Anti-vilification legislation
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:29): (166) My question is for the Attorney-General. Just this week in the UK a £100,000 settlement was reached with Anna Thomas, a civil servant who worked at the Department for Work and Pensions. With the support of the Free Speech Union, she brought a complaint to the employment tribunal, arguing unfair dismissal, belief discrimination and harassment. Anna was fired for gross misconduct after making a whistleblower complaint that she believed the department were breaching their impartiality obligations under the civil service code. Her concerns were based around diversity training and resources on gender ideology, arguing that there was implicit support for the political aims of these groups, breaching the impartiality requirements of the public service. Whilst I have concerns that the situation in Victoria is probably bad already, with the proposed anti-vilification laws the government are working on, this could get even worse. What assurances can the Attorney-General provide that impartiality in the public service will not become essentially criminalised by these new laws?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:30): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question. At the outset I would reiterate the Victorian government’s commitment to being a model employer. We have had a lot of firsts in terms of worker protections which have often been prosecuted through our industrial relations relationships with our parties – the VPS, for example, with things like family violence leave and the like. There are numerous responses that we provide in relation to the latest in protecting workers. Your specific question relates to the anti-vilification laws. As I am on the record in this place and outside this place as saying, this is very complex legislation. This is legislation that we want to get right. This is legislation that, if we rush, we risk unintended consequences. I do welcome everyone’s feedback in relation to anti-vilification law reform. That consultation is kicking off very soon, and I would welcome your input into that, Mr Limbrick.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:31): I would be very happy to contribute to that. This government is not unique in considering how to respond to hate speech or, as I would put it, speech that those in power hate. For example, New Zealand recently withdrew their proposed hate speech laws to continue work trying to find the right balance. Ireland is right now on the verge of passing anti-free-speech legislation that includes potential penalties of up to five years in prison. Scotland passed their hate crime and public order act in 2021, but it is yet to be implemented out of concern that the police cannot easily define hate speech. This has not prevented people, however, from being investigated in the UK for Orwellian non-crime hate incidents. There are documented disclosures demonstrating that the police are keeping files on or investigating people for posting on social media their belief merely that transgender women are not women. Can the Attorney-General provide reassurances that the dictionary definition of ‘woman’ – that is, an adult human female – will not be considered hate speech under the proposed anti-vilification laws?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:32): That is a bit of a stretch. Mr Limbrick, there is a lot in that question. But at the outset I took great offence to your reflection that hate speech is speech that those in power hate. I am fortunate to not be the recipient of a lot of hate speech, because I am white, I am not LGBTI+ and I am not Jewish. I have actually had a pretty privileged life. I get called a bogan and that sort of thing, but the speech that is directed to people causes immense harm, and I am really passionate about supporting those people that that hate is directed to. It is actually not about me. It is not about my feelings. It is about my responsibility as a leader in this state to protect those who are receiving harm from language. That is what the anti-vilification laws are designed to do. We want to get it right. It is my intention to get it right, to take the time and to not have unintended consequences. Again, I welcome your feedback. I welcome people’s feedback. I am not necessarily going to agree with them, but that is the challenge of being in this role. It is about talking to people about protections and talking to people who have strong views either way. I commit to talking to all people to ensure that we get this legislation right, but I will not back down on wanting to protect those that need protection.