Submission on Proposed Changes to Victoria’s Vilification Legislation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. While we appreciate that the intent of this review and these proposals are to, “protect more
   people…[and] promote the full and equal participation of all Victorians in a society that values
   freedom of expression”, we have serious concerns. Rather than protecting and promoting equal
   participation in Victorian society, we fear that these proposals risk stifling free speech and
   significantly limiting free religious expression and activity in Victoria.
2. The Overview Paper (OP) canvasses wide-ranging reforms to the Victorian Anti-vilification regime.
   The OP explains that the current Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (RRTA) would be
   repealed, with the criminal sections moved to the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act) and the civil
   sections moved to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EOA). The changes canvassed in the OP
   provoke the following concerns:

• The proposed introduction of new criminal laws that prohibit incitement of hatred, serious
  contempt and revulsion could potentially criminalise legitimate, good-faith religious activity
  and speech, particularly through the introduction of the evidentiary standard of
  recklessness and the potential failure to provide protections for religious activity;
  The proposed modification of civil incitement laws could potentially sanction legitimate,
  good-faith religious activity;
• The proposed introduction of a new harm-based protection would introduce further serious
  risk of abuse and weaponisation of anti-vilification laws through focusing on the subjective
  experience of the complainant group;
• The proposals lack clarity on how exactly the ‘public vs private’ distinction will be amended
  and we are concerned that the civil prohibitions, once moved to the EOA, could target
  private activity within religious communities and schools;
• The proposed changes to the ‘genuine purpose’ exemption in the civil regime lack detail.
  Such a change would need to ensure that the genuine intent of the respondent is the
  relevant factor in a tribunal determining whether the activity is motivated by a genuine
  purpose in the public interest, otherwise, sincere religious activity could be sanctioned by
  policy considerations.