Tuesday, 15 October 2024

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:24): (680) My question is for the Attorney-General. Consultation on proposed changes to Victoria’s anti-vilification laws closed last week. It has been 18 months since the Attorney first promised these reforms, and I note the comments made in the Attorney’s ministers statement to have legislation introduced by the end of this year. I do congratulate both the Attorney and the Minister for Equality for getting us to where we are today. Anti-vilification laws already protect people based on race and religion. These must be extended to protect LGBTIQA+ people against the mountains of hatred and vitriol often directed towards us. We exist no matter how much fringe groups may try and push us out of public life. We are not going anywhere, and we deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. So to pivot, legislation is only part of the wider initiatives that the Attorney has talked about in this space. Can you please expand on what these initiatives include?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:25): Thank you, Ms Payne, for your question. I know you are very passionate about this. I think it was my answer to you almost 18 months ago, and I actually regret giving the timeline because it sounds like it was so long ago. But it did take that long to get through what we needed to do. We wanted to make sure we were out there talking to everyone. We wanted to make sure those that were missing out on a protection that was not adequate could be included at the same time as lifting those protections so that we could cover many, many attributes, including LGBTIQ+ attributes, which you have referred to today, as well as disability. You did jump around a little bit between me and the Minister for Equality in relation to programs and education, which probably fit more squarely in the minister’s remit, but I can assure you that we work closely together. We have a taskforce that we both regularly engage with. But you are right. We do not want people to be charged with anti-vilification laws – we do not. We want the conversation. We want people to be tolerant. We want people to live in harmony. We want people to learn what is appropriate and what is not, and we want people to feel safe.

The laws should be a safety net. They should not be a tool to change behaviour. That is why we all, particularly as leaders in the community, have a role to play. This will be a debate that we will use as an opportunity for positivity. I want to talk about the good things that Victoria stands for. I do not want to say this is necessary, but I think we should also be talking about the amazing attributes or the amazing qualities that many Victorians have and the standards that we expect. I want this to be a safe debate. Nearly every time I bring laws into this chamber that involve greater protections for the LGBTIQ+ community I have grave concerns about the impact on that community, because it often brings out divisive, hateful debate. I hope we can do better than we have previously in relation to that, and I will be working closely with my ministerial colleague in ensuring that we provide the support we need to get through this debate to ensure that the laws are there to protect everyone.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:28): I thank the Attorney for her response. My apologies for jumping around a little bit; I did have to pivot with that question. By way of supplementary, the federal government has failed to fulfil its promise to deliver a bill to criminalise broader vilification and hate speech. Given the varying levels of protections in different states and territories, these vital changes would have ensured a nationally consistent approach to anti-vilification. So I ask: what advocacy will you do to encourage your federal counterparts to reconsider this decision?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:28): I thank Ms Payne for her supplementary question. I share your disappointment that the federal government have not proceeded with some commitments that they have provided, but it means that we can continue to lead the way in Victoria. I think that we can lead by example. Other attorneys in other states are very interested in what we are doing. I am also interested in some of the initiatives that other states are doing. There is a role for the federal government, but I will not wait to protect Victorians in the absence of any movement in that space. We do have a federal government that has a lot of people that are interested in this space and want to move in this space. The timing is not potentially right for them right now, so rather than rely on the federal government, we will do what we can here in Victoria.