Wednesday, 19 March 2025

Bills

Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Clause 1, page 2, after line 14 insert –

“(ia) amend certain definitions; and”.

2. Clause 2, lines 17 and 18, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(1) This Act (other than section 54A) comes into operation on the day after the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), section 54A comes into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed.

(3) If section 54A does not come into operation before 31 December 2025, it comes into operation on that day.”.

3. Insert the following New Clause before clause 55 –

‘54A Definitions

(1) In section 3(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990, in the definition of controlled weapon, the example at the foot of paragraph (a) is repealed.

(2) In section 3(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990, in the definition of prohibited weapon, after “imitation firearm” insert “, a machete”.’.

4. Clause 55, lines 10 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(i) more than one incident of violence or disorder has occurred in that area in the previous 12 ‍months that involved the use of weapons; and

(ii) there is a likelihood that the violence or disorder will recur; or

(b) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that –

(i) more than one incident of violence or disorder has occurred in that area in the previous 12 ‍months that involved the use of weapons; and

(ii) it is necessary to designate the area for the purpose of enabling police officers or protective services officers to exercise search powers to prevent or deter the occurrence of any violence or disorder that the Chief Commissioner is satisfied is likely to occur; or

(c) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that –

(i) an event is to be held in that area and incidents of violence or disorder involving the use of weapons have occurred at previous occasions of that event (wherever occurring); and

(ii) there is a likelihood that the violence or disorder will recur; or

(d) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that –

(i) an event is to be held in that area; and

(ii) by information known to the Chief Commissioner, there is a likelihood that violence or disorder involving the use of weapons will occur in that area during the period of intended operation of the declaration.”.

5. Clause 55, page 33, lines 1 to 3, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

6. Clause 55, page 33, lines 6 and 7, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(3) For section 10D(3)(b) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990substitute –

“(b) in the case of a declaration –

(i) under subsection (1)(a), must not exceed 24 hours; or

(ii) under subsection (1)(b), must not exceed 6 months.”.’.

7. Clause 55, page 34, lines 4 and 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(10) For section 10D(10) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 substitute –

“(10) A declaration under this section is not a legislative instrument within the meaning of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.”.’.

8. Clause 56, line 7, before “In” insert “(1)”.

9. Clause 56, after line 8 insert –

‘(2) After section 10E(7) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 insert –

“(8) A declaration under this section is not a legislative instrument within the meaning of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.”.’.

10. Clause 58, lines 3 and 4, omit “the first anniversary of its commencement” and insert “31 December 2026”.

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:42): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In speaking to those amendments, I just want to make a couple of key points. We saw a record number of knives seized from Victorian streets in 2024 – almost 15,000. We know that more must be done to keep people safe, and that is why the Control of Weapons Act 1990 will be amended. The house amendments that have come back to the Assembly relate very clearly to the work that the government and the Parliament seek to do to amend and prohibit the sale and possession of machetes. In those house amendments that have returned to the Assembly from the Council, I would like to acknowledge the work of Mr Erdogan, my ministerial colleague in the other place, for his stewardship of that work, but also the consideration by members in the other place in making sure that machetes will be classified as a prohibited weapon from 1 September this year.

To get those weapons off the street safely, an amnesty is required, and that is to run from 1 September to 30 November this year. During that time people can obviously safely dispose of their edged weapons, those machetes, without committing a crime. If we were to have that prohibition in place immediately, we are criminalising what is legitimate behaviour for someone to possess those items. We need to provide a safe and reliable way to be able to record how many are returned in the amnesty and where they are returned. We do not want people just throwing them in the bin, we want this to be managed appropriately. If you have got what is currently a controlled weapon but is becoming a prohibited weapon, we want them safely disposed of. We do not want people just wandering into police stations with these edged weapons; that is not going to go very well. You have got victims in police stations; you do not want to traumatise people. We have got other offenders in police stations, we have police members. We also do not need people perhaps turning up at the same time with edged weapons at those locations – it does not go very well. These things need to be ordered, they need to be managed, they need to be done safely and they need to be done in compliance with the law.

We have talked about making sure that we would have appropriate steel bins for people to be able to return these items. That is most likely at 24-hour police stations, most likely because of the security and the bollards in particular places under which there are safe environments for people to go about that work effectively.

Prohibited weapons, of course, are the most strictly regulated in Victoria. They are not controlled weapons, they are banned weapons. Penalties of up to two years of imprisonment and fines of over $47,000 for being caught in possession will also apply. We also need to be mindful that if you currently have an edged weapon like a machete, unless you have a demonstrable and legitimate use for it, you will be charged and you will be arrested. Be under no illusion: some of the behaviour that we have seen, whether in Lyndhurst recently across the weekend or in other locations, is illegal criminal activity, and police can act right now to charge you, arrest you and bring you before the courts. What we are doing here with regard to the prohibition is sending a very clear message to the community at large that these are not acceptable items to have in the community. There will be an exemption process applied, but that will be strictly limited and enforced.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank retail organisations in our community who have backed our work to write to the federal government about actions on machete imports at the border and exploring a national ban on machetes. I think that our retail organisations, whether it is Coles, Kmart, Target and others, just to name some – Bunnings, for example, already removed some years ago machetes from sale in their stores. I want to thank some of those other retail organisations that have flagged their desire to have further discussions with me –

A member interjected.

Anthony CARBINES: correct, Anaconda and others – and the government about how we can work on a national level, as these are national retailers, to bring this ban, this prohibition, into force more broadly across jurisdictions. I think that is a great initiative. I welcome their desire to be proactive and engage in this. I think they see the social licence here that is important for them in the work that they do. They want to work with government, and I think they see the opportunity where our Parliament is taking a lead on this work.

Remember these are not prohibited weapons anywhere else in Australia. This is a national first, so it also has to be done without much precedent on which to work. The UK have managed to ban these items, but it took some 18 months of work to do that. We are doing this in six, and I think that that is a demonstration of our desire to do it quickly and effectively but also works on the fact that being prohibited in the six-month period means that unless you are actually conveying such an edged weapon to a bin at an amnesty location, you will be charged for breaking the law because it will be prohibited. Also, the use that we have seen in the community is already criminal. In many instances what we have seen is unacceptable behaviour, and the police can act right now to deal with that behaviour.

I look forward to continuing the further work, not only to roll this out through the Department of Justice and Community Safety, and I want to thank those in the department for their swift and nimble work to bring the amnesty process into effect – the work that they will do in consultation with Victoria Police – but also the work that will be done with our national retail groups and also the SDA, who represent so many workers who have faced these threats in the places where they work daily. We have seen on many occasions – and I know some of my colleagues will go to these matters – that it is often that we find in criminal proceedings people have made a purchase of such edged weapons and then committed offences within a very short space of time, either within hours or immediately. On some of those occasions those who have been affected, those who have been victims, have been retail workers and retail staff. It is dreadful and appalling.

We do know that edged weapons are in the drawers of kitchens right across Victoria and Australia and the world, so there are challenges. But I welcome the fact that our retailers on a national basis want to work with the Parliament and the government on how we can go further around dealing with importation, removing items and stock from shelves – which can be done on a voluntary basis by many of these retailers, and they are choosing to do so – but also working with us on how that ban applies and that work applies across jurisdictions. With the Police Ministers Council, which is chaired by the federal Attorney-General – we have not had a PMC, obviously, with an imminent federal election; one will be scheduled I suspect post that time. This is another element that we will be able to bring as a policy decision to the Police Ministers Council with the federal Attorney-General, who chairs that group.

It is an opportunity, I think, for those national retailers to have their say as well and bring together a pitch and a policy paper that goes to how we get this work done, how we can engage national retailers in that work, but also the representatives of workers in our retail sector to make sure that they are respected and treated safely and well. They have experience and understanding of how these items are sold, how they are displayed and whether we need to do more to perhaps remove them from sale and make it a little bit harder in terms of glass cabinets and the like to try to break that cycle of not just the criminality but sometimes the impulse purchases we have seen that lead to tragedy. There is some work there that I think is calling on both the SDA and our retail workers to understand their lived experience, how that can inform some further policy developments and the great work that our retailers do in providing services and jobs in our community but also their desire I think to pick up on the social licence that is so critical to their work. I think that rather than pushback, we are seeing a desire for them to get in and support what is nation-leading prohibition, which is not simple, it is complex. I am grateful to the Parliament and certainly to those opposite for exploring these issues and debating and discussing them across here and the other place. We will get this done. It will be effective. It will give the community confidence. It backs in the requests of Victoria Police. It provides a further platform for work with national retailers and the workers who do such a great job in our community providing services to people but also making sure that they are protected and that their voices are heard in the further work that we can do in relation to these matters.

I will leave my comments there. The house amendments are supported, and I look forward to their swift passage in this place and the contributions from members. While it does not go directly to these particular house amendments, the broader work in relation to the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024 on the designated areas and their expansion to up to six months for police to be able to stop and search those without a warrant for weapons I think is also about sending a very clear message that the community will be kept safe by Victoria Police. We want to get more of these weapons off our streets, because it is not just about keeping the community safe. For some young people in particular who choose to carry these weapons, we actually want police to find those before they do something stupid, before they do something that changes their life forever. I think that is an element that is often missed in the discussions here, the interventions and the prevention work that police can do in this instance. Drop the knife and save a life, yes, but it can also change lives. We want to change lives for the better, particularly for young people that for one reason or another may think that carrying such edged weapons is to their advantage or will keep them safe. We know that it all ends in tragedy, and I would much rather that police were able to intervene and send that message to the community that train stations, shopping centres and wherever else that communities gather are safe places to do that. Hopefully the intervention by Victoria Police in those instances can save many young people from making mistakes from which they can ever really recover. I commend the house amendments and wish them a speedy passage.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:53): I rise to make a contribution on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024, specifically the ban on machetes. I am glad that the government has finally come to the party and banned these dangerous weapons. There was a call 477 days ago from the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Berwick, who was the shadow minister, to have these dangerous weapons banned. Just think how many of these weapons would be out of the community, out of dangerous criminals hands in that time, and how many crimes could have been avoided, how many home invasions could have been avoided, how many instances of somebody standing over the bed of a young person with a dangerous weapon in their hands could have been avoided in those 477 days. I am glad that finally they have come to the party, but it is too little too late. One of the key elements of this is there are still elements of this bill that have been rushed. The detail has not been worked out, and also the only date in this bill is 31 December, which potentially is the date when these machetes will be banned.

So that means we could be faced with another 288 days of machetes. Now, if you just think about that for a minute, we have had 14,797 knives, swords, daggers and machetes seized in 2024. That is 14,797. That equates to 40 weapons a day – 40 of these knives a day. Now, if you take the 288 days by the 40 weapons, that is 11,520 of these knives that could still be in the community. They are not necessarily all machetes, but that is a huge amount of knives that could potentially be available because they are not being banned now.

I understand, and the minister has said, we need time. We need time to put the amnesty in place. We need time for those carrying a machete to be able to drop it off at their local police station. Even that has not being worked out properly. What we are suggesting in the amendment – and I am sorry that I do not have the amendments to put forward today, because this whole bill has been so rushed. We only got briefed about it 24 hours ago. It went into the Parliament’s upper house last night. The debate concluded at 10 o’clock last night, so there was no time for us to be able to prepare my amendments to come through today. We have to do that last minute because the government has done everything last minute. This is a last-minute bill, and my biggest concern is that the government will not get this right. My biggest fear is that the government will not get this right.

When the Minister for Corrections was asked about details of this bill in the upper house last night, they were so not across the detail it was not funny, starting with the definition of a machete, a basic ‘What’s the definition of machete?’ This government had 20 centimetres and above. The definition, according to the dictionary and everywhere else you look, is 30 centimetres. Somehow the government has pulled the definition forward to 20 centimetres. So what is it? Is it a 20-centimetre knife? Is it a 30-centimetre knife? And do you know what the answer is? We will work it out as we go through the detail later. So we are going to ban these things, but then we do not even know what we are banning. I mean, seriously, we do not even know what a machete is. This is a government that does not know what a machete is. At least we would have tried to have this done – and we had four attempts. We had a very simple private members bill. On 28 November 2023 we introduced a private members bill to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to classify machetes as a prohibited weapon. The proposal sought to ban the possession of machetes without a lawful excuse. Labor opposed the bill. On 22 February 2024 we moved an amendment to the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024, and this change would have imposed stricter regulations on their sale and possession. Labor opposed our amendments. On 21 March 2024 we moved an amendment to the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill. This change would impose stricter regulations on the sale and possession. Guess what, Labor opposed the amendment. And on 4 March we moved an amendment to the government’s legislation, which is what I did here in this chamber, to give us the opportunity only a few weeks ago to incorporate a ban on machetes. They had their opportunity two weeks ago, and guess what Labor did? Labor opposed the amendment. That is four times.

Well, even if you thought that Labor does not want to copy our homework, they want to do their own, that is great, let them do it. But I will tell you what, I am really concerned about the homework that they have done. I am really concerned about the detail or the lack of it. We do not know what a definition is. We do not know what the exclusions are, as to where some people can be exempted and actually still be able to possess a machete. In the briefing we were told that there would be blanket exemptions and specific exemptions. There would be blanket exemptions, say, for the farming community that would be using them to cut off broccoli and cauliflower. They would not need a specific exemption – absolutely fair and reasonable. When asked in the upper house about these details, all of a sudden we start to get, ‘No, each of these farmers would need a specific permit.’ ‘Is it a paper permit?’ ‘Yes, they’ll probably need a paper permit, and then that might go to Service Victoria and it will be an electronic permit.’ Seriously? And how much is this going to cost? Who knows?

Who knows how much this is going to cost? We are going to have so much regulation. And then the retailer has to actually go through all of this process and then work out, ‘Are you a farmer? Okay. What sort of farmer are you – cauliflower or broccoli? Or maybe you’re a cattle farmer. You shouldn’t have a machete.’ So how are they working this out? The minister today said they need until September, if you believe them that it is going to happen in September. They need at least until September – we reckon it will be until December, because they have not got across the detail. But let us believe the minister for a minute that it will be September. They need until September to work out the detail. Our proposed amendments bringing it forward three months will mean that people will be illegally walking them into cop shops and all the rest of it, and we need these bins to be in place. The bins are going to be in place for two months. For two months, we were told last night, we are going to have these bins, and you can drop off a machete at your local cop shop. What happens after two months? What happens after the end of October? If you walk into a cop shop, like I was told by the Police Association Victoria, with a machete in your hand, the chances are you will be shot, because especially at the moment you do not walk into a police station with a machete. A lot of people do not necessarily know that you have to wrap it up and all the details and things.

Belinda Wilson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: They will not know. The member for Narre Warren North interjects by saying they will know. Well, clearly people will not know, because the government have said that they are going to spend a whole lot of money advertising, promoting. That is part of the awareness campaign, member for Narre Warren North. The problem is that, member for Narre Warren, there is no money allocated to the campaign, so that is another idea without detail. No wonder we are broke, member for Narre Warren North, because there is no detail in any of this or in anything this government does.

Let us just not worry about the government and let us not just worry about the opposition. We have had a serious story break today on the front page of the Herald Sun about a corruption bombshell. What this detail says to us is that the former police commissioner and the assistant commissioner had warned the government about bail and warned the government about weapons and the need to have controlled weapons out of the community full stop, and warned them several times, and the government ignored police advice. They not only ignored it but they sacked the police commissioner and sacked the deputy police commissioner. I mean, seriously? You provide frank and fearless advice to the government and you get sacked. And not only that, the community are left in danger, because these machetes are still on the shelf.

Let us just read what was said in today’s Herald Sun about this story:

Mr Paterson …

former deputy commissioner –

further details how he believes he and Mr Patton were targeted by the government because they railed against its soft stance on several law-and-order issues such as the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, the increased minimum age of criminal responsibility –

get this one, everybody; are you ready for it –

… a lack of weapons control –

want me to repeat it –

… a lack of weapons control, bail laws and pill testing.

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I ask the member to come back to the bill.

James Newbury interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without assistance, member for Brighton. I think the member had strayed somewhat from the amendments.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, what I am referring to are the details released today by the deputy commissioner that suggest that these machetes should have been removed immediately and the government has failed to listen to them. So it is all about the timing. Our amendment today is about the timing, so it is relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to keep his debate relevant to the amendments on the machetes.

David SOUTHWICK: This is all about timing, and unfortunately, because of the lack of planning from this government, we have not been able to get our amendments before the chamber today, and I would ask you to give me some grace, because the amendments are about bringing the ban forward, as we did in the upper house. That is what we are proposing in terms of what we are trying to do. That is what the former deputy police commissioner had also suggested before he was sacked by the government, and all I am suggesting today is that this government is full of corruption and cover-up and is not listening to police.

This is very important, because these laws and these changes all should be done not by governments deciding what is important and what is not but by the experts. We just had the Minister for Police on his feet suggesting that this is very important advice that they have been given from Victoria Police. My proposal is the advice was given years ago, and it has not happened in the last few months but has been ignored by the government. These bans should have taken place at least 477 days ago. The fact that they were not put in place 477 days ago has put the community at risk, and every single time that we have seen knife crime, machetes, it is on the government’s head, because the government has failed. They have failed to keep the community safe, and that is what has happened here. That is why we see today this corruption bombshell – because this government has absolutely interfered with police work and on this particular instance has ignored the advice of Victoria Police when they had said right up-front that these should have been banned a long time ago. Can I say that we need to get on with this now. There is no excuse but to get on with this now.

The government will argue in their debates that retailers need time to work it out and so they want to give them till September to keep selling these machetes. It is true that the government have no idea what exemptions they are going to have to allow them legally to be sold to farmers and to other people; we do not know that. But I think at the moment, because these weapons are so dangerous, as the government have alluded to, it means that they should not be sold tomorrow. As soon as we get royal assent, take them off the shelf. Let the government work out the details of where the exemptions are and then bring them back in a safe way, behind glass with a permit, with the things that are needed. That would be the simple solution. But instead this government is green-lighting the sale of machetes to anybody until what could possibly be 31 December, and we think that is reckless. We think if the government were really serious about this, they would instruct by royal assent to ensure that machetes are removed from the shelves immediately. If this was a dangerous good that was on a shelf, any other product on the shelf, you would have a product recall immediately. You would not wait another 280 days; you would do it immediately. This government is saying, ‘You know what, they’re actually not that unsafe. They’re not such a dangerous weapon. So you know what, sell them for another 288 days and then we’ll deal with it.’ Well, you know what, it is green-lighting crooks to buy up, that is what it is. It is green-lighting the crooks to say, ‘You know what, how many can we buy? Let’s stockpile machetes, because there’s no rules here; there’s no rules until they finally come into play.’ This government is not serious about it. If they were serious about it, they would follow our amendment that the member for Brighton is going to put forward because I have not had the opportunity to put the amendment forward today. The amendment will say that at royal assent, when we vote on the bill, these machetes, these dangerous weapons, will be taken off the shelf.

Every time and every day in the 288 days that they will continue to be sold under Labor, that will be a fail. All of the government members can stand up today and pat themselves on the back, but they will all know that these dangerous machetes will continue to be sold until the government finally work out what they are doing. And if you trust them to work anything out, good luck to you. They could not organise a chook raffle. If you reckon this government is going to be able to figure this one out, good luck to you. There is no definition of what a machete is. There is no idea about what the exemptions are with all of this. There has not been a proper consultation. They have had so long to work this out, two months for the bins and no idea about what happens after the amnesty. Seriously, there are so many other ways to do this in a safer way, but the government has said, ‘You know what, we’ll just put this bill in, we’ll send out a press release and everyone’ll be really happy that we’ve done it.’ But the devil in the detail will be worked out later.

If you trust this government with an open chequebook, then good luck to you. Good luck to you if you want to trust the Allan government with an open chequebook, because everything they have touched has been a complete disaster. We do have a crime crisis here in Victoria because of these dangerous machetes.

Sarah Connolly: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Caulfield has strayed so far from this bill I do have to wonder if he has even read it. Can you please bring him back to the bill and the debate before the house.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I would have hoped that the member for Laverton, in her electorate, where –

Sarah Connolly interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I absolutely know where Laverton is – a lot of her community are crying out for an immediate ban, would want to be able to support this now. Her frivolous point of order shows that she does not care about removing dangerous machetes and she does not care about her community in Laverton.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): Member for Caulfield, I will rule on the point of order. The debate is on the amendments, on the machetes, so I ask you to keep to that part of the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: Absolutely. It is really important in the area of Laverton, where I spent a lot of my childhood growing up, as the member for Laverton knows. It is an area where we know many of the community have said the member for Laverton has let them down, because this ban on dangerous machetes should have been done a long time ago. The member for Laverton can walk out of the chamber now and turn her back on her constituents of Laverton, but the hardworking people of Laverton want a member that is going to stand up against crime.

This government is a Johnny-come-lately to the party, saying, ‘You know what, all of a sudden we care about law and order.’ What did the government do about banning these machetes in the 477 days that they could have done it? Nothing, zero. What have they done about the bail laws? Nothing. What have they done about the crime crisis? Nothing. All of a sudden Premier Allan and the government want to have Victorians believe that they are going to be tough on crime. Well, we know that is absolute bonkers. No-one believes it. This government today have completely missed an opportunity, because what they could have done very, very simply is say, ‘You know what, let’s get them off the shelves straightaway.’ Just like with any other product recall of a bad product, a dangerous weapon, remove it tomorrow. Do not remove it in three months, eight months or nine months. The bill detail says that this bill will come into play on 31 December, 288 days away. We are all hoping and praying for a sooner date.

Tell that to the victims. Tell that to the families who had a horrible home invasion in the middle of the night. Tell them story after story of how we had a teen attacked in St Kilda with a machete; a woman’s hand was slashed in a random machete attack at a car wash; a pair of individuals were arrested after a violent crime spree, including attacks on elderly people, with a machete; two individuals were arrested after they approached a man, threatened him with machetes and stole his vehicle; a 24-year-old was killed in a vicious machete attack in Lyndhurst, stabbed to death after a fight broke out in a shopping centre – the 10 assailants were still on the run as of 17 March; and a 25-year-old rideshare driver and international student was left with maimed fingers after a group of armed men forced their way into his car, beating and stabbing him. That was reported on 14 March. This is only in the last month. These were dangerous crime attacks with a weapon, a machete, in the last month.

I plead with the chamber: why not take them off the shelf tomorrow? Seriously, what are you waiting for? Are you waiting for another attack? Are you going to explain to the victim, somebody who is targeted by another knife attack, that ‘You know what, we just couldn’t get it right. We thought it was important to ban them, but it wasn’t really important to ban them.’

There is no middle ground here. It is very simple: a bad product, a dangerous product, needs to be recalled tomorrow and needs to be taken off the shelves tomorrow. It can be taken off the shelves easily tomorrow or at the time of royal assent, like any other product that needs to be recalled. The government might argue: what about those people that do need them and what about the farmers and what about others that will have the exemption? Once the government finally works out the details of the exemption – and let us give them as much time as they like – then they can work with retailers to bring them back in a safe way with the permits, with whatever is needed in a safe environment. Isn’t that simple? Doesn’t that make sense? Isn’t it logical to do it that way? I sincerely plead with the government to take them off the shelves. Do not allow them to continue to be sold on the shelves. Do not allow those people to buy them at a market or buy them at a Bunnings.

Again, the member for Laverton was trivialising it before. They were available freely at the Laverton Market as of last week. The Laverton Market had them freely available. A 14-year-old-boy went and bought a machete for his brother as a birthday present only a few weeks ago at the Laverton Market. The member for Laverton wanted to take points of order on me and wanted to trivialise this whole thing. That is just a disgrace. The member for Laverton should be ashamed of herself because she knows that this should happen tomorrow.

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Laverton can laugh about it, but the member for Laverton needs to explain to those families that have these weapons available in the market now.

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, let us get back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): It was part of the debate. The member for Caulfield will come back to the amendment.

David SOUTHWICK: I think every second word was ‘machetes’. I do not know whether I can be any more relevant than mention the word ‘machete’. I know the definition of ‘machete’ has not been worked out, but I will still try and do my best to make it all about machetes because that is what it is and that is what we are talking about.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): Member for Caulfield, can I just rule on the point of order. There is no point of order. Continue and come back to the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: There is no point of order – exactly. What we need to understand is we need to get rid of these machetes tomorrow. The member for Kororoit should know that these are really important. I would hope the member for Kororoit will get on with the bill, because I know even in Prahran, where the member for Kororoit lives, we have had dangerous machete attacks.

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it seems the member on his feet is obsessed with some of the members on this side, but if he could get back to the amendment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): There is no point of order. It is part of the debate.

David SOUTHWICK: It is really disappointing for the government to laugh and to try and bring trivial points of order on something that is as important as a machete ban. The member for Kororoit can laugh and the member for Laverton can laugh and the member for Narre Warren North can laugh and interject. I would think that the government would get on board and support this. As I have said, these machetes are being sold at the Laverton Market today. I ask: would the member for Laverton be happy that these machetes are going to continue to be sold at the Laverton Market for three months, four months, five months, 288 days? Is that something that the member for Laverton would be happy with the Laverton Market retailers doing? I just put that out there, because once this bill is gazetted, the machetes will still be sold at the Laverton Market potentially for another 288 days, at least until the end of September. If you take the government at face value, the machetes will be available at Laverton Market until the end of September. The member for Laverton can laugh, but I pray that none of those machetes are purchased at the Laverton Market and used on a victim.

I pray that that does not happen, and I hope you do too, member for Laverton; I really do. That is why the member for Brighton will move amendments today to ban the sale of these immediately.

Belinda Wilson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I take up the interjection from the member for Narre Warren North to just explain to everybody listening to this debate so they understand that this was rushed in so much at the last minute that not only did we not have an opportunity for a proper briefing but the details were lacking as we saw in the upper house last night when they could not define what a machete was, when they could not define what the designated exemptions would be. They had no idea about any of the detail: a 20-centimetre weapon, a 30-centimetre weapon – none of this was worked out. But also the debate finished after 10 o’clock last night, and by the time we tried to bring the amendments in first thing this morning it was too late. The whole thing has been rushed through.

We want the ban now. We want it now. The government need to work it out and make sure Victorians are kept safe. That is what we want them to do. We want the detail to be worked out. As we heard, members in the upper house asked whether the government had consulted with the Victorian Farmers Federation and with other farmers. The response from the minister was, ‘Oh, yes. No problems. Anybody who’s a member of the VFF will be able to get some kind of exemption’ – again, not even understanding who the VFF are. Is every farmer a member of the VFF? Seriously, where is the detail here? There will be exemptions that will need to be worked out. People do use them for work purposes, and they do need to be sold in a proper, safe manner. We are not arguing about any of this. But I finish where I started: this ban should have been done 477 days ago. The now Leader of the Opposition has made it his absolute passion to get this happening, and I absolutely credit the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Berwick, for what he has done in driving this ban.

We have had every single Labor member vote against the ban four times. Every single Labor member has voted against the ban four times in 477 days. So we know that this is a Johnny-come-lately. This is a government that has had a revelation that it is going to do it. But we all know why the revelation has come. It has come because of the corruption bombshell of the Allan Labor government interfering with Victoria Police, not listening to advice from Victoria Police, not listening to the public and ultimately not listening to their own constituents, who are haunted every single day by a crime crisis, every single day by a home invasion in their electorate or somewhere nearby, every single day by a car theft and every single day by a knife crime.

As I said when I started, 40 knives are confiscated each and every day in Victoria. In another 288 days, in the time that this government delays banning the machete, we will still have 11,520 knives in the community. Is that something this government want on their heads? I would say no. Get behind us and ban the machetes today.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (11:23): I do hope that the member for Caulfield stays in the chamber for this contribution, particularly after thinking or misjudging that I would not be making a contribution on crime seeing as I have spoken on every bill on crime in this house since we introduced bills on crime into this house each and every single week to reform legislation that is helping to keep our communities safe and making them safer. If you listen to the member for Caulfield, you would think his entire life is in a state of crisis. But I would say to those opposite that the only thing that is in crisis is the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership when he has misled the community about the local cruise he took in Queensland.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as we know, this is a very serious bill, and the member is completely straying from the bill. She only has 9 minutes to talk about the bill. I suggest she focuses on her government and not the opposition.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I remind the member to come back to the amendments to the bill.

Sarah CONNOLLY: I was just reflecting on the member for Caulfield’s state of mind and feeling that his life is in a state of crisis at the moment, but I will come back to the bill. I am really keen to stand here and speak once again on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. These amendments that we are passing here today deliver stronger protections for community safety, and they give effect to our government’s planned machete ban. Just last sitting week I was in this place debating legislation, and I am proud to do it again and again and again, because I know and my community knows – including Laverton, member for Caulfield – that these kinds of changes are so important for local communities like mine that are sadly experiencing this kind of violent crime. Just yesterday we debated here in this place our government’s Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025, which sets Victoria up as having one of the toughest bail laws in the country and clamps down on some of the most serious violent offences that we have seen over the past couple of months. It should be very clear to Victorians watching this that when it comes to community safety we are committed and we are locked into it. There are big steps to take and not ones I imagine are taken lightly.

In 2024 alone police seized 14,797 knives, swords, daggers and machetes, and this is more than any time over the past 10 years. This amounts to about 40 blades each and every single day. It is pretty shocking. Having said this, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of Victoria Police, particularly in my local community, in getting these bladed weapons out of the community, which is the flip side of this statistic. There is, however, clearly much more to do, which is why the Premier has announced that we will be taking this bill further by introducing and facilitating a ban on machetes here in Victoria. This is the first ban of this kind here in Australia, and we have made this decision upon consultation with Victoria Police.

A member interjected.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Yes, we consult with Victoria Police on this side of the house, and we have also been learning from the United Kingdom in fact, which recently implemented a similar ban. Over in the UK they did theirs in about 18 months. We are doing it in a third of that time. I know many in my community welcome this ban with open arms, and I have also heard many ask why this cannot be achieved tomorrow. I am going to answer this one, particularly for the member for Caulfield so that his life is a little bit less in a crisis and he is a little less hysterical than he has been in the chamber this morning. The answer is there is a lot more to do before the ban comes into effect on 1 September. There is an amnesty program that has to be set up to allow for people to do the right thing and surrender their machetes. The ban will make machetes a prohibited weapon, which means possessing one will be a serious offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment or a fine of over $47,000. These are serious punishments, so we want people to do the right thing. We are giving them the chance to do the right thing and give up the machetes, including those that are currently held lawfully. I do not have one at home, but there are people that do have machetes lawfully, we know that, and they need to have an opportunity to be able to give them up.

To the people who have said to me that we should have done this a year ago, including those opposite – and the member for Caulfield, I might add – I do want to remind them all that back in 2023 we clarified that the machete was a controlled weapon, which means that even now, under our current laws, you cannot carry a machete without a lawful excuse. This clarification prevented and punished the sale of machetes to minors, to the 14-year-olds that the member for Caulfield thinks are over there shopping at Laverton Market. The unfortunate inconvenience for those opposite is that some people do own one for legitimate uses, and that includes things like gardening, farming or outdoor recreation pursuits. This ban is going to mean that those people who have done nothing wrong and have committed no crime will be required to surrender their machetes. Not only that, but we have to ensure that this is done safely. We have listened to the advice of Victoria Police in how to do this right, and they have told us it would not be safe for machetes to be returned directly to the police stations.

This is the same position they took over 25 years ago when we had the national firearms amnesty, and Australians gave up their guns in droves. I think the community can understand that when it comes to police stations, a place that needs to be secure, having a stockpile of dangerous weapons around them is probably not the best or the smartest idea. We want Victoria Police to keep doing the important work of keeping our community safe and keeping them out on the beat, which is why the amnesty scheme will be developed over the coming months to identify sites for disposal, and work with retailers who legally sell machetes to understand their new obligations under the law and potentially cancel any orders of new machetes. We are also going to use the existing Governor in Council exemption process to apply to machetes with this ban, and the work is currently ongoing, with consultation with relevant industries and collector groups to ensure that, where necessary, exemptions can be applied.

I think these changes get the balance right. Whilst there are indeed many legitimate uses for machetes ‍– we have all of our Landcare Victoria crew here visiting Parliament this week. I am sure that those groups would in fact – depending on where they are located – have machetes for the different work that they are doing in Landcare. It is these kinds of people that we need to help educate. They want to do the right thing, they need to do the right thing, and we need to help them work out what they are going to be doing. These changes are getting the balance right. While there are many legitimate uses for machetes, the fact is that the flow of them into Victoria means that many of them have unfortunately still ended up in the hands of people – and yes, young people – who have used them to commit horrendous crimes. I spoke yesterday about some of the criminal incidents in my electorate involving machete crime, and I do not talk about them lightly. I hope that this ban will see them taken out of circulation on the streets and that will lead to a drop in this kind of horrendous, appalling activity.

The other part of the amendments that will be brought with this bill deals with the new search and seizure powers that police will have for designated areas. I know that was very much welcome in my community. I think it is excellent that it has been expanded. The bill initially gave Victoria Police the power to declare areas where they can conduct weapons searches and seizures without a warrant for a period of up to 12 hours. The amendments we have introduced will extend this to a period of up to six months. It is all about keeping folks in our local streets and neighbourhoods and at big community events safe and indeed safer, including hotspots like train stations and shopping centres. I think it is going to be a really great opportunity for police to carry out this work for longer periods of time.

This is really important stuff that we are talking about today. I hate to see to see it misused for political pointscoring by those opposite. I wish they would just get behind these bills and vote for them. The community want these bills to pass and for us to get on and make their community safer. Instead – complete political pointscoring again and again. For us, it is nothing new. For the community, it is a constant disappointment –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this member has voted against toughening this four times. Four times – what a disgrace.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): Member for Brighton, you just need to keep to the point of order, or whatever it is. Member for Laverton, you have little time left.

Sarah CONNOLLY: I do say again: the opposition should get behind these tough bail laws and this new bill before the house and let us get on and do our job to keep our communities safe.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (11:34): I rise today to speak on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. What we are going to see with the next speaker are some amendments, which will be put forward by the member for Brighton, which will actually make it an effective bill. Otherwise, we will be deeply concerned if this does go ahead as is, because there are going to be two incredibly important amendments proposed that will strengthen what will otherwise be ineffective and long-overdue machete laws.

The amendments call for an immediate ban on the sale of machetes and bring forward the date that they are classified as a prohibited weapon. Under Labor’s weak laws, the sale and distribution of machetes will continue otherwise for another six months. That is six more months when violent criminals can walk into a store and buy a machete with no questions asked and six more months when these weapons can be stockpiled, ready to be used in terrifying home invasions, violent assaults and frightening and horrific robberies. We have seen it. We have seen it in the headlines on a daily basis.

Our amendments will stop this madness. They will restrict the sale of machetes immediately and ensure that only those with a valid exemption can access them. They will bring forward the date when machetes become a prohibited weapon by three months, making it clear that these dangerous weapons have no place on our streets. That needs to be the message. Victoria is sick of waiting. Every day that machetes remain available is another day when innocent Victorians could be attacked and are attacked. These amendments must be supported and passed by Parliament without delay. A record amount of knives were seized in Victoria last year. Nearly 15,000 knives, swords, daggers and machetes were seized last year, the most in a decade, and that is 40 weapons per day.

After four attempts by the Liberals and Nationals to ban machetes, the Allan Labor government has finally bowed to pressure to introduce a ban – and I wish the Member for Laverton was in here as I give a correct and true timeline of events that seems to have slipped her mind. While the member for Laverton said many in her community welcome the ban, she failed to recognise that she opposed our changes last year and the year prior. In November 2023 we introduced a private members bill to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to classify machetes as prohibited weapons. The proposal sought to ban the possession of machetes without lawful excuse, and Labor opposed the bill. In February last year an amendment was moved to the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 in the Assembly to reclassify machetes from controlled to prohibited weapons, and this change would have imposed stricter regulations on their sale and possession. Again, lo, Labor opposed the amendment. It is insanity, and lives are at risk as a result. Suddenly there is silence when you realise the impact that you on that side have had on Victorians’ lives. In March last year we moved another amendment to the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. The change would have imposed stricter regulations on their sale and possession. Again, Labor opposed the amendment. Again, in March this year – we are seeing the cycle here of protecting criminals in Victoria – we moved an amendment to the government’s Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill, and the member for Caulfield’s amendment aimed to classify machetes as a prohibited weapon. What happened? Labor opposed the amendment, and here we are.

It is insanity what is happening in Victoria right now. Just last week I stopped at a petrol station and was shocked to see machetes being sold on the counter. It is so normal now that you can buy a machete from your petrol station. Half of them would have been classified as machetes by this government. I asked the clerk, ‘Why are they being sold so openly?’ His response was chilling in the simplicity. He said, ‘They’re selling like hot cakes.’ They are selling like hot cakes in Victoria. How can you sit in this place knowing full well the devastation these weapons can cause and allow them and vote for them to be so easily available? This is not responsible government. This is negligence.

Victorian people are paying the price for this government’s negligence, with torture every night and the fear of more home invasions that you see on a daily basis in the headlines. The Allan Labor government has repeatedly failed to take decisive action when it comes to crime – any action. We have been begging for 18 months: do something. We saw it with their disastrous bail laws, we see it with the underfunding of police resources and now again we see it with the refusal of an immediate ban on machetes. In the meantime the stats speak pretty loudly: crime is surging, and regional Victorians are paying the price.

The statistics are so grim, and they are only going to get grimmer in the next six months with what you are proposing. In Mitchell shire criminal incidents have increased by nearly 32 per cent – 850 more incidences recorded compared to last year. Total offences are up by 27 per cent throughout the region. Family violence has spiked by nearly 24 per cent. In Benalla criminal incidents have risen by more than 12 per cent. Strathbogie surged 34 per cent year on year. This is the outcome of your weak laws. These are not just numbers. It took you 18 months. There were lots of victims in that time because it took you 18 months. We see it in our offices, when they come in, that families have to live in fear while you delay accepting our amendments. These are the consequences of crime in Victoria right now. It is disgraceful. There have been reports of stolen vehicles in Violet Town, break-ins at farms near Benalla and Colbinabbin, robberies in Murchison community house and damage across so many towns. Victorians feel helpless under this government. People are posting desperately on community pages, contacting my office for answers, forming their own neighbourhood watch groups, because what other options do they have.

Instead of strengthening our justice system, this government has cut funding to our courts, delayed pay negotiations for our police officers, and instead of investing in public safety, the Allan Labor government closed Dhurringile Prison, a facility that underwent multimillion dollars worth of significant upgrades to improve rehabilitation efforts for low-risk offenders. Overnight it was closed. The closure of Dhurringile was reckless, and it ignored the needs of Victoria right now. More than 160 staff lost their jobs, and our region lost a key facility that could have played a role in housing offenders under these laws. If the government truly wants tougher bail laws that will put more offenders behind bars, then why on earth would it close a prison that could have helped manage that burden. Dhurringile Prison was not just a correctional facility, it was a centre for rehabilitation and, importantly, reintegration. For many low-risk offenders it provided an opportunity to gain skills, work on farms and participate in programs that aimed to reduce reoffending. Dhurringile played a crucial role in breaking the cycle of crime and ensuring that those who serve their time can return to society as contributing members. Without proper rehabilitation, the risk of reoffending remains high, placing further strain on law enforcement and the judicial system. Closing Dhurringile without a clear plan for replacing its program is a failure of long-term planning and a perfect example of this government’s stupidity and negligence when it comes to controlling crime in Victoria. We must prioritise smart justice solutions that balance accountability with rehabilitation and ensure offenders who can be reformed are given the place to do so. The government must halt the sale of Dhurringile Prison immediately and work with the community to ensure the site is put to good use.

Victorians deserve a say in their future, and we need urgent leadership to address the root causes of violence in our communities. Stronger sentencing laws, better support for police and immediate restrictions on the sale of dangerous weapons are the bare minimum you should be delivering in government. This is not about politics, this is about public safety. The choice is simple: act now or explain to Victorians why the Allan Labor government let the danger continue.

Belinda WILSON (Narre Warren North) (11:44): What an hour that has been. I had to go for a walk because my ears were hurting from all the yelling and screaming. I was very pleased that the member for Brighton did not follow the member for Laverton, because I know –

James Newbury: I’m coming, don’t worry.

Belinda WILSON: I know. I will be gone well and truly by then because my ears will not be able to contain it.

James Newbury: I won’t miss you.

Belinda WILSON: I know you will. Everyone knows how close we are, member for Brighton. I know how much you will miss me. These amendments are going to change lives.

A lot has been said on both sides, but our Premier has very honestly stood up and said we need to make changes because we have not got it right. I think that we have been honest about it. It takes a lot to do that. We are the government. We are the ones that are setting the agenda. We are the ones that are listening to our communities, and we have had to make changes. Like the member for Euroa was saying earlier, every day she is having conversations with people that are being affected by crime, and I am too. I also have family members and friends that have been affected by crime.

These changes that are going to be made in the coming months are going to make a huge difference to all of our communities. I am old and remember very clearly when we had the gun amnesty. We know what a difference that made to our country, especially when we look at other countries around the world and how their gun laws are and how they act. I believe that this machete amnesty is going to start 1 September. I think somebody said end of September, but I think the goal is 1 September. It cannot happen tomorrow. There are processes that have got to be put in place. You cannot just suddenly get a wheelie bill out and say, ‘Everyone pop your machetes in,’ and off we go. There are actually processes that go through the department. The opposition have not been in government for a very long time, so they have forgotten all of those processes they have to go through. I think that what we are putting in place is going to be life changing for everyone in this state.

We have spoken a lot about where the machetes are sold. We have all seen them in different places. I know the member for Euroa was saying a service station. I have not seen them in service stations, but I have seen them at markets a lot. I will not name the markets, but they are for sale in a lot of different places. I do not believe that people are going to be buying them up when they are going to be illegal in a few months time. Maybe that is me being a bit naive, but I think that once we have all these processes in place where these can be placed into bins safely and securely with our law enforcement, this is when we will see huge and dramatic change. Sure, we have had some suggestions of change for this earlier. We are now looking forward to these incredible changes happening in the coming months.

So what will happen? I know that the member for Euroa also spoke about how many machetes had been seized – 15,000 in 2024. Wow, that is a lot. That includes knives, swords, daggers and machetes. What is our definition of ‘machete’? That is actually not going to be in the bill, so we can all have a 30- or 20-centimetre blade, as I think we were discussing earlier. Having those off the street is going to make a very big difference to all of our communities.

Very close to my electorate last week we had a death, in Lyndhurst, which affects our whole community. It does not just affect the one area of Lyndhurst and the electorate of Carrum; it also affects all the south-east because fingers get pointed at certain cultural groups and people are scared. There are programs that we run. One of them I know – and I think the member for Mildura spoke about it yesterday – is Pivot, an incredible youth program in the south-east which works with a lot of our multicultural communities to make changes. These programs will always be a priority for us as they work with these groups of youths to help them, educate them and guide them in their lives to live and learn their best. I think that is one of the great things about that program.

I actually have a really great police team in my electorate; they are incredible. In fact we are rebuilding the Narre Warren station at the moment, but I have the good old Endeavour Hills police station – a huge shout-out to Alan Dew, who is an iconic mastermind in my electorate who everyone knows and loves. He is incredible at his job, and his station is also incredible. He has taken on a lot of extra things recently because of the renovation and the rebuild of Narre Warren. I know, after speaking to them on a weekly basis, how they feel about crime in the south-east, and the feedback they have given me has been fed back to our ministers. I know how much they realise and know the difference these changes are going to make.

The two government amendments that have been agreed to in the Legislative Council are the amendment to create a long-term designated area under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and the second one is the amendment to reclassify machetes as a prohibited weapon under the act. As I said, we know these changes are being made after long consultation with Victoria Police. I really believe that this is also going to further strengthen the Control of Weapons Act with these amendments and help our police force in apprehending and bringing in our crime statistics and also our home invasions, which no-one wants. No-one in this state wants to have anyone be harmed or hurt, have a home invasion or be injured in any way, shape or form. I am a mum of three kids. I have got boys of a similar age to the one that passed away last week, and the thought of that family having to be told what happened is mortifyingly sad. No-one should die in that way. My heart goes out to that family and the sadness they are going through. I also had the honour of meeting some Melton residents a couple of weeks ago and meeting a father who had lost two of his boys. Pardon me for not knowing their names; I will allow the member for Melton to elaborate on that when he gives his contribution. But none of us want to see people injured or dying from the use of a machete or any type of weapon. I know as time goes on in the next few months we really are going to see a huge change to our youth statistics, which is what this is all about.

I am going to leave it there because there are a number of different speakers who are going to go after me, and I am looking forward to hearing each and every one of them from this side of the house. As I look at the member for Brighton across the other side, I will just say I am really pleased that as a government we have stood up. We have said that we needed to do better. We are doing better. On that, I commend these house amendments to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:53): I rise to speak on the amendments that have been moved today, and I do seek to circulate amendments which have just come in on behalf of the Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections, if they can be circulated in my name. I move:

1. Amendment 1 line 2, omit all words and expressions on this line and insert –

“(ia) further provide for prohibited weapons; and”.

2. Amendment 2 lines 3 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(1) This Act (other than sections 54B and 54D) comes into operation on the day after the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 54B and 54D come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed.

(3) If sections 54B and 54D do not come into operation before 30 September 2025, they come into operation on that day.”.

3. Amendment 3 lines 2 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘54A Definitions

In section 3(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990, in the definition of controlled weapon, the example at the foot of paragraph (a) is repealed.

54B Definitions

In section 3(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990, in the definition of prohibited weapon, after “imitation firearm” insert “, a machete”.

54C Prohibited weapons

After section 5(3) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 insert –

“(4) In this section (other than subsection 1A) –

prohibited weapon includes a machete.”.

54D Prohibited weapons

Section 5(4) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 is repealed.’.

4. Amendment 10, omit “31 December 2026” and insert “30 September 2026”.

They relate to, as the shadow minister alluded to earlier, bringing on the ban earlier and also imposing a ban in retail immediately. I said yesterday and I say again today the job of government is to keep the community safe. What we have talked about in relation to bail yesterday and machetes today is about the community not being safe and the government proposing changes which will not make the community safer quicker, which is not only what the community want but what they deserve and what they need, and they need it now. They do not need it in 288 days, which is when these amendments will come into effect. I refer to clause 2 under the amendments – 31 December, as per those amendments.

What we do know is that on average 40 weapons were seized each and every day last year, of the 14,797. Forty weapons a day were seized. I mean, it is out of control. Forty of these weapons a day – they are everywhere. All the Premier did last week with her press conference was illustrate how many of these weapons are around and how available they are. But for the government to then stand up and say they are going to do something in 288 days – how weak, how pathetic, and Victorians know. Victorians know that the changes the government is seeking to make will not make them safer, and they also know that the changes are not quick enough. It is too little too late from this government. We have heard examples being read into Hansard by members on this side of the place for a very, very long time. Even this morning in this debate we heard examples of the most horrific crimes, and I refer to the shadow minister’s reference to the shocking crime in St Kilda. What will be interesting is to see whether the local member will get up on behalf of her community and speak about that crime, because we know these crimes are occurring. These amendments will bring the ban on quicker. Why would you possibly oppose them.

If you do not understand the government’s behaviour and track record on this issue, I would only look at these specific amendments just to make it clear for everyone who is not a parliamentary tragic. I assume everyone is, like me, but for everyone who is not a parliamentary tragic, the government is amending a bill and adding in machete-related changes to that bill today, when two weeks ago they opposed toughened machete provisions in this very chamber and voted against them. They voted against toughening machete laws two weeks ago in this bill, and today they are moving amendments to the same bill. You can be absolutely assured that had the government voted for the amendments two weeks ago. We pushed for them to already be in place. They could already be in place, because two weeks ago they had the opportunity and voted no. I hear people asking, ‘Did they vote no just once?’ No, they did not vote no just once. 477 days ago the coalition tried to push the government to get tougher on machete and knife crime by moving a private members bill in this place, and every member, including the minister who is walking through the chamber, voted no 477 days ago. And it was not just then, not just two weeks ago, but four times the government has voted no to getting tough on knife crime, and finally the community sees it, not just because of the crimes that are occurring. They know now that the government kept voting no. They know that at the heart of this government is a belief that perpetrators come first and victims come second. The community knows that; they know it. You can hear the Labor members quietly whispering about how the government are going down the wrong path, how they have lost their way, because the community now knows crime is out of control. They know crime is out of control, and they know that not enough is being done to get tough and keep the community safe.

As I said, four attempts have been made in this place to get tougher on machete and knife crime. Why the delay, then? Why are we waiting until 31 December, you might ask. The truth is the government have not yet worked out what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. They have not even worked out what they are going to ban, and they have admitted that in the debate. They have admitted in the debate that they do not yet know exactly what they are going to ban and they do not know who they are going to allow to lawfully continue to have an instrument in certain circumstances – for example, farmers, as has been raised.

The government does not know. Not only have they come 477 days after the coalition proposed it to the table, they do not know what they are doing or how they are going to do it. You only have to look at the debate today in this chamber. The minister himself said that these –

Lily D’Ambrosio interjected.

James NEWBURY: Well, I will leave that one off camera. The minister himself said today that these machetes will be handed in at 24-hour police stations. That is what the minister said. There are obviously issues in many areas because the government has allowed 24-hour police stations to be shut – 43 of them, including in my community of Bayside. We have one station, which is now shut at night. The minister himself said police stations, and members that followed from the government then said the ban would not mean handing in machetes at police stations. You have the minister saying the ban will be imposed at police stations, and then Labor members stand up and say the handovers will not occur at police stations. This government cannot even work out from one speaker to the next not only what they are banning but how. I do not begrudge the backbenchers, because they are just reading out the talking points they have been given. I get it. I am sure they ad lib between the talking points – I will give them that – but the government members read out the talking points which say machetes are not going to be handed in at police stations after the minister said they are. Which one is it? That is a very fair question. To have government members not know in this chamber this morning just shows that they do not know what they are doing.

477 days ago this government had an opportunity to get tough and do something about machete and knife crimes. We know that 40 weapons are seized every single day, so we know that since that time 19,080 weapons will have on average been seized. That is nearly 20,000 weapons, and that falls on Premier Allan’s head – every single one – because the government through their leadership said no, just like they have said no four times.

The community knows that this Premier and this government are only trying to act now because they have been caught politically. They have not even drafted legislation. Their own members do not know what they are going to do about it. Their members do not even understand it. The government have been caught being soft on crime and they have been caught being soft on weapons. We have moved amendments today which will show again how soft they are. Not only should they stand condemned, but the community is condemning them every single day of the week. The government should hang their heads in shame for what they have allowed to occur in Victoria.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:03): I am sure the only person outside of this house that views that, the member for Brighton’s mum, will give him a hug tonight, give him a bit of Bonox, some warm milk, calm him down, maybe –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, knife crimes are not a joke.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): There is no point of order. The member for Frankston just commenced his comments.

Paul EDBROOKE: No, politicising crime is not a joke. I wonder, member for Brighton, how you feel when you say some of those things in this house – how the member for Brighton feels when he speaks mistruths in this house. You have spoken many mistruths in this house in the last few minutes.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is breaching the standing orders by suggesting that I have deliberately misled this house. That is a breach of the standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): The member for Frankston to continue without impugning any other member.

Paul EDBROOKE: Just to clear up a couple of things, because the member for Brighton was quite confused, this bill will be proclaimed as legislation on 1 September. That is in his notes. The date that it will be proclaimed – that is in section 54A – will be the day it comes into operation, which is on 1 September. Like most legislation that comes before this house, there is another date which is really, let us put it into layman’s terms, a backstop, and that is the date that the member for Brighton is claiming it comes into operation – 31 December. I cannot stand here and explain things like this, because the member for Brighton has been in this house a long time now and should know these things.

The other the other thing I picked up on just then which is really inaccurate and I think misleads the public is regarding the handing in of prohibited or illegal weapons. There already is a system in place at the moment, a well-known system, for handing in firearms where, after a certain period, if you find an illegal firearm or you are not licensed at your house – it might be from a deceased estate; it could be a war trophy that you did not know your grandparents had that came into your possession – you can, by appointment, go to your police station and hand that in. That is really important, because I do not want the Minister for Police to be misquoted. The police minister knows very well his own legislation, and what he meant when he was up here speaking was that by appointment, by the existing system for firearms, you can go in and hand in what is now a controlled weapon but will be a prohibited weapon. So let us be very clear about that.

The other item that I would like to speak on quite quickly before we let others, who have been waiting a long time, speak on this – is talking about the timing here. I spoke to my youngest son last night and said, ‘How’s work at Anaconda?’ He said, ‘Really great. I love working at Anaconda – great people, great bosses.’ I said, ‘Can you tell me if they’re actually selling machetes now?’ And I kind of had to explain what a machete was, because like many people, he did not know why you would sell a machete. He said, ‘They’re not on the shelves anymore.’ Anaconda is a retailer, and it looks like they have taken them from the shelves and are probably going to take them from sale online as well. That follows on from another bunch of retailers that have gone down the path of making sure that they are part of the solution to this problem and they are working towards increased community safety.

For those of us in this house and for those retailers, it is a matter of knowing our part. What I would say to those opposite is: what is your part? Is the part that you play in this yelling at clouds? Is your part perpetual confusion? Because what have been put before this house – these amendments – are very, very, very specific and I think they cover exactly what they should. As far as definitions and what not, like most pieces of legislation, there is a piece of paper in the back of that legislation or that act that is called regulations. That will explain some specifics of this legislation, just like it does in other legislation.

Much like other members of this house, I am proud that we can go to our communities and say we have listened and we will do what they want us to do. We will represent them. But this is not an issue that can be solved with a click of a finger. There are many facets in this, from community education to handing machetes in to making sure that retailers are supported and they are educated too. I commend this bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (12:09): I too rise to speak on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024 and the amendments made by the Legislative Council. Let us just focus for a moment. Only two weeks ago were we in this chamber debating this legislation, and at that time the opposition moved an amendment to make machetes a prohibited weapon because the government failed to move the very amendment that they have had to bring in now and that we are debating today. Two weeks ago those opposite were actually condemning the very thing that they are coming into this chamber today and saying the government has done such a wonderful job with – ‘We have listened to the community.’ What changed over those two weeks other than the polls showed that this government is heading in one direction, and those sitting on that side of the chamber are very, very worried about holding on to their own seats? That is no way to govern this state.

There is one job that this government, that any government in this country, must put forward against anything else, and that is keeping the community safe – making sure that Victorians feel safe in their own homes, in their businesses, when they are taking their kids to school. But under this government, under the Allan government and under this Premier’s leadership Victorians do not feel safe and they are not safe. A day does not go by where I do not hear from my community about another aggravated burglary in someone’s home, a home invasion in the middle of the night, a machete in someone’s hands as they approach the front door of their house. It is under this government’s watch.

Let us be very, very clear: we were in this chamber in the last sitting week debating this piece of legislation. We put forward the amendment. In fact the coalition put forward the amendment and a private members bill 477 days ago. We have made four attempts to make machetes a prohibited weapon in this state. We have made four attempts, and what do we know? Nearly 15,000 knives, swords, daggers and machetes were confiscated last year. That is 40 weapons a day last year. Yet two weeks ago the government did not see it as an imperative to actually make sure that machetes were declared a prohibited weapon.

We have seen an absolute U-turn from the government over the past week when it comes to crime in this state, but for those of us that have been sitting here for 2½ years listening to those opposite say, ‘There’s no crime crisis when it comes to the rising rates of youth crime. There’s no issue with bail in this state. In fact let’s weaken bail laws.’ We saw the debate yesterday around bail. Of course it was a debate that was only allowed to last 2 hours in this place – 2 hours of debate after the opposition received the bill less than 24 hours before – and it was guillotined and voted on.

I did have a look back at what some of the members opposite have been saying about machetes and what they have been saying about the coalition’s attempt to actually introduce and strengthen our bail laws and our machete laws in this state. What I noted was particularly from a number of members, and I turn to the member for Tarneit, who often speaks on private members bills in this place. He said:

I am proud that this government, unlike those opposite, are not resorting to desperate tough-on-crime … politics, and we never, ever will.

I wonder if the member for Tarneit raised the issue of the bail bill being called the ‘tough bail’ bill after his being so concerned about using the language of tough on crime. He went on to say:

Some may prefer that tough-on crime approach for young children, but evidence shows that this does not work.

So what has changed? What has changed in terms of the approach last week and the week before and for two years in this place that this government has not been concerned about taking an actual tough-on-crime approach? What has changed? Politics has changed. The Premier is getting very, very worried about holding on to her position, and that is what has changed in this place. It has nothing to do with keeping the community safe – absolutely nothing. Yet here we are today with another rushed piece of legislation.

I note the member for Albert Park said yesterday that it cannot be both overdue and rushed. Well, it certainly can, because we have had two pieces of legislation in this place in this week that have been both of those. They are overdue because we have been calling for this for years. The crime statistics do not lie. We do not lie. We have the highest number of criminal incidents in Victoria since the crime statistics began. We have the highest rates of youth crime since 2009. That is a 15-year high, yet those on that side of the house every single day for the past 2½ years have stood up and said there is not an issue. In fact what have they done? They have weakened the laws in this state. They have made it possible for repeat offenders to go out on bail time and time again and to terrorise families every night. That is what is happening in this state under this government’s watch. The amendments that the government have brought in today are rushed. They are rushed because they have not, once again, tried to make sure these will have an impact here and now for the community.

These amendments will not come into effect for 288 days. On the one hand we had the Premier and the police minister come out last week and hold a series of press conferences saying, ‘We’ve listened. We accept we are not on the right path, that we have made terrible mistakes that have put Victorian lives at risk, cost Victorians their lives,’ because suddenly things have been raised on FM radio and ‘Oh, gosh, we’d better react.’ We saw the Premier and the police minister hold a series of press conferences, yet clearly the work behind the scenes had not been done. We had to wait until the eleventh hour or the twelfth hour to see the legislation produced and make sure that we could analyse that legislation. Finally, when it did come in, what did we see? We saw the fact that there is going to be 288 days before this piece of legislation even has an effect. That is why the member for Brighton on behalf of the shadow minister has moved a series of amendments, because we are not going to stand by and allow this to happen and continue in this state, making people feel unsafe in their homes night after night because machetes are allowed to be sold and that people are allowed to hold machetes for days and weeks and months to come. That is unacceptable, and that is certainly not doing anything to strengthen the laws in this state.

Last year we saw 40 weapons a day seized – 40 weapons a day under this government – yet time and time again we have seen those opposite vote against the very amendments that they are now bringing forward. Four times over the course of this Parliament has each and every member on the government side voted against making a machete a prohibited weapon. What has changed? Those members sit there and then lecture the opposition from their talking points. I do not know how they are able to formulate the words. Every single member on the government side has a lot to answer for for voting against trying to make the machete a prohibited weapon four times over the past two years. This has meant that Victorians have been less safe.

We have seen shocking incidents in this state where machetes have been used to go into people’s homes and hold them at knifepoint. They hold small business owners at knifepoint while they rob their shops. It is appalling that it has been allowed to occur time and time again. Yet when the government finally comes to the table and accepts, ‘Well, maybe there is a problem, but more importantly we’d better react to the politics because we’re sliding so quickly in the polls,’ they say, ‘Not right now, though. We’ll give it a little bit more time. We’ll give it a few more weeks, we’ll give it a few more months.’ It will not be until the end of this year before we actually see these amendments take effect and the sale of machetes in this state prohibited.

This government has so much to answer for. They are derelict in their duty in keeping this community safe. Not a day goes by when I do not hear from another member of my community saying they do not feel safe in their home. It should be the number one priority of any government to keep the community safe, but under the Premier, under the Allan Labor government, time and time again those members have voted against the opportunity to keep Victorians safe. Victorians are paying the price for this weak government.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (12:19): Today I rise to contribute on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. I was disappointed that I did not get to speak on it in the last sitting week, but I am pleased that it has come back with the amendments from the Legislative Council. They have delivered two amendments back to this place – namely, an amendment to create longer term designated areas under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and an amendment to reclassify machetes as prohibited weapons under the act.

When Victoria Police are designating areas, they will only be as large as is reasonably necessary to respond to the threat of violence or disorder. It can only be for a maximum of six months at a time, and it will be declared as will be reasonably necessary. It will be done with transparency, being met through publication of the sites and timeframes in the Government Gazette and also on the Victoria Police website. It will be at sites like train stations and shopping centres, and under these reforms it will be unable to be declared for longer periods of time.

We see during peak times, such as the school holidays and over the summer months, the risk of weapon-related violence increases. I know we have seen that in my particular electorate, and I will come to that very shortly. The amendment gives Victoria Police (VicPol) more flexibility so they can be present for longer in the areas where police intelligence tells us that there is an increased risk of violence. We also know that in giving police these search powers there is a definite deterrent effect for people considering carrying weapons with them. We know that it will stop some people just with the stop-and-search powers or the threat of stop-and-search powers at certain locations – in particular, as I say, shopping centres.

I want to give a shout-out to VicPol right across the state for the great work that they do, and I congratulate them on voting up their new enterprise bargaining agreement; it is well deserved. But I want to give a big shout-out to the VicPol members in my electorate of Melton under the leadership of Lisa Prentice-Evans. Lisa has been in the city working for a few months and I think is now working out in the northern area but will come back to Melton. Pat Cantone has been running the place out at Melton for a few months and is doing a fantastic job. They are always very responsive to all the issues that I have raised that have come through my office and that I have raised directly with the local members.

I have spoken previously about the banning of machetes. It was only six months ago that I spoke in the chamber about a fatal incident at the Woodgrove shopping centre in Melton that did result in the death of a young man, a 16-year-old youth. It was a stabbing, but it was not with a machete, it was with a knife. Again, such a tragic event has destroyed two families – the offender and his family and of course the youth who died as an outcome of this incident. We have had a number of events out my way in Melton – families being affected by knife attacks and machete attacks right through that western corridor. There was another young man attacked in Melton just before Christmas. He was stabbed to death in the driveway of a residential apartment block. He was chased down by a gang of youths and stabbed in this driveway. I believe the police have apprehended someone for that stabbing.

The member for Narre Warren North referred earlier in her contribution to the two young brothers, one in their early 20s and the other one in their mid-20s, who were both stabbed to death six months apart. The family had to deal with that – a really tragic outcome. The father of those two young boys was in Parliament only a few weeks ago when the African Youth Initiative played the movie Reclaimed Voices.The theme around that movie was giving the African youth perspective in regard to how they are treated within the community, how isolated some of them are and how some of them did turn to crime. The father, Antipas, who was there – I have met with Antipas on a number of occasions – came in to watch the movie but also to express his issues and concerns around youth crime and in particular knife crime, and I thank him for it. There was a fifth young fella from Staughton College, which is one of the secondary schools in Melton, who was stabbed to death at a bus stop in Sunshine. I think he was only 15 at the time. Again it was a gang of youths that attacked him at that bus stop, and unfortunately he lost his life.

I have previously spoken about supermarket restrictions – banning the stocking of knives and the sale of knives. I know at the Woodgrove shopping centre the Woolworths store after the event at Woodgrove where the young man was stabbed last year stopped the stocking and selling of knives. They did not sell machetes, but they certainly did sell knives.

By declaring machetes as a prohibited weapon it moves them into the highest restricted weapon category in Victoria, and if you are found in possession of a machete after this amendment is made you will be charged with a serious criminal offence, which will be punishable by two years jail or a fine of over $47,000. If you are found with a machete before this becomes law, you are committing an offence anyway if you do not have a lawful reason for doing so. I have heard that some farmers may use machetes, some hobbyists may use machetes. There will be a process of exemption, and they can apply through that process, but again I would have thought there is an alternative to a machete to be used around a farm or for whatever hobbyists may use a machete for, but again there will be an exemption process that they could apply to.

I have spoken about this before when I have raised this issue about machetes – it might have been in a members statement of mine in the past – and in a previous role that I had as a paramedic I witnessed the damage of knife attack and machete attack. Machetes are a chopping machine, let me tell you, and if you have ever seen a human body chopped up by a machete it is not a nice view; and to try and patch a human body up that has been chopped up by a machete is not an easy job, let me tell you. When you use a machete into soft tissue, if you can picture just chopping into a piece of meat that you might put on the barbecue, it is similar; that is similar to what would happen with a human body. If a machete hits a skull it can split a skull like if you were splitting a watermelon. It is tragic; it is absolutely tragic. And if you strike blood vessels, well, obviously depending on the blood vessel you strike, clearly someone could bleed out. If you strike nerves, they may be repaired, but you will probably never get the full use of that limb ever again.

As I say, these weapons do serious damage. I have not been on the road as a paramedic since 1995, and I am talking back in my days, back through the 1980s and 90s where machetes were used, and in particular in areas like Sunshine and St Albans where I worked on the road they were a weapon of choice. So this is not new. This is not new, but they are very dangerous in the hands of people.

One of the things that we are not concentrating on here in the debate is that we can remove machetes or ban machetes, and we can we can remove edged knives from shops, but one thing that I think that we have also got to concentrate on is the mindset of our use about changing their culture or why they think they need to carry a knife, and we need to work a lot on that. That comes back to the family doing a lot of work, the community doing a lot of work. There are a lot of good community groups that are out there at the moment and there are a lot of programs. We need to educate and inform our youth that they do not need to resort to carrying knives. Even in banning machetes, will they still have a mindset to go for something else in lieu of a machete? Do they make their own type of weapon that can still do the same type of damage? I hope not. I think that is one area that I would like to see us concentrate on also in supporting the banning of these weapons, and I commend these amendments to this house.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (12:29): I rise to speak on the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. Unlike for the member for Melton there are no flies over here, but there are flies over this state Labor government. This is a politically motivated, rushed and flawed attempt by the Allan Labor government to salvage its leadership and to salvage its party and to fix a problem of its own making. For example, the latest poll shows that Labor have dropped 22 per cent in their primary vote, and they had a huge swing in Werribee.

Machete bans and the so-called tough bail bill are not the result of careful policy deliberation, expert consultation or genuine commitment to making Victoria safer. This bill, along with the so-called tough bail bill, is a knee-jerk reaction. It is a knee-jerk reaction after we have attempted to bring bans of machetes and to restrengthen bail laws multiple times. On machetes, we have not only tried to bring a bill once, not just twice, not just three times, but four times. On the bail bill, we have tried to do that multiple times as well –

James Newbury interjected.

Chris CREWTHER: as the member for Brighton notes, three times. That is at least seven times in total, across the machetes bill and the bail bill, that we have tried to take action. We have tried to take action because we have actually been listening to the community. Labor are supposedly finally ‘listening’ to the community, but this is really a response to their failing leadership and their failures in the polls.

If we look at the years of Labor that we have had, we have had 11 years of Labor and we will have had, by the next election, 23 out of 27 years of Labor. They have weakened bail laws. We have less consequences for offenders. We have a shortage of at least 1100 in police numbers. We have lowered reception hours at multiple police stations across Victoria, including in Mornington in my electorate. We have seen the age of criminal responsibility increased. Yet despite all this, as mentioned, Labor have continued to block our attempts to take action in these areas but have finally caved to community and our pressure.

We do need stronger bail laws. We do need to ban machetes. We do need to fill the 1100 police spots. We do need increased 24-hour reception at police stations so, for example, if someone who is a victim of domestic violence turns up at 11 pm to a police station which is unattended, which has actually happened, does not get beaten to a pulp after that. This should not be happening in our community.

We should have stronger consequences for offenders as well. Consequences are not always just jail. Let us say someone lights a fire. In the past – and I spoke to a local CFA captain about this – back in the 80s and 90s, someone who lit a fire might have been made to do 80 hours worth of volunteer work at the local CFA. That enabled them to see the consequences of their action, but it also sometimes meant that person went on to be a regular volunteer with the CFA and to actually do something positive for the community. It is very similar to parenting. When parenting, you need to give positive thrills to young people or you need positive things for them to do in the community, in sports and so forth. But you also need discipline and consequences, and we have had a lack of both in our community, particularly during the last 11 years under Labor.

Going past machetes as well, banning machetes obviously deals more with the consequences of offending, but we need to do a lot more around prevention as well. I do believe that the debt levels that Labor has put us into have led to a situation where we are underinvesting in prevention, which will lead to greater consequences in terms of offending in the long run, as we have already been seeing. One thing I have suggested, which actually works very well, is the Icelandic prevention program, which is being rolled out by Planet Youth internationally, included in Mexico. I know that Australia has trialled it in a few other locations in the past, with some federal funding via the Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF) and local drug action team (LDAT) funding. The fact is that youth prefer negative thrills over boredom. If they are bored, they will choose negative things to do, so we need to give youth positive things to do and positive incentives so they do not go out and commit crimes. One example is Quinn’s Place in my electorate of Mornington, which operates on a Friday night. It was set up by the mother of a young person who unfortunately tragically died a couple of years ago. It gives positive thrills to youth on a Friday night without drugs or alcohol. These are the sorts of activities we need in our community to prevent crime, including machete crimes as well. In addition to that, I think we need things like police back in schools, with active police going into classes and teaching in classes to get youth reconnected with our policing system.

Just looking into crime statistics across Victoria, we have seen residential aggravated burglaries increase by an alarming 24 per cent across Victoria, including 19 homes a day being violently invaded, and that includes many in my electorate, unfortunately, in Mornington. We have also seen motor vehicle thefts rise by 33 per cent, with a car stolen every 20 minutes, and criminal offences are up by 32 per cent on the Mornington Peninsula, where my electorate is based, in the last 12 months. Last year over 10,000 knives, swords and machetes were seized by police and over 115,000 in the last decade. In the last week we have seen news reports of a young person, I believe a 24-year-old, who was killed with a machete in Lyndhurst. So Labor has a history of failures in this area, and Labor has constantly got it wrong on crime.

477 days ago the opposition first pushed for a ban on machetes. Labor refused our calls to ban machetes on these four different occasions. Of course we have got the bail changes this week, but every time we have tried to make these changes in the past, as I mentioned earlier in this speech, it has been blocked by Labor. In 2023 this Labor government weakened bail laws too much, letting criminals back on the street, and we are seeing report after report of people offending, reoffending and reoffending over and over again, offence after offence with little to no consequences. It is indeed a revolving door. When I used to work at the ACT Magistrates Court many years ago, working as an associate to a magistrate, we actually had a revolving door at the at the entrance of the ACT Magistrates Court. We always used to refer to it as a revolving door because unfortunately – this is in the ACT at the time, which unfortunately has now been reflected in Victoria – we would remand someone, but they would then appeal to the Supreme Court, they would be released the next week and then we would see them back committing yet another offence again and again and again.

This government cannot be trusted on crime and tackling crime. I note as well that this bill will not take effect for a little while. The opposition is pushing to bring this forward by three months because every delay means more stabbings, more home invasions, more carjackings and potentially more lives lost, just like the 24-year-old man in Lyndhurst the other day. The government’s excuse about safe disposal is weak, and other jurisdictions have implemented bans faster. There is also a lack of clarity around things in this bill that will be consequences of this bill, as raised earlier with the question of ‘What is the definition of a machete?’ Is it a 20-centimetre knife or is it a 30-centimetre knife? The government has not actually clearly explained how this ban will work in practice, and they have not clearly articulated the terms of the exemption approval framework for farmers, tradespeople, historical collectors and so forth.

This bill, and the bail bill as well, is a reaction. It is a reaction not just to us advocating for the last two years but to the community and the suffering that the community is experiencing at the hands of people wielding machetes but also with increased crimes, with carjackings, with home invasions and more. The government does need to better fund and resource police. They do need more preventative programs, particularly for youth. They do need greater investment in mental health services to prevent crimes before they happen. We do need more police in the streets, strong intervention programs and investment in rehabilitation.

I will go into the amendments that we are putting forward in my last 20 seconds. I do note that we are pushing for bringing forward the start date of the machete ban by three months, and the government should agree to this. We are also pushing to bring forward the banning of the sale of machetes immediately. The government needs to start listening to community, start listening to the Liberals and Nationals and do something.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:39): I am delighted to rise in support of the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. Before I start, as a local member I have the opportunity many times to speak to our community members when doorknocking, at street stalls and at community events. We listen keenly, and that is why we are very supportive of this amendment, because the government has listened to the community about safety.

Not long ago, about two weeks ago, I and the hardworking local member for Mulgrave and the member for Mordialloc attended the community safety forum in the City of Greater Dandenong. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Victoria Police and our police in the south-east, Mark Langhorn and many of his colleagues, who work day in, day out to ensure that the safety of our community comes first, above all else.

That is why these amendments have come about, with an amendment to create a longer term designated area under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and an amendment to reclassify machetes as a prohibited weapon under the act. That is why we are here today. These amendments are being made after close consultation with Victoria Police. I am also proud – I joined this Parliament in 2018 – of the investment that the Allan Labor government and the Daniel Andrews Labor government have made in our police force: 3600 police officers, who day in, day out ensure that our community is safe and that we feel safe to go out at night in our communities. That alone, I would say, says something about this government. We know that further strengthening the Control of Weapons Act with these amendments will help our police officers to detect weapons and deter people from using them in the first place. That is why I support these amendments, and I ask that these amendments speedily pass this house.

Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (12:42): It is a pleasure to make a contribution to the Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2024. I want to begin my contribution by, I guess, highlighting some of the challenges for the crossbench in this place when it comes to deliberating on amendments of this nature. The government of course is in control of the process in this place, as we know, and that is fair enough. They are the government. They won the election; they got the majority of members. The opposition, despite suffering some of the same disadvantages the crossbench does, does not suffer one of the unique disadvantages of the crossbench in that they have members in the other place who can obviously socialise what is happening in the other place, and they also have parliamentary advisers. The Greens party have parliamentary advisers. But those of use who sit on the crossbench do not have parliamentary advisers, so it is very difficult to be on top of the detail of what is coming from the other place back to this chamber, particularly when we do not have sufficient notice about what is happening.

I was not offered a briefing on this bill. I had to seek one, and it is only, I suspect, because I sought one that I received a briefing on what was coming back from the other place. I think that, frankly, is not good enough. I think far better would be that if substantive changes to legislation are being made in the other place, and they are ultimately changes that are going to be supported by the majority in this chamber, we are given a proper briefing on them and an opportunity to reflect on them and understand them. For that reason, I am, frankly, struggling to land a position on elements of this bill in the very limited time we have and with the even more limited resources we as the crossbench have available to us.

By way of expanding upon that point, I note that the clause notes in the original bill – the unamended bill – talk about the purposes being to refine the functions of the Department of Justice and Community Safety secretary and the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel and, further, to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to make further provision for the declaration of designated areas and make other minor amendments. The original bill makes no reference to what has come back to this chamber today. The original bill was not a bill about banning machetes; it is only the amended bill.

So effectively we are being handed a substantive piece of legislation on next to no notice, consistent with the government’s practice in this chamber right throughout the course of this week, no resources to properly analyse it, no resources to properly contemplate the full effect of the changes and absolutely zero chance to consult with stakeholders, and we are being asked to vote on the thing. We are not even being asked to vote on it at the guillotine tomorrow. I understand we are likely to be asked to vote on it today. That is an appallingly rushed process, consistent with a government that is seeking only to serve political ends, not to serve policy ends. This is classic policy on the fly that is being driven, it would appear, by a bunch of bad polls and a bunch of cruddy headlines in the Herald Sun and not by sound, well-reasoned, well thought out and well-considered policymaking imperatives. So that is my first objection, before we even get to the substance of the bill, to the way in which this bill is being treated in this chamber today.

To the further point around process, this is frankly a cheeky use of an existing bill to bring these amendments to the chamber. These could have been introduced as a standalone bill, these amendments, and it would not be debated in this way and on this day, because there are some procedural safeguards around governments ramming things through the Parliament, and those safeguards are frankly skirted by having these amendments introduced into a bill that was not actually about – the phrase ‘control of weapons’ can be in the title – what weapons and in what way. Those amendments were about the way in which police conduct searches for weapons. It is a cheeky use and I would say potentially a misuse of the forms and the processes of the Parliament to be going about this change in this manner, using amendments in the other place to be able to get changes through this chamber without anything like the appropriate level of scrutiny, without anything like the appropriate level of procedural due diligence.

Turning to the substance of the bill, just like the bill that was debated in this place yesterday, this is a case of the government urgently, urgently, urgently making a change – in nine months. Or urgently, urgently, urgently making a change – in six months. So urgent is it that it must be rammed through this place without due consideration, and yet the commencement is many, many, many months down the line, and I just have not been persuaded on – nor have I even been asked for a view on – whether it is appropriate to go about these changes in this way. What actually is driving the urgency that we have to condense the legislative process so substantially in order to meet an artificial deadline that is six months hence? It will make no substantive difference whether these amendments were debated in here in two weeks time if the effective date is not until 31 December, or further to the member for Brighton’s amendments, whether the effective date becomes 30 September. It just simply will make no substantive difference. It will make a difference to the quality of the consideration of the amendments, it will make a difference to the quality of the legislative outcome, it will make a difference to the quality of the engagement with all members in this chamber, but it will not make any substantive difference to what the government is trying to achieve, and I simply do not understand why it is that we are being asked to consider these particular amendments in this way.

Turning to the substance of what is being proposed – albeit, as I have said, by way of amendment that has not been conveyed appropriately and for the crossbench to be able to adequately consider – what is being proposed, amongst other things but principally, is a ban on machetes where the definition of ‘machete’ is not provided. The dictionary definition I think is ‘a blade with a handle’, and I am pretty sure we can all come up with plenty of examples of blades with handles that are not machetes. I was using one last night to slice up lamb for my kids’ rolls for today. I am pretty sure I was not engaged in a knife crime. But it is entirely possible that if the legislative drafting is not done with a degree of precision I might find myself in possession of a prohibited weapon. I will further add that, like many people, I have taken souvenirs when I have gone on international holidays – or international adventures, in the case that I am about to outline. In 1995 I went to Nepal. I was very fortunate to travel to that part of the world, and I bought a ceremonial knife which is a key part of Nepalese custom, and that knife might very well be caught by this language and be caught by this ban. Whether it will be ultimately exempted depends on what the exemptions look like, and we do not know what they look like, not least because this legislation is being so rushed, being hammered through this chamber, without due consideration and without due debate, and I think that is hugely problematic.

The second thing is whether in fact the prohibition tool rather than the control tool – that is, the ‘prohibited weapons’ language rather than the ‘controlled weapons’ language – is the right tool to actually fix the problem, because the problem, as I understand it and as enunciated by members of the government, is not that people own machetes, it is that people are out using machetes, that people in possession of machetes are using them in furtherance of other crimes. What they are not doing is talking about whether those machetes are in and of themselves problematic. I query and would love the government to address whether or not the sheer fact of ownership of a machete, the sheer fact of having something that meets this definition of a machete or the sheer fact of having a knife in the back drawer at home that is not a kitchen knife but some other kind of knife is in fact the sort of thing that we ought to be regulating out of existence.

Finally, in the very limited time I have had to both speak on and consider these matters, I want to say that the amnesty is farcical – pure political theatre. It offers absolutely no substantive change to the prevalence or otherwise of knife crime in Victoria. It will do absolutely nothing about it, because you will see some law-abiding citizens handing in knives that were otherwise not being used for knife crimes and you will see none of the kids who many in this place have said are running around with machetes participating in an amnesty. It would be far better to prohibit their carriage and use, far better to stop them being sold, but this amnesty will do absolutely nothing to solve any of the problems the government is seeking to solve.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (12:52): Six and a half years ago the coalition went to the election telling Victorians we have an issue with weapons as dangerous and destructive as machetes, to the extent that they must be banned and the importation of them must be stopped. We were ridiculed and opposed by the Labor Party, like we were when the four times the coalition proposed bans to this chamber and said that these weapons should not be normalised, they should not be allowed for sale and they must be banned. Now we find the Labor Party, down in the polls with a problem on law and order, finally saying, six years later, ‘We might have a problem, but we’re going to fix it, maybe, in nine months time.’ Do not wait nine months. Do it straightaway. That is what the Liberal and National parties say. Why has it taken the government so long to understand that these weapons should not be allowed for importation or sale? Why has it taken six and a half years for the Labor Party to understand that these are not weapons for a 16-year-old who you find in your lounge room with his mates, having home invaded terrorised families who are in their bathroom with their feet against the door because the police have not turned up yet. This is not something that should be tolerated. It should not have taken six and a half years for the government to finally say, ‘We’re down in the polls. Gee, let’s have a political response.’

There is no political response to human safety. There is a sensible, immediate policy response, and that should be the response of everyone in this chamber as an elected member of Parliament. This chamber knew this would be a problem six and a half years ago, and the Labor Party ridiculed our solutions, like they ridiculed the need for increased police numbers, which they then came around to and accepted needed to be done, like they ridiculed the concept of mandatory sentencing for offences like, for instance, one-punch-can-kill offences, for God’s sake, which still do not have mandatory laws attached to them, and like they ridiculed the concept that youth crime was out of control in this state. The Premier of this state was one of the key people who criticised and ridiculed the coalition for coming to Victorians saying we have a major problem in the making that must be solved now.

There is a reason that bikie gangs were leaving the Gold Coast and setting up in Victoria. We see on our building sites today why they are in Victoria. When you weaken laws and you allow your state’s law and order system to work in favour of those who break it, not those who in fact try to adhere to keeping the law, then what you get is a product of Victoria 2025, a state that has become in many ways lawless compared to others in Australia that did not need to get to this stage. In the last few weeks a teen attacked a man in St Kilda with a machete. A woman’s hand was slashed in a random machete attack in a car just two weeks ago. There was a violent crime spree three weeks ago. I could keep going. These things should not be the norm. They have become the norm under a government that has failed to accept that these things have been brewing as a problem. People in this chamber sought to solve this problem six to seven years ago but the government denied it. The government abused those who tried to fix it. They threw all these kinds of terms at us: ‘It’s for this reason, it’s for that reason’ – all politics.

This bill should not be about politics, because human safety is certainly and should be the primary reason we are here – the preservation and protection of human safety and human life. But the fact that we have got to this stage with this bill with this Premier, who ridiculed solutions to these problems seven years ago, who now comes in seeking a political response, says everything about this government and the failure of this government to tackle a crime problem that should have been tackled seven years ago.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): There being no further speakers, the minister has moved that the amendments of the Legislative Council be agreed to. The member for Brighton has moved some amendments to the Council’s amendments. I will therefore split the question on the Council amendments to allow the member for Brighton’s amendments to be considered. I advise that, if the member for Brighton’s amendment 1 is not agreed to, his remaining amendments will fail, as they are consequential.

Assembly divided on James Newbury’s amendment 1:

Ayes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Noes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Maree Edwards, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Amendment defeated.

Assembly divided on Council amendment 1:

Ayes (77): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Josh Bull, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Wayne Farnham, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson

Noes (3): Gabrielle de Vietri, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell

Amendment agreed to.

Assembly divided on Council amendments 2 to 10:

Ayes (77): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Josh Bull, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Wayne Farnham, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson

Noes (3): Gabrielle de Vietri, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell

Amendments agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will be sent to the Legislative Council informing them accordingly. The house will now break for lunch and return at 2 pm.

Sitting suspended 1:09 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.

The SPEAKER: Can I acknowledge in the gallery today the US consul general Conrad Tribble and former minister Luke Donnellan.