Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:07): I thank all members for contributing as part of this debate today. At the outset I would implore the chamber to not follow the direction of Mr Limbrick and take a ‘let’s wait and see’ approach towards this issue. We are talking about something that is quite severe and that is affecting many LGBTQIA+ people – just how many is part of what will be investigated should this inquiry proceed.

Unlike what members of the opposition backbench have said, this is not a matter of freedom of expression. This quite firmly is a matter of violence that is facing community members who identify as LGBTQIA+. They are being lured into public spaces and set upon and attacked, often by groups of people, often young men, with weapons. As I highlighted in my opening remarks for this debate, it is terrifying to them and to many other community members, and the rippling effect this has across the community more broadly is quite distressing to many people. I have no doubt we will be hearing from them as part of this inquiry process.

As Mr Galea from the government highlighted in his contribution, this is a matter that attracts a lot of shame and a lot of stigma. For many people part of the reason we may not see them come forward to seek support or to notify authorities about what has happened to them is that their families and their communities do not currently accept them as they are. In doing so they would be publicly identifying themselves and their associations, and that to them is quite a confronting prospect and not something that is safe for them at this time. I think there is complexity here that we have to go into, but that complexity should not be a reason that we shy away from this important work.

As I acknowledged in foreshadowing earlier, the Greens will be accepting the wording changes that have been put forward by the government with respect to the terms of reference. That is a product of a number of constructive conversations that have taken place across various parties in this chamber to make sure that the scope is appropriate for what the Legal and Social Issues Committee can manage in this remaining part of the parliamentary term and also keep a sufficient focus on the issues that are the impetus for which I have brought forward this inquiry motion on behalf of colleagues.

To connect with the proposal that has been put forward by the opposition, the wording that we are seeking to agree on with government is about the intersectionality of experience with being LGBTQIA+ – someone who may be of a multifaith community and also identifies as an LGBTQIA+ person. It is those intersections where we can explore those experiences and the compounding effects that may have in someone that has experienced this type of behaviour, this offending, that we are talking about in the terms of reference. It is about that intersection of those experiences rather than the addition of other communities’ experience to the scope, noting of course there are no doubt experiences being faced by many community members from other communities that do need the scrutiny of the Parliament. This is not the particular inquiry where we seek to do so.

We heard in contributions just earlier, before question time and then the break, about this alpha-male content, this type of content that is proliferating online. While I do not hold all the answers as to what particular content is leading to this offending, we are seeing where this hate ends – people going out and committing violence against people who are themselves or who love who they love as members of the LGBTIQA+ community. But I want to be really clear: targeting LGBTQIA+ people for being who they are or for loving who they love does not make you more of a man. It does not. We have to tackle this hate at its source. That is what this inquiry brought by the Greens today will seek to do. I commend it to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): We will now move through the amendments in the order the proposed changes occur in the motion. Mr Mulholland’s amendment 1 appears first in the motion. This amendment tests his remaining amendments.

Council divided on Evan Mulholland’s amendment: