Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:40): I rise on behalf of the Greens today to move:

That this house requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 1 September 2026, on the scale and scope of anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes occurring in Victoria, including but not limited to:

(1)   the communication methods of anti-LGBTQIA+ influencers and hate groups, including those sharing far-right, misogynistic, and homophobic ‘alpha-male’ content;

(2)   strategies to counter anti-LGBTQIA+ influence, particularly among young people;

(3)   the adequacy of current responses to preventing these crimes; and

(4)   the adequacy of current supports for victim-survivors and ways to improve public safety and e-safety for LGBTQIA+ community members.

We are here today to progress this inquiry to make our community safer. I want Victoria to be a place where all members of the LGBTQIA+ community are free from violence and safe to live their lives and be themselves. I would hope that all in this chamber support this idea, and I hope there is cross-chamber support for this inquiry into anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes, because violent acts are occurring. This hate exists, and it is causing immense harm. This inquiry is an important opportunity to investigate how we can prevent these crimes and support the community.

While this issue of targeted hate and violence against the LGBTQIA+ community is not new, over the last few years we have seen a particular type of violence that needs to be investigated and understood so that we have a chance to prevent further harm. There have been an awful series of homophobic attacks in Victoria these last few years. Gay and bi+ men have been lured into secluded public places via fake online dating profiles on sites such as Grindr and SCRUFF as well as Snapchat, and they have been violently assaulted. They have arrived to meet someone, only to find multiple people, often young men, waiting to ambush them and attack them violently, including with knives, with machetes and with bats. Some have been robbed or extorted, forced to transfer money to their attackers at the scene. Some have been blackmailed. Some attacks have been filmed and then shared online in hateful forums that glorify this homophobia. These attacks have been incredibly violent. People have been left with lifelong injuries.

These attacks are inflicting a great deal of harm and ongoing trauma on community members, and they have not been limited just to Victoria. Similar incidents have been reported across the country and even overseas in places such as New Zealand, India, Malaysia, the UK and other countries. But in Victoria there have been at least three dozen attacks of this nature, and those are just the ones that have been reported. It is highly likely, if not certain, that due to the impact of stigma, shame and fear, there are others out there who have not reported their experiences. There have now been a number of arrests, I understand, in relation to some of these attacks. These perpetrators need to be held to account. But this inquiry is an opportunity to work out why this is happening in the first place and what more needs to be done to track and document anti-LGBTQIA+ hate in Victoria, and not just those hate crimes where it is occurring against gay and bi+ men, but also to make sure that we are doing everything possible to support victim-survivors of these hate crimes. We need to keep the community safe from further harm.

This inquiry is also an opportunity to investigate hate crimes that are being perpetrated right across our community members who identify as LGBTQIA+. We know that trans and gender-diverse people face targeted hate and violence in their everyday lives. The Fuelling Hate report from a couple of years ago found that in the 12 months before the report, 16 per cent of trans participants had experienced anti-trans violence and 30 per cent – one in three – had witnessed violence against their community. I know that we now have anti-vilification laws here in this state which aim to protect people from hate speech, which the Greens were proud to help establish, but there is much work to be done to prevent and address violence that is targeted towards trans and gender-diverse people.

Transphobia has been on the rise these past few years. Again, there are hateful and divisive online spaces that seek to radicalise people around transphobia and create an environment that fosters violence. The threat of violence facing many LGBTQIA+ people means that many do not feel safe right now in public places. They have to change their plans and change the way that they present themselves in order to feel comfortable and safe in our public spaces. That is not the type of society that I want to live in. To address violence against the LGBTQIA+ community we need to understand the scale of these hate crimes. In 2018 the Human Rights Law Centre recommended in their End the Hate report:

Fund further research and improve data collection methods and policies of all government agencies, including Victoria Police, to ensure accurate information on the prevalence of prejudice motivated conduct is available.

It is my understanding that there is still work to be done in this particular space. We need to know truly just how to prevent these attacks and be sure that a government response and resources are available to be adequate in responding to these instances and supporting community members but also adequacy in addressing prevention of these crimes in the first place.

There are already wonderful community-led organisations who are offering support and care to the LGBTQIA+ community to keep them safe and to help them with the trauma and recovery from such attacks. I will not be able to name all of them, but a big shout-out to the amazing organisations that are already out there offering support, like Thorne Harbour Health. I would like to acknowledge that there are many stakeholders out there, some of whom have been instrumental in pushing for this inquiry to come forward. I want to acknowledge Switchboard, QLife and Rainbow Door. I know there are many others, and I thank you all for the work that you do. It is work which is often, in my view, under-resourced or limited to one-year funding cycles. Queer organisations need sufficient and secure funding to be able to plan and grow and offer all the services that our community relies on. I am keen to hear what more would be possible to support victim-survivors with more resources, because I know that there is always more that we can do, and this inquiry is an opportunity to explore those options.

Beyond the important work that must be undertaken to support victim-survivors and to pursue perpetrators, we must focus on stopping these crimes from occurring in the first place. Around the world we have seen the rise of hateful ideologies and the communities who feel the brunt of their hate. It is the LGBTQIA+ community, it is people of colour, it is people of faith, it is women, it is First Nations people, it is culturally and linguistically diverse people – people who are being increasingly attacked just for being themselves. This inquiry is limited in its scope and will be focusing on anti-LGBTQIA+ violence, but I do want to acknowledge the conversations that constructively have occurred across the chamber, particularly with government, that have led to a set of words that I understand will be circulated shortly that can explore the intersectionality in this experience of being LGBTQIA+ and support community and ensure that they are safe. When it comes to this hate – the violence that is being targeted at LGBTQIA+ people – we need to see where the hate begins and tear it out at the source. Should this inquiry progress, I am very interested to hear from the experts as to what the solutions are to prevent the radicalisation of young people online into committing this type of behaviour. I know it is complex and there is no simple way to end anti-LGBTQIA+ violence and prejudice, but complexity should not be a reason for this Parliament to turn away from considering this issue. I know that there are experts out there who can inform the committee and the government about what needs to be done to prevent the radicalisation of people online and to prevent often particularly young men and boys from finding and connecting through violence and homophobic spaces on the internet.

We saw some of these solutions recommended by the 2019 parliamentary inquiry into far-right extremism, and I understand some of these solutions are yet to be implemented. The LGBTQIA+ community is strong and it is resilient, but these attacks cause a great deal of harm and uncertainty, and victim-survivors carry enduring physical, mental and emotional trauma. If Victoria truly wants to be the equality state, we need to take action to prevent anti-LGBTQIA+ violence. This inquiry gives us an important opportunity to examine the solutions, and I urge all members of this chamber to support it, as we should all want people in our community to be safe and feel welcome and included. On behalf of the Greens I commend this inquiry motion to the house.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:50): I am pleased to rise to speak on motion 1199 on this very important topic. At the outset I would like to thank Mr Puglielli for bringing it to the house’s attention. This is a very worthwhile subject for the Legal and Social Issues Committee, of which I am a member, to be studying. It goes to the heart of our remit as a committee, and it does touch on an issue that has not got widespread attention across the nation but has had a very profound impact on the LGBTIQA+ community, in particular on gay men and on other men who have accessed these types of apps.

I would also like to acknowledge the conversations I have been able to have in a relatively short space of time with colleagues across the chamber – we will be moving some amendments shortly – and indeed the advocacy of organisations such as Thorne Harbour Health who have been at the forefront of this issue and Switchboard Victoria, which is already doing incredibly important work in providing that lifeline, that support service, to people. It was very great to see the Premier and the Minister for Equality out at Switchboard to announce the launch of that service. I understand from talking with Jenna at Switchboard just a few months ago that it has already been very well taken up by the community, which is both a good thing and indeed a very sad thing, because it does speak directly to the need for that service.

As Mr Puglielli said, this is not an issue that is isolated to Victoria. It is not an issue that is isolated to Australia. We have seen a shocking rise in these sorts of attacks across the world where typically men are lured on Grindr or other apps similar to it into a position where they are vulnerable and then they are brutally assaulted, robbed or blackmailed. We suspect we can trace the origins of this to certain online activity that is spreading around the world, but the response to it is going to be as complicated as the origin. That is why I think a relatively short, sharp inquiry, a narrowly focused inquiry, is very important, because it can shine a light on this issue and shine a light on the work that is being done and, importantly, what more needs to be done both at a level that we can control in Victoria but also to inform other efforts across the nation and indeed across the world on this issue.

It is a phenomenon that is nothing new of course. Assaults on gay men have been around for a long time. I think many Australians would, perhaps reasonably, have come to believe that it is no longer an issue in the modern day, and many I know would be horrified to learn that it still is. Many that I have spoken to when I have told them about this issue have been horrified to learn that far from reducing, it has been increasing in the past few years. We are seeing this, and it is increasingly taking place in electorates like mine. It is happening in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. There have been a number of arrests already. I do want to commend Victoria Police and in particular Jeremy Oliver, who is the LGBTIQA+ liaison with Victoria Police, for his work in spearheading the response to these crimes and for the leadership that he has shown both within the police and within the community to address this. I spoke about this in a statement on a report last year on this issue and commented on the fact that our arrest rate has exceeded that of other states, and that is in very large part due to the work of Mr Oliver, so I thank him for that.

There have been a number of discussions and community forums on this issue as well. Thorne Harbour Health conducted a forum in Abbotsford last year that I, along with Mr Puglielli, had the privilege of attending. It was very powerful because we had a number of people attend, many of whom spoke up and shared their stories for the very first time. It was a very moving experience to be listening to their experiences and what they had to say, because these types of attacks rely on shame. Particularly when we have people coming from otherwise vulnerable backgrounds or from families who are not accepting of who they are even in this day and age, the shame can be profound.

The bravery of those people to speak up was extraordinary, and I would like to acknowledge all of those people who have had the bravery to speak up and share their story on this issue. Their voice is one that I hope that this inquiry will be able to, in a sensitive and appropriate way, make heard as well. This inquiry does give us the potential to give them a voice, but it also gives us the potential to look at this issue in a broader context and see what exactly we can do. I can also mention the anti-hate taskforce, which did a power of work in the latter half of last year, including particularly with the LGBTQIA+ community on these attacks, and the work that it is already doing. There is a lot that we are doing and there is a lot that we will continue to do, but it is very appropriate for us to be looking at where those trends are and what we need to be doing better, quite simply.

I repeat the point that this is quite a narrow inquiry. It is not looking into the length and breadth of issues in community, and nor should it seek to do so. We are, of course, as all committees are, time constrained, and it is important that we give this important issue the focus and the attention that it deserves. In the time remaining this year for the Legal and Social Issues Committee, I think it is a commendable use of our time, to be focusing on this issue. In the spirit of focusing the inquiry, I do have some amendments. I move:

That in paragraphs (1) to (4) omit all words and expressions, and insert the following in their place:

‘(1)   the communication and recruitment methods of anti-LGBTQIA+ influencers and hate groups that endorse anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes, including those creating and sharing online content steeped in racism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, far-right ideology and unhealthy masculinities;

(2)   current strategies to counter anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes, particularly among young people and how these could be strengthened;

(3)   current anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crime prevention initiatives, and how these could be strengthened;

(4)   existing public and online safety initiatives supporting LGBTIQA+ community members who have experienced hate crimes, including how these supports could be strengthened;

(5)   the role and responsibilities of social media and digital platform owners in preventing and responding to anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes;

(6)   existing empirical data regarding the prevalence and trends of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes Australia-wide;

(7)   the impact of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes on diverse LGBTIQA+ communities, including rainbow mob, people with disability, and multifaith and multicultural community members;

(8)   interjurisdictional strategies and methods to combat anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes across borders; and

(9)   the relevant work of the commissioner for LGBTIQA+ communities, relevant government advisory groups, including but not limited to relevant community, health and law enforcement organisations to combat anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes.’

These amendments, as well as focusing the inquiry I believe will strengthen it by empowering it to look at the specific trends, the prevalence of issues and the exact types of offending as well as those compounding factors that for so many Victorians make this issue all the more damaging in their lives – those factors such as their background, their family environments, the perhaps unsafe situations that many might be living in. For that reason, I do commend those amendments to the house.

I understand that there continues to be a broad range of discussions, and I appreciate the conversations I have had with all members of this place, including our chair of the committee Mr McCracken as well. I understand there may be some further amendments placed before us today by other members. I do want to come back to the point of what I have spoken to, but also what Mr Puglielli has spoken to. As our colleague Mr Davis would say, it is a very narrow inquiry, it is a very narrow motion, because it does go to a very specific and distinct issue that has been occurring in the gay and bi+ communities in Melbourne and Victoria, as across the world. It is appropriate that we give this issue and the suffering of these Victorians due consideration. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to effectively dilute their voice and dilute this inquiry by trying to broaden this out into a wider catch-all of all sorts of grievance and complaints. There are many important issues, and I do not seek to diminish any single one of them. But I think it would do a disservice to LGBTQIA+ community, it would do a disservice to these gay and bi+ men if, rather than focusing this inquiry, we were to seek to broaden it out to many other groups. There are many valid lines of inquiry for us to look into on those issues as well, but Mr Puglielli has come forward with the intention of this. I think it is a commendable intention. My amendments seek to strengthen and build upon that and refocus the inquiry and make sure that we are focusing on this critical issue. It is not about those broader things, and I think to do that through any other amendments would be a complete disservice. It would also fly in the face of votes against the very important legislation that we saw last year on anti-vilification laws. They are a big part of this as well.

For the first time, as of this new legislation last year, the anti-vilification framework in Victoria specifically covers members of the LGBTQIA+ community that were not covered before, and many members of this community advocated for decades to have their voices heard. It would be particularly inappropriate for the party that voted against those protections for LGBTQIA+ Victorians and people based on their race, religion or disability to now be seeking to dilute the voices of LGBTQIA+ Victorians in what should be a very straightforward, very relevant and very important inquiry. I am pleased to commend my amendments to the house, and in doing so I would be pleased to commend this motion to the house as well.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:00): I rise to speak on Mr Puglielli’s motion, and I thank him for bringing it forward, for the productive discussion that we have had on this very serious issue and for calling for an inquiry by the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I say from the outset that I recognise Mr Puglielli’s concern, and there can be no doubt that we are living in a time of lower cohesion and that for a variety of reasons people of different ethnic backgrounds, faiths, creeds and sexual identities are feeling less safe. The issues that Mr Puglielli’s motion seeks to inquire to are important, but they are by no means the only groups who are feeling this concern or feeling less safe on our streets in the middle of a crime crisis. I am deeply concerned about the rise in rhetoric and rise in social media content that seeks to demonise communities and demonise our LGBTQIA+ communities but also to demonise Victoria’s Indian communities, our Islamic communities, our Jewish communities and many other multicultural communities. In our state of Victoria we have always prided ourselves on being a diverse and multicultural state, and so in that respect this is a worrying concern and worrying trend.

This is something that is consistently raised with me, both in my role as shadow minister and in my community locally, and particularly I would like to speak on the Indian community in my electorate, which is regularly telling me about their concern for the rise in racism and xenophobia, both on the streets and also online. With the rise of artificial intelligence, there is a whole new frontier of malevolent and spiteful content that is being created to demonise the Indian community. It is easy to dismiss this as AI slop when it is not your background or skin colour which is being attacked.

While I acknowledge that there have been hate crimes, we should also acknowledge that this is not limited to the LGBTQIA+ community. Indian temples have been vandalised, like BAPS in Mill Park. The Gandhi statue from our Hindu temple in Rowville was recently stolen, the Lebanese immigrant statue in Preston was also stolen and the Virgin Mary Mosque in Hoppers Crossing had awful language graffitied on it, and I could name so, so many more. This is a crisis worth considering, and if we do not consider this today as part of this inquiry, we are abdicating our duties as elected representatives.

As we enter the holy month of Ramadan this evening it is important to acknowledge the concerns of the Islamic community, who consistently feel this pressure, this hatred, simply for practising their faith. Recently we saw a terrible violent incident involving an imam in Keysborough.

It is vital that this motion also contain reference to antisemitism, the oldest hatred directed at our Jewish community in ways so horrific that we will not mention them all in this Parliament. We have seen awful social media content directed at our Jewish community, the doxing of Jewish artists, graffiti on Jewish schools and Jewish students yelled at by other students at a museum excursion simply because they were Jewish.

In seeking to expand this motion’s scope, the Liberals and Nationals want to give all these communities who are under attack a voice in this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of the problem.

We are also seeking to remove references to ‘far right’ in the motion, in acknowledgement that hatred does not belong to a single side of politics and is equally practised on the left of politics. We have seen that through several left-wing influencers banned from Instagram for anti-Jewish hate – disgusting antisemitism that is festering through algorithms. Similarly we have seen pretty awful racism festering online that has made its way onto our streets.

I have seen many members on the other side express concern about attacks on temples and mosques and individuals, attacks on places of worship with political messages and graffiti and violence and rising hate on social media. I hear it from the other side all the time. Opposing my amendment will show that those words from members on the other side are meaningless because they are not willing to give these issues the time of day in the Legal and Social Issues Committee. They would rather focus on a narrow set of words that are much more political than have a deep dive into this broad issue that affects all communities. It does not just affect one community; it affects all communities. We are seeing the disgusting rise in xenophobia on social media algorithms, particularly affecting our Indian community through artificial intelligence and through the demonising of our Indian community online, and I think that has made its way onto our streets in anti-Indian sentiment and attacks on our places of worship.

On that side of the chamber, when there is an incident, they will put out a media release and they will give statements to the effect. But by voting the way they are voting today, they are showing that their words are absolutely meaningless. They are because they are not willing to look into these issues. I will be personally informing those communities who have raised this with me of the government’s voting patterns today. Because you can speak in this Parliament and express your concern or you can take action to stamp it out. When the government had an opportunity to take action, it chose meaningless words. That is what the government has chosen; it has chosen meaningless words. This is a serious issue.

I would also say that the timing of this inquiry by the Legal and Social Issues Committee is not a problem. We can establish subcommittees. We can look at this issue from a broad range of stakeholders and from our peak bodies and still get to the bottom of this issue of xenophobia online, of hate groups, of this anti-multicultural rhetoric and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric that is causing great concern in our communities. But if we do not consider broadening out this inquiry, we are saying to those communities that they are not worth the time needed for an inquiry. We are happy to get up in Parliament and give empty words in Parliament, but we are not happy to look at this issue.

Michael Galea interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Of course there is anti-LGBTQIA+ content online, but to say and dismiss it as not happening to communities like our Indian community, through your voting patterns in this Parliament, I think is a disgrace. We do need to look into these issues. By voting against my amendment –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr Galea! Without assistance, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I understand Mr Galea is a bit rattled by this issue because he has to go out to Rowville and explain to the Hindu community there why he voted against looking into –

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, I specifically outlined that there are many concerns that are worthy of debate in my contribution. If Mr Mulholland was not listening to that, that is on him, but I would ask him to refrain and perhaps reflect on the fact that while his party voted against anti-vilification reforms, he has no right to come into this place –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): That is not a point of order.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will just say that the government members will have to explain themselves to those communities when they are informed of the government’s voting patterns in this place today, and I so move:

That:

1.   Before paragraph (1), omit the words and expressions ‘scope of anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes’ and insert in their place ‘scope of multicultural, antisemitic and LGBTQIA+ hate crimes’.

2.   In paragraph (1), omit all words and expressions after ‘methods of’ and insert in their place ‘anti-multicultural, antisemitic and anti-LGBTQIA+ influencers and hate groups, including those sharing misogynistic, antisemitic, xenophobic and homophobic content;’.

3.   In paragraph (2), after ‘anti-LGBTQIA+’ insert ‘, xenophobic and antisemitic’.

4.   In paragraph (4), after ‘LGBTQIA+’ insert ‘, multicultural and multifaith’.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Mr Mulholland, the clerks need to consult with you about which amendments, so if you can just hold on for a second.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, I believe Mr Mulholland has attempted to move his amendments once his time was already expired.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): If everyone could just hold on, I am just going to consult the boffins.

I do not uphold the point of order, because the amendments were moved whilst he still had some time; there were just some clarifications required.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:11): I rise to speak on this motion 1199 in Mr Puglielli’s name on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This motion requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report by the 1 September 2026 on the scale and scope of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes occurring in Victoria. This comes in the wake of a spate of hate crimes last year in which members of the LGBTQIA+ community were targeted via dating apps. While the exact nature of the violence varied, one thing was the same amongst all the attacks: a desire to shame and stigmatise gay men. These men would connect with what was unknown to them, which was a fake profile. The profile would then lure them to meet in person, and once they did, these men would then be met with violent attacks, verbal abuse, filming and threats to out them.

In one such recent case in Melbourne’s bayside suburbs, a man in his 30s organised to meet with someone he had been talking to online – someone who, at least from their profile, appeared to be who they said they were. But when he got to this meeting spot he was jumped by three men carrying metal bars. They attacked him, laughed at him, called him names and filmed it. He was so badly beaten he almost ended up in intensive care and thought he may not get out alive. This kind of anti-LGBTIQA+ vigilantism is so distressing and has caused a lot of harm to the community. No-one should be set up to go on what they think is a date or a hook-up and end up on the receiving end of violence. At the time of these attacks 35 people were arrested just in Victoria, and many similar attacks were reported across the country. Some of the alleged offenders were as young as 13. The truth is there are likely more attacks that went without investigation because they were never reported; shame, stigma and distrust of police all play a part in distorting these figures.

There was a time when, for many decades in this state and across this country, there were essentially state-sanctioned gay-bashings and killings where police looked the other way and, at times, took part. Perpetrators were typically young men operating in groups like we are seeing today. Our culture continues to reckon with how gay men and the LGBTIQA+ community more generally were treated for far too long. While we have come a long way, we see parts of this culture repeating itself, as this motion has identified. The drivers of this resurgence are complex – a rise in homophobia – and these kinds of hate crimes do not exist in isolation. Understanding how we have gotten here yet again will help us address these trends before things get even worse.

Another vital part of this motion is an investigation into anti-LGBTIQA+ influencers and hate groups, including those sharing far-right, misogynistic and homophobic alpha male content. In the modern age, perpetrators are equipped with access to the internet and an anonymity that presents its own new risks. At the same time social media has helped to normalise behaviours and attitudes that our society has worked so hard to move into the past. Nowhere is this seen more than in young men faced with challenges to traditional masculinity who are seeking answers and people to blame. This kind of othering for the purpose of laying blame happens all across different groups in our society – to immigrants, to women, to the LGBTIQA+ community. This is a mammoth problem requiring a whole of society response. It will not be solved by this inquiry, but it presents a starting point to address this kind of radicalisation.

Importantly, this inquiry will also be tasked with investigating strategies to counter anti-LGBTIQA+ influence, particularly among young people; the adequacy of current responses to preventing these crimes; the adequacy of current supports for victim–survivors; and ways to improve public safety and e-safety for LGBTIQA+ community members. These are all worthwhile areas of investigation. As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, I look forward to being part of this inquiry. Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting this motion.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:16): At the outset I am pleased to respond to this motion. I want to acknowledge the real distress that recent acts of hate have caused the LGBTIQA+ community and their families. No-one should feel unsafe because of who they are or who they love. I can understand why this inquiry may be important to several of my colleagues, and I thank Mr Puglielli for raising the issue. Many of us share his concerns about the growing influence of far-right, misogynistic and homophobic alpha male content online – certainly it is something that is also intimidating for women – as content that targets young people, can contribute to their radicalisation, and in particular targets young gay males and bi+ community members. There is a deeply troubling pattern emerging where some perpetrators – often very young men – are being drawn into online networks that operate in the shadows and promote division, hostility and violence.

We know that hate crime victims have been targeted using a range of digital platforms. Victoria Police have made at least 45 arrests, and I endorse what my colleague Mr Galea said about that. It is terrific that Victoria Police are on to this, and I thank them for that. I also want to thank those people that have been impacted and have felt in a position to report their experience, because not everybody is in a position to report their experience. Those that do feel that they can play a really important role for those who are not able to report.

It is not difficult to empathise with the urgency on this issue. Discrimination, hatred and violence have no place in Victoria. Every person in this place should stand against this dangerous, divisive and destructive behaviour. We know that LGBTIQA+ people face higher rates of violence than the general population, and it is unacceptable that 65 per cent report experiencing violence in their lifetime. We also know that the Rainbow Mob and other multicultural and multi-faith LGBTIQA+ communities have experienced violence based on who they are perpetrated by overlapping forms of discrimination and hate.

Like many other issues in our society, social media is actively changing that environment. It has fundamentally changed the way hate spreads and the speed at which it can take hold. In the past extremist views were often confined to small, insular groups. Now digital platforms can amplify those same views thousands, even millions, of times within minutes. At the moment digital spaces allow anonymity and distance. We all know this can lower social inhibitions, and people may say or share things online that they would never express face to face. For young users in particular, repeated exposure to misogynistic, homophobic and extremist content can normalise those views over time. What begins as an edgy, provocative material can gradually escalate into more explicit hate and consequently violent real-world harm. The reality is these online spaces have become breeding grounds for hate, and when those networks appear to be expanding faster than our laws and systems can respond, it does create genuine concern for our community and is a very, very good reason for lending our minds to this issue in a very specific way. These issues are even more pronounced in regional communities, where not only is coming out for young people often a safety risk but also there can be very, very small gay communities in regional settings. Sometimes there is also a higher risk of family rejection, exclusion and judgement, so it is particularly of interest for regional communities, I think.

Complex issues like online radicalisation, algorithmic amplification and youth vulnerability do not come with simple solutions. But complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction, and neither can oversimplification, broadening and watering down be an excuse for inaction. As legislators we have a responsibility in this space to inquire, to be curious and to understand people who might be different or the same as us and their personal experiences. There has already been significant work in this space conducted by the Allan Labor government, and I acknowledge the leadership of the Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Equality and Minister for Police for their work in addressing anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes. We have banned machetes, strengthened bail laws and made it an offence to post and boast about crimes online. But more important and even more relevant to this are the anti-vilification laws, which were voted against by the coalition, that provide a really powerful support in this space. In December the Premier announced that civil anti-vilification protections will be brought forward to commence earlier – from April this year – protecting more Victorians sooner.

We are committed to actively tackling hate and preventing it from taking hold in our communities, and we are doing this through the anti-hate taskforce and through legislative reform. We have established dedicated support services for victims, and that includes support for LGBTIQA+ people impacted by app-based crime through services such as Switchboard Victoria’s Rainbow Door. Victoria has led the nation and we will continue to be curious in this space to understand what we can do as a Victorian Parliament to support this community and their experiences. Another of the reforms that we did was the building of a Pride centre and being the first to deliver our comprehensive 10-year LGBTIQA+ strategy, Pride in Our Future, and a range of other strategies as well.

It is really important that we do have strong laws and that there is meaningful enforcement. It means education, prevention and support for victims, and it means refusing to be complacent in the face of evolving threats.

Hate has no place in this state. It is more important to respect, to listen and to understand each other than to hate each other. The diversity of our nation is built on respect, and that should be afforded in this particular space as well. Gay bashings have always been shameful and should not be happening now through the manipulation of dating apps or the general rise in overt hatred online. Our responsibility as legislators is to stand firmly for safety, equality and dignity, and we need to ensure that Victoria remains a place where diversity is not merely tolerated but is celebrated.

I want to close by expressing my thanks to people that have been involved in advocating in this space – it is not my area, but I am sure there are many people that have been advocating in this space. For any people who are present in the gallery – I am not sure if there are or not – thank you very much for your advocacy. As I said before, it is really important for those people who do feel they are in a position to advocate in this space to do so for all of those voices who are not able to and who do not feel safe enough to express what they are experiencing. I fully support this.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (11:26): I also rise to speak on this motion, requiring the Legal and Social Issues Committee, which I am the chair of, to inquire into the scale and scope of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes in Victoria. Let me begin very clearly: violence against any Victorian because of who they are is wrong. Threats, intimidation and harassment are wrong. I particularly want to acknowledge Mr Puglielli for bringing this and also Ms Payne for what she described, some pretty awful situations that people have experienced, and I think we can all say those situations are wrong. With what we have seen online, I would not say it is just far-right groups, though; I have seen footage of people that support Hamas literally throwing gay people off roofs and hanging them. That is hateful as well. I look forward, if this inquiry does pass, to exploring those sorts of things as well and how that radicalises the minds of people in Victoria and what actions that might lead them to.

Today, from my point of view, we are not here to vote on whether hate crimes are wrong; I think we can all agree that they are wrong. But as the motion sits – and I guess there are a couple amendments as well – from how I read it, the remit of the wording is a bit broader than that, despite what has been said, and I understand there is a focus on perhaps dating apps and the crimes that can occur around those and the harassment that occurs. The wording that I see in front of me is a bit broader than that. I guess we are voting on whether this Parliament should commission a broad inquiry that risks blurring the line between criminal conduct and what offensive speech might look like.

I do not just talk about this in a theoretical sense; I talk about it from lived experience. Everyone knows that in 2023 I came out very publicly, and within hours social media lit up. There were many messages that were kind and many messages that were supportive, but there were some that were deeply unpleasant. There were tweets that were calling me names like ‘a traitor’. There were comments questioning my integrity, there were people speculating about my motives and there were articles that sought to dissect my personal life. I guess that is the reality of modern political life. If you are in public office, particularly if you step into a cultural debate, you attract commentary. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad and sometimes it is ugly. But there is an important distinction: I was not assaulted, I was not physically attacked, I have not been denied police protection and I was not left without any legal recourse.

The law protects me, as it should for every Victorian, from violence, threats and incitement. I guess that is the critical point here. Victoria already has criminal law provisions dealing with assault, stalking, threats, incitement to violence and serious vilification. Victoria Police do have powers to investigate hate-motivated offences. Courts already have the ability to treat prejudice as an aggravating factor in sentencing. So before we launch an inquiry we should ask the very simple question: what specific gaps in the law exist? An inquiry should identify a deficiency, not simply respond to the existence of unpleasant speech.

I am concerned that the framing of this motion might lead to that, because it does not ask the committee to examine crime, it asks the committee to investigate communication methods of influencers and hate groups. It asks us to consider strategies that counter influence, particularly among young people. That moves us from a criminal element into the conduct of regulating ideas, and that is a bit of a dangerous territory for me. We have got to be very careful that in seeking to protect minority groups from violence we do not slide into the position where the state begins examining speech simply because it might be offensive to some or it might be conservative or religious or traditional or maybe even unpopular. I have had things said about me that I find repulsive. I have read commentary that I completely and utterly disagree with, but in a democracy the answer to speech is more speech, not less speech. The answer is not necessarily parliamentary committees investigating who is influencing whom online.

I guess there is also the question of consistency. As members of Parliament, on varying levels we would all receive different forms of abuse daily, weekly, monthly maybe – I am not sure. Women in public life receive appalling commentary, religious leaders are threatened, Jewish Victorians have received awful antisemitism recently and Muslim Victorians face hostility as well. If the existence of hostility, whether it is online or in person, is the test for a parliamentary inquiry, we would be conducting them pretty regularly. The proper test must be whether there is a failure in criminal enforcement of victim protection. If there is evidence of rising physical attacks, let us have a look at the data. If there are policing gaps, let us identify them. If sentencing is inadequate, then let us offer forward some reform. But do not equate offensive tweets, however distasteful they might be, with systemic criminal failure – they are not the same thing. My sexuality does not make me a fragile person. It also does not exempt me from any sort of criticism in this place, and it does not require the state to police lawful opinion on my behalf.

What I require, and what every single Victorian deserves, is equal protection under the law – nothing more and nothing less. Freedom of expression is not always comfortable. Democracy is not always polite. And the internet, as we all know, is rarely a gentle place. But the threshold for state intervention must remain anchored in crime, not simply in whether someone finds something offensive or not. For those reasons I will not be supporting this motion in its current form, not because prejudice does not exist and not because unpleasant commentary does not occur but because our response must be proportionate, precise and grounded in a demonstrable legal need. I believe Victoria is strongest when we defend both safety and liberty, but we must not sacrifice one at the expense of the other.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:34): I also would like to say a few words on the motion brought forward by Mr Puglielli, motion 1199, on anti LGBTQIA+ hate crimes. Let me state from the outset that for any Victorian to be assaulted, blackmailed, robbed is abhorrent, and it should be all of our expectation, for whatever reason, that the police hunt down and prosecute these people to the fullest extent of the law. Regardless of their gender, sexuality or any other thing, no-one deserves that, and the police should do their job on that.

I would like to push back a bit on the insinuation from some of the government members that opposing the government’s anti-vilification laws somehow means that you support vilification or that you are somehow harming people. I would like to point out the fact that the government’s track record on combating hate is appalling. The government came out with legislative responses to combat far-right extremism. That has made far-right extremism worse, just as I predicted. They have come out with efforts to combat antisemitism; those have failed. They have come out with things to combat racism; those have also failed. There is no empirical evidence by which one could look at the government’s proposal of the anti-vilification laws, which have yet to come into effect on the civil side, and think that they will work. In fact one could only form the logical conclusion that it will make things worse, as I believe is what will be the case. But we will wait and see.

But what this committee is seeking to look at in many ways has already been looked at and acted on by the government over the past few years. Let us go back over some of the timeline of what has happened here. In September 2019 the Assembly referred an inquiry into the expansion of these anti-vilification laws. Many organisations made submissions to that and had their say, and they had public hearings and all that sort of stuff. Then the government made commitments to make legislative changes, and there was a big push in the last term of Parliament by many on the crossbench to go forward with that. Many were very upset that the government did not do it in the last term of Parliament, but eventually the government had the first round of consultation into these laws in 2023. Then we went through a second round of consultation in 2024. Then the debate began in late 2024, and the bill passed eventually in early 2025. As noted by the government, the opposition, I and the Libertarians opposed this. I did not oppose it because I do not like gay people or something like that; I opposed it because I do not think it will be effective.

The problem that I see with going into an inquiry at this point, and as has been pointed out by the government and the opposition, is that the civil component of these, which is probably the most significant to what we are talking about here today, has not even come into effect. The government has agreed to move forward that timeline, in response to the Bondi massacre, to April, where it was initially slated to be June. Let us wait and see how these laws work when they come into effect. I am predicting that they will not act in the way that many thought they would work. But nevertheless, let us wait and see.

I would also make the point that there are already a vast number of organisations that deal with support for LGBTQIA+ groups such as the official LGBTIQA+ Taskforce and LGBTIQA+ Justice Working Group, and they met only recently in December. There is also a new helpline, the Rainbow Door helpline, set up by the government. Many councils have standing reference groups. Other groups are LGBTIQ+ Health Australia, Equality Australia, Australian GLBTIQ Multicultural Council, Transcend Australia, the Equality Project, Switchboard Victoria, Minus18, Victorian Pride Lobby, Transgender Victoria, Queerspace, Koorie Pride Victoria, the Victorian Pride Centre, and the list could go on and on.

I think that these issues have been explored already by both this Parliament and the government. The government has chosen to act on this through their anti-vilification laws. They have brought them forward not in response to LGBTQIA+ hate crimes but rather in response to a terror attack. Nevertheless they are bringing them forward. The most appropriate thing to do is to wait and see how these laws play out and then see if they help any of this or not. I am predicting not. I hope I am wrong. I hope the laws stop all hate in Victoria and have a wonderful effect, but I do not think that will be the case. I think that they will backfire spectacularly just as many of the government’s other actions have in the past. and I think that the government should reflect on their actions and their effectiveness and reconsider that maybe they are not very good at stopping hate in this state and maybe they need to change course.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:40): President, thank you so much for the opportunity to rise today and make a contribution to Mr Puglielli’s motion regarding the scale and scope of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes in our state. Discrimination, hatred and violence have no place in Victoria, and every person in this chamber should stand against this dangerous, divisive and really destructive behaviour. In Victoria under the Allan Labor government, equality is not negotiable. Every person deserves to live safely, wholly and freely. That is our commitment, and it is as strong today as it ever was. I want to start by acknowledging every victim of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes in Victoria, as well as their families, their friends and their loved ones. We recognise the profound distress and trauma caused by these terrible acts. Everyone deserves to live free from violence and hate. Everyone deserves to live their lives with pride, not with fear. This government will continue to work to ensure that all Victorians can live safely and that perpetrators of hate crimes are held accountable for their actions.

Our record on this is clear: Victoria was the first state to establish a dedicated equality portfolio, the first to appoint an LGBTIQA+ commissioner, the first to build a Pride centre and the first to deliver a comprehensive 10-year LGBTIQA+ strategy, Pride in Our Future. This strategy is not just a document but a whole-of-government road map that embeds equality across key domains, including equal rights and freedoms to build safe, strong and sustainable communities. We are not just talking about safety; we are pulling every lever available to protect the community. We have passed laws to protect Victorians from the harms of vilification. We have passed reforms that respond directly to the increase in violent attacks, including attacks directed towards members of the LGBTIQA+ community. Our criminal protections for serious vilification, which includes threatening and inciting hatred, commenced in September of last year. And with this, in December the Premier announced that civil anti-vilification protections would be brought forward to commence earlier, from April this year, protecting more Victorians affected by the harms of hate speech.

We are working hard to stamp out hate, whether it is through the anti-hate taskforce, legislative reform or dedicated support for LGBTIQA+ victims of app-based crime through services like Switchboard Victoria’s Rainbow Door. We know that hate crime victims have been targeted using a range of digital platforms, which is why we are taking steps to intervene early and hold people accountable for their behaviour online. Some of the pretty sickening practices that are out there were outlined in earlier contributions, and I particularly want to outline the contribution made by Mr Puglielli, who spoke to what is really damaging behaviour. Victoria Police have now made at least 45 arrests connected to app-based violence, and several perpetrators have been rightly sentenced.

The statistics we are dealing with are harrowing and entirely unacceptable. Sixty-five per cent of LGBTIQA+ people report experiencing violence in their lifetime. We know that rainbow mob as well as multicultural and multifaith LGBTIQA+ communities have experienced violence based on who they are, perpetrated by overlapping forms of discrimination and hate. This has no place here, and this government is dedicated to ensuring that all Victorians can live their lives to their fullest. The gravity of that 65 per cent figure cannot be overstated: it actually represents thousands of individual stories of pain, resilience and recovery. When we look at the specific targeting of rainbow mob and multicultural and multifaith Victorians, we can see how hate often layers upon itself. I, for one, will be spending an iftar dinner, I hope, as I have done many times, with the queer community, celebrating the strength and diversity of our queer mob as they mark the going down of the sun. I think that there are ways that we can show up for these communities and make sure that we hear their stories when we do, and I look forward to that in the coming weeks.

I had the good fortune of speaking to Ingrid Stitt, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, about that only yesterday. You see, our Labor government has led the nation in responding to not only this hate but also gender-based violence with over $4 billion invested since the Royal Commission into Family Violence, including funding for LGBTIQA+ support. We have invested $28.8 million over four years in the budget. Importantly, that included continuing Q+Law’s specialist LGBTIQA+ legal service, providing a safe harbour for people at their most vulnerable. Victoria Police have also rolled out LGBTIQA+ inclusion training for their workforce, a welcome step that will assist police who are supporting victims of anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes. We are also working with community leaders, Victorian police and liaison officers to support victims to report these heinous crimes. I have had the good fortune of meeting some of these liaison officers in the inner north. I know the sheer volume of work that they are having to deal with, and I give them my thanks and gratitude.

While this inquiry proposed before us is focused on anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes, we know that hate incidents cause real harm and distress for affected individuals but also communities, and we will continue to work with LGBTIQA+ Victorians who have experienced hate incidents to access appropriate reporting pathways. By bringing forward the civil anti-vilification protection scheme to April, we are making sure that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission can assist those impacted to make complaints, access referrals and seek support.

We also know that there is some intersectional hate that we are seeing, including antisemitic individuals and groups that have attacked and vandalised both the Holocaust museum and a dedicated LGBTIQA+ venue in Melbourne with homophobic and antisemitic graffiti. We are going to explore the relationship between these really harmful ideologies and how they contribute to further hate crimes. No-one in this place should be fostering any environment where bigotry, intolerance and hate are normalised. I have got a lot to say about those opposite. I am not going to get into it, because I could end up just as fired up about it as my colleague Mr Galea. There is so much that those opposite should be reflecting on: the behaviour of not only themselves but their leaders and their role in community to keep everyone safe.

Can I finish off my remarks by saying I will continue to keep fighting for a Victoria where everyone can walk down the street, use a dating app, attend a community event without fear, love who they love where they live and live free from hate. Making sure that all Victorians can do that is something that keeps me going each and every day. I commend the motion and our proposed amendments to the house.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): I recall last year when some of these despicable attacks occurred. I should not have been surprised, but I was surprised perhaps at the extent of it. Maybe that was just my naivety, maybe it was the fact that I do not see it or interact with it that frequently in terms of the people who make those threats and perpetrate those sort of crimes. But I sort of remember thinking to myself how despicable they were, the people who perpetrate it, clearly. How people in this day and age can continue to target another person for any attribute, much less their sexual preference, was to me just an absolutely abhorrent idea, and it remains to this day to be that. It also occurred to me at the time that there seemed to be, as you point out here in your motion, Mr Puglielli, a proliferation. That did and does concern me greatly, because what is going on? We in this place must ask insightful questions when we see patterns occurring. I would hate to think that what we saw last year was the norm, because if that is the norm, then we are a pretty sick society in need of some pretty urgent help. In part, we know that is true. It is probably a glass half empty view, but we want the glass half full view of the world. But the truth is if we go around just thinking that, we are not going to address the real problems that are out there and exist for people. Understanding more is absolutely imperative, because how do we prevent it in the future? Do our police police this to the extent that they should?

I gather they do, but I do not know that. Are the laws adequate to prevent the perpetrators from doing these things? And when they do these things, do they actually ensure that there is a sanction that provides enough of a deterrent to both punish them and prevent them perhaps from doing it again? I can guess that the answer to that is no, because they seem to do it time and again with frequency.

Then there is the age of the perpetrators, between 13 and 20 as a generalisation. I am sure it falls outside that age bracket as well, but what are 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds doing actively targeting others with hatred, despicable acts, intimidation and violence? It is just sickening. What are they doing with their time? What I would not want to do to them in a sanctioned, better-behaved way to teach them a lesson. If I had my choice, I would be locking them up for a very, very, very long time, because I just think I have got to the point in my own life, personally speaking, where I have no tolerance for violence whatsoever. I have always pretty much been of that view anyway, frankly. To see in society that people cannot freely speak to one another, cannot freely flirt with one another, cannot freely seek partners any which way they wish in a lawful way, free of intimidation and fear that they are going to be targeted by some so-and-so is just a despicable place to be, I think.

While there will be arguments today – and everyone has their perspective and their point of view, and I respect their right to have those points of view – there are aspects here, I think, that require our continued vigilance. If we are not vigilant, if we simply look away time and again, then what does that do for our most vulnerable? I feel it does not help them very much at all. In fact the last thing we want to do is give anyone an amber let alone a green light to conduct themselves in this way, whether they be far right wing, far left wing, far whatever the hell they want to call themselves. I think one of the ironies here is that these people are not so intelligent as to actually have an ideology at all other than one of hatred and disrespect and disgusting vitriol and violence. It speaks obviously about them, not of their victims. I will leave my comments at that, because I know there will be others who are keen to also make remarks.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:53): I also rise to make a contribution on this motion moved in Mr Puglielli’s name, which is about a referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report by 1 September 2026 the scale and scope of anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes occurring in Victoria. I would like to start by thanking Mr Puglielli for bringing this motion. It is an important issue not only to him personally but also to many people that are our shared constituents in the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region and of course many people more broadly right across Victoria. I have had the benefit of listening to some of the contributions, and I might just address some of those points in a moment.

I firstly want to start my contribution as well by acknowledging all victims of anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes, their family, friends and loved ones and the distress that those distressing events have caused. Because as we know, for someone who is a victim of those acts – often targeted acts – not only does it affect them, but it can affect their friends and family as well and cause distress and continue to cause great distress. Of course everyone in Victoria, no matter who they are, who they love and who they want to be, does deserve to live free from acts of violence and hate. They are entitled to live as their authentic selves without fear as well.

I know some of the discourse in this debate – Mr Limbrick’s comments as well – has been about our government, and I will talk about our record in a minute. Our government has introduced many reforms to work on driving down acts of hate and vilification in this state. But I have to say that sometimes – oftentimes – when you are trying to address these sorts of crimes the work can never be done. Sometimes when you drive down one aspect of hate or vilification something else pops up in its place. And so really the work is never done.

We know that LGBTIQ+ people, for example, face higher rates of violence than the general population. Sixty-five per cent of those people report experiencing violence in their lifetime. They are a population of people who do get targeted by groups in a range of ways, and we do see new ways of perpetuating hate and violence pop up all the time, particularly with technology. That of course is not just confined to LGBTIQ+ populations. Women are also subject to those same threats of violence. Whether you are in overlapping communities, different populations et cetera, all of those acts are completely unacceptable.

Our government is dedicated to ensuring that Victorians can live their best lives. Our government led the nation in ensuring that we responded to gender-based violence, with over $4 billion invested since the Royal Commission into Family Violence. That included dedicated funding for LGBTIQA+ support as well. We invested $28.8 million over four years in the 2024–25 budget to support integrated and early intervention legal assistance, including continuing Q+Law, a specialist LGBTIQA+ legal service. Also, Victoria Police, importantly, have rolled out mandatory LGBTIQA+ inclusion training for their workforce, which is going to assist them in becoming more acutely aware of the forms of hate that that population experiences. This is a welcome step, and it will directly assist police in supporting victims of this type of hate.

One of the things that Mr Limbrick talked about was that, whilst all of these reforms have happened, his view was that, whilst these actions were designed to drive down hate, he felt they had made these things worse. That is why an inquiry like this is actually a good thing to do, as we get an opportunity to inquire into and examine that. I am not sure I agree with Mr Limbrick’s assessment of that, because I do not think we are qualified to make that assumption here in the chamber, particularly without any evidence about that. Mr Limbrick, you are entitled to your view and your observations about that – they are all valid – but again, before embarking on that, we should make sure and hear from the people who are directly affected by these sorts of things.

We also get an opportunity to examine not only the effectiveness of the laws and the reforms that have been put in place but whether we need to do more based on the experiences that people are seeing. Like I said, I know that sometimes it is really difficult to keep up with technological advances, and perpetrators can be very, I guess, nimble in adopting all sorts of platforms and whatever to enable them to perpetuate their hate. So again, I think that is why, if I look at the terms of reference in Mr Puglielli’s motion, point 3 was the adequacy of the current responses to preventing these crimes but also the adequacy of current supports for victim-survivors and ways to improve public safety. I think whenever we do any reforms that are designed to drive down hate, it is always critically important to listen to victims of any sorts of hate crimes and violence that have occurred.

We also want to look at e-safety for LGBTIQ+ community members, which is something I mentioned just now. As I said, technological advances are sometimes quite frightening. We are very slow to keep up with them. That is not unusual; most people are, sadly. If only perpetrators would use their levels of ingenuity for good things rather than bad things, but we cannot change some people. What we can do is continue to work on driving down hate.

As I said earlier in my earlier remarks, the work is never done. To think that once we implement reforms we can just not continue to monitor those things is kind of short-sighted. It is a bit like whack-a-mole: you drive down something and something else will pop up in its place. We need to continue to work on those things, and as I said, an inquiry of this nature does provide an opportunity to do that. It gives an opportunity for people to make submissions, gives an opportunity to come and talk to the committee about their lived experiences and gives people an opportunity to have their say, but also then gives us important insight from people who are victims of hate et cetera. I have got 5 seconds, so I might leave it there. By the time I sit down I am sure you will segue straight into question time.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.