Thursday, 12 September 2024

Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:36): In rising to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 it reminds me of the old Dolly Parton song Here You Come Again, because this is the third time that this government has sought to try and get right an unlawful association set of laws. The government tried in 2015. I quote from the media release from the then Attorney-General Martin Pakula, ‘Tougher laws to stop bikie gangs in their tracks’. It sounds very impressive, doesn’t it? It says:

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are the target of new consorting laws to be introduced in Parliament this week which will give Victoria Police stronger powers to target criminal networks.

It goes on to say:

These laws will help to ensure that Victoria does not become an attractive target for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs seeking to avoid new laws introduced interstate.

And then a quote from the then Attorney:

These anti-consorting reforms give police the powers they need to disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs.

…

These new laws will ensure our state is well-prepared to deal with the forms of organised crime facing us in 2015. We will find them out, stop them in their tracks and keep Victorians safe.

Oh, the testosterone dripping off those quotes! It is just extraordinary from the then Attorney-General. I am sure he puffed out his chest as he was writing that as well.

So the laws passed the Parliament. Three years passed, and then we got another press release, from the same Attorney-General no less, Mr Pakula, ‘Strengthening laws to disrupt criminal gangs’, this one dated 24 July 2018. It says:

The Andrews Labor Government is giving police the powers they need …

There is that phrase again: ‘Give police the powers they need’. I thought they did that three years ago. Anyway, it says:

The Andrews Labor Government is giving police the powers they need to disrupt serious and organised crime in Victoria through new laws introduced into Parliament today …

…

These laws were developed in consultation with Victoria Police, and are designed to help police prevent serious offending by outlaw motorcycle gangs, organised crime families and small numbers of violent young people.

The quote from the Attorney at the time was:

We’re strengthening these laws to give police the powers and resources they need to disrupt serious organised crime and keep the community safe.

That was in 2018. The first set of laws were introduced in 2015, then 2018. And then when we get to the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, which is before the house now, and you refer to the second-reading speech for this bill, it says:

The scheme has not been used since it commenced in 2016.

That is how effective this government has been. This is how effective these laws have been. This is the second-reading speech:

The scheme has not been used since it commenced in 2016.

What an absolute farce. What a farce that this government has had 10 years in office, two goes at trying to get these laws right, and the scheme has not been used one single time. As for the government’s claims or hopes, when these laws were first introduced the government claimed, as I said, that:

These laws will help to ensure that Victoria does not become an attractive target for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs seeking to avoid new laws introduced interstate.

Talk about missing the boat. Other states have cracked down on outlaw motorcycle gangs. Victoria has failed to do it. We have become the Switzerland of the country when it comes to being neutral territory where outlaw bikies feel safe to operate. They are safe to operate because they are safe, because we have ineffective laws written by an ineffective government that has failed to do anything for the last nine years. That is why we are where we are today. We have become Disneyland for bikies. That is what Victoria has become under Labor: Disneyland for bikies. And it is Victorians who are paying the price, because they are not just bikies riding around, going to pubs, making themselves feel tough – these are serious drug traffickers, drug peddlers, drug manufacturers. They are organised criminals. It is Victorians – innocent Victorians, ordinary Victorians – who are feeling the pain because of the crime that is being undertaken by these outlaw motorcycle gangs, and this government has sat by and sat on its hands for nine years and put ineffective law after ineffective law after ineffective law through this Parliament and done nothing. We get the same rhetoric: ‘We will give the police the powers they need.’ Clearly they have not, because the scheme has not been used one time, not once in nine years.

Police say they do not have the numbers they need. Forty-three police stations have closed this year alone, including my station in Malvern. It used to be 24 hours a day; now it is open 8 hours a day. Fortunately the crooks in Malvern, according to the government, only work business hours, so it does not matter. It does not matter if you need someone after hours, according to the government. They have not been giving police the powers they need. They have not been giving police the resources they need. They cannot even keep the cop shops open; 43 of them across Victoria have been shut down overnight across the state. But here we are with another attempt, and we get the same rhetoric: ‘We are giving the police the powers they need, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ That is all we get from this government. Why should we actually have any confidence that the government is going to get this right this time when they have got it so abysmally wrong the last two times? This government should be embarrassed, embarrassed about the fact that for nine years you have had two sets of laws and they have never been used one single time. So as I said, and as Dolly Parton said, here you come again. We will see if this one works, if this one actually strikes a blow against outlaw motorcycle gangs.

There are five aspects to the bill before the house today. The first is to make changes to the unlawful association scheme in part 5A of the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. It also provides for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to have oversight functions, and I will come to that shortly. The bill seeks to replace the scheme for making declarations and control orders with a scheme for making serious crime prevention orders. The bill seeks to prohibit the public display of the insignia of certain organisations. The bill also seeks to prohibit adult members of certain organisations from entering certain areas at Victorian government worksites.

Let us go through these issues in turn. In terms of unlawful association, I have already discussed how appallingly bad the government’s past attempts at having workable UA schemes have been, so this is the government’s next go. They are lowering the threshold in terms of committing an unlawful association offence. At the moment there needs to be associating three times within three months or six times within a 12-month period. This bill reduces that threshold to one occasion only. The bill redefines the term ‘associate with’ to clarify that an accidental meeting or communication will not be an association for the purpose of these provisions. The bill provides for a number of exemptions from the unlawful association scheme. For example, there is an emergency services volunteering exemption, there is a welfare services access exemption and there is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practices and obligations exemption.

Some of those, I think, do make some sense. We do not want to discourage people from accessing health or welfare services that they need because of the danger they may meet somebody in doing so with whom they are required to not associate. I do not know that the Mongols or the Bandidos are likely to join the CFA or the SES en masse and create their own little branches for the purposes of trying to get around these laws, but the exemptions seem to be drafted in such a way as to avoid them being used or abused because they do not apply where there is an ulterior purpose.

The bill sets out what is an applicable offence and raises the maximum penalty threshold. It used to be an offence punishable by five years if it was an applicable offence. Now it is punishable by at least 10 ‍years imprisonment, so it narrows the scope for the use of these powers. This is an interesting thing about what the government has done in this bill. While it has lowered the threshold for the unlawful association scheme to make it easier, presumably, to pick up people that it wants to pick up and target people that it wants to target, it has also expanded exemptions and it has expanded other aspects, so it is putting the brake and the accelerator on at the same time. That is what the government is doing with this bill in relation to the unlawful association scheme that it is now proposing to bring into place.

Clause 16 removes the requirement that an applicable offence was tried on indictment. That clarifies that if it is an indictable offence tried summarily or a conviction under a guilty plea, that should still enliven the power to be able to issue a notice. I am grateful to the Law Institute of Victoria for their detailed feedback on the bill. They have made a number of comments to me and expressed concern about some of the narrowing of thresholds in the bill, and that was one of them. But in circumstances where somebody has pleaded guilty to an offence, the fact that it has not been tried in the sense of having gone to a contested trial I do not think is a reason why that change in definition should not be supportable.

Clause 31 lowers the threshold for when an unlawful association notice may be issued. It changes from ‘reasonably believes’ to ‘believes on reasonable grounds’. Perhaps it might just assist those reading Hansard or those watching to understand how this unlawful association notice scheme is going to work. This is how it will now work. A notice may be issued to an individual who is 18 years old or older if a senior police officer – I just stop at that point to note the senior police officer will now have to be at the rank of inspector or above; previously I think it was senior sergeant – (1) believes on reasonable grounds that the individual has on at least one occasion associated with an eligible offender, (2) is satisfied on reasonable grounds that preventing those individuals from associating with each other is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network and thereby to prevent or inhibit criminal activity and (3) is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the issue of the notice is appropriate in all the circumstances. That is effectively the test that will apply for a police officer to be able to issue an unlawful association notice. The bill also reduces the time for which an unlawful association notice remains in effect. It used to be three years; it is now down to two years unless revoked earlier.

We will see if the government has got it right this time. You will understand a little bit of scepticism on my part given the government has had two cracks over the past nine years and utterly failed to come up with a workable set of unlawful association laws. But it is important that we crack down on bikie gangs, it is important that we crack down on organised crime, so I hope the government has got it right this time. I do not wish the government any ill will, because it is in Victoria’s interest for the government to get this right. Whether they have or not only time will tell, which is why we do need a proper review of these provisions, and I will come to that in my contribution.

Moving from the unlawful association notice aspect of the bill, the bill also seeks to expand oversight by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission of Victoria Police’s use of the powers conferred by the bill and by the underlying act. Now, I do not have a problem with expanding the oversight by IBAC, but I am very concerned. When I asked the government what additional resources would be provided to IBAC to enable them to undertake this work, the answer was, ‘Well, that’ll be dealt with in the normal course of the budget.’ Now, we know from the former Commissioner of IBAC Robert Redlich – and I quote him because I do not think anybody has heard anything from the current Commissioner Ms Elliott. She has done a very passable impression of Marcel Marceau as IBAC Commissioner. She has failed to give any press conferences as far as I am aware –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think it is entirely inappropriate for a member of this place to reflect on an officer of the independent corruption commission.

Michael O’BRIEN: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, where is the standing order? There is nothing sub judice here.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN: It is nothing I have not said before, Minister. I want to hear from the IBAC Commissioner. The IBAC Commissioner needs to be having a leadership role, including for the public. Corruption does not just flourish in darkness, it also flourishes in silence. We need to hear from the new IBAC Commissioner. So I am quoting the former IBAC Commissioner because the current IBAC Commissioner is not on the record. That is why I have to quote the former IBAC Commissioner. He said –

Colin Brooks interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: You can say it is outrageous as much as you like, Minister. What is outrageous is the IBAC Commissioner not actually fronting up and telling the public what they are doing. I think that is pretty outrageous.

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: I think Operation Watts indicated that the IBAC has a lot more to do with the Labor Party than it has ever had to do with the Liberal Party, Minister.

I am quoting the then IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich, who said:

The net result … is that with IBAC’s resources, we can investigate approximately 2 per cent of the complaints concerning police matters that come to us, and have to refer back to Victoria Police the balance, which in a given year may be as many as 1400 investigations.

That is quoted in the Herald Sun on 30 October 2022. So 98 per cent of the matters referred to IBAC regarding police misconduct cannot be investigated by IBAC because of the resources that this government refuses to provide IBAC. If only 2 per cent of complaints relating to police misconduct can be investigated, it is not a very satisfactory system.

This government is now loading more obligations onto IBAC without any guarantee that there will be the resources there to help them follow through to meet those new obligations it is imposing on IBAC. This just goes to a long process of this government cutting IBAC’s powers and cutting IBAC’s funding, keeping it on a short leash. That is what this government has done with IBAC. They have reduced the powers, they have reduced the funding and they have kept it on a short leash. They have raised the threshold to make it harder for IBAC to have public examinations – and why would that be, I wonder? How many times was the former premier Mr Andrews quizzed by IBAC? It was all done in private of course, because this government changed the rules, changed the laws, to make it harder for IBAC to have public examinations. So I am very concerned that this government in this bill is simply loading more and more obligations onto IBAC without any guarantee of the resources necessary to enable IBAC to discharge those new responsibilities. If the government wants to give commitments in this place on what it is going to do to make sure that IBAC is getting those resources that it needs, then I would welcome hearing them, and I suspect IBAC would as well.

Part 3 of the bill replaces declarations and control orders with serious crime prevention orders. Under this change the Chief Commissioner of Police may apply to the County Court – previously it was the Supreme Court – for a serious crime prevention order, an SCPO. This must be in writing and must state the identity of the individual and the grounds on which the order is sought. The person proposed to be subject to the order must be notified of it and will therefore have the opportunity to be heard before any order is determined. That is, I think, very important. Given the extraordinary breadth and expanse of the conditions that can be imposed through an SCPO, I think it would be absolutely unjust for an SCPO to be determined in the absence of hearing from the person to whom it is proposed to be applied. I think the provisions there to require that notice be given to the proposed subject of the order so they have an opportunity to be heard either, obviously, through themselves or through counsel is appropriate.

There is a civil test to making of an SCPO – it is the balance of probabilities. It is not necessarily the same sort of safeguard that you would get if it was regarded as a criminal matter. This is one of these interesting legal intersections where it is dealing with potential criminal matters. I mean, the hint is in the name: serious crime prevention order. Generally criminal matters in our legal system are dealt with on the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, but in relation to these orders the test is on the balance of probabilities. It is very interesting that notwithstanding it is dealing with criminal matters, it is actually using a lower threshold to be able to obtain them.

An SCPO can last for up to five years and can be renewed, but renewal must be made before the previous order ceases to have effect. The Chief Commissioner of Police can apply to the courts to have an order varied or revoked, but the person subject to them can only apply to have the order varied or revoked either with the consent of the Chief Commissioner of Police, which I imagine would not be happening all that often, or with the leave of the court. In order for the court to give leave, the court must be satisfied there has been a substantial change in circumstances. They are quite onerous provisions in many ways. The deck is stacked, to some extent, against the applicant, because they do not get the same liberty to apply to the court to have an order reviewed or varied as does the Chief Commissioner of Police.

What is interesting is the types of conditions that may be imposed under a serious crime prevention order. They are very broad, and they are very sweeping. They are far more in many ways, I would say, than the sort of bail conditions you might get. Bail matters come up when somebody has been charged with a crime. An SCPO can apply in circumstances where nobody has been charged with a crime, yet the conditions that can be applied to them go far beyond what a court could do in relation to bail. Examples of the types of conditions that may be imposed under a serious crime prevention order include prohibiting the respondent from associating with a specified individual or individuals of specified class, prohibiting the respondent leaving Victoria or Australia, prohibiting the respondent from entering a specified place, prohibiting the respondent from possessing or using firearms or other weapons, prohibiting the respondent from possessing more than a specified amount of cash, prohibiting the respondent from using specified telecommunications devices, prohibiting the respondent from engaging in specified business activities, prohibiting the respondent from using an alias, and requiring the respondent to notify Victoria Police before or after doing a specified thing. These are extraordinarily broad conditions that a court is empowered under this bill to impose on somebody subject to a serious crime prevention order, and there are very significant penalties for breaching those conditions.

It is an indictable offence for an individual who knows or is reckless to the fact that they are subject to order and who breaches a condition of the order. The penalty is 600 penalty units or imprisonment for five years or both, so there are very significant penalties involved with these orders. While I note that it is a matter for police to apply for such an order and it is a matter for a court to decide whether or not an order is appropriate and what conditions might be appropriate, this is certainly a very significant change to the way in which these orders operate, and there does need to be I think appropriate oversight to make sure that these sorts of orders are not abused, because they are extraordinarily intrusive.

Do we object to these powers in the context of tackling organised crime? No, we do not, but with any exceptional powers there must be accountability for them, there must be responsibility for them. We are dealing with a bill in the other place about what happens when Victoria Police abuses its powers, when Victoria Police gets it wrong, as it badly did with Lawyer X. Using criminal lawyers to inform on, to rat on, their own clients was always going to end in tears and was always something which was completely wrong, unethical and illegal, as the High Court said.

I have massive respect for Victoria Police, and I particularly want to place on record while I have the opportunity my thanks to those Victoria Police men and women on the front line yesterday. What they had to put up with no police officer, nobody, should have to put up with. The sort of outrageous attacks by the absolute thugs who were disgracing themselves and this city yesterday at the Land Forces protests was beyond belief. I would just like to thank Victoria Police members for their bravery in doing what they did to try and keep this city safe and to allow people to go about their lawful business. Having said that, we do need checks and balances on any police powers because that is appropriate. Because this is subject to judicial oversight through the court, I think that is where we will see some sunshine coming in, and that will provide an opportunity for those powers to be appropriately regulated.

Moving to the next part of the bill, part 4, ‘Insignia of certain organisations’, there is a new term, ‘part ‍5B organisation’, which means an organisation prescribed under regulations. It is interesting that the government is not putting these organisations in the statute. It wants to reserve to itself the flexibility to name certain organisations via regulation, and I understand that. There is one type of insignia, though, which is in the bill, which is I think to become an act, which is the mark ‘1%’ or ‘1%er’. This is quite well known as being an insignia that has been adopted by outlaw motorcycle groups. They regard themselves as being outside the law, unlike 99 per cent of the public; that is why they use the terms ‘1%’ and ‘1%er’. That term is in the bill as effectively a prohibited mark or a mark which is regarded as the insignia of certain prescribed organisations.

Clause 93 inserts a new section into the act which creates the offence of publicly displaying the insignia of a part 5B organisation. This is largely modelled on the work that was done by this Parliament in terms of legislation to ban the public display of the Nazi swastika. This is something which I was very pleased was done on a bipartisan basis and something which the member for Caulfield and I many years ago proposed. We are very pleased that the government took it up at the time and that on a bipartisan basis we were able to get that legislation through the Parliament, because there is no place for Nazis in Victoria and this should not be a state where people of that ilk feel comfortable displaying their symbols and seeking to recruit or otherwise. The same approach is being applied in relation to outlaw motorcycle gangs. The government has not stated explicitly that it is outlaw motorcycle gangs that will be these part 5B organisations, although that is certainly the intent from all understanding.

The government also, through part 5C, seeks to exclude certain organisations from Victorian government worksites. They will not necessarily be the part 5B organisations, they will be part 5C organisations. There may be a difference between the part 5B and the part 5C organisations, but I would certainly imagine that both of them are likely to include our well-known motorcycle gangs.

What does concern me to some extent is that the government has not done enough with the review provisions, given its failures in the past, so under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Michael O’BRIEN: The amendments are very simple. They just clarify that after three years of operation of these new provisions there shall be a review and that that review should be completed within six months. Given the history of this government’s failures with two previous attempts to get unlawful association amendments right, we need to have a proper review. The bill does provide for a review, but the way it is drafted, it could be up to five years, and that is way too long.

As I said, Victoria has become Disneyland for bikies. We have become the Switzerland of the south for outlaw motorcycle gangs because this government failed in 2015 and then failed in 2018 to get the law right. I do wish the government well. This is a job that is too important to fail, so we will not be opposing the bill, but we hope the government has got it right this time.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:06): We know that the scourge of serious and organised crime has a significant and detrimental impact on community safety in Victoria. And why have I led with that statement? Because it shows the absolute imperative for the reforms that are being brought through with this particular legislation today, and when you look at the actual dollar figure, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology serious and organised crime costs Australians up to $60 billion each year. That is $60 billion that could be going to better the lives of the Australian community instead of, as has been discussed in the chamber, trafficking drugs and firearms and the other very drastic and dangerous activities that can be associated with such activity.

I do just want to pick on one point about IBAC’s funding before I go into the rest of the various elements of the bill. IBAC’s base funding this year is $63.6 million, an increase of $1.4 million from last year’s budget. This increase is the latest of 10 sequential increases that we have made to IBAC’s budget every single year since we came into government in 2014. If we look back to IBAC’s budget in 2014–15, they received a total of $31.5 million back then, so this year’s outcome means they have more than double the funding they did back then. Furthermore, in the 2022–23 budget, informed by a base review of IBAC’s operations, the government provided IBAC with $32.1 million in funding over four years and $8.6 million ongoing to provide it with sustainable base funding into the future. As a result, IBAC is fully funded to carry out its functions, and I think that is relevant because of course IBAC is providing some of the protections that are necessary to be supported with the reforms coming through with this bill. The other thing I will just say as an aside is that I think inherently when you break down the wording of IBAC, ‘independent’ is in that, and also the IBAC Commissioner is an independent officer of the Parliament. As such we should allow the IBAC Commissioner to do their role independently – just a passing comment.

If we look at how the bill operates, the bill will amend the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012, and I am just going to go into an overview of the key elements, to (1) strengthen the existing unlawful association powers in part 5A of the act and, importantly, as has been noted, provide for oversight of the scheme by IBAC; (2) provide a new scheme for the making of serious crime prevention orders in Victoria, enabling the court to impose conditions restricting the activities of a person subject to the order in place of the existing declaration and control order scheme; (3) prohibit the public display of designated insignia or gang colours in Victoria – I should say that there are a number of caveats that have already been in some part referred to as well, importantly and validly – and (4) create a new offence prohibiting members of declared organised crime groups from entering government worksites.

First of all, I would like to proceed to the strengthening of the existing unlawful association scheme. Government has heard directly from Victoria Police that the existing unlawful association scheme is operationally unworkable in its current form, so to ensure that Victoria Police has the tools it needs to tackle the scourge of serious and organised crime, the bill proposes to reduce the threshold for issuing a notice. Currently a senior sergeant or above can issue a notice if the officer reasonably believes that prohibiting the association is likely to prevent the commission of an offence. This is an incredibly high threshold.. The reform lowers this threshold such that the officer now must be reasonably satisfied that issuing the notice is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network and is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Further, the threshold for contravening an unlawful association notice has also been reduced. Currently a recipient of a notice commits an offence if they associate with a person named – and I will say this has been referred to, but just for clarity – in a notice on three or more occasions in a three-month period or on six or more occasions in a 12-month period and, as has been noted, the bill reduces this to one occasion of association which may constitute an offence. Importantly of course exceptions will apply. Associations, for instance, with family members are not prohibited by the scheme. Nor will a person be accused of contravening an order (1) during the provision of welfare services, (2) in the course of emergency services volunteering or in the course of an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander engaging in or performing a cultural practice or obligation. We can see that those exceptions have a sound purpose and therefore are appropriate under the circumstances. Additionally, those under 18 will not be subject to the scheme, nor to any of the reforms, given we have other more appropriate vehicles and avenues to address youth offending. These reforms seek to address serious and organised crime.

The bill also creates, as I referred to at the outset, an oversight role for IBAC, who will monitor and report on the operation of the scheme to ensure it is being used appropriately. I did refer to the appropriate resourcing of IBAC and the necessity to allow the independent officer of the Parliament – that is, the IBAC Commissioner – to do their job. I do not think it is really appropriate to be slagging them off in Parliament. I think that is rather inappropriate and unprofessional, but I am just saying –

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: I am just saying, just putting it out there, that I think keeping that distance, that independence, is a good idea. Secondly, introducing –

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, you know, that’s right.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Member for Albert Park, through the Chair.

Nina TAYLOR: Sorry, it was getting a bit rowdy there. Introducing a new serious crime prevention order is another element of this bill. The bill will introduce a new serious crime prevention order scheme to be overseen by the courts. An SCPO is a court order that prevents and inhibits the involvement of individuals in serious criminal activity. It does so by restricting activities of adults involved at the most serious end of organised crime, so under these circumstances in no way are we resiling from the serious nature of the offences that have led to these important reforms to curtail future involvement in serious criminal activity. The SCPO scheme will allow the Chief Commissioner of Police to apply to a court to impose a broad range of conditions on someone who has participated in serious criminal activity or is likely to help another person who is engaging in serious criminal behaviour.

Fundamentally the SCPO scheme has been designed to restrict the activities of organised crime group leaders. An SCPO might include prohibiting that person from, for instance, leaving Victoria or possessing firearms or certain amounts of cash. Before making the order the court must be satisfied that an individual is an eligible offender for the purposes of the bill who has been involved in serious criminal activity, and it is important to emphasise those elements because obviously there have to be appropriate elements met before you impose restrictions on a person’s liberty. The court must also be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that compliance with conditions imposed by an order would protect the public by preventing or inhibiting an individual’s involvement in serious criminal activity and that imposing conditions is otherwise appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court must specify the period during which the order will remain in effect up to a maximum of five years. An order may be revoked, varied or renewed. Contravening a condition of the SCPO is an indictable offence punishable by a fine of up to 600 penalty units. Currently it is, to be precise, $118,554, imprisonment of five years or both. A person contravenes a condition imposed under an order if the person knows an order they are subject to is in effect or is reckless to that fact and acts inconsistently with the condition imposed.

Importantly, the bill provides for mutual recognition and enforcement of corresponding orders made under similar schemes in other Australian jurisdictions, because we know organised crime is not necessarily isolated to one state or another and of course there can be criminal activity that is crossing borders et cetera. The court can register a corresponding interstate order on application by Victoria Police with any variations, enabling it to have effect in Victoria. This will prevent a person to whom an interstate order applies from moving to Victoria and avoiding restrictions they would otherwise be subjected to. On that note, in the 4 seconds available, I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (11:16): I am pleased to rise on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, and I do thank the member for Malvern, who is sitting at the table, for his lead and in-depth look at the amendments through this bill. The amendments to the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 are to make changes to the unlawful association scheme in part 5A of the act and provide for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to have oversight functions in relation to the unlawful association scheme – we are talking about infiltration of bikie gangs and so forth into our workforces – and to replace the scheme for making declarations and controls with a scheme for making serious crime prevention orders. So the amendments here are trying to stamp out the most serious crime that we have actually heard about a lot in the last three to four weeks.

The bill prohibits the public display of an insignia of certain organisations and prohibits adult members of certain organisations from entering certain areas at Victorian government worksites. As I said before, the issues have been highlighted in all media and also highlighted here in the chamber that we have had on the Big Build sites throughout metropolitan Melbourne. I think that we would be kidding ourselves if we did not think it has filtered out through the state and into other areas around regional Victoria – not at the same levels, but I am sure those tentacles are out there and are reaching into our local areas of work. We need to make sure that we are doing all that we can to make sure that there is a list of rules that we do need to follow and, when these are breached, there are avenues for our workers to be able to take and make sure that they have a process they can follow.

I note that in 2012 the then coalition government introduced the Criminal Organisations Control Act ‍2012 in a bid to better tackle organised crime in Victoria. This act has been amended a number of times since then, including in 2015 by the Labor government to include the unlawful association scheme, with further amendments to these provisions made in 2018. The second-reading speech for the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 does concede that the scheme has not been used since this was commenced in 2016. So either there has been no activity that has needed to be done or, I think more to the point, it is not as wide reaching as it could be. It is great that we can make amendments to make sure that the bill that we do put in place has its purpose and its role to play when we need to invoke it to make sure that (1) our worksites are kept safe and (2) we are keeping organised gangs and criminals out of our workforce, especially on our Big Build and other associated projects around the state.

There have been many media articles over the years highlighting the deficiency in Labor’s law and their failure to provide police with any practicable means to tackle unlawful associations within criminal organisations, notably the outlaw motorcycle gangs. We do not have to look too far back; it has been going on for a very, very long time. But as I said, it has been really highlighted within the last month just how deep and how organised these gangs are to be able to infiltrate our workforce. They do rip a lot of money out, at the end of the day, of our big builds. We need to make sure that when we discover these particular things going on we can activate these laws to make sure that we can stamp them out, and that is what this is all about.

Reviews of the previous amendments, not released by the government, were reported to call for significant changes to make the laws useful. It is one thing to have laws, but it is another thing to have laws that we can actually use and that are able to make a difference to our worksites across the state. These are significant changes that we need to make to stamp out the corruption that does go on. We need to make sure that we can pass them through here and get them into place as quickly as we can. But at the end of the day we need to make sure that the police or IBAC are able to go in there and do their job and have all the levers that they need to be able to pull to stamp out this corruption and this rorting of the system.

We see an uptick of crime not only on our job sites but right around Victoria and especially in regional Victoria. Down in the Latrobe Valley we are not immune to it. We have had our fair share of tobacco shops that have been targeted. A lot of that has been put down to the bikie gangs coming down and having their part in the burning down and the thuggery that goes on and the standover tactics. It does go on right around regional Victoria. We need to make sure that in this bill we are not only catering for the job sites but also catering for all the stuff that does go around in regional Victoria, one being the standover tactics that these particular individuals or these particular gangs love to use to try and make sure that things go their way. We do have that.

Unfortunately our crime rate on the streets is also going up. You have only got to walk down the street in any town in any suburb of Melbourne or in any city around regional Victoria to see the behaviour of not only our youth but also other participants in our community that do the wrong thing. It actually seems that the police do not have the levers to pull to make the arrests – or they do, but on the flip side these particular individuals go through the court system and are back out on the street. The youth crime is an uptick right across Victoria, and we are no less sheltered from it down in regional Victoria in the Latrobe Valley. It does not matter what town you are in in the Latrobe Valley, whether it be Moe, whether it be Morwell, whether it be Traralgon, Churchill or Glengarry; they do not care where they are or what they do. When there are easy targets – people leaving their roller doors up at their house – these young offenders are walking in on mothers or fathers with young families, or it might be elderly, aged parents that have forgotten to make sure they have locked their house up. They walk in, they grab the keys and the next thing is that their cars are stolen or the motorbike is out of the shed. It is even down to stealing kids’ pushbikes and so forth.

Right across the board it is an issue. I know in my local community our shopping centres are a hub – the buses pull up outside the shopping centres and it is just a hive of activity for both young and old people to be antisocial in some aspects, which we do not like and do not want across any of our municipalities in Victoria, but there needs to be a level of us pushing back to make sure our streets are safe. At the end of the day we would like to be able to walk down the street and not have to engage with thugs that are wandering around, running rampant through our shopping centres. With this bill we are strengthening the laws around the Big Build by allowing IBAC to have further presence there, but having the right presence – being able to pull levers that they need to make sure they can stamp out the bikie gangs. I thank the member for Malvern, and I support the sensible amendments he has put up so we can make sure that the checks and balances are being done and keep Victoria safe.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (11:26): I also rise to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. In commencing my remarks, I have been listening to the duration of the debate and heard the member for Malvern’s opening salvo, in which he had a few rhetorical flourishes, one of which was to suggest that Victoria is the Switzerland of the south. To the extent that that can only be interpreted as an allusion to money laundering and those related issues, if that is the case, that is solely and exclusively as a consequence of the federal Liberal government’s abject failure to progress anti-money-laundering reforms through its nine dismal years of government. Who, I hear you asking, was the Assistant Treasurer who should have been doing his job and who failed to do so? It was the member the Deakin. If indeed Australia is the Switzerland of the south, let us look no further than your party colleague the member for Deakin and salute him for his failure to do anything regarding anti-money laundering legislation for nine long years. Come in, spinner.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I simply ask the member to direct his comments through the Chair.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Greenvale to continue through the Chair.

Iwan WALTERS: But these things matter because failure to progress things like anti-money-laundering legislation led the Financial Action Task Force to come very close to listing Australia as a member of the grey list, which would have placed us alongside the financial paragons of Haiti, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela and so many others of their ilk, which is why it is important that our federal colleagues are at the moment pushing through – or may have just enacted – substantive reforms to end those rivers of illegal dodgy cash that were flowing into Australia’s casinos, residential property, commercial property and agricultural property that were so well exposed by members of the press through investigative journalism and then exposed by Senator Deb O’Neill and others in the opposition in the Senate through the most recent terms of opposition that Labor had in Canberra. That is how these were exposed, not because of any consequence of the inaction of the federal Liberal government between 2013 and 2022.

Turning to the substantive parts of this bill, however, it is of course part of the government’s broader work to acquit our commitment to tackle organised crime, which was set out before my time in this place through the Community Safety Statement 2018–19. The member for Albert Park talked extensively about how the bill also complements earlier work by the government relating to recently passed legislation, including the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024, which strengthened Victoria’s unexplained wealth scheme, and the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022.

This bill is important because it addresses the serious and deleterious impact of organised crime in Victoria. Across the country the most recent estimates that I have to hand from 2020–21 indicate that serious and organised crime cost the country more broadly $60.1 billion, including direct and consequential costs arising from organised crime activity and costs associated with prevention. I think more broadly than that there is a profoundly corrosive effect on institutions, on community cohesion and on social capital that stems from the activities that constitute serious and organised crime, and it results in the breakdown of trust in those institutions. We see that in other parts of the world where judiciaries and faith in institutions have become compromised as a consequence of their capture by organised crime – in certain Lain American countries, for example, which are alleged to have become narcostates as a consequence of the failure of institutions to withstand the consequences of serious and organised crime.

I do think it is incumbent on parliamentarians in this place, including the member for Malvern, to think very carefully before impugning the reputations of independent law enforcement officers like the independent commissioner at IBAC. I will not delve any further into those comments, but I think is important that we are mindful of the contributions we make in this place and the trust that Victorians have the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission as well as other arms of the judiciary.

This bill will operate by strengthening the existing unlawful association powers in part 5A of the act, provide oversight for the scheme by IBAC, as I just suggested, and make a range of other reforms and measures that the member for Albert Park has already set out, so will not retread those. These reforms are needed because the impact of serious and organised crime and of bikie activity is real. It is not abstract. There is real harm in communities that I represent and that members around this place represent. The member for Berwick has talked extensively, as indeed have other members, about the cost of attacks on tobacconists and small businesses. That is the same in my electorate as it is in others. This bill seeks to disrupt that activity, disrupt the serious and organised crime in Victoria that is underpinning those attacks, by both strengthening existing criminal organisation laws and preventing the involvement of criminal groups in public construction.

We know that the scourge of serious and organised crime has a serious and detrimental impact on community safety in Victoria. I have alluded to some of those financial costs but also the broader social costs. For bringing this bill to this place I do thank the minister and the Attorney-General and their teams, who have considered and weighed very carefully the balance that needs to be struck in ensuring community safety, which I think is the paramount objective of a state government or any government indeed, while also ensuring that measures do not unduly trespass upon the freedoms of association and the liberties that are a cornerstone of a liberal democracy.

In a sense that calibration of individual freedoms and community safety is somewhat analogous to the response to the atrocities that occurred 23 years ago yesterday in Washington DC and New York City. I do not in any way equate those actions with those of serious and organised crime in Victoria, but to an extent the response to those terrorist atrocities represented in a sense a fundamental competition of rights with which governments of all stripes perpetually grapple to on the one hand ensure that there are serious deterrents and serious consequences for those who sought to undermine the fabric of our community, the freedoms of our community, the things that make democracy special, the things that I think by our very nature of seeking election to this place we believe in, while at the same time ensuring the community is protected.

As I touched upon in my matter of public importance contribution yesterday, democracies are in a sense inherently vulnerable because of the freedoms that are innate to them, whether that is authoritarian parties seeking to use the ballot box as a means to power and totalitarianism or whether it is criminal organisations seeking to weaponise the freedoms that we believe in to protect themselves at the expense of the broader community. To a certain extent we saw that yesterday on the streets of Victoria as well and in the absurd commentary from the member for Richmond seeking to cloak herself in the veil of freedom while simultaneously slamming others for seeking to uphold the right and to protect the community.

The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research has provided extensive literature that emphasises the threat to security stemming from organised crime and its effect in hindering democratic processes as well as undermining social capital, which matters because social capital shapes key governance outcomes and the delivery of public goods. It is an important dimension of what makes our community special. So if people are intimidated by the actions of outlaw motorcycle groups and those who seek to sport particular insignia, to intimidate, to harass, to stop others from living free and thriving lives and to stop businesses operating legitimately, that has a corrosive impact upon all of us. It adds to the costs of doing business and it adds to the costs for Victorians who are seeking to purchase something or to build something. These deleterious costs are not invisible, they are felt by every Victorian. That is why it is so important that the government has brought this bill to the house to strike a very considered and careful balance between ensuring community safety and upholding the confidence of Victorians in institutions and in the economic framework that is critical to the distribution of services and resources, while at the same time ensuring that the community is safe and ensuring that those who seek to exploit our freedoms cannot do so in an untrammelled way.

It is important because it is felt by all of us, and the institutions of our democracy are imperative to ensuring the continued success of our entire jurisdiction. So I commend the bill to the house. I thank those for their contributions today, and I think it is a very important bill that strikes that balance between community safety and our freedoms.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (11:36): I rise to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. Obviously with this bill we will be referring back a lot to Victoria Police. I just want to put on record again today my support for the work Victoria Police are doing right now protecting Victorians and protecting people’s right of path to go to legitimate organisations and to go about their duties as well and also for those members who I know are on the front line as we speak. Yesterday we saw some of the behaviour that was terrible, which we do not like to see at any time here in Victoria. But those members go out there knowing that they are going to be putting themselves in danger. It was not something that was new; everyone expected it. But I think that from what I have seen, the planning from the police management all the way through was exceptional for yesterday, and hopefully it will continue through to the next few days. We wish them a safe few days for it.

Today I am speaking on a piece of legislation that I know the member for Malvern has gone into a lot of detail about, and the reason we can go into a lot of detail about it is because this is the third tranche of the same attempt by this government to make changes here in Victoria. It goes back to 31 August 2015, which I will refer to in a minute. One of the things I think is one of the biggest concerns we have seen since 2015 up until today is that when this was introduced it was to stop bikie gangs in their tracks. We were going to effectively make Victoria a place where bikie gangs cannot reside, cannot operate, cannot deal drugs, cannot be involved in crimes et cetera. So the whole goal was around removing the rights of a lot of these bikie clubs down here. We know it failed, and if you want a really good example of how we can see this legislation has failed, not only are they trying to sell drugs in Victoria or commit crimes or get involved in corruption, they now effectively run the building sites for the Victorian government. You have now got these bikie gangs that they were originally trying to ban on 31 August 2015 who are effectively in control of the unions and the union sites here across our state, including the Big Build projects that this government is operating.

I find it interesting when we hear members from the other side get up and continue to say, ‘We’re tough on this and we’re going to be stopping this.’ They have effectively been in government since 1999 and overseen this change where the bikies have taken over all of this. I note they laugh, but they laugh because of the fact that they know people like their best friend John Setka, working with people like Mick Gatto, effectively run our sites here in Victoria. They effectively run the building sites. The reason people out in communities cannot afford a home is because these organisations have effectively taken over. They have put so much pressure with corruption here in our state that that corruption itself is actually causing some of the biggest cost blowouts here in our state. So if we go back to when the former Attorney-General originally tried to introduce this, he specifically said:

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are the target –

Dylan Wight interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Is there a point of order?

Brad BATTIN: No, I am just – if you would like to keep going –

Dylan Wight interjected.

Brad BATTIN: It is funny. When it is the Liberals, you are more than happy to call us out. I would like to go on that side if you would like?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): It is not an opportunity to make a reflection on the Chair. If the member wants to –

Brad BATTIN: I would not need to if you had called out the member on the other side for his interjections. Anyway, outlaw motorcycle gangs –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is inappropriate for a member of this place to reflect on Chairs, including Acting Chairs, and you have warned the member about doing that. He did it again. If he does it again, Acting Speaker, I would submit to you that you should invite the Speaker to come and take the chair and deal with the member who is on his feet.

Brad BATTIN: On the point of order, Acting Speaker – thank you very much, Minister – it is totally inappropriate for anyone on the other side to interject and for the Chair to fail to actually call them out for that. Those are the rules of the house, and if you would like to bring the Speaker in for that, I am more than happy to have that as the result.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I would ask again that the member – and any member on their feet – not make reflections on the Chair, whether that is the Speaker or any Acting Speaker, and I ask all members to show decorum and respect the member who is on their feet at the time.

Brad BATTIN: I refer to ‘Tougher laws to stop bikie gangs in their tracks’ before they got onto the building sites here in Victoria from Monday 31 August 2015:

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are the target of new consorting laws to be introduced in Parliament this week which will give Victoria Police stronger powers to target criminal networks.

Since that date in 2015, nearly 10 years ago, all we have seen is an increase in the number of bikie gangs here in this state. All we have seen is a continuous increase of the influence they have on projects that the state government are trying to deliver across Victoria, and the one thing that comes to mind is that over that period of time it is not like all of Australia has been having this issue; it tends to be an issue that happens here in Victoria. Other governments have gone through processes to bring in legislation to ban bikies of all persuasions. We had the Labor Party up in Queensland, who went through this process and successfully, effectively, ruled out bikie gangs as being able to stay within the state of Queensland. So where did they go? They came down to a state where they knew the laws were weaker, where they could get away with it.

At the time we were told these laws would ensure that Victoria did not become an attractive target for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs seeking to avoid new laws introduced interstate, whereas we did actually see that the outcome of that was we did become an attractive place for the bikie gangs to relocate to. Victoria became the home for many of these bikie gangs for their management, so they could come down here and operate, and now we are seeing the outcome of having so many of these organised crime gangs here in Victoria, which is that they are not only on the building sites; we are continuing to see the issue now with the tobacco wars. In the tobacco wars we have seen nearly 100 ‍places being burnt, firebombed, by people in organised crime because they know that is where the money is and they have got a government that has effectively let them get away with it for so long.

What we need to do is ensure that any law that comes into this place is going to be delivered, and if it is not, it should not be taking 10 years before we make changes to ensure that we can stop this kind of behaviour here in our state. All of these crimes that come in with organised crime groups continuously put Victoria Police at risk. When police members are getting called out to firebombings because of organised crime gangs, it is putting them at risk. It puts our firefighters at risk. It puts the communities at risk, because these people do not care about the consequences of their actions.

It is not just in metropolitan Melbourne. It is Bendigo, it is Ballarat, it is all over the state where we are seeing these firebombings happening and organised crime – many times working with young people and offering them money as well – putting cars and petrol bombs inside these stores. And it is not just impacting the store that is hit, it is impacting the stores around it. It impacts on the local community. I was up in Bendigo and saw one of the stores that was done. I went down the next day. What it meant was not just theirs but a strip of shops along there had to remain closed. They stayed closed for about two days during that investigation. And the police have to go through the process there to try and ensure that they can identify these people and get them off the streets. But it means those businesses are impacted. Those lives are impacted. We all know that small businesses are generally the centre of a lot of our communities – they are sponsors or supporters of our local sports clubs, they maintain the community cohesion and they also obviously have a lot of employment within our local communities, which is just so important – so when these businesses are shut the impact is terrible.

These laws should be in place to ensure that that does not happen again. As the member for Malvern said also, these laws are an attempt at again ‘Strengthening laws to disrupt criminal gangs’, as stated on Tuesday 24 July 2018, when it was stated:

The Andrews Labor Government is giving police the powers they need to disrupt serious and organised crime in Victoria through new laws introduced into Parliament today …

Effectively that was a rewrite of the original release in 2015, and now there is a new release in 2024. What we have seen is a government that continues to put media releases out, but the action does not follow because the legislation is not tight enough, does not have the restrictions it needs and does not deliver what it is supposed to. This is one of the biggest concerns.

I note the government continuously say they work with Victoria Police on this. Victoria Police originally were very, very supportive of the laws that were up in Queensland, because they knew they worked, they knew they could be implemented here and they knew the outcomes would have seen what they saw in Queensland with those changes. But this government decided to go down a different path, and the outcome of that is Victorians are less safe because of organised crime here in our state. We are the only state that is going through an issue with firebombings on such a large scale. We are the only state that had bikies effectively running the union that the government has had to take over, the CFMEU, which was running our building sites here in Victoria, particularly government sites.

The opposition is not opposed to the bill. We have got an amendment from the member for Malvern, and obviously I will be supporting that amendment. We look forward to hopefully that amendment getting up, and then we will see where it goes from there, but we cannot trust Labor when it comes to organised crime here in Victoria.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (11:46): I rise to contribute to the great debate on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. I am sure the member for Sunbury would have given as great a contribution, but we will give it a crack. Clearly this is very important. It is recognising around the clock the great work of Victoria Police and what they do in risking their lives every single day to protect Victorians. Targeting criminal organisations is only one part of their job, but they do a fantastic job keeping us all safe. We can make it easier for them to prevent crime and target organised criminal involvement through the amendments being discussed today, and I am pleased that the opposition are supportive of this bill.

I just want to commend VicPol. I know members before me in their contributions have raised what happened yesterday down at the convention centre and the ridiculous protest. Everyone has a right to peaceful protest, but that yesterday was nowhere near a peaceful protest. Clearly it was organised to create havoc down there and target the police. I commend the police for their actions. It was a ridiculous protest. It did not serve the purpose of what the protestors were trying to do. People have a right to continue a peaceful protest, but not actions like they did yesterday. I send all the police members our best wishes, and for the ones that were injured yesterday, I hope they have a quick recovery.

This bill, through these amendments, will ultimately make Victoria safer and strengthen Victoria’s response to organised crime by amending the unlawful association provisions and introducing the serious crime prevention orders alongside the banning of the public display of designated insignia. This bill will target organised crime and criminal involvement on Victorian worksites. The amendments that are being discussed in this debate will modify the existing unlawful association powers of the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. The bill provides for an oversight of the scheme by IBAC and for a new mechanism for making serious crime prevention orders. It prevents the public display of designated insignia, and it will create a new offence outlawing declared groups from entering government worksites.

The bill aims to prevent and disrupt serious and organised crime in Victoria, and I am sure all of us here and our communities out there in our electorates want that to occur. We recognise that all people have a right to feel safe in their workplaces and to go about their days without the fear that these organised crime groups instil with their intimidation and harassment of community members and business owners. Some may argue that these amendments are too broad, but legislation needs to be adaptable and have the ability to evolve over time to be most effective and fit for purpose, and these modifications will also enable effective independent safeguards to be held by IBAC in their oversight of the scheme.

The Allan Labor government is dedicated to preventing and disrupting serious and organised crime in Victoria by implementing a series of reforms aimed at enhancing the state’s response to organised crime. These reforms are a part of the Community Safety Statement 2018–19, and this bill will complement other legislation recently passed, which has expanded powers around cybercrime, cryptocurrency seizures and electronic and specialist search powers.

We understand that legislation needs to adapt and react to changes in the criminal environment to keep Victorians safe. We all know that organised criminals are always looking for different avenues to operate, control, intimidate, harass and harm, so as we introduce laws, organised criminals are evolving and looking at different pathways to commit their crimes. Serious crime organisations are becoming increasingly sophisticated in regard to how they act and the tactics that they use in targeting Victorians – vulnerable Victorians and vulnerable businesses – and that is why we need to recognise the changes and evolve our legislation to combat the avenues that organised crime play with.

It has been raised before – I think the member for Greenvale raised it – the cost of organised crime right across our country. It is just over $60 billion across the country on an annual basis, and that is just direct losses through their criminal activity. Of course then we have to have preventive law enforcement, whether that be increasing numbers in the police force, changing the laws, implementing that or funding IBAC to do the job that they need to do to oversee what happens with these laws and organised crime, so it is a big cost. We know that part of that $60 billion could be better spent in each one of our electorates, and I know it would go a long way to assist my electorate in building more schools, investing in health care and supporting vital community services. If we could reduce that cost of $60 billion annually across the country and that money could go back to our communities, we would all be better off, and that is why a crackdown on organised crime is so important.

Serious and organised crime groups are harming the livelihoods of hardworking Victorians. These groups spread fear and hostility, ruthlessly targeting small tobacco businesses, blowing them up like barbarians with no regard for the families and individuals behind these businesses whose lives they are choosing to destroy. Melton has not been spared from the barbaric actions of these criminals. Melton’s famous High Street, home to Morgan’s IGA Stone Bar and Grill and Augustus Gelatery, just to name a few businesses, is usually a vibrant hub filled with shoppers, bustling businesses and people enjoying a coffee or a meal from diverse cuisines. There was a recent attack in High Street. Of course the business operators and owners have been very shaken, and so have the local members of our community. A tobacco shop on High Street was hit by a petrol bomb, and that has kept crowds away, instilling fear and anxiety among business owners. It has left a big black hole in a once prominent section of High Street in Melton, and it has impacted the florist near the site and the Stone Bar and Grill restaurant, where many families choose to enjoy a meal and the hospitality.

I spoke to a local business owner, Harwinder, just recently. His shop is next door to the tobacco shop that was targeted. Harwinder’s business has suffered extensive damage, and he is still waiting for his electricity to be restored. It has severely impacted his ability to make a living, and he indicated to me that he is seriously considering shutting his business down. Without electricity it is very difficult. People do not even know that his business is still open. It is in an area which people do not want to frequent, because of what occurred in regard to the firebombing of the tobacco store next door.

Around the corner from my office about 18 months ago a new tobacco shop was to open; I think it was Christmas 2022. Just before it was about to open it was petrol-bombed, causing significant damage. Now that business has shutters that come down at night to try to protect that business. We see the effects of those actions of criminal organisations targeting these local businesses and causing them difficulty in trying to make a living, trying to stay safe and trying to keep our community members safe. That is just the effect in some of my area of Melton.

This is a really important bill. I thank the Attorney-General, the police minister and their staff for all the work they have done on this bill and for trying to introduce this legislation to enhance the legislation in support of the safety of Victorians, in support of business operators and to drive organised crime out of business. Organised crime is one business that we should shut down. I support this bill, and I commend it to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (11:56): I rise to make my contribution on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 and specifically to speak on part 5 of this bill, which seeks to exclude members of certain organisations from Victorian government worksites. It was only a month ago that we in the Liberals and Nationals opposition sought to introduce the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024, which sought to achieve exactly the same objects as part 5 of this bill. Labor member after Labor member on that side stood up and sought to ridicule us for putting forward that bill. They stood up on that side of the chamber deriding us for seeking to introduce a bill that would inject integrity into Labor government worksites. We had the member for Frankston accusing us of trying to be media influencers and accusing us of engaging in a flagrant waste of time in seeking to debate our proposal. We were then accused by the member for Bentleigh of engaging in a ‘stunt’, with him saying that the government did not need our assistance or intervention to deal with this matter. Those remarks have not aged well, have they? Clearly this tired Labor government needs all the assistance that it can get.

Section 1 of our government projects integrity bill sought to prevent people who were members of prescribed organisations such as outlaw bikie gangs from working on state government projects. Given the criticisms that we were subjected to from Labor members when we sought to introduce our bill not so long ago, I was very surprised to read part 5 of Labor’s bill that is before us today. Clause 95 of this bill provides that the purposes section of the principal act will be amended to prohibit adult members of certain organisations from entering into Victorian government worksites. They say plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, and we see that here in clause 95 of the bill. It really replicates exactly the same purpose that was in our Liberals and Nationals government projects integrity bill that we proposed not very long ago. That is just another example of our coalition setting the agenda and this tired Labor government playing catch-up. The Allan Labor government is very late to the party and has adopted the coalition’s policy, finally, of keeping people with criminal links and members of outlaw bikie gangs off Victorian government construction sites.

It is now known, according to reports in the Australian just over the weekend, that at least 15 CFMEU delegates who were working on Victorian construction sites were either members of or had close links to outlaw motorcycle gangs just prior to the administrator taking control of the CFMEU. The fact that this was even allowed to occur under the watch of the Labor government is an absolute and utter disgrace. Is it any wonder that the ‘bad build’ project funded by this Labor government is years behind schedule and billions and billions and billions over budget?

The amendments made by part 5 of this bill and new part 5C are well overdue. Not only has this Labor government been embarrassed in adopting the Liberals and Nationals policy on this issue, it has also been exposed as failing to listen to and heed the warnings of Victoria Police for almost a decade. It was interesting to read the Minister for Police’s second-reading speech where he said these amendments were introduced to respond to the allegations raised in the media about criminal activity on Victorian construction sites. Well, back in September 2015, almost a decade ago, Victoria Police submitted a report to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That report contained many of the allegations of criminal activity which were again repeated recently in the media. This report from back in 2015 proves not only that these allegations are nothing new but that Premier Allan and this Labor government were aware of these issues 10 years ago and did nothing about them. They have known about this for 10 years. I would dare say more, but they have definitely known about this for 10 years, because the 2015 Victoria Police submission, that report, at page 7 under the heading ‘Misuse of position or power by union officers and officials’ states that the unlawful activities on construction sites included unlawful entry by union officials.

This is history repeating itself. We saw this unlawful entry occur not once but twice last week. We saw John Setka running amok on Labor’s government building projects, stopping work and telling workers about his broken secret deals with Labor, with the Labor Party, to stop an administrator being appointed. After the Premier first said she would not comment on John Setka’s entry, she then subsequently said that John Setka had acted unlawfully and referred it to police. We had the farcical situation after that of Victoria Police telling us there was nothing to investigate. The chaos that occurred on Labor’s Big Build projects last week simply confirms what we already know and what we have known for a very long time: that this tired Labor government has lost control, total and utter control, of these infrastructure projects and the CFMEU is continuing to call all the shots. Not only is this government unable to control who enters its building sites, putting at risk the health and safety of other workers; there is absolutely no legal consequence or penalty for these actions, as confirmed by Victoria Police.

That is why, as was recommended by the Cole royal commission 20 years ago, there needs to be an independent regulator with strong enforcement powers to hold all participants in the construction industry to account. Now, the Victoria Police report back in 2015 that I spoke of went on to find that building companies were being forced to employ people as shop stewards, employers were forced to make donations to support union election campaigns by means of intimidation, companies were forced to pay union dues for their employees and there was a misuse of union funds by union officials. This was all happening and publicly reported 10 years ago, but the Labor government in power refused to do anything about it. The 2015 report went on to say, quoting directly from page 7 of the report:

Victoria Police investigations into public order misconduct and misuse of position or power by union officers and officials have identified that these activities involve not just trade union officials and trade unions, but organised crime figures and groups conducting criminal activities on behalf of trade union officials, most specifically in the building and construction industry. In particular Victoria Police has identified Outlaw Motor Cycle Gang (OMCG) members being used by union officials as ‘hired muscle’ for debt collection, with ‘standover’ tactics used to intimidate victims.

Victoria Police intelligence has identified a number of known members of OMCGs such as the Rebels MC, the Comancheros MC and the Bandidos MC, being members of trade unions, participating in industrial activities such as strikes and picket lines, or engaged in ‘debt collecting’.

This 2015 Victoria Police report, which this Labor government knew about 10 years ago, warned that bikie gangs with criminal links had infiltrated the building and construction industry in Victoria, yet they did nothing to stop it back then. They are pulling the wool over Victorians’ eyes by saying that they are all of a sudden going to do something about it. That is why this bill is so long overdue. We know that they have attempted this a couple of times, and hopefully this time it is going to work. When I read the police report I was concerned to know which minister was responsible at the time, in 2015, when this Victoria Police report was made public. Surely any minister responsible for the employment of workers on construction sites would have taken decisive action to tear this rotten culture out by its roots. Well, do you know who the Minister for Employment was in 2015? The Minister for Employment was Jacinta Allan, the now Premier. Also, do you know what the minister then, the Minister for Employment, Jacinta Allan, had to say about the 2015 Victoria Police report that I have spoken of? Minister Allan at the time said:

We obviously take seriously the views that are expressed by Victoria Police and take on board their issues. We have ongoing conversations across a range of different areas with Victoria Police and this would fall into that category …

If the now Premier was true to her word that she took seriously the views of Victoria Police, then she would have done something about it back in 2015. Instead, she worked hard to enable this bad behaviour, this rotten culture on major infrastructure projects. She has enabled a situation where Victorian taxpayers are paying three times the price for works just to appease their CFMEU mates, the CFMEU bosses and bikie gangs. This bill is well overdue, but based on past performance Victorians have every right to doubt that this rotten culture that plagues Victoria’s construction sites will change under this tired Labor government.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (12:06): I am pleased to have the opportunity on this Thursday afternoon to contribute to debate on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. We of course remain committed to both our community safety statement and all of the work that is being done in working closely with the wonderful team at Victoria Police, knowing that each and every day, no matter the weather, no matter the hour, our hardworking police officers are out patrolling our front line and often putting themselves in harm’s way to keep the community safe. We take this opportunity to thank every member of Victoria Police and their families for the services that they provide to our state, and we are proud to have, since coming to government, invested more than $4.5 billion in Victoria Police to deliver the modern world-class policing services that they deserve, whether that be in provisions for officers, whether that be the more than 3600 additional police officers that this government has provided or whether that be making sure that the technology and the equipment that they use – and that of course changes and evolves with time – are provided as well.

Before I go to some of the changes that are contained within the legislation before the house this afternoon, I do want to again put on record my thanks to the local police officers that serve in my electorate and across the north-west. I acknowledge certainly over the last couple of days the immense challenges and pressures that the police force and emergency services more broadly have faced and call out the shameful, disgraceful, disgusting, despicable behaviour that we have seen over these past couple of days and put on record the actions of the Greens political party. Frankly, we see them time and time again go out to the community and say one thing and come into this place and say another, and they are immensely disappointing when it comes to looking towards those elements which create community harmony and the opportunity to bring people together. We just do not see that. Each of us have a responsibility, a role within our local communities as members of Parliament, working across a number of different agencies, to make sure that people are supported and that our community is safe, and what we have seen has not been that. I know that we on this side of the house will make sure that we are always working with our local emergency services and providing those resources and the responsible decisions that are required to tackle these complex issues. Certainly the Premier was on record last night and has been on multiple occasions over the journey of this year making sure that we are providing leadership in this space.

We know that the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill, as others have said this afternoon, aims to prevent and disrupt serious and organised crime in Victoria by delivering a tranche of reforms aimed at strengthening Victoria’s response to organised crime. The bill, as has been mentioned by others, is also part of the broader work to acquit the government’s commitment to tackle organised crime, as set out in the Community Safety Statement 2018–19, and to complement the work of the recently passed Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024, which we know strengthened the unexplained wealth scheme, and the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which expanded powers around cybercrime, cryptocurrency seizures and electronic and specialist search powers.

The bill aims to strengthen the existing unlawful association powers in part 5A of the Criminal Organisations Control Act and provide for oversight of the scheme by IBAC. It also provides a new scheme for making a serious crime prevention order in Victoria to replace the existing declaration and control order scheme and prohibits the public display of designated insignia and gang colours in Victoria. Finally, it creates a new offence prohibiting members of a declared organisation crime group from entering government worksites. We know through the journey of this legislation and of course the community safety statement that we need to ensure the best possible provisions both within the investment that I spoke about earlier and also within the ways to detect and track organised crime, which like just about everything in our community and society evolves and changes. We need to make sure that we are modernising and updating both the provisions and the powers within the framework that Victoria Police and other agencies are able to use and operate within, and that is why this piece of legislation is important.

In the 4 minutes that I have remaining I want to turn to the changes to the act. The reforms that are in the bill effectively are fourfold: strengthening the existing unlawful association scheme to make it easier for Victoria Police to both issue and enforce unlawful association notices; introducing a new serious crime prevention order scheme to replace the existing declaration and control order scheme; prohibiting, as I said earlier, the public display of designated insignia or gang colours in Victoria; and creating offences to prohibit members of declared organised crime groups from entering or accessing worksites.

We know that, as I mentioned earlier, the work that is being done is ongoing. It is incredibly important. When you meet with local police within your community and other emergency services, you know just how hard our men and women of VicPol work. We also know that organised crime in many ways is an elaborate outfit, an elaborate operation, and having all of those powers and all of those resources in place to be able to tackle organised crime is incredibly important, because through any of these crimes, through any of these acts, we on this side of the house – and I am sure all members share the same view – understand that those that are harmed in our community by this need to be supported and protected, and the tentacles of organised crime run deep. The work that is done to detect and track organised crime and ensure that arrests are made is something that is incredibly important in terms of that harm prevention. Those carry-on effects – all of the damage, if you like, that is caused by organised crime within our community – are something that we need to do everything that we can to prevent.

The values were set out in the statement some time ago in the 2018–19 provision. I remember being in this place at the time when the community safety statement was delivered and the work that was done by both the Minister for Police and the Premier at the time, which is of course now carried on through this piece of legislation. The budget commitments that have been made that I alluded to earlier and the huge upgrades that we have seen – the over $4 billion that has been invested and more than 3500 additional police – are things that we will continue to focus on, and we will make sure that that work is ongoing and that we send a really important, serious and powerful message to the community: that people as they go about their daily lives, no matter what their work, no matter who they are or where they are, are entitled to feel safe and secure and to be supported as a family. Making sure that we are doing everything we can to protect people and their families from many of the harms that I spoke about earlier is of course a key responsibility of any government, as is understanding that that work needs to continue.

Finally, I again say a huge thankyou to those people who serve and protect our community, those people who put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of others. That is something that we as a government are very, very grateful for. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (12:16): I rise today to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. In essence there are four major changes that are coming: (1) changes to the unlawful association scheme in part 5A of the act and provision for IBAC to have oversight functions in relation to the unlawful association scheme, (2) the replacement of the scheme for making declarations and control orders with a scheme for making serious crime prevention orders, (3) the prohibition of the public display of insignia of certain organisations and, finally, (4) the prohibition of adult members of certain organisations from entering certain areas at Victorian government worksites.

A bit of history before we get into the substance of this debate: it was in 2012 that the Liberals and Nationals when in government introduced the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 to strengthen efforts against organised crime here in Victoria. Since then the act has undergone multiple amendments, including a 2015 Labor government led revision that introduced the unlawful association scheme, with further updates to these provisions in 2018. On the bill we have today, government reviews of the earlier amendments conducted in 2019 and 2022 but not publicly released reportedly called for substantial changes to make the laws more practical. Despite this, no action was taken until the introduction of this bill, with this bill marking the third attempt by this Labor government to establish a workable unlawful association scheme. While this third attempt by the Labor government lowers some thresholds to take action under the unlawful association scheme, it also raises others. Whether this version will work is anybody’s guess.

It is one thing for Labor to provide IBAC with more powers to oversee Victoria Police’s expanded powers under an unlawful association scheme, but there is no guarantee that budget funding will follow. IBAC is already underfunded. As mentioned by the then IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich, with IBAC’s current resources they can only investigate approximately 2 per cent of complaints concerning police matters that come to them and they have to refer back to Victoria Police the balance. It is therefore indeed a concern that no dollar figure has been put on any additional resources for IBAC dedicated to this additional oversight function. Under this Labor government and the former Andrews government and their record of corruption and secrecy and indeed their mismanagement of the budget as well, is it really a surprise that IBAC is underfunded by the government? I can tell you this Allan Labor government is too busy hopping into bed with seedy underworld figures and the Sons of Anarchy to fund IBAC.

This brings me to another change brought about by this bill with the banning of the public display of the insignia of certain organisations. This is too little too late and has often been brought about because the government has been totally exposed for enabling bikies and criminals to infiltrate Victorian taxpayer funded major projects. Under this Labor government, reports of misconduct, intimidation, rorts, standover tactics and thuggish behaviour on Big Build sites have become commonplace, yet the Labor government has continuously failed to take appropriate action despite multiple warnings. Since 2016 Victoria Police have known of construction unions using outlaw bikie gangs as hired muscle in industrial disputes. This Labor government should be ashamed of itself. Victorians deserve better than a Labor government beholden to a militant union.

Really this Labor government should be putting the onus on builders to make sure they are not engaging with anyone with criminal associations in the procurement stage rather than just banning them from sites. In response to the shocking allegations of criminality and bikie infiltration across major projects, the Victorian Liberals and Nationals introduced the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024 into Parliament. This bill would have prevented bikies and known organisations from gaining employment on Victorian major construction projects. It would have begun at the procurement stage so that when contracts were being led there was an obligation on builders at the time and after that time. Of course in typical Labor government fashion they rejected this attempt to bring this bill, playing politics. If the Labor government cannot be trusted to keep people like John Setka off Big Build sites, how can it be trusted to get this legislation right?

Furthermore, whether the proposed powers to ban members of certain prescribed organisations from Victorian government worksites will work in practice is debatable. Given the Hell’s Angels, Bandidos and others do not usually publish their current membership lists, for the Victorian police to prove that any person is a member of such an organisation is likely to be challenging. Again, the Labor government cannot even keep John Setka off Big Build sites, so it is likely going to struggle when it comes to outlaw motorcycle gangs and their members.

During the second-reading speech of the bill we are debating today the Minister for Police stated that:

The scheme has not been used since it commenced in 2016.

This really is because the legislation that the Labor government introduced had multiple deficiencies, failing to provide police with effective tools to combat unlawful organisations, particularly outlaw motorcycle gangs. The then Shadow Attorney-General and now Leader of the Opposition stated at the time:

… you can’t introduce tougher laws if you’re not going to invest in the police needed to enforce those laws and expect the intended outcome …

Almost a decade after these comments, what do we have today? We have these tough, strongman laws being introduced so the Labor government can show off how seriously they are taking crime. Meanwhile, the Victoria Police are suffering from an ongoing resourcing crisis, with nearly 1000 ‍vacancies and 43 stations, including the Mornington police station, having reduced hours or being closed. Just a few months ago it was revealed that Victoria Police is funding daily operations from more than $100 million in savings gleaned from hundreds of staff vacancies. This money should be used for recruitment efforts, not daily operations and not to cover Labor’s $84 million increase to WorkCover premiums. Yet this Allan Labor government has completely failed to adequately resource Victoria Police, meaning less police on the streets, a harder effort for existing police doing the job, more youths breaking into homes and vehicles, more youths and other people running rampant and terrifying our communities and more violent crimes being committed on our streets.

Indeed last year in December it was reported that the Mornington Peninsula, including my electorate of Mornington, is one of the state’s top five youth crime hotspots. The data for last year states that there have been 75 cars stolen, 45 aggravated burglaries, 26 serious assaults and 10 incidents involving weapons or explosives. Ever since my election I have had multiple concerned constituents and families indeed approach me about spates of crime in the area, which they have never experienced before. I had, for example, Justin contact me recently, a local business owner who had his house broken into on two occasions and had assets stolen worth $35,000. He has lived on the peninsula his entire life and has always felt safe, and now he and his family are scared in their own homes. I have spoken to Stewart, whose neighbours were robbed at knifepoint in their house just a few weeks ago, and Jillian from Mount Eliza, whose property has had three incidents this year alone, the most recent involving intruders just outside her bedroom window. I have had people like Barbara, Paula, Helen, Minh and so many others contact me, all fearful of this crime spree. What does the Labor government have to say to them and the many other scared Victorians? If I were the minister, I would be totally embarrassed. I do note that the Mornington police are doing the best that they can to tackle the increased crime rates; however, it is clear that they are under-resourced and underfunded, with the Mornington police station having had its reception hours reduced from 24 to 16 from Sunday to Wednesday last year. I have also personally spoken to police officers in the local area who have stated that they need more resources and staffing to tackle the increased crime rates.

But I do want to seriously say that the few police that we do have on the peninsula, even though we need more, are doing a fantastic job, particularly in the context of the revolting protests today, yesterday and throughout this week outside the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. So far the levels of violence have been pretty unprecedented for a protest in our city, with dozens being arrested for assaulting police, obstructing police, hindering police, assault, arson, blocking roadways and more. We have even seen acid being thrown at police. This kind of behaviour is nothing short of disgraceful and has no place in Victoria, and it is shameful to have seen the Greens seemingly supportive of these acts of protest as well. The sheer hypocrisy of the protesters using violence while also protesting against violence just goes to show the content of the character of many of these protesters.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:27): I rise today to speak in favour of the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, another important bill that we have here before us this week. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing it forward and for the broader work that is taking place, together with the Minister for Police, to keep our community safe. The Youth Justice Bill 2024, which I had the privilege of making a contribution on last month, is one example of this broader work, delivering tough consequences for repeated and serious offenders and allowing for more early intervention to keep children out of the justice system. So it was positive to see the bill pass Parliament.

Our work to deliver better community safety outcomes continues here today with the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. This is another important bill that will deliver a priority tranche of reforms that aim to strengthen Victoria’s response to organised crime, and this is important because organised crime is having a significant and detrimental impact on community safety here in Victoria. In fact according to the Australian Institute of Criminology serious and organised crime costs Australians up to $60 billion each year. That is $60 billion that could be invested in our community and infrastructure but is instead used in trafficking drugs and firearms and blowing up small businesses and tobacco shops, which ultimately results in a very serious and negative outcome for our community. I would like to take this opportunity also to say something about the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee report. I would like to commend the efforts of PAEC members, including the chair, and the secretariat for the power of work on the investigation into vaping and tobacco use that they just did.

This is another important bill that will deliver priority reform that aims to strengthen Victoria’s response to organised crime, and there are several avenues for this. This will be achieved with various amendments to the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. Firstly, there are modifications to the existing unlawful association power provided by part 5A of the act and there is provision for oversight of the scheme by the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission. Essentially the bill strengthens the existing unlawful association scheme, making it easier for our police force to issue and enforce an unlawful association notice. This is in response to feedback from the police force that the scheme is unworkable in its current form. We can see evidence of that in the fact that the unlawful association scheme has been in operation for over eight years but no unlawful association notice has been issued in that time. This is a practical change that needs to be implemented.

There are several elements to this change. Namely, under the new laws a police officer at or above the rank of senior sergeant may issue a notice to persons prohibiting them from associating with each other. One of the persons must be an ‘eligible offender’, a person who has previously been convicted of an applicable offence. Both the recipient of the notice and the eligible offender are subject to the obligation not to associate. Just to clarify here, firstly in terms of applicable offences, currently an applicable offence includes any offence punishable by at least five years imprisonment and certain other specific criminal offences, such as firearms offences, which are often associated with organised crime. The bill changes the definition to include offences punishable by at least 10 years imprisonment and the equivalent offences against the laws of another state or territory or the Commonwealth. The bill retains and updates the list of other organised crime offences. Further, on what constitutes an eligible offender, the bill replaces the definition of ‘convicted offender’ with a new definition of ‘eligible offender’. This means a person who was convicted of an applicable offence as an adult where the conviction has not become spent under the Spent Convictions Act 2021. It also includes an adult who was convicted of a category A serious youth offence when they were a child if the offence was committed within two years of the issuing of a notice. The bill reduces the duration of a notice from three years to two years to ensure the grounds for issuing a notice are considered afresh within a shorter period.

There is also the introduction of serious crime prevention orders. As the member for Sunbury said, a serious crime prevention order is a court order that prevents and inhibits the involvement of individuals in serious criminal activity. It does so by restricting the activities of adults involved at the most serious end of organised crime to curtail future involvement in serious criminal activity. The types of crimes that we are talking about here are indictable offences punishable by at least 10 years of imprisonment, so very serious offences. Other specified offences that may be associated with serious and organised crime include those in the Control of Weapons Act 1990 for possessing, carrying or using prohibited weapons in a licensed premises without an exemption or approval and the list goes on. In terms of these serious offences, the Chief Commissioner of Police may make an application to the County Court for a serious crime prevention order.

Just in terms of what conditions the court may impose when making a serious crime prevention order, the bill contains a non-exhaustive list of conditions by way of example – for instance, conditions prohibiting the individual from associating with specified individuals, from leaving Victoria or Australia, from possessing or using certain things such as firearms, telecommunications devices, cash or an alias, or from engaging in specified business activity or specified activities in respect to property. There is a broad discretion to impose any conditions the court may consider appropriate.

In short, I would just like to note that the bill also includes changes to implement bans on public displays of insignia of designated organisations, known as gang colours. These are broad and strong changes that I am happy to support here today. They are important and necessary changes that will strengthen Victoria’s response to organised crime and deliver better community safety and outcomes for all Victorians. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing these changes forward, and I commend the bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (12:35): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

I ask that debate be adjourned to discuss an important matter relating to the standing of this house and a culture of violence that it is connected to in the community that we are seeing spilling out onto our streets at the moment, and it is unacceptable. Earlier this day I tried to move a motion that this house acknowledges that the coalition has repeatedly sought to work with the Labor government to ensure that incitement is not tolerated in this chamber and that the Premier has refused to stand up or act. With respect, all of us as Victorians are getting a bit sick and tired of the empty words from the Premier. The Premier thinks it is enough as Premier simply to mouth words of condemnation when we see members of this house, in particular the member for Richmond, engage in activities that not only bring this house into disrepute but also send a very clear and unmistakable message to the community more broadly that violence is okay and that this institution can be degraded by violent antics, abusive antics and the culture of violence that the activities of the member for Richmond cannot fail but to foster.

We need to do something about it. We have repeatedly warned the Premier and the Leader of the House in this chamber that they need to stand up, they need to speak up and they need to join with us in condemning that behaviour and back up those condemnations with actions from this Parliament to stop this degradation of this chamber as an institution and ensure that this body, by its inaction, does not send messages out to the community, and in particular to those violent protesters we are seeing out on the streets right now as we speak, to engage in that violence. It is unacceptable and it is despicable, and more should be done by the government. It has completely failed the Victorian people and failed this institution, which should stand tall in the face of what we are seeing from in particular the Greens but the coalition of ratbag organisations that are joining with them in this violence.

Let us see what is happening on our streets. We are seeing protestors throw horse excrement at members of the Victorian police force. We are seeing protesters throw hard objects at Victoria Police officers. We are seeing acid being thrown at Victoria Police officers, not to mention the horses that are put in danger and put in harm’s way, all to keep Victorians safe. And what is happening to Victoria? People in Victoria are less safe, and our reputation as a state where you can host major events, whether in the form of Land Forces or other global conferences which we want to come to Melbourne, means they will not look to Victoria as a place to host their events. We cannot allow this, and the government has completely failed.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Mordialloc, come to order!

John PESUTTO: Years ago, against our warnings to the contrary, they watered down and gutted move-on laws in this state, and the powers in those move-on laws to do things like remove masks without the restrictions that we now see under the current legislative regime were all watered down and washed away. Victoria Police now have far more limited powers under this government than they did under the move-on laws that had been introduced under the Baillieu and Napthine governments – powers that worked, powers that Victoria Police appreciated and were able to use. So we now have a weaker set of laws under the Control of Weapons Act 1990, which is a very rigid legislative system.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Members on my right!

John PESUTTO: If you look online for no more than 2 minutes, you will see how active a lot of these activist organisations are at providing basic information for protestors to circumvent the operation of these control of weapons designations and simply game the current laws. They do not work. We saw that yesterday. They do not work, and more needs to be done.

The Shadow Attorney-General sought to introduce in this place in May a bill to restore the move-on powers. All the government had to do was simply say, ‘That’s a sensible idea. It will keep Victorians safe, and it will keep Victoria Police officers safe as well.’ But what did they say? Just because of stubborn vanity they refused to accept and support that idea – a good idea. It is made worse by the fact that because this government is so hopeless at managing money it has gutted Victoria Police and they cannot carry out the functions they need to as easily without drawing all those police resources from all over the state.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Member for Eureka!

John PESUTTO: I will finish on this. Under this government, as Victorians are now starting to realise, there are no consequences for bad behaviour and no consequences for violence. We on this side will give Victorians the leadership they deserve and make sure there are consequences for violence.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Before we continue, I ask members on my right to cease interjecting. I have called you to order quite a few times. If it continues, I will call the Speaker.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:41): It is inappropriate to adjourn debate on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 for a range of different reasons. I firstly want to reflect that for such an important intervention from the Leader of the Opposition and the points that he has platformed and raised, as he does on his behalf, I felt like I needed to call a quorum. I have never had such a turnout from the Liberals and Nationals as for a contribution from me on why the adjournment is not appropriate.

The Leader of the Opposition made some points, and obviously we have seen some really concerning behaviours, which the Premier responded to last night so eloquently and importantly on behalf of Victorians, and the Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton has as well. But the forum is for a change of laws. We do not accept the politicisation of Victoria Police, like those opposite have before. We refer to powers or advice that comes from the chief commissioner, which the Minister for Police would get underway and engage in as well.

It is worth reflecting that the Leader of the Opposition and member for Hawthorn made some references to how the member for Richmond is here – we know. I have got a how-to-vote card from Lucas Moon that says to preference Labor last and the Greens at number 6. A direct result of this saw the member for Richmond here. The member for Richmond is here on the absolute wishes –

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Mordialloc has used a prop.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Duly noted. The member for Mordialloc will cease using props and will continue with the debate.

Tim RICHARDSON: It is not actually a prop. I am happy to table the said notes of how the preferences are. I am happy to make that available to Hansard.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Mordialloc, you will not use props.

Tim RICHARDSON: I am happy to take a selfie with it. I am happy to sign it for people. Here we are, John. I will fly the plane down to you here from my place.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Mordialloc is ignoring your ruling against using props. He is waving it around like it is some kind of wand, and I would ask you to tell the member for Mordialloc to put his prop away.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Mordialloc, please leave the props on the seat.

Tim RICHARDSON: Very sensitive about a how-to-vote card that says that the member for Richmond exists here today because of the Liberal Party. That is an ironclad truth. That is an ironclad fact that we all know to be true.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, with 52 of 55 Labor members here on Greens preferences, I would ask you to bring the member back, on relevance, to the motion before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): That is not a point of order. I will ask the member to come back to the motion.

Tim RICHARDSON: The reality is here we have had an interruption to a really important piece of legislation, which clearly caught the Parliament off guard because members of Parliament were alternating between their bill speeches and their important contributions on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. This is how dysfunctional this adjournment motion has been – literally only four Liberal members of Parliament came to support the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know, Acting Speaker, if you can send out a subpoena to get them in to support him in the chamber while he is giving his speech, but I was feeling for him.

For the first time ever I had deep empathy for the member for Hawthorn and Leader of the Opposition. I felt like I needed to go over there and sit behind him. You know when footy teams have numbers down a little bit too low and you let the opposition team or your team have the numbers? I thought maybe we would get a few of our people across –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if the member for Mordialloc wants to send things out, he has a drawer full of stamps, I am sure.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): That is not a point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: I got goosebumps there. That is the power there. There is the gravitas. See that; it just came through. I tell you, I can see the future and what might be a possibility there. We know the Herald Sun have picked their person. We know the Nine News shed have picked their person. I would not want to be the Leader of the Opposition. When you come in to adjourn this debate and only have a few people with you, you know that you do not have the support of your party. You will not have support on adjourning this debate, and it looks like it is nearly over.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:46): I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition on the motion to adjourn debate and debate the motion in the house that the Leader of the Opposition moved earlier this morning: that this house acknowledges that the coalition has repeatedly sought to work with the Labor government to ensure incitement is not tolerated in this chamber and that the Premier has refused to stand up or act on that particular issue.

Numerous times this side of the house has wanted to bring laws into Victoria. We have had a private members bill to actually reinstate move-on powers for the police. The police want these powers. It is absolutely atrocious what we see on the news: police officers being injured, chemicals thrown at them, acid thrown at them, horse manure thrown at them and rocks thrown at them because the police do not have the power to move these people on.

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a narrow procedural debate about adjourning. The member seems to have gone directly to the motion that they are seeking to bring on if there is an adjournment, so I would ask you to bring him back to the motion.

Peter WALSH: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this has been a wideranging debate, as was demonstrated by the member for Mordialloc. I think the minister at the table is on very thin ice with the point of order that she has taken.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): There is no point of order.

Peter WALSH: I might remind the member for Mordialloc of the point of order that was taken against him. Fifty-two of those ALP members on the other side of the 56, including the two that are in creep corner, actually rely on Greens preferences to be in this place. The Labor Party every now and again will gently rough up the Greens, but they do not want to really upset them, they do not want to really go against them, because they need their preferences in an election. Not only do they need their preferences in an election, they actually need their votes in the upper house so they can get legislation through for Lawyer X to strip people’s rights away when it comes to suing the government for, effectively, corruption and incompetence in that particular case. They actually need those votes to get the SEC put into the constitution. As the member for Morwell will very easily tell you, the SEC has one employee in the Latrobe Valley, so all the ranting and raving that the government did about the SEC –

Daniela De Martino: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, what is the relevance at the moment of the SEC (a) to the adjournment motion or (b) to even the matter at hand? There is no relevance. I ask you to draw the member back to the motion to adjourn debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I ask the Leader of the Nationals to come back to the adjournment motion.

Peter WALSH: I am very happy to, Acting Speaker, and thank you for your advice to come back to the motion. This motion is about debating what is important for the people of Victoria. This motion is about debating protecting Victorian police for the job they have to do to control violent, irrational, crazy demonstrators that are just there to cause chaos and cause division in the community. This is about the Leader of the Opposition showing to the people of Victoria that the Liberal and National parties have been serious about having laws in this state that actually protect police and give police the powers to move on demonstrators like we have seen down at the convention centre in the last couple of days.

No rational, sensible Victorian would support those demonstrations. No rational, sensible member of the Labor Party would oppose us debating this motion so that we can actually get this house talking about the things that are important not only to the police but to all Victorians. The disruption that we have seen to the economy, the issues caused for transit through that particular part of Melbourne – this has been used in other places as well where you just cannot get around because of demonstrators. We all have a right to go about our lawful duty, our business, without having to be kept away by police because of demonstrations. The reports that they were actually snipping the air hoses on semitrailers, on trucks, so they had no brakes and could go nowhere – I just find that absolutely ridiculous. Why should a legitimate truck driver going about their business have their air hoses cut and not be able to do that? I support the motion from the Leader of the Opposition to adjourn debate and talk about this.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (12:51): It is not without irony that I note that the last time I stood up to address a procedural debate, which was a motion to interrupt the bill that we had at hand, it was to educate the member for Richmond on the fact that, were the motion to adjourn debate to be successful, we would merely go to the next item on the notice paper, which today happens to be order of the day 4, ‘Budget papers’:

That this house takes note of the 2024–25 budget papers.

So this is again a stunt by the Liberal Party and the Nationals. It is very unedifying because now they find themselves doing something similar to what the Greens do, which is pull these stunts in order to draw attention to their matters. It is a stunt to adjourn debate which will merely take us to the next item on the notice paper, ‘Budget papers’ at number 4.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! I remind members who are not in their right seats to cease interjecting.

Daniela DE MARTINO: That is exactly what will occur. I would have thought they would be more aware of that.

Given that it has been ruled that this is a wideranging debate and given that members have talked to some of the matter at hand, I will address some of the matter at hand – and I do hope, Acting Speaker, that I will enjoy your indulgence as those opposite have enjoyed it thus far. I am going to pick up what the Leader of the Opposition said in talking about the empty words of the Premier. Empty? Hardly empty. Words matter. I say it every time.

Members interjecting.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Well, the Leader of the Opposition was not in the chamber last night during the adjournment when the Premier walked in to address the question from the member for Richmond, who consequentially was also not here, and spoke very, very clearly in response to the member for Richmond’s question on the adjournment. The Premier stated unequivocally that hate will never win and cowards will never win. But I can tell you –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Leader of the Opposition!

Daniela DE MARTINO: it is incredibly disappointing that when those opposite are concerned about violent protests –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Member for South-West Coast!

Daniela DE MARTINO: the way that they go about even talking about this in the chamber is through shouting. It is through raised voices and very strong language, which does nothing to unify us, yet apparently that is their raison d’être at the moment. That is the reason that they say they are here, because they are worried about that. Well, I say it is a stunt. And it is disappointing because I believe our police do a fantastic job. Our police turned up because they have to, and they did their job with courage and they acquitted themselves wonderfully. But this kind of behaviour in the chamber seeks to divide. There is no desire to unify at the moment – there is not – and that is why it is an interruption to the government business. We are dealing with the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, for heaven’s sake. This is the bill you want to interrupt? We have important government business to deal with and this is what the opposition do. They diminish themselves. It is highly disappointing. I would have expected better, I have to say, but what can we do. I will also remind those opposite, as the member for Mordialloc adequately, beautifully, pointed out, it was the preferences of the Liberal Party –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Members on my left!

Daniela DE MARTINO: Sorry, ‘adequately’ was the wrong word; it was beautifully pointed out. I am not even going to go into the Control of Weapons Act 1990, because there is plenty there for police to use. This is a procedural debate, so I will not go into the merits of that argument, but I will say this is a stunt. To interrupt the government business program, to interrupt the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 debate, in order to have a moment of glory and invite the media to come and have a look – I do not even know how many are there at the moment. I do not think they are that interested, so the stunt seems to have fallen flat on its face. What a shame for those opposite. Acting Speaker, thank you for indulging me.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Before I call the next speaker, I ask everyone to be quiet so I can hear the contributions and to have respect for the people that are standing.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:56): We must urgently debate the motion and also the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. For months and months and months we have seen in this place, out on the steps of this place and in the streets outside this place increasingly dangerous behaviour, and it has culminated this week in shocking, outrageous behaviour. To see 27 police officers hurt whilst doing their jobs –

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: Disgraceful. Acid was thrown on police. This morning the coalition attempted to move a motion in support of those police, and what did the government do? The government blocked it. How disgusting, to block a motion recognising the hard work of police and the shameful things that they have seen over recent days.

But further, the reason why this debate must be urgently adjourned so the house can move on to other important matters is because for months the coalition has gone to the government and said, ‘We need to change the law, we need to improve the law. The law must be tougher to protect Victorians.’ We have tried again and again and again. In terms of behaviours in this place, we have gone to the Leader of the House and the Premier repeatedly and called for better behaviour from members of this place, specifically the member for Richmond, and protections around that in terms of either the standing or sessional orders, because we can no longer stand by while behaviour by members of this place incites the violence we see on the streets.

Sam Hibbins: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a procedural debate. It is not an opportunity for members to reflect on other members, namely, the member for Richmond. I ask you to bring the member for Brighton back to this narrow procedural debate and not reflect on other members of Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Brighton, I ask you to come back to the debate.

James NEWBURY: I can understand why the Greens member does not want the issue debated, but it is urgent that the issue be debated, and I again call on the Premier. Premier, words matter – of course they do – but so does action, and coming into a chamber that is empty at 7 o’clock at night and doing nothing changes nothing. It changes nothing. No-one watched it, no-one was here. The Premier needs to act. We have put out our hand to offer to work with the government on that, and in this chamber the Premier leaned across to me and said they would. It is on the record. Where are they? How many times will it take before we see worse? What we are seeing is escalating. I call on the Premier and I call on the Labor Party to act.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I direct you to page 55 of Rulings from the Chair in relation to props. The Labor whip has been handing out props at the entrance to the chamber, and I would ask you to remind the house that props are not parliamentary.

The SPEAKER: Indeed, Manager of Opposition Business. It reminds me of last sitting week. Props are not allowed in the house, members.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will be removed from the chamber without warning.