From Reclaim the Net
Premier Jacinta Allan announced on Sunday that her government will hand the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal the power to issue “demasking orders,” forcing social media companies to reveal the identity of anonymous users accused of online vilification.
VCAT is the body Victorians deal with over rental bonds, planning permits, and faulty dishwashers. It is now being asked the question of who gets to speak without their legal name attached to it.
The government’s announcement gives the reform four short paragraphs. “Too many Victorians are being vilified online by anonymous users hiding behind a screen,” it reads, before adding that the change “delivers on the Premier’s commitment to hold social media companies to account for online hate.”
Allan was blunter on X. “We’re introducing nation-leading laws to keep AI and tech companies accountable, protect our kids & unmask anonymous online hate,” she wrote.
Nation-leading is accurate, at least. No other Australian state lets a tribunal order a platform to name an account holder in a vilification case, and the Victorian government is treating that as a selling point rather than a warning.
Victoria already rewrote its vilification law. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-Vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025 repealed the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and moved the offenses into the Crimes Act and the Equal Opportunity Act. Serious vilification by incitement now carries up to three years in prison, and vilification by threat up to five. Those provisions apply to conduct from 20 September 2025.
On 15 April 2026, a new harm-based protection commenced, which means a complainant no longer has to show that anyone was incited to do anything. Harm is enough, and harm is assessed after the fact by people who were not there.
The criminal penalties arrived first, the lowered civil standard second, and now the power to attach a name to whoever said it. Each piece was announced on its own, and the government has never presented them as one package.
Allan first floated a crackdown on anonymous accounts after the Bondi attack. That was the pitch then, and terrorism is not what a demasking order will be used for.
VCAT does not prosecute terrorists. It will be processing complaints about posts on race, religion, and sexual orientation, brought by people who were offended by them.
The government’s own language gives it away. A demasking order forces a platform to reveal the identity of anonymous users “accused of online vilification.” Not found liable. Not adjudicated. Accused.
Anyone who has ever run an anonymous account knows what that changes. Once a name is out, it stays out. The order cannot be recalled, the employer cannot unlearn it, and the person who filed the complaint does not need to win anything for the exposure to be permanent. The remedy arrives before the finding does.
That asymmetry is where the chilling effect on speech is relevant.
A Victorian who wants to criticize a religious institution, or a religious practice, or a government policy on immigration, now has to price in the possibility that a tribunal will tell the world who they are. Most people will not run that risk. They will write something softer, or nothing at all, and no order will ever be issued against them, because the threat did the work on its own.
Allan is also scrapping the legal threshold families must clear to sue social media and AI companies for negligence, causing psychiatric harm to a child.
At present, a family has to prove permanent impairment of 10 percent or more, a figure assessed by medical practitioners. For claims brought on behalf of minors, that requirement goes.
“Social media and AI companies design their platforms to be addictive, and our kids are paying the price,” Allan said. “If a platform hurts a child, families should be able to take that company to court.”
Australia already bars children from the platforms in question through its minimum-age requirements. The government is promising to protect kids from services that those kids are not supposed to be using, and nobody at the announcement appears to have asked how those two policies fit together.
Near the end of the press release is this sentence. “Whether the reform should extend beyond children to adults will be considered as the law is drafted.”
The child-protection framing carried the announcement, and the question of who the law actually covers gets settled later, in drafting, without another press conference.
Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny described the point of the demasking power directly. “These reforms will help victims of online hate find out who’s really behind the keyboard,” she said.
Minister for Mental Health Ingrid Stitt framed it as a health measure. “We’re taking action, because no one should have their mental health impacted by senseless online hate,” she said.
Victoria goes to an election in November. Parliament has four sitting weeks left. Allan says the laws are being drafted and that both reforms will go through targeted consultation with VCAT, the courts, and other stakeholders before anything reaches the chamber.
Announced on a Sunday, four months out from an election, with the scope of who it covers left to the drafters. The government will keep calling it protection. What it is proposing is a process for finding out who said something the state has decided is hate, run by the tribunal that handles rental disputes, triggered by a complaint rather than a verdict.