Tuesday the 4th of March, 2025
Victorian Legislative Council
Rachel spoke on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill, on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Considering an increase in gendered violence and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric, Rachel welcomes increased protections for her community.
Rachel Payne (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill seeks to expand anti-vilification protections beyond race and religion to include the attributes of disability, sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, gender identity and personal association with a person with a protected attribute.
This bill will create new serious criminal vilification offences where someone intentionally or recklessly, on the grounds of a protected attribute, incites hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of a person or group, threatens physical harm towards another person or group or threatens damage to property. This bill will also introduce a civil harm-based protection to restrict hateful, seriously contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing public conduct that is directed at a person or group because of their protected attribute. There will continue to be exceptions to protect legitimate conduct engaged in reasonably and in good faith – things like genuine artistic, academic and religious activities. Importantly, this bill incorporates a five-year statutory review. This will allow us to understand how the changes in this bill operate in practice and whether it is operating as intended. This will be particularly necessary given the limited case law that exists for the current protected attributes.
Prohibition of hatred, not an attack on free speech
There seems to be a lot of confusion about this bill. Some think that it is a new-age attack on free speech. This is simply not the case. For over two decades now the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 has prohibited vilification – that is, public behaviour that incites or encourages hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against another person or group of people because of their race or their religion. It is not a prohibition of critique of ideas; rather, as is the case with the bill before us today, it is a prohibition of the vilest of hatreds. That prohibition should not be restricted to race and religion; it should be for all innate characteristics. Whether you are a part of the LGBTIQA+ communities, are living with a disability or are a woman, you should feel protected. This is what this bill before us today will do. It acts on many of the recommendations of the Victorian Parliament’s inquiry into anti-vilification protections, extending classes of protected attributes and addressing the under-utilisation of the existing act. This inquiry made clear the need to do better to prevent and respond to vilification.
Here I would like to acknowledge the trailblazing work of Fiona Patten, who in 2019 introduced similar anti-vilification legislation that ultimately led to this inquiry. While many long years have now passed since Fiona’s original bill, today we finally have the opportunity to debate and pass these laws.
Although it did take some time, I would like to congratulate the work of the current and former Attorney-General and the Minister for Equality for getting us to where we are today. I would also like to recognise the work of countless stakeholders who helped shape this bill. Though there are too many to name, I appreciate your dedication to working through this legislation. Thank you for your generosity in donating your time and your resources to make these laws all that they can be. While this bill may not be perfect, you should be proud of your efforts to bring about this important change. I would also like to thank my adviser Tabitha for her diligence and steadfast advice.
Anti-vilification legislation recognises that we cannot allow hatred to be spread. As we have already seen, inaction allows hate to fester, and our most vulnerable communities suffer the brunt of the harm. Your innate characteristics, things like who you are and who you love, should not give people a licence to hate and to divide. If we accept that it is not okay to physically harm another person, we must also accept that it is not okay to mentally harm another person. Vilification harms deeply. Victims are likely to experience a myriad of mental health impacts. It undermines self-worth, increases feelings of social isolation, discourages reporting and encourages vulnerability. As lawmakers we set the standard for what society accepts, and I am proud to stand before you all today and affirm my stance that there is no place for this kind of hatred and vilification in all its forms must be stamped out, not just because of the very real mental health harm that vilification causes but also for the very real physical harm that it leads to.
Violent language breeds physical harm
The relationship between vilifying language and violence is without question. Routinely the targets are our most vulnerable and marginalised. This is something that the trans community knows well. In 2023 the Trans Justice Project and Victorian Pride Lobby co-published the Fuelling Hate report, showing that anti-trans hate is escalating in Australia in part because of the discourse encouraged by anti-trans lobbyists. They found that one in two participants surveyed reported having experienced online anti-trans abuse, harassment or vilification, and almost the same amount experienced that behaviour in person. We have seen time and time again how vilifying remarks from public figures directly lead to acts of violence against these groups. Hate has no place in Victoria, but preventing and responding to hate requires more than just feel-good remarks. It requires legislative action.
I have watched many of my trans and gender-diverse friends become increasingly fearful over the last few years. They are feeling the escalation of vilification and hatred directed towards their communities, which results in them becoming isolated and not participating in everyday life fully, including in employment. Not only are these reforms necessary, but they are also well overdue. We have waited a long time for laws to combat this hate, and we hope to wait no longer. On that note, I will be moving amendments on this bill, and I ask that they now be circulated.
– Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders –
These amendments will bring forward the latest commencement date of the bill from 18 September 2027 to 30 June 2026. It is our hope that by bringing forward the latest commencement date of this legislation we can avoid an overlap with the next state election and ensure that these issues are not relitigated nor politicised.
I have had many meetings and put forward many questions to the Attorney-General on anti-vilification laws, and at every juncture I have emphasised the need for the timeliness of these reforms. I am sure the former Attorney-General can attest to these and how she maybe regrets giving me the 18-month timeframe. While I understand that meaningful stakeholder consultation and careful consideration do take time, I have seen in my community the very real harm caused by the politicisation of these laws as they relate to the LGBTIQA+ communities.
The most recent victim is the rainbow libraries toolkit, because how terrible are inclusive and respectful spaces for LGBTIQA+ Victorians? In my own electorate of the South-East council-endorsed family and community group drag story time events have been targeted. Bigots stoked fear and successfully got many of these events shut down. I am sick of seeing people in my community being made to feel unsafe and vilified because of who they are. We in the LGBTIQA+ community need to be protected, not pushed out of public life. I know these amendments will not stop the toxic politicisation of this legislation, but it is my hope that they will go some of the way to reducing opportunities for future harm.
An informed and considered approach
With a bill of this kind we welcome careful consideration of its implications. That is why this bill is backed by an inquiry, a private members bill and many years of careful consideration and stakeholder engagement, and today it will also be backed by what I hope to be a productive and well-intentioned debate that will ensure that the intention of the bill is clarified and improvements are made. We understand that there are concerns about the removal of the political defence from the bill and the absence of a public interest defence. We do not want to see this legislation weaponised against already marginalised communities and infringe on the democratic right to protest and assembly. This bill has the potential to provide essential protection from vilification to marginalised communities. We will ensure it has sufficient checks and balances to address these concerns. We remain assured that this government has negotiated in good faith and will address our concerns in the committee-of-the-whole process.
Moving now to the opposition’s newest problem with the bill. They take issue with the bill proposing that harm caused by vilifying conduct is considered from the perspective of a reasonable person with a protected attribute instead of a reasonable person without a protected attribute. They argue that this contravenes equal treatment before the law and that they are concerned that courts will need to assess how sensitive people are. I do not believe these concerns are in good faith. These excuses are to avoid having to address the elephant in the room: they do not want to see anti-vilification protections for LGBTIQA+ communities, but they just will not say it.
Sociocultural and historical contexts help define ‘vilification’
The reality is that there is nothing about this test that will require a judge to determine anything other than a reasonable person’s perspective. Just because that reasonable person has the protected attribute does not mean that the integrity of the test is undermined. Rather, it means that the conduct in question is considered alongside the rich sociocultural and historic context of the vilification. This context is deeply interwoven with a person’s identity and speaks directly to what a person or group will consider vilifying. Thus, it is a necessary part of the legislation and consistent with its intent.
One of the greatest pleasures of being a member of Parliament is serving our community – representing the communities that we are part of and elevating those voices and sharing those experiences, particularly of those who are most marginalised. It is also important that there is diverse representation in Parliament that is reflective of our everyday lives. I am proud to stand before you today as a queer person and see the passage of this important reform. It will definitely go some of the way to ensuring that our most marginalised in our communities feel supported. With this bill today we send a clear message that hate has no place in Victoria. We will not accept the horrendous vilification of our most vulnerable and marginalised communities. This is a message that I hope is heard loud and wide.
Related:
> LGBTIQA+ legal service launched in the south-east – Rachel Payne
> LGBTIQA+ rights and Anti-vilification laws – Rachel Payne
> Counting LGBTIQA+ Australians in the census – Rachel Payne
> Pride in Place Funding for LGBTIQA+ homelessness services – Rachel Payne
> Greater Dandenong LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee – Rachel Payne
> Combating Extremist LGBTIQ+ Hate – Rachel Payne
