year history. It was a very clear recommendation, a bipartisan recommendation, of the Legal and Social Issues Committee of this chamber that that veto of the DPP be removed. Indeed the initial format of this bill when it passed through this place said that the DPP or police should be able to bring charges in relation to an adult. The DPP retained sole discretion to bring charges in relation to a minor. We did not object to that. But it is very important, if we are giving these criminal protections some teeth, if we want to see criminal charges brought against people who act to incite hatred in a way that is violent and threatening, people who threaten somebody’s person or threaten somebody’s property on the basis of a protected attribute, that it is a criminal offence. Why should the police be cut out from the ability to lay a charge? For how many other charges do we say to Victoria Police ‘We don’t trust you to bring a charge’? Very, very few.

But the Greens do not like police. In fact I will go further: the Greens hate Victoria Police. The Greens hate them. They do not trust them. They want to defund them. They import all their ideology from antifa in the USA, and they hate Victoria Police. And what has this government done? The Labor government has gone and bowed before the Greens and agreed to this deal that says ‘Victoria Police, we don’t trust you to bring a charge in relation to anti-vilification.’ That is selling out groups who are looking to this government for protection. It is selling them down the river. They wanted strong criminal protections in this bill, and they are now not going to get them because Victoria Police have been cut out. Victoria Police cannot bring charges any more, because of this grubby deal that has been done between the Labor government and the Greens political party. This government has undermined its own bill. This government has undermined criminal protections that vulnerable people in our community deserve to have. They deserve to have those criminal protections be strong, and this government would rather do a grubby deal with the Greens and weaken those criminal protections for vulnerable groups in our community.

That is why the sanctimony of the Attorney-General got me going. It is absolutely appalling. This deal to cut out Victoria Police from the ability to bring charges cuts out the strength of the criminal protections. Why would the government support that? Does the government also have no faith in Victoria Police, like the Greens? Why else would the government agree to this amendment? It may be that other members in this place want to seek to restore the ability of Victoria Police to bring charges for criminal sanctions. If any member put forward an amendment like that, we would be very minded to support it, because we do support Victoria Police. We do not want to see them cut out. We do not believe that only the DPP has the ability to bring charges in relation to criminal incitement and criminal threats on the basis of protected attributes.

But the weakening of the criminal sections gets worse. Before we go to that let me just quote here from a briefing provided by the then Attorney-General’s office to me. When this bill was first going through I did ask a question: do we know if there are any cases where Victoria Police have sought to lay charges but the DPP has not consented? Here is what the answer from the Attorney-General’s office was: yes, we believe there are cases where Victoria Police has laid charges and the DPP has not consented to a prosecution being commenced. So this is not a hypothetical; this is history. We know the DPP has blocked charges being brought for criminal incitement, criminal threats, on the basis of a protected attribute. We know the DPP has acted as a blocker to the proper enforcement of these laws. That is what the Labor government, with its grubby deal with the Greens, is allowing to continue, and that is absolutely disgraceful.

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Do not talk to me about playing politics. It is the government that is playing politics, and it is at the expense of vulnerable communities in this state.

Let us go to sociology 101. The government is now agreeing to amendments to the criminal sections of this bill where it is actually directing the Director of Public Prosecutions on how to apply the law. It is not enough for this government to say, ‘We don’t trust police to bring charges,’ the government is also saying, through this grubby deal with the Greens, ‘We are now going to direct’ – the supposedly independent – ‘DPP as to how to apply this new law.’ Here is the clause that has now been inserted under this grubby backroom Labor–Greens deal:

In determining whether an offence against section 195N(1) or 195O(1) is to be prosecuted, the Director of Public Prosecutions must –

not ‘may’ but ‘must’ –

take into account all the circumstances (including the social, cultural and historical circumstances) surrounding the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence …

Social, cultural and historical circumstances – well, somebody has been to a sociology lecture. That sort of nonsense should not be in our criminal law. If somebody goes and attacks a person with a protected attribute – attacks them because they are a woman, attacks them because they are gay, attacks them because they are trans, attacks them because they are a person of faith – frankly, the historical circumstances of the attacker do not matter and should not matter in law. There is no excuse for attacking people with a protected attribute in this state, but this grubby Labor–Greens deal has undermined the protections available to vulnerable people.

This government is changing the criminal law not only to direct the supposedly independent Director of Public Prosecutions but also to require the Director of Public Prosecutions to take into account sociological factors in deciding whether a prosecution is worthy or not. We on this side say that if you attack somebody with a protected attribute because they are a protected attribute person, then you are guilty of the offence. There is no excuse, whereas we know the Greens and Labor want to provide excuses for people – because certain people are not equal before the law; certain people get away with things because of their backgrounds. We all know what this is all code for. This is code for saying, ‘We don’t want the DPP to charge people who we like. If they’re our allies, they’re our mates, then they can get away with anything, because society is to blame. Sociological factors are required to be taken into account.’ This is outrageous. Not only is the government directing the Director of Public Prosecutions as to how to apply the law; it is also requiring the law to take into account these sociological factors in relation to a crime.

This side of the house does not believe there is any excuse for attacking somebody with a protected attribute. The government wants to defend somebody for attacking somebody because they are gay or lesbian, for attacking somebody because they are trans or a woman or for attacking somebody because they are a person of faith. If the government wants to excuse that and defend that, let them do it. But that is not what this amendment does. This amendment says that in some circumstances there is an excuse, there is a reason and there is a justification for attacking people of faith. We do not believe that. As to there being some excuse or reason for attacking somebody who is gay or lesbian or trans, we do not believe that. We believe that people should be equal before the law, and if you attack somebody with a protected attribute, then your conduct should be condemned and there is no excuse for it. But this amendment completely undermines it.

This government stands up here and says it is about supporting vulnerable groups. The fact is that their own amendments and their own grubby deal with the Greens undermine those protections 100 per cent. We have had groups who have been sold down the river by this government. I pay tribute to the former Attorney-General – at least she did consult. We may not have always agreed with her, but the former Attorney-General certainly would not have agreed to last-minute deals with the Greens that completely cut out groups that had been discussing the issues in good faith with the government prior to that.

Let me talk to some of the civil changes that are in this bill. I note that the Attorney-General read out new clause 1AA, ‘Statement for this Act’. What is really interesting about that statement is that it is not so much what is in it but what is not in it that is important. Clause 1AA in the bill replicates almost exactly clause 102A, which is the ‘Statement for this Part’ in the ‘Prohibition of vilification’ part of the bill. There is one really important paragraph that is not in the statement that the Attorney-General read out. I will put it on the record now:

The right to freedom of expression is an essential component of our society and this right should be limited only to the extent that can be justified in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The Parliament acknowledges the importance of maintaining the ability to engage in robust discussion reasonably and in good faith on any matter for a genuine academic, artistic, public interest, religious or scientific purpose.

Why is that paragraph not part of the statement for the act? The fact is this Labor government, in its deal with the Greens, is downgrading the importance of freedom of speech in Victoria. This is an attack on freedom of speech. Reasonable freedom of speech and freedom of speech in good faith – that is what the paragraph I read out refers to. It refers to reasonable freedom of speech, freedom of speech in good faith and freedom of speech for an important purpose. This government is downgrading that. They have deliberately excluded that vital paragraph from clause 1AA, ‘Statement for the Act’. That tells you what you need to know about this government’s attitude towards freedom of speech: they do not believe in it. They do not believe in it, and that is why they have done this grubby deal with the Greens to cut it out.

James Newbury interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: It was a Greens amendment, member for Brighton. The Greens wagged the tail and the Labor dog barked. That is what they did. They just accepted the Greens amendment.

What is the government doing with the civil changes to this bill? First of all, the reasonable person is dead. There is no reference to a reasonable person anymore in anti-discrimination law in Victoria.

James Newbury interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: It was in 1594 – thank you, member for Brighton – that the concept of the reasonable person came about in law. From 1594 to 2025 in Victoria: RIP, reasonable person. Most people would think that is a pretty fair standard. If you were to judge somebody’s actions, somebody’s words or somebody’s conduct, the test of the reasonable person is what should be applied, because it is reasonable. But this government does not believe in the reasonable person. They say they support the test being the reasonable person but with the protected attribute. What that means is not just broad groups of people with protected attributes but subgroups of subgroups of subgroups of people with protected attributes. The law now has to look at everything from the perspective of very narrow groups. What happens when we have clashes of rights? What happens when women who support sex-based rights have views and people who support gender-based rights have views? Are we supposed to then work out what every single subgroup in the state thinks and tailor views, words and conduct to what that particular group thinks might be severely ridiculing or not? That is now going to be the law in this state. If a particular group is more easily finding severe ridicule, then that is the new standard in law. Every Victorian is now going to be required to understand what every subgroup of every group with a protected attribute may or may not find to be severely ridiculing. That is now the law.

So forget the reasonable person test. It is now going to be a question of subgroup upon subgroup. It is identity politics now written into law. We all agree that there are standards of common decency that we should all abide by, and they are reflected in the law in the test of the reasonable person. But this government has now killed the reasonable person test. We now have a subjective test, not an objective test. We have a subjective test that can change, depending on which particular subgroup of a subgroup of a group with a protected attribute the law has to examine. What it means is that, if even a small group of people who may have views that are unreasonable to the rest of society have a protected attribute, that now sets the standard for how everybody else must conduct themselves. This is why I say that this bill with these Greens amendments will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, on freedom of thought, on freedom of belief and on freedom of worship.

The government has also brought forward through this deal the default commencement date of the civil provisions to 30 June 2026. We all know that VCAT is already in a mess. It has got huge backlogs. VCAT deals with vulnerable people like renters and like those in guardianship disputes. VCAT is struggling at the moment. The government has cut $19.1 million out of Court Services Victoria, which funds VCAT, this year. The government has baked in a $58 million cut to CSV in 2027–28. How does the government expect VCAT to deal with a $58 million budget cut in 2027–28, 12 months after this legislation comes into effect? We have seen in jurisdictions around the world that as soon as you open the floodgates with these sorts of civil provisions which encourage groups to sue each other, massive backlogs come up very quickly. We are going to see a lot of vulnerable people in Victoria denied timely access to VCAT because VCAT is going to be so busy dealing with the lawfare that this government is unleashing on Victoria through these provisions. If this government had any sense or sensibility at all, it would immediately stand up and reverse the budget cuts to Court Services Victoria. It would reverse the $19.1 million cut this year. It would reverse the $58 million cut that is in the budget for 2027–28. This government cannot say it cares about vulnerable people and it cannot say it cares about access to justice when it is massively cutting the courts budget and the tribunals budget to be able to deal with it.

The government is also not encouraging Victorians through this bill to act in a tolerant way towards each other or in a way which shows understanding of each other. The government’s view is that people should be suing each other, because what this government wants is to have activist groups lining up to sue each other. That is what we have seen in the past, and that is what this is going to lead to. There is a reason why the government originally had a commencement date of the end of 2027 for the civil provisions of this bill, because the government knows what is going to happen once these civil provisions are enacted. The government knows that we are going to see a flood of litigation and of people being sued potentially on very flimsy pretexts and that we are going to see activist groups lining up at the door of VCAT to sue people, and the government was desperate to see it not occur before the next election. Well, the government has now agreed to this grubby deal with the Greens. We are going to see it bring forward these civil provisions to a default commencement date of 30 June 2026.

The saddest thing is that the government could have decided to work with the opposition on this. There could have been a number of changes made, relatively minor in the scheme of things but important. Let it be made really clear: the government made a decision that they would rather throw their lot in with the socialists of the Greens than act in a bipartisan way to secure broad support for this bill. That is on the government’s head.

Let me be very clear that while we support the expansion of protected attributes –

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: We do, and we support many of the criminal changes. We support stronger criminal changes because we do not believe the police should be cut out from bringing charges. We support a strengthening of the criminal provisions, not a weakening of them as this Labor government has done. Let me be very clear that a future Liberal–Nationals government will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to restore the standard of the reasonable person in anti-discrimination law and better protect freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of worship in Victoria.

This is a bill which had promise. The government decided to do a grubby backroom deal with the Greens political party, a deal which undermines criminal protections for vulnerable people in Victoria, a deal which has undermined the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions by directing him how to apply the law, a deal which is going to put more pressure on our tribunal system at the same time as they are cutting funding from VCAT and a deal which will effectively not protect the rights of Victorians but will simply encourage lawfare and encourage activists to sue other Victorians. This is not about promoting social cohesion. This is a government that has lost its way and would rather do a deal with the Greens than sit down and sensibly protect Victorians. For that reason the opposition will not be supporting the amendments and will not be supporting the bill.

I want to take a very clear moment to say thank you to the community leaders who have worked tirelessly to shape this bill. They have worked with our government. I know they have worked with some of those on the opposition benches. I know there were some on the opposition benches who were part of the committee work that was done as part of the genesis of this bill. This bill has been years in the making, and we have brought it to this point because we are making another tough-on-crime law. This time it is a crackdown on hate to keep people safe in public and make it easier for police to charge those who whip up hatred and fear. Also, let us be clear, it goes further to protect Victorians than any other similar laws across the country.

I want to thank those community leaders who, as I said and as I do want to acknowledge, have worked with our government. I know there are a number of people on the opposition benches that they have worked with as well. The religious groups, the Jewish groups, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, disability advocates, women’s advocates and LGBTIQA groups – in the end they were all on a unity ticket. They told this Parliament to get this bill passed, to make these law changes and to get on and get it done. That is why, as the Attorney-General has presented to this house today, the bill we are being asked to consider – acknowledging there were some amendments made last night in the Legislative Council – continues to hold that strong support from a number of groups in our community, whether it is Equality Australia or the Jewish community.

Can I remind the house of comments that the Jewish community leadership made back in February when the bill came before this place, at a time when those opposite were starting their long march away from this bill:

The Victorian Jewish community unites to support the hate laws that are being proposed by the Victorian Government.

However, they go on to report their disappointment that the opposition are walking away from this bill. They say:

That is because we are facing a crisis of hate speech. There has been an explosion of hatred in our communities in recent years. Hatred is fuelled by hate speech – that is why the most extreme forms of incitement must be outlawed.

But our hate speech laws are broken, as is said in this statement, which is why this bill is so vitally important. They go on to say:

Now, with this amended bill, Victorians will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix our hate speech laws …

an extraordinary statement. I will come back to our Jewish community in a moment.

Earlier I said I rose with great pride, because I have been humbled as Premier to have had a number of discussions with Victorians who have told me why they need this bill, why they need us as community leaders not just to stand with them but to lead, to stand for them, in delivering this bill. I had the opportunity with the member for Thomastown to meet the young Muslim woman who was attacked in Epping plaza simply because she was wearing a hijab. I have spoken to Jewish parents and their kids who have been abused on their way to school on their fears and concerns for their children. On Saturday in Bendigo I spoke to a young gay woman who had moved to Bendigo from another country town because she was being vilified simply for being a young gay woman in a country town. These are the Victorians that we should remember.

It does sadden me that ultimately this Parliament is not on a unity ticket. Even though Victorians are, there are some in this Parliament who cannot bring themselves to support this bill. I am just so disappointed. It is just so disappointing that when the moment was there to be seized by the Liberal Party they walked away from that chance to work in a bipartisan way to fight one of the biggest challenges our society today is facing. We are being challenged in ways we have not seen before in our generation, and this bill is part of knitting that fabric back together by making it very clear that hate is a crime. I certainly will not forget, and this place will not forget, how those opposite, the Liberal Party, negotiated in bad faith. They made every attempt to shift the goalposts, wanting us to water down this bill. Then as we have seen, ultimately they have refused to support the passage of this bill. Again, let us remember what the Liberal Party in this place is voting for by voting against this bill today. They are voting for hate to be allowed to continue in our state without being made a crime. They are voting against that Muslim woman for being attacked. They are voting against those Jewish families. They are voting against that young gay woman that I spoke to on Saturday in Bendigo.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I think my comments were directed entirely to the amendments. The Premier is straying well beyond the amendments before the house. I ask you to bring her back to the amendments.

The SPEAKER: Premier, I ask you to speak to the amendments, please.

Jacinta ALLAN: These amendments to the anti-vilification and social cohesion bill are about saying to these groups that we want them to be free from hate, which is what the Liberal Party is voting for by voting against this bill that is before this house today. The member for Malvern – I note the Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear this contribution – talked about reasonable freedom of speech. Reasonable freedom of speech led that young woman moving town to be free from hate. That is not reasonable freedom of speech. What we are seeing is not just a sad moment in the Victorian Liberal Party; it is a moment in history that will come back to haunt the Liberal Party.

It will haunt the Liberal Party. As the member for Malvern has said to this place, ‘We will in government reverse this bill.’ Well, let that be on their record. Let that be on their record that they want to reverse the protections in this bill. They want to reverse the protections against hate and vilification in this bill.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I am being misquoted. I clearly said that we would reinstate the reasonable person test, not that the bill would be reversed.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Jacinta ALLAN: We also will not forget why, and we will make sure we remind Victorians why, because the Liberal Party cares more about peace inside their party room than peace on our streets, safety in our universities and safety in our workplaces. Community groups will not forget it. Victorians will not forget it. Today Victorians see very clearly where my government stands. We stand for Victorians. Whoever you are, whoever you love and whatever you believe in, we will always fight for the respect and dignity you deserve, and that is why I commend this bill in the strongest terms to this house.

What the government has agreed to today is a dirty deal with the Greens to bastardise the law. These amendments bastardise the law of this state, and every Victorian should see that for what it is. It perverts, it brutalises and it degrades the law of this state. As the Shadow Attorney-General eloquently put it, in one way it rips out a 400-year standing test in many democratic systems of law – that the reasonable person is the person you look to at law to test whether an offence has occurred. What this government has said is ‘no more’ because it wants to embed left-wing ideology into Victorian law. Led by the Greens, they are embedding that left-wing ideology into law. You can see it in the way that the new statement in the act is given precedence over the previous statement in the bill. As the Shadow Attorney said, the right to freedom of speech has now been pushed down by this government in its importance in the law, and that should not surprise any of us. I think we can all expect that the Greens wrote the statement that now takes precedence and that now embeds that left-wing ideology into law over freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which should not have been pushed down. I do not think any Victorian would want them to have been pushed down.

The other point that was eloquently made was about how these amendments effectively cut out the police’s ability to prosecute. We know why, because we know that the ultra left do not like the police. They do not trust the police, they do not like the police, so these amendments cut out the concept of the police taking leadership in charging people in relation to this bill. How have we got to a circumstance where this government can accept an amendment that sets aside the police? Does it surprise any of us that they have? They have knocked over two police commissioners. They have defunded the police. Does it surprise us that this government is going to vote down the capacity of police to prosecute? The Premier spoke about the committee that did the work that started the process of anti-vilification reform, and what the committee did hear – because I was on it – was that public prosecutions leading in charges has led to a delay in the very small number of prosecutions that have been achieved. That is what the committee heard. When the Premier talks about what the committee heard, the outcome of these amendments runs in direct contrast to what the committee not only heard, but what it found.

My view is – and I think any reasonable person would say this – that by removing the police what the government is doing is slowing down the process in the ability to charge and find an outcome, but also sending a very, very, very clear signal that this government does not support the police. How could a government allow a system of law which says, ‘We do not want the police to have the capacity to take action.’ How could you in good conscience vote for that amendment? But of course the government has, because they have done a deal and it was a required part of the deal with the Greens to get this bill through. The government do not mind if some of the amendments that are put through diminish the law. Of course they do not. They do not mind if they downgrade the police. Why would they? Because it gets their bill through and that says everything, frankly, about this government and this Premier.

The other amendment which is important to note is to clause 12. What the government has also sneakily put through in these amendments, without any consultation, is the downgrading of the religious exemption. In short, the bill as it previously stood said that if you proselytised – if you, as a religious person, give a speech or made comments – you would have an exemption from elements of the bill. What the Greens have said is, ‘We don’t want that. We don’t want that to stand.’ And the government last night and the Greens admitted in the upper house that the amendments that are being put through today narrow the religious exemption. The Greens admitted it. I mean, why would they care? They are proud of it. They are proud that they have narrowed the religious exemption. They admitted it. They boasted about it in the upper house. ‘Ha, ha, ha – we’ve narrowed the religious exemption.’ It is nothing to be proud of. This change inserts a real narrowing of that exemption. Now effectively, as I read it, when a religious speech or communication is given and a claim is made against the person doing so, they will have to prove, if there is a question, that their words were linked to a doctrine, a belief or a principle of that religion. They will have to potentially prove it, because what was an exemption previously gave a broad exemption, and now this narrowness requires the person to draw a link to a doctrine, belief or principle of that religion – and to do that without a single moment of consultation, well, shame on this government.

I go back to the point that I first made, and that is: the Premier on this and every other issue says things, makes big claims and makes bold claims, but at the end of the day, over the 553 days that this Premier has held the premiership, social cohesion in this state has broken down. This bill will not fix it and in fact it embeds division, and I think encourages it because it allows a system by bastardising the law. We as a coalition cannot stand for that, and we will not.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised by members of the opposition which I really must disagree with. Freedom of speech in any democracy and particularly in Victoria and Australia is very important, but it has never been an absolute right. I think that we see, particularly in the context of this bill and the purpose of the legislation that we have been trying to bring, is that we need to make it clear and make a clear statement that those most heinous examples of vilification are not acceptable. I really fail to see any justification to allow vilification to occur.

The Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council last night made a number of statements just reflecting on the bill generally in the committee stage in answer to some other questions. As she mentioned, this is not about restricting genuine debate on any matter. It is not even about restricting someone’s right to be offensive. It is about vilification and that high standard of vilification in inciting hatred in others. I have failed to be convinced by any argument, whether it has been put by the opposition or been put by community members, that we should have a free-for-all on vilification.

When I initially spoke on this bill I did speak fairly early, and it was before the initial house amendments that were put forward by the Attorney-General. I do thank the Attorney-General for listening to the concerns that I had about some of the initial draft and particularly in relation to how it applied to I think the reference to a genuine political purpose defence. I was very glad to see that removed, because I felt that that would have been an unworkable defence in the context of how this law would be able to apply.

Then I come to one of the other amendments. Both the lead speakers, the member for Malvern and the member for Brighton, have spoken quite a lot about the reasonable person test. They have also spoken about how they are very unhappy with the amendments and about how they are another reason to vote against this piece of legislation. At the time, they said there were four words separating their acceptance of the bill. Now we have got a situation where the government has negotiated with a range of parties to get legislation through that fulfils the objectives of making it a criminal offence to vilify others and making it easier to bring a civil claim.

I want to focus a little bit on this reasonable person test that seems to be so problematic within the Liberal Party. The bill says ‘a reasonable person with the protected attribute’. I want to use a couple of examples. The member for Malvern was quoted I think in his original contribution talking about how this would apply to a member of the Muslim community if a picture of the Prophet Mohammed was shown that was only offensive to an extreme element of the Muslim community. In any reading of the bill, that would not represent to me ‘a reasonable person with the protected attribute’. The protected attribute is not about an extremist member of a particular community, it is about a member of the community in general, as in the Muslim community.

I want to take that thread in terms of my own community. The way I express my Zionism and identify with my Zionism is different from how the Liberal Party probably look at Zionism, as we have seen. The Liberal Party reference Zionism repeatedly during their contributions. I am sure the member for Richmond has a completely different view of what Zionism entails, and that is not the view of the Zionism that I share or the view of Zionism that the vast bulk of the Jewish community share. The issue here is that if we are going to look at whether vilification has occurred – and we have seen this on the street, and the Liberal Party members themselves have talked about how Zionism and the word ‘Zionism’ have been weaponised against the Jewish community, particularly since 7 October but also for many years before that – surely we need to respect and look at how the broad Jewish community sees Zionism defined, not the average person in the Box Hill electorate or the average person in Australia, who would not have that deep cultural and social understanding of what Zionism is.

I would make the same argument for our Indigenous community. I do not stand up here to try and pretend that I understand everything about the Indigenous community, and I respect that there are many different views also in the Indigenous community about all sorts of issues, as there are in any other community. But if an individual was to vilify a member of the Indigenous community based on their Indigeneity, it is only Indigenous people who are able to really tell how offensive and how hateful that vilification is based on the long experience and the long history of oppression and racism that they have faced. It is not for me, as someone who is a child of a migrant to this country and who has no Indigeneity in Australia, to be telling them how they should be feeling or how they should be responding to an offence that could be caused.

The Liberal Party have now come up and said they do not agree with any of the amendments. They had this opportunity to remove their objection to these four words in what I thought was actually a very appropriate application of a reasonable person test in this particular case, and we would have had bipartisan support for this bill.

I want also in the very last little bit that I have to just reflect on a couple of other contributions that were made in the in the Council overnight, and specifically on this test, Mrs McArthur in the other place started to talk about people who believed that the moon was made of blue cheese and also: would it have protections for paedophiles? I think this goes to the heart of why the Liberals do not support the bill and they are never going to support the bill. Even if we had removed those four words they would not have supported the bill, but I support the bill.

I agree with the member for Box Hill that it is a shame that we could not get to a bipartisan position on this bill. I am not going to infer too much in terms of the motivations, but it is a shame that the government has gone down this particular path in reaching a form of words that is going to pass both chambers of this Parliament. I think it would have been better to have found another way through. I am flagging that I will be moving an amendment to these amendments, as one of the rare opportunities for those of us who are not members of the government get to move substantive amendments to legislation in this place. I will be taking up that opportunity and I will be reading that into the record towards the end of my speech.

Before I do that I want to talk to the substantive issue. My amendment will essentially be to reinstate Labor policy in relation to the ability of police to charge offences of incitement and threats. These are very serious offences that this bill is introducing into Victorian law. They are very serious offences, and I do not think it is appropriate for the DPP to have a running veto over offences of this nature. We have a pretty distinct separation between the prosecutorial function and the policing function in this state. It is a bit different to, say, other jurisdictions like the United States, where the prosecutorial function is conducted under more political circumstances. For that reason a DPP veto is less dangerous than it might be in other parts of the world, but nonetheless I do not think it is appropriate for DPP to be overriding police decisions as to charging. That is a power that is best left in the hands of police, and the government on this matter have caved to pressure from the Greens political party in the other place and made an amendment that I think ultimately weakens the bill.

It weakens the bill, and as a result of that it has caused significant concern in the Jewish community, the leaders of which I have spoken with in the last couple of hours, because it undermines perhaps the most important part of this bill, which is the ability for police to charge, under criminal statute, threats and incitement. They are very, very important powers and they are powers that ought not be exercised in my view, and indeed in the government’s view, by the DPP. It is the government’s view that these are powers that ought to be exercised by Victoria Police. I think that ought to be reinstated, and that is why in a moment’s time I will be moving that that in fact happen.

I should say not all the Greens amendments were without merit. I think narrowing the proselytising clause is a good change, and it is a matter on which the opposition and I disagree. Narrowing the proselytising clause is a very good thing. I do not think we should be handing carte blanche to those people in positions of faith leadership to simply say whatever they want because they are in a position of faith leadership. I think it is entirely appropriate to narrow those matters to make sure that their proselytising is – and I quote the amendment here – ‘in conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of that religion’. That is an entirely appropriate narrowing and that is a very good result for this legislation, and I do thank the Greens for their constructive engagement on that matter.

But as I say, I disagree with the Greens on the ability of police to charge. These are very serious matters. We need to protect these community groups properly. I heard the Premier say that Victorians are on a unity ticket in relation to this. I think Victorians would prefer and indeed expect that police could charge for incitement or threats. I think it risks sending the message that police are yet again being undermined by the government. That is really unfortunate because these are very, very important crimes and they ought to be dealt with in the ordinary way that crimes are, with police having charging responsibilities. Charging and prosecution are different. It is an important distinction. The DPP prosecutes charges, police lay charges, and to start blurring the lines between the two sends us down a very difficult road and not a road that, frankly, the government has fully contemplated the consequences of.

In relation to the bill more broadly I am very pleased that my amendment about the genuine political purpose defence was taken up by the government when the bill came first to this place. I am very pleased that the bill will protect in particular members of the Jewish community and protect them properly. But there is this great deficiency where you are now asking the DPP to act as the charging authority rather than the police, and that is the matter which I will be seeking to amend. I move:

1. Amendment 8, omit ‘omit “Prosecutions or a” and insert “Prosecutions.”’ and insert ‘after “Prosecutions or” insert “by”’.

2. Amendment 9, omit “omit all words and expression on this line” and insert ‘omit “officer; and” and insert “officer.”’.

3. Amendment 11, after “Director of Public Prosecutions” insert “or police officer”.

That in isolation is not going to make much sense to anyone. These amendments have been lodged with the Clerk and will be circulated to members. But let me talk about what these amendments achieve, because amendments to amendments are prima facie confusing and what we really want to understand is what this does to the bill. What my amendments to the amendments do to the bill is make sure that police officers can also charge and that the amendments about determining whether an offence is to be prosecuted – giving account to all the circumstances, including the social, cultural and historical circumstances – that were passed in the other place apply both to the DPP and to police. Whoever is making the charge has to make it under the same set of circumstances. Whether it is police doing the charging or DPP, they have to charge with those factors under consideration.

The reinstatement of police being able to charge is Labor policy, adding that when they do charge, they have to take into account the circumstances that were agreed to yesterday in the other place – or perhaps early this morning in the other place. That is the position that was agreed to between the government and the Greens, so I see no reason for the government not to support my amendment. This amendment reinstates Labor policy that says police should be doing the charging for these crimes, not the DPP.

There are those members from the Greens political party who harbour a very high level of distrust of Victoria Police, which I do not share, which most Victorians do not share and which the government does not share, and that is the reason why they sought to make this amendment. As I say, I am grateful for some of the amendments that the Greens have made to this bill in the other place. I think a bunch of those amendments have improved the bill, particularly the narrowing of the scope around proselytising. But I respectfully disagree with the Greens on the police being able to charge these offences, because I think that is the ordinary course of business, particularly when it comes to serious offences like these. I think that is a very important element to reintroduce. For that reason I move the amendments, and I urge members of this chamber to support those amendments to reinstate government policy and, frankly, reinstate the opposition’s view on this as well.

Today we are seeing the best of multiculturalism, and we see it shine through our communities, whether it is our hardworking Vietnamese community coming together to support us during the pandemic, providing healthcare workers with masks; or whether it is the Sikh community, who we saw come together for the natural disasters affecting our regions, providing food relief and providing support to those local communities. Our multicultural community is one of our biggest assets in this state, and we are proud of every single member, as I said. No matter their surname, religion, background or ethnicity, we in Victoria have opportunity. Unfortunately we have seen very divisive arguments and attacks on our communities. There has been a rise in discrimination; there is no doubt about that. We have heard that from both sides of the house during these debates – the rise of discrimination and the rise of hate crimes in our communities.

I want to in particular acknowledge the powerful contribution of my friend the member for Box Hill. His contribution today really does stand out and really does state for all of us to stand in solidarity, to stand by a powerful message that we cannot accept this any further. That is why this house acted when it came to banning the Nazi salute and the evil display of Nazi symbols across the state. We came together and we immediately put a stop to this, because it is just not good enough. That is why this bill is going further and responding to the real-life stories and experience of Victorians who have unfortunately experienced vilification – vilification if you wear a hijab, vilification of Jewish kids going to school.

The stories continue on and on and on, and Victorians again deserve to feel safe and deserve to be protected from hatred, from division and of course from vilification-based harm. It has no place in our community, and that is why on this side of the house we will always support our diverse multicultural Victorian communities and will stand against division.

A number of years ago, when I was the chair of the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee, we laid the foundations for this bill, and I am very proud that we laid those foundations together as a committee. It was a bipartisan report that we produced with the support of the member for Caulfield and the member for Brighton as well. It was supported by both sides, and together we endorsed those reforms after hearing the experiences and the everyday stories that came before the committee in relation to vilification. We heard the real-life stories of attacks on faith and on people’s backgrounds and on how they look. They were real stories. That unity is the heart of this debate. We need to be able to get on, and this legislation means recognising the experiences of so many in our community. The recent attack in Epping on a woman just going around in her own way in the shopping centre – attacked for wearing a hijab. This is Victoria, and it is not good enough. Today, with this bill, we come together to endorse powerful reforms and powerful changes, recognising and sending a message, a very strong message, to everybody in our community: we hear you, your experiences are valid and, more importantly, you deserve to be protected regardless of your faith, regardless of how you look and regardless of your surname in this state. That is what we will do today.

I know through family, through friends and through my community who share those stories and who feel that they cannot really be a part of the community because they feel isolated, again, because of the faith that they may practise or the way they look. I have heard this in my own communities, being someone of Muslim faith, when I visit my local place of worship and my mosque in particular in Sunshine. The Sunshine Mosque does wonderful, supportive work for the community and for young people, and it is a place of great faith for all of us. I hear the stories from young kids who talk to me about how they feel and about some of the attacks and how they stop the confidence of young people at the beginning. Being attacked for the way you look, your faith or your surname has long-lasting effects on your development. This is why it is so important that there is this legislation that gives confidence back to our community and sends a strong message, a message that we will not accept this and there are ramifications for attacks and actions against our community that undermine our state and that undermine the fabric of our democracy. To live peacefully, to live productively and to be and choose whatever they want in the way they live, our communities deserve this.

I can continue, and there will be a number of other contributions, but it is about standing up, and I urge all members of this house to stand up. Multiculturalism is not just attending multicultural events, having a photo and enjoying the hospitality of our multicultural community, it is more than that.

It is about this bill that is before the house and, more importantly, reforms and real stories, and it is about making sure that they are protected. They deserve these protections. Our community will be watching very clearly today, because as I said at the beginning of my speech, today is a historic day. It is a historic day because this legislation is a rare opportunity for members in this house to come together and stand against vilification. This is what it is about today: standing up and standing against vilification and showing that these measures are above politics. It is about our communities, it is about our diverse Victorians, and they deserve your support today.

I again urge the house to stand together by supporting this legislation and opposing divisive amendments that will weaken its purpose. Remember the real stories. Remember what we are seeing playing out in our communities. You have an opportunity to stop it; you have an opportunity to protect against it. As I said, this is a bill that will protect our community. Quite frankly, enough is enough. We need action, and today we will provide that action. We will stop this form and send a very loud message to those who want to attack. Whether it is for their faith, whether it is for their name or whether it is for the way they look, you have no right to attack and make people feel that they do not belong in this community.

It is the intention of Parliament to enact law for the people of Victoria that respects the inherent dignity of all of us and promotes our equal participation in public life …

As a principle, no-one would disagree with that, but it is about getting the balance right. That has been the consistent position of the Liberals and Nationals all the way through this debate: getting the balance right between ensuring that people cannot be unduly vilified, harmed, threatened with violence or actually experiencing violence or intimidation based on their protected attributes – race, religion, sexuality et cetera – but we have always been concerned that the government has not got the balance right on this legislation.

I will go to a question of process for a moment. This process has literally been going for about eight years – from an inquiry in the other place where it began. We have had this bill for a long time, for more than six months, and yet we are now dealing with amendments that were agreed with the Greens in the other place overnight, in the wee hours of the morning, in a matter of hours. And they are not just little changes to a comma or a full stop; these are significant changes that we think make this bad bill even worse. My predecessors in the debate, particularly the member for Malvern, highlighted one of those. I take up the comment of the minister that she is not supporting divisive amendments. Amendment 11 brings into being that:

… the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all the circumstances (including the social, cultural and historical circumstances) surrounding the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence …

That is something that is inherently divisive. That basically says, potentially, ‘Oh well, yes, the person did incite or threaten the victim, but we need to take into account that they’re Serbian and the other person was Croatian, and we know that a thousand years ago there was an issue between those countries.’ There are multiple examples that could be given of particular social, cultural and historical circumstances to be taken into account that just do not justify the means.

As the member for Malvern said, that is effectively in some respects giving an excuse to someone to do it – ‘Oh, well, yes, I said that. But you’ve got to understand my cultural, historical perspective on it.’ We do not think that is fair. That is contrary to the intent of this legislation, and indeed it is divisive. I think it is setting this up to fail and it is in fact creating more tension in our community. That is one example, and I think there are many through this. But as I said, the concern that the Nationals and Liberals have is the balance not being right in this. No-one deserves to be vilified but, equally, Victorians have a right to free speech. That is not an absolute right; it needs to be balanced by the need to avoid unduly harming people. There are some protections in this law, but we think that the legislation as it was initially proposed, and even more so now that it has been amended in the other place, gets that balance entirely wrong. That is why we will not be supporting the amendments that have been proposed today.

This was one of the early efforts by a Labor government in Victoria to promote social cohesion and ensure a more inclusive society. But as we know, the world has moved on since then. These laws were world leading at the time, but what we have seen in the last two decades, even in the last two years, is that we need to beef up our laws and we need to ensure that those who are missing out on protection are encompassed by this legislation. We need to ensure that these protections are extended, for example, to people from Victoria’s LGBTQIA+ community. The 2021 Victorian parliamentary inquiry, which examined the operations and effectiveness of the original act, heard that many Victorians, including First Nations Victorians, Muslim Victorians, Jewish Victorians, women, LGBTQIA+ communities and people with disability often experience vilification. The inquiry also found that despite the protections of the original act, hatred and prejudice is still far too common in Victoria.

We are a government that will not tolerate the targeting of minorities in Victoria. We have demonstrated that through our anti-racism strategy designed to challenge racist attitudes, strengthen community cohesion and address systemic racism in institutions. I was privileged, while I was Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs, to serve on the Anti-Racism Taskforce, which has now turned its efforts to ensuring that we are passionately and enthusiastically implementing that strategy. We have demonstrated our commitment through our groundbreaking Yoorrook truth and reconciliation commission, Australia’s first truth-telling inquiry into the historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples in our state, and by banning the use of the Nazi swastika in 2022 – the first Australian jurisdiction to do so – and the subsequent ban on the Nazi salute and other symbols and gestures used by the Nazi party. We have foreshadowed new laws to ban protests outside places of worship. This is part of our broader effort to combat antisemitism and protect an individual’s right to worship without fear or harassment.

I represent an electorate with a very large Jewish community, and I know very well that the fears of our Jewish community have been heightened. Why have they been heightened? Well, they have been heightened because in 2024 there was a 320 per cent rise in antisemitic assaults, and there were six incidents of serious property damage to synagogues and Jewish facilities in Victoria. When I travel around my electorate and when I visit the synagogues in my electorate, it is very noticeable that the community’s anxieties are heightened at the moment and that they have stepped up security. They have done that with the support of our government, by the way, with significant funding that has gone into securing Jewish communal facilities. I am proud that we as a government have done this, because this is about protecting our multiculturalism, protecting our diversity and defending our diversity, which has been significantly challenged over the recent period. We cannot tolerate any further terrorist attacks such as that dastardly attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue. The intent of these laws is to strengthen what is on our statute books by ensuring that we have what we need to deal with some of the awful, awful incidents that we have seen in recent times.

I have something hot off the press from Philip Zajac, president of JCCV, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria:

For years, the Jewish community has been advocating for stronger hate crime laws in Victoria.

This took on a new urgency in 2023–24 with the explosion of antisemitism on our streets, and we called for action, not just words, in response.

The passage of these laws hopefully signals a new era in Victoria where those who are undermining our social cohesion face consequences for their destructive actions.

The JCCV will work with our Jewish community and with police to ensure the laws help Jews and other minorities to live in safety and peace in Victoria.

Those opposite are about to vote no to these laws, and they are doing so supposedly in the name of freedom of speech. We all have freedom of speech, but we also have responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society. It is simply not okay to be a bigot. People do not have the right to be bigots. I will say this: since at least the Second World War it has been social democratic parties like the Australian Labor Party that have defended minority groups. We are one of the oldest social democratic parties in the world. That is why I cannot say that I am particularly surprised by the divide in this house today; I cannot say I am surprised by it at all. I am proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party and of this Labor government because of legislation like this, and I commend it to the house.

The member for Bentleigh quite rightly said there has been an over 300 per cent increase in antisemitic attacks. A synagogue was firebombed in a terrorist attack, and we have a government today that wants to walk back police powers that ensure that they can do their job. I can tell you that every single member of the community that I speak to says that this government have not been able to keep them safe, because they do not allow police to do their job. Police have not responded in the way that many in the Jewish community would have expected them to do, because they have said they have not had the powers. Here is an opportunity to do something, and what does this government do? Wind back the powers to do a grubby deal with the Greens at the expense of the Jewish community.

We know recommendation 21 in the report clearly says the DPP barrier to be able to prosecute these cases is something that takes time and causes issues with people actually taking up something and charging people for vilification. That is why we have seen hardly any vilification success here in this state. That is why unfortunately for years the community and other communities have not felt safe, because there has not been a prosecution. The police have said, including Luke Cornelius, who came to the committee and gave his report, that actually that test needed to be removed so police could do their work and so police could actually charge. And what did this government do? The government turned around and said, ‘Do you know what? That makes sense. We will support it.’ And what did we say? We said, ‘We’ll work with you.’ We want to focus on the criminal element, because we said to the government, ‘The problem right now is the criminality on our streets, day in, day out, with 72 weeks of protests and 18,000 shifts of police work to babysit these pro-Hamas protesters.’ So what has the government done now? They have not tried to work with us but have done a dodgy deal with the Greens that allows them to continue to have police turn around and say, ‘Well, I’m sorry, in order for me to do my job, I am going to have to go and get permission from the DPP before I charge you.’ That could take weeks for them to come back and say, ‘Well, we’ll have to look at it, and on this particular evidence you probably don’t have a case.’ So how many people are actually going to take this up? How many are going to take it up when police cannot do their jobs?

Again, police are hamstrung because the government does not want to really do anything. They just want to use weasel words to be able to turn around and say, ‘You know what, we’re looking after you.’ Well, you are not looking after my community. I can tell you that. You are not looking after us. You have done nothing to look after us. Where are the consequences? Every single community when they are victims need their time in the sun for a government to stand up for them. What does the Labor Party do when it comes to that? They turn around and say, ‘Well, we’re going to stand up against antisemitism and Islamophobia at the time of 7 October.’

Where was the Islamophobia at the time of 7 October? When the Muslims had the Christchurch massacre, we stood here in unity against Islamophobia. We did not talk about antisemitism then because the Muslims needed the government to have their backs. You do not use moral equivalence to be able to walk both sides of the fence and say, ‘You know what, we look after you, and we look after you as well.’ Stand up for it when it is wrong. Call it out when it is wrong. This government does not call any of it out. They just want to be able to use headlines and press releases to be able to say, ‘You know what, we’ll keep you safe.’

But when we asked last night a very important question to the former Attorney-General about the kinds of hate slogans that have been used at these rallies, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ – I am sure the member for Richmond might have some comment about that shortly –

Matthew Guy interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: And we have heard some Labor staffers also using those kinds of commentaries. What about, also, ‘All Zionists are terrorists’? Well, when we asked that question, ‘It depends.’ We still do not know whether using the word ‘Zionists’ as camouflage for ‘Jews’ is going to be called out as an issue in terms of hate speech or not. We do not know, yet the Jewish community has been calling for years, and certainly since 7 October, to be able to call out those haters that are using the word ‘Zionists’ as a replacement, cut and paste, to ensure that they are really targeting Jews.

That is what they are doing. That is what they are saying. That is why when people use a phrase like ‘All Zionists are terrorists’ it needs to be called out for what it is – it is hate speech. It needs to be prosecuted and police need the powers to do it, to call it what it is. There is only one reason the Greens have put this amendment up: because they want to continue to march out with Adam Bandt and co and go for broke and call out whatever they like, targeting Jews. That is what they do. Jewish hate – that is what they do. That is what the Greens do, and now we have got the Labor Party backing the Greens again. They are defending the Greens again. I cannot believe that Labor are defending the Greens again. Are you serious? Do you have any moral compass at all, that you would defend the Greens? You are a disgrace.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Order! I am on my feet. The member for Caulfield has the call. Members should show the member for Caulfield respect while he is on his feet.

David SOUTHWICK: For this government to again stand side by side with the Greens and to defend the Greens when they have used the most damaging, hateful language since 7 October, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is appalling. I was talking about the Greens and what the Greens have done in these protests, and again Labor were backing them. What an absolute disgrace. We saw it last night at midnight when Labor took the Greens’ amendments and said, ‘You know what, off we go. We’ll give you any leg room you like, any rope you like, to go out there and do whatever you like and say whatever you like to the Jewish community’ – side by side against the Jewish community. That is what Labor is. That is what the Greens are. That is what they do. We know that Labor need Greens preferences in any government, federal or state. We have got a federal election coming up – let us see what they do in Macnamara. Does Labor preference the Greens in Macnamara to save their own skin? Do they when they have seen firebombings and attacks? Will they? This government has no courage to stand up against the Greens. At every single parliamentary sitting the member for Richmond stands up and blames the Jews for everything. Everything is the Jews’ fault time and time again.

Gabrielle de Vietri: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask the member for Caulfield to withdraw that last statement, as I take offence to it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Caulfield, I was not able to hear what the last statement was, because there is too much disorderly conduct in the house. If there was anything unparliamentary said, I would ask you with to withdraw, but otherwise I would ask you to use the remainder of your time and to ensure that this is a civil debate.

David SOUTHWICK: I do not believe there was anything unparliamentary, so I will not be withdrawing. I will be continuing on by saying that this government, along with the Greens –

Juliana Addison interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Wendouree can interject all she likes, but on this particular issue with the Greens I would have expected her to be side by side with us on a unity ticket. The member for Wendouree has a synagogue in her electorate, and she should be side by side with the Jewish community. She should be, and Ballarat should be as well. A disgrace you all are. This was an opportunity to do something, and you failed.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Order! Member for Caulfield, I ask you to withdraw that last comment. It was a reflection on the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: I withdraw if there was anything to you, Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I will give the call to the member for Richmond. Before I do so, I remind members that this has been a very emotive debate. I ask all members to show courtesy to members on their feet and for members on their feet to show courtesy to other members.

We are also really grateful for the collaborative way in which the government has worked with us to seek to make this bill work as intended, and I will speak briefly to the intention behind the amendments. We received concerns from stakeholders and shared those concerns about the risk that these laws might be unintentionally open to misuse by police against marginalised and overpoliced communities, so the amendments that we sought to include mitigate that risk.

The bill will now include a preamble statement that refers to the right of all Victorians to participate equally in a democratic society, the promotion of diversity that exists within our society, the right to equality and the need to balance this with the right to freedom of expression in both the civil and the criminal clauses. The purposes clause now states that the intention of this bill is:

to promote full and equal participation in an open and inclusive democratic society, without impeding robust discussion that does not vilify or marginalise others based on a protected attribute …

It also very clearly states that the intention of this bill is to protect people who experience systemic injustice and structural oppression, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and others.

We were glad to see that the government was willing to retain the requirement for police to obtain DPP consent to proceed to prosecution. This additional oversight ensures that a third party is able to assess charges, whether it is in the public interest to continue to proceed to prosecution and whether the human rights elements have been adequately considered in the application of these charges. It ensures proportionality and fairness in the prosecuting of these laws. We are very grateful that the government has agreed to incorporate the requirement for DPP consent to prevent police overreach.

Second last, we have also introduced a requirement for the DPP to consider the circumstances of the offending, including the historical, the social and the cultural context. We believe that that is important to be able to ensure that these provisions do not inadvertently criminalise those who are vulnerable – for example, someone experiencing homelessness, someone experiencing mental illness, young people. That DPP oversight is now guided to take those factors into consideration.

Finally, we have sought to clarify the religious exception to ensure that the scope of the religious exception displays a strong and close nexus between preaching and proselytising and a person’s religious beliefs. We believe that that adequately is reflected in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and has a strong precedent for its interpretation. We are very grateful that this amendment has also been supported by the government.

We would like to also thank the crossbench in the upper house for their close collaboration on ensuring that this bill works as intended, from Legalise Cannabis and the Animal Justice Party as well as a number of stakeholders that have worked with us to ensure that this bill works as intended. I will non-exhaustively name a few stakeholders, including the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Fitzroy Legal Service, Equality Australia, the Jewish Council of Australia and the Islamic Council of Victoria, who have been very helpful in guiding our negotiations on this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): The Attorney-General has moved that the amendments from the Legislative Council be agreed to. The member for Ringwood has moved further amendments to the amendments. I will therefore split the question to deal with the amendments proposed by the member for Ringwood. The question is therefore:

That amendments 1 to 7 inclusive be agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendments 1 to 7:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendments agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The member for Ringwood has moved further amendment 1 to Council amendment 8. The further amendment seeks to remove words and replace them with the words in the further amendment. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the amendment.

Members supporting the amendment by the member for Ringwood should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Darren Cheeseman, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendment 8:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendment agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The member for Ringwood has moved further amendment 2 to Council amendment 9. The further amendment seeks to remove words and replace them with the words in the further amendment. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the amendment.

Those supporting the amendment by the member for Ringwood should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Darren Cheeseman, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendment 9:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendment agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendment 10:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendment agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The member for Ringwood has moved further amendment 3 to Council amendment 11. The further amendment seeks to insert the words in the further amendment. The question is:

That the further amendment be agreed to.

Amendment defeated.

Assembly divided on Council amendment 11:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendment agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendments 12 and 13:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendments agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.

Sitting suspended 1:05 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery former member Geoff Howard.