Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Safer Protest with a Registration System and a Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025

Introduction and first reading

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:36): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to provide for the registration and authorisation of public protests, to give legal protection to persons who participate in authorised public protests, to provide for prohibition orders and exclusion orders, to prohibit the wearing of face coverings at public protests, to consequentially amend the Summary Offences Act 1966, and for other purposes.

What we have seen in this state is a state that once was the great state has become the hate state. It is a state that has allowed lawlessness to creep into Victoria, a state that has allowed people to creep around in the middle of the night – extremists wearing face masks, inciting hate and intimidating others with absolutely no consequences. We have a Premier that 240 days ago said she would bring in stronger protest powers. Where are they? We have in this government a social commentator that is sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, not a Premier that is showing leadership but a social commentator that every time this stuff happens says, ‘Isn’t this horrible?’ I think Victorians are sick of words. They want action. They want consequences. They want to make sure that people that protest peacefully are protected, but extremists that go about targeting individuals face consequences.

What we are proposing today is a five-point plan. The first point includes a protest registration system. We are the only state in the nation that does not have a registration system. It is little wonder why we are the protest capital. People should be able to protest peacefully, but why is it that in Victoria they cannot? That is because we do not have a registration system.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I know the government – and the Minister for Health – is saying, ‘What is the Chief Commissioner of Police saying?’ I can inform the Minister for Health and the government that the Police Association Victoria wants these powers, because the men and women on the frontline are sick and tired of doing their job with one arm tied behind their backs. They want to be supported. They are sick of having a Minister for Police that just uses weasel words and says they are backing Victoria Police. Why don’t they do something and give them the powers to act? That includes, in addition to permits, ensuring that we have stronger move-on laws than those that were abolished in 2015 under the Andrews government, a weak opportunity that was abolished. Those laws would ensure that those people that continue coming back and inciting would be moved on.

The third part would ensure exclusion orders. Those people that keep coming back and inciting hate, they would be excluded from returning. And if they kept returning to the city wearing masks, intimidating others and burning flags, they would ultimately be facing jail time. That is what they need. Those extremists should not be allowed to hijack our city and our state. Fourthly, we need to unmask these gutless cowards. That is what Victorians expect. These people that creep around in the middle of the night, hiding their faces, need to be exposed for who they are. The government has promised this. Where are those laws?

The government has the opportunity today to get on board with the opposition and support them. At every single opportunity we have led the way, whether it be on tobacco laws, on machete laws or on bail laws. At every opportunity we are leading the way with law and order, and this government is playing catch-up. Catch up today with protest permits, with registrations and with safer communities, because that is what this bill does.

The final part of this bill deals with protecting people’s freedoms, because we believe on this side that those people who want to protest peacefully should be supported and police should be available to them to be able to do what they can to express their views. We will do that. We will back people that want to maintain freedom of speech, but we will not back hate speech. That is why this government needs to get on board and do something.

22,000 police shifts have been diverted away from keeping us safe in our communities to babysitting 500 protests, 95 protests in the city. Just ask the hotels association and the traders, who say over the weekend they have lost somewhere between 45 and 50 per cent of trade. We need these permit registrations. We need safer protest powers for economic reasons, for safety reasons and ultimately to return law and order to this state. It has become a lawless state under Labor. This government is playing catch-up. It is time for the Premier to get off the sidelines, show some leadership and back our plan to keep the community safe. That is what this is about. The Premier has an opportunity to either make Victoria safe or continue to make us the hate state that it is under her.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (09:41): What an extraordinary turn of events, what an extraordinary performance that was. Those opposite have opened up in this place and once again they have added to their volume of talking down Victoria any time they get. To describe Victoria as ‘the hate state’ is absolutely extraordinary. Even if you took the most extreme views on what they are saying about Victoria, they had a moment with the anti-vilification bill – they had a moment right there – and they let themselves down. They had that moment. This is once again an example of the Liberals – because I do not think too many Nationals are this out of control – putting forward something that has been cooked up on dot points to distract from some of their internal absolute haemorrhaging that is going on at the moment.

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: Case in point. You bring it in.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mordialloc, if you wish to continue your contribution, you will come to order.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Nepean will leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Nepean withdrew from chamber.

Tim RICHARDSON: We see a procedural motion come forward today to bring on a bill when a large number of the hallmarks of protections were right there in the anti-vilification bill. When you look at the contributions of those opposite to bring on a procedural debate that is at odds with the comments made by the Chief Commissioner of Police around a permit system for protests, and then you have got the descriptions – bringing a dot point list in; we have seen this in procedural motions – you go: what is this really about? It is once again about opposition by Herald Sun or 3AW dot points, bringing them in and just talking into the ether. There is no strategic justification for bringing this forward, because if those opposite were serious about protecting people from hate they would have contributed with meaningful impact on the anti-vilification bill. I still sit there and wonder why on earth the Liberal Party was opposed to the anti-vilification bill. With all that they are saying with this bill, they have the gumption to get in here, when multicultural communities, faith-based communities and LGBTIQA+ communities were begging the Parliament for support and assistance on ending hate, with dot points saying that we are a hate state.

James Newbury: A point of order, Speaker: relevance.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc was being relevant. He was referring to hate laws.

Tim RICHARDSON: This is really key. This is very –

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, we are debating the proposed introduction of a separate bill. This is not an opportunity for the member to slag off on the Liberal Party, which is what he is doing, to cover up the fact that this government will not introduce face bans.

Tim RICHARDSON: If you want to ban –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mordialloc, you will not continue your contribution if you continue to not listen to me. This is a standard bill that has been introduced. I understand that you have been talking about context. Come back to the bill.

Tim RICHARDSON: This goes to the necessary parts of how we debate and bring things forward as a Parliament and the consultation that needs to happen with those that help to enforce laws in our state. Respect that you cannot pick and choose. Those opposite cannot pick and choose the advice they want to seek from police when it suits their narrative, when the police commissioner is on the record expressing concerns about those protests. When the opportunity has come forward in the past to protect Victorians from some of the worst elements of hate, when we had that moment in time and all of our communities were pleading for that leadership, there was only one political party in here that was driving that forward. That is key to why this procedural approach and this bill do not stack up today. It is really concerning to hear the lead speaker in here describe Victoria in those terms, to hear him literally say ‘lawless’ and literally say that we are a ‘hate state’. What on earth is going on here that we talk Victoria down? It is an outrageous attack on Victorians to describe our state in this way.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (09:46): I am very pleased to rise to support the member for Caulfield, and I will speak on the issue that he is trying to bring this bill in to address, not some straw man that those opposite are really more interested in talking about.

A member interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: You are picking and choosing what you want to debate.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gippsland South, you have been warned. I will sit you down. Through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: On that point, Speaker, this is a debate about whether we have a debate on this legislation. Yesterday in this chamber we had the Premier saying on another piece of legislation that it was not a government bill, as though this Parliament is only for the government, as though the Parliament is not the representative of the people and does not have the opportunity to bring in legislation. The Premier went on to say they did not want to debate that bill because the opposition often gets it wrong. They are saying the same thing again today – well, bring it on. If the government does not think that our bills are right, if the government is not prepared to actually put –

Brad Battin interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Exactly. It is not brave enough to have the debate. Do not just shut us down. This is the people’s Parliament. It is a Parliament for the people; it is not a Parliament for the government or the executive.

This legislation that the member for Caulfield is trying to bring in is about giving some public order back to our state, because we have seen it over the last couple of years absolutely diminished. This legislation will get the balance right between ensuring that people have the right to protest and freedom of speech, but also that people going about their business literally – businesses in the CBD and elsewhere – and people moving through our cities and towns have opportunity. It also means that we have law and order right throughout the state.

As the member for Caulfield indicated, in the last two years 22,000 police shifts have been dedicated to 500 protests here in the city. That is not 22,000 police sitting around who are waiting for protests; they have to come from somewhere else. They have come not only from the suburbs but from our regional centres as well. Only last week I was speaking to a local police officer who is at his wit’s end with the resourcing issues that they are facing. This is one of the issues. They are constantly having to send people to cover shifts elsewhere, and in many cases it is because of these protests that are going on.

This is not just an issue for the city, it is an issue of public law and order right throughout our state, and to be honest, people are fed up. They are fed up not just with the protests that cause chaos and sometimes lead to violence, sometimes lead to violence against police, but they are fed up with the crime on the streets, and the poor police just do not have the resources to address them. I hear it time and time again. I have got family in the force, and they say they are dealing with what comes at them and nothing else because they do not have the resources, and protests are one of the reasons. This bill would get the balance right. We would introduce the protest registration system, and that system would give those who are doing the right thing protection from certain prosecution, such as for obstruction.

We know that the vast majority in the protests that occur do the right thing. I can think of the emergency services tax protest that blocked Spring Street and Bourke, where they did the right thing. There was disruption, yes, but they had already spoken to the police. That is an example of how this system would work. They would be registered. They would also have some protection against issues like obstruction.

There are those, though, who are not interested in peaceful protest. If you turn up to a protest wearing a ski mask, you – generic, Speaker – are not there for a peaceful protest. If you are doing that, then you are clearly not there to peacefully protest. That is why this legislation would also put in a ban on masks, because if you are turning up with a ski mask or a balaclava to a protest –

A member interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: or goggles – you have actually got to question your peaceful intent. I am all for freedom of protest and freedom of speech. This legislation would get the balance right. I commend the work of both the member for Caulfield and the member for Malvern, who have been working on this for some time – not talking about it like those opposite, who promised 240 days ago to do something. Now is your opportunity. Bring it on for debate and let us talk about it.

The SPEAKER: I remind members that the use of the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ is a reflection on the Chair, in whatever context they might be presented.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (09:51): I want to take the chamber back to an article that was published three years ago in the Age:

Several state Liberal MPs have encouraged a large and sometimes angry group of protesters gathered on the steps of Parliament House, some of whom had earlier chanted violent slogans around a full-sized gallows and called for people to “dance on the end of a rope”.

I think it is timely for those opposite to look in the mirror – literally turn it around and reflect on how you are contributing to –

The SPEAKER: Member for Albert Park, through the Chair.

Nina TAYLOR: I apologise to the Speaker, and I will take that. The opposition might wish to consider their behaviour that is on public record. Brad Battin’s Liberal Party opposed our land –

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind you to call members by their correct titles.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes. The opposition opposed our landmark Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, yet there were some reports on radio where it was as if they were trying to claim they were the masters of that bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, are we ever going to get to the matter before the house?

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Albert Park to come back to the procedural motion.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely, Speaker. I am speaking to the heart of what those opposite claim they are seeking to achieve with their proposed legislation as opposed to what it could actually deliver. There is hypocrisy in their behaviour, and there is a continuum of that. We know when it came to the delivery of our anti-vilification and social cohesion laws, our multicultural and multifaith communities were begging those opposite, as was said by the member for Mordialloc, to support the bill.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Member for Albert Park, this is a procedural motion. I ask you to come back to the motion.

Nina TAYLOR: I respect that 100 per cent, but I am also rebutting propositions that have been put by the opposition.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is debating the issue and debating your earlier ruling.

The SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park was responding to the point of order that was made previously, and the member for Albert Park said that she was rebutting what had been said by previous speakers. Your point of order is in relation to the procedural motion again. Member for Albert Park, I ask you to come back to the procedural motion.

Nina TAYLOR: Absolutely. Of course we have already laid out the government program for this week, which has already been voted upon. There is important legislation that needs to be debated and discussed today, including regarding bail laws et cetera, and it is interesting that those opposite are seeking to delay those processes. It is interesting in the context of them claiming to be the saviours of lawfulness in this state, when I have already put on the table – because these are some of the issues that I am seeking to rebut – propositions by those opposite when they are trashing the state of Victoria, which they want to do on nearly every sitting of Parliament, claiming that it is completely lawless. That implies that all Victorians have no respect for the law, which I find incredibly offensive. This is not in any way to excuse the behaviour of a small number of extremists who have behaved in a disgraceful manner. Nobody is resiling from that in any way, shape or form, but to declare every Victorian as lawless –

Steve Dimopoulos: Except those protesting against the emergency services levy; they’re okay.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, exactly right. That was different, that was special and that is allowed. Or maybe having gallows on the front steps of Parliament is allowed by the opposition, so it is interesting what they choose to approve. And also there were some pretty disparaging remarks about the Premier. I must say they were absolutely disgraceful, and anyone in this chamber who is backing them in should hang their head in shame, because that is absolutely a double standard. When you are coming here professing that you are going to resolve all hate, because you have not been the beacons of –

The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Albert Park again, as I remind all members, that it is not appropriate to use the word ‘you’.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, indeed the repeated use of the word ‘you’ is clearly in breach of the earlier advice that you gave to the house, which the member is ignoring.

The SPEAKER: Indeed. Members need to be conscious of not using that word.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (09:56): I support the member for Caulfield’s motion because it is urgent. It is urgent because the protest culture which we see in Victoria, which new Chief Commissioner of Police Mike Bush himself described as the protest capital of Australia – the government’s own appointment called Victoria that – poses a threat to the health and safety of members of Victoria Police, it poses a threat to members of the Victorian community, it poses a threat to the resourcing of Victoria Police and it poses a threat to the Victorian economy.

Last September, do you remember the Land Forces protest? Do you remember that protesters threw acid at members of Victoria Police? They threw horse manure at members of Victoria Police and they threw bottles at Victoria Police. Twenty-four members of that distinguished frontline service were injured and needed medical care. Not only does this protest culture, which is only getting worse, pose a threat to the health and safety of our first responders, the fine men and women of Victoria Police and members of our ambulance services and firefighting authorities, but it poses a threat to the resourcing of Victoria Police, and that is why this bill is urgent. My friend and colleague the member for Caulfield has spoken about the 22,000 police shifts which have been spent on these violent protests. It is difficult to put a number value next to a police shift, but let us say a police shift on average to tend to these violent protests costs a thousand dollars. That is over $22 million that could have been spent elsewhere in our justice system. Instead it is going to police thugs and to protect innocent bystanders and the Victorian people from violent protests, which are not a manifestation of democratic expression in our state.

Do you remember the violent protests around the Port of Melbourne? This bill that the member for Caulfield is trying to introduce is important because there are threats to our economy, and Victorians pay the price of that. If protesters violently blockade Webb Dock or Swanson Dock and stop essential medical supplies coming in or important goods and services reaching their destination in Victoria, that poses a threat to the Victorian economy, and Victorian families and businesses pay the price of that. Why is the government stonewalling? There are threats to health and safety, there are threats to Victoria Police resourcing, there are threats to our economy and our economic reputation at a time where other states in this country are looking –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, as you have already ruled, this is a narrow procedural motion, and the member on his feet is now debating a bill that has not even been presented to the house. I ask that you bring him back to the narrow procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Hawthorn to come back to the procedural motion.

John PESUTTO: That is why this bill is urgent, because there are serious threats facing the Victorian economy and the Victorian people. What this five-point plan does is strike the right balance. It corrects the balance. The government says that its anti-vilification laws will do the trick. They will not. They are reactive to events that have already occurred. What our five-point plan does is equip Victoria Police and other law enforcement agencies with the implements they need to be able to change the culture to protect Victorian households, businesses and our economy – move-on laws, a protest registration system, exclusion zones and face covering bans – all the while protecting the right to protest. What could possibly be wrong with that? Even our charter of human rights in Victoria, which has been a longstanding part of the statute books, only protects peaceful protest. So what is the hold-up here? Why the lack of an appetite to take action when our state stands to lose so much? Let us remember Victoria Police over a year ago actually supported a protest registration system. That might change under the Chief Commissioner of Police, but I would ask the government to take on board the bill that the member for Caulfield is trying to introduce here. It is good for Victoria. It puts us on a par with the rest of the country, which long ago saw the good sense in making sure that balance between free speech and protecting the community is strong.

John LISTER (Werribee) (10:02): Our community is a vibrant and multicultural state where we can work and play free of harassment and intimidation. What we have seen recently with a series of concerning incidents out there in the community is a small minority of extremists who have made the choice to threaten the safety of others. While those opposite have raised precious points of order, trying to bring it back to the half-baked idea that they have brought into this house, I want to go to the procedure behind what they are trying to get to and talk a little bit more about what they have already done in this house which threatens the multiculturalism and vibrancy that we have in communities like mine in Wyndham. They have opposed anti-vilification laws and social cohesion bills. While the member for Brighton may be ready to spring up as I talk about this anti-vilification legislation, I think it is particularly important.

Last week I met with year 8s from Werribee Secondary College to talk about this legislation. We spoke about the roles of it when it comes to protests, and they understood why we need to have these laws. It baffles me that those opposite still chose to oppose it. Now they are out there with slogans that do nothing to protect Victorians. I saw the member for Caulfield out this morning doing a selfie video. I know they are trying to –

James Newbury: On a point of order, on relevance, this is not an opportunity to sledge, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I think that horse has bolted. Member for Werribee, come back to the procedural motion.

John LISTER: On the procedure of how this particular motion has been brought to the house, I am just showing my cynicism when it comes to their process over there in bringing this to the house while we are going through and working with our police to be able to come up with laws that meet their needs. They are trying to reach out to gen Z, who are reluctant to vote for them, with their selfie videos – jeez, what desperation.

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Speaker: relevance.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Werribee to come back to the procedural motion.

John LISTER: I am coming back to the process that has happened around that side bringing this law to Parliament. Let us turn to the origins of this rushed legislation from those opposite. Consultation through Mr Deery of the Herald Sun, who loves a leaked story from that side, is not how we bring legislation to this house.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask the member to table the speech that he is reading from.

The SPEAKER: Is the member for Werribee reading?

John LISTER: I am referring to notes.

The SPEAKER: Member for Werribee to continue.

John LISTER: What I will also do is refer to my notes, where I will read a quote from the Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr Bush. The new chief commissioner told the ABC:

We’ve had a look to see if it will be effective, where we’ve landed is that it’s not worth bringing in …

these sorts of laws. You are going against what the chief commissioner –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Werribee.

John LISTER: Pardon me. We have had that this whole debate. Those opposite are going against what the Chief Commissioner of Police has said himself. This goes to the process of this coming here. The Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful, because they are openly ignoring Victoria Police’s clear and repeated advice that protest permits will not help. They have been out of government so long that they have forgotten about the Victoria Police Act 2013 and section 10, which there have been actual reviews into from Liberal Party members actively defying that part of the legislation. Those opposite have form when it comes to crossing this line. We take our advice from the chief commissioner and his members, because they are professionals when it comes to maintaining order and security. Those opposite could only dream of order and security in their own ranks. Now I think it is pretty –

Nicole Werner: Speaker, my point of order is relevance over what the member for Werribee is speaking about. We would like to go back to the procedural motion at hand.

The SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (28): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway

Noes (51): Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, 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, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, 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, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.