Wednesday, 4 February 2026

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (10:42): I move:

That the scope of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 be extended to enable consideration of amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 to provide that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required for a police officer to commence a prosecution for an offence against section ‍195N(1) or 195O(1) of that act unless the accused is under the age of 18 years.

Last year this government passed nation-leading anti-vilification and social cohesion laws, and these laws were designed very squarely to crack down on people who seek to whip up racism and hatred against their fellow Victorians simply because of who they are, who they love or who they pray to. I want to acknowledge the many community leaders, advocates, legal experts and organisations who worked constructively with the government to ensure the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024 passed this Parliament. Of course those laws did not pass this Parliament with the support of the opposition, and even after community leaders and faith leaders pleaded with those opposite to support these new laws, those opposite did not.

In the passage of these nation-leading reforms, an amendment was made to the bill in the Legislative Council. That amendment requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before police can prosecute criminal vilification and hate conduct offences for alleged offenders over the age of 18. While we acknowledge that that amendment was very well intentioned, it has the real potential to delay hate crimes being heard by the courts. Requiring DPP consent before police can prosecute creates an additional step, and that can slow the path to justice for victims of hate-motivated offending. This government is very clear: people who spread antisemitism, racism and hatred must be held to account, and they must face justice as swiftly as possible and at the earliest opportunity. That is why we are proposing this amendment to restore the provision to its original form. Returning the bill to its original framework will ensure that police can act promptly and that hate-motivated offending is dealt with without unnecessary delay.

Following the tragic Bondi terrorist attack last year, the Premier committed as a matter of urgency to bringing new laws into this place to remove the requirement for DPP to consent to police prosecutions of criminal vilification, and that is the amendment that is being moved today. The Premier made this commitment to removing the amendment and effectively restoring the framework to its original provision because this government is absolutely committed to preventing extremism, combating antisemitism and keeping Victoria safe, strong and proud. Of course, as I said, we on this side of the house believe that every Victorian, whoever they are, whoever they love, whoever they pray to, has every right to live free from hate and harm.

The amendment before the house today restores the framework to its original provision prior to the changes that were made in the Legislative Council, and that is all it does. Once the bill later today receives royal assent this change will take effect immediately and will apply retrospectively to capture alleged hate crimes that have occurred since 20 September last year, when our nation-leading anti-vilification offences commenced. I commend the motion to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:46): Just for context and the clarity of the house, what the house is currently debating is a scope motion whereby the Attorney-General has moved a motion to expand the scope of the justice bill which we will be dealing with later today – in fact, I believe, next. The government’s amendment we have as a coalition always supported. I do not want to talk in double negatives here, but we never wanted the DPP brought into the process, which was a change that was made to the original bill. However, we have concerns, and I move an amendment, only to this scope motion:

That the words ‘unless the accused is under the age of 18 years’ be omitted.

I would like to say to the house what that means is that what we are proposing to do is to slightly reduce the wording of the scope motion. There should be no mistake in thinking that what we are moving relates to the bill itself or the amendments that the government will move later today. As far as I am aware the government is yet to move those amendments formally in this chamber. All we are seeking to do by way of this scope motion is delete the exemption, as it were, for young people who are committing incitement to be exempt from that process of the DPP tick-off before action can occur. As I said, this amendment only relates to that scope motion.

I can also say that if my amendment were not successful, we certainly would not be opposing the broader scope motion in its original form. When it comes to the bill more generally, if the government were, as the Attorney has anticipated, to move an amendment, as has been shared with me outside the chamber, of course our position has always been that we felt the change, which occurred because of a deal with the Greens, should not have been put in place in the first place. We will not frustrate in any way of course in this chamber the bill and the amendment in relation to that. Without going into the substance of the broader bill, it would be fair to say that there is nothing else in the broader bill that is anything other than non-controversial. So I just reiterate that what we are currently debating is the justice bill being expanded, and this motion allows for that expansion so that amendments that the Attorney has foreshadowed can be inserted into that bill. We are as a coalition proposing to slightly reduce that scope in so much as not allowing, unless the accused is under the age of 18 years, that scope, because our concern is that police have confirmed there is a youth crime crisis for a start.

There is no doubt that incitement of someone who is of the age of 17 – a 17-year-old committing the act of incitement – should not be, frankly, given a free pass. What is concerning – the Attorney is welcome to correct me – is that there have been no instances under the new laws that have been taken through the courts as yet. Currently nobody, despite what we know is happening on the streets every single day, has been found guilty of incitement under those laws that I am aware of. The Attorney may wish to correct me if I am wrong, but there have not been any examples.

Clearly, with the government’s amendment that is being moved today, the government has accepted ‍– and I take it in absolute good faith – the amendment that the Attorney has foreshadowed in correcting that mistake in the original bill to take out the Director of Public Prosecutions tick-off, as it were. I accept that in goodwill. The coalition is foreshadowing right now that we will do nothing to frustrate that in the debate that is about to occur on that bill and the passage of that bill through this place. Of course we would not, because that has been our position all along. When it comes to this issue, though, the former Shadow Attorney was managing the bill initially and, I am sure, had a working relationship with the government. I know that the former Shadow Attorney took every opportunity to work in good faith. I would reiterate and say that when it comes to issues such as this, I hope that the Shadow Attorney now and the Attorney can always deal with issues such as this outside the chamber in the first instance to try and develop policy that can get through the chamber, to put it simply. I would put on record that after making a request, the Attorney and her office have certainly done that in relation to these amendments, and I thank the Attorney for that discussion over recent days.

I have flagged that I am concerned about the loophole for under-18s. In a youth crime crisis, if a 17-year-old commits an act of incitement, I do not think there should be a loophole for that behaviour. We saw just yesterday the chamber come together to speak about the Bondi incident, which is one of the most horrific and tragic incidents in Australia’s history, and within hours we had a bunch of feral animals on the front steps of Parliament writing inciting graffiti on our very steps. Just right across the steps of this building they were writing it. My understanding is – and I do intend to do more with this ‍– that some of these animals are using chalk specifically because they know that as it is not a permanent marker, as it were, the police cannot charge them with the type of offence for which they deserve to be charged: a serious offence. This is what police are advising. Police are advising that when you use chalk, it is not of the permanency that, for example, paint would be charged for. This is what the police are advising. Do not shoot the messenger. Yesterday afternoon there was this horrible defacing of our very chamber within moments of or, in fact I am sure, whilst were debating a Bondi motion.

So I would say: why would we be seeking, when it comes to incitement, to say it is okay to incite if you are under 18? Why is it okay? What the government is arguing is that the DPP have to tick it off, but the practical effect is that under the new laws it has not happened. So there is a process that is being put in place where there are no examples of incitement under these new laws. No-one has been found guilty of incitement. Incitement is occurring every single day. Incitement was occurring on the front steps of this very Parliament yesterday while were dealing with a motion on Bondi. Incitement occurred on the steps of Parliament. Could it have been closer? It could not have been closer to this building. It was on the building that incitement occurred. There have been no instances where someone has been found guilty of incitement, and I would put to the chamber that it is because, frankly, the DPP mechanism does not work. It hamstrings the entire process. I would say therefore: why would we say we want to hamstring circumstances where someone might be 17 and commit an act of incitement? If they are 17 and they commit an act of incitement, the police should be able to charge them. That is what should happen. They should be able to be charged. They should not have to go through a very longwinded weeks-long administrative process where the DPP ticks it off. That is all we are saying.

I would like to reiterate to the chamber that what we are considering now is not the amendment. To be very clear, it is not the amendment. The amendment has not yet been circulated. What we are amending is a scope motion which enables the government to move the amendment itself to the bill, which we will, I understand, be debating next. I would not want anybody to misunderstand what is occurring. This is simply a procedural motion that allows the scope of the bill to be expanded so an amendment can be introduced. As I have said, not only will we not be opposing the scope motion if my amendment were not to succeed, but in relation to the amendments, as the government, I understand, seeks to move in the bill, we will not be frustrating those or the bill in any way. I reiterate finally that my amendment simply removes from the scope motion ‘unless the accused is under the age of 18 years’ on the basis that when you are 16, when you are 17, you should not get a free pass for acts of incitement. Unfortunately, the DPP process does exactly that. We know from practice that the DPP tick-off process has resulted in not a single guilty finding of incitement, so the new laws are not working, and we accept the government is moving amendments this afternoon in recognition of that. What we are saying is incitement should not be dependent on age and people who are 17 years old should not get a free pass to commit acts of incitement.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (10:59): I am rising to speak on this motion to expand the scope of the bill that we are due to discuss later this day, the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I just want to reflect on a few of the things that the member for Brighton has mentioned in moving his amendment to what the Attorney-General has put forward. The fantastic thing about Parliament is that we have receipts. I was going through Hansard from when this bill was introduced into this house way back last year, and this sudden interest in the under-18 provision seems to be very new. In that debate only two members of this house mentioned under-18s or children. I did a bit of a fuzzy search on it, and in that the only member of the other side who spoke about the under-18 provision was the member for Eildon. The member for Eildon went to this provision without any kind of objection to the idea that the DPP should have a role with people under 18 being charged with these offences, stating that under-18 provision as if it was a given – and I am happy to be corrected by the member or those opposite later on. But it is really important that we do not frustrate having this scope for what will be the debate later on in this house around introducing this amendment, because having this kind of ability to be able to debate this amendment is really important.

I say that because we have seen a lot over this summer. We had our condolence motion yesterday about Bondi, where a lot was revealed about one of the ugliest, oldest forms of discrimination that we have seen in humanity in human history. Not only did we see what happened in Bondi, but we saw so many examples of vilification and hatred all throughout the summer, and in fact it is still continues. Over the summer the Islamic community in Wyndham has been subjected to graffiti attacks, and that graffiti – the member for Tarneit knows this because he has seen it, and unfortunately I have seen it too – was seeking to be funny, making light about sacred Islamic tenets. This was broadcast across social media, which is a bit of a bin fire, let us be honest. In that broadcasting I unfortunately opened up the comments and went through the comments, and in those comments, people were saying, ‘Oh, it’s meant to be a joke. Take it as a joke.’ Well, it is not a joke to the Islamic community, and I think it is particularly important to remember this, because when those opposite frustrated the passage of this bill through the houses last year –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a procedural debate on a scope motion; it is not reiterating the debate on the original bill. I would ask the member to come back to this scope motion we are dealing with.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I was conferring with the clerks at that immediate point, but I was listening to the debate up until that point, and the member for Werribee was being germane to the motion. I just encourage the member for Werribee to ensure he remains safe.

John LISTER: I am speaking towards the process that we have taken to get to where we are today, which I think is particularly important in considering this scope motion and the reason why we have to do this. The provisions that we have in that bill, which respect the community, are to be tested on what that community feels was frustrated in that debate, and it was frustrated. We have to remember ‍–

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, respectfully, the member is debating another section of the bill, not the substance of the actual scope motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, I will rule on the point of order again. I have been listening to the member’s contribution, and I think he is referring to the process by which this has come here, rather than a future bill. But again, I just reiterate the need for all members to ensure that they are speaking on the motion or the member for Brighton’s amendment to the motion.

John LISTER: It is important to consider this process because it does go to why we have to have this motion today. Those opposite voted against that bill last year, and we are now in the position where we have to go back to what was originally in the bill. We would like to make sure that we have the ability to debate that through this motion that we have got before the house today. The member for Brighton seems particularly agitated by the fact that this is history now repeating itself. We have been here before. We should not even –

James Newbury: And you got it wrong.

John LISTER: No. I will take up the member for Brighton’s interjection. We did what we had to do to get that bill through Parliament so that people could start being protected, because the member for Brighton and his party objected to it and voted against the bill. I again go back to the member for Brighton’s contribution, where he was referring to the under-18 provisions and making sure that there was a change, according to his amendment, to be able to not have that in a future amendment on the next bill. It is the problem with these procedures – anyway, classic Parliament.

This sudden obsession with the under-18 provision, despite not raising it 12 months ago, I think is pretty cynical. I respect that the member for Brighton did say that they do not want to frustrate the process. And I will make sure that we hold them to account in the debate on the amendments, that they will not frustrate this process. The under-18 provisions were there because we know that there are characteristics and vulnerabilities for people under 18 that need to be carefully considered, and the DPP are appropriate to do that. As someone who has spent a lot of time with young people, I know that there are complexities that need to be considered to make sure that this is done properly. However, it does not mean that they can get away with it.

James Newbury interjected.

John LISTER: I do not know if the member for Brighton has a crystal ball, but we would not be in this position if you did not vote against the bill in the form that the government introduced it 12 ‍months ago. And here we are again. I will remind all the multifaith communities and the multicultural communities – all those communities that have been targeted in my community that I represent – that the Liberal and National parties stood with One Nation in the other place and voted against this original bill, which is why we are returning to this process and this motion today. I will remind the community every day of why we are here and why we have to do this. We had this in the original bill, and now we are back here doing it again. And I will remind that community time and time again, as I have been, that they have been abhorred by the actions of those opposite last year in partnering with One Nation to oppose the original bill.

We did what we had to do to pass that bill, to make sure that it was in force and we could start working with it, but it is clear that we need to go back and we need to make sure that we can prosecute people for this hateful action. The Premier has committed to it. I wish this motion a speedy passage through this place and I wish the amendments a speedy passage, because we need to get this in place now. It is 12 months too late, and we would not be here if it were not for those opposite. I commend the motion in full to the house.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:07): I too would like to thank for all their incredible efforts the multifaith and multicultural communities who contributed to the bill proper, and I will concur: we are of course discussing the scope here today. But I was Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, and I know the very careful and prudent work that was led, in terms of consultation, to be sure of reaching a consensus. Indeed that consensus was achieved, and in earnest certainly representatives from those various groups were very eager for the bill to be passed in the first place. So I think it is a little bit rich from the opposition now to be lecturing us about the central tenets of the bill, when in fact they were opposing it rather vehemently historically. That is a little bit of recreating history, and I think if I were to extend that limb a little bit further, if we were to see why they were opposing it, well, in part they opposed the anti-vilification bill because it extends equal protection to LGBTQIA+ people.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, before I rule on any point of order that you might have, I just remind you about appropriate language in the chamber and ask you to withdraw.

James Newbury: I withdraw. On a point of order, Acting Speaker, a substantive debate on the bill is not relevant to this procedural motion, and the member is debating the substantive bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, what I have heard of the member for Albert Park’s contribution is, again, dealing with the process by which this motion has come to the house. I was conferring with clerks and those in the chamber for the preceding 10 seconds. I do not need to hear again from you, member for Brighton. Member for Albert Park, I would ask you to ensure that you are entirely germane to the motion and the amendment to that motion.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have now raised three instances of relevance, two of which you did not hear and the third which you did not find substance in. All of them had substance, and I would just say to you that dealing with the substance –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, I do not think there is a point of order. It is a reflection upon the Chair, what you have just said. There are noise and conversations in the chamber. I am seeking to follow the debate.

Nina TAYLOR: Duly noted. If we think about the fundamental purpose here today – and indeed we are discussing scope – and what it is that we should all, as parliamentarians, be united on, it is standing firmly against extremism and hate. This is certainly the fundamental tenet that is driving the optimisation of the bill, the anti-vilification social cohesion laws.

Coming to the aspect of the amendment proposed by the motion, the purpose of the safeguard with regard to offenders under 18, the safeguard ensures that the unique characteristics and vulnerabilities of those under 18 are considered. It recognises that in many cases a more appropriate response for those under 18 would be educating them about the harm caused by these behaviours. Requiring DPP consent for those under 18 alone is also consistent with the offences prohibiting Nazi symbols and gestures – laws which, unlike last year’s anti-vilification bill, were supported by the opposition. If we are thinking about elements of consistency, we can see that there is consistency here in terms of what we are proposing with the bill that will be put before the chamber shortly. I am just putting forward that point, and I am speaking very specifically to the scoping issue just to say that there is consistency with what was proposed with the Nazi symbol and gesture laws, which were passed and supported by the opposition. We can see a variance here in their approach, which is intriguing – and that is probably me being generous in using that adjective. But I am just saying, if you are going to throw this vitriol at the government, then you might also want to review the manner and the consistency with which the opposition has applied itself in terms of how the process is to be handled. I just think that is an important point that should not be simply glossed over when it comes to discussing something as serious as fighting against hate and antisemitism in this chamber. I will take that further in light of the very deeply felt and heart-wrenching experience that the nation has experienced with the Bondi massacre. None of us want to in any way protract the process today, because we absolutely and unequivocally – and I can speak for the government, and I would like to think the opposition would be on board with this – want to minimise or mitigate the risk of any delay when it comes to processes to tackle hate and antisemitism.

I think that it is really important to think about how much work it took to get to this point – very diligent and careful work. I understand and I should say from the outset that if we look historically at the position of the government, the amendment proposed in the legislation that we will be debating today restores the framework originally proposed in the bill before it was amended in the Legislative Council. I put a caveat there and note that the amendment that was passed in the Council was made with good intention behind it. I am not here to repudiate the intention or in any way undermine what was sought in terms of that amendment being agreed to. Again I will come back to that point from the outset: that the opposition do need to take a good hard look at themselves when they are criticising us over a particular element, which is the way that under-18s are to be processed in terms of DPP consent, when in fact they opposed the bill outright when it was put before the chamber. You can see here that we are being consistent in terms of our approach and in terms of prohibiting the Nazi symbol and gesture when we are looking at the particular vulnerabilities and characteristics of those under 18. We can see that it is important these are considered when we are dealing with such delicate and difficult scenarios in our community. These are some of the most horrific, damaging and hurtful acts and situations that can occur, and it cuts through all of us: you hurt one Victorian, you hurt all Victorians. I think we are absolutely and unequivocally united in making sure that we mitigate the risk of any delay to hate crimes being heard in court.

Accordingly I would urge all those in this chamber – of course on the side of the government we are absolutely united on this front – to support the motion unamended and to make sure that we are able to proceed with a good and thorough debate but then a speedy passage of the bill for the greater good of our Victorian community, respecting the incredible efforts of multifaith cultural representatives who have made considerable contributions to the fruition of this extremely important legislation, noting that we are debating a motion that precedes the further amendment to the bill. On that front I want to urge the opposition to support the bill.

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, support the motion, I will correct.

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, no, you have put a caveat, because you have put an amendment to the house, and you know that. Just to be factual, there is an amendment put by the opposition to the motion. You have not unequivocally said you will support the motion, because there is an amendment put –

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: We will greatly appreciate the opposition supporting the motion, noting that there is an amendment put forward by the opposition. I do not mean to make light of what is actually really serious subject matter, so on that note we urge all the chamber to unequivocally support the motion unamended.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General has moved a motion to extend the scope of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 to enable the consideration of some amendments to the Crimes Act 1958. The member for Brighton has moved an amendment to that motion to omit the words ‘unless the accused is under the age of 18 years’ from the motion. The house will deal with the member for Brighton’s amendment first. The question is:

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

Assembly divided on question:

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (11:26): Under standing orders, I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:27): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. At the outset I say the coalition will not be opposing the bill both in terms of the original substance of the bill – and I will speak to the original substance of the bill in some detail throughout the contribution – but also in relation to the amendments that the government has just circulated in relation to the consent of public prosecutions provision, which has just been inserted into the bill after some debate around the scope of that provision. I would like to put on record from the outset that both in relation to the original substance of the bill and the amendment which I have been handed – which, to be fair, the Attorney-General’s office did circulate to me prior to the commencement of debate – the coalition does not oppose either the original bill or the amendment. I would like that noted; and in no way will we be frustrating the bill.

I might start by speaking to the original substance of the bill and then speak in some detail around the amendments that have just been brought in by the government. The bill itself is what we like to call an omnibus bill, which deals with a number of matters, some of which some may look at and not immediately understand the importance of, but they are important things. They are important reforms. Sometimes the little things make big differences to people and make big differences to the way our state operates, and that is certainly the case with a number of amendments in this bill.

Firstly, this bill implements recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report, which provides clarity in relation to legacy suppression orders. There has been some debate around suppression orders more generally in recent times and the use of suppression orders. So I would say in principle – not just in relation to the specifics of legacy suppression orders, which are dealt with in this bill – it is important for, I think, the use of suppression orders and the ease with which suppression orders can be varied where it is appropriate for them to be, for want of a better term, modernised.

Part of the reform that we are considering today in this bill in relation to suppression orders is, I would argue, to ensure clarity so that courts can deal with suppression orders and make decisions around suppression orders across courts, but I think it would also be fair to say it would modernise the process of suppression orders. I think more will need to be said around suppression orders more generally, because there is no question that suppression orders are being overused and they are being used primarily in cases where an alleged crime has been committed, often of a sexual nature, against a woman. There is no doubt that in some of the early rough figures that you can look at on suppression orders it would probably be fair to say in the vicinity of four out of five instances in the listings I have seen on suppression orders are of that kind. There is no question that they are being used by a particular alleged offender. I think that the community more broadly would be very concerned if suppression orders were being used by alleged offenders in those circumstances, because these are very serious matters.

As we have seen in high-profile cases recently, I think the community has an expectation that, if you are charged with an offence, the legal system should not provide an opportunity for you to, frankly, hide your name. There will be circumstances where it is needed – of course there are; genuine circumstances – and in no way would I argue against that fact. However, I think it would also be fair to say if you were alleged to have offended, you may well try and use that mechanism to hide your name from public attention. I am not specifically referring to any person, but you may use a mechanism that enables you to effectively hide your name where there is no good reason to and, had you committed any other offence, you probably would not have done so. I think we need to balance up this policy matter, and I think that this policy matter has come to the fore because of recent issues that have received public attention. I note that these particular measures in the bill are important in terms of modernising suppression orders. They just start in relation to legacy matters, which are effectively longstanding suppression orders, and the capacity of courts to deal with those matters and make variations of those matters. I think beyond this we need to have a broader conversation about policy more broadly. So that is the amendment in relation to that.

There are a number of amendments in the bill that relate to the Coroners Court and investigations, where they are effectively non-controversial matters, in terms of streamlining those processes and ensuring that registered deaths and reporting obligations around them can be simplified. I think many members in this place may have unfortunately dealt with a circumstance where a family has gone through a difficult reporting of a death in a non-controversial manner in their family. That is no reflection, of course, on the registration of that other than to understand that modernising and streamlining, through this bill, those processes to enable reporting to occur more quickly in a very difficult time for a family, as family of a loved one, can only be a good thing. That is what this bill does in relation to that. It does modernise, to use the term again, that reporting process and enables reporting to be done by other expert people – that is probably the simplest way to say it – to ensure that reporting can be streamlined where there is not a substantive concern in relation to that passing.

Further, there are a number of other modernisations in relation to fine-related matters. For example, it clarifies the serving of fines in a number of ways, moving us into the electronic age. We are moving into the electronic age in relation to some of the measures of this bill. It might have taken us a couple of decades, but we are getting there. So there will be clarity of service in relation to electronic means, and an amendment in this bill makes clear that an electronic service is equivalent to a non-electronic service, which, again, I think most people would probably presume is already the case, frankly. But I think it is an important amendment and a reasonable amendment and not a controversial amendment whereby, as I said, most people I think would expect it to be that way. I think that most Victorians would probably presume that is the case. It is not the case. That is what the amendments in this bill do. I will not go into all of the various modernisations in relation to those matters because they relate to a number of other small things that are probably less worth noting other than my broader comments.

I do want to talk about the simplification of the extension-of-time rule for people who receive fines. I think, again, as a member – and I am sure many members in this place will have found this – there have been very genuine times where someone needed an extension of time where they received a fine that was not warranted for them because of the circumstances, but the process by which the government or the department was able to provide an extension of time was quite cumbersome. I know only recently I was dealing with a matter that was self-evident, and as soon as it was raised with the relevant minister, the department immediately ensured that the matter was resolved. However, there are some difficulties in the cumbersome nature of the requirement of that extension being granted. So one of the things that this bill does is make sure that application process is cleaner, which is a good thing.

Those are probably some of the more substantive matters in general terms in the bill. I would like to also talk a little bit about some of the feedback on those things that have been received. I will start with talking about the Law Institute of Victoria’s feedback. The law institute are frankly incredible at looking at forthcoming legislation and providing a lens. The institute is made up of an extremely broad spectrum – in fact the entire spectrum – of the legal fraternity, so it looks at upcoming legislation with a very broad scope and is always able to in an extremely timely and in fact probably unfair timeframe. This bill of course we have had several months to look at, but in some circumstances the institute will look at a bill overnight. I know the team there often watch Parliament, believe it or not. I do not know if that is a work benefit or otherwise – an unfortunate side of being in the office – but they will often overnight have a look at a piece of proposed legislation and provide feedback, so I thank them for that.

I think it would be fair to say in relation to the bill they do consider, though, it is an omnibus bill. It does go beyond simply the minor amendment, and there are a number of matters that I spoke to where the institute has argued that they are more substantive policy changes rather than minor ones, and they have noted that – not in a negative way per se, but they do feel that the omnibus bill goes beyond that. In general terms, like the coalition, they are not in opposition to the omnibus bill, but they do note that. They have made a couple of comments in relation to specific things – the suppression order matter that I spoke about earlier. They agree in terms of the amendment that:

… the status quo necessarily strains Supreme Court resources and impedes access to justice …

I think with that phraseology – and it is one that I did not use when I was speaking to the issue earlier; I did not use that specific phrase, though I did talk about suppression orders and fairness – access to justice is important. I think oftentimes legal processes are put in place whereby there will be victims who feel that their access to justice, for want of a better phrase, is constrained, and I think suppression orders are an example of that. So they have noted their support of the measures, as I did earlier. They did talk about the importance, considering there will be some practical things that play out as these reforms are implemented, that probably cannot be foreseen on a day-to-day basis through the courts. So the institute:

… recommends that the Judiciary is consulted to confirm whether existing court and tribunal practice notes and forms provide sufficient direction and requirement to notify affected parties to an application of suppression order review.

So I think it is worth noting that from a practical perspective, though, that they support the amendment and that there are some practical things which I would hope the government takes on board in terms of application, because sometimes you can do a good thing and you would not want to see that good thing constrained in terms of how it gets brought into force, as it were, with the institute, who are on the ground, noting that, and their advice I think is meritorious.

The institute have raised, in relation to fines reform, a particular concern around the false information fine. Politely, though, I think it is worth noting that that is their concern and understanding that their concern stems from the fact that false information is sometimes given by people who are disadvantaged. The institute has, to precis them, framed it in that way. I completely understand where that concern comes from. I think when I take the reforms in this bill on balance, I do not see the same level of concern by what is proposed in the bill, but I do think it is important to note their concern. I think that they have provided it in good faith, and so I think that is worth noting.

May I also note feedback from the Community Advocacy Alliance. They have specifically raised concern with the Coroners Court amendments and the streamlining of those processes and are just wanting to make sure about some details in relation to those processes and the Chief Commissioner of Police. To quote them:

This gives the same power to an interested party as the Chief Commissioner of Police, which basically makes the new power a moot point. Our comment is that it is just window dressing and not a substantial new improvement in power and unlikely to bring justice to offended parties.

I note that. In relation to the Drug Court, which I did not speak to in detail, which was my overlooking the bill also – I should have; that was a mistake on my part – the bill also extends what was a trial of the Drug Court effectively into an ongoing matter. Otherwise, the Drug Court effectively would have been discontinued by the middle of the year, from memory. So that is a notable amendment that is being made in the bill. The Community Advocacy Alliance’s view in relation to part of that amendment is:

The amendments progress the Drug Court division of the County Court by transitioning from the pilot phase to an ongoing phase. This is largely procedural and might be better dealt with politically …

or dealt with in a different manner. There are questions of course with that continuance around funding and ongoing funding and those questions, and I do not say that in a political way. Those questions, I think, are fair and reasonable to talk about in terms of ongoing funding and clarity around funding into the future. I think I have fairly covered most of the bill in relation to what was originally the case. As I said earlier, on the original matters in the bill the coalition at no time saw it as anything other than an omnibus bill.

I will now move to the amendments that the Attorney has just circulated – just for background. I would like my contribution not to be taken initially as making any partisan points, but rather, I suppose, it is to catch up on how we got to here on these matters. Obviously we have some amendments that have been moved as part of this bill which are effectively the government, however you want to phrase this, admitting the need to change the hate speech laws that were introduced a year ago. They included a measure on incitement whereby to ensure, as the government has openly said, the bills passed the Parliament a Director of Public Prosecutions tick-off was given in those matters. So rather than the police simply being able to charge and the matter proceeding, there was a hurdle whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions had to tick that off. What has unfortunately been the case – and I spoke across the table to the Attorney during the debate earlier – is that there have been no instances of finding of guilt on any matter of incitement that I am aware of, and the Attorney did not correct me. There have been no instances of incitement, no findings of guilt, under these new laws – none.

I think it would be very fair to say that the government has recognised that the DPP tick-off is clearly part of the reason why. You would never say it is solely the reason why, because there are of course other matters in consideration on the capacity to charge. I mean, we can take a lot of things – people wearing face masks and whether or not people are able to have their face masks removed so that they can actually be identified to be charged. All of these things of course play in. I do not want to simply blame this on one thing. However, there is no doubt that the administrative delay and the evidence burden requirement the Director of Public Prosecutions tick-off are causing – and substantially causing ‍– a lack of instances of incitement moving to an outcome that I think the community would expect.

I said this in an earlier debate. I look only at yesterday and the incredible motion that was moved in this place, and the speakers from both sides of the chamber – certainly not all sides of the chamber; there was a notable exception – who spoke to that motion spoke with emotion and spoke either as Jews or as strong friends of the Jewish community. But towards the end of that motion we had people on the steps of our own Parliament committing acts of incitement. It actually just breaks your heart to know that while we were trying to do frankly what is best about our Parliament – and it was an opportunity for us to do that – on the steps of the Parliament incitement was occurring, not in one instance but in many instances right across the steps. I have unfortunately received many photographs, because I was in the chamber, of what occurred on the steps and the graffiti that was strewn across the great steps of this great place. Incitement is occurring every day. Incitement and, frankly, hate against parts of our community are happening every single day.

I should refer to the member for Werribee, who made a contribution earlier where he spoke about acts of disgraceful incitement that occurred in his community over summer. Unfortunately we have seen a massive increase in the most outrageous and horrible behaviour by the ultra, ultra minority of the community. Good Australians do not behave like this. There is unfortunately an ultra, ultra minority of people who are behaving in the most outrageous way and saying the most disgusting things. But rather than doing it quietly where they perhaps in the past may have silently done it, they are now doing it in the streets. They are now doing it by writing on our parliamentary building. They are doing it in an emboldened way, and I can understand why the government has sought to move legislation to deal with that – of course. I think that all good parties have said we need to do more, we need to be tougher and we need to make sure that crimes exist. I know the member for Caulfield and I have been advocating – he for longer than I, but certainly we advocated very, very strongly under the former Premier for the Nazi flag, the Nazi salute and the Nazi symbols to be dealt with by law. We called for that, and through a parliamentary committee process that eventually led to that being the case. But the member for Caulfield and I, to be fair, publicly called for that before the committee had proposed it and before the government had accepted those findings. These are what all the good people in this place have been calling for.

But when it comes to these amendments, I would say that it is absolutely essential we do everything that we can to make sure that where people commit a crime they are held to account, and there is a general feeling in the community that that is not the case enough in this state. It would be fair also to say that this amendment is an acceptance by the government that the system that was originally put into the bill did not work and does not work, and therefore the government is amending it. I am trying to be as non-political as possible in saying that the government have made an admission that the system that they put in place did not work. The government would say, and I accept what they are saying, that they had to compromise to pass a bill. Okay, so we are here today to try and correct that mistake, which we support. We will not frustrate that in any way; we support that. There was a conversation earlier about whether 17-year-olds should be allowed to incite or be given an additional loophole whereby if they are under the age of 18 they stay under the current system, which does not work. I think it is fair to note that our position was that if you are 17, for example, and you commit an act of incitement, you should not be dealt with differently than an 18-year-old who commits an act of incitement, especially under a system that has been proven not to work and that the government is amending with the admission that it is not working.

We know that if you are under 18 it is very unlikely, because there has been no instance of someone being found guilty of incitement under these laws. These amendments perhaps address concerns raised by us in relation to that loophole for people under 18. But these amendments are certainly welcome. When the deal was done with the Greens to pass the bill, we in this place, the former shadow attorney the member for Malvern and I spoke on those amendments. We were quite strong in our concerns about this particular matter and said that it would not work. We said that frankly it was a deal, and I think the government has accepted that and that we would need to come back and fix it one day because it would not work – and here we are. I accept that the government are doing that. I accept that they have recognised that the original deal done on that amendment has not worked.

What I would say is that it is all very well and good to have laws, but you have got to actually make sure they work. If they are not working, you have got to make sure that they work. You have got to work out how you can make them work. I think there is open incitement being committed on our streets. There is open antisemitism, there is open discrimination. These laws are well meaning and this amendment and acknowledgement are well meaning, but we need to do more. We need to make sure that where these laws exist, if they do not work, we work out how we can fix them. I accept that on this, the government has done so. We will not frustrate that in any way. We support the position the government has taken. More broadly, we have no concerns with the bill, so the coalition will not be opposing the bill today.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:57): I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting the bill. That is greatly appreciated. Certainly this is demonstrative of further action, because we know that there has been strong communication, and it is well understood that further action is required. I think that in this chamber I can speak for the government, and with the opposition being supportive of this legislation we are united in terms of wanting to do more and to take even more action. The passing of this bill from the outset in the first place was demonstrative of action when it was passed. We would have loved the opposition to have supported it when it was in its original framework. The reason that we are revisiting it today, we can see is in part – although it is an omnibus bill – to actually re-establish the original framework, ultimately with the fundamental tenet of being able to combat antisemitism and other forms of hate and to ensure that processes are put in place that do not delay the just and right prosecution of members of the community who commit or incite antisemitism and other forms of hate.

I am very, very – I think happy is the wrong word, but I am certainly unequivocally supportive, as are all members of the government, in terms of getting this amendment through for all the right reasons. I think the horrific antisemitic terrorist acts that were committed at the Bondi massacre will be stained in our memory forever. Taking this action is really, really important in terms of being able to enhance the way that we tackle antisemitism and other forms of hate as they occur in our community.

I should speak just a little bit further. I did speak previously on a motion with regard to the aspect of the under-18 component of the bill. Requiring the consent of the DPP, in terms of prosecuting under-18s, is also consistent with the offences prohibiting the Nazi symbol and gesture, laws which, unlike last year’s anti-vilification bill, were supported by the opposition. So you can see that the government is actually being consistent, noting the particular characteristics and vulnerabilities of those under 18. Certainly it is a complex space when it comes to tackling extreme behaviour, no question. I am certainly not an expert in that regard, to say the least.

I will say that the Holocaust centre I know does incredible work. I just want to note that, for the purposes of this discussion, when it comes to helping people – young people, and people of all ages, I believe – who have had antisemitic positions, if you like, or who think in a very racist manner or are hateful, they are so generous of heart in terms of being able to take them on the journey and to reach them with education. Part of that – and I do not want to simplify that, because it takes a lot of courage and a generous spirit to be able to actually reach out and to have those very difficult discussions – is to remember to bring back the humanity in all human beings. I think instead of seeing the ‘us and them’ and defining ourselves as different, we know that as human beings we all essentially have the same needs. Remembering that we all have blood through our veins et cetera and remembering that very human element is certainly – and I am not here to define the tactics that the Holocaust centre uses. But I must say I have been very moved by the way that they are able to show that courage and conviction and, in a very kind and supportive way, help to educate people who might otherwise have very extreme positions when it comes to seeing those who may not be of the same faith or ethnic background. So I do want to commend their incredible work when we are talking about education, and particularly those under 18. There are people in our community who do that beautiful work, and I am sure in many facets across the community – it will not be isolated to the Holocaust centre, but I think it is important to note that as well. So I am very buoyed about getting those reforms through.

I did say from the outset that this is an omnibus bill. There are other important elements being passed in this bill. For instance, certainly with regard to legacy suppression orders, there has already been significant reform to date, not least with the Open Courts Act 2013. If we think of the premise under which that act and the consolidation of suppression order powers have been brought about, when we are talking about courts and VCAT, the central tenets of that are that there is essentially a tension with allowing legacy orders per se to operate indefinitely, because they were not acquitted through the process of that consolidation. Hence the imperative today is to allow the legacy orders to be treated in a way which is not incredibly expensive and onerous. When you think about victims of family violence, victim-survivors of sexual offences, we have come such a long way in terms of transparency and in terms of tackling some of the most sinister activities that can occur in our community. So it is important to be consistent in terms of reviewing mechanisms and allowing a pathway that is affordable to review a mechanism, I should say, which is what this bill does, so that those legacy orders do not just by default operate indefinitely, and therefore the bill will allow persons with a sufficient interest in a pre-existing order, including victim-survivors of sexual offence or family violence offences or news media organisations, to apply to the relevant court or VCAT to review the order. The court or VCAT will be able to confirm, vary or revoke the pre-existing order, and you can see that therefore that is allowing a further pathway to justice with important caveats and protections as the case may need. For instance, protecting a particular witness might be an example. So that is certainly a very important piece of reform being brought about by this omnibus legislation.

I do want to proceed to a couple of further aspects of the bill. The mind boggles, I have to say, to even think about this, but when we talk about the criminal act of bestiality and note that there are reforms being brought about, not only is it a criminal act when we talk about penetrative acts, but fundamentally what underpins the protections here is to better protect animals from abuse and sexually exploitative behaviour, with existing exceptions for veterinary, agricultural, scientific research purposes – important caveats in this. But the bill will also introduce a suite of indictable offences into the Crimes Act 1958 to expressly criminalise producing, distributing, possessing or accessing bestiality or animal abuse material. The new offences are designed to disrupt and deter the supply of animal abuse material in and connected to Victoria by ensuring that targeted laws apply to individuals who create and share such content, as well as those who perpetuate demand by consuming it. It appals me, the thought of any of this behaviour. I am certainly an animal lover, and I am sure everyone in the Parliament is absolutely unequivocally united on this. I have to say it beggars belief that anyone would want to view this material, let alone partake in such horrific behaviour. So it is certainly very important that we are cracking down on this kind of behaviour, because it is certainly not in the best interests of the Victorian community, let alone our much-loved animal species. There are many more aspects to this omnibus bill, and I am sure my colleagues and those alike will speak to those shortly.

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (12:07): I rise today to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is an omnibus bill which has been reflected upon by previous speakers, and I am sure that each speaker will pick up a certain element of it that is relevant to their constituency, relevant to their personal interests, particularly aggrieves them or that they hope will address some issues in the community.

There are two aspects that I would like to specifically focus on, the first of which is the Drug Courts. The Drug Courts of course are an opportunity for people who are heavily drug-affected. Often there is a cohort of people who have got mental health issues also that are partially driving their offending, and the Drug Court does provide an opportunity for people to get that drug and alcohol rehabilitation support. It is very, very important that we have those opportunities available to those that are being sentenced but also to the wider community. I have had a couple of instances in my community of Lowan, and in Horsham and in Hamilton, where parents have actually come forward saying that it is part of the orders that they undertake drug and alcohol treatment. However, they are unable to access that, and this is a very big problem when often the offender or the person who has a drug or alcohol addiction issue knows that they need some support and treatment, the court orders them to get drug and alcohol treatment, their friends and family members want to support them to access drug and alcohol treatment and yet they cannot access that treatment in Victoria.

There has been a gross underinvestment in drug and alcohol rehabilitation beds and other treatment services right across the state. It means that Victorians have to wait longer for that treatment, and that can have disastrous impacts on not just that individual who needs to seek treatment but also family, friends and workplaces. We know that it leads to an increase in violence, including family violence and other violent offending. It is something that this government has failed to address. There are bottlenecks around accessing rehabilitation and treatment. In terms of the detox beds, there has not been an investment in that area in the state of Victoria, and as a result people are waiting longer and longer and longer for treatment and we are falling behind when it comes to the measure of how many rehab beds per Victorian there are available here, as opposed to New South Wales.

We need to get to a point of parity – and this is something I have been saying for a very long time, about 10 years – so we need to make sure we invest in those support services. It is an important aspect of health services. If we do not address this, we will have consequential issues which are far more expensive for the taxpayer to deal with than actually just providing treatment that people need when they need it. Speaking to people who have an alcohol addiction and have to white-knuckle it until they can get support and treatment – this is not good enough in this state. While the Drug Court in and of itself is a good thing – in my view it is good for the community and for those who are offending due to their drug and alcohol issues – we have got other parts of the puzzle that need to be put in place to be able to allow for those orders to be enacted, not just for those that offend, but for the broader Victorian community as well.

The second element that I would like to speak to in this omnibus bill is in regard to the animal abuse amendments. Of course I do not know of anybody who would say that we would oppose any matters which strengthen legislation to prevent the obscene abuse of animals. The production of that material, the circulation of that material – whatever it is, we do not want to see animal abuse, which includes sexual abuse of animals and sadistic abuse of animals. That is completely unacceptable in this state. My concern is that we have many animal activist groups who will take grey areas in legislation and utilise them for another purpose, and that purpose is to shut down the intensive agricultural production practices. We see that in place in Victoria. We have court cases in Victoria. I know there is an appeal at the moment underway where a case had been dismissed, but unfortunately – and this was highlighted in the pig welfare inquiry that was undertaken in the upper house and published its report in June 2024 – evidence was heard that indicated that is exactly what some extreme animal activists seek to do. They seek to utilise the court system, which is very, very expensive, very time consuming and very, very stressful for producers who are otherwise doing the right thing.

The thing that extreme animal activists find offensive is that an animal is being slaughtered and packaged and that humans will consume that animal at the end of the day. It must be made very, very clear that if there is an illegal trespass onto a property those extreme animal activists are appropriately prosecuted – that if we see the actions of groups like the Farm Transparency Project, where they illegally obtain CCTV footage of practices which are completely within codes and standards not just in Victoria but nationally, that is not then prosecuted as animal cruelty. Some people for conscientious reasons choose to be vegan because they consider the consumption of meat as being a torturous act or something that is not acceptable. I absolutely respect their views, but that view cannot be taken to the next level. It cannot be used as a targeted way to shut down livestock production in Victoria. That is why I have had many discussions with the Minister for Agriculture, and I thank her and her staff for their time, because the issues that were highlighted in the inquiry into pig welfare in Victoria could potentially be enacted through this legislation by broadening the scope, in particular, of cruelty.

As we heard earlier, I cannot understand why anybody would ever think that the production of videos with sexual content could possibly gratify anybody. But I would like to think that very few people think that way. We need to have laws that catch people that are doing the wrong thing, but we equally need to make sure there are protections in place for the intensive animal production sector, where they are doing the right thing, where they are doing everything they can. It was noted through the evidence provided in the pig welfare inquiry by so many peak bodies, by Agriculture Victoria and by farmers themselves that Victoria is world renowned for the way that we treat our animals. Animal welfare is so important to our producers, and there is an intrinsic value in protecting their animals. They do care for them deeply because they want them to flourish, they want to make sure that they are healthy animals and they want to make sure that they are fed well and they are watered well. You see on the television, if you go out on a farm and if you speak to people when they are going through drought or when there is a lack of feed after fire, the distress of farmers, because what they care for first and foremost is their animals.

I would hate to think that there is an inadvertent capture of people who are doing the right thing within this legislation. While I understand it is a very, very uncomfortable topic – I do not want to ever be speaking in this place about bestiality or sadistic and cruel harm to animals – we do need to make sure that those people are caught in the net for doing the wrong thing. I condemn anybody who is doing the wrong thing. I do hope that this legislation will help to protect animals from those egregious acts. I also hope that there is not the malicious use of this legislation to shut down the meat industry in Victoria. Our farmers are striving to do their best to make sure that they have the best possible animal welfare outcomes in Victoria. I do urge the government to clarify those matters and ensure that there is no grey area that could be exploited for lengthy and expensive court procedures.

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:17): I too rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. At the outset I must say that when I was looking at this bill over the weekend and making some notes it was completely different to what I am probably going to speak about given the motion that was agreed to and the amendment that has been agreed to. I do want to spend most of my contribution talking about the amendment to the amendment bill in relation to putting back the changes to the anti-vilification law, in particular removal of the requirement that a prosecution can only be commenced through the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I was reflecting just in terms of how we got to this state. I think it is really important to remember that this was an amendment that was put in in the upper house at the request of the Greens because the Liberal and National parties would not support the anti-vilification legislation. You would not know that from many of their members. There was a lot of talk and discussion. Particularly in the communities where a large number of Jewish communities live, there was strong support that the anti-vilification laws be supported on a bipartisan motion and a bipartisan effort to support the legislation. It was very disappointing to see at that time that that legislation was opposed both in this house and then in the upper house by the coalition, which required the government to seek support from other parties to make sure that the legislation could actually be passed. I think we have seen over the last few weeks just how important it is that we have legislation in place and how difficult it is to actually introduce that legislation. We should be very proud of Victoria and of the government that has enabled this legislation to take place. We have seen just even in the last couple of weeks how challenging it has been for the federal government to try and introduce similar legislation, with the watering down and the toning down of some of the legislation and some of the requests that came out from the report from the antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal.

I note the comment from the lead speaker, the member for Brighton, talking about the lack of prosecutions to date. I am aware that obviously there has only been a short period of time, and prosecutions are not the be all and end all. We need to have a discussion in this state, and in this country in general, about what level of behaviour is acceptable. It is not necessarily going to be about fining people or locking people up for saying these hateful things. What concerns me is: what do we want to define as criticism? What level of criticism do we want to accept as a society? Obviously we are a liberal democracy: we value freedom of speech and we value ideas that challenge us. That is why we have houses of Parliament and we have elections every four years. Opposing parties get in with different views to challenge those ideas. But when we have people on the street calling for violence against particular groups and we defend that by saying that they are making a political statement or it is only a group of people who follow a particular political point of view, on that basis does that excuse everything? Is that excusing every behaviour that they can do?

As the member for Brighton as well pointed out, yesterday at pretty much the same time that we were debating in this house a condolence motion for the victims of the Bondi terror attack, there must have been multiple people out on the steps of Parliament vandalising the steps of Parliament, calling for violence against people in our community. We really need to have a conversation in this country and in this state about what level of language we are prepared to accept against our fellow Victorians, our fellow Australians. Is it acceptable that Jewish people are demonised and continue to be harassed at their workplaces, at their businesses and at restaurants simply because they support a political notion that is not aligned with another group’s political notion? I appreciate that the amendment in this bill only goes to a small element of the anti-vilification legislation, but I think it does raise a broader question that we need to answer as a community as to what we will and will not accept going forward.

I did want to just touch briefly on some of the other clauses in the legislation, particularly in relation to changes to the Crimes Act 1958 as they relate to the production and dissemination of sexual abuse material and bestiality. At the outset I want to give a big shout-out to the RSPCA, a really trusted institution that is located in my electorate on Burwood Highway. They do a wonderful job in so many different areas, but one of the hardest jobs that their officers have to face on a daily basis is dealing with elements under the Crimes Act and the abuse, cruelty and neglect of animals. It is one of the toughest jobs to go in and enter a premises and have to find these poor, defenceless animals that have been treated absolutely shockingly by their owners. Some of the stories that the officers have shared in terms of going into these properties – sometimes it is not just about the animals and how confronting it is to see the animals in this state, but also in terms of dealing with these individuals, you are often dealing with some very difficult and unstable individuals. They are in the process of trying to remove these animals from their owners for very good reasons, but as you can imagine, the circumstances in which that happens can be very dangerous for the officers involved.

I think the changes that are proposed in the legislation are really strong. There should not be any doubt as to where the Parliament stands on stamping out this sort of behaviour. Again, I just want to shout out to all of the officers and the staff at the RSPCA for the wonderful work that they do in caring for and keeping our animals safe.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:27): I rise to make some comments on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I want to focus my comments on specifically the issues and the change with the reference of vilification laws relating to the DPP, Director of Public Prosecutions. Can I say at the outset that this is something that the Liberal–Nationals have been fighting for certainly for as long as I have known. It has been an issue with our vilification laws for many, many, many years. We have had these vilification laws, and I think the former member for Caulfield Helen Shardey advocated very strongly, along with Ted Baillieu, to get hate laws into this state. But for many years one of the issues has been that the bar has been too high to prosecute people.

When we had the parliamentary inquiry in 2021 into the hate laws, one of the key issues that were raised with that threshold was that the bar was too high. One of the groups that actually came to see us and gave evidence was Victoria Police. When we questioned Victoria Police about the hate laws, again, they reminded us that one of the key things to actually fix the current laws as they stand is to remove the Director of Public Prosecutions referral. For those that might be listening to or reading this speech, people need to understand that police, in just about every other job that they do, have the powers to go out if someone is breaking into a home or if someone is committing an offence, to charge them and to have that be seen through the courts or issue a fine, in some instances. Those are certainly the powers of Victoria Police, except for when it comes to these kinds of laws. In these laws what we are saying in this state is, ‘Police don’t have the knowledge, the understanding or, up until these proposed changes, the powers to be able to prosecute or to charge somebody. There needs to be another body to review it.’ To have a review is almost like having a third umpire. How can you have the police do their job when every time they want to charge somebody they are sending it to a third umpire for review, which could take months before it comes back to the police to ultimately then decide what they are going to do with it? That is why we have had no charges on this since the bill was introduced nearly 12 months ago.

This is a government that actually waved this bill in the air and said, ‘We’re going to strengthen vilification laws in this state, and we’re going to keep people safe from hate’ – something that we all wanted to do. I sat on that inquiry in 2021, and one of the first things that we did was we separated off the Nazi swastika and we said, ‘We’ve got to do that immediately.’ We did it, in a bipartisan way. We did it – laws that could be enforced. But on this, on the vilification stuff, this government has completely missed the boat.

What is horrific about this is that in the almost 12 months since these laws were changed, because the government did not do their job properly in the first place, they have exposed a community that has been vulnerable since 2023. The inquiry started in 2021. In 2021 there was a recommendation to actually strengthen the hate laws and remove the DPP referral. That was before October 2023, when we had the escalation of antisemitism. All of a sudden we have legislation, which took years to come into the Parliament. In 2021 there was a parliamentary inquiry. We get this coming through in 2025. From 2021 to 2025, for four years, the government sat on their hands and did nothing. In between we had the 7 October attack, and the Jewish community have been targeted since then. I do not know how many times I spoke to the Attorney-General and to the Premier and said, ‘Do something about strengthening our hate laws.’ Finally we get it, and we get something that is substandard. We are back at the drawing board again trying to fix the mess that this government has created.

What we saw on the steps of Parliament yesterday was a disgrace. We stood here and did a condolence motion for the people that were murdered in Bondi. While we were in here giving a condolence motion about people who were murdered in Bondi, we got these haters on the steps of Parliament calling for global intifada, saying that they want to target a President of Israel that is coming here. If that is not incitement, I do not know what is. And we are sitting in here and saying, ‘Everything’s right, everything’s okay. We are doing our job.’ This government is not doing its job. We are sitting here now – from 2021 to now – to finally fix the problem as should have been done in the first place.

How many people have been targeted, vilified? How many kids have had their kippah knocked off their heads and been called ‘Dirty Jew’? Outside the front of Mount Scopus college it said ‘Jew die’. Who was prosecuted from that? Zero. No-one has been prosecuted for any of the hate, any of the incitement. ‘Put Jews in a bin’ – the flags, the signs every week on these hateful protests that we see. Who has been prosecuted for that? Zero, doughnuts. Nothing has happened. So I am glad that we are finally seeing something done about it. But why wasn’t this done in the first place? I will tell you why: because when this bill was brought in in April, the Greens – and we know what the Greens’ track record is when it comes to vilification against the Jewish community – did a deal to make sure the DPP referral was kept in place and the third umpire was there to have police second-guess their own job. No wonder Victoria Police have not been able to do their job.

If you look back to 2023, to the then Victoria Police deputy commissioner Neil Paterson, it was reported on 21 October 2023 that ‘Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions has repeatedly knocked back police requests to prosecute racists for breaches of the state’s vilification laws, police have confirmed.’ He said:

We’ve got many examples of us taking action, referring those matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

The article also went on to say the DPP had advised that the threshold for launching the prosecutions was too high. The third umpire was telling the police, ‘Go back and do your job. We’re not going to take your stuff seriously.’ No wonder police are not charging people, because they have had the third umpire pushing them back and saying, ‘No. Go away. There’s nothing to see.’ Just like the article went on to say the DPP had refused to prosecute after a rally at which members of the National Socialist Network performed Nazi salutes and made offensive statements. The DPP said that does not meet the threshold. This is just a joke. You have got police at the highest level saying, ‘Do something,’ working with the government, and what does the government say: ‘We’re going to do a deal with the Greens because, you know what, we say one thing in Parliament but when it comes to really keeping the Jewish community safe, we’re going to side with the most racist people of all, the Greens, who every single week have been standing up here and attacking the Jewish community and inciting the hatred and violence.’ The government have chosen to stand with the Greens, and here they are now again defending themselves.

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

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Richmond, no-one was named and no particular member was called out.

David SOUTHWICK: We definitely know how racist the Greens have been, particularly targeting the Jewish community. It was so offensive, particularly in the condolence motion yesterday, to have the Greens stand up and say, ‘We’ve seen people that go out and attack, and the hate has been so divisive and people have been so divisive.’ The Greens have been the most divisive of all. We have seen that. We have seen that since 7 October week in, week out. They come in here wearing keffiyehs and standing up here. Today the Greens called the President of Israel a war criminal, who is visiting here to pay condolences for people that died from the biggest terrorist attack in Australia’s history on Australians – Australian Jews. This President of Israel is coming here to pay his condolences to them, and the Greens think it is okay to call him a war criminal. Then you see what happened on the steps of Parliament. It said, ‘Watch out, President Herzog. We’re coming for you.’ That is incitement to hate. Those people should be locked up. If we had the laws, they would be locked up. But we do not have the laws, and we are sitting here today because this government has been sitting on its hands and doing nothing. That is why I say shame on this government for every single member of our community that has not been able to have protection from these laws because the laws have not been in place and this government has failed them. Finally, we are seeing a change now. I hope this change gets through, but it is too little, too late. I pity the people that have had to deal with this because this government has failed to act for them.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (12:37): Like other members, I will deal with the amendments that have been brought to this place through the changes to the bill by the Attorney-General this morning ‍– section 8A of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 – in due course. At the outset, though, I just want to deal with the omnibus dimensions of the bill given that it amends various acts on our statute book really to improve the operation of the courts and the justice system and I think in particular to promote open justice following the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report, which, in reading it, highlighted some significant challenges with legacy suppression orders. Other members have talked about those this morning and this afternoon, but particularly their role in unduly, if inadvertently, potentially silencing victim-survivors of sexual or family violence offences, as well as the media and other interested parties and their capacity to comment upon cases, events and actions, particularly – and I think this is important – where an adult victim is able and willing to share their lived experiences.

As the continually unfolding revelations about the appalling predator and manipulator Jeffrey Epstein demonstrate, as well as a litany of truly unconscionable and horrendous clerical and institutional abuses of children in this state and elsewhere, abuse and harm are both perpetrated and perpetuated when those perpetrators can hide in the shadows and avoid scrutiny for those heinous actions and crimes. Upholding the principle of open justice also promotes personal responsibility by holding perpetrators accountable to the community while simultaneously raising public awareness of what are incredibly significant issues. In implementing recommendation 133 of the VLRC’s 2020 report, the bill will allow the lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made by either those lower courts or the tribunal rather than restrict that capacity to the Supreme Court, which can obviously review legacy suppression orders under its inherent jurisdiction in the Constitution Act 1975 in this state. Applying to the Supreme Court under the current settings is often a deeply traumatising, very costly process that as a consequence can restrict access for applicants, including victim-survivors, whilst also unnecessarily straining the resources of our Supreme Court here in Victoria.

I do note, though, that open justice is not absolute, and there may be competing considerations that necessitate the continuation of an order to suppress or restrict the publication of certain information, including, for example, the identity of a party or witness. These reforms that are manifest in the bill on the table will nonetheless improve access to justice for victim-survivors while also promoting freedom of the media – which I think is something that is incredibly important in a liberal democracy – and assisting to hold perpetrators publicly accountable.

The omnibus bill also amends the Coroners Act 2008 to streamline the investigation, finalisation and reopening procedures for coronial inquiries and amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable more doctors to register deaths and clarify their death reporting obligations. This is intended to really provide families with closure sooner. The Shadow Attorney talked about that and other members have talked about that – that at a time of particular distress, heightened anxiety and sadness for families, where possible, without curtailing the capacity of the coroners to investigate, and where appropriate, providing families with that closure sooner is a positive step. In doing so, these amendments will acquit recommendation 4 of the Coronial Council of Victoria’s 2020 Review of Reportable Deaths in Victoria report and recommendation 1 of the 2024 Coroners Act statutory review. They are the amendments which will streamline investigation, finalisation and reopening procedures within the coroner’s processes, whereas in amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, the bill, as I say, also aims to reduce unnecessary reporting of unnatural cause deaths to the Coroners Court. In effect, this will help doctors who may not have a deep familiarity with a person who has passed away to be able to disaggregate between comorbidities and to clarify the degree of certainty that that doctor needs to have as to a person’s cause of death before notifying the registrar.

In the context of modern primary health care, where super clinics, for example, are often seeing a lot of people and where one doctor might have one engagement with a patient or person in one instance but the next time they visit it is with another doctor, you do not have that continuity of care necessarily, that depth of understanding, that holistic recognition of a person’s medical history. These changes will give doctors more confidence to really clarify where somebody has died of natural causes, without necessarily knowing that 100 per cent among a range of comorbidities – for example, where pneumonia might be a leading cause of death with dementia as an antecedent cause. They do not need to be 100 per cent in their knowledge that one particular comorbidity was the primary cause of death, only that it was most likely in the circumstances. This will enable the doctors to notify Births, Deaths and Marriages of the death, to clarify their obligations and ultimately to reduce the unnecessary burden that is placed upon the coronial processes, on the court, on those investigators, while also avoiding families being dragged into those processes unnecessarily.

I want to talk very briefly about some of the changes to the Public Advocate role and the Office of the Public Advocate. These are changes really to the delegation powers of the OPA and also the process by which a new Public Advocate can be appointed and acting arrangements made. In doing so I want to acknowledge the service of Colleen Pearce, who retired relatively recently after a period of 17 years serving Victoria and often advocating for, in the role of Public Advocate, some of the most vulnerable Victorians. It is an incredibly important role. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with Colleen, to learn from her and to get the benefit of that wisdom and experience in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Disability. I wish Dan Stubbs, with whom I have also worked in a previous capacity of his, the very best in his role now as the newly appointed Public Advocate, as he commenced on 17 ‍November last year.

Finally, in the context of the omnibus dimensions, I just want to add my full support to the provisions that seek to address – it is difficult to talk about these things in some respects – the dimensions of bestiality, which are abhorrent. The idea that we even need to deal with these things is abhorrent, but of course we do. It is incumbent upon us as a state government and as a Parliament to deal with these horrendous crimes and actions against, as the member for Box Hill said, defenceless animals. The acts themselves are already criminalised. This bill closes some potential loopholes in the transmission and carriage of depictions of those actions, which I think can only be a good thing. In recognising that fact, I also just want to acknowledge the individuals and organisations in my part of the world, like Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn, who do an incredible job preserving the dignity and integrity of animals and looking after them when their owners may not be able to or when they have been abused. That is selfless work and really important in my community.

Turning very briefly in the time that remains to part 8A, there has been a long process by which Victoria’s anti-vilification laws have been strengthened, led by this government and catalysed in part by the work of the now Minister for Veterans after the abhorrent murder of Muslims in New Zealand in the Christchurch massacre, recognising that our settings at that point were not up to scratch. That committee undertook a very significant body of work which led to the anti-vilification measures that the Attorney legislated last year with the support of this government but not with the support of all of those across this house.

I think it is very, very necessary to note that the events of Bondi were another abhorrent murder of people simply on account of their faith. We talked about that at length as a house yesterday with deep respect and solemnity. The Premier committed to doing whatever she and we could to amend those anti-vilification laws, and removing that need for the DPP’s approval in instances of incitement I think does strengthen those laws. I note, though, that children may not be fully apprised of what they are in fact doing, and that is why the work of organisations like the Holocaust museum in providing education is so absolutely pivotal. Every single Victorian, regardless of their faith, has the right to live in freedom and free from fear.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (12:47): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is an omnibus bill that deals with a range of matters, a number of which are sensible and in isolation the Greens would be prepared to support. However, we will be opposing this bill for two reasons: because it further entrenches injustice in Victoria’s fines regimes and, secondly, because the government will repeal a really important safeguard that the Greens secured just last year.

With this bill Labor are introducing a last-minute kneejerk amendment, and they are proposing to repeal a key safeguard that the Greens secured, in negotiation with the government, to Victoria’s new anti-vilification laws just last year. That is the requirement for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, before police can prosecute a charge. That safeguard matters, and here is how it works: without it, police can arrest, charge and prosecute someone in the courts without any independent oversight. Legal and human rights experts tell us that, unchecked, that power could be weaponised against the very communities that it is meant to protect, used to silence political communication, used against peaceful protesters and used as a tool of intimidation. The Greens secured the DPP oversight with the support and guidance of the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Human Rights Law Centre and many other organisations to stop these laws from being turned against already marginalised and overpoliced communities – in particular, people of colour and First Nations people.

DPP oversight means that before proceeding to court the Director of Public Prosecutions has to independently review the charges against the evidence. They review it against our human rights charter, and they review it against our obligations under the constitution, the right to political communication and the right to freedom of assembly. The DPP assesses whether proceeding with the charge is in the public interest or not. That is crucial for these kinds of charges, but it all gets thrown out the window if this bill passes, because when Parliament criminalises speech, safeguards are not a technicality. They are the difference between targeted protection and unbridled political oppression. This safeguard is there to ensure that serious offences are used for serious cases with consistency and oversight and not used as an instrument of vexatious policing, for political strongarming or as a shortcut response to complex community tensions.

As well as being a kneejerk reaction for a problem that it frankly will not solve, this move from the Parliament represents a troubling break with the conventions of Parliament, and that is: when legislation is negotiated with the Greens it cannot then be repealed six months later in negotiation with the Liberals; that is not how it works. This visionless flip-flopping from the Allan Labor government erodes our trust in our ability to negotiate with the government, but it also erodes the public’s trust that the government will negotiate and govern in good faith. The Greens cannot support that.

Turning to the bill itself and the changes to suppression orders, this bill creates a mechanism to review, vary or revoke suppression orders that were made before December 2013 to continue in force under repealed provisions or common law. These are legacy orders that can linger for years, often without a clear pathway for review and sometimes long after their original purpose has passed. The Greens welcome this reform in particular. Open justice is a fundamental principle; courts should operate transparently, with limits only where strictly necessary. This is an important change for victim-survivors, providing a clearer pathway to have suppression orders lifted when they want to speak publicly or where continuing restrictions are no longer justified. In a system that so often takes control away from victim-survivors, any reform that restores agency in a safe way is welcome. While the overall intent is supported, legal specialists have raised questions about what safeguards will be in place so that victim-survivors will not be drawn into adversarial processes that they did not initiate, because many parties can apply; section 37 includes media, AGs, other parties or any person with a sufficient interest. Victim-survivors must be notified and consent, but there is a possibility that some could feel pressured to do so or may be forced to re-engage with traumatic material. So the Greens are seeking clarification from the Attorney-General on this matter, and we will explore it during the committee of the whole in the other place.

We also note that the bill does not require trauma-informed processes or independent support or legal assistance and consideration for safety measures – for example, the ability for remote participation in a hearing or ensuring privacy and protections for victim-survivors. The bill also does not appear to have a requirement that the media must demonstrate public interest necessity before involving a victim-survivor. Particularly for matters that media initiate, we would have thought that it should be required that media demonstrate consideration of risk of harm. It is recommended that increased funding to the community legal sector is provided to ensure legal advice and support for victim-survivors is available in order to understand the consequences of consenting to revocation. This bill also makes a set of changes to streamlining coronial processes and death registration. It allows doctors who have reviewed clinical records and relevant circumstances to notify a probable cause of death rather than defaulting those cases into the coronial system. The bill also updates how coronial findings can be reopened and set aside in certain cases, making these processes clear and more workable. These kinds of reforms really matter to families. A coronial process can be the source of answers and accountability. While coronial scrutiny is vital, reducing unnecessary delays can ease an already distressing process.

One aspect of this bill that the Greens are seriously concerned about is the proposed changes to Fines Victoria and infringement processes, particularly around service. The bill expands what is deemed service – service being when a fine is considered legally delivered to a person on a specific date – and the bill introduces a new online platform where service can be treated as effective from when information becomes accessible to a person on that platform. Anyone who works in this space knows the reality: people in hardship, people with unstable housing, people living with a disability, people escaping family violence, people with limited English or people with limited digital access are disproportionately entangled in the infringement system. They are also the most likely to miss a notice not because they are careless but because, predictably, the system was designed in a way that fails people in hardship and then punishes them for that failure. If you expand deemed service without the proper safeguards, you increase the risk that people will not know that they have been served and the penalties will escalate. Late fees, enforcement warrants, licence sanctions and added costs can follow. The first time someone truly learns of debts can be when they are already in a deeper crisis. It is cruel and it punishes vulnerable people further to the margins, and the Greens will not support that.

The bill also includes administrative amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 relating to acting appointments and delegations. Guardianship decisions can affect where someone lives, what medical care they receive and how their finances are managed. Administrative flexibility may be necessary to keep services functioning, but it must not dilute accountability, transparency or review rights. We will be asking questions in the other place to ensure that acting appointments and delegations are properly confined and do not weaken safeguards for people whose lives are most affected by these decisions.

Another element of this bill that the Greens support is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 to extend the bestiality offence and create a new offence relating to animal abuse material. The Greens support strong animal welfare laws and clear offences that target exploitation and cruelty and support this element of the bill. The creation of offences for animal abuse material reflects the reality that technology facilitates harm and that the criminal law must respond. With any criminal offence, implementation matters and enforcement must be properly resourced.

The Greens also strongly support the extension of the operation of the Drug Court division of the County Court. The bill removes the sunset limitation and ensures the Drug Court can continue beyond April 2026. The Drug Court is an example of a therapeutic problem-solving court that addresses the causes of offending and reduces reoffending. The Drug Court requires engagement with treatment, compliance with conditions and ongoing oversight. It works precisely in the way that punishment alone does not. It tackles substance dependence, it stabilises lives and it improves community safety. If this Parliament is serious about safety, we should be expanding therapeutic pathways, not shrinking them, and for that reason we support that element of the bill.

Finally, the bill makes procedural updates to the Road Safety Act 1986 and related Magistrates’ Court processes, including modernising, filing and notice procedures. While these may be sensible, we will be asking questions in the other place about whether this shift will be accompanied by clear alternatives and support for people who need assistance with or cannot access online systems.

To conclude, the government has assembled a bill with several positive and administrative changes, but it has also foreshadowed a significant change to the anti-vilification framework – removing that requirement for DPP consent – and it wants to do that through a house amendment that has not been properly exposed to public scrutiny. This is not an acceptable way to change important laws. Parliament and the community deserve to see in advance precise changes proposed, the rationale for them and the evidence that supports them. Targeted communities deserve to be consulted, and so do the communities who know all too well what happens when the criminal law expands and safeguards are reduced. If the government believes the DPP safeguard should be removed, it should bring forward a dedicated bill, explain why and engage in genuine and transparent consultation with those who are affected. Until that happens and while that foreshadowed amendment sits over this bill alongside the risk of deepening harm caused by Victoria’s fine systems in this bill, the Greens cannot support it.

Sitting suspended 12:59 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.