Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026

Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading Debate
27 August 2026

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

I rise to make a contribution on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026 and confirm that Legalise Cannabis Victoria (LCV) will be supporting the bill. The bill implements recommendations from the 2025 Victorian multicultural review Rebuilding Trust for a Multicultural Victoria and aims to modernise engagement with our diverse migrant and refugee communities.

The reforms mark the most significant restructure of the state’s multicultural affairs framework in decades, abolishing the Victorian Multicultural Commission and replacing it with a new statutory body, Multicultural Victoria.

According to the 2021 census data, Victoria is home to some 300 distinct ethnicities, and there are more than 140 different faiths followed and more than 290 languages and dialects spoken in this state. I am privileged to represent the Western Metropolitan Region, like other members of this chamber, and I am really proud that it is one of the most multicultural regions in Australia.

I am really proud that the most multicultural community in this country is Point Cook, followed in second place by Werribee, which is home to members of this chamber. There is within those communities a richness and there is within those communities a desire not simply to represent the interests of their community but to build a better and a stronger Australia.

While we are standing here talking about creating a new structure to democratically represent those communities, to advocate for those communities, to work for the good of those communities, I am just gobsmacked – my apologies. I am actually really having difficulty coming to grips with what has just been said, because the organisations that represent those communities are in and of themselves incredibly politically diverse. None of those communities are homogenous politically. There is a diversity of views about everything you would like to point to. And to have that reduced to a pyramid scheme, a criminal entity – for goodness sake.

Moira Deeming interjected.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

Yes, I know you said what you said, Mrs Deeming. I am just gobsmacked that you could be so incredibly racist as to say it. This is a place for freedom of speech, but this is not a place for vilification. This is not a place to take cheap shots. I do not know whether Mrs Deeming is making a late run for One Nation preselection and she is going for the right of the party –

A member: They won’t have her.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

Funny that – or whether, if she is going to run this ‘Anything that is multicultural is’ –

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan Region):

On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Ettershank is reflecting on another member, and I ask that he bring his comments back to the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT:

Mr Ettershank, it is best not to reflect on someone else in the chamber. I ask you to continue on the bill.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

I will no longer reflect upon the personal traits of a member. I think, however, we are a chamber of review and of debate, so perhaps we can mention some of the thoughts that were shared in this chamber only a few minutes ago and still be within the spirit of our being here and being paid. I think hopefully that would be in your comfort zone.

In the context of having a bill before us to strengthen the representation of multicultural communities, it is, to my mind, startling to have a proposition put that it is made up of pyramid schemes and that somehow because we seek to create a society that is unique on this planet – this is Australia, this is a multicultural country. I do not want to know about monoculturalism.

In that context it is, to me, deeply depressing for people to get up and say that to try and build, strengthen and enrich our multicultural society is somehow racist. That is so un-Australian, that is so unegalitarian, and it is below the standards that should apply in this chamber or in this debate. I will leave it there, and I will just move back to my speech now, if I may.

Over 49 per cent of Victorians either were born overseas or have a parent born overseas. More than 41 per cent of Victorians reported having both parents born overseas. The proportion of those Victorians hailing from primarily non-English-speaking countries is a staggering 77 per cent, which is the highest percentage of any Australian jurisdiction. Over 27 per cent of Victorians speak a language other than English at home.

The Victorian Multicultural Commission was a groundbreaking initiative when it formed in 1983 under the Cain government. In place of assimilation, it adopted active multiculturalism in government policy. What a stark contrast to what we have just heard. The VMC was effectively a bridge between Victoria’s multicultural communities and the government.

However, in recent times, as Victoria has faced increasing challenges around social cohesion, these communities have been left largely unheard. There was a general sense that the VMC had lost its way and was failing to appropriately respond to the rising ignorance and intolerance in our community, as we have just seen.

The government commissioned a multicultural review, seeking recommendations on how government could better respond to current challenges and position Victoria to address future social cohesion issues and crises more effectively.

The independent panel, which was headed by George Lekakis, conducted targeted public consultations across Victoria and received more than 150 submissions to the review. It heard evidence of how government has really dropped the ball and failed our multicultural communities in the last 10 years. They have not enjoyed some sort of illusory financial nirvana, which seemed to be being suggested.

Those consultations as part of the review process revealed the enormous distress being experienced by our multicultural communities, particularly in the wake of the COVID pandemic.

Stakeholders believed the commission was becoming more and more politicised, was ineffective in dealing with increasingly complex social cohesion issues and was removed from the communities that it sought to represent.

Many organisations felt the government’s engagement with them was merely transactional and not at all consultative. It was evidenced that the Victorian Multicultural Commission was no longer fit for purpose, and a complete overhaul of the state’s approach to multiculturalism was required. So it is good to see this bill finally coming to the house. The response from stakeholders that I have spoken to has been overwhelmingly positive.

The principles recognising that multicultural and multifaith communities are diverse and that individuals within them hold intersecting and diverse identities are very positive, as is the recognition that inclusion relies on interaction, shared belonging and mutual respect, not just coexistence.

It is also pleasing to see language services recognised as an essential service for multicultural communities and the requirement that certain public sector entities should prioritise acquiring interpreting and translating services from the Victorian Interpreting and Translating Service LanguageLoop.

This is a welcome inclusion for a workforce that has been increasingly subject to insecure, casual and contracting arrangements, with limited protection for workers, most of whom are migrant women who provide translating and interpreting services across a range of settings, including Victoria’s courts, hospitals and public services.

I understand that there is a proposal from Mr Limbrick to eliminate that preference for LanguageLoop, and I just want to note that whilst there are a lot of really, really wonderful people who work in translation in Victoria, it is, for want of a better term, an industrial swamp.

Overwhelmingly, the women who do that work, who are highly qualified, generally NAATI-accredited, either work on an independent contractor basis for crumbs or work in profoundly casualised employment, with no appropriate EBA coverage or regulation.

I welcome the government stepping up and saying that this is an area where as a multicultural society – as such a multicultural society – we should have secure employment and we should have clearly controlled professional standards via that service.

So I thank the government for taking that initiative and indicate that we will be supporting the bill and its inclusion and we will be opposing any amendments to remove it. The reforms in the bill will basically allow LanguageLoop to provide affordable services, and it is a workforce that has been neglected for decades, so let us change that.

There are some missed opportunities in this bill. It would have provided an excellent opportunity to support and align the work of the new statutory body with the Victorian anti-racism strategy and to reference anti-racism work explicitly as part of its functions. I think that is a very disappointing omission from the bill before us.

Stakeholders have raised concerns around aspects of the legislation, which I will address in the committee stage. I think the opposition are moving an amendment to disallow the appointment of a member of Parliament, a councillor, a ministerial officer or a parliamentary adviser to the role of multicultural coordinator or deputy coordinator within 12 months of holding their previous position, which we support.

The government is to be commended for implementing the majority of the review’s recommendations, including a requirement for a whole-of-government approach to Victoria’s multicultural strategy. Our multicultural and multifaith communities should be represented across all government entities, including this one.

Parliament, of all places, should be reflective of the whole of our community. We are here, after all, to represent all of the Victorian people. As I noted earlier, whilst Christianity may be the most common faith in Victoria, 54 per cent of Victorians – more than half of all Victorians – follow one of more than 140 faiths different to Christianity.

Despite a commitment made in 2021 by the then Attorney-General Minister Symes that:

‘A Labor government, if re-elected, at the beginning of the next term and as part of the consideration of changes to standing and sessional orders will commit to workshopping a replacement model that is purpose-fit for Victoria … ‘

it is disappointing that we are all still stuck in the dated and highly inappropriate tradition of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each sitting week. It is so bleedingly obvious that Victoria has changed since the Lord’s Prayer was introduced into the parliamentary rituals.

A member: 1857, actually.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

Thank you. History moves on. It did not just stop in 1853, at a time when 100 per cent of those eligible to vote in this state were white Christian male property owners. Building social cohesion involves recognising the cultural diversity that exists in this state, and it should be first and foremost recognised in this Parliament, in this chamber.

Parliament should be a model of inclusivity, and yet the Lord’s Prayer effectively excludes all of those other faiths. Inclusivity is an ongoing exercise. Removing the Lord’s Prayer from parliamentary proceedings would be a strong signal to the more than 54 per cent of Victorians who do not identify as Christians that they belong here too and that this is their house of Parliament as much as the next person’s.

Let us get rid of it and replace it with a minute of silence. During this time members can silently recite whatever prayer best represents their faith, or they can reflect on their responsibility as a member of Parliament – surely a ritual no less sacred – so that, combined, we can have a tradition that truly is reflective of all Victorians.

I just want to finish with a quote from Mrs Deeming, who said that ‘A house divided cannot stand.’ That is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I reckon he would be rolling in his grave if he knew the lengths that that term was being extended to in the context of this debate.

Perhaps it could be argued that the abolition of slavery was racist because those people were born to be slaves. Is that where that logic takes us? I mean, if every multicultural organisation in the state is a pyramid scheme, I do not suppose it is any more ridiculous.

I want to suggest that this is a good bill that deserves support, because it reinforces multiculturalism – at a time when immigration, personal rights and egalitarianism are under attack. We have angry folks, with good questions but no answers, from One Nation.

We are seeing crowds being frothed up and made upset because they are not so narrow-minded as some would aspire. This bill provides a basis for refreshing multiculturalism in Victoria. Legalise Cannabis Victoria welcomes it and will be supporting it.

[Council divided on Bill]

[Bill passed 34 votes to 3]