Bill: Crimes Amendment Bill 2026

BILL:

‘CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 2026’.

Tuesday, 3 March 2026.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:52):

I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill 2026.

What an extraordinary set of events it has taken to get here, in terms of both the substance of this Bill, which is significant and important, but also the Parliamentary failures from this Government that have led to this Bill being initiated as a standalone piece of legislation.

In terms of the substance, this Bill is a very, very simple Bill. What this Bill does is remove the consent requirement from the Director of Public Prosecutions for a serious instance of alleged hate speech before a charge can be proceeded with – a very simple single measure.

In fact, you would think that when the Government legislated their hate speech laws these measures would have been in place. They were not. I remember a particularly fiery debate in this Chamber, led then by the Member for Malvern, and I spoke after him, calling out the fact that the Government brought a Bill back into this Chamber on their hate speech laws that included this consent requirement before action could be taken to protect people from hate speech. It was a very fiery debate. What the government confirmed and have since said publicly – repeatedly; this is not a new thing – is ‘We put the consent in because the Greens said that the only way they would pass the Bill was if we put that consent measure in the law, otherwise the Greens would not support it.’ We of course took every opportunity to work with the Government to enable legislation that worked. I remember distinctly the former Shadow Attorney-General, the Member for Malvern, making every attempt and every effort to work with the Government to ensure we had laws that did work. He went to both the Attorney- General of the day and also the Premier to say, ‘We want to see these laws work.’ We all did. We wanted to see these laws work.

When the Bill came back to this Chamber including that consent provision, we said, firstly, that it was a dirty deal with the Greens. I mean, the Government have admitted that it was a deal with the Greens on this provision. But more importantly what we said was that with the consent provision in, the laws would not work. Let me tell you how many people have been convicted of hate speech since the laws were put into place, the laws that were supposed to provide new protections to Victorians because we know we are seeing behaviour on our streets that is unacceptable and for which we would expect charges to be laid. How many convictions have we seen? Zero convictions. There has not been a conviction because these laws do not work.

Then I would say to you that it is important to ask if perhaps there is a backlog of offences for which people who have committed behaviour that is hate speech have been charged but the courts have not yet considered the matters. How many charges have been laid? As of this morning, the Attorney’s office advised me, zero. The Government claimed these new laws would fix the hate speech problem in our State, the rampant antisemitism and hate speech that we are seeing in our State. The Premier said these laws would fix that, but there have been no charges and there have been no convictions. Frankly, it is as if that law did not exist in the first place.

I can assure you that no-one on this side of the Chamber was surprised when the Government got up and said ‘We got it wrong. Were wrong. The laws do not work, and they need redrafting,’ because we had said it. We said it from the minute we found out that the Government did a deal with the Greens to pass laws that could not and would not work. We called it out. I remember the debate as if it were yesterday because the speakers on that debate, when the Amendment came back to this Chamber, called it out passionately. We told the Government it was doing something which would negate the law in the first place.

Were so passionate because enough is enough. But enough was enough a long time ago, and the community has been calling for action for far too long. For far too long this community has been calling for action because we have seen the most outrageous, illegal, feral behaviour occurring on our streets, and there is a tacit acceptance by the Government that it is occurring. In passing laws that do not work, you accept that you are not fixing it, and we called that out. We said that these laws would not fix it, and as of this morning the advice from the Attorney’s office is that not a single charge or conviction has been reached under these hate speech provisions. There is currently no legislative mechanism of protection against hate speech. How can that be? Because the Government would not work with the Opposition, with the Coalition, to see laws that do work.

I found out about this Bill two minutes before the Attorney stood up yesterday at her press conference to announce it. I note that two minutes before they went public the first thing I offered to the Government, at that exact moment of finding out, was ‘We want to work with you to get these laws through the Parliament today.’ I put that offer on behalf of the Coalition immediately. As soon as I found out that the Government had split this Amendment into its own standalone Bill – and I will speak to how we have seen this Amendment move through the Parliament in other forms later – I immediately said to the Government ‘We want this new bill considered in the Parliament today.’

Not only did I offer that the Bill be considered today, I asked the Government if they would split the Government Business Program to see this particular Bill dealt with by 5 o’clock today. My view was that waiting till Thursday at 5 o’clock was too long and that we had to not only consider it today – give leave for it to be debated immediately, which we did – but also by 5 o’clock today see that Bill pass this Parliament. As I have said consistently for a very long time, we as a coalition support this provision and support it strongly. In fact, we have supported it longer than any other party in this Chamber, in that when the Government did a deal with the Greens to bring a consent Amendment into this Chamber, we said it was wrong. We said we supported a ‘no consent’ Amendment, because we knew that the laws would not work. The Attorney, by admitting to me that there has been no charge laid, no conviction, has, frankly, admitted that the laws as they stand do not work.

We have seen a sad pathway to these laws appearing today and a sad pathway, frankly, that did not need to occur. As I said, as was said before me by the Member for Malvern and as we have said since, repeatedly and publicly, we as a Coalition want to see this change. We want to see these laws fixed, and it has taken since enactment in September for the Government to work out their laws are not working – a very long time. I am sure that was simply stubbornness – stubbornness in admitting an error. And, frankly, we have seen other instances today where the Attorney has found it difficult to admit error, haven’t we? We have certainly seen instances where the Attorney has found it very difficult to say, ‘Sorry, I got it wrong’, and own the error. This is another one. We saw obviously the instance of the Attorney speaking earlier today where there had been a claim that she had referred a matter to police when she had not, and now with this particular Bill where the Government took a very, very long time to say, ‘We got it wrong.’ They did not say sorry, but they have, because of this acceptance of a need for change, admitted that they got it wrong.

So what did they do once they figured out that they got it wrong? I presume they took a long time to not do much, because they did not want to admit, when it comes to what is occurring on our streets, that they had not fixed it – because an admission that they had not fixed it was an admission they did a deal that was wrong with the wrong party, which made the laws inoperable, effectively. I imagine also that the Premier and the Attorney did not have the face to accept that error had occurred. But eventually we got to the point where there was an acceptance the laws were not working. Partly that was led by the community, partly it was led by the bleeding obvious of what has been occurring every single week on our streets – the outrageous behaviour on our streets – and the lack of action on it.

What the Government did was find an omnibus Justice Bill which has done some good things. It was a Bill that we did not oppose; we supported measures in that omnibus Bill, and it was not controversial in any way. The Government expanded the scope of that Bill to tack on this Amendment to it, so when it got sent to the Upper House, no-one should have been surprised to hear that Members in the Upper House felt that because it was an omnibus Justice Bill, they had the opportunity to add other amendments to it, of course – that is what an omnibus Bill is.

The Government did it. The Government tacked an Amendment onto their omnibus Bill, so it is fair and reasonable for other parties to also do so. As I have said publicly, although we would consider each of the Amendments that were tacked on to the omnibus Bill as a policy position – and we have – my concern and the Coalition’s concern was that we had a Bill being delayed that included a hate speech strengthening because the Government did not want to act to give our chief anti-corruption agency increased power. Last sitting week we effectively had a stalemate in the Upper House whereby this Amendment, this power, was blocked by the Government because they did not want the Parliament to consider new anti-corruption powers for IBAC. That stalemate existed to the point that the Government said repeatedly to every media outlet that asked on that Thursday, ‘The omnibus Bill will be debated and will get to a vote on Thursday.’ And then – I was there to see it – I saw the Government Whip get up and move a closure motion and adjourn off the Bill. Why? Because this hate speech Amendment was in the Bill. Why? Because the Government did not want the Parliament to consider giving IBAC new powers. Can you believe that you would see a Government say ‘We so much don’t want scrutiny of what has been happening under our watch we are going to stop hate speech laws’? I mean, how extraordinary.

I want to put on the record what we did both before they shelved the Bill and since. We made every effort to go to the Government and say we support the hate speech enhancements – we have since day one; in fact, we said the Government got it wrong in the first place. We said we support it. We said we would do everything we can to help make it happen. That was consistent; that was repeated. On multiple occasions we went to the Government and said we want to see this happen, not because we did not think that the Parliament should be considering enhancing our chief anti-corruption agency with new powers – we strongly support that; we moved a Private Members Bill today about that very thing. But what we said to the Government is that we want to see both. What the Government said to me was that with the IBAC Amendments attached to the Bill, it was not going to debate the Bill again. That Bill, that omnibus Bill which was listed for debate in the Council this week, has now been pulled. It was listed in writing for debate this week and it has now been pulled from debate in the Legislative Council this week. The Government is using its numbers to block the omnibus Bill from being debated in the Council because it does not want to consider enhancing the chief anti-corruption agency and it having new powers. You almost have to stop for a moment to think through and let that idea settle with you: a government is blocking a Bill so that our anti-corruption agency does not have powers.

Yesterday, in a Parliamentary committee, we saw the agency itself call for those powers. Just yesterday in this very place the anti-corruption agency said they need these powers. They need them. I mean, it was not some letter between a Premier and IBAC two years ago – you know, there was a response. The Premier only briefed out the first letter; she did not brief out the second letter – did not think that one through, media office. But yesterday the anti-corruption agency called for the powers. They called for them yesterday.

So for that Bill, within moments of the agency calling for those powers, to be shelved from debate in the Council says everything. How has the Government dealt with it? They have pulled that Amendment out of the Bill and put it into this standalone piece of legislation. I will note, only briefly, that that omnibus Bill, which we spoke about in another debate, has a number of important measures. I would not want to speak for any other Member in this Chamber, but many Members spoke about the Bill, because there are important measures in it, including an extension of the Drug Court. The Drug Court extension is contained within that Bill. If that Bill does not proceed, the Drug Court is now on a very, very short timeline, and sadly, that has been lost in the public debate of other issues. It is important to note that, because when you split Bills, when you shelve Bills because you do not like what might be considered, it has other impacts.

We have this Bill after that long and rocky path to get here today, where we see a Bill before us which does a very, very simple Amendment. I would hope that by 5 o’clock today we can see this House pass it, because the anti-hate speech laws that exist in Victoria do not protect Victorians. We have seen the most horrific things occurring on our streets to our fellow Victorians – shameful behaviour, where people are openly attacked and openly vilified, and where hate speech against various communities, but particularly the Jewish community, is vile and rampant. Unfortunately, when Governments do not stand up and say, ‘No, we’re going to do something about it, and we’re going to do something that works,’ you are effectively tacitly letting it happen, because Governments have the powers to make laws. Had the Government worked with the Coalition, we would have ensured there were laws that worked.

It is very difficult to understand and fully appreciate the damage that is being done to communities of ours, fellow Victorians, by what is occurring on our streets. I might say, as someone who has an extremely close connection to the Jewish community – specifically a very, very close connection to the Jewish community – and an understanding of issues that the Jewish community has seen and lived through over recent years, I felt that I understood very strongly the issues that are facing the Jewish community. But I will add something that I have not talked about publicly that I do feel is an important point to note. I am not Jewish, so therefore I have never experienced antisemitism personally. I have seen it – of course unfortunately I have seen it – and I have helped friends who have had to live through the most shocking circumstances of it. Only recently I attended an event for the President of Israel, who came to Australia and came to Melbourne, and as I do when I attend an event, especially particular types of Jewish events, I put on my kippah. I put it on as I left my car. I always park my car, put it on and walk to the event, as I am sure many other members of this place do when they attend Jewish events. Because of the protests that were occurring around him being in Melbourne, protesters had started to descend upon the location where the President was due to speak. Protesters were milling around and starting to arrive near the locality.

As I walked to the event, protesters thought I was Jewish, and I experienced a level of hate I have never experienced before. I think that in Parliament we are used to people from time to time taking out their frustrations on us. That is not uncommon. Lately people are talking to us a lot about the corruption they are seeing in this state, and they feel their trust is broken. They often will talk to us with incredible emotion. It is part of what we do. We show compassion to people, and we hear what they say. But at no time have I ever experienced a series of incidents – it was not just one – of dehumanisation that included hissing. I have never been hissed at in my life. It sounds so simple, and it sounds like such a little thing, even saying it out loud – and I thought about whether I would, but I feel that it is important. To feel that someone is so degrading you because of who you are, not because they disagree with your action – as I said, that occurs often. Often people question our actions, and it can be robust, but not who we are, not our right to exist. That is what antisemitism is. It is saying to the Jewish community, ‘You don’t have a right to exist. You don’t have a right to be here.’ Experiencing that for the first time was very traumatic. I know that that is a big word – very traumatic. I have been to Israel shortly after the war. I have visited terrorist-hit sites. I have seen where children have died. I have watched footage of terrorists doing the types of things I wish I had never known another human could do to a human. But to feel multiple instances of someone dehumanising me on the way into that event really stuck with me. That is not in any way to compare the two things. Of course it is not, and I would not want anyone to conflate what I am saying. But the reason I am raising it is because that is happening all day, every day to part of our community, to fellow Victorians, and it has not been fixed.

We consider this Bill now – which we support. We want to see it passed by this Parliament. We want to see it passed with haste. We want it to see it go through the Upper House, and of course we are going to support it. Firstly, I would say we could have had these powers initially had the Government done the right thing and worked with us. We could have seen that, and we should have seen that. The Government, I think partly because of stubbornness, did not agree to that. I would say that every event that has occurred since then under a regime of laws that have not worked – I mean, the only way you could, I think, fairly describe the Government’s assertions that they had acted, is gaslighting. That is the only word you can use, that the government recognised there was a problem, said there was a problem and brought in laws which gaslighted Victorians into believing they might have protections. Well, the Attorney has admitted: no charges, no convictions. So those laws did not protect Victorians. And to think, every single instance that someone had to put up with, whether big or small, should not have happened. That does not mean that Government can stop everything from occurring. What the Government should be doing is putting in place laws that protect people where they need protection, and the Government failed at that. When you go through the history of how we got to the laws – failures in the drafting of the laws, failed attempts to pass the laws through the Upper House through a different Bill – on every single one of those steps you can only see that the Government has failed.

I think that when you take politics out of this issue entirely and you look at these issues with a very fair mind, the only thing that you would see is that the government’s politics failed Victorians, and Victorians know it. The Jewish community knows it. The Jewish community knows it, because every single day they have had to experience questioning of their right to exist. It has to stop; it is wrong. And it is incumbent on everyone in this place, and every community leader more broadly, to say that it needs to stop, not just in terms of antisemitism but any form of inequality. It requires community leaders to stand up, but it also requires Governments, where they see a way to legislate, to help to do it – to do it in a way that will work and to do it in a way that puts politics aside – and to sometimes work with other parties to make sure that it will happen in a meaningful way. It is sad to know that the failure in the Government’s drafting has seen no instance of those laws working since those laws were introduced. It is good that we have this measure before the House today, which of course we support. We want to see it passed with haste. It should have been done at the start, and had the Government had any real integrity, that is what would have happened. Victorians know it, and we will make sure these laws are passed at 5 o’clock today.