Thursday, 20 March 2025

Bills

Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025

Council’s amendments

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (23:37): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025 with amendments.

Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Clause 9, page 6, line 8, omit “(Tough Bail)”.

2. Clause 9, page 6, line 12, omit “(Tough Bail)”.

3. Clause 10, line 17, omit “(Tough Bail)”.

4. Clause 10, line 26, omit “(Tough Bail)”.

5. Short title, omit “(Tough Bail)”.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (23:38): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

We said we would not leave Parliament tonight until our tougher bail laws were passed, and that is exactly what we have done. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this important debate to make sure that we are able to pass these laws – and they are the toughest bail laws in the country – and to pass them as a matter of urgency. Victorians have the right to be safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods, and when that right is endangered there need to be consequences. That is what this bill is about: protecting Victorians, making community safety an overarching principle in every single bail decision and protecting hardworking Victorians from serious repeat offending. It is the serious repeat offending that is driving fear and harm in our communities, and that is entirely unacceptable.

I want to thank the many victims of crime that I have spoken to who have contacted me and shared their stories – families who have been terrorised and harmed and communities who have been harmed. While Victoria’s bail laws are already some of the most stringent in the country, with our reverse onus test for serious offences and further amendments that were only introduced in December last year, we knew we had to go further and to do so with a real sense of urgency.

The nature and scale of repeat offending has been escalating, particularly in relation to aggravated burglary and aggravated home invasion, with such serious consequences. I think it is the randomness and the lack of relationship between an alleged offender and the victims of these crimes that make them a more repeatable crime than other offences. The stories we have heard have been heartbreaking, the harm and terror and fear unimaginable. I recently met with a victim of crime. Her family had been terrorised from a recent aggravated burglary which saw a number of offenders break into her home while she and her young family were sleeping. The offenders had weapons, and they broke into their home and stole both their cars. Both of the cars were later involved in high-speed and dangerous driving. The victim turned to me and asked, ‘How did this happen when these offenders were on bail?’ As I have said previously, I did not have an answer for her, but I promised her we were listening, that the Allan Labor government were listening. We have listened and we have acted. We have acted swiftly and with a real and compelling sense of urgency, as is warranted and as Victorians rightly expect and deserve.

It is disappointing that those opposite have not necessarily shared that view, that sense of urgency. They have elected to draw out debate tonight and not on substantive matters – matters that make a difference to Victorians like stronger, tougher bail laws, the toughest bail laws in the country, and matters that go directly to protecting community safety. What is disappointing is that those opposite, dare I say it, are lacking in depth, lacking in substance, with no ticker, their own leader missing in action somewhere off the Far North Queensland coast. Dare I say it –

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I thought that this debate was limited to the amendments made by the Council, not the bill generally.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the Attorney-General to come back to the amendments before the house.

Sonya KILKENNY: These toughest bail laws are focused squarely on community safety, protecting Victorians so that Victorians can rightly go about and live and work and feel secure in the neighbourhoods where they live, without fear. Our focus can and must also be on making sure that for young offenders we break that cycle of offending, that we help them turn their lives around. These toughest bail laws will jolt the system, making sure community safety is prioritised in every single bail decision. Victorians deserve this and nothing less, and that is what the Allan Labor government is delivering. I commend the bill.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (23:43): I was not quite clear from the Attorney-General’s comments whether or not the government is actually adopting –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ripon is warned. The member for Tarneit can leave the chamber for half an hour. All members are warned.

Dylan Wight interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Tarneit, come back and apologise.

Dylan Wight: Sorry, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Make it an hour and a half.

Member for Tarneit withdrew from chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Malvern to continue without assistance.

Michael O’BRIEN: In the contribution of the Attorney-General, it was not quite clear whether or not the government is now endorsing and adopting the amendments made by the other place to this bill. If the government is now adopting the amendments made by the other place to this bill, it is no longer the tough bail bill. The government now agrees, apparently, it is not the tough bail bill. It is not tough bail. I have probably said this very rarely in my time in this place, but the Council has got it right. It is not tough bail at all because the bail bill before us does not even restore Victorian bail law to where it was 12 months ago. It is weaker than it was 12 months ago. It is weak. And that is why it is so important that we on this side support the amendments made by the other place – because this bill is not a tough bail bill, it is a weak bail bill. If the government had had the courage to actually adopt all the amendments put forward by the Liberals and Nationals in the other place, then it might have been a tough bail bill. For example, then if somebody had breached a condition of bail –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the speaker is debating amendments that are not in front of this place at the moment. He should come back to the amendments before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I encourage the member to continue on the amendments.

Michael O’BRIEN: It is exactly why the amendment to delete the words ‘tough bail’ from the title of the bill is so important – because this is not a tough bail bill at all. If the government had accepted the amendments put forward by the opposition in the other place, it might have been a tough bail bill; then it might have been true to its name. But because the government refused to do so, because the government refused to actually have any criminal consequences for breaching bail, because the government refused to have any toughening of the bail test for people who breach bail, because the government refused to have any toughening of the bail test for people who commit an indictable offence whilst on bail, because they refused to do that, this bill does not deserve to be called a tough bail bill. Now, we could have put forward that it be called the weak bail bill, but we thought, ‘No, we’re actually not going to play the political games of the Premier, the political games of the Attorney-General.’

A member: Cartoonish games.

Michael O’BRIEN: Cartoonish games; correct. I cannot remember any other bill in this place that has come in with a political slogan in its title. It shows you how desperate this government is – how absolutely desperate. Three times in the last 12 months I have come here trying to amend bail laws to make them stronger, to make them, dare I say, tougher, and this government said, ‘No, no, no.’ Three times I was denied, and then a cockerel crowed behind me. It was extraordinary. This is a government that has fought against toughening bail bills but then wants to bring into this place a bill –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I know it is late, I know you are excited to stay back, but a little order in the chamber would be good – a little less yelling.

Michael O’BRIEN: If the government wanted this to actually be a tough bail bill worthy of the name, it could have just accepted the amendments put forward by the Liberals and Nationals, and then it would have been a tough bail bill. But instead it is not. It is a weak bail bill befitting of a government that weakens bail laws, still believes in weak bail laws – a pack of bleeding hearts who do not actually care about community safety and are only motivated by opinion polls, caucus chatter –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Eureka!

Michael O’BRIEN: and their own political careers, not the safety and security of Victorians in their own homes. So we are quite happy to accept the amendments made in the other place.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Police! Member for Eureka, this is your last warning.

Michael O’BRIEN: We accept the amendments because, let us be clear, the amendments are to delete the phrase ‘tough bail’ from the entire bill. I was concerned the Premier might be up before the ACCC for misleading and deceptive conduct. If she had tried to actually pass a bill called a tough bail bill that was not tough at all, she might have been in legal trouble. I would not want to see that happen.

What we have here is a bill which basically represents this government going 10 steps back and half a step forward. They want to think it is tough and they want to think it is strong, but it is none of those things – it is marginally better than it was before, but it is still weak. Victorians are still at risk. Victorians’ lives are still at risk and Victorians will still be at risk from people who breach bail conditions and can stay on bail because they do not face a tougher test. Victorians will still be at risk from people who can commit an indictable offence whilst on bail and not face a tougher test to get bail.

Jacinta Allan: Not true.

Michael O’BRIEN: That is exactly true, Premier.

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Malvern. Premier, you will come to order.

Michael O’BRIEN: It is absolutely true, and that is why we support the amendments made by the Council. This is not a tough bail bill; it is a weak bail bill made by a weak government led by a weak Attorney-General and a weak Premier. But when we get a change of government in Victoria, then Victorians will get strong bail laws, a strong bail bill and real community safety. That is what Victorians deserve, and in about 18 months they will have a chance to have exactly that.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kororoit! Member for Croydon! Why don’t you all just take a deep breath and calm down.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (23:51): Testing, testing; I just want to make sure it is on. I have not been up this late in many, many years. And here we are, listening to the member for Malvern become as petty as I have seen the member for Malvern be in six years. This is an incredible bill. These are the toughest bail laws in Australia, and I cannot wait to get out in the western suburbs tomorrow and talk about this tough bail bill that we are going to pass. My community do not care about the name of this bill. What they do care about is that we have a tough Premier, and she has listened to the community and her message is clear: community safety is paramount. It comes first above all else. The message to serious repeat offenders is: your time is up; the honeymoon is over. There will be serious consequences for you. My community in Melbourne’s west cannot wait for this bill to become law and then see the results that will come from it.

I have to say, and I am going to lower my voice for this one, I do want to give a shout-out to an incredible local principal. Her name is Pat, and she is going to retire at the end of this term. She has been the principal of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception in Sunshine for decades. This is an incredible woman. We have been talking about teachers, and we have been talking about schools tonight – this is one of them in the western suburbs. When I went to that school three weeks ago, she told me about the terrible activities happening in her community outside that school –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Laverton needs to confine her comments to the amendments. If she wanted to talk about schools, she had her opportunity before.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I can barely hear the member for Laverton. Member for Laverton, I would ask you to come back to the amendments before the house.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Let me tell you why this is going to be relevant to Pat. When I met with Pat, she talked about some of the most appalling crimes happening outside of her school with youth and machetes and the types of goings-on. I said to Pat, ‘I promise you our Premier is cracking down on crime. There is going to be a bail bill and a reckoning in this state like no other.’ These are the toughest bail laws in this country, and tonight, almost before midnight, we get the opportunity to go ahead and pass this bill and we can make it law. We can do the right thing for all Victorians. So I say to those opposite: I do not care what you call this bill; these are the toughest bail laws in the country. We have the toughest Premier here in this state and we have the opportunity to pass it tonight. I am going to leave my comments there so we can do it before midnight and go home.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to come to order.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick – Leader of the Opposition) (23:55): I hope following the contribution that we have just heard from the member for Laverton she can pass on to Pat that the only reason the bail laws were weakened here in this state was the Victorian Labor government changed the rules and made sure people could get out without any issues. We have seen crime rise –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: I am going to remove members from the chamber if this keeps up. Leader of the Opposition, without assistance.

Brad BATTIN: We have seen crime rise, so much so that today the stats are the largest on record since they began being recorded in 1993. And the reality is that this is because repeat offenders continuously get out of jail. They fail to get remand and they get bail here in this state within 90 minutes of being arrested.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, as members of the opposition have had the opportunity to remind us tonight, it is appropriate that people only speak on the amendments that are before the house right now, and I ask that you ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to speaking specifically to the amendments.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the amendments before the house.

Brad BATTIN: I suppose it gives us good reason why we are talking about this bill, because the reason the name ‘Tough Bail’ needed to be removed was because that was nothing but Labor spin, a decision not made by the department, a decision made by the minister’s office to add in brackets ‘Tough Bail’ – nothing to do with community safety, nothing to do with people keeping people locked up, nothing to do with taking machetes off the street, nothing to do with ensuring that it increases the level of what you need to do to get bail here in this state. I will tell you: on this side of the house we have an absolute passion for making sure our community is safe – not via spin, not via a title on a bill ‍– to ensure that the government returns what we say should have been put back in the first place.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Emergency Services, you are not in your place. You can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Minister for Emergency Services withdrew from chamber.

Brad BATTIN: What we say is: what should have happened is it should not have been just this one amendment for ‘Tough Bail’, it should have been reversed back to what the bill was originally and the law was in relation to bail in March 2023. Prior to that date we hardly saw the amount of people going through the system they are getting now. You only have to look on social media, where young offenders are out there at the moment –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition is failing to speak directly to the amendments that are before the house at the moment. I ask you to ask him to come back to them.

The SPEAKER: I ask you to come back to the amendments before the house.

Brad BATTIN: When it comes to tough bail here in Victoria, it does not come down to a title; it comes down to action, and the actions that have been put forward with the amendments from the Shadow Attorney-General not just today but in the past as well – they have been here on three separate occasions, and Labor has voted against them on three separate occasions. It is about time we actually –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, could you please give the Leader of the Opposition some guidance here. He is now talking about amendments, apparently, that were made weeks ago. We are specifically debating the amendments that are in this house, at this place, right now.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Eureka can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Eureka withdrew from chamber.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Police is warned. The Premier will come to order. The Leader of the House will come to order. The member for Kororoit can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Kororoit withdrew from chamber.

Michael O’Brien: On the point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is clearly within the context of the debate. He is talking about why the name of the bill needed to be amended, which is exactly the proposition before the house. He is entirely within the realms of the debate before the house. I ask you to rule the point of order out of order.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come back to the amendments before the house.

Brad BATTIN: As we have said before, on having a bill amendment with tough bail, if you wanted to have reality you should have gone out and consulted and maybe spoken to the family of Ash Gordon. You could have spoken to the family of Ash Gordon, who passed away, who was murdered because of the fact someone was out on bail under the rules changed by the Victorian Labor government. Changing a title does not bring someone back. It never will. You now need to make sure that you cannot try and bring in the spin of having ‘tough bail’ in your bill, and that is why we supported removing ‘tough bail’, because the actual bill itself is simply just weak.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (00:01): It is important to rise on the amendments that have come from the Council. I acknowledge that it has been a significant journey to get to this point. Council members who front up each week to do this work see their Legislative Assembly colleagues hanging back a bit and probably think, ‘Well, this is just run-of-the-mill’, and we acknowledge their contributions and their debates on this.

Let us just be clear. Our Premier has put forward the toughest bail reforms in our nation. While those opposite were dropping leaks on the latitude and longitude of the Leader of the Opposition and the coordinates of the date line he was on rather than working on behalf of Victorians, we were putting through the toughest bail bill. While people were talking about whether they were going away for a cyclone that the shadow cabinet had no knowledge of or no awareness of, we were consulting with Victoria Police –

Jade Benham interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mildura, leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Mildura withdrew from chamber.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, it may be past midnight, but I struggle to find how the member for Mordialloc’s contribution relates to the two-word amendment made by the other place.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc to speak to the amendments before the house.

Tim RICHARDSON: The most that we have got after 7 hours from those opposite is to talk about a few words on a bill as a contribution to bail reform. The greatest victory that the Shadow Attorney-General comes forward with, with all his vigour, with all his learned friend antics, is to claim that he has changed a couple of words – because the substance of this bill will protect more Victorians and support more Victorian families.

The Premier acknowledged the work that needed to be done – not those opposite, who in the mea culpa from the Leader of the Opposition after a number of days of being found to have misled his colleagues, got to this point. Our Premier had the leadership to meet with victims of crime to understand what Victorians need and to say, ‘We’ve got more work to do,’ and she has done that work within a week. The greatest contrast that those opposite can put forward in this moment is to say ‘We have moved a couple of words that change no element of the bill,’ and that is the greatest victory that has been put forward. Is that the greatest contribution that the member for Malvern is claiming to have made tonight – that there has been an amendment, an omission of words, put on a bill that has been debated?

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is debating the amendment because if the government was serious about actually strengthening the bill, they would have accepted all of our amendments in the other place, which actually would have made this a tough bail bill worthy of the name.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Malvern and the Minister for Police can both leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Malvern and Minister for Police withdrew from chamber.

Tim RICHARDSON: I feel a bit cheated that the member for Malvern is making an exit, because it was one of the grandest performances I have ever seen on an amendment that omitted nine letters. That was the contribution. There is no substance in that; no substantial changes have been put forward. That is literally the problem with the modern-day Liberal Party. It is all bluff and bluster and no substance on behalf of Victorians. This amendment right here –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Speaker, members need to speak to the narrow confines of the amendment. I would ask you to ask the member to return to the confines of the amendment.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc has strayed a little from the amendments. I ask him to come back to the amendments before the house.

Tim RICHARDSON: I am just astonished that after 7 hours, when it comes back to this house for our consideration, the greatest thing those opposite claim to have contributed to this bill in these amendments has been changing a few lines around the ‘tough’ definition. There is no substance in the change. That was the greatest flag capture put forward by the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General. In full vigour, in full effort, that is what is being claimed. On this side, with these amendments that have come forward, which then see the full bill roll through, we will see that Victorians are safer. They see a Premier that is leading on their behalf to create safer communities in Victoria, who fronts up and listens to their needs – not sailing away over into waters where they cannot be found, which the shadow cabinet had no idea about. She is doing the work that is required, and that is the key element to this.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Speaker, I would ask if you could bring the member back to speaking on the bill.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mordialloc, I have reminded you several times now. I would ask you to come back to the amendments.

Tim RICHARDSON: The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, in their contributions commentated simply on the amendments that talked about whether this was tough or not. That was 7 hours of work to get this back to the chamber from the Legislative Council, and that was the claimed change or outcome. On this side, when this bill goes through with these amendments, the substance and form of this will be substantial for Victorians. It will change the outcomes and give Victoria Police the support that they need, which comes directly from listening and engaging and the care, compassion and leadership that is shown by our Premier in Victoria. It is not just whether a word changes in an amendment and 7 hours later claiming that that is your contribution on a particular bill. No, this is many, many hours of work that has been done by our Attorney-General, the Premier and the Minister for Police. This shows how we lead in Victoria. We listen to Victorians and deliver those outcomes. These amendments that will go through are part of a huge package in this bill that will make Victorians safe, and we welcome them back to the chamber.

The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Caulfield, I wish to advise the house that the Council made five amendments to this bill. Those amendments are attached to the certified copy. The amendments circulated in the house were a cumulative set of all amendments circulated in the Council. However, I confirm that the motion moved by the minister can only relate to the five amendments made. An updated schedule is being circulated now.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (00:08): Well, when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the word ‘tough’ is going straight out of this bill. Take the liquid paper out; it is going straight out of this bill. Why the word ‘tough’ is being taken out of this bill is because we know that they are not tough bail laws. It is very, very simple. They are not tough bail laws, and the Premier knows they are not tough bail laws, because the Premier will not get up and actually debate the amendments. If the Premier believed in the bill, she would get up and debate the amendments today. But the Premier is embarrassed, because the Premier went out and overshot the runway with this title that we have here, about a bill that is not tough. Let me say that actions speak louder than words. We know that we had the member for Malvern three times move tough bail laws, and what did this government do? They voted them down and said, ‘We want nothing to do with it.’ But when there was an opinion poll that said the Premier’s polling had plummeted, all of a sudden they had a change of heart.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, once again we have a member of the opposition who is failing to speak directly to the amendments, and they are straying far from those, and I ask that you ask the member to come back to the amendments that are before this place right now.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, I am sure you will come back to the amendments.

David SOUTHWICK: The words absolutely matter, and what we need to understand is, how did the government come about actually calling a bill ‘the tough bail bill’ when the words absolutely do not reflect the bill itself? Not at all. And we know, as the member for Malvern the Shadow Attorney-General has pointed out, the amendments that we tried to bring forward, which would have made it a tougher bill and would have reflected the title, were rejected by the government. And we know the Shadow Attorney-General said that if those were actually supported by the government, then it would be legitimate to actually call it a tough bail bill. But because all of the amendments by the opposition were rejected, it is a watered-down, weaker bail bill, and you cannot call it a tough bail bill. So you have to ask yourself: why did the government call it a tough bail bill in the first place? Was it the plummeting of an opinion polls of the popularity of the Premier that there was a need to change the title of the bill to a ‘tough bail’ bill? Is that why the Premier changed the name to a ‘tough bail’ bill? It is all in the title.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, once again the member on his feet is defying your ruling that he focus on the amendments. The opposition have had this bill now for 78 hours and is this the best that they can come up with?

Members interjecting.

Mary-Anne Thomas: Ah, yes, here we are. That is it. Would you like that? Would that be helpful?

The SPEAKER: Leader of the House, I would ask you to stand and apologise to the house for using a prop.

Mary-Anne Thomas: I apologise, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Caulfield, I remind you to speak to the amendments.

David SOUTHWICK: I am speaking on the amendments in terms of the title of the bill, the ‘tough bail’ bill. One needs to ask: how did the government come up with the words ‘tough bail’? We have heard from the upper house that have just been through debating the amendment that was put forward to us today that it was questioned in the amendments by the opposition about how the title was formed. We know in hearing from that debate from Mr Erdogan that it was actually cooked up in the Attorney-General’s office, in the minister’s office – the ‘tough bail’ bill title. The name, to make it appear to be tough, was actually cooked up as a bit of a marketing exercise by the minister and by the Attorney herself, because we know that it absolutely is not a tough bill. It is in fact quite a weak bill, and so you have to ask yourself: why was the Attorney-General cooking up a title to make something appear a lot better than it actually was? Was it the fact that the Premier’s polling was so bad that she had to come out appearing that she was going to be tough on bail? It is pretty clear that that was the case. And now all of a sudden the Premier is getting a bit nasty, because we know that the Premier knows that she was wrong. She was wrong, and the Premier has been misleading in deceptive advertising with this, because we know it ain’t tough at all, Premier. We even know that this delay in the bill itself by six months – six months people are going to be left with weaker bail laws, and even the deputy commissioner Bob Hill said today that people’s lives are going to be put at risk because this government has failed to bring in these laws immediately. Six-month delay – they have failed on bail. This is not a tough bill at all. If the government were serious, they would be bringing it in immediately, not in six months. In six months, as the deputy commissioner said, people’s lives will be at risk. But he is not the only deputy commissioner. Another deputy commissioner and a commissioner were both sacked for providing frank and fearless advice to the government, so the government knows that they have failed.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the member on his feet has spoken much longer than the Leader of the Opposition managed; however, he has done that by straying from the amendments that are before the house. I ask you to ask him to come back to the amendments.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, I have reminded you several times now to come back to the amendments.

David SOUTHWICK: I will do that, because it is very, very important that the title reflects the substance that is behind it. This title does not reflect anything, and that is why it is important to change the title. You cannot call it something that it is not, and the Premier should have known that right from the very beginning. The Premier called the bill ‘the tough bail bill’. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it ain’t the tough bail bill or, as the Premier tried to say, the toughest bail in the nation. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is not even the toughest bail in the state. These are weak bail laws because this government have not done their homework. They have not listened to the calls from the community for tough bail and consequences. You cannot make the title something that it is not. You cannot put a tough bail bill –

Jacinta Allan interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Premier, you have misled the public on this.

Jacinta Allan interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: You have, because we have been calling for tough laws and the Premier has not provided it. The Premier thinks that by calling it tough, people are going to say, ‘Yes, we believe you.’ No-one believes you, Premier. No-one believes that you are tough on crime. No-one believes that you are going to tackle the crime crisis –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Caulfield, through the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: Speaker, nobody believes that the Premier is going to tackle the crime crisis, that the Premier is tough on crime or that the Premier is going to deliver the toughest bail laws in the state. A title does not fix it. You need substance behind the title.

Jacinta Allan interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Premier, I know you might be a little bit angry, but –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Caulfield, through the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: Speaker, it is clear that the Premier does not believe in her own bill. If the Premier believed in the bill, the Premier would be up and about tonight spruiking it, talking it up and saying it is the toughest bill going. Well, this is the challenge, Premier, to get on your feet and back your bill.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, through the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: The Premier has not backed her bill, because the Premier herself knows she has overcooked the title. She has overcooked the title because the substance does not reflect what the title was trying to do. It ain’t a tough bill, it is a weak bail bill. It does not go far enough. The Premier has not listened to the opposition. Three times we tried to make it tough. The community has asked for tough bail. The government have not delivered tough bail. The government have not delivered tough laws. Ultimately Victorians will decide next year, Premier, and you will be ousted along with your weak titles that have come to this bill.

Motion agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.