Tuesday, 17 October 2023

Bills

Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:30): I am pleased to rise and comment on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. This is a very timely bill, I must say. This is a bill that draws attention to the need to strengthen provisions in the Summary Offences Act 1966 to protect people from the unsatisfactory gestures and approaches of people with respect to Nazi symbols. It amends the Summary Offences Act to make public display or performance of Nazi gestures an offence and to extend the application of the offence of public displays of Nazi symbols.

We have seen in this cycle since the passing of the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Bill 2022 – the law commenced at the end of December 2022 – several high-profile incidents, including protests involving the use of the Nazi salute. These incidents highlighted that the existing law did not deal with Nazi gestures such as the Nazi salute, which has led to this bill.

I want to pay tribute here to the work done by David Southwick, his significant commitment to strengthening the law in this area, his leadership on the initial bill and his leadership on this bill. I also note that the government has supported that push by David Southwick, and I welcome what has become a bipartisan set of positions. It is constructive that we are in that position where we do have a significant measure of bipartisanship on these matters.

It comes of course at a time when the Jewish community is under attack in a very significant way. Some in the Jewish community in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region have said to me that they feel that this is a time that is reminiscent of earlier periods when Jewish community members were under attack in Europe. They have said that this is reminiscent of a time when there was constant pressure, constant intense dislike expressed of the Jewish community, and the Nazis at that time obviously were on the march in every sense of the word. One hopes that this is in the end nothing like that, but given the events in Israel in the last few days you would have to say that there is significant pressure on the Jewish community all around the world. So it is an honour in fact to stand with that community, to stand with the Israeli community, and to put on record my strong support not just for Israel but importantly for the Jewish community here in Victoria.

A big part of the centre of my electorate of Southern Metropolitan – Ms Crozier’s electorate as well – is comprised of a very great section of the Jewish community, who are great community contributors. Whether it be to science, to industry, to government, to philanthropy, wherever you look the Jewish community is active, contributing beyond its weight to community life, and I pay tribute to those contributions to community life. It is in that context that I think many feel that this is appropriate.

There are a number of issues that have been pointed out with respect to this particular bill, and I will come to those in a minute. Essentially, the bill sets out that a person must not intentionally perform a Nazi gesture if the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the gesture is a Nazi salute and the performance (1) occurs in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary institution and (2) occurs in sight of a person who is in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary education institution. It sets up penalties of imprisonment for 12 months or 120 penalty units or both. These are significant penalties of course, but they are actually appropriate in the circumstances. There are exemptions when the display or performance is engaged in reasonably and in good faith, obviously for genuine academic, artistic, educational or scientific purposes or in the making or publishing of a fair or accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

A police officer under these arrangements may give directions to a person to remove from display a Nazi symbol or a Nazi gesture if the police officer reasonably believes the person is committing an offence. The police officer may give directions to a person to remove from display a Nazi symbol or gesture if the person is the owner or occupier of a property on which the Nazi symbol or gesture is being displayed and the police officer reasonably believes the offence is being committed against section 41K(1). However, the directions power does not currently extend to a direction to a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture.

The bill, as I said, is being introduced at a time of increasing concern about the public display of neo-Nazi and antisemitic behaviour. It is consistent with the previously introduced law, which was, as I said, promoted and brought forward by David Southwick and the Liberals, for the banning of public display of the Nazi swastika, again subject to certain exemptions.

There is concern the definition of ‘Nazi symbol’ is too wide in the bill – some say that; ‘any other symbol used by the Nazi party’ is the phrase. However, on the face of it this would include perhaps, you might argue, any symbol used, whether or not it had an association with the Nazi party. Some might say that that is too broad.

I note that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee dealt with these matters; Acting President Terpstra would understand that SARC sought to deal with some of these matters. In its earlier report it indicated that it would write to the relevant minister, the Attorney-General of course, Jaclyn Symes. I think it is worth quoting some of her responses to the points made in the SARC report. The letter, which was just tabled today, from Jaclyn Symes makes a number of points:

I refer to your letter of 4 October …

I am going to read some of this because I think it is instructive and useful for the chamber and it is something members may not have had the opportunity to read. It contains issues raised by SARC.

I understand that the Committee seeks further information as to the meaning of ‘symbol’, ‘gesture’, ‘used by the Nazi Party’ and ‘resembles’ under clause 6 of the Bill.

She said on the meaning of ‘symbol’ and ‘gesture’:

The word ‘symbol’ is intended to take its ordinary meaning. This means that a ‘symbol used by the Nazi Party’ ought to be understood as capturing something, often a material object, that is used to stand for or is regarded as representing the Nazi Party. The bill defines the term ‘Nazi Party’ as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and includes its paramilitary arms. A slogan or anthem would likely only be captured if the relevant words were, in and of themselves, regarded as representing the Nazi Party or inextricably formed part of a material object that was used symbolically by the Nazi Party.

She went on to say, and again I think it is worth quoting it, given this has just been tabled and we are literally now debating it:

The word ‘gesture’ will also take its ordinary meaning. While it is possible that the word ‘gesture’ may be broadly interpreted to encompass a symbolic act, the term is ordinarily understood to mean movements of the body to express an idea or feeling. It is therefore unlikely that book burning, or similar actions, will be captured since this does not fall within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘gesture’.

Importantly, the Hakenkreuz –

and I am not going to say that I got the pronunciation perfectly right –

and the Nazi salute are expressly banned by the Bill and are well-known to most Victorians. Clause 6 of the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum read together with the Second Reading Speech makes it clear that the Bill is … intended to capture the SS … Bolts and the SS Death’s Head … along with the flags, insignia and medals used by the Nazi Party and its paramilitary organisations. Ultimately, however, it is up for the courts to decide what other specific gestures or symbols are banned by the Bill.

She goes on to say:

It is not intended that innocent or unintentional uses of symbols or gestures be prosecuted. The Bill includes a range of exceptions to ensure that symbols and gestures used by the Nazi Party can be displayed or performed for an appropriate purpose, including for genuine educational or artistic purposes.

I think that these are important points that the Attorney is making. I do not always agree with the Attorney, but I do on this set of matters. I am pleased that she has thoughtfully responded to the matters that have been raised by SARC on these issues.

Meaning of ‘used by the Nazi Party’

Although the Bill does not expressly use the term ‘exclusively’, the scope of the phrase ‘used by the Nazi Party’ must be read in the context of the Bill’s purpose and the extrinsic materials.

She goes on again to talk about clause 6:

Read together, it is clear that the Bill’s intent is to capture symbols and gestures historically used by the Nazi Party that are generally understood as conveying messages of hate and genocide.

It is important to reiterate that the Bill will not interfere with a person’s ability to display a gesture or symbol used by the Nazi Party for genuine cultural or religious purposes …

and so forth. She then deals with the issue of ‘resembles’:

The term ‘resembles’ has its ordinary meaning ‘to be like or similar to’. Importantly, the term ‘resembles’ in the Bill is preceded by the words ‘that so nearly’ which, read together, will require a symbol or gesture in question to be very close to or regarded as almost having the same appearance as a symbol or gesture used by the Nazi Party.

This goes on:

… cannot make small modifications to symbols or gestures used by the Nazi Party to avoid prosecution.

I understand what is trying to be achieved by that. She states:

Whether a symbol or gesture is taken to nearly resemble a symbol or gesture used by the Nazi Party is intended to be informed by both the physical characteristics of the gesture or symbol used and the context in which it was displayed or performed. While, for example, an innocuous gesture such as a farewell may bear a physical resemblance to the Nazi salute, the context in which a gesture is performed will be vital to understanding whether the offence has been made out. It is unlikely that anyone observing a person farewelling a friend would consider that the gesture so nearly resembled a Nazi salute to be mistaken for it, given the context in which the gesture was performed.

I think she makes a reasonable set of points here. I reiterate the points made that this is a sensible set of steps that are being proposed here.

We do in fact have a proposed set of amendments here. This is not to be hypercritical of the bill but is to be constructive and to suggest some ways forward here. Our amendments would seek to insert a number of words that would deal with ‘associated with’ for any other symbols used by or associated with the Nazi party and, secondly, amend the bill to provide for a police officer to have a power to direct a person to cease performing a Nazi salute in a public place in the same way with the same criteria as the displaying of a Nazi symbol in a public place.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: The amendments are:

1. Clause 6, page 3, line 14, after “used by” insert “and associated with”.

2. Clause 8, after line 24 insert –

“(1A) A police officer may give a direction to a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture if the police officer reasonably believes the person is committing an offence against section 41K(1A) by performing the Nazi gesture.”.

3. Clause 8, page 7, after line 6 insert –

‘(4) In section 41L of the Principal Act –

(a) in subsection (3), after “(1)” insert “, (1A)”;

(b) in subsection (5), after “(1)” insert “, (1A)”.’.

Again, these are very modest amendments, they are sensible amendments and they are consistent with where the earlier bill focused, and that greater consistency I think is entirely relevant. I pay tribute to the Shadow Attorney-General and his work here on these proposed amendments. He obviously has strong views about these matters, as do I and as do Mr Southwick and others on our side of politics, but I think again these are constructive, reasonable amendments that will make it clearer but also strengthen the ability of the police to act in a proactive and preventative way to deal with a number of these matters. I would certainly urge the community to support these points. I think in the context of where we are now – with rising levels of antisemitism, incidents quite regularly being reported now and people being very concerned and fearful – it is time for Parliament to take these sorts of stands. Hence we welcome the bill coming forward, and I welcome the work of the Attorney, the Shadow Attorney, David Southwick and others on these matters.

Obviously, this bill came forward before the recent terrible issues in Israel and Gaza. We obviously have debated these matters with respect to the international situation in the chamber earlier today, and I point anyone to my comments and the comments of others in the chamber about those matters. But it is clear that there is a significant rising tide of these matters. We have had even as recently as the weekend neo-Nazi presence and activity, and I think that anything that plausibly, calmly and sensibly empowers the police to act on these matters is worthwhile and I think that any symbol or signal that we send as a Parliament in a bipartisan way is very welcome on these matters.

I think I have probably said enough. I do urge people to read the Attorney’s response to SARC. I think this is a case where the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has identified points that needed clarification. The Attorney has come back to the committee, constructively, with sensible clarifications on those points, and that is the way SARC is meant to operate. In this circumstance the report tabled today is a relevant contribution.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:49): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. Firstly, I want to clearly state for the record that the Victorian Greens strongly support this bill, because the re-emergence and growth of far-right extremism over the last decade in Victoria and across Australia has been more than apparent to most of us long before a group of neo-Nazis performed their salutes on the steps of Parliament back in March this year or indeed just days ago at Flinders Street station. In fact the Greens-initiated inquiry into extremism found that since 2015 there has been a resurgence in far-right extremism in this state, most prominently neo-Nazi groups perpetuating racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism as well as acts of violence and hatred towards LGBTIQ+ and First Peoples communities. Of course the COVID-19 pandemic and conspiracies only served to fuel these right-wing groups, who not only are acting more frequently and conspicuously in public but also, according to law enforcement testimony, now represent the most significant ideological terrorist threat to our safety. So we need a proportionately strong response to this threat, and this bill today is yet another small, important step towards this.

The bill is effectively an extension of the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Bill 2022, which passed last year and prohibited the use of the Hakenkreuz in public. That bill was in response to a recommendation from the 2019 inquiry into Victoria’s anti-vilification protections to ban Nazi symbols and also to give further consideration to banning other hateful symbols, such as the Nazi salute, as proposed by this bill today. But importantly, both the 2019 anti-vilification inquiry and the more recent inquiry into extremism also recognise that these kinds of specific prohibitions, while important, form only a small part of what is required to combat extremism, vilification and hate in our community. I know, sadly, from my own personal experience that there are far too many signs, symbols and slogans of hate adopted by the far right and white supremacists that can be used to vilify others. So alongside this bill there is a need for many more and much broader reforms to recognise and protect the rights of all groups targeted by the extreme right and limit all forms of hatred against others in our community.

We must address the primary risk factors, the level of inequality and the lack of social connection among those living within the margins of society, which provide fertile recruiting ground for right-wing extremists, and nowhere is this inequality more apparent right now than in the failure of successive Victorian governments to provide housing for all who need it. Furthermore, we must finally provide powerful and independent oversight over the integrity and professional standards of law enforcement – Victoria Police – who are responsible for the practical enforcement of the laws such as those proposed in this bill today, whose ranks neo-Nazis and white supremacists often seek to infiltrate and whose professional culture has far too frequently been associated with the stain of discrimination and prejudice.

We must also continue and strengthen education and anti-racism programs, particularly in our schools. The scale of the crimes of Nazi Germany against Jewish people – the Holocaust – must never be forgotten, so we must continue with education regarding Nazi crimes as well as our own nation’s shameful historical treatment of other groups such as LGBTI+ people, First Peoples and people with disability. This education should not simply look back into the past but properly contextualise these historical events in terms of the ongoing hatred and vilification that continue to be directed at many of the same groups in society today. For example, we should point out in our schools that while our history books now finally recognise that the crimes of Nazi Germany extended beyond racial groups to crimes against the queer community and people with disability, perversely our Victorian statute books in regard to anti-vilification laws still do not recognise the need to protect the LGBTIQ+ community or people with disability from the ongoing hatred of neo-Nazis in the community today.

If there is one small positive to come out of the disgusting scenes on the steps of this Parliament earlier this year, it is that not one of us with any integrity in this place can continue to deny, continue to downplay or continue to be an apologist for the level of prejudice, hatred and violence from extremists towards the trans community in Victoria currently. Having witnessed those scenes literally on its own doorstep, there can be no further denial, excuses or delays from the current Labor government as well. It must work with the Greens and this Parliament to expand our anti-vilification laws beyond race and religion to include attributes relating to sexuality, gender identity and disability, because without further action these hate groups may no longer be able to make a Nazi salute in public but they will remain largely free to continue delivering all other kinds of hatred towards trans and gender-diverse people.

The scenes of the weekend, with neo-Nazis parading through Melbourne’s trains and on the steps of Parliament with an antisemitic banner, singing songs about white supremacy, shouting racist insults, handing out promotional material for Australia’s largest neo-Nazi group – the National Socialist Network – and asking a passenger on a train if they were Jewish, in an apparent act of intimidation, demonstrate why we must go well beyond the reforms before us today. Because the objectives of these groups are frightening and are a threat to our social cohesion, and if we do not address this threat at its heart, it will just continue to find new ways to threaten, harass, intimidate and ultimately divide us. So while we support this bill, we support doing much more as well, because as long as there remain people outside on the steps of this Parliament – and some maybe inside of it – that continue to spew repugnant Nazi ideology and hatred towards the trans and gender-diverse community, we can be under no illusion that our work to stop vilification simply ends today with the passage of this bill.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:56): I rise to speak today on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. On Friday afternoon in New South Wales three men allegedly performed Nazi salutes outside Sydney Jewish Museum, and as Dr Ratnam just noted, just this Saturday in Melbourne at around 1:30 in the morning a group of about 25 people dressed in black, many wearing face coverings, made Nazi salutes at Flinders Street station. They did so again as they boarded a train. It is reported that the group was seen with an antisemitic banner, shouting racist and antisemitic insults. It is also reported that they then, as Dr Ratnam said, intimidated a passenger on that train, apparently seeing a blue-and-white handkerchief, prompting them to demand to know if that person was Jewish – on a train in Melbourne in 2023. These are just two recent examples of people using a raised-arm salute in a publicly intimidating, traumatising and offensive way. Sadly these acts are becoming more and more common, and as we all know, they were very close to home for us here earlier this year. Many of these incidents are targeted explicitly at and intended to distress the Jewish community as well as the Indigenous community, multicultural community, LGBTIQ communities and many, many others of different races and backgrounds and different faiths that make up our great state. These groups, rightly, find these acts to be intimidating and offensive.

This bill bans the public display or performance of any symbol or gesture used by the Nazi party and its paramilitary arms. It does so by amending the Summary Offences Act 1966 to expand the offence of publicly displaying a Hakenkreuz to cover all other symbols and gestures used by the Nazi party, explicitly prohibiting the public performance of the Nazi salute. The bill forms part of the anti-vilification reform package in addressing hate speech and hate conduct in Victoria. This expanded offence builds on the reforms brought into effect last year when the Victorian government enacted the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Act 2022. These amendments mean that anyone who intentionally displays or performs a Nazi symbol in public will face penalties of more than $23,000 and jail time. A police officer will have the power to direct a person to remove from display a Nazi symbol or gesture, whether on public or private property, if the police officer reasonably believes an offence is being committed. Of course we can draw from a real example, the home in Beulah back in 2020, which shamefully displayed a flag featuring the Hakenkreuz. With this amendment, a police officer would be able to direct a resident to remove such a flag. If a flag or banner displays a Nazi salute, a police officer would be able to give a likewise direction to have it removed.

All Victorians deserve to feel accepted, safe and included. Our state is proud to be home to a vibrant, longstanding Jewish community. Victoria, as a colleague Mr Batchelor noted this morning, has the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors outside of Israel. Incidents of Nazi symbols and gestures are inseparably linked to the harrowing and the evil crimes of the Holocaust, the Shoah. I recall several years ago reading a family history book as part of my stepfamily and reading through the various chapters all the way back to the 1850s. In several of those chapters you would see an acronym appearing again and again and again, and that acronym was ‘KIH’. It did not take too long to connect the dates that were connected with this acronym or then to see what the explanation was: KIH meant ‘killed in Holocaust’. We can never again have something like that; we can never again tolerate that. I cannot imagine the anguish of surviving those atrocities and making a new life in Victoria only to be confronted by someone displaying the Hakenkreuz or making a Nazi salute. Such acts are beyond unacceptable. They are intended to intimidate, stoke hatred and cause harm. Nazi ideology is antithetical to our values, and this bill reinforces that fact. Banning the Nazi salute and gestures reiterates that this ideology is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. As lawmakers and Victorians, we cannot and should not accept Nazi iconography to spread that ideology and intimidate, harass, distress or harm our communities.

Seventy-eight years after the Holocaust ended, antisemitism remains prevalent across Victoria and Australia. Hate incidents against Jews are being perpetrated across the community, on the street, in schools, on sportsgrounds and at university campuses. There has been a considerable rise in antisemitic incidents. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, there was a 6.9 per cent increase in incidents in the 12 months leading up to the end of September 2021. This figure is 35 per cent higher than the incidents recorded in 2020. In the last few years we have witnessed rising far-right activity, including 25 males gathered at the Elwood Point Ormond lookout, where the neo-Nazi flag was hoisted followed by a Nazi salute. Several incidents have occurred where individuals and groups have directed the Nazi salute explicitly at Jewish individuals to intimidate and harass them. This includes incidents that occurred outside of synagogues and Jewish schools. There is an increasingly brazen presence of neo-Nazi-affiliated individuals distributing antisemitic posters, stickers and graffiti in suburbs with large Jewish populations, such as Caulfield and Balaclava. And as many in this chamber will know, this year in March we saw neo-Nazis appear at an anti-transgender rally on the steps of this building, where some members performed the Nazi salute. Following this incident, the government committed to banning the Nazi salute. This bill fulfils that promise. Indeed it is the genesis for the bill which is here before us today.

Following that event, we saw a committed campaign of intimidation and harassment directed at Pride celebrations and events organised by the LGBTIQ+ communities. Intimidation at council meetings, threats of violence and acts of intimidation saw events cancelled across numerous LGAs, including the City of Casey, in my region. An ASIO submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia noted extreme right-wing groups have been in ASIO’s sights for many decades. During a hearing, their director-general confirmed that investigations into ideologically motivated violent extremism comprise roughly 40 per cent of all of ASIO’s cases. The rise of far-right groups is linked with an increase in anti-LGBTIQ+ and antisemitic incidents. Banning the display of Nazi symbols and gestures helps to protect communities from the intimidation, harassment and harm they cause. Furthermore, it is likely to reduce the incentive for these groups to appear in public without the shock, hate-mongering, intimidation factor of the Hakenkreuz and other banned symbols, such as the Nazi salute. These symbols and gestures are part of spreading their ideology, garnering media attention and perhaps even legitimacy for their existence, which they then use as a recruitment tool.

So, as stated, in 2022 Victoria banned the Nazi Hakenkreuz. Other states soon followed suit, and we have also seen earlier this year the federal government introduce the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which criminalises public display of those hate symbols and trading of those items. That reform brings the ban on Nazi symbols to a national level. The Tasmanian government has also taken similar action to Victoria and passed legislation prohibiting Nazi symbols and salutes earlier this year. Many aspects of this bill align with those reforms which were also passed in Tasmania. That state may have led the nation in terms of banning the salute, but we will lead the mainland with this bill. Internationally, various countries have also enacted various laws to ban Nazi symbols, acts and aspects of ideology, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Serbia and Slovakia, with the particularly notable examples in there of Germany and Austria.

Returning to Victoria and this bill before us, Nazi salutes will under this bill be prohibited alongside the Hakenkreuz. It will be made an offence if a person intentionally displays in a public place or in sight of a person in a public place a Nazi symbol or gesture that the person ought to reasonably know is a Nazi one; they will be liable under this bill. This will ensure that people who may not be aware of the history of the gesture, including children and people with a cognitive impairment, are not inadvertently committing an offence.

Another exception, as for the Hakenkreuz, will apply to the Nazi salute, most notably for genuine artistic purposes and legitimate satire. It will be an exception to the ban, which I am sure is a delight to Fawlty Towers fans the world around. When banning the Hakenkreuz great care was taken to ensure that there were exceptions for the cultural and religious significance of the swastika for Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other religious observers. Some may argue that there is a legitimate use for the raised-arm Nazi salute. They may even call it the ‘Roman salute’ and pretend that they are emulating a longstanding gesture of significance to their culture. No historical evidence exists that anyone in ancient Rome ever used that salute that the Italian fascists and the German Nazis used, so there is no need for an exception permitting a Nazi salute to be used for any genuine cultural or religious purpose. The true origins of the Nazi salute are far stranger. The salute was begun in the late 18th century by French neoclassical painter Jacques-Louis David, who painted it as part of his Roman paintings. From there it was incorporated into plays, then early films, leading the Italian fascists to adopt it, believing it to be Roman. The Nazis in turn adopted it from the Italian fascists, and after World War II film and media used the salute more in Roman settings to emphasise a narrative allegory between Rome and the Nazis. The true real-world history of the salute is reserved for the fascists and the Nazis. There is no valid cultural or religious use for this gesture. When someone uses the gesture, they are emulating and identifying with Nazi ideology and bigotry.

A lot of stakeholder consultation has also gone into this bill, and I would like to also acknowledge the extensive work of the Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes in ensuring that this bill does strike the right balance without going too far into those areas which I have already outlined to be exceptions whilst being a very firm and robust law which will do what it needs to do, and I would also like to acknowledge the many other stakeholders who have contributed to that feedback process. There has been considerable consultation to ensure that this bill appropriately balances the need to address the harm caused by public expression of Nazism whilst ensuring that innocent gestures or displays are not captured.

‘Never again’ is more than a phrase; it is a solemn promise. It means that we preserve the memory of the Holocaust and other genocides, learn the lessons of history and stand vigilant so history does not repeat itself – never again. In standing against hatred, I believe that this bill has an important role to play. It is beholden on us to draw a line in the sand, come together and state that some things are unacceptable – that there are actions entirely incompatible with who we are as a people, our values and morals and the very essence of our society.

Displaying Nazi symbols and gestures should not be protected under the guise of freedom of speech and communication. The heinous nature of these acts demands that they stand apart from those protections. It is deeply insulting to associate these symbols and gestures with the hard-fought intrinsic and essential freedoms that have been fought for and achieved by the efforts of so many people over generations. You cannot compare those fundamental freedoms that are the right of every person in our society with a gesture so profoundly and inherently associated with the most heinous and evil atrocities ever committed in human history. These gestures corrode freedom, and they represent an ideology that is opposed to everything that is good and decent in our society. Nazism is wholly antithetical to who we are as a people and what we hold dear as Victorians. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (17:11): I rise today to speak on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. The Liberals and Nationals support banning the Nazi salute and ensuring Victoria Police has the powers, resources and training to stamp out these shocking acts of hate. This bill seeks to ensure that the Nazi salute and other gestures and symbols used by the Nazi party will be banned in Victoria, including anything which closely resembles a Nazi symbol or gesture, to ensure that people who deliberately try to circumvent the ban and spread hate are punished. Exceptions will apply – for example, if the performance or display of a Nazi symbol or gesture is done in good faith for a genuine academic, artistic or educational purpose – but anyone who intentionally displays or performs a Nazi symbol or gesture in public will face penalties of more than $23,000, 12 months imprisonment or both.

Just days ago we saw neo-Nazis hold a rally before performing the Nazi salute as they boarded a train at Flinders Street station hours after the Jewish community held a vigil for Israel. The behaviours of these neo-Nazis are a deliberate attempt to incite hatred and violence. These shameful individuals hide their faces, and their hateful ideology should never be tolerated. This bill seeks to ensure that if this appalling behaviour does take place, appropriate remedies will be there for the police and through our legal system.

The Nazi regime committed atrocities on a scale and with a barbarity that is largely unparalleled in history. I remember studying history at high school, learning about the atrocious mass murder of millions of Jewish people and the chilling images of horrific experiments and barbaric acts carried out by the Nazis. Members of my family fought in the Second World War, and we should be proud of our Australian heritage and our history: standing up and fighting against the Nazi regime to stop the Holocaust.

While the increase that we have seen in antisemitic behaviour in certain locations in this state is appalling, this group of people represents a very small minority. It is important for Parliament to stand united to send a clear message that we condemn neo-Nazi protesters and their toxic bigotry and hate. This sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable and against the values of an inclusive, tolerant and multicultural community. It has no place in our society today. Australia is a proud multicultural country, and Victoria welcomes people from all backgrounds. Our immigration program supports people from all backgrounds to come together in shared liberal democratic values.

I will mention briefly an essay that was shared by my parliamentary intern Pascal Samfat. While he is undertaking research about the Victorian floods, knowing this bill was coming up, he kindly shared his university essay about balancing the right of freedom of speech against the need to regulate forms of hate speech. His essay covers the complexity of the issue. He referred to the fact that state governments in Australia need to react promptly to protect the shared social values of our communities and not put up with racism, discrimination and intolerance, and he identified that it is imperative for governments to enforce regulations to balance freedom of expression and prevent hate speech.

I want to thank the Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien for his work developing some commonsense amendments to improve this bill and that will strengthen this bill, and I want to thank my colleague David Davis for outlining these amendments.

I just want to speak briefly about the important role of Victoria Police. The Nationals really do support the frontline officers of Victoria Police, who continue to focus on community safety in frequently dangerous and complex situations. I want to thank Victoria Police for their work in keeping our local communities safe and thank frontline officers, who must deal with appalling behaviour. But until this bill is passed, there is very little they can do to address the situation. Under this bill Victoria Police will have the power to direct a person to remove a Nazi symbol or gesture from public display if a police officer reasonably believes an offence has been committed and to arrest and lay charges. The legislation will come into effect immediately after passing the Parliament and receiving royal assent to ensure Victoria Police can quickly begin enforcing the ban.

Earlier today we had a condolence motion in this chamber in recognition of the horrific events in Gaza, and it reminded us all of the dangers of extremists and the need to protect those who are persecuted. I appreciate also the consultation that has taken place on this bill with a number of groups, including the Criminal Bar Association, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Institute of Victoria, Liberty Victoria, the Police Association Victoria, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and many within the Jewish community, including the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, Zionism Victoria and the Melbourne Holocaust Museum. This bill is supported by both sides of the chamber. I commend the bill and the proposed amendments to the house.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (17:16): I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the bill before the house. By banning Nazi symbols and gestures, this bill will only help prevent the spread of the hateful ideologies which were responsible for the Holocaust. I get the freedom-of-expression and the slippery slope arguments, and I certainly get that banning symbols and gestures on its own will not tackle the root causes of the scourge of racial hatred and vilification. Clearly more needs to be done by government and society through education campaigns, social awareness and social programs, but there is absolutely no place in our society, indeed in any civilised society, for gestures propagating the hateful ideologies that were responsible for the systematic destruction and death of 6 million people simply because they were of one particular ethnic or racial group. With that, I would like to finalise my contribution. Also, I will not be supporting the amendments to the bill before the house. I think they were formulated in good spirit, but I am not sure that they actually address the problems they seek to address.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:18): I rise to lend my voice in support of this legislation before the chamber today, which is seeking to outlaw the Nazi salute. We heard of and we saw earlier this year, in March, with absolute horror a group of people standing on the steps of this very Parliament and performing the Nazi salute. It was an abhorrent gesture then, clearly linking to an ideology of hate and division, an ideology that led to the genocide of millions of Jewish people and others during World War II. Fundamentally it is the opposite of what we as Victorians stand for and believe in. So we are taking clear action with this legislation to send a message to these groups and those who seek to follow them that this behaviour and its consequences will not be tolerated in Victoria, because everyone has the right to feel safe in our community, and not just the right to feel safe but to be safe.

We cannot and should not accept the use of Nazi symbols and gestures – particularly the Nazi salute, which is loaded with the history of the Nazi regime and its ethnic cleansing agenda – to convey contemporary messages of hate and intimidation. Last year the government enacted the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Act 2022, which made it an offence to publicly display the Nazi Hakenkreuz symbol. The offence commenced at the end of December last year. Ministers and the government have been working with Victoria Police and relevant agencies to monitor the display and use of Nazi symbols to determine whether further prohibitions are needed, and since that ban was introduced there has been a steady and extremely concerning rise in the use of the Nazi salute.

This bill is an important next step in a package and a sequence of anti-vilification reforms being undertaken by the government. Diversity is of one of this state’s greatest strengths, and all Victorians deserve to feel safe, included and accepted. If taking the significant step of legislating against hate is a step that we need to take to ensure that all Victorians feel safe, included and accepted, then that is what we should do. The reforms send a clear message that we will not tolerate hateful behaviour. They are sensible and well thought out and provide protections and exemptions that balance genuine use for educational and artistic purposes with a need to protect Victorians from hateful ideology. They have been developed in response to the parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s anti-vilification protections.

We really, in the context of this debate, should be very, very clear and very, very blunt about who uses them and why. It was only this weekend that we saw another group of cowards in black, with their faces covered, using and giving the Nazi salute on Melbourne’s trains. As the Age reported, this demonstration – if you want to call it that – in the early hours of Saturday morning included the singing of white supremacist songs, antisemitic banners and racist slurs. None of these should be accepted or tolerated in Victoria. Too many are hurt by these sorts of actions, and this government is very clear, particularly when it comes to supporting the Jewish community, the LGBTIQ+ community and other multicultural and multifaith communities who have been the targets of Nazi behaviour in the past and who continue to be targeted by those who hide their ideology behind this salute. The users of this salute intend to cause fear and division in our community, and we should not tolerate it.

The bill sends a very clear message denouncing Nazi ideology and the use of gestures and symbols to intimidate, incite hate and harm others. It has been extensively informed by stakeholder feedback, with 15 consultation meetings and a consultation paper that has been distributed to more than 80 stakeholder groups, including representatives from Jewish and other faith and religious groups, legal and human rights stakeholders, LGBTIQ+ stakeholders, Aboriginal and multicultural community stakeholders and other groups impacted by the exceptions to the offence, including the arts sector. The government has held round tables with groups of Holocaust survivors and consulted with member organisations of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.

The bill appropriately balances the need to address harm caused by the public expressions of Nazism with ensuring that innocent gestures or displays are not captured. We spoke at length this morning about the current context which this bill is placed in, one where we are seeing worrying displays of hateful speech and conduct on our streets. Those displays must be condemned. There are communities here in Victoria who are suffering from grief and trauma right now because of actions on the other side of the world, but that grief and trauma has been caused not just by what happened last weekend with the terrorist acts by Hamas but by history, most disturbingly in the Holocaust but for centuries, when things like antisemitism have led to unspeakable acts and unspeakable harm being perpetrated on many communities but particularly the Jewish community. So I think it is exceptionally important at this time that this Parliament takes this action to make it absolutely crystal clear that hateful ideology has no place in Victoria and sends a message to the communities who are the intended targets of that hate that this Parliament, this government and the people of Victoria stand with you. We will support you, and we will stop these hatemongers and their actions on our streets.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:25): I wish to speak on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 to make the public display or performance of Nazi gestures an offence and to extend the application for the purposes of public displays of Nazi symbols. The bill has been introduced because of incidents since the commencement of the provisions introduced by the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Symbol Prohibition) Bill 2022 on 29 December 2022. These instances have highlighted that the law does not extend to Nazi gestures.

In our state, which has always been a proudly tolerant, multicultural and diverse state, we have recently seen some quite disturbing incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Recently there have been several high-profile incidents involving the use of the Nazi salute. Only last Friday Melburnians had to bear witness to masked neo-Nazis performing the Nazi salute at Flinders Street station. As my colleague Mr Batchelor said, in a quite cowardly act they could not even show their faces. This has led to many calls from the Jewish community for the state government to do more to disrupt their behaviour. We have also had incidents of black-clad neo-Nazis – or neo-Nazi-wannabe losers, because that is what they are, pathetic losers – turning up to the front steps of Parliament, this place that we hold so dear.

Victoria Police do not appear to be using their existing powers. This bill adds an offence where a person must not intentionally perform a Nazi gesture if the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the gesture is a Nazi gesture and the performance occurs in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary educational institution or if it occurs in sight of a person who is in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary educational institution. The penalty for this offence is 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or both.

It will have exemptions where the display or performance is engaged in in reasonably good faith for genuine academic, artistic, educational or scientific purposes or in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; where the display of a Nazi symbol is engaged in reasonably and in good faith for a genuine cultural or religious purpose; or where a display of a Nazi symbol is engaged in reasonably and in good faith in opposition to fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism or related ideologies.

A police officer may give direction to a person to remove from display a Nazi symbol or Nazi gesture if the person is the owner or occupier of a property on which the Nazi symbol or gesture is being displayed and the police officer reasonably believes an offence is being committed against section 41K. However, the directions power does not currently extend to a direction to a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture. The bill is consistent with the previously introduced law for banning the public display of the Nazi swastika, subject to certain objections.

We do have a concern with the definition of ‘Nazi symbol’ being too wide, because it includes not only the Hakenkreuz but any other symbol used by the Nazi party. On the face of it that would include any symbol used at all, whether or not it was specifically used by the Nazi party. We are concerned that the definition undermines the intent of the bill, which is designed to ban the display of symbols specifically associated with the Nazi party. We also believe there should be a power for a police officer to direct a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture in a public place. It is part of our amendments, which Mr Davis spoke about, but one example of what I was talking about before with the difference between ‘used by the Nazi party’ and ‘associated with the Nazi party’ is that the Star of David was used by the Nazi party. So our amendment to say ‘used by and associated with the Nazi party’ would rule that out as being captured under this law. We think that is a reasonable amendment to make.

As part of our consideration for this bill my colleague and friend Michael O’Brien, the Shadow Attorney-General, has consulted with a wide range of organisations and legal groups, including the Criminal Bar Association, Police Association Victoria and Jewish community groups. One organisation that is in opposition to this bill is Liberty Victoria. Its president Michael Stanton said:

… we understand the important motivation for the Bill …

…

We understand that the display of Nazi symbols is highly confronting and offensive, particularly to the Jewish community and other minority groups that have been targeted by –

this –

… ideology.

He gives some reasons why Liberty Victoria do not support the bill for their own reasons. I tend to disagree.

The opposition does support this bill, but we believe it would be more effective if the government supported our two very reasonable, constructive amendments. As discussed, the first is to amend the bill’s definition of ‘Nazi symbol’ to insert the words ‘and associated with’ so that it reads ‘any other symbol used by and associated with the Nazi party’. The second is to amend the bill to provide for a police officer to have the power to direct a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture in a public place, with the same criteria that apply to cease displaying a Nazi symbol in a public place.

This is a bill that we support, and I would also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague David Southwick, who I know campaigned for many, many years for the government to take action on Nazi symbols in Victoria – something the government took up. And I think that his community in particular is going through a very, very difficult time at the moment, as are all communities, but certainly the feedback the opposition has received is significant. I am sure the government has been getting the same feedback from the Jewish community and Jewish community members who are concerned about the rise of antisemitism in Australia and are concerned with the rise of hate groups and neo-Nazis. I know this is something my friend Senator James Paterson has looked at as former chair of the federal Parliament’s intelligence and national security committee. It is a very serious issue where you have got these wannabe, loser neo-Nazis running around, very cowardly blocking their faces from view, spreading hate. That is not in the spirit of what I think is a very diverse state, a very multicultural state.

Unlike what these people spit out, our multicultural communities do not actually take anything away from our nation or our state. What they do is make our state richer, make our state more diverse and make our state more tolerant and I think more cohesive, because we are able to learn from so many different cultures. That is the beauty of multiculturalism: yes, we are all Australian, but within us are many cultures to celebrate, and to be able to celebrate that diversity I think is a really important part of the character of Victoria. To have these losers running around, clad in black or Nazi uniforms, doing all sorts of gestures, is deeply disturbing and something that must be stamped out. I think that this bill goes some way to doing that.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:36): I rise to make a contribution to the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Appallingly, Melbourne has been labelled the neo-Nazi capital of Australia. This is a hard label to refute, given reports over the weekend of a group of masked men performing the Nazi salute at Flinders Street station and aggressively questioning people on the train about their faith and whether they are Jewish. In recent years there has been a steady increase in far-right groups in Victoria using the Nazi salute to promote hateful ideology.

The events that triggered the creation of this bill occurred at an anti-trans rally in March this year, where members of the National Socialist Network repeatedly performed the Nazi salute. These groups have been targeting our communities to incite hatred and fear, and they are doing so in an increasingly organised, violent and escalated way. First Nations people, the Jewish community, LGBTIQA+ people, people with a disability and other racial and religious groups have all been targeted by these attacks. This bill sends a message that this hate has no place in Victoria, and we are pleased to see the full force of the law being used to target these harmful, hateful symbols and gestures. In the context of this increasing hate and the need to curb far-right extremism, bills such as this need to be part of a wider, proactive and holistic response. This must include continued education about Nazi and fascist movements and their horrific consequences throughout history.

The Nazi salute that this bill seeks to prohibit is inseparably linked with the Holocaust. The atrocities committed by the Nazi regime were countless and marked one of the darkest periods of human history: the genocide of 6 million Jews, millions of prisoners of war and countless victims of other marginalised communities. To see the glorification of this history and the same hateful rhetoric and gestures in Australia all these years later is profoundly disturbing. These symbols and gestures target the very core identity of groups of people and vilify them for it. With this in mind, I am sure you cannot help but understand my frustration that we continue to wait on expanded anti-vilification protections. Every day we delay we allow this hate to fester. As I mentioned, the triggering event that caused the creation of this bill occurred at an anti-trans rally in March this year. The Nazi salute was just one aspect of the hate speech being directed at those trans Victorians on that day, and it is that hate speech more broadly that we so urgently need to address.

I spend quite a bit of time talking with particularly the LGBTIQ+ community. The response by the government to the hateful language and the rally in March has been ‘We’ll just ban the Nazi salute’ rather than actually looking at the cause and effect and the vilification that is occurring and protecting those people that are being vilified. That is something that is incredibly frustrating for the community.

This matter has been the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, which was completed in September 2021. In the government’s response they accepted recommendation 1, in principle, to extend anti-vilification protections in both civil and criminal laws to cover the following attributes:

a. race and religion

b. gender and/or sex

c. sexual orientation

d. gender identity and/or gender expression

e. sex characteristics and/or intersex status

f. disability

g. HIV/AIDS status

h. personal association.

The inquiry recognised that extremist movements cause harm to the community and that mainstreaming of marginalised homophobic and transphobic sentiments legitimises the kind of targeting of LGBTIQA+ Victorians that we are seeing. As this government have said in their response:

The harm caused by hate conduct and vilification can be profound, affecting the physical and psychological wellbeing of individuals as well as whole communities’ ability to participate in daily life. Significantly, hate conduct and vilification challenges the very core of Victoria’s social cohesion through its inherent divisiveness and unequal distribution of power.

Delay is causing harm. I know the government are committed to extending anti-vilification protections to additional groups of people, pending a consultation process. It is a matter I have raised with the Attorney-General in this chamber on several occasions. I was grateful when she committed to an 18-month time frame, but I am not sure if that has since been walked back. What I do know is that it is over 800 days since the government accepted those parliamentary inquiry recommendations, while there are people in our community who are desperate to see reform occur. We need to expand anti-vilification protections, and those affected will benefit so greatly from a concrete time frame for this legislation. The fierce urgency of the moment is clear: when people seek to spread their hatred we must be firm in our position that this has no place here.

My electorate is one of immense diversity. Our diversity is our strength. It should be embraced, and we should all work towards a shared future of our nation. We must stand against those that seek to divide us. Accordingly, Legalise Cannabis Victoria lends its wholehearted support to the bill, and we hope to see the government soon deliver more to stamp out far-right extremism, vilification and hatred.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:43): History rarely sides with the censors. This bill and the way it has come before this Parliament as a knee-jerk response I think is ill considered, counterproductive and frankly dangerous. We have already heard from the government that their banning of the swastika, the Hakenkreuz, last year has been totally ineffective. In fact incidents by these losers – they call themselves the National Socialist Network, these losers, or I would call them clowns; losers, as Mr Mulholland calls them – have only increased, because what has happened is they have goaded the government into a response. They have responded once already with the ban last year, and now they are responding again. So firstly the government set the precedent of banning symbols, to which their response was to immediately just change to another symbol – totally ineffective. Now we are setting the precedent of banning gestures. Of course these clowns last weekend thought they would get in a last hurrah before the ban goes in.

What I would say is dangerous here is that this is totally counterproductive. I know that Liberty Victoria agrees with me on this. Mr Mulholland referred to their views on this: banning expressions of someone’s beliefs does not change those beliefs; far more work is required to do that. I do not think that banning the way that people express themselves with symbols or gestures is going to in any way deradicalise them. In fact it is going to push them underground and give them the victim status that they crave, and most dangerously of all, I am concerned that it is going to create a martyr here, because someone eventually is going to test this law. Is that really what we want here? Do we really want someone going to jail for this? Because I think that that would be wholly counterproductive.

On another note, there is a very, very clear tendency, primarily amongst the left, to smear anyone that disagrees with them as a Nazi, and this includes the government itself. I can name a few instances of this. This totally undermines what the government claims to be a serious view of this hateful ideology, smearing anyone that disagrees with them as a proponent of it. I will give you a very good example of this. Back in September 2021 there was a protest. It was out the front of the CFMEU office. There were a bunch of people down there, and I and a few of my staff went down there to watch what happened. I go to protests a lot because I do not trust the government’s view on things and I do not trust what the media reports, so I went to see it with my own two eyes. What I saw was a bunch of workers who were upset with their union. The media only really reported on one thing that they were upset about, which was vaccine mandates. They were upset about another thing as well. They had two demands; the second demand got memory-holed. The second demand was that their lunch sheds be reopened. They were upset about this right that they had fought long and hard for, to get the lunch sheds – upset that they could not use them. If you cast your mind back, you will know that the week before that they were actually going out on the street and setting up tables on the tramlines and stopping traffic because they were upset about the sheds being closed.

This escalated because these people were demanding that their union support them. They wanted to march on Parliament, and they wanted to go on strike until these demands were met. The union clearly did not want to go on strike, and what happened after that was there was this apparently coordinated campaign to say that there were Nazis there amongst the crowd. All the many unions put out media releases. The government even started talking about it. Everyone started talking about those Nazis there. Well, I can tell you: I was there, and I did not see a single Nazi. In fact they all looked like tradespeople as far as I could tell. I did not see any Nazis. In fact I got people calling up my office the next day – these were union members – who were upset with the government. They were saying, ‘My grandparents fought against Nazis, and I am outraged that the government would smear my union comrades as Nazis.’ They were absolutely outraged by what the government did – but go ahead they did.

Fast-forward to March this year, to the Let Women Speak rally, where a group of women wanted to talk about what they saw as the clash of rights between women’s rights and transgender issues. This is an entirely legitimate discussion to have and something that these women wanted to speak about. I was there also to listen to what they had to say. I did not hear anything that I would classify as hateful. But lo and behold, a group of men turned up – about a couple of dozen men dressed in black. I saw them. No-one knew who they were. In fact no-one actually knew what Nazis looked like because people had been pointing at everyone and calling them Nazis for so long that we did not actually know what they looked like. So everyone was quite shocked when they saw them unfurl an awful sign and start doing Nazi salutes. Many of the women that were speaking at this event were already being shouted down by people across the road – highly authoritarian activists who just simply want to shut women up that want to talk about this. Many of the women could not actually see these men who were standing sort of adjacent to them because they were worried about their own security issues. What happened after that was absolutely appalling. The Premier himself started talking about how Nazis had turned up and how these women were associated with Nazis, and lots of people started associating them. These women that turned up to talk about women’s rights were drowned out by a group of men who were going there and doing this crazy stuff.

By smearing people like this, unjustifiably, these people have inadvertently – and I include the government when I say ‘these people’ – empowered these groups with this sinister ideology to cancel anything that they choose just by turning up. We have to clearly state – whether or not you agree with what the women were saying there that day – and we have to clearly differentiate that this group of Nazi clowns that turned up had nothing to do with those women. They were not organised. They had nothing to do with it. They were totally separate. They got hijacked by it, and then that was the story and it led to all these problems.

I know that Mrs Deeming got criticised because she did not call out these Nazis immediately, and she had the very principled response: she considered it a very grave accusation and wanted to make sure that she was actually correct before making that accusation. I wish the government would take that advice – and many from the left, because I know many of the activists that were there shouting down at those women that day were calling them Nazis as well. Maybe people should think twice before throwing that accusation – that grave, grave accusation – about the hideous ideology that has caused so much harm to so many people. Maybe people should think about it a bit more. But I think that what we are doing here, what this Parliament is doing here, setting a precedent of banning symbols, is dangerous and it is counterproductive. You are going to create martyrs, unfortunately, and I just think that this is exactly the wrong way to go about deradicalising these people. I know that there are many other people that agree with me on this. Many people are too scared to speak the truth about this stuff, but I will be opposing this bill. I think it is counterproductive. I think that there are better ways to do this. I think that this is a kneejerk reaction. It is poor legislation, and it should be condemned.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:52): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023, and in doing so I would like to note to this chamber that there is no place for hate in Victoria, not now and not ever. We have all witnessed many incidents throughout this year when Nazi symbolism, such as the Nazi salute, has been used to intimidate, harass and incite hate all across our state. This has been directed towards various Victorian communities, including the Jewish community, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, the LGBTIQ+ community, people with disability as well as other multicultural, racial and religious faith communities. Simply, this is not acceptable, and our government will not stand idly by and let these disgusting behaviours continue.

Victorians deserve to feel safe and feel accepted. It is what makes the state what it is, and the Allan Labor government is fulfilling its commitment to making this state welcoming and inclusive. This bill will make it an offence for a person to intentionally display or perform these heinous acts and symbols in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary education institution or in sight of a person in a public place, a non-government school or a post-secondary education institution. This bill before us sends a clear message, denouncing Nazi ideology and the use of its gestures and symbols to intimidate, incite hate and harm others. The offence is accompanied by powers for Victoria Police to direct a person to remove a Nazi symbol or gesture from public display. Our state here draws its strength from its diversity, and any attacks on that will not be tolerated in any form.

As the chair of the Anti-Racism Taskforce, I have firsthand experience of both the negative impacts these reprehensible behaviours have on Victoria and the positive impacts this bill will contribute to the social cohesion of our state. Social cohesion is precious, is fragile and needs constant attention and care. For Victorians, we take this so very seriously. Many of our multicultural and multifaith communities can take this very seriously and step up to be part of the constant vigilance required to keep our cohesion, as valued as it is. To those members who have joined me in the work of the Anti-Racism Taskforce over the last two years, I give my thanks to you. Thank you for sharing your insights, the aspirations and sometimes the sorrows of your communities as you join us to dream of a better future for our state. From all corners of our state, you have joined with us. For some, it was your first chance to share a room and a cuppa with someone new from our big multicultural family.

I will take this time to give a particular shout-out to a member of the taskforce. My deepest thanks go to Rabbi Gabi Kaltmann. Rabbi Gabi of the Ark Centre in Hawthorn East has so generously shared his Jewish culture and faith with us over this time. It was Rabbi Gabi that hosted the first ever Shabbat–‍Iftar, a really special evening of cultural and religious exchange, an evening that I will cherish forever. I know that Rabbi Gabi and his community are hurting right now, and I send to him and to the members of the broader Jewish community my deepest sympathies. I will go back to the bill, because I do not want to start on that with where I am at the moment.

The benefit that Victorians, especially those from marginalised communities, will receive from this bill before us cannot be overstated. It will give Victorians the assurances they need to feel safe, secure and welcome. An immediate response is required to initiate an immediate stop to the community harm and outrage being caused by groups using the Nazi salute to intimidate and incite hatred. This bill forms part of a range of initiatives that the Victorian government is developing to prevent and address racism and vilification in our state. These initiatives are a clear indication of the work this government does to stamp out this hateful, hateful ideology.

The Allan Labor government is committed to developing a new statewide anti-racism strategy to proactively prevent and address racism in our state. The Anti-Racism Taskforce is leading this work. I am sure we can look forward to seeing that very soon, and we will be meeting with the new Minister for Multicultural Affairs about that in the coming weeks. Once this strategy is completed Victoria will have even broader strategies to protect Victoria’s most marginalised communities from the vile actions that we have seen take place here in Melbourne. These ideologies only exist with the intention to harm and divide, and we will not let this happen. We will ensure that Victorians know that this government is here for them, their friends, their family and the people that matter to them, and this bill will solidify that.

The bill will also complement a suite of reforms the government is undertaking to strengthen our anti-vilification laws and address the underlying causes of hateful behaviour, with consultation underway via Engage Victoria, an important tool in fighting hate within the state – so get on board if that is of interest to you. We need to send a clear and urgent message that Victoria will not tolerate hateful conduct so that anyone undertaking this disgusting and reprehensible behaviour will understand that there are consequences for these hurtful and divisive actions. The abhorrent display of the Nazi salute on the steps of Parliament earlier this year was revolting and highlighted the need to create laws to ban this hateful, vile conduct. Nazi symbols and Nazi gestures represent the mass atrocities committed during the Holocaust, and their display does not meet the reasonable community expectations of the way we conduct ourselves in political debate and expression. Victorians agree that there is no place for these symbols and gestures in our community, and we stand side by side with all Victorians and say we will not tolerate these symbols of hate.

The bill will prohibit the public display or performance of any symbol or gesture used by the Nazi party and its associated paramilitary groups. This practical and meaningful step in the right direction will ensure that Victoria remains a bastion of acceptance and safety for our marginalised communities. We simply cannot and should not accept the use of Nazi symbols and gestures – particularly the salute, which is loaded with the history of the Nazi regime and its ethnic cleansing agenda – to convey messages of hate and intimidation. As a government and as a state we categorically disavow this behaviour and these ideologies. The harm, the trauma and the pain that these gestures and symbols bring up for so many in our community are why this bill is so integral. It will keep our community safe and secure and reinforce to everyone in this state that this has no place. That is what the community wants in Victoria, and that is why we are here really.

Over 80 stakeholder groups were approached to give their thoughts on the changes. There were round tables held with Holocaust survivors and member organisations, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, legal and human rights stakeholders, LGBTI organisations across our state and Aboriginal and multicultural communities. Listening to the communities that will be most affected by this change is a commitment of this government. We listen to communities and to Victorians, and we always will do what matters to them. Let me just say there are a number of stakeholders involved in this. They include the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Police, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Victoria Legal Aid and the Magistrates’ Court. There are so many that gave their time and consulted so deeply with those that they know and represent, and I say thank you to all of them.

This bill forms part of the anti-vilification reform package in addressing hate speech and hate conduct in our state. I am thankful to and commend all the ministers so involved in the creation of this bill on their efforts in making Victoria a more welcoming environment. The efforts of this government, my fellow parliamentary colleagues and members of our community and leadership in actively fighting hate and division have been nothing short of outstanding. There is time to reflect on the work done previously in the parliamentary inquiry into anti-vilification protections, so thank you to the committee members for that work.

Can I just say as recently as this weekend just gone we saw hate and division being spewed out in the CBD. It makes it a tough place to go. It makes it not the sort of Melbourne that we all know and love. This behaviour is why we need this bill, why we need these changes. It is clear that we need to act and act with urgency. These changes, commitments and more importantly the actions of the Allan Labor government have been undertaken to ensure that Victoria remains a place deeply and profoundly committed to acceptance, safety and inclusion. This, the summary offences amendment bill, is yet another example of this government doing what matters and doing what needs to be done. Racism, hate and vilification have no place in Victoria. This is a state of welcoming, of belonging, and we intend to keep it that way. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:02): I rise to speak on this very important bill at a very disturbing time in our own history. The Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023 has a purpose to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 to make the public display or performance of Nazi gestures an offence and also to extend the application of the offence of public display of Nazi symbols.

This bill is relevant now more than ever with what we are experiencing worldwide and with the terrifying situation currently taking place in Israel. The horrific atrocities in Israel are proving to be triggers for some antagonists in our own country who have been found to be taking on these symbols of hate, like the Nazi symbols and the Nazi salute. As an opposition we support this ban of the Nazi salute, because such symbolic actions serve to incite hate and violence and cause untold pain to decent everyday citizens, especially those who have lived, or are descendants of those who have lived, through the Holocaust and its atrocities. Many of them can be, and many are at this time, experiencing trauma as these memories are being triggered not only by what has been happening here but also by what has happened and is happening in Israel. Ordinary, everyday citizens have been badly impacted by what can only be described as a failure to instantly stamp out behaviour. Police have been, perhaps, unprepared. In the interests of democracy, they have perhaps allowed in public places people to publicly humiliate others with such symbolic gestures. We recognise that this must stop. These actions have no place in this country or in any country for that matter.

This bill gives Victorian police the power to direct a person to remove a Nazi symbol or gesture from public display and gives police the power to arrest and lay charges. The penalties for the performance or display of a Nazi symbol or gesture in public will be high, as they should be, including fines of up to about $23,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both. We need to send a message that these acts are violations of human decency and do need to be punished.

On 13 October, the ABC reported the passing of the Crimes Amendment (Prohibition on Display of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2022 in the upper house in New South Wales with unanimous support. I only mention New South Wales because the Jewish Board of Deputies’ Darren Bark said that this was long overdue. This is a quote that I have from him:

Nazi symbols are a gateway to violence and are used as recruitment tool by extremists.

Racial violence or the incitement thereof should not be allowed to grow, and by stamping out any form of this type of behaviour we send a message, as a state, that antisemitic behaviour is not going to be accepted in this state.

International reports by Australia’s counterintelligence have previously warned that cases involving neo-Nazi cells and other ideologically motivated groups have been growing. Organisations now spend a lot of their time on domestic anti-terrorism. In June the Australian federal government announced it would ban Nazi symbols, with a punishment of up to a year in prison, but left it to the states and territories to decide whether to ban the Nazi salute. Last year Victoria became the first Australian state or territory to ban the public display of the Nazi symbol following recommendations from a cross-party inquiry into anti-vilification laws, and I commend the work of the Parliament for that. This was a situation where all sides needed to come together as one, working with all multicultural leaders on these types of reforms.

The Anti-Defamation Commission chair, Mr Abramovich, said that seeing the Nazi symbol tore a hole through Jewish people’s hearts. I am a person who went to school with many Jewish people and who has many friends throughout the Jewish community. I have enjoyed spending time with them – celebrating Passover with them over the years and even being invited to bar mitzvahs and to attend synagogue – and I know that they are very traumatised by what has been happening. There are incidents that have been occurring in Melbourne on our train stations. People are feeling threatened. People are being accosted and asked if they are Jewish. The terror that must go through people is just unfathomable.

As a person who has talked about the Holocaust and who has spent a long time privately researching and looking at images of what took place during the time of the Second World War, a photo can speak a thousand words. I have read the stories and taught the stories to young people, and I have spoken to Holocaust survivors over the years. I still remember the first time, as a girl, I went to my friend’s house and saw the tattoo on the arm of her grandmother. I did not know what it was. I asked my friend about it, and that is when she mentioned the Holocaust. I remember going home to my parents and asking more questions because I could feel that it was something I was not to ask anything more about in my friend’s home. It has left such an imprint on me. I will never forget the moment that I saw that tattoo for the first time. I consider myself very fortunate and privileged to have had the opportunity to have friends, colleagues and other people that I have spent time with who are Jewish. I think it is a wonderful community. It is very diverse, and it is very rich in its history and tradition and symbolism.

I can say, going back to Mr Abramovich, that when he talked about campaigning on these bans, he said that displays from Nazis have been distressing to Holocaust survivors:

We have seen a resurgence of the white supremacist movement here in Australia, becoming much more agitated, much more angry, taking their online activity into the real world, taking their activity to the steps of the Victorian Parliament House, doing their Heil Hitler salute …

Holocaust survivors who never imagined that in their lifetime, they would see the offspring of Hitler, marching through the streets, giving this salute, and trying to resurrect the ideology of extermination.

For them, it’s like being threatened with a gun. There’s a hole in their heart.

According to Lydia Khalil in the Age on 29 March this year:

Expressions of Nazism are … a form of rebellion and subversion for young men in particular. Many have no real understanding or perspective on these symbols’ terrible history. Banning them only makes them more seductive.

But I think we really do not have another choice at this point in time than to take a strong stand. I think that the actions that we are taking are incredibly important. As we know, at the moment Jewish schools and other cultural institutions across Australia are having to add extra security measures. Parents are known to have kept their children home from Jewish schools, and students who are attending are fearful. Many students in Jewish schools now are not wearing their uniforms because it would distinguish them as Jews. Is this something we really want for our great state? Absolutely not. That type of terror and fear is coming I know from the attack in Israel, but this is all connected, and I think that is something that we need to be very aware of. Any memory of people being exterminated simply because of their race is just unacceptable. It is inappropriate. We have to do whatever we have to do in order to protect humanity.

In South Yarra last week there was a reported incident where a car of young men stopped and asked a pedestrian where the Jews live, so they could hunt them down and kill them, allegedly. Also allegedly, 25 people dressed in black made Nazi salutes at Flinders Street station and expressed antisemitic sentiments. Similar incidents have occurred in Sydney, where it was reported that ‘death to Jews’ chants were heard at a pro-Palestinian rally. The Nazi salutes on the steps of Parliament in March and these recent train incidents are things that have been really haunting us as a state. This is not the Australia we have come to live in. It is not why people have come to our nation; no-one wants to live like this. As members of Parliament, outlawing this type of behaviour is incredibly important, because we cannot let these sorts of ideologies, so different to our own and our way of life, gain hold in this country. We should outlaw all evidence of hate and the persecution of any peoples. We need to continue to be a humane society, and people need to be protected.

As we once again reflect on the recent barbaric terrorist acts in Israel that demonstrate extreme terrorism, violating human rights, when Jews feel threatened with genocide – and they have actually experienced it again; this is the worst example, as it has been said in this house, since the Holocaust – we have to take adequate protective action to help our communities feel safe. Banning the public performance of Nazi military symbolism and the public display of the Nazi salute is a step towards this. This bill is supported by both sides of politics, and I want to thank all those who have worked on this bill and consulted to create it. I commend this bill to the house.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (18:14): I am rising today to oppose the government’s move to ban the Nazi salute. Let us get one thing straight first, though: I am in no way, shape or form a supporter of anything that promotes or enshrines the symbolism of the Nazi movement and their genocidal history. I find myself conflicted in fact on how I should stand on this matter today. On one hand I do not wish to see the Nazi salute or symbolism being used in our society to incite fear or dominance or to terrorise Victorians. On the other hand I do not wish to see the liberties of Victorians being further eroded.

Symbols and bodily gestures such as a salute are but one thing an individual utilises to express their opinion and stance on an issue. This may incite offence, fear or an emotional response in others, but it does not physically harm them in any way. It does not damage an innocent party’s property nor enforce any economic detriment. If this bill is successful, it will not stop members of these extreme Nazi groups creating and using other means to express themselves. If this bill is successful, which I believe it will be, where will we draw the line on Victorians’ freedoms? Will we continue to take liberties from Victorians if they may cause offence? Will we see a gross overgovernance if the public do not conform to government agendas? Will we continue to see an authoritarian dictatorship being rolled out over time? I fear that this is just another step towards the liberties being stripped from our free society.

Acknowledging that I believe this bill will pass with or without my vote, I do believe that the opposition’s responsible amendments warrant my support. However, I will not be supporting this bill in its current form today. This bill will not solve the problems it seeks to address.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (18:16): I rise before Parliament today to contribute for the government on the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. But before we begin I would like to say that it has been a hard week for my community of Southern Metro, and what is worse is that this poison has infected our shores. With your indulgence, Acting President, we have seen ignorance on our streets. We saw people at the opera house chanting things that I will not repeat in this chamber as they do not bear repeating anywhere. Antisemitism is the world’s oldest form of discrimination. It has existed since the times of ancient Egypt, which is why this bill is appropriate to be debated now and needed.

Earlier today we saw this chamber come together in solidarity and unity across the chamber to mark this tragic event. When I attended the Caulfield Shule last Monday night I was joined by one of my staffers. His name is Zac, and he is Jewish. His dad is Israeli, and his family has many members that are currently serving in the Israel Defense Forces. This is near and dear to him, and his advice and his education on this to me have been eye opening. It was also great to be joined by my colleagues in the chamber from across the aisle – people like Mr McGowan, Dr Heath, Ms Crozier and Mr Bourman – who came out to express their support and their solidarity with the Jewish community and to stand in unity at what was an emotional, touching and jarring event. This is why this bill is needed.

These people claim to be Australian patriots. They fly the Australian flag whilst also chanting Nazi slogans and making Nazi salutes. It is a disgrace. There is nothing Australian about it. Australians fought under our flag. Our diggers fought under the Southern Cross against that signal and party, that evil. I am a big supporter of the shrine. The shrine is an important station to my office, against that evil, against those slogans. So this bill should be universally supported, and it needs to be supported now more than ever. I am proud to stand in solidarity with the Allan Labor government to continue to combat all forms of racism, antisemitism and vilification in our state and ensure all Victorians feel safe and accepted in our communities.

This bill will amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 to make the public display or performance of the Nazi salute or other gestures used by the Nazi party a criminal offence and to extend the application of the offence of public display of Nazi symbols and for other purposes. It will be an offence for a person to intentionally display in a public place or in sight of a person in a public place a Nazi symbol or gesture, particularly if a person knows or ought reasonably to have known that the symbol or gesture is a Nazi symbol or Nazi gesture. The offence is accompanied by powers for the Victorian police to direct the person to remove a Nazi symbol or gesture from public display. But I do want to note that the bill requires the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the commencement of a prosecution of a child for an offence. Police have existing search warrant powers under section 465 of the Crimes Act 1958 and will need to apply to a magistrate. This means the police will continue to need a warrant to enter a premises to search for and seize a Nazi symbol or gesture.

We do know that there will be existing exceptions for different versions of the swastika, but other Nazi party symbols and gestures will be covered under this bill. They include the SS bolts symbol; the Nazi skull, which was also used by the SS; and any other symbol of Nazi paramilitary organisations. However, it will ultimately be up to the court to decide which symbols or gestures were used by the Nazi party, particularly when the display of a Nazi party symbol is engaged reasonably in good faith for genuine academic, artistic, educational, journalistic or scientific purposes, and sometimes a symbol or gesture may be applied or used to combat fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism or related ideologies. But the exceptions for the performance of Nazi party gestures have been narrowed, with exceptions for religious, cultural and other purposes applying.

The performance of a gesture in opposition to fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism and other related ideologies also applies, and the risk of innocent gestures being captured by offences has been mitigated ‍– for example, hailing a taxi at a taxi rank. It is highly unlikely that anybody observing a person hailing a taxi at a taxi rank would consider that a gesture. That is why the context in which a gesture is performed is critical to understanding whether an offence has been made. So we have built in provisions and safeguards through the knowledge and intent elements of the offence. For an offence to be made out, a person must intentionally display it in a public place or in sight of a person.

Banning the Nazi salute in Victoria will provide a legal remedy for acts of vilification and the promotion of genocidal symbols. There is no other way of putting it: Nazi imageries are symbols of hate, bigotry and indeed of ignorance. As recent events have shown, Australia has a long way to go to combat racism and vilification. It is important in such times as those we are currently facing to unite against displays of hatred. There is no place in Australia for those symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust – not now and certainly not into the future. This gesture has the power to incite hate in the same way that a word can incite an action. It reminds us of what can only be described as one of the darkest times in our history and reflects the absolute horrors of the 20th century which were recorded. We are making sure that people who use such gestures to harass, intimidate and incite hate are held accountable for their cowardly behaviour.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s most recent report on antisemitism in Australia, which covers the period between October 2021 and September 2022, notes 478 antisemitic incidents logged within that period. That is an increase of 6.9 per cent over the overall number of reported antisemitic incidents compared to the previous 12 months, and that in itself was a 35 per cent increase over the number of recorded incidents in 2020. Of those incidents, 170 occurred within our state. This shows that we sadly have an antisemitism problem in Victoria. There is a need for this bill.

This is an important and significant bill, a bill that stands against hate, stands against violence and stands against evil acts committed against innocent people. This is a piece of legislation that will help to combat racism, vilification and far-right extremism in our community. It will not eliminate the existence of neo-Nazism, but it will deprive them of the use of the symbols which incite hate. Most importantly it will send a clear message to everybody that neo-Nazism is not only unacceptable but abhorrent.

History has shown us how dangerous participating in actions associated with Nazi and neo-Nazi ideologies can be. We know the harm caused by the conduct of hate and vilification can be profound, and it can affect the physical and psychological wellbeing of individuals and often prevent them from feeling comfortable and participating in their communities. Holocaust survivors and their families should never have to experience the hateful behaviour of those few in our community that continue to promote such beliefs. It is our obligation to act and protect our communities. The ultimate gesture of inhumanity will never find refuge here. For our Jewish community, the Nazi salute is more than just a symbol, it is a reminder of the danger that hate and discrimination pose to our society. There is no place for this hate within our community. An attack on one community is an attack on all communities, and we should never forget that.

With this legislation we will fight those who seek to divide. This landmark reform sends a clear message that the public display and performance of Nazi gestures has no place in Victoria and certainly has no place in my electorate. What this bill does is send a strong message and clear message that intentionally performing Nazi gestures will not be tolerated in this state. The vilification of our Jewish community will not be tolerated. Intimidation toward our fellow Victorians will not be tolerated.

This bill is of great importance to the Jewish community, and I want to acknowledge certainly the large and vibrant Jewish community within the Southern Metropolitan Region, my electorate, which is home to the largest Jewish population in Australia. This community has historically suffered in a way that very few have, and to be able to build a new life and contribute to this society in all aspects, whether that be economically, academically, in the arts, in the community life or in sports, highlights a sense of pride and celebration for me as a local member but also for Victoria as a whole. Certainly in my time as a member for southern region I have enjoyed being involved in community events at the local synagogues or at Jewish social service organisations or meeting with proud Jewish people who live in and around Southern Metropolitan electorate. For instance, there is the Jewish Arts Quarter, which I visited twice this year, which means so much to my community of Southern Metro. It is a credit to the City of Glen Eira, the Jewish Museum of Australia, Kadimah and many more for getting it off the ground. I want to pay tribute to Gary and Kylie for their work on this, and it is the same with the Holocaust centre educating the next generation.

I acknowledge the antisemitism faced by university students particularly at this time, and again I call on universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of ‘antisemitism’. I know this bill will mean so much for those individuals and those groups and the wider Jewish community.

Victoria is a proud multicultural and multifaith state, and it is because of this that our government is committed to protecting the rights of all Victorians to be free from racism, vilification and hatred and to ensuring everyone feels welcome and accepted in this state and of course in this country. We are working with our partners in the Commonwealth closely on this, and I will speak about the Commonwealth and their approach shortly. But I want to say this first: the bill does not apply to online displays of Nazi symbols or gestures, but the Commonwealth government is committed to introducing legislation to prohibit the public display of these evil symbols, including two Nazi symbols that I have mentioned before. The Commonwealth will also prohibit the sale of memorabilia featuring these two symbols. This includes the sale of memorabilia in the real world and online trading through sale and leasing out. So you will hear it loud and clear: whether you were born here or you were born overseas, whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, no matter what your religion, faith or colour – you belong. The rise of antisemitism incidents and trends is unacceptable.

Yesterday I listened to the Honourable Tony Burke speak in the Australian House of Representatives, and he spoke of fear. He said:

There is also the ongoing grief for loss which is not loss of life but is the permanent loss to people through all the fear which lies ahead. There is the fear of something as joyous as a music festival being something where people will feel they cannot relax; the fear of something as routine as attendance at a pizza shop; the fear of being confronted at a checkpoint; and the fear of sleeping and not knowing whether, by the time morning comes, a bomb may have struck or a knock on the door may have come saying that your home is to be demolished. There is the base fear of the constant risk of terrorism and the base fear of living with a seemingly endless occupation. All of those fears are something now that will last longer as a result of what has just occurred.

But rest assured that I, with the Premier and other senior people in the government, including the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, will continue to take real action to ensure that Victoria is a safe space for all diverse communities that will prosper. We will continue to consult, listen, work, understand and be informed by stakeholder feedback on this bill. We have been working on this for a long time. Feedback has been sought from Jewish and other faith religious groups. That includes legal scholars and academics, human rights activists and stakeholders, our First Nations and multicultural communities and other legitimate stakeholders that may be affected by this, including the arts sector. Through that, we have held 15 consultation meetings, and a confidential consultation paper was sent to 82 stakeholder groups. On top of that, round tables were held with a group of Holocaust survivors.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:33 pm.

John BERGER: We have held 15 consultation meetings, and a confidential consultation paper was sent to 82 stakeholder groups. On top of that, round tables were held with a group of Holocaust survivors and member organisations of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. Through that engagement I am confident that we have crafted the best bill. This bill will set the standard, making it very clear that there is no place for hatred in our community. Again, I want to reiterate to the Jewish community in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region: you will always have my support.

This bill will come into operation on the day after the bill receives royal assent, and I look forward to seeing it work. I will fight to ensure that you can live your lives free of violence, free of intimidation and free of humiliation. I am extremely proud to see this government be one of the first in Australia to take a stand and ban the public display of Nazi gestures, historic symbols of hate which do not belong in this state, nor in our nation. This bill is another way that we can really send the message that Victoria is a welcoming place. We are proud of our multicultural roots, and we are proud of the diversity of our community. This amendment bill acts to protect this, and I am honoured to wholeheartedly support it.

Nicholas McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (19:35): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill. It took some deliberation for me to consider what I might say tonight. In truth I started with David Goldberger. Those here tonight might not be very familiar with his name, but he is a very prominent Jew in New York and he is certainly famed in the United States for his role in what is called the Skokie case. The Skokie case was where David and his organisation defended the rights of – believe it or not – neo-Nazis to demonstrate. Looking at his example and starting with that point of reference I spoke to very close friends of mine, two of whom are the children of survivors of Auschwitz. And then we obviously had an internal discussion within our own party – and that is an important part of any democratic process; I am sure everyone here would agree with that.

It is clear tonight that not only given recent events but historically this bill has a place, but I think it is also important that we do not just look back to 18 March 2023, as some have perhaps done – and that is not a criticism of them – because I think it is important in this place that when we talk about the past we do it in a manner which has due regard to all of our past. It gives me no pleasure to remind this place of some of the less savoury moments that we have all been witness to. I go back to my childhood in 1990 with Premier Joan Kirner and the Hoechst dispute. For those of you who do not recall the Hoechst dispute: unfortunately, a number of people, as part of demonstrations, chose to use and adopt the salute. At the time this was a very prominent issue in the media. It was prominent because the Premier at the time failed to criticise those actions, the use of the salute in that context. I think that is important, because people have to understand when and in what context the salute is used. That should not be misinterpreted by anybody here as an endorsement in any way, shape or form. It is not. I abhor the salute.

Fast-forward to November 1992, after the election victory of 3 October 1992, when the Kennett coalition government came into power. It is a day in history perhaps unparalleled in this state and maybe unparalleled in the country: more people than ever before in this country adopted and used the Nazi salute on the steps of Parliament. There was a massive, some say a 100,000-person, march and rally that day. Many of those protesters, protesting against the government of the day, carried signs with all sorts of derogatory, insulting slogans, most of which I will not repeat, but certainly one of them was ‘Victoria: the Hitler state.’ That was November 1992 – ‘Victoria: the Hitler state.’ Now, I understand the context in which that was used. In fact I observe that that is perhaps the occasion that most of us in our lifetime would have observed the salute – that is, people giving the salute in disgust as a sign of the ultimate insult because that is what that person, in giving the salute, thought of the other person and their actions. It is a certain kind of irony – a sad one at that. Then we had nothing less than a salute in one of these chambers – and that too received media attention – in 1994. That member of Parliament then went on to become a police minister. I will not name the member, because we all know who it is, and if you do not, you can google it and find out pretty quickly. In the chamber they gave a Nazi salute. These were unimpressive acts.

Nonetheless, the actions this year of a group of black-clad, masked men demonstrating on the steps of our Parliament have triggered a further national debate. This year, as many have already observed in their own speeches, Tasmania became the first Australian state to ban the salute. From now on in Tasmania first-time offenders will face a fine of up to $3620 or three months in jail, and these penalties will be doubled for subsequent offences.

Victoria, as has been said today already, has already banned the use of the Nazi swastika, and today we debate the banning of the salute. To my mind, arguing for a ban of the Nazi salute, in fact all Nazi symbols, is easy. The ideology of racial superiority that such symbols represent is abhorrent to all fair-minded Australians. I am mindful that Nazism was not just an ideology about racial superiority, it was also about the state having total control over what the German people could say and do and what they could not. I am also mindful that banning the salute does not ban Nazism. We cannot and will not, despite all our best efforts, legislate our way out of hate. We cannot and must not be lulled into thinking a ban alone will solve the problems we are increasingly facing here in Victoria, Australia and across the globe.

Like all speakers before me, in fact most, I too acknowledge the importance of the protection of the civil liberties of each and every one of us. I acknowledge too that it is these individual civil liberties which are central to limiting the power of the state and keeping a check on its capacity to decide and tell its citizenry how they can express themselves. But society too has a responsibility to ensure incitement to violence and threatening behaviour cannot be allowed to masquerade as free speech or a freedom of expression that we find in any way tolerable. Yet I do have my fears. I do fear that by banning it we believe we are somehow controlling the imagery. I do fear that by banning it we believe we are effectively controlling the ideology and in some way preventing it from perpetuating. None of these things can be said to be achieved from a ban alone.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (19:43): As I have said many, many times before, Nazism is the benchmark of all evil in society, which is why accusations of Nazism and antisemitism are so serious. Nazism is the most serious and odious accusation that can possibly be made against a person, which is why it must never, ever be made without basis or used as a political football. To do so would be deeply disrespectful of the suffering that Jewish people have endured throughout history as well as entirely cruel and unjust to the innocent victims.

These last few months have shown us that the evil ideology of antisemitism is not a nightmare of the distant past, with Nazi salutes and public incitements to gas and exterminate Jewish people happening on the streets of just about every country in the world. These things have shocked and horrified us all. But it was on 18 March that I, for the first time in my life, witnessed a Nazi salute, and that was just outside Parliament House. I could not believe my eyes. I condemned the act as vile that day and then repeatedly in the days and months that followed. And yet following that first disgusting Nazi salute, this government chose not to fly the Israeli flag above Parliament House but the trans flag. And just as confusingly, even though I am part Māori and was raised in part by my Holocaust survivor uncle, even though my children have Jewish blood, even though I took in a Vietnamese asylum seeker to live with my family and nursed him through cancer and VCE, and even though I was just an innocent bystander who had nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, those vile men or that vile Nazi salute, I found myself being condemned as a wilful associate of Nazis and antisemitism. The impact on my family has been horrendous.

People here have spoken about the power that words, labels and symbols can have to vilify and to incite hatred and violence against innocent people, and that is why I do not want to ever see another Nazi salute tolerated in public again. But that is also why, now that I have experienced real vilification and hatred and incitement to public violence from people who have been led to believe that I am a Nazi sympathiser, I want to ensure that, if we are going to try and quash or deter Nazism or any other form of hateful bigotry in this state, we take responsibility and be careful to aim our measures and our condemnations at actual perpetrators rather than those with whom we simply disagree, because that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy. Worse, it would only add to the volume of bigotry and hate in our society, and as we have just seen throughout these horrendous past weeks, our society is actually desperately in need of genuine tolerance.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (34): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (2): David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (19:55)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I only have a couple of questions, and I will be quick for the assistance of the chamber. Attorney, we are concerned with the breadth of the definition of ‘Nazi symbol’ as ‘any other symbol used by the Nazi party’. We are concerned that there are many symbols that may have been used by the Nazi party in various forms – for example, the Star of David – but that should not be banned as Nazi symbols. As you may know, we have an amendment to improve the definition. As such, our amendment states it should read ‘any other symbol used by and associated with the Nazi party’ so as not to capture symbols like the Star of David. Why do you believe these symbols would not be captured by the definition in the bill as it stands?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Mulholland, for your question and for flagging the intent of the Liberal amendment. As you would know, the bill is part 2 effectively of where we have got to in dealing with these concerning behaviours that are evident in Victoria. The bill will specifically ban the Nazi salute and other symbols or gestures used by the Nazi party and its associated paramilitary arms. The bill is also intended to capture other symbols – the SS death’s head, for example, along with flags, insignia and medals used by the Nazi party, including its paramilitary organisations, the SA, the National Socialist Motor Corps and the National Socialist Flyers Corps. It also bans variations of the symbols and gestures where varied gestures or symbols are likely to be confused with ones used by the Nazi party. This ensures that we are avoiding people flouting the laws.

Within the bill ‘symbol’ will take on its ordinary meeting, so a symbol used by the Nazi party will mean something, particularly a material object, that is used to stand for or is regarded as representing the Nazi party, and the word ‘gesture’ – you have focused more on symbols but for completeness – will also take on its ordinary meaning, which is understood to mean movement of the body, head, arms, hand or face expressive of an idea or an emotion. At the end of the day it will ultimately be up to a court to decide exactly which other symbols and gestures, other than the Nazi salute and the Hakenkreuz, are banned, because they are the ones that we have specifically called out. They are the ones that we are most concerned about. They are the ones that stakeholders have told us are the most offensive. There are a range of other symbols, particularly things that are, I guess, modern evolutions of offensive gestures which are not causing the level of fear and concern of those historical ones, which cannot be confused for any intent other than a symbol and display of hate.

Obviously the Star of David would not be captured, given the intent of the bill in regard to the ordinary meaning of the words. This is the golden rule of legislative interpretation. But I guess if in some bizarre situation it was, there are exceptions for cultural and religious displays of symbols that would apply in an instance such as that. That would probably be how we would see it operating. But this is a bill that has been through a lot of consultation, a lot of variations in how to bring about its intent, and from reading the Shadow Attorney-General’s amendments, we think we are on the same page in terms of the purpose – I can certainly assure you of that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to touch on police powers. In the existing legislation there is already a power for a Victoria Police officer to direct a person to cease displaying a Nazi symbol. Our second amendment seeks to provide a Victoria Police officer with the power to direct a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture in circumstances where doing so would be an offence under section 41K. Why do you believe this power is not necessary?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the proposal that the amendment touches on, it is effectively wanting to include a power to direct people to cease performing Nazi salutes and gestures. The short answer is that police already have that power. They already have the ability to verbally communicate with or direct people. It is standard police practice and a very common occurrence in the day-to-day operations of police interactions with the public. We would say that the amendment is therefore completely unnecessary. I guess just to really respond in detail to that, police do not need additional legislative power to tell someone to cease performing the salute. As you have indicated, the bill does provide powers for police to direct a person to remove a Nazi symbol or the display of a picture of a Nazi gesture from public if the police officer reasonably believes an offence is being committed. This power is needed, as opposed to a power to cease, because it requires the police to direct someone to take a positive action to remove a display. So hopefully that has answered your question, Mr Mulholland.

David DAVIS: I would just make one comment on that matter. I accept the Attorney’s intent on this, and I think there is agreement across the chamber on what we all want to achieve. I think essentially her argument is that the powers are there. But this amendment provides certainty and absolute clarity, and in that sense it ensures a way forward that in a different way empowers police but also makes it clear to the community that police have that power in the clearest and sharpest possible way.

Jeff BOURMAN: Attorney-General, should the neo-Nazis turn up in what is effectively their uniform now, which is unbranded and all that, and keep their hands in their pockets, what can the police do about it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, you know that in my role as Attorney-General I do not like to give legal advice in relation to very nondescript-type arrangements. This bill is building on the previous legislation, and it responds by banning the public display or the public performance of the Nazi salute. So in your situation you are referring to a group of people that you may identify as Nazis or neo-Nazis, but you have not given me any details as to why you would form that view. But if they are not performing a salute, if they do not have a display of a hate symbol on them and they are just standing there, then that is not attracting these laws.

Jeff BOURMAN: I know it is not attracting the laws, Attorney-General. The uniform that you basically see is black shorts, black shoes and black everything. They are clearly neo-Nazis. I look at what happened with Mrs Deeming, and other than the salute – that is how they turn up. I guess what I am trying to point out is that this is all well and good – and I do support this bill – but if they just turn up and can be disruptive just by their mere presence, what is the government going to do about that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, this is not proposing to outlaw uniform and it is not proposing to outlaw association; the bill is focused on harm. What we know is that Nazi hate symbols and the performance of the Nazi salute have a really profound effect on a range of people, particularly people of Jewish background, who associate it undeniably with the Holocaust. But we know that in a modern society this is being used as a way to inflict harm, intimidate and cause fear for people of a range of backgrounds, and so that is the behaviour that we want to respond to and that is what these laws are designed to do. In relation to intimidation or offensive behaviour, there are other laws or other tools that police can enact, but this legislation does not propose to respond to people that are just unpleasant or people that are offensive or people that you disagree with; this is responding to the actions and the harm that it causes people.

Jeff BOURMAN: You really do not have to tell me how unpleasant the Nazis are; I have got a fairly good view of that. I guess where I am going is – this will be more a statement; you do not have to reply if you do not want to – that move-on laws would have been perfect for this. I understand why they were removed at the time, but at this stage, if offensive people stay and cause disruption by their mere presence and stay quiet – let us be honest: if they rocked up at an event with Holocaust survivors, their mere presence would not just be something you do not agree with or offensive, it would be disruptive. I would have thought this would have been an opportunity for the government to craft something that would help. I really do not want to be back here in X number of months and years, because, like all people with an extreme ideology, they will work out a way to get their message across. What I would like to do or what I would like to have seen is that dealt with in the best possible way.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Bourman, I would love to. I had a conversation with my kids on FaceTime before I came in here today to describe what I was doing, and they were very excited that I was banning Nazis. I said I cannot quite do that – I am not quite doing that – but we are taking measures to disrupt this hateful conduct as much as we can.

I just wanted to take you through police move-on powers and that in some instances they can be used and have been used in relation to responding to instances involving this type of behaviour. Police can tell a person to move on from a public place if they reasonably believe a person is breaching the peace or is likely to do so, putting another person in danger or likely to do so, likely to injure someone or damage property, or likely to be a risk to public safety. Police can tell a person to stay away from a public place for up to 24 hours, and if a person does not move on or does not stay away for the period, they can give that person an on-the-spot fine or arrest them. PSOs can also move people on from certain designated public places. This includes places where you would normally see PSOs, like railway stations.

In relation to protesting – I think this was one of the issues you indicated – purely protesting does not attract the ability for police to ask people to move on. So standing in a group with a sign or behaving in a way that advertises your view about something does not invoke the ability for police to move you on, and there are a range of reasons for that. I know Mr Limbrick has touched on some of those issues that he is concerned about – if you go too far. But a police officer can tell a person to move on if they are protesting and they put the safety of another person in danger or are doing something that is likely to injure someone or damage property. It depends how someone is behaving. Mere presence and intimidation would have to, in the minds of police, attract some of the issues that I have taken you through.

But more broadly – and I think for the conversation that has been had in relation to the fact that we do not want to be legislating to ban things, we just want people to behave appropriately – we do have the anti-vilification work that we are doing, the framework to beef up criminal and civil responses to hate speech, hate conduct and the like. That is currently going through consultations but is definitely linked to this.

In fact we were going to do them together, had it not been for some really concerning behaviour involving Nazi salutes. We brought it out to do it first or at the head of the anti-vilification broader reform because, one, it is pretty simple. There was very little opposition to it. We had already consulted on the symbol. People were doing this. Police said if they had this as an additional tool, they could use it, so much so that they are ready to go – when this bill receives royal assent, it will be outlawed from that time. They do not need implementation time and the like. This is one piece of the puzzle in responding to inappropriate behaviour which is condemned by the vast majority of Victorians.

Laws are something I can do, and the community like to see us acting, particularly people that we are protecting. This is a really strong message to marginalised groups, to the Jewish community and to the LGBTIQ+ community, that we are taking this seriously and we are wanting to outlaw this behaviour, but we know that there is going to be broader education, broader communication and more support that we are going to have to bring into the community for cohesiveness and responses to any type of hate.

Jeff BOURMAN: I have other questions, but I will take them offline because I am in serious danger of going down a rabbit hole here, and now is not the time and place. They are kind of close to the scope of this thing but outside, so I would prefer to ask them later.

Nicholas McGOWAN: Attorney-General, I just have a couple of questions. I noticed during the speeches this afternoon that a couple of members referred to judges deciding what symbols might be. Is that correct, what they have asserted here tonight?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. The interpretation will be left to the courts bar the specific salute and Hakenkreuz that we have already legislated for. The legislation is specific about certain symbols; others that fall into the definition will be determined by the court.

Nicholas McGOWAN: Presumably things such as Adolf Hitler himself, his image, are something that could be determined by a judge to be a symbol of Nazism, for good reason. The Panther tank could likewise be a symbol of Nazism. Are these things that have been considered or were considered for inclusion specifically?

Jaclyn SYMES: If performing the salute and in public display, then that could attract the laws, if that individual was.

Nicholas McGOWAN: So only done in conjunction with the salute, is that correct? If somebody was to hold a banner not doing the salute but with either Hitler himself or the Panther tank, then that would not attract the provisions of this act, is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Correct. Just an icon would not be captured.

Nicholas McGOWAN: Somebody dressing up as Adolf Hitler on the steps of Parliament, would that attract this act?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, I do not want to fall into the situation where I am ruling things in and out, because we want to ensure that this is for its intended purpose, and that is to respond to banning Nazi symbols and the salute and things that cause harm to people. In relation to a uniform, if it had symbols on it, then that would be captured by the legislation, but in relation to just a specific person, not necessarily. I will take you through some of the further information that we have got, because we have considered all of these scenarios. I think I have been asked, ‘What about symbols of the moustache?’ and things like that, so we have gone into a lot of consideration in the consultation process.

The offence captures the public display of symbols used by the Nazi party. ‘Display’ has its ordinary meaning and therefore captures visible clothing in a public space. If the person wears or otherwise publicly displays a uniform that has a symbol used by the Nazi party embroidered onto it, then an offence would be committed under the bill. There are several exceptions, including where the display is done reasonably in good faith or for genuine academic, artistic or educational purposes. The public display of a uniform that has a Nazi symbol on it may fall under these exceptions depending on the context of what it is displayed for.

Again, when you talk to the leaders in the Jewish community they are not so concerned about the accidental or unintentional or even what people are doing in their private homes – sure, concerned in terms of the mental state of those people perhaps. But what we are talking about is the impact on individuals – the harm it causes. So that is the focus of the legislation. We know that indisputably with the Nazi hate symbol and the performing of the salute there is no reason to have those on display other than to cause harm, and that is what we want to respond to.

Nicholas McGOWAN: I think it is important because no doubt after today we will be asked questions in the community, and they are the sorts of questions I will get all of the time – those sorts of detailed questions about specifically what this does and does not cover. I gave a couple of examples when I gave my speech before about, in the 1990s, a number of people on the steps of Parliament whose view perhaps might have been that there was a fascist government back in 1990–92, for example. Would that be covered under the act?

Jaclyn SYMES: Would what, sorry?

Nicholas McGOWAN: There was a protest in November 1992 where you had in the order of 100,000 unionists on the steps of Parliament, and they were giving in unison the Nazi salute. One might assume that they were of the view that the then government was a fascist government. Perhaps not, but would they be covered by this act if it was today?

Jaclyn SYMES: In performing the Nazi salute you can fall foul of the legislation, but the scenario that you articulated is probably less clear. I do not really want to take a real-life example from 1992 and apply laws from 2023, because it is a different time. You are creating laws now to respond to behaviour that we are concerned about now, so I think I would be reluctant to want to bring my laws back in a time machine. Actually, sorry, just further to that, you did raise a really good point about the fact that as MPs our offices will get questions about this, and a fact sheet is being prepared to ensure that our offices are well equipped in being able to respond to the most obvious questions that we think people will ask.

Nicholas McGOWAN: Well, that actually leads nicely to the next question I had, and that was about how this law is implemented, particularly across schools. I gather schools are one of those places where young boys, for worse, tend to be juvenile in their regards, and it is not uncommon for them to be doing such salutes. Is there any plan to make them aware or the schools aware of the new laws and how they might apply, notwithstanding that we do not want to be locking up children, clearly?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just let me get an extra bit of info on that.

I thank Mr McGowan for his question and his concern in relation to just ensuring that we get the educative role of this reform considered and as best possible implemented. I think, as I have said on a number of occasions, sometimes having the conversation is the best thing about these laws, because I do not actually want people being charged with this law at all. Just do not offend it – that would be a great situation. The fact sheet that would benefit MPs will be similar to material that will be provided to schools so that they are equipped with the information. But we also want to target the right people. We want to respond to the concerns that the community have asked us to.

We do not want to inadvertently penalise and capture people that are not motivated by the conduct that we are trying to outlaw. So I just want to take you through some of the considerations about ensuring that we do not capture inadvertent performances or innocent-type behaviour. For instance, we have looked at innocent gestures such as hailing a cab being captured by the offence, and it has been mitigated by ensuring that the offence is described in the legislation as using gestures that are used by the Nazi party. I had similar questions raised about synchronised swimming performances and the like. That is why literally we have gone down the definition route that we have. ‘Resembles’ is in the legislation. It has its ordinary meaning within the bill: it is ‘to be like or similar to’. Importantly, the term ‘resembles’ in the bill is preceded by the words ‘that so nearly’, which read together will require a symbol or gesture in question to be very close to or regarded as almost having the same appearance as a symbol or gesture used by the Nazi party. Whether the party is intended to be informed by both the physical characteristics in the gesture or symbol used in the context in which it is displayed or performed, it needs to be considered whether a symbol or gesture is taken to resemble a symbol or gesture. While, for example, an innocuous gesture, such as farewell or the cab example, may bear physical resemblance to the Nazi salute, the context in which the gesture is performed will be vital to understanding whether the offence has been made out. In the unlikely event that anyone observing a person in that type of situation would consider that the gesture so closely resembled a Nazi salute that it could be mistaken for it, giving the context in which the gesture is performed would be a relevant factor.

The knowledge and the intent elements of the offence will also act as a safeguard for people who may not be aware of the history or meaning of certain gestures from inadvertently committing the offence ‍– specifically drawing on your concerns about children and also drawing on people perhaps with a cognitive impairment. We have seen examples of the salute being used as recently as the weekend. We know that there is an awareness of the salute but not necessarily an understanding, so we do not want to capture kids and people that might have disabilities and the like.

So, irrespective of what gesture or symbol is used, it is important to acknowledge that there are a range of exceptions to enable gestures performed for appropriate purposes, including educational or artistic purposes as well. And the further protection for children in relation to this is that in order for there to be a charge progressed through the courts, you need the specific approval of the DPP.

Nicholas McGOWAN: I appreciate the answer. I suppose I am looking for perhaps some guidance with respect to whether there is an intention by the government, through the Department of Education, to actually provide some sort of outreach or education or whether your department will be solely responsible for the public information campaign around awareness.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, for absolute clarity, yes, of course I am not responsible for the dissemination of information in the education sector, the education department is, but we will work with them in relation to that information in particular. Where schools are going to become really relevant is in that continued conversation around anti-vilification. It is a good conversation to have with young people.

Nicholas McGOWAN: I do not have many further questions – just a couple of quick ones, really. In respect to the penalties, can you give us any insight as to how 12 months was arrived at, whether other lengths were considered, and why that is the benchmark you have chosen for this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Consistent with existing offences is generally where we start, Mr McGowan. In this particular instance, anyone who is intentionally displaying or performing a Nazi symbol or gesture in public will face penalties of more than $23,000, 12 months imprisonment, as you have picked up, or both. It is a significant penalty, but it does reflect the breadth of the offence and that no injury or harm needs to be proved as a result of the display. It helps to ensure that the potential impacts on human rights under the charter are reasonable and proportionate, and it is not only consistent with our previous offence of banning the Hakenkreuz but also consistent with penalties in other jurisdictions.

Nicholas McGOWAN: Just on that, Attorney-General, in terms of other jurisdictions, can you tell me what the other jurisdictions have as their imprisonment term?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will have to take that on notice because I do not have a table on me, but I can get you one.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I just have one question: noting and taking up from where Mr McGowan left off, I wondered, in the situation of penalties, why there was nothing in terms of education that would allow people to understand why the Nazi salute, for example, is so offensive and why this law is actually coming about. Because I think that quite often people that maybe perhaps get involved in some of these groups have not fully understood the implications of how this actually impacts other people’s lives. Perhaps a bit of education on the background of things like the Holocaust and the horrors that people have endured as a result of being involved in things that were quite extreme may actually result in a little bit more reform. I am aware that there are penalties but there do not seem to be any steps towards reform, and I just wondered whether this was something the government had considered when it put this bill together.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a really good point that you raise. Again, I come back to my view that I really do not want anybody being charged with this offence; I certainly do not. The penalty is a guide. The courts will have discretion. There will be the capacity for diversion and the like. But I think, as I was describing to Mr Bourman, this is behaviour that we want to outlaw as soon as possible. We have brought it forward in response to public incidents that caused a lot of harm. It cannot be viewed in isolation from the anti-vilification reforms, and some of the issues that you have touched on are the things that I am really interested in exploring through the anti-vilification framework. I think that there is great opportunity in scope for restorative-type practices in responding to complaints that come to the attention of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission or others in relation to how they can deal with concerning behaviour through a criminal lens but also through a civil lens. In ensuring that people are exposed to the experience of others, their backgrounds and the ability to be empathetic, I am with you. It is probably a stronger tool in changing behaviour than being slapped with a fine and the like. I think that it is a very powerful experience to be forced to consider the impact that your behaviour has on somebody else, particularly when they have a history as horrific as those from the Jewish community.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (20:29)

David DAVIS: I have already outlined the reasons for this amendment, as has Mr Mulholland. I move:

1. Clause 6, page 3, line 14, after “used by” insert “and associated with”.

Jaclyn SYMES: I did respond a little bit to Mr Mulholland, but I might just take you through it again. This is in relation to the ‘associated with’ amendment. The opposition are proposing that the definition be changed from ‘of symbols and gestures used by the Nazi party’ to ‘used by and associated with the Nazi party’. It was considered that the inclusion of the words ‘associated with’ would expand the operation of the offence, capturing a wider range of symbols and gestures. This could include symbols that are associated with Nazi ideology, neo-Nazism or fascism. Co-opted innocuous gestures, such as the okay hand signal, for instance, would or could be potentially captured because they are associated with Nazi ideology.

As I was touching on before, we have the same intent. We considered it, we looked at the exact proposal that the Liberal opposition are putting forward, and we discounted it based on the operation of it and the concerns that we had – the fact that it would expand the offence potentially in relation to some of those gestures that are not at this point in time designed to be captured by this legislation and in relation to other regimes associated with the Nazis, such as symbols that are used by other bodies, which is not our commitment and not the intention at this time.

As I have been articulating throughout this very respectful committee stage, we want to keep within the desired effect of the bill. We know that there are several people in the house, if not all, that share the same view and intent that this bill capture symbols and gestures exclusively used by the Nazi party, and the concern that we have in relation to the amendment moved by the opposition is that it would distract from the intention of this bill and lead to unintended consequences. But I do acknowledge that the intent is certainly pure. We did look at it ourselves, and we did rule it out because we thought it would be problematic. That is why we confined the legislation to the deliberate use of ‘used by the Nazi party’, because it has the most direct use of the symbols. Any suggestion that this wording risks banning any symbol used by the Nazis, including things like full stops, as I got asked about – that would not be captured by the way we have drafted this legislation. We are not in a position to support the opposition’s amendment, but we certainly are in favour of the intent.

David DAVIS: I will make one response to the minister. We are in furious agreement about the intent and direction here. We think that this is sufficiently safe to provide a better alternative, not least for the exact reasons that are outlined in the minister’s correspondence to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee that was tabled in the chamber today. All of those caveats that are put in there and the contextual points which I noted in my speech earlier in the day apply to this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (20:40)

David DAVIS: The amendments have been well canvassed. I move:

2. Clause 8, after line 24 insert –

“(1A) A police officer may give a direction to a person to cease performing a Nazi gesture if the police officer reasonably believes the person is committing an offence against section 41K(1A) by performing the Nazi gesture.”.

3. Clause 8, page 7, after line 6 insert –

‘(4) In section 41L of the Principal Act –

(a) in subsection (3), after “(1)” insert “, (1A)”;

(b) in subsection (5), after “(1)” insert “, (1A)”.’.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have already put on record, the opposition’s proposal is unnecessary. Police do not need additional powers to verbally communicate with or direct people; it is standard police practice. The amendment is therefore superfluous and would in fact potentially cause confusion because it already happens.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (15): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:44): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:45): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, with respect to this bill, the swipe card system, which has occasionally been difficult for many in this chamber, did come to bite a couple of our members trying to get out to go to the synagogue. Mr Luu and Dr Heath were unable to get back in because the swipe would not let them back in. I think they may raise that matter in detail –

The PRESIDENT: They actually have already, so I will take that into consideration. I know you have got some other swipes that you are not happy about – I know about that one – and I know you are trying to use this as an opportunity maybe –

David Davis: I am, but in particular I am trying to make it clear that members have been to the synagogue and were unable to get back in when they needed to vote.

The PRESIDENT: I will take that into consideration.