Wednesday, 16 October 2024

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (18:56): (1187) My adjournment is to the Attorney-General, and the action I seek is for the Attorney to extend the consultation period on the Labor government’s latest proposed anti-vilification laws. The most recent proposed changes to these laws are the most far-reaching changes to Victoria’s anti-vilification laws since they were first legislated. The new laws would expand the number of protected attributes that would be protected by criminal offences and civil protections from two to 10. On top of race and religious belief or activity, this would now include disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and then personal association, so a person that might be offended on behalf of the above attributes. This is a fivefold increase in the protected attributes and has the potential to massively infringe on freedom of speech here in Victoria and restrict massively the practice of free worship and of faith in our state.

The current serious vilification offences are objective, meaning they require proof that the person has incited hatred and threatened physical harm or property damage on the grounds of a person’s race or religious belief. What we see in this law is a radical expansion of these offences to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of another person towards a group or persons on the ground of that protected attribute. The government not only plans to include all of these in there but also has the precursor of ‘likely to’ incite hatred or ‘likely to’ cause severe ridicule. The problem with these laws is that they are subjective. If I am going 110 kilometres in a 100 zone, I know I am breaking the law. That is an objective law. Someone may be breaching the law if they are talking to a church group or something. They might be breaching the law and not even know it. Subjective laws are bad laws, and I actually mentioned this in my maiden speech, where I said anti-vilification laws like the ones brought to this place last term should never again see the light of day. Laws on speech with ridiculously low thresholds, like being ‘likely to’ cause offence, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

In terms of cancel culture, subjective laws on speech will lead us to a point of no return. As Michael O’Brien has said, these laws affect every single Victorian, what they can say, what they can write, what they can do and even how they can worship. The right to freedom of speech, thought and worship is critical to the rights of all Victorians to not be vilified simply for who they are. Getting the balance right is crucial, and Labor must extend the consultation period to give more Victorians a chance to have their say. The Attorney recently thought she could slip through a change like the Lord’s Prayer without communities noticing. I will not let her slip this through without every single multicultural and multifaith community around Victoria knowing what the government is planning on doing.