Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (14:15): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes that:

(a) the Australian national flag and the Victorian state flag are enduring symbols of the nation, representing Australian and Victorian history, values and unity;

(b) the deliberate desecration of the Australian and Victorian flags are not harmless acts of protest but a threatening act of aggression, a symbolic call to violence against Australia, its institutions and its people;

(c) 77 per cent of Australians polled by the Institute of Public Affairs believe that burning the Australian national flag should be against the law;

(d) 63 per cent of Australians polled by the Institute of Public Affairs believe that those who burn the Australian national flag should face jail time;

(e) 71 per cent of Australians polled by the Institute of Public Affairs believe that non-citizens who burn the Australian national flag should be deported; and

(2)   calls on the Allan Labor government to enact legislation to criminalise the desecration of the Australian national and Victorian state flags.

Today I rise to speak on a matter that strikes at the very heart of who we are as Australians: respect for our national and state flags. The Australian national and Victorian state flags are not just fabric and stitching. They are the enduring symbols of our nation and our state, a reflection of our history, our shared values and the unity that binds us together as one people. The Australian flag is the banner under which Australians have fought and died, the emblem carried into battlefields, disaster zones and Olympic stadiums alike. Wherever it flies it represents the strength of our democracy, the sacrifices of generations and the hope we hold for the future. When Victorians look to our flags we see more than colours and patterns. We see the story of a young nation that overcame adversity and hardship, a people who built a fair and prosperous society and a democracy that, though not perfect, has given us freedoms many in the world still long for. We see sacrifice and achievement, courage, compassion and mateship – values that make up the Australian character itself.

Yet, despite all of this, in modern Australia people can burn our flags, trample them and desecrate them and face no consequences. This is an extraordinary situation and one that I deeply believe undermines the respect that our national symbols deserve. Let us be absolutely clear: burning our flags is not peaceful protest; it is a hostile, hateful act of aggression. It is intended not to persuade but to provoke, not to reason but to inflame. It is an attempt to divide our community, to show contempt for our nation, its institutions and its people. It is, in truth, a symbolic call to violence against our country and against those that call this land home. The Australian people know this instinctively. Polling conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs makes it crystal clear: 77 per cent of Australians believe burning the national flag should be against the law, 63 per cent believe those who do it should face jail time and 71 per cent believe that non-citizens who burn our flag should be deported. These are not fringe views. They are mainstream opinions of everyday Australians from all walks of life. They are the voice of a people who understand that respect for our national symbols is tied directly to respect for our nation itself.

Some will argue that this is about free speech. I reject that argument. Australians enjoy robust freedoms. We criticise government policies and politicians every single day, and rightly so. That is democracy at work. But the burning of our flags is not an argument. It is not reasoned speech; it is an act of desecration. It crosses the line between dissent and destruction. It is not debate; it is contempt. That is why I call on the Allan Labor government to show leadership by enacting legislation that criminalises the deliberate desecration of the Australian national flag and the Victorian state flag. Other democratic nations, including the United States, have long recognised the importance of protecting their flags. They understand that when the flag is attacked it is not just a piece of cloth that suffers harm but the dignity of the nation itself. We as Victorians should do no less. Our flags represent every Australian – past, present and future. They represent the young digger at Gallipoli, the migrant family finding their place here, the Indigenous service men and women who fought under their colours, the firefighters on the front lines of our bushfires and the athletes who carry our pride to the world stage. To protect the flags is to protect the dignity of our people and the unity of our nation. It is to affirm that while Australians may argue, disagree and debate fiercely, there are still many values, historical milestones and symbols we all hold sacred. So I urge the house to support this motion. Let us send a clear and unambiguous message: our flags deserve respect, and those who seek to destroy them will be held accountable. Let us stand for unity over division, respect over contempt and nationhood over anarchy.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:20): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak on the motion moved by Ms Tyrrell and the One Nation party. This motion has been brought to this place to serve as a distraction from the real issues facing Victorians and thrust us further into American-style culture wars. Victoria has no place for hatred and barbarism. We have not and we will not follow in the steps of the rightist conservative leaders in other nations that aim to suppress the voices of our community.

Can I just say, Ms Tyrrell, you have previously brought motions to this place that were constructive and incredibly relevant – motions on drought relief for those in the regions who faced the devastating impact of the lack of resources. I would also note you were successful in your advocacy for the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into consultation practices, which I sit on – and I find that it is so far actually a very helpful inquiry – as well as making sure that in the scope of that inquiry we really do investigate matters relating to the ongoing management of our land and resources. This motion, however, to my mind stands in stark contrast to those earlier contributions. Frankly, it is really just not in keeping with what I think we should be debating in this place. Those motions were useful, thoughtful and genuinely, deeply relevant to major issues facing Victorians. What you see before us today could not be more different. It is a right-wing dog whistle based on the findings of one so-called survey from the ironically named Institute of Public Affairs. To my mind, having read some of their recent findings, it is an organisation that is representing some rather extreme fringe views.

I know that my focus and the focus of those on this side is on creating jobs, unlocking housing supply, building major new infrastructure such as the Metro Tunnel and making Victorians safer and Victoria a better place for everyone. Meanwhile, desperate for relevance once again, we are importing a foreign culture war about something that no ordinary Victorian really worries about – no-one really worries about it. People have lives, jobs, businesses, kids, families, studies and communities. They have goals, they have dreams, and they have things that they are passionate about and which they live their lives to advocate and fight for. This motion is none of those things. Ordinary people have far more important things to think about than One Nation’s latest imported outrage. Just like them, the government will not be wasting time on this non-issue. Instead we are going to focus on the matters that are important to Victorians, ensuring that Victoria is a vibrant, growing, thriving community for all people to feel safe, to feel welcomed and to feel respected, with accessibility to services that not only improve the livelihoods of people across the state but stand as a reminder of the successes this government has brought forward for all Victorians.

Acting President, I am going to take a moment to direct you to one major omission, in fact, in the motion brought forward by Ms Tyrrell: it says nothing about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. It is very telling that One Nation cannot even pretend that this stunt is all about flags when they have made it perfectly clear which flags they care about and which ones they do not. This to me is a brazen and disgusting act that has happened during the week of treaty being introduced into this place. It shows a complete and utter lack of respect for this place, for the flags recognised by the Australian nation and for Australia’s First People. The Aboriginal flag does not just represent Australia’s First People; it also represents the struggles that we have endured throughout history and our determination as a people. Any attempt to separate the Aboriginal flag from its rightful place as one of the flags that represent this vast nation should be condemned. The oldest continuing culture in the world, the one that cared for this country before colonisation and to this day fights for the land, sea and sky, should never, never be disrespected. Australia’s First People deserve respect, dignity, acknowledgement and celebration.

I have got to say that it is worth noting that the Commonwealth Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet already has detailed protocols regarding the respectful use of the Australian national flag. This includes ensuring it is not allowed to fall or lie on the ground, that it is not used to cover a statue or a table and it should never be flown when damaged or dilapidated. This respect is because this place knows that the flags of Australia and Victoria need to be respected, especially in this place. I would ask that some of those here afford that same respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags as well.

On social cohesion – something incredibly important to those in this place – we will soon be introducing new protest safety reforms that will get the balance right. I could talk about all that for quite some time, but let me just say, recently members of this place and the other place and I were confronted with really horrible and unwarranted comments from those who do not share the values on which Victoria prides itself: equality, freedom, shared responsibility and the commitment to diversity and inclusion. This motion does not reflect those values, it shames them, and I do not support it.

We have recently seen our new anti-vilification offences come into effect, which protect more Victorians from serious vilification and ensure that those who wish to incite hatred or threaten harm because of who someone is, who they love or who they pray to are held accountable. They help ensure our public discourse remains civil by respecting the rights of Victorians to express themselves freely. When One Nation and those opposite had the opportunity to support these bills and these laws – laws designed to protect people and strengthen the cohesion that holds our state together – they voted against them. Now, straight from the playbook of the far right, they have turned to another distraction plucked straight from overseas in a desperate, desperate bid for relevance. It is not going to work. Victorians will absolutely see through it, because they know that this government takes antisocial and violent behaviour very, very seriously, and the existing Victorian and Commonwealth criminal laws already deal with such acts and behaviours. Acts like wilful destruction of property, grossly offensive conduct, criminal damage or riotous and indecent behaviour are already offences. If someone burns an Australian flag or a Victorian flag, Victoria Police can and do take action where appropriate.

To focus on the actionable sections of this motion before us, there are some serious legal and constitutional issues that are being proposed. The actions of the motion would see a ban on flag burning most likely infringe upon section 15 of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities – something I am familiar with, with my now five years on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee – which protects freedom of expression, including political expression. It would also breach the implied right to freedom of political communication under the Australian constitution, a core value and freedom that Victoria continues to protect. Furthermore, a Victorian law banning flag burning may be inconsistent with federal legislation. Section 6 of the Commonwealth’s Flags Act 1953 explicitly allows for the defacing of the Australian flag in certain authorised circumstances.

So not only would this motion before us be legally dubious, but it could also be constitutionally reckless. That is what we have got before us right now from One Nation. Let me just say, Victorians deserve a Parliament that debates issues that actually affect their lives, one that does not waste time on imported culture wars and headline-grabbing stunts. This government stands firm. We are going to do what we were elected to do for the Victorian people: strengthen social cohesion, keep communities safe and focus on the issues that matter to everyday Victorians. I am going to leave my comments there.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:29): First of all, I want to take issue with Ms Watt’s contribution, which was absolutely inflammatory and a dreadful attack on Ms Tyrrell’s point of view. It is not acceptable that Ms Tyrrell’s motion and Ms Tyrrell’s arguments should be attacked in this personal way; I take absolute exception to it. Ms Tyrrell has every right to bring a motion of whatever flavour she likes to this house, and we have the opportunity to debate it, which is what we are doing now. I want to reiterate exactly what this motion is about:

(1)   notes that:

(a) the Australian national flag and the Victorian state flag are enduring symbols of the nation, representing Australian and Victorian history, values and unity;

(b) the deliberate desecration of the Australian and Victorian flags are not harmless acts of protest but a threatening act of aggression, a symbolic call to violence against Australia, its institutions and its people;

(c) 77 per cent of Australians polled by the Institute of Public Affairs believe that burning the Australian national flag should be against the law;

(d) 63 per cent of Australians polled … believe that those who burn the Australian … flag should face jail time;

(e) 71 per cent of Australians polled … believe that non-citizens who burn the Australian national flag should be deported; and

(2)   calls on the Allan Labor government to enact legislation to criminalise the desecration of the Australian national and Victorian … flags.

I rise to speak on the motion before the house today – a motion which asks us to consider the profound significance of our national and state flags and to address the increasing and, frankly, disgusting phenomenon of their public desecration. The very fact that this motion is necessary is, I believe, a sad indictment of the state of our public discourse and the moral failure of certain elements within our community. The Australian national flag and the Victorian state flag, as paragraph (1)(a) rightly states, are enduring symbols of our nation and our state, and they do represent our history, recall our shared values and symbolise our unity.

Even those who seek to desecrate them clearly agree. The very reason they choose to burn the flag is because it is more than a piece of cloth – these days probably polyester, unfortunately. It is because the flag represents our national story and our pride in Australia’s story of democracy, freedom, tolerance and remarkable prosperity – all built on the sacrifices of those who came before us. It is indisputable that we have seen in recent times these symbols treated with despicable contempt. We have watched as protests, often driven by disorder and hatred imported from other countries, spill into our streets, where the most visible form of aggression is the burning or defilement of our national standard. In many cases this is not a harmless act of protest, as paragraph (1)(b) describes; it is a calculated, threatening act of aggression. It is a direct assault on the very idea of Australia as a successful, integrated and harmonious society.

To desecrate our flag is not an accidental decision, nor is it trivial. It is premeditated, calculated and all too often a call for symbolic injury against Australia, its institutions, its values and our people. Free speech is sacrosanct. It protects the unpopular and the provocative. This is where the dilemma lies. As a Liberal, I wrestle with the implications of criminalisation. I did not come to this place to add to the statute book, and there should be a very high bar on banning anything. I do, however, believe it can be consistent. I have always argued that everybody should be free to do anything and everything they like until they harm others, but there is an argument for this. Society should only restrict liberty to prevent harm to others. We ought only to intervene when actions cause tangible injury.

So is that the case here? I would say yes. Flag desecration arguably does cause tangible injury. It profoundly harms social cohesion. It provokes violence and it signals aggression against fellow citizens. It is not mere expression, but destruction – akin to vandalism – that erodes trust in our institutions. It is also a position that fits with a conservative view too – the idea that we would preserve respect for institutions to effectively safeguard the very freedoms those institutions guarantee. We do not ban ideas, but we can and arguably must curb acts that symbolically attack the polity itself. In the face of rising social angst I believe we should back this measure. The bar must be high, but in this instance I do believe the conscious public desecration of our flag risks eroding the fabric of our shared identity and causing deeper divisions which cause tangible harm.

In calling on the Allan Labor government to act, as the motion does, I urge a measured approach. Legislation should be carefully crafted to target deliberate desecration with clear intent to incite hatred or public disorder, balancing deterrence with proportionality. We must distinguish between sincere, even passionate, political speech and acts whose primary, indeed sole, purpose is to wound the nation and divide its people. We must use this moment to stand firmly against the corrosive anti-national sentiment that seeks to dismantle our society. We must speak out against the small but vocal groups who use the cover of protest to import foreign grievances and to express contempt for our free and successful way of life. The Australian flag is a symbol of our unity, our democracy and our hard-won freedoms. To treat it with such contempt is to treat the Australian people with contempt. We support the sentiment of this motion, and we urge all Victorians to reject this cultural vandalism and recommit to the shared values that our flags so proudly represent.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:36): I rise to speak on this motion. I know my colleague Ms Gray-Barberio was very keen to speak on this motion, but unfortunately she has lost her voice, so I will be speaking on behalf of the Greens and just putting our position on the record. I would like to say at the outset we strongly oppose this motion. One Nation are weaponising support for the Australian flag to fuel division. That is what this motion is doing.

This motion is nothing more than anti-immigration sentiment dressed up as patriotism. Of particular concern is point (e), which is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Suggesting a two-tier system of human rights based on citizenship alienates migrant communities and undermines social cohesion. You cannot have one rule for one and another rule for another based on visa status. It is absurd and fundamentally racist. I would also like to highlight the reliance on the Institute of Public Affairs, or IPA, polling in this motion, which was helpfully referenced by Mrs McArthur. I have a lot of things I could say about the IPA. I will not go into all of those things, but I will point out that the IPA’s 2024 annual report shows that 10 donors each contributed more than $200,000. It was difficult to find out who these donors were, but we should not be shaping public policy on the basis of opaque, privately funded polling from right-wing lobby groups who are, let us face it, bent on sowing hate and division. The racist scapegoating of migrant communities must stop. Australia’s diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Attempts to divide communities along lines of citizenship are unacceptable and dangerous. The Victorian Greens say that migrants are welcome here. They deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as any other Victorian.

Additionally, nonviolent protests and demonstrations are a key tactic. They are a core part of democracy. They are essential for communities to be able to pressure governments into taking much-needed action. They have led to some of the most important changes in our society, as many people in here would be aware of, and maybe many of you have been part of some of these protests and movements. I know that many of my colleagues here have attended protests for different causes that are important to them. They have led to things like the right for women to vote. We saw the protection of the Franklin River come out of protests. The Wave Hill walk-off was a pivotal step in achieving Aboriginal land rights.

Political expression should be protected in a democracy. The Greens support nonviolent protest; however, criminalising symbolic acts as implied in this motion is disproportionate. Deporting non-citizens for symbolic protests raises serious concerns about freedom of expression and the democratic values we uphold. Human rights must be equally applied, protected and respected. All citizens in Victoria have the right to protest, and we must continue to protect that right.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:40): I rise to speak on this motion brought by Ms Tyrrell. I have had the benefit of listing to my colleague Ms Watt and also Dr Mansfield and Mrs McArthur. It is a very disappointing motion. Perhaps One Nation would think that it is a productive use of this Parliament’s time to debate something that really is dog whistling to racists and waging divisive culture wars. It really is an appalling way to continue to fan the flames of division.

I will play along. I have some genuine questions about this. I do not expect Ms Tyrrell to answer, but I do have some questions around some of the wording of this motion. Point 1(b) refers to the deliberate desecration of the Australian flag. Who is going to be the arbiter of that? I see many people use the Australian flag in many different ways. Does it mean that we are no longer going to be able to put the Australian flag on a beer holder? Will that be desecration? What happens when a streaker runs out at the cricket cloaked in an Australian flag – completely nude but having the flag flowing along behind them? Would that be considered desecration of a flag? I do not know. Who is going to be the arbiter of this kind of garbage? Does that mean if you go down to Woolworths and buy a pair of thongs with the Australian flag on them that is public desecration because you wear them on your feet? I mean, this is how ludicrous this is. Where does it begin and end, and who is going to be the arbiter of this kind of stuff?

The motion goes on to say that the Institute of Public Affairs has run a survey. Everyone in this place knows and those who might be playing along at home will also know that the IPA is a right-wing think tank. It is hardly a credible organisation. I am an Australian and I have never been polled by the IPA. I wonder why. You are going to be looking at results that are clearly from people who are within their natural constituency. They want to talk to themselves. It refers to 77 per cent of Australians. Well, I do not know how big the sample size was, and we all know that if you are actually a credible organisation, you should outline who you sampled, when and how. So it is just complete garbage. It is really not appropriate that we have a motion that states these sorts of figures to try and give some kind of weird legitimacy to what is nothing more than a vox pop. They might have just sent out an email request: ‘What do you think of this?’ It is hardly credible, and it is quite concerning that the motion then calls for the government to jail people for stuff like this. Honestly, it is crazy. It really is just about fanning the flames of the culture wars, because that is all the Liberal Party, One Nation and people from those kinds of backgrounds have – to continue to be divisive, to continue to drive division and fear in the community.

How are Australians concerned about this sort of stuff when they are actually concerned about the cost of living? They are actually concerned about keeping a roof over their head. That is what they want their governments to be focused on, not something of this nature. Again, it is just an opportunity to be in this chamber and talk about culture wars. I am sure this will appear on social media somewhere, and I am sure that many of us on the government benches and the crossbenches will feature in those videos and be attacked for it. It is a very sad state of affairs to say that these sorts of things are ‘a threatening act of aggression, a symbolic call to violence against Australia, its institutions and its people’.

Dr Mansfield was right. Part of this motion talks about having a two-tiered system where based on race, you should be deported. I mean, how does that actually work? It is like going back to the days of ‘Let’s have a white Australia.’ It is nuts – it is absolutely nuts. I do not know in what world this was written – it is actually quite like a parallel universe. It is, again, racist dog whistling, demonising people and saying that there is an us and them, and it is all cloaked in ‘We love our flag.’ Everybody on this side of the chamber can see that, and the progressive crossbenchers can see that. It is really disappointing. To state with any level of confidence that the IPA could have even conducted a credible survey on this – again, their natural constituency; they are talking to themselves. No-one is going to believe it. So I do not know what the point of this motion is. I am not sure what Ms Tyrrell is trying to achieve by doing this, by bringing this motion, other than to spend a slot in Parliament this week talking about culture wars. We see what is happening in other parts of the world. We see what is happening in America with the flames of the culture wars being driven and fanned by this type of rhetoric. I am sorry, it is really terrible.

Bev McArthur: Are you in favour of burning the flag?

Sonja TERPSTRA: On the interjection from Mrs McArthur about burning the flag: no-one is ringing my office and complaining about flag burning. They are not. What they are talking to me about is the cost of living. No-one is talking about this, Mrs McArthur, except people who vote for the Liberal Party or One Nation, and we get that, because you want to continue to divide our community rather than bring people together and look at what we can unite over. You just waste time talking about these things. Really it is nationalist pride cloaked in aggression, divisiveness and frightening people. There are plenty of people who do not share your views, and that is why you are in the state you are in right now. You are probably in electoral Siberia if you continue talking about these sorts of things, so go right ahead. Most people know that the IPA is a right-wing think tank. It has no credibility amongst normal, thinking people. People know this. That is why people do not watch the mainstream media anymore. That is why people are choosing to look with a lot of critical thinking at the information that they consume.

If I look at this motion, what you are calling on our government to do is legislate to criminalise the desecration of the Australian flag. Who would police it? How much would it cost? You continually come in here week in, week out complaining about the government and taxes and all this stuff, but yet you want somebody to set something up that would try people – I am assuming there would be some kind of criminal trial, because it is a little bit light on detail about how this would actually work. How are you going to fund this? Would it be funded by taxes? I do not know. It would mean you are going to have somebody who is going to sit there looking at operating some legislation and having criminal trials. If it is going to be criminalised, they would go before the courts and be jailed for this stuff. On the one hand you criticise us for having our jails full of people, but you want to add to them simply because you are upset about somebody who may burn a flag. Like I said, what would desecration and defilement look like? If you wanted to put it on a beer stubby holder or put it on a pair of budgie smugglers, could that be desecration? I do not know, I might find that offensive. If I am looking at somebody who is wearing a pair of budgie smugglers, I might not want to see that. That might be offensive, and I might consider that a public desecration of our flag. I mean, honestly, this is how ridiculous this is. This is where we have come to in this Parliament, that One Nation and those opposite actually think it is a good use of our time this week. Okay, I am glad Mr Limbrick is gone – ‘Don’t look at me.’ That is good, because this is not a productive use of our time.

Bev McArthur: Well, sit down and don’t talk about it then.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Well, no. I have been asked to, so I will.

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is right; I am doing my job. As elected representatives, the people who elect us expect us to come in here and do the right thing in terms of arguing points that we want to argue and getting results for our communities. But this is such a fringe culture war – a dog-whistling, racist, divisive and hatred-motivated motion. Ms Tyrrell, you really are better than that. It is a real shame that you have brought this here today and that you think this is a good idea. So it will come as no surprise to anybody in this chamber and anybody who might be playing along at home that the government opposes this motion.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:49): Well, well, well, where to start? That was a whole lot of vitriol from over there. What have we got here?

Sonja Terpstra: No, it wasn’t. It was common sense.

Moira DEEMING: You think vitriol is common sense? That is what you think is common sense, isn’t it? That is, based on your behaviour, what you think is common sense, absolute vitriol and hatred, and obviously attacking the person rather than the argument as well. What did we hear? We heard culture wars. I am here to fight for my culture, 100 per cent, and my culture includes everybody in this country, regardless of colour, regardless of any kind of origin. It is not about division. It is one flag that we can all actually, as one society, unite under. The fact that you would call people who want to value that flag and who want it respected – regardless of the legality of the last part of the motion, I am standing here to defend defending the Australian flag.

I also note – Ms Tyrrell told me – that for all of your outrage over there about having the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag also included in this, you did not go to her and offer an amendment. I would have agreed to that. I noticed it myself, and I wanted to say that I would have agreed to have it there, 100 per cent.

Members interjecting.

Moira DEEMING: Wait, it gets better. You are going to love this. In October 2023 I asked the Attorney-General to please outline the rationale behind the decision not to display the Australian flag on any Victorian government department website alongside the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. And the answer that came back was this:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags appear on Victorian Government websites as a sign of respect and acknowledgement for our First Peoples. The Allan Labor Government is proud to be leading the nation implementing the full Uluru Statement from the Heart – Voice, Treaty, Truth.

Jacinta Ermacora interjected.

Moira DEEMING: Wait. You need to wait.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, Ms Ermacora is continually ignoring your rulings, and I ask you to pull her into line.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I ask that for the remaining time, the remaining contribution of Mrs Deeming is to be heard in silence.

Moira DEEMING: The other part of the answer was:

Victorian government departments and agencies are responsible for developing content for publishing on government websites.

Your side – your government – you do not put the Australian flag on any of the websites. I agree with you that the three should be together. I agree with you. It is a disgrace that the Australian flag under this Victorian Labor government is nowhere in the public service. That is spitting in the face of this country. It is absolutely obscene, and for you to get up here and blather on about how you hate culture wars – if you hated culture wars, you would have put the Australian flag alongside the other two. You are the ones waging a culture war. You are the ones erasing any chance of social cohesion and unity and a unifying culture. You guys, I mean, I know you did not want the Commonwealth Games, probably because you do not like Australian flags, so you sent it over to another country. What are you going to do with people –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, the member should direct her remarks through the Chair.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I uphold the point of order and ask Mrs Deeming to direct her comments through the Chair.

Moira DEEMING: What are we thinking about with the Olympics, then? Sending our Australian citizens, Aboriginals, people of different ethnic descents to represent this nation waving the Australian flag, are you calling them racist culture war fighters? Is that what is going on? The people opposite said it was a motion based on hatred, barbarism, Americanism – I mean, that is very racist. Why are you so against foreigners? Right-wing dog whistles, extreme right-wing views – you realise Hitler was a socialist, which is left, but anyway – imported foreign outrage, I mean, the people opposite to me sound like the racist ones.

Flags are important, and I do actually believe in the right to protest – peaceful protest. One of the best illustrations to me of the beauty of national pride was when I, as a councillor, went to my first ever Australian citizenship ceremony and I saw the emotion and the pride in the faces of those people when they got their Australian citizenship, holding and waving that Australian flag, people of every colour from everywhere on the earth, and they came here because of what that flag symbolises. How dare it be said in this place that the Australian flag represents racism and division when people from all over the world flee here, from communism and socialism and war-torn, ravaged countries, divided by the kinds of things that the Labor Party is known for dividing and conquering over? How dare that be said here? What a disgrace. That is unparliamentary language. It is un-Australian, unpatriotic and, honestly, unbecoming. I cannot believe the disgusting, disparaging insults that were levelled against people who voted for parties other than yours. Just in general, you should not have contempt for any – not even one – of the people that you govern over. That is a disgraceful position to hold. I do not have any contempt for the people who vote Labor because I am an adult. It is a disgraceful thing for a public servant to say or for a government to say.

Do you know what I did not hear? I did not hear any condemnation of the idea of disrespecting and burning the Australian flag. Where was that? Crickets, silence replaced with faux outrage – absolutely disgraceful. Then my colleagues opposite had the temerity to bring up the anti-vilification laws. Who on earth would be able to work out what is disrespectful and offensive? Well, they manage to work it out in the anti-vilification laws, where they said that a little group of people from the group who might be offended get to decide. So we could just pick out a bunch of Australians and say they get to decide. Based on the stats that have been recorded in this motion, most people would find that offensive.

A member: From IPA statistics.

Moira DEEMING: Go on, do your own poll. Except we all know that the Labor Party only consults stakeholders who have a conflict of interest because they already receive taxpayer dollars. You are so against private money and private opinions. You only want opinions – Labor, I apologise. This government wants to pay for opinions using our taxpayer dollars from people who did not vote for them. What they do is they get ‘stakeholders’ who are financially conflicted with those taxpayer dollars to give them the opinions that they already wanted. So forgive me if I do not really care if the Institute of Public Affairs is funded by private money. You still should not be speaking with such contempt about people who vote in this state and this country that you happen to govern over right now. You really ought to behave better than that.

The other thing that I have to say – and then I will finish up – is that these are absolutely disturbing times with regard to the social cohesion issue. We have actually seen, shockingly and disgracefully, actual –

Jacinta Ermacora: No thanks to you.

Moira DEEMING: Pardon me? On a point of order, Acting President, she said, ‘Thanks to you personally.’ What did you mean by that?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): That is not a point of order. Mrs Deeming, you have got 53 seconds left to continue with the contribution.

Moira DEEMING: Condemning racism is never enough for Labor unless you vote for them, unless you say words that they want you to say, unless you betray your own culture and betray Australia. Unless you get down on your knees and you completely capitulate to Labor, they will call you racist. They will call you all kinds of names. They are not fit to govern. They are barely even respectful of the people that they govern over. They certainly do not respect Australians, and I absolutely condemn them.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:59): We are talking about the Australian and Victorian flags, and I actually am quite a fan of the Australian and Victorian flags. If you look at the Australian flag, you have got this cool bit of astronomy with the Southern Cross, you have got the Federation Star celebrating our achievement of forming a federation, and I know lots of people do not like the fact that were once a colony, but yes, we have the Union Jack signifying our history – that we were once part of a colony. The Victorian flag, as you can see, and this chamber, were built before Federation, and we have the crown where the Federation Star is on the Victorian flag. I am quite a fan of the Victorian and the Australian flags, even though I am not a fan of flags in general.

The time when I see the flags the most is actually at something that all MPs get invited to, and that is citizenship ceremonies. One of the things that happens at citizenship ceremonies – I have done a lot of them; I try and get to as many as I can.

A member interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, they are good. They are really wholesome, actually. One of the things that you have to do at a citizenship ceremony – and it is actually compulsory before you can become a citizen – is you have to take the citizenship pledge. There are two versions, with and without God. I will do the without God version. Citizens who are born here can take this pledge as well, and in fact they are encouraged to do so at citizenship ceremonies, and I usually do when I am offered the opportunity. It says:

From this time forward,

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

You can see how, to a Libertarian, this is pretty cool because we are talking about respecting people’s rights and liberties. Then straight after that, all the people come up one by one; they want to get a photo; you hand them a little plastic Australian flag – it is probably made in China, but the thought is there – they get a little bag, and it has usually got some little trinket present in it; and they look like they are having the best day of their life, most of them that I have spoken to. They want to have photos, and they choose to do this. They chose to become Australian and they chose to take this oath to respect other people’s rights and liberties in Australia. That is a really significant thing. And I will say this: one of those rights and liberties is freedom of expression.

Freedom of political expression, as was pointed out earlier, is protected by an implied right to political expression. Under the Australian constitution it is protected. As much as I think it is mostly useless, under our Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities it is protected. I would say that protecting that right of freedom of expression is actually one of the things that makes us Australian. In fact it is one of the things that ties us together under Western civilisation. Almost no Western country criminalises the burning of its own flags. That is not because they like it – it is okay to hate someone doing that; it is okay to be not cool with someone burning a flag – it is because they recognise that in a free society, sometimes people are going to take actions that are peaceful but they do not like them. They are going to say things that you do not like, they are going to do things that you do not like, and if you live in a free society, you have to deal with that.

A long-time problem with the left is that they want to criminalise everything that they do not like. Unfortunately, it is also a problem with the right. They see someone burning a flag and they say, ‘I want them to go to jail.’ Well, you do not go to jail in Canada if you burn a flag, even though lots of people might hate it. In America, in Australia, even in Japan – they are not a Western country, but they do have lots of Western values because of their history. In most of these free Western countries – let us not talk about New Zealand; they have got a fine for it, but we will bypass them for the moment – it is not a crime to burn the national flag, however horrific you may think it is.

I understand the concerns of people who see people burning the Australian flag, and for some of these people I actually share these concerns and wonder what they are doing in this country. In fact I have made very public criticisms of ASIO and the AFP because I am concerned that they are not doing their job properly. When I see people on the streets that somehow have a visa and they are promoting Hamas, for example, I wonder on what basis they are in this country and who they really care about. I think that we should take action on this sort of thing. When people are promoting terrorist organisations that are against Australia or against Australia’s interests, we need to be very concerned. I have also been very alarmed by some of the things that have come out with the connections between what we have been talking about for ages with organised crime, specifically with the tobacco wars, and antisemitic attacks in Melbourne. How on earth have we let this get out of control like this? I think the AFP and ASIO really need to pull their socks up and do their job. But one of the things that these people – like these terrorist groups, like any of these groups that hate freedom – want us to do is to overreact and criminalise things that go against the principles of a free society, because then they can call us hypocrites.

Then they can say, ‘Look at these hypocrites. They don’t really believe in freedom. When this thing happens, they call for harsh reactions, just like we would.’ That is what they are trying to trap us into. Western civilisation, in particular Australia, because that is what we care about here, must stand firm in protecting freedom. I will note the hypocrisy from the government. At the same time they oppose this, they want to criminalise things that they do not like at protests. It is coming up soon – I know I am probably breaching anticipation or something, but the government has spoken many times in public about the desire to ban masks and ban all these sorts of things. We are talking about free expression again. The opposition has been just as bad. They have got a bill that is in debate at the moment. We have to stand firm in defence of freedom, otherwise we are abandoning the very principles that Australia is founded on.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:06): I think this debate comes at an interesting point where we are in the world at the moment. There seems to be a real hyper move to the extremes of politics. I think we all need to take some responsibility in trying to calm the state of politics down. I think we are very fortunate in Australia and very fortunate in Victoria – something I am very, very thankful for – that we have mandatory voting, so the sensible centre of our society has a very strong say in the way that our democratic institutions are elected and are run. I think that is something we all need to lean into. It is something I have had regular conversations about recently: ensuring that somehow we are keeping value in the institutions that we have that have existed for a very, very long time and have stood us in good stead.

We should be very thankful for the freedoms that we have in Victoria and Australia, the opportunities we have, the ability to express ourselves and the ability to live harmoniously. If you stop and think, it is actually quite incredible that these conditions exist where we can live such peaceful, happy lives alongside people of different opinions and of different faiths, people who are attracted to different people – all sorts of various things – and that we can get on with our lives.

Of course there are going to be things that people feel very, very strongly about and people are going to want to take political action or various other action on – we understand that. Particularly for some of us, when we are younger we are more passionate in our views. I suppose what worries me about this motion is that we are perhaps overanalysing or over-reacting to an issue that does not currently present itself frequently and perhaps making it worse. I think what we can do to ensure our democracy, ensure participation in that democracy and ensure respect is work on tolerance and work on understanding people that have different opinions to ours.

Many times in this place I have spoken about it, that we should come and we should have a strong contest of ideas, because that is what we are here to do. I am not trying to say that the world is all cherries, bubblegum and fairy floss and all that sort of stuff and everyone just gets along. We have to come in here and contest and debate ideas. The biggest problem I have is that the Liberal Party do not bring any ideas, but that is another point. We are not going to let them off scot-free over there. I really hope we are not (a) leaning into a problem that does not exist or (b) leaning into a situation where people make decisions or people take actions, particularly young people, that they may live to regret.

My great-great-great-grandfather got off the boat from Ireland and found himself digging gold in Ballarat. He was at the Eureka Stockade, and he was brought to Melbourne to be hanged. My mum, who is a passionate historian, has got all the paperwork that I have been meaning to put up in my office showing him getting off from that sentence. Thankfully for all of you, he did, otherwise I might not be here and you might not be enjoying my contribution right now.

Members interjecting.

Tom McINTOSH: Thanks for the support from the other side.

We need to respect and cherish our institutions, but that does not mean we cannot look to make changes to them. I am a supporter of a republic. I do not love having the Union Jack on our flag. Now, that does not mean I am going to go and do things to the flag that we have, but it does mean that I will take action to try and see changes occur to things that I want to see changed, as should everyone.

We see around the world this sort of hyperaggression in politics of they, the other, being completely wrong and I, or we in our position, being completely right and correct. Not to blame new technology, because it has always existed, but we see the presentation of this at a faster or more accessible rate through social media. I really do think it is upon all of us to lean in to society, to lean in to young people and to lean in to people who are isolated and finding solutions or answers in things that the majority of us do not believe. It is politics that is hate filled, politics that is violent, and effectively we get to a point where it is politics that is dangerous, that endangers individuals in our society trying to live healthy, happy lives. What I am proud to do as a member of the Labor Party is focus on things that improve the quality of people’s lives every single day. It is a fact that they can get educated from an early point in their life and develop their ability to engage meaningfully in our economy from an early stage in life. It is a fact that they can, through that education, whether it is in a university or training and skills, get out into the workforce and be a productive contributor to our economy, to their families and to their local community. They can have a house that they can live in and raise a family in if they wish, and they can live in a local community and neighbourhood and make those connections that make their life rich and worthwhile. If they make those connections that are rich and worthwhile, then we are less likely to see antisocial behaviour or feelings of ill will and anger towards others and all these things.

So it is about ensuring those jobs are well paid so that people and their families can have a better quality of life than the generation before. So when you are putting in education, when you are putting in training and skills, when you are seeing the conditions of jobs and employment improve, when you are ensuring that housing is available at affordable rates and when you are ensuring there is a transport network, whether that is people being able to drive from A to B or people being able to take public transport from A to B, and all of this is in a sustainable local and global environment, we have the conditions where hopefully the basic needs of human life are met and the conditions people are living in are better than the generation before. That is essentially what I think we should be working on. We should be debating the best path to achieve that. I would hope that through doing so people do not find the need for violence, for aggression.

If people want to debate the best ways to achieve those core services and provide for the infrastructure needs of a community, of a society, of a state and of a nation, then absolutely let us do that. But let us not move to a place where people are finding themselves isolated, disconnected, frustrated, angry and violent, because we can see around the world what that leads to. It leads to horrible, horrific, very, very, very sad outcomes. So we should absolutely be thankful every single day for the democracy that we live in and the opportunities that we have in this state and this nation. I would say we should be absolutely proud of our state.

A member: Hear, hear!

Tom McINTOSH: Yes, I genuinely believe in this state. I was fortunate that during my 20s in between working I would go away and travel for a while and do this and that. A lot of people would say to me, ‘How, as an electrician, do you travel?’ I would say, ‘That’s all right. We get paid all-right wages in our country, in Victoria and Australia, as construction workers.’ So it was good. The beautiful society we have is something that we should absolutely cherish and we should celebrate and we should not talk down. But we should acknowledge people have the right to push ideas and political positions that they see would improve society in a way they see fit. I have run out of time; I will leave my contribution there. Thank you for my opportunity to contribute.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:16): First of all I want to thank Ms Tyrrell for bringing this important motion to the house. I also want to thank Mr McIntosh. That was a very good speech. I was so disappointed and disheartened at the ones before that, because I tell you what, in all honesty, I would give my life for this flag. I would die for this nation and I would die for this flag because of what it represents. Australia is an amazing place. It is the best nation on earth. It has an Indigenous heritage, it has a British foundation and it has a multicultural character, and the only way that we can move forward as one is if we begin to see each of those and respect them for the individual and vital parts that they play.

I was so disappointed to hear those from the other side. I hate to give Labor a free kick, but what we heard from two of those members I am sure is not what they believe, because this is an incredible nation and this is an incredible state. This has become the envy of the world – and it is because of the freedom and the democracy that that flag represents. Let me tell you – I do not think that it would be from any ill will – that I would also be so offended if I saw the Aboriginal flag being burnt. I would never stand for that, because when you burn a flag that is never going to heal a heart. Burning a flag is never going to bring people together. What it does is it demonises, it expresses hatred and it divides people and just rips nations apart, and it should never, ever be accepted.

So I was so disappointed to hear those two. I am not even going to mention their names, but I will mention some of the things they said. One of them said this about Ms Tyrrell – who I am sure is a flawed character, like all of us are, but she has come with her heart for the nation, which I absolutely love about her. We are all flawed, we all come with different things, but like Mrs Deeming said, when you do not have an argument, you begin to attack the person. I was so upset to see that, because surely we are better than this.

Here are a few of the things that I was so mad with. One of the members of the government said she was desperate for relevance. That is absolutely not true. What she is desperate for is to see the fabric in the community work together. Western democracy has actually become a safe haven for people that are escaping poverty and communism. It is a safe haven for those girls that are escaping Afghanistan, where they can come to and get an education. It is an escape for those women that are in fear in Iran, where they are being shot and killed and executed in public because they choose to show their hair.

That is what the Australian flag means: it is freedom and it is democracy. It makes sure not just that people have the rule of law and economic independence and those things that protect us, but that everyone has equality of opportunity, if not necessarily equality of outcome. I love that flag, I love this nation, and anybody who burns that flag as a sign of resistance or a sign of – whatever it is – hatred should have the whole force of the law come down on them, because I tell you what, that flag represents values that people die for. People stand up in countries that are under communism and under different things where they are trying to break out of poverty. What that flag does and what that flag represents is freedom.

What it represents is the hope that a little girl can come here and can get an education, and it does not matter who her dad is. She is not going to be traded off; she is not going to be a child that is subject to child marriage. What that flag represents is that little girl, not because of who she was born to but because she is human, gets a chance. That is what that flag means to me. I love this flag. I love this country. And to hear some of those things – let me read some others which I just thought were so incredibly upsetting. Why is it, by the way, that one-third of small businesses in this nation are started by immigrants? Why is that? It is because this is the land of opportunity where people can come and they can put back and they can serve, and they can achieve their dreams. And from their success, they can make way for others. I thank God for people like that, because people like that have made way for me, let me tell you.

This is why it is important to me: Australia has an Indigenous foundation. One of the people that has made the biggest mark on my life and is like a north star to me is an Indigenous man who when he was younger was put in a prison cell where somebody had just been kicked to death because he was Indigenous. He has walked through and he has seen the change in this nation. He has seen the beginning of reconciliation but not the end. That is what this flag means to me. The second part is that the Indigenous heritage of this nation matters. It is the very soil that we all live on. It is the spirit of what we carry. It is the Indigenous heritage of this nation.

The second thing I want to talk about is the British foundation, which has allowed the rule of law and democracy, and to make sure that when people have arguments it is based on reason. It is the British foundation that has allowed people to live a life of freedom. It is incredible. It is what has forged the way for democracy, and it is democracy that allows people to thrive and live life according to their terms.

The third part is we have a multicultural character. It does not matter where you come from, you can have a go here. It does not matter if you were born in Afghanistan, China, Australia, New Zealand or America. If you come here, you have the same rights as everybody else, and that is what this flag means to me. To hear the hatred that has been spewed is just an affront to everything that we stand for in this place. Like I said, I am very serious. I have not even touched my notes, but I love this flag, and I live for this nation, and I would die for this nation because of what it represents. There are so many people who would absolutely give up anything to be here. I am very lucky that every few weeks I get to attend citizenship ceremonies. Mr Limbrick quoted it before. They stand there and they say, ‘I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose rights I will uphold and whose liberties I will respect and obey.’ They give up everything else because they know that this is where they want to be. I tell you what, it does not matter where they were born, they are Australian because they carry that spirit and that attitude. To say that bringing something forward like this is racist is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard, because that flag is a sign of unity. It is something that every one of us can unite and stand under.

I just want to say one other thing, and this is what I was actually going to start my speech on, but now I have got about a minute and 15 seconds left. A couple of Sundays ago I was walking through the CBD with some friends, and I was devastated to see a pro-Palestinian march with people walking down with desecrated Australian flags. That broke my heart, because I tell you what, people in Palestine matter and people in Israel matter. But what should never come onto our streets is the desecration of the Australian flag, the very symbol that brings us all together. I commend this motion to the house, and I say well done, Ms Tyrrell, for bringing it on.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:25): I rise to speak on Ms Tyrrell’s motion about the Australian flag. We have had a lot of passionate contributions in the course of the debate this afternoon, and I acknowledge Dr Heath’s passion in her contribution. It may surprise some that there was a little bit there that I actually really agreed with, and that was that we need to take into account and listen to the contributions that have been made in this place before us today. I think it is important that in the context of a debate about whether or not it should be illegal to burn or desecrate the Australian flag, we should take some time to reflect on some of the prior contributions that have been made here in this chamber.

I will start my speech there. The first quote I will use is this:

Freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have.

That was from Mr Mulholland in his inaugural speech. In her inaugural speech Mrs McArthur said:

I will fight the dangerous march of thought police, who present a serious threat to individual freedom through political correctness.

Dr Heath in August 2023 said:

Freedom of speech is something that has been developed over centuries that humanity has only learned through great suffering.

She went on to say in that speech:

… no government that has ever censored people’s speech has been on the side of freedom and democracy.

I make these remarks and I quote members opposite from their prior contributions in this chamber because, fundamentally, that is what this debate is about. It is about freedom of speech. It is about whether in a democracy we do not only say words that support freedom of speech when it is convenient for us, but we also do it when it is inconvenient for us. We also support that those words would be genuine, that we would be able to say that those words were sincerely spoken, if the defence of freedom of speech or the march against political correctness was something that we supported even when that speech or that action was against a symbol that we also loved. Otherwise, the protestation of support for an ideological principle is hollow. It means nothing if when it is tested it can be trampled upon by their own words. That is what we need to think about in today’s debate. That is what people should reflect on when they claim to support freedom and yet seek to criminalise a political act because they like the object that is under consideration. That, fundamentally, is what many who believe in the rule of law and who believe in freedoms and who believe in democratic rights across the world believe in.

There were some references earlier in the debate today to what is happening in the United States, and I really want to make sure that no-one in this chamber is under any illusion about what the law is in the United States. The United States have a freedom to burn their flag. The US Supreme Court has twice – most recently in 1989 – upheld that the burning of an American flag is protected by the American first amendment right to freedom of speech. We have the case of Texas v Johnson from 1989, where someone burnt an American flag outside of a political convention in a state that had passed a law that said that that act should be illegal. What did the US Supreme Court rule in 1989? The majority of the court agreed that flag burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the first amendment – this is the first amendment to the United States constitution – and that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive and society’s outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech. In particular the US Supreme Court majority in that case noted that the Texas law, the law which had been put on the statute books to prevent the burning or desecration of the American flag, discriminated upon viewpoint. Although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects. The majority said the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint. That is what the law is in the United States. That is what people in that country who believe in their right to freedom of speech believe in.

In Australia we have an implied right of political communication in our constitution. Although there has not been a law passed by a state or territory that might impinge upon that right, what this motion today calls for is the enacting of such a right. So what we should do is think about whether the law proposed or the law sought by Ms Tyrrell’s motion would also infringe upon the principle of free political communication that we have in this country thanks to decisions of the High Court. I think it is highly arguable that it would. It is highly arguable that the actions that this motion calls on the government to outlaw would in fact infringe upon the rights that we have as Australians under our constitution to participate freely in political discourse – freedoms that, from listening to them before today, I thought the Liberal Party believed in, because they tell us that they do. They stand up when it is convenient and say that they believe in free speech. They stand up and say that freedom of speech, according to Mr Mulholland, is the most important freedom that we have. He must have forgotten the ‘but’: ‘but not when it’s something I disagree with.’ He might want to come into the chamber in the course of the debate and clarify those matters.

Mrs McArthur said, ‘I will fight the dangerous march of the thought police,’ in her inaugural. I must have missed the point where she said, ‘except when the thought police want to stop us from desecrating or burning a flag.’ She thinks, according to her inaugural speech, that the thought police present a serious threat to individual freedom through political correctness. Well, through you, Acting President, to Mrs McArthur, I cannot think of how else we can describe the action that Ms Tyrrell’s motion calls for other than a form of political correctness, because it is saying there is a correct way to treat a civic object.

If people on that side of the chamber purport to believe in the values that they espouse when convenient, they should stand up and do so when it is inconvenient for them, otherwise it is hollow, otherwise we cannot believe them when they say that they believe in freedom. We cannot believe them when they say that freedom of speech is the most important right that we have and that no government that has censored people’s speech has been on the side of freedom and democracy – the words of Dr Heath. We do not support this motion.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:35): I wish to rise to speak on the motion put forward by Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell from One Nation. I want to particularly thank my colleague Renee Heath for her very passionate speech, which will resonate with so many Victorians and Australians because it was about the pride that we hold in our national flag. It was about the pride that we hold in ourselves as Australians. I cannot tell you how many times I have shed a tear as I have stood and looked up at the Australian flag, whether it be in a moment at an Anzac service or whether it be because we are receiving a medal for an athlete that is representing our country. But when that national anthem plays and the camera goes to the flag, there are many times when I, and I am sure many Australians, have had a sense of pride in our nation.

As a person who attends many, many citizenship ceremonies – there are seven councils in the south-east that are represented – I can say that I know that that flag means a great deal to many new migrants. They are so proud to become Australian citizens. One of the favourite days for people to become Australian citizens is Australia Day, and they love to have their photos near the flag because they know what they have left behind. That flag is a symbol of a nation that is providing freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association. It has been said in this place before that people have given their lives for it. They looked up at that flag before they gave their lives, marching off to their destinations, where they may never have returned to Australian soil. That flag was part of the inspiration for them – that sense of identity and national pride that we stand for something, that we provide something.

We have a motion being ridiculed when it is talking about the importance of not desecrating that flag, of not desecrating the symbol for which we stand. It is not about whether someone likes it or does not like it. It is a symbol of who we are as a nation. It is incredibly important. Let me tell you, there would be a number of nations that would be very angry and people-groups that would be very angry if people decided to demonstrate and burn their flag. Listening to some of the contributions, I can only wonder how offensive it would be for me and many other Australians if somebody decided to do something so abominable as taking somebody’s flag that means something to them and burning and desecrating it. We are a nation and we are a nation that is of freedom, but desecrating a flag is not appropriate.

I want to take up something that Mr Batchelor said, because he mentioned the American first amendment. I want to say that this was put out by the White House, and it says:

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words”, is constitutionally protected.

It is not.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: The Supreme Court, but this has been put out as well as a comment afterwards.

Bev McArthur: On a point of order, Acting President, I have listened to those on the other side interject continually while we have been speaking. We gave total silence to Mr McIntosh and to you, Mr Batchelor. Please do us the courtesy of the same.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I bring the house to order. I just ask that Mrs Hermans continue in silence.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: This motion is about standing up for those Australians who love their flag, who are proud of this nation, who are proud to be Australian, who have given their lives in many cases and who have marched off to war. Some have taken bullets for this flag, and we need to protect it, and I respect this motion.

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (15:40): First I would like to thank everybody in the opposition who has supported me. The speeches were fantastic, and I would like to especially thank Dr Heath for her very emotional input – it was very grabbing. I am really disappointed by the left, except for Mr McIntosh, who managed to keep it very professional, and Mr Batchelor, because they did not resort to low, petty personal attacks. But immediately the left went to racism. This is not what this motion is about. This motion is about the Australian and Victorian flags, and they represent everybody as a whole. This is not dividing at all. It is about the desecration and the burning of these flags, and that is what my point is. We do not want to incite violence.

As I said earlier, yes, this is about freedom of speech, but this is an act. This is a physical act that incites violence. If we look at Senator Lidia Thorpe, she started off with the burning of the Australian flag, and now she is proposing acts of terrorism against Parliament itself. This motion seeks to stop that in its tracks from happening further. Once again, I would like to thank everybody who contributed, and I would also like to thank those who showed their unprofessionalism in this chamber.

Council divided on motion: