Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Inquiry into Extremism in Victoria

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:18): I rise to speak on the inquiry into extremism in Victoria. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that there are extremist elements in our society and it is appropriate to consider how we reduce the risk of violence and threats of violence and to allow the justice system to appropriately deal with perpetrators. While I disagree with some of the findings and recommendations in the report, there are other sections that I am in fierce agreement with. Finding 10 is particularly notable:

Social isolation, economic insecurity and inequality are risk factors that may play a part in increasing susceptibility to extremist narratives. Addressing these issues is important for wellbeing and social cohesion and may reduce the appeal of extremist narratives.

This is not a new or novel finding. When it became an increasingly common talking point, particularly in 2021, that people protesting against government restrictions on their lives were extremists or Neo-Nazis, I read some of the submissions to the federal inquiry into extremism that was already underway. There was a lot said about social cohesion, social isolation and a sense of belonging. In my office we expressed our frustration with the language and actions of the government, much of the media and their supporters. It was as though they were deliberately attempting to create a fertile environment for recruitment to extremism. It became an increasingly common talking point, particularly in 2021, that people protesting against government restrictions on their lives were extremists or Neo-Nazis—not only that, but that any member of Parliament that attended any protest and spoke with people to listen to their concerns rather than calling them names was somehow promoting extremism.

When construction workers decided to protest their union for failing to stick up for them when the government started bringing in vaccine mandates, a former leader of the federal Labor Party called them ‘man baby Nazis’, as did the union. While it may have been advantageous to create a cohesive and lazy talking point, it not only was inaccurate but drove further division. If the media consistently lied about people, what else were they lying about? We denied people employment for about eight months if they chose not to get vaccinated, labelling them as anti-vaxxers and anyone who supported them at protests as extremists, conspiracy theorists or Nazis. I would be surprised if anyone here who supported these measures has read ‘Policy considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination from the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation’ published in the Medical Journal of Australia by some of Australia’s leading experts on vaccine communication. The first line in that article is:

The benefits gained by vaccination mandates must be greater than the harms they … cause

I would suggest that this was never the case for the majority of the workforce and people were right to protest against it. Victoria Police did not make a submission to the Victorian inquiry. They did, however, appear at and make a submission to a federal inquiry. It is worth noting from that federal inquiry that the right-wing extremism (RWE) threat:

… does not exist in a vacuum and is directly influenced by a symbiotic relationship with the threat of left wing extremism (LWE). In addition to violent conflict at organised RWE events and public demonstrations, Victorian-based LWE movements and individuals are mimicking overseas based LWE movements (such as ANTIFA) to justify the use of violence to promote civil unrest and target perceived enemy groups.

The transcript also shows that they were not overwhelmed by any emerging threats and are well resourced and that what this committee has described as far-right extremism does not represent the majority of their investigations or resources in responding to risks of religiously or ideologically driven extremism. The committee’s report also attempted to accurately define ‘far-right extremism’, noting that it refers to people who ‘oppose democratic principles and processes’ and ‘favour authoritarianism’. Far from opposing democratic principles and processes, I have never seen so much enthusiastic participation in processes; people called MPs’ offices, wrote emails and letters and stood on the steps of Parliament for days urging members to oppose or amend proposed legislation. As for favouring authoritarianism, I have not seen any of this. What I have seen is a whole range of people with new or renewed enthusiasm for opposing authoritarianism.