Wednesday, 15 November 2023

Summary Offences Amendment (Move-on Laws and Exclusion Orders) Bill 2023

Introduction

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (09:45): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 in relation to directions to move on and to provide for the making of exclusion orders and for other purposes.

This bill is coming at a very important time for this state. The social fabric of Melbourne, the social fabric of Victoria, has never been under more pressure than it is right now. We need to make sure that Victoria Police have the tools at their disposal to be able to keep the peace. They need the tools to be able to keep harmony in this state, and they do not have them at the moment. The disgraceful scenes seen last Friday in close proximity to a Jewish synagogue demonstrate that the public wants to see the peace kept. We cannot continue to live like this, and it is the Labor government that took away the powers of police to deal with these sorts of situations. The former Liberal–Nationals government introduced a suite of move-on powers and exclusion laws which would have the effect of being able to make sure that police could deal with these matters, but of course we know –

Anthony Carbines interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: If only the Minister for Police was this vocal last Friday. He didn’t say much then, did he? We need to have police that are properly empowered to deal with breaches of the peace. Without going into the details of the bill, we believe that the former legislation that stood, which gave police powers, was entirely appropriate. For example, why should it be that a person who is causing a reasonable apprehension of violence in another person should not be able to be moved on? That is sensible. If a person is impeding another person from lawfully entering or leaving a premises, why shouldn’t they be subject to a direction to move on? If people are picketing a synagogue or a mosque or a temple or a church, why shouldn’t they be subject to a direction to move on?

This is what this bill seeks to do, and for the minister to say police do not want it, well, I can tell this to the minister through you, Speaker: the minister is not speaking to the police that we are speaking to. He is not speaking to the police that we are speaking to, because at the moment the government’s position is that you have to go and throw a punch before the police can do anything. They want to turn the temperature up. The government wants to turn the temperature up. We want to turn the temperature down. We want to restore peace on our streets. We want to restore peace in our cities. We do not want to see neo-Nazis roaming train carriages in the centre of Melbourne demanding to know who here is Jewish. We want to give police the powers to deal with those sorts of people, which the government is refusing to do.

So if the government is serious about restoring social harmony in this state, if the government is serious about trying to turn the temperature down from what we are seeing at the moment, the government should put politics aside, put its union mates aside, and support the introduction of this bill, because this bill does not just deal with move-on powers, it also deals with exclusion orders. Again, this provides a court with the opportunity where somebody is repeatedly breaching a move-on order to issue an exclusion order, and obviously there are more serious penalties that flow from that. So the question is: why would you be opposed to police and courts having the power to keep this city and state safe? That is all this is about, but it is so important, and it has never been more important than at a time like this, because at the moment the police are standing there trying to keep fighting groups apart, warring groups apart, protesting groups apart. What is actually happening? The temperature is rising. The scenes we saw last Friday night were appalling. It is not the city that I know, it is not the Victoria that I know, and we want to do something constructive about it. What is the government’s answer? Oh, a cabinet subcommittee. Well, pardon my cynicism, but I have not seen a cabinet subcommittee actually do anything positive or constructive to deal with these matters. They have done nothing.

Here is a positive, constructive legislative measure to give police the power to keep the peace. We do not want to wait until people commit crimes, until people commit attacks and assaults. We do not want to wait until that happens; we need to deal with it before it happens, we need to nip it in the bud. That is what this bill does, in a sensible way, in a proportionate way, in a way in which the police had previously. The only reason police do not have them is because Labor took them away. Well, the Liberals and Nationals want to give them back.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (09:50): We will be opposing this bill, and we will be doing that on the basis that we are not going to use our time in here to attack Victoria Police, because that is exactly what those on the other side have done in suggesting that Victoria Police are not doing everything that they can with appropriate powers to maintain peace and social cohesion in this community. Let me tell you, there is so much more to doing this than using powers of arrest or indeed other powers. It is the work that the Minister for Police spoke about yesterday: working with communities – working with our Jewish community, working with our Islamic community. I will tell you what else – we will not be taking advice or lectures from those on the other side whose own members stood on the steps of this house with people who had a mock hanging of a Premier of this state.

Members interjecting.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I can hear her now, the member for South-West Coast. She was out there on the steps of the house.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjecting across the chamber.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this debate is around the introduction of the member for Malvern’s bill. The Leader of the House is not speaking to that matter.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House and other members know that this is a procedural debate. Please speak to the procedure.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I appreciate your guidance. I do note, however, that with the bill that is proposed to be introduced, the argument for its urgency is around social cohesion and the work that needs to be done to keep Victorians safe. To be frank again, we cannot take advice from those on the other side in relation to these matters, because actions speak louder than words. The actions of those are there for everyone to see in the way in which –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House is defying your previous ruling.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the House, it is a procedural debate. I ask you to stick to the procedural debate, as will other members following.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: In terms of procedure there is no need for this bill to be presented to the house. Victoria Police have the powers that they need, and on this side of the house we respect the right that all communities have to come together, to grieve and to engage in lawful protest, but not at the expense of the safety of others. Victoria Police are working to enable this across communities that have been impacted by the terrible tragedy of the war that we are seeing in the Middle East. But we cannot let the violence in the Middle East beget violence here, on the streets of our city, and Victoria Police work every day in order to do that.

Speaker, the point here is that this bill that is being presented to this house is actually unfortunately nothing other than a stunt, because we know why those on the other side of this place seek to introduce such a bill to this place. Victoria’s move-on laws strike the right balance between ensuring police have the tools they need to maintain public order while protecting the rights of citizens to peacefully protest. The opposition’s draconian and anti-democratic proposal would criminalise peaceful protest, and on that basis we will not be supporting this bill.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:55): Today we are dealing with a procedural debate on a motion that would allow the member for Malvern to introduce an important bill that relates to providing police with move-on powers. But this debate is not just about this bill; this debate is also about the type of Melbourne, the type of Victoria, the type of state we want to live in, in that on Friday I am sure that we all saw the scenes that occurred in Caulfield – horrific scenes, appalling scenes, scenes that I am sure every member of this house never thought they would see in our suburbs and would never want to see in those suburbs.

When incidents as appalling as those occur, you need to reflect on how they have occurred and what can be done, if anything, in terms of a Parliament, about that, and there is no doubt that one of the most important take-outs from what occurred was that police need the power to take action before a violent incident occurs. Police need the power, as people congregate and as the temperature rises over issues that are being debated or being protested about, to move people on. Frankly, it is too late when the police can only intervene after violence occurs, and that is what this bill is about. That is why it is so important that this bill is introduced. Police not only need the power which would be provided in the bill to stop violence before it occurs, senior police are asking for that power.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, as you have already ruled, this is a narrow procedural debate, and I ask that you ask the Manager of Opposition Business to come back to that procedural motion and that you ask him to refrain from conjecture in his presentation.

James Newbury interjected.

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, I would ask you not to yell at me. On the point of order, I expect members to be able to explain why they do or do not want the bill introduced. There are avenues to do that without going into debate on the bill. The Manager of Opposition Business was trying very hard to be relevant to the procedural debate.

James NEWBURY: Thank you. As I was saying, police, senior police, are asking for the power to move people on in circumstances like those that occurred on Friday. That is what this bill does. That is what this bill proposes to do. That is why we must introduce this bill now. And it disappoints me to hear that the Minister for Police does not know that the police are asking for it, because they certainly are, Minister for Police –

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: They certainly are, Speaker. And it is disappointing that the minister has been very, very quiet since last Friday in a portfolio that matters now. So I say the member for Malvern has moved to introduce a bill that this Parliament needs to consider now. It provides police with the important powers to move people on before violence occurs, and I am sure that if we look into our heart of hearts, that is what we want. We want to provide police with the power to stop incidents before they become so fuelled that –

Anthony Carbines interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Minister for Police is now laughing. I am talking about a very serious matter – a very serious matter.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business knows that it is disorderly to respond to interjections from members, and I ask you to tell him to stop doing that.

The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: I certainly was waylaid by the loudness of the laughter.

It is essential that this bill be introduced today. It is absolutely essential, because none of us, no member of this place, wants to see the scenes that we saw in our suburb of Caulfield last Friday – Caulfield, only one block away from my community. The scenes we saw were shocking, they were appalling. The powers proposed in this bill will allow the police to stop what occurred. How could we not as a Parliament want to see these laws enacted? How could we not want to give police the power to stop what occurred? We cannot have what happened occur again – we cannot. So this bill is about those powers, but this bill is also about the Melbourne, the Victoria, the state that we want to see and the way that the community that we love lives in those communities.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:01): My electorate is home to 5 per cent of Australia’s Jewish community. It is served by five synagogues. For that reason, I am very conscious of the issues that have been raised here today, and also for that reason I am not going to play politics with this very, very important issue. It is a very important issue, and I note the member for Malvern, who moved this motion, has dedicated his matter of public importance to this issue later this afternoon so no doubt for those 2 hours we will be having a measured discussion on these issues. But I repeat: this is not a time for politics, because tensions are high. There are people who are extremely distressed right now, and I hear from them each and every day. As things worsen overseas, the task of this government and in fact all of us in this house to defend our peaceful, harmonious society will become more challenging, so we can start by showing leadership in this house. I will say this: the way the member for Brighton has characterised existing laws is just inaccurate. Police have more powers than he is letting on. I again say this is not a time for politics; it is a time to show leadership. It is a time to do everything we can to defend our peaceful, harmonious, multicultural society, because our peaceful diversity in this state is the envy of the world.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:03): I rise to support the member for Malvern’s bill to introduce move-on laws in this Parliament. As the member for Bentleigh just rightly pointed out, this is not about politics; this is about community safety for each and every Victorian. A line in the sand was drawn on Friday night when we saw for the first time in certainly my memory that a community would be targeted in the way that they were targeted.

I want the house to reflect back to 2010 to 2014, which led to move-on laws being introduced into this Parliament – there were a number of issues again of boycotts targeted at Jewish owners in shops. We had Melbourne Central literally shut down for hours at a time and those businesses could not operate simply because they were targeted for being owned by Jewish owners. That and other reasons led to the Liberal–Nationals government bringing in move-on powers. Unfortunately, the very first thing that the then Andrews government did in 2015 was to actually abolish move-on laws. We always want to say that history should never be repeated, but we are not only at the point of those chocolate shops being boycotted. The violence on the streets on Friday was completely unacceptable. A line has been crossed. Only weeks prior we saw neo-Nazis walking onto trains trying to single out those who were Jewish, walking in precincts and walking through Flinders Street station literally being able to go on their way.

As many pointed out to me – and I know Victoria Police do an amazing job on the front line; they really, really do – the police were powerless to do anything other than to chaperone those protesters and to watch them until maybe someone threw a first punch or even worse. That is why it is so important. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for someone to get absolutely hurt, killed? What are we waiting for here? We have got to ensure police have all the powers necessary to do their jobs. I know it is a very fuelled debate and I know people are very, very anxious, but I can tell you from talking to a number of police of all ranks and all levels and talking through their powers and talking through their ability to do their job that we keep coming back to move-on laws as the single way to be able to actually disrupt, to actually shut something down and move somebody on when they are disrupting the peace, and if not – if they do not move on – arrest them. At the moment all they can simply do is issue a ticket. Well, issuing a ticket is not going to stop somebody throwing a rock, throwing a glass, throwing a punch – it is not going to do any of that. We cannot wait until a punch has been thrown. We cannot wait until a knife is pulled. We have got to ensure when people go out and deliberately target individuals like was done on Friday night, instilling fear in communities – we have got to stop that. That is why the timeliness of this particular bill is so important, and that is why I support the member for Malvern to bring it on now. We cannot wait for weeks. What are we going to do, come back here in a fortnight and say we should have brought the bill in again if we see things repeat themselves again and again and again?

There is no question at the moment that communities are fuelled, from all sides. The issues of the Middle East, as horrific as they are – Palestinians dying, Jews dying, all people dying is horrific. It is imagery none of us want to see. But unfortunately those images, that violence and that activity are now playing out on our streets in Melbourne, and we need to ensure that Victoria Police are there to protect Victorians from that kind of violence. That is why this is so important. Of course we want to take the temperature down. We do not want riots on our streets. But for the community to go about their lives, to go out freely on the streets, we have got to ensure that police are there to protect them, and we have got to also ensure that police are able to protect themselves by having those powers to be able to move people on when they are not just being a nuisance but using threatening behaviour. That is why I support the member for Malvern’s bill to bring on move-on laws immediately to give the police the powers to keep our community and all Victorians safe.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:08): I rise to speak against the introduction of this bill. The truth of the matter is that we know from past experience that introducing move-on laws does not appropriately target the risk that they purport to target, and we have seen that. Between 2011 and 2015 we had move-on laws in this state which went beyond the pale. We know that Victoria Police are doing an outstanding job – they really are doing a fantastic job – and we know that they already have the tools at their disposal to be able to deal with the risks that are presented to the public. When move-on laws were in this state from 2011 to 2015, they actually had the reverse effect: they targeted communities, whether they were worker communities, whether they were union communities or whether they were communities –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Malvern! Minister for Police!

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, this is a procedural motion. It is not appropriate to assert that the police target the community. That is an outrageous assertion, and I am sure we are all offended by it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Narre Warren South will speak to the procedural motion.

Gary MAAS: Thank you. What we did see was the use of that law trying to subvert federal law, whether it was industrial relations law –

A member interjected.

Gary MAAS: Well, I will pick up on the interjection. I remember a dispute at Laverton, at Baiada, where there were several workers out on strike who were all being paid $10 cash an hour and the move-on laws were being used to disperse them. So this is industrial law, this is federal law. My point is that state law should not be used to subvert the process of other laws. Currently in protests police have laws at their disposal to use, and they are using those laws appropriately. If there is a person that is putting the safety of another person in danger, they can use the move-on laws that this government put in place to appropriately move them on. They can use those laws if they are doing something that is likely to injure someone or damage property. They already have these laws at their disposal. The great risk of introducing draconian law is that its intended purpose will go beyond the pale. We have seen this before with the opposition, who introduced this back in 2010. I am very proud that the government removed them as one of the first things that it did when it took office in 2014, and that is why I speak against the introduction of this bill.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I notice that the Minister for Police is in the chamber. He has not had the opportunity to speak yet. The opposition is very keen to give him leave to hear him on this.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner

Noes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.