Anti-vilification legislation
Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:05): (132) My question is for the Attorney-General. Attorney, as you know, recent events have demonstrated the increased vilification and hate members of Victoria’s trans and gender-diverse communities face on a regular basis. We have seen hate spewed on the steps of this Parliament, neo-Nazis joining with anti-trans groups and far-right agitators crashing council meetings and intimidating communities. We were warned in last year’s parliamentary inquiry into far-right extremism that this would happen – hate groups joining with each other to bolster each other’s platforms. We were told by experts that it is important to act quickly when we see this occurring. Right now in Victoria there are things we can do to keep our communities safe from this harm, such as strengthening anti-vilification laws. My question, Attorney, is: when will these laws be strengthened to protect people from being able to be vilified on the basis of gender or sexuality?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (13:06): Whilst I concur with much of what Dr Ratnam has raised in the house today and there is certainly no place in Victoria for the types of behaviour that we have seen – we want a tolerant community, we want a safe community and we want anybody that feels scared or is part of a minority group that has been targeted by horrible people to feel protected – what we do not want is politicisation of this issue through press release and through media drops about how we are not working together in relation to dealing with this issue. You know, because I answered this question from Ms Payne – almost the exact question – last week, that the government is working on this. I have been on public record from before the election that anti-vilification reform is on the agenda. We are working on it. Last week I met with Equality Australia, the Pride lobby and the Jewish community. I have been in constant contact with the Islamic community. This is not an issue that can be fixed by just writing something on a piece of paper – just coming in here and creating a new law without proper consultation and doing the hard work.
I have been very disappointed in the Greens party effectively calling on me to develop policy with them through the media. I have never even spoken to your LGBTIQ+ spokesperson; I have never met her. She sent me an email this morning saying, ‘Hey, come and sit at the table and talk to me about my laws.’ You know that the government is doing it. We are doing the hard yards. We are speaking to people that have to implement the laws – the police, the courts, lawyers. It is really complex legislation. You do not want to capture people that you do not want to capture. You want to target the right people. You want to protect the right people. You want to educate the community in the process. You do not want to grandstand and say that the government are not acting because we could do things faster. Being invited to sit at the table to consult on a bill is actually distracting my office and the department’s resources from the hard work that they need to do to get these laws right.
So I will not be accepting the invitation of your spokesperson to come and talk to her about her laws, because your party, and presumably that member of your party, knows that we are starting that important work. We are talking to everyone about these laws. We are talking to the multicultural groups and, importantly, the LGBTIQ+ community. We need to work together to create proper laws that can work and be enforceable, and you cannot rush these things. It is incredibly complex. Rather than putting out a press release and inviting me to a table to do a consultation on your laws when you know that I am in the process, how about you come and work with me? The invitation is there for your spokesperson, for anybody in your party, frankly, and for anyone in here. I would think that we stand as a chamber of the Parliament against this behaviour, so I would prefer to work together on it rather than just throwing stones and saying ‘You’re not doing this, you’re not doing that’ when actually the work is being done, just not through press release.
Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:09): Thank you, Attorney. With all due respect, while we appreciate the complexity of consulting on and drafting of legislation, it has been four years since this place last contemplated anti-vilification laws and the need for them. A parliamentary inquiry has occurred since then. We have had legislation drafted by former crossbenchers in this place, and we are urging the government to get on with this important reform, understanding the process that is required. To follow up, last week Merri-bek council passed a motion that included that council will investigate how local laws could be amended to explicitly prohibit vilification in public places. I congratulate Merri-bek council for their support of the trans and gender-diverse community, and I ask, Attorney: will your office work with councils like Merri-bek and others, who want to explore how to protect the trans and gender-diverse community and prohibit vilification?
Members interjecting.
The PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, can you repeat the question – just the last bit.
Samantha RATNAM: If you were listening correctly, you would have heard that the question in fact was, Attorney: will your office work with councils like Merri-bek and others, who want to explore how to protect the trans and gender-diverse community and prohibit vilification?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (13:11): You have pretty much just confirmed the response I gave to your substantive question. These are complex issues, and you need to talk to a lot of people about getting it right. You want to bring about positive change through those consultations. In relation to speaking to councils, the Minister for Local Government is hugely involved in this issue. She has personally spoken to CEOs and mayors in relation to this concerning behaviour and has been updating me appropriately. I will speak to anyone about anti-vilification, including your party, because we want to get this right. We are working on this. It would be really good if we worked together, because I think that particularly the people that you are trying to represent – you have mentioned the LGBTIQ+ community – probably deserve an opportunity for people to be working together, not against one another, and I welcome that opportunity.