- by Jay
- The Guardian
- Issue #2139
Graphic: Ndumiso92 – wikimedia.org (CC0 1.0)
Victorian Comrades beware – over the last year, the bourgeois state government has proposed new reforms to its criminal law system which could have destructive consequences for youth defendants, citizens of colour and even the Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Imperialist movement. The three proposed bills in particular; the Bail Act, Weapons Bill and – most controversial of the reforms – the Justice Bill, are the result of intense lobbying by interest groups and right-wing media figures alike, to further weaponise the legal system to protect their interests.
BAIL REFORMS
The most recent of these reforms, the Bail Amendment Bill 2025 starts by affirming that the purpose of the original Bail Act 1977 is to “maximise community safety” and that the proposed amendments enliven this. We should ask how the bill ensures this safety, and which members of the community – or even what kind of community – will benefit.
The bill reintroduces the offence of committing an indictable crime while on bail, which had been rescinded in 2023 following an inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson, a Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman who died due to whilst incarcerated for a shoplifting offence.
This allows any bailee accused of an offence to be brought into custody and even be compelled to face court rather than a bail justice officer within 24 hours of an arrest, alongside a 3 month imprisonment.
In addition to re-introducing the criminal penalty – the bill amends the act to extend the scope of offences committed to any indictable offence (rather than just those mentioned in the original Bail Act). This is an immensely broad spectrum; ranging from smaller property crimes to more serious indictable offences such as murder. However, the bill makes it clear that these laws are aiming to further imprison those engaged in offences such as aggravated assault burglary and home invasion. The reforms also extend to the Youth Justice Act 2024 to ensure that youth offenders are also prohibited from such activity.
It’s no surprise that these reforms were advocated by the bourgeoisie press, with the jackals of the Murdoch press alongside popular radio and television personalities giving serious airtime to talking up supposed benefits.
What proponents of the bill fail to recognise is that these reforms will only exacerbate instances of crime and incarceration as it disproportionately affects youth offenders; particularly those of colour. Before the Bill, Victoria had a decrease in its overall crime rate of 3 per cent, with a drop in youth offending.
Evidently, this bill will serve as nothing but as an impetus for the racist executive of bourgeois government to further target working class people of colour. With the inclusions which emphasise the right over property rather than broad community safety we can clearly see that the laws only consider the safety of the property-owning class.
WEAPON REFORM
In addition to tougher bail procedures, the government has also passed amendments to the Firearms Act 1996 and Control of Weapons Act 1990.
Notably, the new laws expand the definition of ‘controlled Weapon’ in the latter act to specifically include machetes alongside increased powers within the Firearms Act 1996 for police to search anyone’s body or home, if they’re suspected of possessing a firearm or weapon. In considering whether to issue a warrant, a factor that the magistrates take into account is whether such an action would be in the supposed “public interest” to do so.
Whilst the reforms include protections for those with special vulnerability, such as those who “(a) is an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander; or (b) is under the age of 18 years; or (c) is experiencing any ill health, including any mental illness;” it is wholly apparent that this bill will further empower the police, servants of capital that they are, to exert their racist tendencies to terrorise multicultural and working class communities.
The introduction of both of these reforms ultimately reflects the trend in western middle class thought; in place of economic policies that support marginalised communities and deter crime, harsher executive powers are introduced which further alienate them.
SOCIAL COHESION REFORMS
Perhaps the most controversial of these new reforms is the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, which seeks to impose extensive criminal and civil penalties for behaviour that supposedly vilifies protected groups – with the purpose of fostering “social cohesion.” The bill doesn’t define that.
The lynchpin of these reforms is the expansion of the definition of “protected attributes” in the Crimes Act 1958 and Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to include “Religious belief or activity or personal association,” with little clarification as to what the latter term means. This is coupled with a criminal penalty of up to three years imprisonment if a defendant is found to have engaged in activity which is construed to have incited “hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule” of such protected groups.
Naturally, what can constitute a “personal association” has sparked debate during the bill’s construction. For example, the Deputy Leader of the Victorian Liberal Party David Southwick backed calls by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria for the term “Zionist” to be included as part of a protected attribute, despite it being a political label.
Whilst not explicitly included, concern remains over whether critiques over Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians will be subject to such provisions. There is an enshrined defence for any form of communication made for a genuine political purpose, but again, what that means is not explained. If we are to assume that the implied bourgeois protection for political communication is interpreted by the courts is to be applied – wherein exceptions only apply to those who engaged “reasonably and in good faith” – it is ultimately uncertain as to how much leniency the courts will give to movements that oppose the hegemony of Western capitalist interests. It is yet to be determined whether public demonstrations against protected groups that happen to align with such interests will be a protected form of critique.
Without broader protections for political dissent or even a set definition, it’s apparent that “social cohesion” will, in practice, be determined within ruling class interests; interpreted in such a way as to minimise the vocal power the proletariat has in opposing those interests.
