Wednesday, 29 October 2025

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (10:46): I am pleased to be able to speak about the Safer Protest with a Registration System and a Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025. I do want to thank David Southwick, the Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections, for his work on this bill. I want to say as we approach this debate that we certainly have a willingness to work together with the government on this issue to pass legislation to stop violent and antisocial protesters, particularly those disrupting Melbourne’s CBD and threatening businesses, jobs and tourism. Mr Southwick has written to the Premier offering to split the bill in two parts so that the mask laws can be considered in isolation.

Now, peaceful protests have long been part of our democratic tradition, and it should remain that way. But in recent years Victorians have witnessed a troubling rise in protest activity that has been disruptive, dangerous and in some cases deliberately unlawful. We have seen protests that block traffic, interfere with emergency services, intimidate residents and place frontline workers at risk. We have seen recent examples, and I will talk to that later, that illustrate the disruption that unsafe protest activity has brought to Victoria. Members will recall that in September, protests at the Land Forces expo in Melbourne caused days of chaos, with activists blocking bridges, cementing themselves to cars and disrupting peak-hour traffic. Some groups now plan and coordinate for maximum disruption without any accountability. That is not democracy, that reflects a state that has lost control.

Victoria, and in particular Melbourne, has rapidly become the protest capital of Australia. Last year in Melbourne alone, Victoria Police reported that more than 500 protests had taken place. Many of them are linked to the conflict in the Middle East. This issue does not just impact Melbourne. It is felt across the state, as police resources from regional areas have at times been called upon to provide the additional resources needed. Former Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton said the force had redeployed nearly 10,000 officers from across the state, including regional areas, to ensure public order. That is thousands of hours of valuable police shifts manning protests instead of focusing on serious and violent crime. Right now, crime is skyrocketing, and we have seen the rates continue to go up and up and up, not just in Melbourne but across the state. We have over 1100 vacancies in our police force and many more on top of that on leave, and we have more officers leaving the force than are joining. So there are over 2000 vacancies at the moment.

We have station hours that have been reduced and thousands of cases in Victoria unresolved because we lack the resources. This needs to change. As well as thousands of police hours, it is tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars responding to each major rally. I remember witnessing a protest in Melbourne myself near an intersection at Flinders Street. A truck came into the centre. It was barricaded off with people that were wearing masks. They poured gravel into the centre of the intersection. There were hundreds of protesters that came from all different directions. I called 000 at the time and spoke with police, who said there was not much that they could do.

Now, Victoria Police have repeatedly called for and lobbied the Allan Labor government for a system to better manage protest activity, but for too long the state government has done nothing. The significant public safety and economic impacts of recent protests highlight the need for better management of protest activity and a framework to support Victorians exercising their right to protest in a safe and orderly manner. Let me be clear: the Nationals do support the right to peaceful assembly. But there needs to be a balance, and that is why we are calling on the Victorian government to introduce a protest registration system – a straightforward and transparent process that will provide protesters with the freedom to protest peacefully while not restricting the freedom of other Victorians; allow Victoria Police to work collaboratively with protest organisers and plan for sufficient use of resources for maintaining order at protests; align Victoria more closely with the rest of the nation as the only state currently without any state-run protest system; preserve the right to peaceful assembly while ensuring dangerous or disruptive protests can be managed effectively; and give police the power to direct a person to remove a face covering and arrest those who refuse to comply. But I note that religious reasons for wearing a face covering will be fully respected and accepted under the law.

This is not about silencing voices, it is about keeping the community safe and businesses open. Emergency services, local councils and even small business owners have told us they find out about protests after they have begun, leaving no time to prepare, divert traffic or protect public infrastructure, which puts lives and livelihoods at risk. A protest registration system already exists in other jurisdictions, including many parts of New South Wales and internationally. It is not controversial; it is common sense. It gives police better oversight, allows emergency management coordination and ensures that the rights of everyone, not just the loudest voices, are respected. We must also ensure that protests do not become a cover for hate speech or extremist activity. We have seen very disturbing scenes on Victorian streets in recent months, scenes that have made people feel unsafe in their own communities.

I speak with people across the state – in Melbourne and right across regional Victoria – and they have had enough of the chaos and want the government to act. It was appalling to see the recent violence as crowds of protesters clashed at rallies in Melbourne. Police officers were injured as protesters hurled large rocks, glass bottles and food. Policemen ended up in hospital, one with a broken hand. Victoria Police acting commander Wayne Cheeseman said:

The people that came to pick the fight with police were the issue-motivated groups on the left.

…

They are cowards. They come in face coverings They come in masks. They come with hoodies on.

He said:

… Melbourne has had a gutful.

Labor promised to crack down on masked agitators nearly a year ago, and week after week we see protests on our streets and the government continuing to do nothing. Our plan will establish a New South Wales-style protest registration system, strengthen police move-on powers and ban face coverings except for religious reasons. Repeat offenders will be banned from protest areas for up to 12 months, and peaceful registered protests will be protected in law. A registration system will enable Victoria Police to better balance the resources required for protest management and work collaboratively with organisers to ensure the safety of other Victorians.

We live in a free society, but freedom comes with responsibility. We need to keep Victorians safe, protect our democracy and restore order in our streets. Victorians deserve to feel safe, whether they are attending a protest or walking past one.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:53): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Safer Protest with a Registration System and a Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025. It should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the government opposes this bill. Our criminal anti-vilification laws came into effect last month, and if the opposition were actually concerned about hate, they should have supported them at that opportunity.

The Allan Labor government is committed to protecting the right of Victorians to peacefully and safely protest, and that is why we will be introducing laws very soon to strengthen safety at protests. Now, as a former trade unionist, I can attest to the importance of protesting. I know many of my colleagues on the government benches, who have also come from the trade union movement, understand the way to protest peacefully and to make our point heard, but what we are seeing happening on our streets is something more than that.

Our laws, unlike the laws proposed by those opposite today, will focus on people driving hate and violence at protests. They will be the laws that will actually make a difference and not bureaucracy that the Chief Commissioner of Police has said we actually do not need. Our protest safety laws were flagged in December last year, and we committed to dealing with violent, hateful and dangerous participants in public demonstrations by prohibiting the flags and symbols of listed terrorist organisations; empowering police to unmask violent, hateful, dangerous individuals who attend protests and cowardly hide behind masks; and addressing the use of dangerous attachment devices. We also committed to introducing new laws to protect the right of people to gather and pray free from fear, harassment and intimidation. Targeted consultation on these laws has already occurred with the police and select faith, legal, government, community and union stakeholders on what the safe protest laws will look like when we introduce these laws very soon. The government recognises that the right to protest is a critical part of our democracy and that we need to get the balance right. Our laws will allow Victoria Police to unmask violent and hateful demonstrators, like the neo-Nazis, who are unwelcome on our streets. This will help protect our social cohesion and the right of Victorians to protest peacefully and safely without interference from extremist thugs. The opposition’s bill is contrary to the advice of Victoria Police and will infringe the rights of ordinary Victorians.

As I said before, we know that the right to protest is something that is incredibly important to Victorians and also important to people in the union movement, and what we are seeing is fringe and extreme elements taking over the right to safely protest. All protests are not the same, and what we have seen in recent times is an escalation of violence and hatred and the rise of extremists who are taking over peaceful protests. This is why our government is going to take strong action. The Age interviewed Chief Commissioner Bush in July and reported on his response to questions about proposals for a protest registration scheme, which is similar to the one that was introduced in New South Wales to curb violence and hate speech by neo-Nazi groups and some Palestine groups. Chief Commissioner Bush at the time said to the Age:

We’ve had a look at it, and it’s not something we’re going to drive towards … We’ve had a look at other jurisdictions that do that, and it’s not the game breaker.

The majority of people that protest, do so peacefully and they are more than entitled to, and we support that.

In an interview with Raf Epstein on ABC Melbourne radio on 28 July, Chief Commissioner Bush reiterated that position, saying:

We’ve had a look at that. We’ve had a look at what our neighbour jurisdictions do. We do not believe it is something that will make a material difference, so we are not going to pursue that …

That is because when there are people who are intent on breaking rules, you can have all the rules that you like, but people who want to and who are intent on not following them will continue down that path. So the registration and authorisation of public protests will not work. The proposed registration scheme is unlikely to be used by protesters who engage in dangerous or violent conduct, and we have seen this. What we are asking people to do is basically comply with the registration system, which they have no intention of doing. Neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens are not out there applying for a protest permit. They believe they should not have to. They do not want to. We cannot make them. As an example, despite New South Wales laws, 30 Nazis took part in the march last month in Sydney. They handed out flyers and took to the stage to lead chants of ‘Heil Australia’ and ‘Blood and honour’. These laws will only create bureaucracy. They will not make protests safer. Introducing protest move-on and exclusion powers will undermine peaceful protests as well, and the bill would introduce move-on powers in protest environments and industrial disputes. That is something that is really a critically important issue. We need to make sure we have a fine balance in these laws and laws that will not be used or abused to curb legitimate, industrial, union-based protests. We repealed these laws in 2015 due to their impact on peaceful protests, including vulnerable groups. Breaching an exclusion order carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

In regard to face coverings and those offences, masks are not a free pass to break the law. What we have seen is a number of extremists who attend protests these days wearing face coverings, obviously to conceal their identities. There should be no place to hide it in this state if you are a racist stirring up hate on the streets – at least have the courage of your convictions to go out and protest and show people your face. But this bill will not target dangerous, violent and extreme protesters – it will target everyday people wanting to engage in peaceful protests. It would make it a crime for a person to wear a mask at a protest – for example, if you wanted to wear a mask to protect your health. We know that face masks can be an essential protection for people with underlying health conditions, and what you do see particularly at peak cold and flu seasons is that lots of people wear masks because they actually do not want to get sick. To protect your health is a legitimate reason to wear a face mask, but also to protect your identity because you are a victim of family violence fearing retribution. Wearing a face mask, for those people, is one way of participating in legitimate protest activity, still exercising their right to protest but protecting themselves from perhaps someone who may want to prey on them. Family violence victims should be allowed to attend a protest free from fear, and a face covering helps them do that. Also, to celebrate pride in costume – masks have long been a tool of expression at Midsumma, for example, and these laws would criminalise Midsumma. The thing we would hate to see is someone making a fake complaint about someone wearing a mask at an event like Midsumma. I would not put it past some people to actually do that, and that is a very sad indictment on where we are right now, but unfortunately extremists will use whatever they can to invoke fear and hatred in what they do.

Our laws, which we will introduce into Parliament as soon as possible, will be proportionate, with appropriate exceptions, including for health, cultural and religious reasons. These laws will build on the work that we have already done to improve social cohesion. Earlier this year the Allan Labor government passed landmark legislation to strengthen our anti-vilification and social cohesion laws. Our laws will protect more Victorians from vilification – from the worst kinds of hate speech, which we have seen in growing numbers and fashion recently – or conduct that profoundly harms people and social cohesion. Some of the footage that we have seen in recent times that has been occurring around protests has been absolutely disgraceful, and it needs to be reined in. They will also introduce new criminal offences for serious vilification, such as inciting hatred or threatening physical harm against someone because of who they are or what faith they follow. These new offences commenced last month.

We are also going to strengthen existing civil protections against vilification and provide more options for remedy or resolution where people have been harmed. And we have seen that; we need to be able to protect people who have suffered harm as a consequence of hate. We are also going to protect the rights to free speech and religion by recognising exceptions for religious and artistic purposes and more. Protections will, for the first time, cover disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and personal association with a person who has a protected attribute – for example, a parent of a disabled child. It is a sad indictment on where we are right now, but what we recognise is that we need to provide protections for people who have been increasingly targeted by fringe elements in society and have been targeted on the basis of who they are or who they love. They need protection by the law.

It is a sad indictment on where we are right now. But as you can see, the Allan Labor government has given careful and thoughtful consideration to a range of measures that we see will strike the right balance between giving people the opportunity to protest, to protest publicly – protest in the city or wherever they might want to protest – and to protest peacefully, though, about the things that matter to them the most. These are important rights for people to exercise. But what we cannot allow is for extremist elements to infiltrate and basically take over and make it look like all protesters are extremists, because they are not. There are fringe elements that are infiltrating these protests and making it look like there is much more support for hate and for division. As I talked about earlier, a ban on face coverings is a tricky area for the reasons that I have outlined before, but we also cannot allow people to hide behind a face covering when they are using it to hide their identity because they are out there committing crimes.

As I said earlier, we have consulted with the relevant stakeholders on this. We have listened to the police, and we believe that this legislation strikes the right balance based on what stakeholders are telling us about what the police need, but it also strikes the right balance to allow people who want to protest to do so and have their say safely and effectively. We want to empower police to unmask violent, hateful and dangerous individuals who attend these protests. It is cowardly, and I really believe that people should have the courage of their convictions. If you want to make a point and you want to protest, do not cover your face. Have the courage of your convictions to actually show who you are. But again, we know that these hateful fringe elements are cowards, and that is why they use face masks.

As I said, the government opposes the bill brought by the opposition. We think that this bill does not adequately address the sorts of issues that need to be dealt with, and we will be introducing our laws shortly to assist. We have already done a lot of work in this area to address the issues that have come up previously. This bill covers a range of things. It covers a registration scheme. I have addressed that in the sense that, as I said earlier, people who are intent on breaking the law are not going to comply with a registration scheme. It is just going to create a bigger bureaucracy for someone to administer. Again, I note that in the discourse around this bill there has been no mention of how this would be paid for. I know the Liberal–Nationals always complain about taxes, yet they propose these sorts of things. We have seen no costings on what this might cost to implement. Again, light on detail, big on political wedges. Where is the detail about how much this would cost, who would administer it and how it would actually work? I do not know. It is very light on detail.

Our government is working with the relevant stakeholders. We are consulting. We have consulted widely and broadly, and we will continue to do so. We want to ensure that people in Victoria can protest on the things that matter to them the most and that they can do so in a safe way. But we are also cracking down on people who use protests to basically show hatred and division and target individuals. The government opposes this bill.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:08): I rise to make a contribution on the bill before the chamber. The pithily titled Safer Protest with a Registration System and a Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025 is, according to Mr Davis, about balance and about protecting the right to peaceful protest as a cornerstone of our democracy. It all sounds pretty reasonable. As Mr Davis noted in his second-reading speech, it is about:

… drawing a clear line between the right to protest peacefully and the right of every Victorian to live free from intimidation, disruption, and violence.

The bill itself, however, looks a bit more like creeping fascism to me, but I will talk more about that in a moment.

In Australia the right to protest and assemble is protected under international law and is an integral part of a functioning democracy. The right also comes from the implied freedom of political communication found in our constitution. Mr Davis mentioned that 500 protests had occurred in Melbourne since October 2023, so I am assuming that he is specifically targeting the pro-Palestinian rallies, which I would suggest many people have attended because they want to see an end to what both the UN and the International Criminal Court have denounced as the ongoing genocide in Gaza and, I would say not unreasonably, they want to see the Victorian government sever ties with the weapons manufacturers who are enabling that genocide. I myself have attended a number of these rallies, as have a number of my colleagues in this place. No doubt the recent protests have been disruptive, but sometimes democracy is disruptive and it is messy and it is inconvenient. It is what separates democracy from authoritarianism.

I was not around in Parliament to see how those opposite responded to the anti-government, anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine protests that took place in Melbourne a few years back, but I do wonder if they spoke as passionately about the right of Victorians to live free from intimidation, disruption and violence during the protests of that era. I suspect not.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Apologies, Mr Ettershank: I have been advised that your speech on this bill was incorporated into Hansard on 10 September. Therefore, I have to take the call away from you.

David ETTERSHANK: That is disappointing. I was just warming up.

Sonja Terpstra: You can’t recycle.

David ETTERSHANK: I covered the government’s inability to recycle in the last speech. In that case, I express my regret and I thank you.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:11): I would have liked to have seen what else Mr Ettershank was about to say. He said that this bill looks like fascism to him. I just wonder if he is happy to go on record to say that the states that have these exact laws in place, like Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales, are also fascists. But we will leave that one because he was not meant to be speaking anyway.

It has now been over 10 days since police chief and superintendent Wayne Cheeseman held a press conference where he said that Melbourne had had a gutful of violent protesters. He said:

The people that came to pick a fight with police were the issue-motivated people on the left …

He stood up and he held a huge rock, and he said it was what was hurled at police. He spoke about how there were bottles filled with shards of glass used to attack police, used as projectiles. He said:

The truth is, there’s probably 40 to 50 hardcore protesters who were trying to harm the police …

He said:

What concerns me though, is they are standing with the larger group, and the other group are not intervening, they’re not telling them to stop. So in a way, they’re offering their support which is unacceptable.

I was so pleased to see Mr Cheeseman call this stuff out. I understand that 10 days is not a long time, but it has now almost been a year since the Premier of this state, Premier Jacinta Allan, released a press release that said this is what she was going to do:

banning the use of face masks at protests, which are being used to conceal identities and shield agitators from crowd-control measures like capsicum spray

It is almost a year since she said that. If the government is now approaching a year and is serious about protecting the people that protect us, like police, now is their time to stand up and show it. Mr Southwick was in the paper today and he was quoted:

This issue is so important it should be above partisan politics. This is about community safety, law and order and protecting every Victorian.

He said:

I am offering a constructive way forward.

That is exactly what he is doing. This is a practical, bipartisan step that honours your government’s own commitments, equips VicPol with the tools they need and, most importantly, will make Victoria safer. The Premier first vowed to overhaul the protest laws in December last year and has repeatedly said that the government would introduce this legislation by the end of the year. Well, time is really ticking, it honestly is, and the same Labor government that could lock a whole state down in a matter of hours has not been able to introduce a bill to protect police, the people that protect us, in a matter of a year. So I think it is time for them to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. Victoria wants their city back. This is affecting businesses. This is affecting social cohesion. We have seen outrageous violence on our streets.

I also want to talk about some of the stats that Mr Ettershank quickly alluded to. The fact is that between October 23 and February 25 the response to pro-Palestinian protests has taken police away from their regular duties on over 18,000 occasions, and managing community safety during protests, over 554 times. That is absolutely massive. And in the meantime we have had people like a Greens MP saying to these protesters:

I am inspired every day by the people who refuse to give in – those who chain themselves to coal trains, who march in the street despite police intimidation …

It is not police intimidation to try to keep communities safe; that is not police intimidation. And I can see even now the member of the Greens here arguing with that. It is not police brutality to protect people. It is not police overreach to try to manage regular protests and protect people. So I just think this is very interesting. Also, Ms Terpstra said what the police were apparently saying, that Victoria Police have repeatedly called for and lobbied the Allan government for a system to better manage protest activity – a call to action to the Premier and her government, which they have continually ignored.

So what the Liberals and Nationals are doing in this bill is standing up for public safety while ensuring the right to peacefully protest. We have struck the right balance in this bill. Victoria is the only state that does not have a permit system, and it is going to be a voluntary permit system, following some different states. The other thing the Liberal–Nationals are saying is that violent protests have brought Melbourne to a standstill and Labor has allowed this chaos to reign at the expense of public safety and economic security. The other day I saw somebody say that Melbourne is the most livable state for criminals, and it is true – it is not the most livable city anymore, but it is the most livable city for criminals. Our plan introduces a sensible registration system which will assist in maintaining public safety while ensuring that those who wish to express their views can do so safely. Our plan places trust in Victoria Police to make decisions that will keep Victoria safe while ensuring that people who want to protest can do so safely. Victorians deserve a government that will stand up for them, and that is what we will deliver with this bill.

I just wanted to put those few thoughts on record. I absolutely commend this bill to the house. The state is out of control; the government has lost control of our streets.

Jacinta Ermacora interjected.

Renee HEATH: Ms Ermacora can roll her eyes as much as possible. Her own leader, the Premier, admitted this in writing in December 2024. I commend this bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:19): I also would like to say a few words on the private members bill brought by the opposition, the Safer Protest with a Registration System and a Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025. The Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. Effectively what this bill is doing is allowing the Chief Commissioner of Police to decide whether the citizens of Victoria have the right to peaceful assembly or not. Firstly they need to apply for a permit, and if that permit is not authorised, then they may not protest and they may not have their right to peaceful assembly. I am not sure where they get the idea that this is somehow in line with the principles of liberalism, because it certainly is not. The other thing that this bill does is allow the chief commissioner to set out exclusion orders. An exclusion order is where the chief commissioner names someone and says that this person is not allowed to exercise their right to peaceful assembly, because of reasons that the chief commissioner deems are reasonable. If they breach, if they go ahead and protest anyway, they can go to jail for up to two years under an offence under this proposed bill. Obviously this is an extreme authoritarian overreach, and I would not support this under any circumstances.

The other thing that this bill does is something which is totally superfluous because the government already does it, and that is prohibiting face coverings at protests. This is already done through designated areas, which the police force regularly does, where they have special powers to search without warrant, to order people to remove face coverings and a whole bunch of other powers. The existing powers that the police have are worrying enough without giving them these further powers. I note that the only exemption here is having a face covering for religious purposes. I would note that many people have other reasons to have face coverings, such as health reasons. They may have a mask for health purposes, and that is their right if they feel that they want to do that. I do not wear masks anymore since the pandemic, but some people do and that is their choice.

I would like to comment on some of the problems that we have had with protests. Of course I condemn what has been happening with throwing rocks at police and inciting violence. This is already a crime, though, and I hope that police track down the people that were throwing those rocks and charge them to the fullest extent of the law. This is a clear breach of the non-aggression principle that libertarians believe in. Also we have seen an alleged attack by far-right extremists on an Aboriginal campsite, and this also was shocking. I hope that everyone involved with that is charged and suffers the full force of the law. We cannot allow violence to be initiated or incited at protests – this is the line. This is where it goes beyond peaceful protest, and the people that incite or indeed initiate violence must be held to account. This has occurred on all sides of politics, frankly. We have seen it and it is not good enough.

Some of the protests have intentionally and deliberately attempted to take away other people’s rights – rights such as freedom of movement – where protesters have deliberately blocked streets or blocked access to businesses, with the purpose of taking away other people’s rights. This also is an initiation of aggression, and it is my view that the police should be able to stop people doing this. If protesters are deliberately blocking people’s access to businesses or streets or things like this, then the police’s job in my view should be to clear the way to allow access for these people to carry out their business in peace, unobstructed by protesters. I acknowledge that sometimes protests unintentionally block people’s access just due to their size and things like this, but that is very different to someone that deliberately goes out to block access. We have seen this with people trying to block access to cafes and factories and import businesses and this sort of thing. This should not be allowed, because they are taking away other people’s rights. It is hypocritical to the extreme to complain about your right to peaceful assembly whilst you are simultaneously trying to take away other people’s rights, and that should not be tolerated.

I have seen the government a few times recently cave in to pressure from the opposition and others on law and order issues, and invariably they have been mistakes for the government. I think the most obvious one is the machete bins, which have been met with nothing but ridicule from everyone in the Victorian public, and rightly so, because the machete ban is totally ineffective and wasteful. I think that this, however, is not just ineffective and wasteful, it is an offence to the principles of liberalism and should be opposed.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:25): I do enjoy following on from Mr Limbrick, because sometimes I fervently disagree with what he says, but at other times I absolutely do agree with what he says. And that is what we should do in this place. We should listen to each other and, where we disagree, acknowledge that disagreement and debate and fight on the policies, principles and positions which we come to and, where we agree, get on and do things for this state that improve the economy of our state, that improve the quality of life and that improve the lived experience of all our lives.

Mr Limbrick made a comment that I did write on my notes, before I dropped them, that what the Liberal Party are trying to do here today is extreme authoritarian overreach. We know that the Liberals are not underpinned by a set of values that bring them in here. We know that the Liberals make their policy on the fly. When you make policy on the fly and when you are just looking for a headline, we get the sort of drafting of words that we see in here today. As I have said before, I think we should all cherish our democracy. What we have in Victoria, what we have in Australia and what those that have gone before us in our defence forces have fought for – for the quality of life we have and the things that we take for granted in this state and in this country – we should absolutely cherish. On respecting other people’s opinions, I think the majority of Victorians, the majority of Australians, want to go about their life. They want to get on. They want to try and buy a house. Those that have kids want to get their kids educated. They want good health services and they want good connecting transport, whether that is public or road infrastructure. They want to get on with their lives.

What I think is important for all of us is to push back on the fringes – the fringes that will not accept anybody’s view except their own, because in their mind they hold the answers to every problem in this community. Most of us in here know that there are a lot of things across our society and across our community that we have to weave and wrangle our way through. Everything is not a black or white answer – good, bad or whatever it might be – there are complexities to everything. One of the things I am most grateful for in this country is that we have mandatory voting, the fact that the majority of us turn out to vote, because I think that keeps our politics moderated. It does not mean that we do not have the extremes out on the fringes trying to call on people’s insecurities or hatreds or whatever it might be to try and win votes. I just wanted to start with that as a starting point. I think we should cherish what we have, our institutions. We should cherish our democracy and everything that is delivered by that.

The government and I oppose this bill. Our criminal anti-vilification laws came into effect last month, and if the opposition were concerned about hate, they would have supported them. The Allan Labor government is committed to protecting the right of Victorians to peacefully and safely protest. That is why we will be introducing laws very soon to strengthen safety at protests. Our laws, unlike the laws proposed by those opposite today, will focus on the people driving hate and violence at protests. I think it is important, as we have heard in some other contributions, to acknowledge that the majority of people at protests are there doing the right thing. They have an opinion, a point of view, and they are demonstrating that point of view without looking to resort to violence, words of hate and this sort of thing. These laws will actually make a difference; they are not the bureaucracy that the Liberals are looking to implement and that the Chief Commissioner of Police has said we do not need.

In December last year we committed to dealing with violent, hateful and dangerous participants in public demonstrations by prohibiting the flags and symbols of listed terrorist organisations; empowering police to unmask violent, hateful and dangerous individuals who protest and hide behind masks; and addressing the use of dangerous items that people may have. We also committed to introducing new laws to protect the right of people to gather and pray free from fear, harassment and intimidation. Targeted consultation has occurred with police and select faith, legal, government, community and union stakeholders on what the safe protest laws will look like, and we will introduce these laws very soon.

The government recognises that the right to protest is a critical part of any democracy and that we need to get that balance right. Our laws will allow Victoria Police to unmask violent and hateful demonstrators, who I think the absolute majority of Victorians agree are unwelcome on our streets. This will help protect our social cohesion and the right of Victorians to protest peacefully and safely, without interference from extremists. The opposition’s bill is contrary to the advice of Victoria Police and would infringe the rights of ordinary Victorians. The chief commissioner was interviewed on this in July. In his responses to questions about proposals for a protest registration scheme similar to that introduced in New South Wales to curb violence and hate speech, Chief Commissioner Bush said to the Age that:

We’ve had a look at it, and it’s not something we’re going to drive towards … We’ve had a look at other jurisdictions that do that, and it’s not the game breaker.

The majority of people that protest, do so peacefully and they are more than entitled to, and we support that.

In another interview with Raf Epstein, Chief Commissioner Bush reiterated that position, saying:

We’ve had a look at that. We’ve had a look at what our neighbour jurisdictions do. We don’t believe it’s something that will make a material difference, so we’re not going to pursue that line.

Registration and authorisation of public protests is unlikely to be used by those who want to participate in dangerous and violent conduct. If you are preparing to go with a mindset of violence, you are unlikely to register yourself in the first place. This has been experienced in New South Wales.

The bill would reintroduce move-on powers in protest environments and industrial disputes. We repealed these laws in 2015 due to their impact on peaceful protests, including vulnerable groups. Breaching an exclusion order carries an excessive maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

Face masks are not a free pass to break the law. There should be no place to hide in this state if you are stirring up hate on our streets. But this bill would not target dangerous, violent and extreme protesters. It would target everyday people wanting to engage in peaceful protest, which is why the government’s laws, which we will introduce into Parliament as soon as possible, will be proportionate. Earlier this year the Allan Labor government passed landmark legislation to strengthen our anti-vilification and social cohesion laws. Our laws will protect more Victorians from vilification, the worst kind of hate speech and conduct that profoundly harms people and social cohesion; introduce new criminal offences for serious vilification, such as inciting hatred or threatening physical harm against someone because of who they are or what faith they follow; strengthen existing civil protections against vilification and provide more options for remedy resolution where people have been harmed; and protect the right to free speech and religion by recognising exceptions for religious and artistic purposes and more. Protections will, for the first time, cover disability, gender identity and a whole lot of other characteristics of people.

I just want to come back to the point that I think it is important for all of us in the political discourse to take responsibility for our comments. Unlike in other nations that do not have mandatory voting, our mandatory voting does limit the ability of those on the fringes who do not respect common decency in the way they operate to be active.

I think it was pretty disappointing in recent years when we had violence occur or, from a political perspective, electorate offices being attacked and electorate office staff being fearful as they entered and exited their workplace. I think I have said before we had a Labor state conference about a year before this one, which people ran through. People on the floor had their children in the creche on the other side of the conference venue, where people who had broken in were trying to knock down a wall. Now, maybe those people did not really think about what they were doing at the time, but it has had pretty serious implications from my perspective. The conference was very inclusive, open to the media and to public witnesses to come and sit and watch. This year it was very different. We had intense security, with one entry point only. People of working age, who find it harder and harder to engage in the political process, were bringing their kids into the creche. There was just a massive pullback from that this year because younger mums and dads who want to be actively involved and engaged in the political process were worried about something occurring again.

So I think it is on all of us to call out the extreme elements of politics. For those that do not, we have seen them be punished in recent elections, and that will continue to happen in Australia. While taking the low road may work in some nations around the world, I do not think it works in Victoria and I do not think it works in Australia. I think that it is really important for elected representatives, when this sort of thing goes on, to call it out and not to sit back. I think definitely a lot of the violence that has occurred in the last couple of years was perceived to be aligned with the Greens, and they have suffered a political consequence of that, whether their members were or were not involved – for not speaking loudly and demonstrating an absolute position against violence and intimidation. As I have said, with mandatory voting in this state and in this nation, people aligned with that will be punished – and the same goes for those on the right and the far right of politics as well.

I will conclude by saying all of us should absolutely cherish what we have, cherish our institutions, cherish the quality of life that we have – that we and those that have gone before us and those that will come after us get to enjoy every day. Of course at times many of us will not stop to appreciate just how good we have got it. But it is incumbent upon every single one of us to make sure we remember how good we have got it and to make sure we maintain that not only for all of us here and now but for generations to come, because too many people have fought too hard to give us such an incredible quality of life here in Victoria and Australia.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:40):Yet again we are here talking about protests and it seems yet again everyone is falling all over themselves to tell everybody that they believe that peaceful protest is a human right. Face coverings have come up a lot. We know that there are many people in Victoria who are afraid to attend protests and show their faces. One of the reasons that they are afraid to do that, even though they are the ones being peaceful and just protesting about issues of failure in the government according to them, is that what they are actually worried about is being defamed, cancelled, discriminated against and having their whole lives blown up unjustly. That is an important issue that everybody needs to deal with here, because that is something that many people in both chambers in this place have engaged in. Others wear masks, obviously, so that they can commit violence, commit vandalism, make death threats and hide their hypocritical, hateful attitudes and then go back out into the media and their public service jobs or wherever it is they happen to work and pretend that it was not them.

Who is in charge in Victoria? Either Labor have lost control of the streets, or they are protecting this bunch of lunatic criminals out there. You cannot have it both ways. Families used to be able to go about their business, walking around on the streets without fear. But everything is unsafe in Victoria. Our streets have become theatres of division, fear and propaganda. In a democracy, when you want freedom, you are going to have to balance rights and duties. You cannot just say, ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme; I want what’s mine,’ and not understand that you have responsibilities in return. Whatever disagreements people may have about the proposed bill, it does propose a solution, a way to recreate the presence of order. When Labor tore up the strong move-on powers a decade ago, which I really could have used a couple of years ago myself, they tore up the moral clarity that held our civil life together, that held in tension the ability to protest and the ability for police to move-on those very obviously demented, lunatic, far-left, violent people in masks and with Nazi flags and whatnot. Because you got rid of the move on laws, in effect that is turning a blind eye to the intimidation, the vandalism and the violence that peaceful protesters actually suffered.

Michael Galea: Far-left Nazis.

Moira DEEMING: Far-left lunatics and Nazis, whoever they are. I am not tribalistic, unlike some. I condemn violence on all sides. It is a revolutionary idea over there. But I do not protect disgusting corruption on my own side, and I have got a record to prove that. It is incredible that when you think it is on your own side, you use that famous line used in America, that they were mostly peaceful protests, but if it is on the other side, ‘That’s just scandalous. They’re a threat to society.’ But then you do not do anything to actually provide a framework in order to create some kind of law and order.

This hypocrisy just has to be named. This government has presided over a culture in which extremists on the left and the right, including those vile neo-Nazi elements, have actually been empowered by the neglect to put in proper laws and incentivised by the politics. Decent people reject these groups and violence outright. They are obviously hateful, repugnant and utterly unwelcome. But Labor has actually played a dangerous double game. By refusing to police protest properly and by removing powers that could have excluded such individuals they have created the very conditions that allow these extremists to appear in public and profit off it every single time, unchallenged, emboldened and filmed for the evening news. And they were exploited. They were exploited to smear and silence innocent Victorians that had nothing to do with them. It is just completely ridiculous and hypocritical for you to complain about all of these things when you have taken no action, and the innocent people who are trying to exercise that right get bulldozed – absolutely disgusting. I would just put it to the people voting no, against this bill: where is your solution? What are you going to do about it? As per the norm, the answer from this Labor government is ‘Absolutely nothing’.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:45): That was an interesting contribution.

Moira Deeming: It was short.

Michael GALEA: I will grant you that, Mrs Deeming; it was succinct. I will perhaps leave my remarks on that contribution there.

I rise to speak on the Safer Protest with a Registration System and Ban on Face Coverings Bill 2025. Actually, there is one thing I will pick up on. I was going to make reference to Mr Limbrick’s comments earlier. Now, I always enjoy it in this place when he gets up and tells the chamber that he is really, really upset because he agrees with something that the government is doing. It is always a great moment, and I find myself in a bit of a reverse situation because of comments he made, and I will keep my reflections to his comments. With protests, when this side of the chamber speaks, we are talking about how people should have the right to protest. That is not some extremist notion. Those of us on this side of the chamber believe very much in that right to protest, but we do not support the far right, the far left and the far extreme – anyone using violence – and that is the distinction. That is what this government has been very clear about. Mr Limbrick made similar remarks in talking about either end of the political spectrum, and although it is a rare occasion that I find myself agreeing with him, I will begrudgingly concede some space there.

At the outset, I do indicate that, as with other speakers on this side, I will not be supporting this bill. It is not some trite statement to say that the right to protest is very important. It is foundational. It is foundational to our democracy. But it is important that we ensure that people working in, living in, visiting and travelling to the city are not made unsafe by protest activity. It is really critical that public safety is not compromised by a protest, that safeguards are in place to ensure that any protest is conducted peacefully and that the risk of violence is mitigated. People have that right to protest, but workers, tourists and residents should never need to fear a protest. A right to protest is important, but it does not, and nor should it, infringe on the rights or safety of others. We know that protests are often very loud, very visible and often disruptive, and that is their purpose. But it is not a right, and a violent protest is not a right. The law must reflect these principles and not unduly burden freedom or compromise safety.

I understand that people have been concerned by the extent of protest activity in the city, and that is a reasonable view. When several protests occur on the same day in the same location, often with polar views designed to be targeting each other, that can be a concerning confluence of events. And I commend the work of Victoria Police for ensuring the safety of all and the safety of the public at large during these events. I note some of the frustrations that they have expressed, particularly when they, I am sure, in many cases would much rather be attending to other duties across all other parts of Melbourne and indeed Victoria. But in my view, I cannot support the amendments in this bill, which would shift that dial too far away from that right to protest without a justifiable increase in safety. In its implementation, this bill is, in fact, rather, if I may say, ill conceived and rushed. It speaks to a kneejerk reaction –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, President, I do not think the member has read the bill, so I was just wondering if you could bring him back to the substance of the bill.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Mr Galea.

Michael GALEA: There is no point of order, I believe. I am literally speaking about protest and safety, and I am talking about how far this bill goes, so I am not sure where you are interpreting that from in my remarks, Dr Heath, but I am literally speaking directly to the bill. Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill, because I am speaking directly to it.

We know that it is still a mystery to the Liberal Party, as many things are, of course, but political stunts do not make for good legislation, and they are not usually in the public interest either. We know that the opposition is convoluting itself into twisted arguments to talk about and justify what it claims to be supposed government inaction. We know that this whole bill is targeted at pre-empting another bill that the government itself will be bringing in, a more measured and reasonable approach to this matter, no doubt so they can try and score some political points off of it. But I also would remind the chamber – and I think some other speakers on this side may have mentioned this as well – that in fact legislation that passed the Parliament this year, which has come into effect just in the last month, is very important for protecting the rights and safety of Victorians, and that is the anti-vilification laws. It is worth repeating that the opposition did not support those laws.

Ryan Batchelor: Did they vote against them?

Michael GALEA: They voted against them, Mr Batchelor, laws that specifically address many of these concerns about vilification and targeting of people based on their race, based on their religious belief –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Michael GALEA: Based on their religious belief, Mr Mulholland, based on their sexuality, gender or disability. These were laws that the Liberal Party could not support – I am still curious as to why, every time they talk about community cohesion, cultural cohesion and community safety. They voted against the very laws that go to the heart of this matter. We know that in the Assembly debate they brought up all sorts of objections – some more reasonable than others – and the government came and met with them on those more reasonable objections and modified and were prepared to work with the opposition to accommodate them. They were accommodated, the bill came to this place and suddenly, ‘Oh, we still can’t support it.’ We know that they were never going to support it, and indeed we saw that from the final outcome of the vote. Those laws are now in place. What that means is that we are protecting more Victorians from vilification: the worst kind of hate speech or conduct that potentially harms people and also harms community cohesion.

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: It also means there are new criminal offences for serious vilification, such as inciting hatred or threatening physical harm against someone because of who they are or the faith that they adhere to. It includes strengthened civil protections against vilification and more options for remedy resolution where people have been harmed, and those aspects of the law will come in coming months. It will protect the rights to free speech and religion by recognising exceptions for religious and artistic purposes and more, and all the other protections as well.

We know that during that debate Mr Mulholland gave comments about the rise in his concerns about actions and certain protestors on the streets. In light of that it was all the more concerning that he was not in a position to support that bill. It is notable that the bill today does very little in the way of addressing what we have been seeing with some of those fringe protesters hurling abuse at vulnerable Victorian communities.

I do want to see our laws strengthened to target those individuals – those who start violence and incite others to do so through their hateful and provocative actions. The Allan Labor government is committed to protecting Victorians’ right to protest safely. And as I mentioned, we will soon be introducing laws to strengthen community safety at protests. These laws, unlike the laws that we are debating here today, will focus on the people driving hate and violence at protests. They will be laws that will make a difference, not just add a layer of bureaucracy that the Chief Commissioner of Police himself has said we do not need.

Already we have taken action in a number of areas to tackle violent, hateful and dangerous participants by prohibiting the flags and symbols of listed terrorist organisations, empowering police to unmask violent, hateful and dangerous individuals who attend protests and who cowardly hide behind masks and addressing the use of dangerous attachment devices. Unlike the opposition, which wants to impose restrictions on everyone, we are protecting public safety by going after the actual individuals that are causing the problems while ensuring that our laws still reflect the very important principle of people’s right to protest and also people’s rights to gather, pray, celebrate or assemble for any peaceful purpose free from fear, harassment and intimidation.

We have undertaken targeted consultation with police and with faith, legal, government, community and union stakeholders on what these safe protest laws will look like, because it should not be a one-sided approach. It should be one that takes all these genuine concerns into consideration, not just dismissing completely, as members opposite have sought to do, one entire side of the argument. It is a very concerning thing to hear indeed, members denigrating things, making comments like ‘so-called right to protest’. It is a very, very concerning commentary, and it underscores my hesitancy and deep anxiety about supporting these laws today, because we know from their comments the sort of direction that the Liberal Party would be taking this state. And I think Victorians would be very alarmed. But unlike them, we have done the work properly.

I note that there has been extensive work done by the Attorney-General’s office in engaging with those stakeholders to ensure that the laws are reflective of community expectations, are reflective of a system that will provide safety for Victorians and are reflective of that very foundational right to protest as part of the democratic state that we live in. Through this consultation – and I do look forward to having this bill come through to the chamber in coming weeks – we know that the laws will allow Victoria Police to unmask violent and hateful demonstrators like the neo-Nazis, who are so unwelcome on our streets. This will help protect our social cohesion and the right of Victorians to protest peacefully and safely – as they have every right to do, despite what some members of the opposition might claim.

We also know that the opposition’s bill is contrary to the advice of Victoria Police and will have great potential to infringe on the rights of ordinary Victorians. We know that in his usual slapdash style, Mr Davis is putting slogans before policy, and the way that he has done that with this bill is particularly alarming because anything that impacts on the civil rights of Victorians is something that deserves better than Mr Davis’s usual shambolic approach. We know that the approach has been called out by the chief commissioner.

Nick McGowan: What do you call the COVID lockdown, then? Goodness me.

Michael GALEA: Again, you have given me so many areas to walk into, Mr McGowan. Talking about extremists on our streets, we saw on the streets of Melbourne political leaders threatened with being lynched. But if you had been listening, if you had actually been here, Mr McGowan, you would have heard me –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Michael GALEA: Well, I am glad you were watching it on TV. I suggest you maybe go back and watch again where I repeated ad nauseam about balancing that right to protest. But for the benefit of members who have been here, I am not going to go through that all again.

We know that Chief Commissioner Bush was questioned about similar arrangements that the Liberals have proposed in New South Wales, and we know of his comments. Chief Commissioner Bush said:

We’ve had a look at it, and it’s not something we’re going to drive towards … We’ve had a look at other jurisdictions that do that, and it’s not the game breaker.

The majority of people that protest, do so peacefully and they are more than entitled to, and we support that.

So we know that the opposition is more concerned with optics than action – perhaps not you, Mr McGowan; perhaps you are more interested in mowing the lawns than –

Nick McGowan: I am, because you are not providing the funding for police to do that, and that’s very sad.

Michael GALEA: Well, you are welcome to continue carry on mowing the lawns while we get on with legislating for the laws that will actually make a difference for Victorians without greatly and grossly infringing on their civil rights, which is what you are putting forward here today. Maybe Dr Heath would like to ask if you have read this legislation as well, Mr McGowan. Now that you are a frontbencher, I am sure you are well across it. I am sure you have put robust, rigorous debate into it. In between getting the whipper snipper out, and the lawnmower, I am sure you gave that a great deal of attention. Indeed I certainly hope you can talk some sense into your other colleagues, like Mrs Deeming, who seems to think that the right to protest and that basic, foundational civil liberties that we have in a democracy are not that important, which is what we were hearing before and which you may have heard before as well on your television screen, Mr McGowan.

We know that this bill is nothing more than a cheap and desperate attempt by a cheap and desperate opposition to score some political points. You frame it as if you are doing something when you know full well that this government is bringing laws into this place. And unlike those opposite, we have done them carefully, deliberatively and with a focus on ensuring that the two very important principles are not being overrun, one in favour of the other. They are two very important principles, not that you would know it from the bombastic way that Mr Davis and his fellow collection of characters over there have been presenting this bill to the chamber. It is not a serious bill. It is not reflective of any serious policy thought, and this house would be well within reason to be voting it down should we get to that point later today. I very much look forward to contributing and speaking on further legislation that the government will be introducing in coming weeks.

Bev McArthur: On a point of order, President, yesterday Minister Blandthorn potentially misled this house when she alleged the following:

The community members mentioned by those opposite are not native title holders for Gunaikurnai.

I reference correspondence from a Kurnai woman offended by the use of her language to name the new Aboriginal representative body. The individual and her family have confirmed again that they are the native title holders. Would the minister like to correct the record?

The PRESIDENT: I think we will get through questions and ministers statements first. I am not sure if that is a point of order to start with.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.