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 the offences commenced and 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 have 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’m aware of. The Attorney may wish to correct me if I’m 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 don’t 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 isa 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.

John LISTER: On the point of order –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Thank you, member for Brighton. I will rule on the point of order, if I may, member for Werribee. 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: Thank you, Acting Speaker. 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.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Members at the table, it is impossible to hear the member for Werribee’s contribution.

John LISTER: 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: They will.

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 all the incredible efforts of 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 were 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: That is just a lie.

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.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Thank you. Do you have a point of order?

James Newbury: 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.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Through the Chair, member for Albert Park.

Nina TAYLOR: 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.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Albert Park, member for Brighton, through the Chair. Member for Albert Park, are you continuing?

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: