Victorian Government rejects protest face mask ban

The Victorian government has voted down an Opposition bill to ban face masks at protests.

This is despite Premier Jacinta Allan’s promise 240 days ago to introduce such measures following escalating violence and community safety concerns.

Liberal MP David Southwick, shadow minister for police and crime prevention and member for Caulfield, accused the Premier of breaking her promise after Labor rejected the Opposition’s proposal to immediately implement the ban during Tuesday’s parliamentary session.

“We have a Premier that 240 days ago said she would bring in stronger protest powers. Where are they?” Southwick told Parliament.

“Victorians are sick of words. They want action.”

The rejected bill would have introduced a protest registration system, banned face coverings at public protests, re-established stronger move-on laws, and provided exclusion orders for repeat offenders.

Speaking to The AJN, Southwick said the Jewish community had been left “more vulnerable from these extremists that cover their face and create extremism and incitement of violence at every level.”

“You’ve got extremism from the far left and the far right. You’ve got Nazis on one side that have paraded and done this stuff… And you’ve got the far left that have been instigators behind the pro-Palestinian rallies,” Southwick said.

He argued that extremists deliberately conceal their identities to avoid consequences, comparing them to “bank robbers [who] wear balaclavas to commit crimes.”

“Many of the community that I talk to every day won’t go to the city. They certainly won’t go to the city during weekends, when you’ve got these extremists hijacking our city,” he said.

Labor MP Nina Taylor defended the government’s position, stating there was important legislation that needs to be debated and accusing the Opposition of “trashing the state of Victoria.”

Labor MP Tim Richardson criticised opposition tactics as extraordinary, saying their characterization of Victoria as “the hate state” was outrageous and “an attack on Victorians”.

He argued the opposition was focusing on procedural motions as a distraction and that meaningful hate crime protections had already been presented via anti-vilification laws, which the opposition had not supported.

The government questioned the practicalities and necessity of the proposed blanket ban and registration system, citing advice from the police commissioner and the need for proper consultation about public safety laws.