Bill Debate: Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion): Council Amendments

BILL DEBATE

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ANTI-VILIFICATION AND SOCIAL COHESION) COUNCIL AMENDMENTS’.

Wednesday 2 April 2025.

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:31):

I rise to speak on the Amendments to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024.

What Victorians know is that over the time of this Premier social cohesion in this State has broken, and more than anything else Victorians should know that the Premier’s words will not fix it. That is what has happened during the time of this Premier’s Premiership – the 553 days that have been her Premiership.

Today the Premier spoke in her attack on the Opposition but failed to talk about the breakdown in social cohesion in this State.

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 does 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 don’t. 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.