Wednesday, 27 November 2024

Committees

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Reference

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:28): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) recent increases in violent crimes, particularly knife attacks in public places, increases in residential aggravated burglaries, and significant increases in aggravated assaults of females;

(b) the blame for these crimes rests solely with the perpetrators, not the victims;

(c) that the innate ability to deter and defend against attacks varies, with women and the elderly generally being more vulnerable;

(d) that capsicum spray can assist with deterrence and self-defence, particularly for the vulnerable;

(e) the use of capsicum spray is generally non-lethal and only requires minimal training;

(f) that capsicum spray is unlikely to be used in criminal attacks;

(g) that stores in Western Australia where these products are legal have seen increased sales in recent months;

(h) a petition started by Victorian woman Jayde Howard to legalise capsicum spray for self-defence has gathered nearly 15,000 signatures; and

(2) requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by March 2026, on permitting the use of capsicum spray for personal defence, including any issues related to amending schedule 2 of the Control of Weapons Regulations 2021 to remove the prohibition on capsicum spray and any other related matters.

I am pleased to move motion 746 in my name, which effectively calls for the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into and report by March 2026 on the issue of permitting capsicum spray for self-defence.

Before I start, I think we should outline a few facts about Victoria and what is happening at the moment. The first obvious fact is that there is violent crime in Victoria. There are a lot of people who fear violent crime. There are people that have been victims of violent crime, both in their own homes and on the streets. That is the first fact.

The second fact is in Victoria we have the right to self-defence, as in any decent country in the world. If you or someone that you care about or indeed even a stranger is being attacked by a violent criminal, you have the right to defend yourself or to defend others. This is a right that comes from respecting individual bodily autonomy and respecting individual property rights, and of course the primary form of property that anyone owns is their own body.

The next fact is that there are many people in the community who for various reasons cannot easily defend themselves from harm by criminals. Many men are quite physically large, and therefore they have a physical advantage in being able to defend themselves against people. But many other people, like older people, women and people who have disabilities, find it very difficult to defend themselves even though they have this right. So we end up with a dilemma where we have the right to self-defence but with no means of enacting that right or exercising that right; it is like that right does not even exist.

I have spoken to many people who feel vulnerable and concerned in the community who want to protect themselves. Lots of women will be familiar with the stories of their dad or someone else telling them to carry around keys to use in their hand and somehow punch someone with them, which from my understanding is a rather fantastic idea but not really realistic. There are other things like people will carry around some sort of spray or something, hoping that it might serve some useful purpose if they are attacked. But the reality is that none of these things are really effective forms of self-defence. In fact in Victoria we have this weird situation where if you carry them for the purpose of self-defence, that in itself is a crime, which is sort of crazy.

What I would like us to look at are the issues around protecting people’s rights and empowering people who feel vulnerable to be able to use something like pepper spray. Many people have said, ‘This is going to lead to guns,’ and stuff like this. The thing is even in jurisdictions in the United States where concealed carry of firearms is legal, what you find is that actually the most common tool used for self-defence is not firearms, it is pepper spray. There are very good reasons for that. Pepper spray is cheap, it does not require significant training, it is nonlethal unlike a firearm, it does not require special maintenance or skills to use, it is small and can fit in your pocket or in your handbag or wherever you want to hold it and it is reasonably effective. In fact it is so effective that we have PSOs around Parliament who carry it, and police on the street also carry it. There was an issue around PSOs we looked at last term, Mr Bourman. It is well established by law enforcement that pepper spray is an effective tool for self-defence, and I saw it used many, many times during the pandemic. In fact one time I saw it being sprayed from above a cliff down into a crowd of people, which seems to indicate that they do not really think that it is going to cause significant harm even though it may incapacitate people.

One of the other arguments against the legalisation of pepper spray, which I would really like this inquiry to look into, is we have people talking about, ‘We don’t want to have that, because the pepper spray might be used for initiating crimes.’ To that I would respond with two points. The first point is that criminals do not care about the law, and they already have access to weapons, like knives and guns and whatever other weapons they choose. They do not respect the law. People that assault people in the street clearly are not law-abiding citizens. The second point is that pepper spray itself is pretty ineffective for committing most sorts of crimes. If you threaten someone with a knife, they may do what you ask them to do. But if you spray someone with pepper spray, you cannot touch them – you cannot go near them because you will get burnt. It is not a particularly useful thing for people who want to commit crimes.

Another argument against pepper spray: Mr Bourman raised this issue back in 2019, and I remember one of the comments was, ‘We don’t want women to defend themselves. We want men to stop harming women.’ I agree that we do not want men harming women; we do not want anyone harming anyone, actually. I fully support the idea of no man harming a woman. Until we get to that point where that does not happen anymore, we need something in the meantime.

The other fact of the matter is that the police cannot be everywhere. The police sometimes prevent crime, but in most cases police are investigating crime after the fact. They cannot be everywhere – it is simply impossible – and therefore in many cases people are forced to become a victim and then report the crime.

You see lots of awful videos of crime incidents where people are attacked and this sort of thing, and one thing that is interesting when you look at countries that have pepper spray legalised is you often see different types of videos. You see videos with the vulnerable people, the people who would normally be victims, fighting back against crime. That is what I want to see in Victoria. I want the people who feel vulnerable, who feel scared of criminals, who do not want to become victims of violence and who do not want to become victims of crime to have the opportunity to fight back. At least give them that power. If you are talking about empowering people, empowering women or empowering vulnerable communities in Victoria, how can you say that you empower people when you force them to be victims against people who are stronger and more aggressive than they are? It is wrong. You need to give them a fighting chance if they want to do that. I think that is the way to go.

I would like to acknowledge one person who has been campaigning on this issue for some time now: Jayde Howard. She is a content creator on Instagram. She came into Parliament yesterday actually, and she was very interested in what was going on in Queen’s Hall. She has been campaigning on this for a long time now. She has a petition, which people should sign if they are so inclined. I think it has just hit 15,000 signatures. She wants women to be able to carry pepper spray for the purposes of self-defence. Many women, many people who have been victims of crime, do not want to be a victim again. They want some sort of chance to fight back. I think it is wrong that we deny people the opportunity to defend themselves and to stop becoming victims. It is time for Victorians to be given the power to fight back against crime.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:37): I speak today in response to Mr Limbrick’s motion. I would like to start by saying that the Allan Labor government is committed to keeping all Victorians safe and holding those who commit violent offences to account. I note Mr Limbrick’s concern about the vulnerability of women in violent attacks, and I definitely agree on that. I am going to put this proposal into a gendered perspective, because this week does mark the beginning of the United Nations annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence. A number of colleagues from multiple sides of the chamber have referred to that this week and in the last two days, and I appreciate that. The purpose of the 16 days of activism is to activate communities to campaign for the prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls. Just yesterday I attended an event right here in Parliament to mark the beginning of the 16-day campaign. Like many others in this chamber, I heard from Respect Victoria about the ongoing plague of violence against women. In Australia a woman is killed every four days, often by a man she knows. The Australian Bureau of Statistics personal safety survey in 2022 showed that in most recent incidents of violence by a male the perpetrator was likely to be someone known to the victim; that was 85 per cent, and a stranger was 16 per cent. The perpetrator was most commonly an intimate partner, 53 per cent, including a cohabitating partner, 28 per cent, and a boyfriend or a date, 25 per cent.

In the past week alone we have had reports in the newspapers of the recent deaths of two women in Victoria, Isla Bell and Vicky Van Aken. My thoughts are with the families, friends and communities that those women belonged to and of the too many other women who have been killed, injured and traumatised by male violence. I am not sure if Mr Limbrick was there at the launch –

David Limbrick interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: Awesome. I think it was very interesting that there was a launch of a Respect Victoria report on men, masculinities and the prevention of violence against women, because that document goes into the biggest causes of violence against women and capsicum is not mentioned there, which is the point of my argument really.

Using capsicum spray is not the answer to keeping women, children and other vulnerable people safe in this state. In fact weaponising women with capsicum spray will not make anyone safer. Kat Berney, the director of the National Women’s Safety Alliance, said in relation to similar calls for capsicum spray to be legalised following the Bondi attacks in 2022:

What are we suggesting will happen when a potential victim is armed with pepper spray? What happens when the violence escalates and the perpetrator is also armed with the same weapon?

If women and non-binary folk can carry pepper spray, so can men. So can gangs. So can everyone.

This is not a deterrent. Ms Berney also quoted a 20-year review into people with pepper stray injuries from the Journal of Clinical Toxicology. The review found that patients with pepper spray related injuries tended to be older children and younger adults, not people protecting themselves from lone wolf attacks. So keeping Victorian women safe is not about capsicum spray; it is about changing male behaviour. The Allan Labor government is absolutely committed to ending violence against women. We are leading the nation with over $4 billion invested in reform, response and prevention since 2014 to end gender-based violence in our state.

But more work needs to be done. The women’s safety package announced in May this year is changing laws, changing culture and delivering support for victim-survivors when they need it most. If I can quote the Premier, she said at the launch of the package:

When women are still dying at the hands of men – we must do more …

From prevention to response to justice, these reforms will target family violence at every stage …

It’s about changing culture to stop violence before it starts. It’s changing our laws so that perpetrators will feel the weight of their action.

It is a really powerful and supportive statement by our Premier.

This is an evidence-based, comprehensive approach – we need to keep Victorians safe – unlike the proposal to use capsicum spray as a tool in that defence. I profoundly disagree with it, and there is no evidence that supports that. Allowing members of the public to carry serious weapons, like capsicum spray, would only serve to increase the potential risk to the community. It would increase the number of weapons on Victorian streets and research shows that those weapons are more likely to be used against vulnerable members of our community.

You only need to have a look at the United States to see what happens there with guns pretty much freely available in that community. The availability of those weapons is not a self-defence or a safety-enhancing strategy in the US. Availability of weapons in America has resulted in multiple mass shootings pretty much every year – shootings of children, in fact killing of children. Thousands of children are killed in America by guns. Individuals are killed as well as these mass shootings, so more guns do not equal a safer America and more capsicum spray will not equal a safer Victoria.

Furthermore, it is important to note the Legal and Social Issues Committee has several inquiries ongoing at this time, and adding this matter to the top of those would not help things at all. I do not believe the opportunity cost of investigating this issue, weighed up against other priorities of the LSIC, is favourable. This is absolutely a non-evidenced suggestion. It is so unevidenced that I do not support investigating it. It is not even logical to investigate it. If there is more pepper spray out in the community, we know who is going to be using it and who is going to be experiencing the damage and injury as a result of that pepper spray. Increasing the number of weapons in our community will not make our community safer, and therefore I am not going to support and the government is not going to support the idea of increasing the amount of capsicum spray in this community.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:46): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion. I note that he is hoping to set up a Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry with a long reporting date of March 2026, so it does not appear to be something that would be going on top of or in the way of other inquiries but at the end of other inquiries, just to note that not on the substance of the topic but on the allegations or comments that were made prior.

To the motion itself, Mr Limbrick notes an increase in violent crimes, particularly knife attacks, in public places; increases in aggravated burglaries; and significant increases in aggravated assaults of females. It is not hard to substantiate that, with crime out of control across the whole state really, particularly in my own electorate in the northern suburbs, where the recent statistics had car thefts at about one in every 4 hours in the City of Hume, which I represent. So you have a crime crisis that is really out of control. Something that I have raised with the Minister for Police and Minister for Crime Prevention before is the safety of women. In particular, something that has been noted for a long time is about the Merri Creek trail in my electorate, where there have been serious incidences that have been both public in the community and reported in the media as well. We have seen harrowing violence and sexual assault cases along the Merri Creek trail due to inadequate lighting and safety and shrubs around the trail making it an unsafe trail for women. Many women in the community have contacted me and also contacted other members of Parliament about the fact that it is all right for a bloke to go for a run on the Merri Creek trail but women feel they are not able to due to all of these incidences. We have seen successive state and local governments ignore this issue to the point where young women feel like living and exercising in the northern suburbs is not for them.

When we talk about women’s issues, it is important to note that these are the real women’s issues that affect women in both the northern suburbs but across Victoria. And when you talk about women’s rights, there is nothing more fundamental than women being safe in our community. They are the actual women’s issues that are fundamental to people in this state and across Victoria, and so I want to thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this motion forward. We will not be opposing this motion. We all need to do better to understand the impact of crime on victims. In the opposition, we believe that people should be safe at home, at work and in the community, and there is always a limit to what is deemed to be a safe way to protect yourself. Our priority is to hear directly from victims and unions representing front-of-office and front-of-house staff, and we need to focus on the increase in crime and getting that down.

We could all do better in understanding and listening directly to victims of crime, and indeed committees are a great way to do that. I, with a few of my colleagues in the chamber, was recently on the inquiry into local government, and I learned a lot from the local government sector on the ins and outs of local government, on their needs and their wants. I heard from several stakeholders about what was required, the financial strains on local government and cost shifting and also the interaction between state and local government. I am conscious it is important for the entire chamber to be able to have the opportunity to hear directly about these issues. It is all good for us to sort of be in a bubble, to have formed our own views and argue them in this place, but when this place gets out and actually listens to people, I think, is when we do our best work. We will not be opposing this motion, and I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing it forward.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:52): I rise to make a brief contribution to motion 746 in David Limbrick’s name. To begin with, I want to speak to all the women out there who signed the petition to allow women to carry capsicum spray for protection. I want you to know that I hear you. I know that it is a terrifying time to be a woman. Now, more than ever, of course we want to be able to defend ourselves. But for the reasons I will set out below, we do not believe that capsicum spray is the solution.

When we look at other jurisdictions like Western Australia, where people have access to capsicum spray, we do not see that it is being used to stop violent attacks against women. In fact it is more often misused to attack others. It would be terrible to see wider access to capsicum spray not improve women’s safety and instead add another weapon to the toolkit of perpetrators of violence. We also worry that being in the possession of capsicum spray could create a false sense of security, which could do more harm than good.

When I lived in Paris, most of the women I worked with did carry capsicum spray, so I do have a little bit of insight into this discussion. We all worked in the same bar in the nightlife district, which was next to Moulin Rouge. It was a place where women often did not feel safe late at night. Incidents were often talked about at work, but I never heard one of my work friends report that capsicum spray saved them from these incidents occurring. One of my friends actually said to me that in a moment of panic she could not find it in her handbag and ended up throwing the handbag and running for her life.

My final point is that women’s safety should not be a women’s issue; it is an everybody issue. The focus needs to be on stopping violence before it starts, not on placing the expectation on women that it is up to them to defend themselves against violent attacks. This violence is not inevitable, it is preventable. During the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence I will continue to work to advocate for this cause and to push for advocacy to translate into real solutions, not quick fixes. Although tools like capsicum spray can make you feel safer, the reality is they do nothing to meaningfully address rates of violence against women, and they put the responsibility onto victims, not perpetrators. We need change as a society. We do not need more weapons on the streets. For these reasons, we will not be supporting this motion.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:55): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in Mr Limbrick’s name. I want to say at the outset that I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing it. I understand your intentions around this. When I read the motion it is about a referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I am sure that the secretariat staff are having conniptions about yet another referral. However, I understand your intentions are about looking at trying to reduce how women are feeling under attack and how to improve women’s safety and all the rest of it. I understand that. But I also do not think that providing someone access to pepper spray is going to help.

I am speaking as a woman. I am actually older than most people give me credit for, and I have been around to quite a few pubs, nightclubs and districts. I used to live in Sydney; I used to go up the Cross. I have been around a bit, and I can certainly talk about places that I have felt safe and unsafe in. But one thing I know for sure is that if someone is going to come at you with a knife or a gun, capsicum spray is not going to help you. Mr Limbrick, you said this in your contribution earlier anyway. You were talking about laws, and you were talking about how violent crime is increasing. I think Mr Mulholland also talked about this. We have to face reality. If someone is going to attack you, they are going to attack you whether there is a law in place or not. It depends on the circumstances. That person may be having a mental health episode. They may be a violent criminal. I do not know. There are a whole range of circumstances. But I personally, as a woman, would not resort to having capsicum spray on me, because the reality is I might pull the capsicum spray out of my pocket, but I might be overpowered and then have it used against me and used against me in very close proximity. I was just reading about some of the effects of capsicum spray. It can cause temporary blindness. If it were sprayed at me by a perpetrator right in my face, I would probably be suffocated and I would probably have lasting eye damage. So for me, as a woman – and I am speaking as a government MP as well – I worry about how I would then continue to have that weapon in my control and how it might be used against me. There are no easy answers to any of this. It might surprise some of us in this chamber to know that women as a group do not necessarily agree on everything – surprise, surprise. Some of us will have different views about all different sorts of things. I personally think there is a greater risk to having a weapon available for me to potentially protect myself that could then be used against me in terrible ways as well.

I note the government’s position is not to support this. I think the point is, and as Ms Ermacora said – and it was a really good contribution, a very well researched and thoughtful contribution by Ms Ermacora – it is probably not a coincidence, maybe it was, but you brought this motion to the house this week during the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence. Is it coincidental? I do not know.

David Limbrick interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It is a coincidence. You should have claimed it though, Mr Limbrick. It is happenstance, but nevertheless it is timely that it is here this week, because we know that 85 women have died this year from family violence. It is horrific just to look around the world and see what is happening to women. If we look overseas in France, we see Gisèle Pelicot, who was raped over many years and drugged by her husband. It is sickening to see what is going on. We see numerous women; I know Ms Ermacora mentioned two. There is a long list of women who have died at the hands of male perpetrators of family violence, but the research is pretty clear – the majority of that violence is committed by men that women actually know.

It is not the circumstance where you are out somewhere and a stranger approaches you. Yes, that does happen. Of course it happens, but the majority of the violence that women are dying from is being perpetrated in the home. If I was at home and my intimate partner was going to come at me with a knife or something, would I have my capsicum spray, just carrying it around on me as I am in the kitchen or in the home? I do not know. I just think context is everything. You have got to look at how these things unfold. Sometimes you might predict that something is coming your way, but sometimes it is completely unpredictable as well.

Again, I think it puts the emphasis back on victims to try and protect themselves when the bottom line is and this government’s key commitment to Victorians is about reducing family violence. We have got to get to the root cause. There is no magic silver bullet about family violence and what the drivers of gender-based violence are. They are many and varied, and everyone keeps saying there is no magic silver answer or bullet, which is a very unfortunate term in the context of this motion. But what it means is we need to look at trying to reduce family violence, and it means everyone has to work together. We have to take every opportunity, whether it is little kids in the kindy programs, kids at school, teachers, early childhood educators, childcare workers, footy clubs, cricket clubs, police, family violence workers, parents – every single one of us has a role to play in reducing family violence.

In my members statement that I made earlier this week I talked about calling it out, and it starts with respect. When we treat each other with a lack of respect, it has consequences and things flow from that. This is the other end of it, where you get violent crimes perpetrated on women. As I said at the outset, Mr Limbrick, I understand your intention. I understand there is a petition started by Jayde Howard, and I had a look at it just quickly. I understand Victorian women and women everywhere want to feel safe. That should be our right, to feel safe to go about our business and the like. I know Mr Mulholland went and gave a lengthy contribution about parts of his electorate where he says that women feel that they are unsafe. But I want to reiterate the point that the majority of violence that is occurring is by intimate partners, so people women know. As women we have a right to speak up about these things without men’s voices actually speaking on our behalf as well. I want to listen to the voices of women who are on the receiving end of this, and they should be able to tell their stories, absolutely. Our government is a strong supporter of ending the scourge of gender-based violence.

The other side of this argument I hear from the conservative political outfits that are out there. Every time someone starts to talk about gender-based violence or any issues around that – gender equality – we get called woke and all the rest of it. Reap what you sow, quite frankly, because when governments or policymakers try to talk about bringing down the tone and talk about why gender equality is important and ending gender-based violence – and as I said, it starts with respect – we get attacked and called woke. This is all part of it. It is all part of a campaign to stop women from feeling safe. You have only got to look to America and the recent election of Trump and the Republican Party over there. Women are very concerned about which way that country is headed, when women will no longer have control over their health and reproductive choices. Women are worried that that then opens the door to other acts of gender-based violence against women.

It is not just about what we do; it is about our actions, what we say and also what we do not say and when we do not act, because failing to act can also mean that we are complicit in not calling out terrible actions, inappropriate behaviour or the lack of respect that women are treated with. Although we are talking about capsicum spray, it is not just in a microcosm. This has a connection to other issues, and I talked about this earlier this week. As I said, this week the campaign 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence is critically important. Our government, the Allan Labor government, will continue to work closely with Victoria Police in monitoring these things.

We know that any victim of crime is one victim too many, and our thoughts are always with those who have been affected by any criminal behaviour. As I said, we want to keep all Victorians safe. We have got to continue to drive down the rates of gendered-based violence. I do not think a committee referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee is actually going to solve this problem. I agree with Mr Mulholland. Sometimes you hear some really interesting evidence and you learn things and all the rest of it, but I do not think this is going to help resolve anything. I just reiterate the point that I made earlier about the consequences of a weapon such as capsicum spray being used as a weapon of violence against a woman at the hands of a perpetrator. I will leave my contribution there, and we will not be supporting this motion.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:05): This is not my first rodeo on this subject. In 2019, as Mr Limbrick mentioned, I mentioned it. This is a vexed issue, and I accept that. I am one of five people that I know of in this place that has actually been trained in the use of capsicum spray. It is wildly effective on people attacking you. I did not personally get to use it, but I did personally get to roll around with people that had had it used on them. The effect even on a secondary dose is pretty good. What it means is that it does not work 100 per cent of the time, but it stops people. Also, if you have had exposure to it before, you know what happens and you can react and withdraw. I did not have that option in my case. When I raised this in 2019 we got the ‘There’ll be blood on the street, weapons for everyone, guns’ – the whole thing. It is just not the case. If this was the case, in Western Australia, where you can buy it – there are some restrictions on how you can carry it – blood would be running all over the streets there, and it is not. I do not think everyone should carry it. I think people that are wanting to, male or female, but particularly females as they tend to be physically weaker –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will take that interjection up. It is true. I am afraid to say it, but they tend to be. It is kind of an equaliser; it generally will not end up with someone dead. The old thing of ‘It can be used against you’ has never been proven in the United States with firearms. It is an old wives’ tale. I have researched it time and time again. But like most things, it is pointless carrying the stuff if you are not going to use it. That is something that someone who has it has to go through. It is pointless having anything in your possession to defend yourself with if you will not use it – because it will be used against you. You will be standing there like a stunned mullet while someone walks up to you. That is basically the guts of it.

We do have the legal right to defend ourselves. Under section 462A, I think, of the Crimes Act 1958 you can use ‘force not disproportionate to the objective’. The objective I think in most civilian cases is just to get the hell away. Will it work in most domestic violence situations, particularly with murders? Probably not, but it would help. If you have an estranged partner and they are coming in the door and they have got a knife, you have got nothing. I obviously spent a lot of my time in the police force dealing with domestic violence situations, and I still do not think the law that deals with the perpetrators is tough enough. Let us look at the recent case of a – I will use the word loosely – man who murdered two sex workers and got seven years. That is absolutely outrageous: for two lives, seven years. It is amazing. There is work to be done everywhere. No-one should attack anyone, but when the worst does happen I would expect the legal system to stand up and work for the victims, not for the offenders.

I will finish off with a couple of things. Obviously I am the father of a little girl and I have got a wife. I want them to be as safe as possible. I am projecting something here: Becky, in the years to come, I will want her to do some martial arts, but even they are not the be-all and end-all. I want her to be able to defend herself against someone that takes her right to be left alone for granted and does their thing. I sit here and I look here; this is only a referral to a committee. This is not exactly calling for the legalisation of anything. It is just saying that it is time to put it to a committee. It is over a year, I think. There is plenty of time.

I just do not want to be here having this debate time and time again. We have to do the most we can as a Parliament to protect people, to protect women. We need to be doing the best we can, and I think at least investigating this as an option should be supported. I know it is not going to be. There is no outcome for this except the report, and I would urge the government to rethink their opposition to it.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:10): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion about the use of capsicum spray in personal defence. I think that it is so sad that the laws in this state are so weak that we actually have to look at taking matters into our own hands. That is exactly what is happening here, and I do not know how we got here. Police are at their wits’ end. I recently saw a police car with a sign pointing to the back of the divvy van that said, ‘They’ll get bail.’ I think it is absolutely unbelievable. It shows that men and women that have given their life in this state for the service and the protection of the community are feeling so defeated that they are using their vehicles as protest signs. Regardless of the crimes people commit, they are probably going to get bail and reoffend.

Last week we heard of another woman murdered – Isla Bell – and the alleged accomplice to her murder has been granted bail. Truth – those are the facts. He has been granted bail regardless of the fact that he was deemed a flight risk, that she was missing for seven weeks and he said nothing, and that he transported her body in a fridge. Bailed – that is not me making up a story, that is the reality in this state. This government has weakened bail laws in the midst of a women’s safety crisis. It is absolutely deplorable, it is disgusting, and honestly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I find it absolutely incredible that the Premier – a female Premier, mind you – and female ministers from her government participate in marches around women’s rights and women’s protection when they hold in their hands the power to make the change. I cannot get my head around it. I think it is absolutely unbelievable. I think it is incredible to participate in marches while ignoring the law reform that is needed to protect those exact women. That is what this government does, and I am not politicising the issue; I am telling you what the facts are.

I am disappointed with the minister for justice, who I quite like as a person, and I am glad that they are in the chamber today. I can tell you have sympathy; I honestly know you are genuine in that. But regardless of the sympathy that you have for the women that have been brutally murdered, like Katie, who I wrote to you about, regardless of the fact that their mum was beaten to death on their child’s bed – killed – he gets 427 days off his sentence because he was locked up during COVID. I find that unbelievable. You have the power to change that rule. I am asking from my heart: change that law. Take away that right for people that were locked up during COVID, during the world’s longest lockdowns in this state. Violent criminals, including rapists and murderers, were given four days off their sentence for every one day that they served because they were inconvenienced. I find this unbelievable.

If you had told me while I was locked up in my home, while I saw businesses in this state go broke and while I saw depression and anxiety go through the roof, that the only Victorians in this state that would be properly compensated were the most violent, disgusting offenders, I would have thought you were joking. That is the reality in this state. It is just unbelievable. I am not even making this up. I want to say that due to the weakness of the laws in this state, there are some women that when he gets out 427 days early, which is lower than his non-parole period, might want some pepper spray. You can say whatever you want, but they might want some pepper spray.

In the midst of a crime wave this government has raised the age of criminal responsibility rather than addressing the issue of the root cause and helping those kids see that they are going down a bad path. It does not make a difference to the victim what age that criminal is, but rather than addressing that, you have just taken away their criminal responsibility, turned a blind eye and said there is not a problem here. I cannot believe it. This government has failed when it comes to justice in this state. Let me tell you, those children will continue to offend, because that is what the statistics say, and in this state some people might want pepper spray. It is the reality of it.

Let us now talk about stalking. I am sure you are sick to death of me talking about stalking, but I am going to talk about it again. Victoria has 45 recommendations that were given by Victoria’s Law Reform Commission after the brutal death of Celeste Manno, who followed the letter of the law, did absolutely everything she was told to do and had no protection from Luay Sako. He stalked her relentlessly, broke into her house and stabbed her to death while her mother slept in the next room. That mum will never, ever recover. Do you want to know what the cause of Celeste Manno’s death was? It was a stab to the heart. He will be eligible for parole in 2050. Let me tell you, when he gets out of jail there will be some people that might feel safer with the use of pepper spray.

I have got 3½ minutes left, so I do not have time to go into the fact that this government would not reform laws around machetes. It is unbelievable. They will not upgrade the rating of what a machete is to being a lethal weapon. I forget the exact term. I am sorry about that.

Enver Erdogan: A controlled weapon.

Renee HEATH: A controlled weapon. Thank you. So you can have that, but not pepper spray. Unbelievable.

I was going to go through and talk about the man who murdered two women in 24 hours, both sex workers, and I hope that is not why he might be out in seven years. I tell you what, the life of a woman is not worth much in the state of Victoria. But I am going to skip through that because I want to address some things that I heard members of the government say in this debate.

The first one was something that one of the members over here said: we do not need the voices of men. Yes, we do. We do need the voices of good, strong men. This may not be very politically correct, because people love to go on about toxic masculinity and they love to demonise men, but I tell you what, good, strong men are an incredible protective factor. You cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand saying to the men, ‘Shut up. We don’t need you’ and then turning around and saying, ‘Men are toxic’ and ‘Men are the problem’. Men can also be an incredible part of the answer. I am so happy about the men in my life that have treated me with so much respect and have stood in the gap at times when I have not been strong enough. They have stood and they have fought for me. They have encouraged me, and they have cheered me on. Those men have been an incredible factor, and then there are some people who choose to completely demonise men and say that any sort of masculinity is toxic. That is a lie. It is something that is costing women their lives, because I tell you what, men need to stand up. Men need to speak. Men need to do better, and men can actually be an incredible protective factor. People do not like to hear it, but it is true.

The other thing that I want to address is we heard a member of the government say that the Allan Labor government are completely committed to women’s safety. I think that is ridiculous when murderers in this state can literally get out of jail to get IVF treatment – when murderers in this state who have stabbed people to death can actually get out. It is like, ‘Well, you can do what you want.’

In Victoria this is the reality. You can stab somebody to death violently but not have to give up on your dreams. You can still get out of jail. You can still have IVF treatment, and then you can raise that child in a jail. Unbelievable. It is time that this government starts standing up for the vulnerable in this community rather than putting the rights of the most violent and disgusting criminals ahead of the rights of the most vulnerable.

I had to skip through quite a bit of my speech, but I will end in saying this: I am so sad that Victoria has gotten to this stage, and I commend this motion to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:20): This motion is coming from a place of great care from Mr Limbrick, and I thank him for raising the subject of self-defence and capsicum spray today. While I thank Mr Limbrick for his work in bringing forward this motion today, the government does not support the motion. The motion of Mr Limbrick talks about a lot of things. In part (1)(a) of the motion he talks about the recent violent crimes, the knife crimes, aggravated burglaries and aggravated assaults of females. He talks about the vulnerable, the elderly and women, and in this case he talks about who he blames. In part (1)(e) he talks about the use of capsicum spray as a measure of self-defence, then in (1)(g) he refers to Western Australia and their example. In part (1)(h) he refers to the petition by Ms Jayde Howard, a Victorian woman who has started a petition which has gathered nearly 15,000 signatures. And then finally in part (2) he:

… requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by March 2026, on permitting the use of capsicum spray for personal defence, including any issues related to amending schedule 2 of the Control of Weapons Regulations 2021 to remove the prohibition on capsicum spray and any other related matters.

The Allan Labor government is committed to keeping all Victorians safe, and we will hold those to account who commit violent offences. The law in Victoria states that it is illegal to:

… carry any article designed or adapted to discharge an offensive, noxious or irritant liquid, powder, gas or chemical so as to cause disability, incapacity or harm to another person.

This includes self-defence. Capsicum spray is an inflammatory agent affecting the mucous membrane of the eyes, throat, nose and lungs as well as an instant dilation of capillaries in the eyes. This leads to temporary blindness and a shortness of breath. While this works as a useful non-lethal and temporary measure for authorised use by individuals with lawful exemptions, such as protective services officers, allowing members of the public to carry these weapons is dangerous. Allowing members of the public to carry serious weapons like capsicum spray increases the potential risk faced by the community. It increases the number of weapons on the Victorian streets, and it potentially increases the risk of an escalation of violence. That is why we will be opposing Mr Limbrick’s motion.

We view things differently. Carrying weapons, even when it comes to self-defence, must be balanced against a broader public interest in keeping weapons off our streets. Allowing widespread and public distribution of this would cause unnecessary and potentially unlawful harm to the community. There is a risk that some members of the public would not restrict their use of OC spray, or oleoresin capsicum spray, to situations of self-defence, and this is something that we cannot allow to happen. We could feasibly see OC spray being used to resolve all sorts of disputes and situations we cannot allow. What if you are annoyed with your neighbour about the rubbish or a fencing dispute? Can it be used to resolve a pavement dispute between a tradie and a contractor? And there is a real threat that OC spray could be used against our first responders. That is why we are working closely with Victoria Police to provide them with the powers and the technology that they need to carry out their jobs effectively.

At the moment OC spray is considered so serious that even protective service officers, or PSOs, can only lawfully use it on members of the public where it is considered proportionate and reasonable – for instance, during violent or serious physical confrontations, where violent or serious physical confrontation is imminent or where a person is involved in violent or other physical conduct likely to seriously injure themselves or result in suicide. But PSOs are expected to exercise appropriate care and diligence and, when it comes to considering it, considerable training. They are not to use spray when there is a subject who is only passively resisting – for example, simply hanging limp or refusing to comply with instructions only.

The federal government have also considered the risk, and they found in 2018 that there is a very serious risk of it being weaponised by members of the public. After considering what we know currently about the effects capsicum spray has on an individual, there is a good reason to limit the access to these materials. I will leave my contribution at that, as I know others are wanting to do the same.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:25): Eighty-six women have been killed this year in Australia, largely at the hands of violent men. I should note that the government did not record or track this figure themselves; it was the work of Sherele Moody from Femicide Watch. Like Ms Payne, I hear the calls from many women in this state who want to be able to possess pepper spray, and I understand it; I truly, truly do. I know exactly what it is like to walk home at night and look over your shoulder every 5 seconds to check that no-one is watching you, to carry your keys between your fingers in the event that someone comes at you or to start sprinting or fake a phone call because you do not know what the man behind you is going to do. I know that we are all begging for safety, because I am part of that community begging for safety. Since men and this government are not giving it to us, I understand the desire to take that control into our own hands. I feel sorry for us, that we as women feel so betrayed and ignored that we feel we can only rely on ourselves and each other to fix this crisis. But it is not our crisis to fix. It is the responsibility of men and this government to stop the violence against women, and pepper spray is not the solution to that. It will not make Victoria a safer place, and it will not reduce the disgusting and disturbing rates of violence against women in our state.

I feel frustrated that we as a Parliament seem to have collectively given up on trying to change men’s behaviour when we know that that is the solution, and now we are focusing on changing women’s behaviour instead. It is the same narrative that we hear time and time again – that women should watch what they wear, how they walk, how they talk and where they go. It seems that this would be adding a new factor to that conversation – what was she carrying? Suggesting that we place yet another burden on women in moments of violence is scary. The absurdity of telling a woman ‘Hold a weapon and you’ll be safe’ – that is not the answer.

I feel that this motion does fail to recognise that the majority of offences of violence against women are committed by men who are known to them – the men in their lives and the men that are in their homes. Sixty-nine per cent of assaults on women by male offenders last year were by an intimate partner. We know and we trust our partners; we do not think to carry weapons around them. To me it feels that this motion lacks this understanding. It essentially suggests that women, if they do not want to be raped, assaulted or killed, should carry pepper spray or other items into every room of their house and keep them on them at all times. It just does not work in reality or in the situation of violence against women that we are living in. In the drafting of this motion, there does not seem to have been any consideration as to how violence against women actually often occurs. It suggests that violence against women is happening in dark alleyways by strangers. It does deny the fact that a dominant response to being raped is to freeze – an uncontrollable, neurological response that many, many women endure. To think that spraying someone with pepper spray who is trying to rape or murder us is going to suddenly give them pause to rethink their intentions and not anger them is another severe risk.

I also wonder about violence against children. Almost 40 per cent of women have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. Last year one in three victims of sexual offending were under the age of 18, so by this logic we would be considering children carrying weapons to attack this crisis as well.

Despite my criticism of this motion, I have spoken to Mr Limbrick at length about violence against women. Obviously we sit next to each other, and we have a lot of good chats, including on this topic, and we have debated it furiously this week. I have no doubts whatsoever – and I put this on the record – that his intention with this motion is to help us. But as I have laid out, I do worry about the risk that the message of this motion could be unintentionally sending the community: that for children and women, it is their responsibility if they are attacked, not men’s; that they cannot be safe in this world unless they hold weapons and participate in the violence inflicted upon them – we cannot fight violence with violence; that men do not have to do anything to change this culture of violence, sexism and misogyny and that they do not have to call out their mates, because if the child or woman really felt threatened, they could have been carrying pepper spray.

I do also wonder about how women with a disability are 40 per cent more likely to experience family violence than any other woman. The feasibility of equipping women with pepper spray only applies in reality to a specific subset of women, when we need to attack this crisis head-on for all of us.

I just want to talk briefly about the possible legal ramifications of legalising pepper spray. Take for instance a man stalking a woman home. She turns around and pepper sprays him, and by some miracle she does escape by this. This man now brings her to court for assaulting him with pepper spray. Police and courts already do not believe women so often when they have been abused, even with all of their scars and their pain to prove it. So many of us have simply lost faith in the justice system. But now this motion expects that they will believe a woman when she says she was going to be attacked but has little evidence to prove so.

I believe that instead of using the Parliament’s resources to force an inquiry into the use of pepper spray, what would be a much better use of time and money would be an inquiry into the prevalence of sexism and of misogyny in Victoria and how this translates to violence against women, to stop it before it even occurs so that we do not have to carry weapons at all. I would also love it if the government could undertake police reform so that reporting mechanisms are less traumatic and so that officers believe and act on complaints of violence against women. The government could use the money to build specialised sexual offending courts. We could toughen up intervention order breaches, which happen so often; address rape myths in society; and mandate further jury directions in trials. There are many things that we could have an inquiry into to end family violence and violence against women. Better yet, we could achieve change now that would address the real causes of violence against women, because the experts are already telling us what we need to do about this. We just need to listen to them. At the very least, we should not be placing responsibility on women and acquitting men of their responsibilities.

In summary, this motion in my opinion is not the solution, even though I do truly understand the intention behind it and the desires of a section of the female community in Victoria who want this. But for women being sexually, physically and emotionally abused and killed in this state right now, it is not how we end it. This will not protect them right now, and this is a crisis that we need to act on immediately. While I understand that for the most part we are united as a Parliament on protecting women, we are not treating it with the urgency that it needs. This motion is not the solution, and for the reasons I have laid out I cannot support it today.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:33): I rise to speak to Mr Limbrick’s motion making a referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee, which the Greens will not support, as it does not address necessary solutions in the face of ongoing and systemic violence against women. All the research across jurisdictions tells us that whenever weapons become more available it is perpetrators that seek out those weapons and then use them. If I am ever accosted, I certainly do not want that person to have a weapon, including a can of capsicum spray. The Greens certainly do not want to see a proliferation of more weapons across our community. The harms of capsicum spray, or more accurately OC spray, have been documented in many places, including the American Civil Liberties Union 2016 report Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions. This includes evidence of permanent disability after use of capsicum spray, such as blindness, traumatic brain injury, limb amputation and loss of function of limbs. In fact the findings in that report provide more evidence that even the current uses of pepper spray – for example, by police in this state – should be more highly regulated if not outright banned.

I do welcome the opportunity to speak in this place about the real solutions to violence against women, because we know what they are and there is still a need to increase resourcing to support them.

Two years ago the Australian state and territory governments released a 10-year National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and that maps out actions across four domains: prevention, early intervention, response and recovery. Services such as violence prevention, intervention and response are profoundly underfunded still to meet the overwhelming demand. Women also know, and the stats do back up their instinct, that they are far more at risk of violence in, unfortunately, their own home or workplace and from someone that they know. The Australian Bureau of Statistics personal safety survey 2023 tells us that 70 per cent of women and 28 per cent of men who have experienced violence since the age of 15 experienced it from an intimate partner or a family member.

The national plan sets out a range of necessary actions. For example, women who are experiencing violence or at risk of it would have available services on the day that they need them – housing services, medical services and legal services. Men who are at risk of perpetrating violence would have access to early intervention programs, many of which have had high success rates. The plan also sets out that on this topic we need better and more frequent public transport. We need investment in infrastructure that makes public places safer.

There have been many inquiries already into the solutions to gender-based violence, so let us invest in these rather than allowing more dangerous weapons to proliferate in our communities. More weapons in a community rarely makes anyone safer. We need evidence-based solutions like proper ongoing funding for frontline women’s services.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:36): I rise today to speak in strong support of Mr Limbrick’s motion to hold an inquiry into the legalisation of pepper spray as a form of nonlethal self-defence in Victoria. There have been some ridiculous arguments against Mr Limbrick’s motion, some very, very insulting arguments against Mr Limbrick’s motion and some completely irrelevant arguments against Mr Limbrick’s motion. I am going to address the ones that are not irrelevant and not insulting first.

First of all, this is not an either-or proposition. It is entirely possible, and in fact it is necessary, to expect multiple things from our society at once. When it comes to policing, we can empower police and we can reform our bail laws. We can do all kinds of things. Police are run ragged. They are under-resourced, and they are trying their best. Police are doing their best to respond effectively to reports of violence and to ensure that restraining orders are enforced and to create safer public spaces, but they need better legislation in order to be able to do that. What they do have, which we do not have, is pepper spray. If it did not work, they would not use it.

We can advocate for cultural change. At the same time, we can run education and awareness campaigns; we can run consent classes in school. I do not know if anyone here is confused about what assault and rape are. It is when the perpetrator does not care whether they get consent or not, so it is entirely irrelevant. We can do all kinds of things to help address the root causes of violence – toxic attitudes towards women or anyone vulnerable or anything that fuels aggression. I will just note that an inquiry into sexism requires an understanding of what biological sex is, so I do not see how that is going to do us any good in this Parliament.

And what about the fact that there are so many male victims? Male-on-male violence is horrendous. People are forgetting that men are also victims, not to mention the fact that good, strong men are just absolutely fantastic. They are a force for good in society that is absolutely unmatched by anything. But as I always say to my students and to my girls, we are our own best defenders. We can use our wisdom. We can make decisions. It is not our fault if we get attacked. It is not our fault if we get assaulted. But there is no point relying on someone to come and rescue us, because it probably will not happen.

What we can also do then is to empower individuals who are vulnerable with tools like pepper spray. We can work towards these long-term solutions, but we must give people the means to protect themselves in the here and now. These approaches are not actually in conflict. On the contrary, they reinforce one another. We reduce the burden on law enforcement and we create a society where victims can feel safer reporting crimes and getting justice and engaging with the legal system, and we can prevent multiple attacks.

I believe this is a timely and essential discussion that touches on the safety, autonomy and rights of every individual in our community, especially those who are most vulnerable to violence. Those who are most vulnerable to physical and sexual violence usually share one thing in common: they are physically outmatched and overpowered by their attackers. We all know the shameful statistics about male and female sexual assault and violence. We know about elder abuse, abuse of the physically and mentally disabled and abuse of children.

Then there are the compounding factors that increase the risk of harm to those already vulnerable groups, things that embolden opportunistic thugs and make it easier for predators to attack without being interrupted, things that are not the victim’s fault – things like having to be alone in an isolated or rural area or late-night commutes on public transport, like men being allowed into female changerooms and toilets, like men being able to take up positions where they can do body searches, as nurses or police officers, on women. That is just another assault. Can you even understand how ridiculous this is? Simply existing in public spaces, for many cohorts, feels like a calculated risk.

As many have pointed out, this week is the beginning of the campaign 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence against women and girls. I just heard someone say that one of the reasons they are against Mr Limbrick’s motion is because only 16 per cent of violent attacks against women are perpetrated by persons unknown to them. As a little girl and as a woman I found myself in that 16 per cent statistic six times. I am also in the other cohort, unfortunately, with violent sexual predators attacking me when they were members of my own family or they were close friends. All of my attackers were treated leniently by the law, or the police officers just could not get evidence to prosecute them. It was just all very tragic.

Now I also know what it is like to be stalked. I also heard today that ending violence before it starts begins with respect. I do not know if anybody here cares what happens when you publicly vilify a woman as a Nazi. I can tell you from personal experience that it has resulted in death and rape threats against me and my four children. It resulted in men stalking me online and in real life, threatening to spit on me, and it resulted in a man securing a fake security guard uniform, asking around to find out which entrances and exits I used at Federal Court and where I sat during the trial and bringing in a backpack full of eggs to throw at me during the livestream. Thankfully the excellent male court security staff noticed this guy and got rid of him before he could attack.

I find it absolutely revolting that you would use the excuse that it is only 16 per cent of women that this might help. I just do not even think you can hear yourselves. I know you are not horrible people, but I just do not think you can hear yourselves. It is our duty as legislators to explore every single avenue that could provide people with practical and effective tools to protect themselves when the worst happens, before the police get there, when no-one is going to be able to help them. This is not a motion about promoting fear or vigilante justice; it is about empowerment and responsibility and recognising that, while we continue to rely on our police forces to protect us, they cannot be everywhere at all times. When danger strikes, seconds matter. Pepper spray could give someone the critical moments that they need to avoid harm or even save their life. It is not just about pepper spray even; it is about exploring ways to make our communities safer while respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Rather than just going on walks, getting in photos with victims, making nude calendars, making speeches, shaming and blaming all of the good men into watching educational videos and signing up to petitions telling them not to do the heinous things that they already do not even do and giving all the violent thugs and rapists an opportunity to scoff at the ineffective and incompetent attempts to stop them from doing the heinous things that they were going to carry on doing anyway no matter what we did unless they were physically stopped and then caught and charged, this motion is about doing something real about violence against women. It is about giving women and vulnerable people a chance to be their own best defenders. I commend it to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:45): I would like to thank everyone for their contribution to this motion today. I acknowledge that everyone in this place, including me, wants to end violence in the state, and I do not doubt anyone’s intentions. But I would say this: there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Victorians who are scared of being victims of crime. Those people want some means of protecting themselves. Under the current laws, because these people would be law-abiding citizens, they have no means of protecting themselves. They stand no chance whatsoever. That is the status quo that is supported by those opposing this motion. Some of those people that want to protect themselves will become victims of crime. Maybe pepper spray would have helped them, maybe not, but the current situation means that those people never stood a chance. They never stood a chance, and the government stopped them from using any means to protect themselves, as was pointed out. Carrying anything for the purposes of self-defence is illegal in this state. In fact the keys thing that many people talk about technically could be illegal, is my understanding, if you are carrying them for those purposes.

I would say this: if one of those people that felt frightened of crime ignored the law and they obtained pepper spray anyway and they carried it – and there are lots of people that do that – do you really think that they deserve to go to prison? Because that is the current law. That is the law: if you carry a prohibited weapon, you can go to jail. It just seems outrageous to me. We talk about respecting people, but respect starts with listening to people and what they want. Some people say, ‘I want something to make myself feel safer.’ Yes, it will not work in all situations, and yes, it probably will not work in the majority of situations. But as Mrs Deeming pointed out, if there is 16 per cent of violent crime in this state that has some chance of being prevented by people being able to have some form of self-defence, then shouldn’t we do it? Shouldn’t we allow them to do it? Shouldn’t we give people a chance of preventing that crime? The government was talking about coming down hard on perpetrators, and yes, we should do that, but I would rather that we stopped the perpetrators in their tracks.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (18): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.