Thursday, 22 February 2024

Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (11:43): I rise today to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. I would like to first highlight the fact that I know that this government is very good – very, very good – at putting politics before community safety, and here is another example.

It is primary, when you talk about the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill, that this bill, which is 35 pages long, has one line in relation to machetes but still manages to be called ‘the machetes bill’. It is pure politics from a government that has failed to do what they need to do when it comes to community safety and machetes on our streets. And while I get told I am petty from someone in the gallery who decides it is a good idea to say I am petty about this, we cannot forget that the Liberals have already tried to introduce legislation to ban the machete here in Victoria.

We have already put forward a bill that was opposed by Labor. At the time, the member for South Barwon said:

… what we see constantly, time after time, every single week, are juvenile political stunts from those on the other side. At every opportunity they seek to frustrate the government on the agenda that we took to the Victorian people and that was endorsed by the Victorian people.

It is interesting that all of a sudden, even though you did not take that bill to the Victorian people, you now want to reintroduce a bill that we brought forward to protect Victorians in 2023. But, no, you wanted to wait until 2024. The member for Laverton said:

… to bring before this house a proposed bill at the, I dare say, eleventh hour, in the last sitting week for this year. It cannot be seen as anything else than a political stunt …

…

… What I find so outrageous is that it is a bill that is being proposed and debated as part of a procedural debate at the eleventh if not 12th hour here in 2023. It is an absolute disgrace to stand here and not have what I consider a really serious debate and conversation about these things. People have been seriously injured.

…

… This is nothing other than a political stunt by those opposite.

Interesting that they wanted a serious debate and then they opposed the opportunity to have the debate in 2023, when machete crime was at its highest, when aggravated burglaries went above 5000 in a year in this state, up from 2000. We continuously hear the government talking about those crime stats and going, ‘We’re just returning to those pre-COVID levels.’ Well, they are actually more than double those pre-COVID levels when it comes to assaults and when it comes to aggravated burglaries in our state. The member for Greenvale said:

I rise to oppose the member for Berwick’s motion not because the issues that the motion addresses are insignificant or unserious but because the motion itself is fundamentally unserious and another stunt, as the member for Laverton said. The reason I oppose the motion is because the issues warrant more consideration than just a slanging match and gratuitous interjections from people like the member for South-West Coast and those on the opposition front bench in front of me, because the issues really matter: the home invasions that have been experienced in the member for Brighton’s electorate, which the member for Caulfield discussed, and the issues that the member for Laverton discussed.

I say that these issues were important then and they are important now. What is worse is this government then brings forward a bill, a lot of which we support around the firearms prohibition orders, around machetes that unfortunately does nothing. They have come forward and said, ‘How good are we? Pat us on the back. We’re banning machetes.’ But they are not. There is zero change in this bill that will impact the sale of machetes here in our state. There is zero impact from this legislation that will make any change when it comes to what is happening with machete crime here in our state.

We have gone and sought what currently is a machete by definition here in Victoria. A machete, being a bladed-edge weapon, is by its very definition a knife, and a knife with a blade that long would be a controlled weapon. If it is a controlled weapon, it cannot be sold to anyone under 18 years old, you must have a reason to have it, and there are conditions around having that weapon. The government is now moving to make a machete a controlled weapon. So I thought to myself, ‘Who would I ask for an explanation of that?’ Well, I would ask the minister, because the minister knows what they are talking about – we get that. And the minister has said moving ‘machete’ into the Control of Weapons Act 1990 rather than as a knife changes nothing. That is in his second-reading speech: it changes nothing. So a knife that could not be sold to someone under 18 last year cannot be sold to someone under 18 next year. A machete in the same circumstances, which could not be sold to someone under ‍18 last year, cannot be sold to them next year. And the reasoning the government gave for putting the machete into the Control of Weapons Act and making it a controlled weapon is because some people may not understand that a machete is a weapon. I had to clarify just to double-check it, but that was definitely what they said: some people would not understand that it is a weapon.

Let me assure you, Victoria Police know it is a weapon. They know 100 per cent that a machete is a weapon. If we are worried that a salesperson or a market stallholder at the Dandenong Market who is selling 20 machetes every week does not understand it is a weapon, then the policing of it is an issue, not the actual legislation. And if we are genuinely concerned about those machetes being sold at places like the Dandenong Market, what is this piece of legislation going to do to fix that? Zero, because next year you will still be able to sell a machete at the Dandenong Market.

However, if the government, instead of playing their political stunts, opted to support the legislation that the Victorian Liberals and Nationals put forward, it would be a prohibited weapon, and a prohibited weapon by very definition cannot be bought by anyone without exceptional circumstances. Think of a gun – you can still have guns in Victoria if you are a farmer. You should still be able to have a machete in Victoria if you are a farmer and you need it for your cane or your crop, but you should not need a machete if you are walking down the street or walking along the Yarra River. There is no reason in Melbourne to carry a machete along the Yarra River. By definition, at the moment, if you are over 18 and you have a reason in your mind for it, you can get away with it. Why wouldn’t we give the police the powers by making this a prohibited weapon? Also, for those that fear it could be sold at the markets, if you make it a prohibited weapon, you can longer import it. A person therefore could not import bulk amounts of machetes to sell at the markets, and it would put a lot of restrictions around where they can be sold.

I think everybody in here saw the news when Channel 7 went in and purchased from Anaconda a machete for $89. When they did that at the time, they said they walked in – no questions asked, no identification – and bought a machete. Under the changes the government is making, if Channel 7 returns to the same Anaconda in January 2025, they will be able to walk in and buy a machete. They will be able to do exactly the same then as they are doing now. Why? Because the government has failed to address the actual issue. They have failed to make a change that is going to genuinely impact on community safety.

Why has this come about? If we look back, we can go back to 23 June 2022: ‘Young man repeatedly stabbed in savage machete attack by hooded thugs in Springvale, Melbourne’. A 23-year-old was out with his friends in Melbourne’s south-east when he was attacked by thugs who were carrying machetes. They were carrying, by very definition, a controlled weapon. If it was a prohibited weapon, it would not have been able to be sold in most locations in our state and it would have been very difficult to get in metropolitan areas at the time. The young man was stabbed and stomped in this vicious machete attack in the south-east, and Victoria Police were hunting those that did it. I think the graphic part about that, which we have seen, is the footage that came from that attack. This is one of the pieces of footage that I would expect every person in this Parliament to have a look at to see the impact of what is happening when it comes to knife crime here in Victoria.

Look at the footage where people are in their house, in their own home, when groups of thugs are coming in and confronting them with a machete in their house. It not something that any person in here, unless they have experienced that, could absolutely understand. It is happening too often. The scary part now is that we are seeing more and more footage because more and more people feel insecure in their own homes and are now putting cameras at their houses. This is not me saying it, this is fact. Go and speak to any person who sells cameras here in our state and installs them in people’s houses. They are busier than ever because people are genuinely afraid, particularly in some of those areas. I know it was mentioned by the member for Brighton, but it is also down through Berwick. The other night we had two again in Alira estate. People in those estates are genuinely scared of what is going on.

We can go back to when a Herald Sun investigation called for bans of the lethal weapon. What was called for in an article written on 24 September 2023, prior to us coming in with our legislation, was:

An immediate ban on the sale of machetes in Victoria is needed to stop status-seeking teens using them in terrifying attacks, says a high profile youth worker.

Les Twentyman said they were deeply terrifying, these edged and terrifying weapons, and slammed the state government as ‘gutless’ for not taking a harder line on machetes.

Les Twentyman, who we all know and we all respect and who has done a lot of work particularly around knife crime, is calling for a ban. This ban that is going to be put into the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to stop machetes being sold to under 18-year-olds is already in place because it is there. What we are saying is, although it would be prohibited from everyone, it is that 18- to 24-year-old cohort that is a problem. They are still in that youth crime stage of life. We have a group of young offenders in that 18- to 24-year-old cohort that will still be legally allowed to buy a machete. No matter how anyone else tries to word it, it is exactly as it says here from Mr Twentyman:

“No one should be able to do that, no matter their age,” Mr Twentyman said.

“Machetes should only be available to buy for their intended purpose, cutting cane in Queensland.”

I cannot understand why this government would not be listening to someone like Les Twentyman, who has done so much. I cannot understand how they can continue to see the horrors of what happens when we have machete attacks on the streets and continue not to understand the impact when kids continuously want to buy the bigger knife to be the tougher person.

The Deputy Premier and I have had this discussion in the past. There is a book called Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun. If you have not read it, I encourage you to read it, because it goes through what happened in New York in the days when the fights on the streets were with the fist and the retaliation was with the fist. Over time the next group, who wanted to be bigger and tougher, came back with a stick. Then to defend the stick they brought the knife, and finally they ended up with the guns, and we have seen that gun crime in America is out of control. I am not saying that here in Victoria, by any stretch of the imagination, we are heading down a pathway of guns like that. I think we are a lucky and sensible state, a lucky and sensible country, in that we have had bipartisan support for gun control across our country. That will put us in a much better position moving forward than what would happen and did happen in New York. If you are removing the gun, what you are putting in place – whilst there are groups of young people that try and continue to increase that crime and increase the visibility of what they have got – is you have gone from a knife to a machete. Again, we need to speak to those out there and listen to those that have seen what has been happening with this and what has been happening in our state, and we need to listen to those that are on the street talking about it.

It is not just Les Twentyman. There are so many out there that have been calling for inquiries in relation to this. The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Shane Patton told an inquiry he was speaking to that Victoria Police had been monitoring 600 members of 40 youth gangs and that cops already apprehend a lot of people under the Control of Weapons Act. It is already in place, by admission of the chief commissioner. Police can use this legislation to arrest someone under a Control of Weapons Act contravention, but the government’s response is to put this into the Control of Weapons Act when it is already being used and has not been successful. Again, what we should be saying, and exactly what the chief commissioner says, is a young person cannot be carrying around a machete in public, because there is no reason for it. We say no person should be carrying around a machete in public, because there is no reason for it. I go back to what Les Twentyman said: a machete should only be used for its intended purpose, which is cutting cane in Queensland. We need to be ensuring that that is the case; that is where we want it to go.

The other people we should be speaking to about this are those that are the victims of these home invasions at night. I encourage everybody – it is not hard – to type into Google. You will end up with hundreds and hundreds of stories such as this one:

INTRUDERS broke into a Mount Clear home and hacked one of its occupants with a machete after a dispute on social media, a court has heard.

Lachlan Dzesa, 20, was supported by many friends and family as he pleaded guilty to home invasion at the County Court in Ballarat on Tuesday.

The reason I have raised this one, which occurred on 15 April 2023, is that these crimes are not just metropolitan: these crimes are across the state. I think we need to understand, if we are going to be making these changes, it is already difficult enough for Victoria Police to do what they are doing with the lack of numbers they have got – they are down 3 per cent on their current numbers and have a thousand vacancies.

What we do need to be doing is making sure they have got the powers to deliver, take these machetes off the street, arrest people when needed and make sure they can be formally charged, everywhere across the state. Recently I have been in Bendigo and I have been in Mildura where I have been talking about some of the crimes that have been happening up in those areas, and there are so many in the community that are genuinely concerned about some of the things that have been happening up there. But it is when you get articles like on 25 November in the Herald Sun, which said that Sunshine was a danger zone and that cops knew the railway station was a knife crime hotspot well before the killing of Pasawm.

So a young guy has died, and Victoria Police knew that this was already a hotspot. Under the control of weapons and prohibited weapons legislation to do searches et cetera they obviously have to have a declared area, but we know with machetes that it is a lot harder to hide a machete than it is a standard of old flick-knife from when I was kid or a pocketknife. You can hide them quite easily. It is very difficult to hide a machete. When we know these issues are happening and we know that we want to search these people as often as possible in those areas to ensure we can protect the community, we need to also understand that we need legislation so the police are 100 per cent confident that what they are doing is going to be backed by law. By the very admission of the minister, that is just not the case at the moment. Maybe that is a government issue, where the government maybe should just have put out a statement – it might have been a lot easier – just to let everyone know a machete is a knife and a knife is a controlled weapon. It would have been a lot easier than coming in here and calling an entire bill the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill to make themselves look good and pat themselves on the back.

An internal police document from January released to the Herald Sun under freedom-of-information laws revealed a spate of weapon offences had occurred at the station and warned:

… there is a likelihood that violence or disorder will recur.

Obviously that violence ended up being the death of a young man at that spot. The document revealed there were 10 serious weapons offences at the station in the year between January 2022 and January 2023. Officers seized 18 knives, three machetes and a screwdriver in that period. Just to clarify that, a screwdriver is a dangerous article, a machete is not a dangerous article but a controlled weapon, so they have the ability to do that, but we need to make sure that a machete is not effectively classified in that same area or anywhere near it. A machete should not be available. So the police were warned of this, and I would assume that if the police had been warned about this in briefings from them the minister had been warned. I am assuming the minister was aware that there are issues around knife crime here in our state. If he was not, then I would probably strongly suggest that we may need a new minister. But if he was aware of that and during the 12 months did nothing, it was a bit steep for the government then to come out and say that the Victorian Liberals and Nationals were doing a stunt in 2023 by introducing a bill to stop this happening on our streets, because we are very, very keen to make sure that we want no machetes on our streets.

I will give you a quick rundown of just the Sunshine train station alone: 16 March 2022, three offenders, one armed with a knife, chased a male riding on an e-scooter; 26 March 2022, two offenders, one holding a knife, punched a victim who was sitting in their car; March and April 2022, recklessly causing serious injury, but the details were withheld; 24 April 2022, a person slapped their former partner across the face before pulling a knife on them and trying to stab them; 20 June 2022, ex-partner held a knife to their partner; 30 September 2022, a male held a machete to a PSO before fleeing and throwing the weapon away and being arrested; 25 September 2022, male armed with a knife followed a victim before demanding their watch; 17 October 2022, offender pulled out a knife and demanded the victim hand over their phone, poking them with the knife; dates unknown, armed robbery – details withheld; and 13 January, offenders held a box cutter to the victim and demanded the victim’s money and phone. In a 12-month period that is the amount of knife crime at one – we have got to get this right; one – railway station here in Victoria. What we are seeing more and more is, despite people coming out and speaking about this, this government has brought in a piece of legislation to do nothing, to not change a thing. I quote:

The grandmother of slain schoolboy Ethan Hoac says she is “troubled for young boys” as she mourns her grandson, the latest victim of a scourge of knife crime in Melbourne.

Ethan’s grandmother … described the 14-year-old as “kind” and “funny”, adding he was loved by many.

“He was a really kind boy, really funny, a fun person to be around,” Thu said of her grandson.

“He had many friends who loved him, you can see that here today.

“I love him, he loved me. I’m so sad to see him go. I watched him grow up.”

These are the words of a grieving grandmother who suffered the loss of her grandson at the hands of knife crime here in Victoria.

When anyone turns around and says to me, ‘The Liberals and Nationals are running a scare campaign’, I ask them to have a read through the articles that are available through every single media outlet in our state. I ask them to go and look at channels 7, 9 and 10 and the ABC, any of those networks or, worse, look at what we are seeing on social media, which is absolutely horrific. We are all on social media now. The crimes that are coming through on social media are dares between these young crooks as to who can put the worst and most offensive crimes online, and that is scary. It is simply scary. What starts off, like one in Mildura, with a young girl being harassed in Hungry Jack’s, then leads to her being beaten up down the street whilst being filmed. We see films of people using knives and threatening others with knives. We have seen films of people using machetes and abducting kids on our streets, and they think it is cool. They try and outdo each other. They try and prove that ‘I am better than you’ by committing a more violent crime and it leads to death on the streets. It leads to people doing armed robberies in massive groups.

I have spoken to young offenders who were doing time in detention, and I have spoken to offenders who are out of the justice system. They will tell you that the very system they have gone through fails them. The opportunities available in youth justice these days have declined drastically. They are struggling to keep the youth justice system safe, and we are seeing it with continuous reports about what is happening throughout our justice system and with Cherry Creek, where it is out of control. Parkville College can no longer run courses at Cherry Creek because the teachers do not want to go down there. They are genuinely afraid. I have spoken to people working in that system where the kids at the moment have had weapons, and they are genuinely afraid. The amount of resignations is horrendous.

If we want to fix this system, number one, it is not just bringing in a bill with the word ‘machetes’ in brackets. It is fixing the youth justice system so we give those offenders genuine opportunities. Everyone knows I am far from being the person who says lock them up and throw away the key, but we must get control of our system to make sure that the system is in place. We must. We must make sure that young people have an opportunity to get better in that system. When they come out they should be in one of three positions: ready to go back to work, ready to re-engage with the education system or ready to go into the services that they most desperately need. That is why today I am going to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted following stakeholder consultation on what effect classifying a machete as a prohibited weapon would have on protecting the public against the use of machetes, while ensuring the bill retains the important changes to the service of firearm prohibition orders.’

It is vital we go back out there and speak not just to the community and the victims but to the experts in the system, to the academics who can tell us what is wrong within the system, to those working in the youth justice system, to the courts and to the offenders.

Let us start speaking to some of these young kids. Why? What is driving them to continuously increase the size of the knife? How can we work with them so we can get those knives off the streets? But first and foremost we must as a Parliament act to protect the Victorian community by prohibiting machetes here in Victoria. We must make machetes a prohibited weapon. They should not be on the street.

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: I note the member for Monbulk did say they are. You are making them a controlled weapon, which they already are. The minister said that specifically in his second-reading speech. That is why no-one has questioned me and yelled out at me – it is your own speech that says it. I cannot believe a minister would come in here knowing the knife crime we have in this state and say, ‘I’m going to not do anything.’ I just do not understand it. I do not understand how anyone could then get up and back that. I say: if you want to put politics aside, then support the reasoned amendment and let us do what is right. Let us make sure that we can get machetes off the street.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Brad BATTIN: The member for Mordialloc, machetes are on the street in my community every day of the week, so let us prohibit them. If we can get machetes off the street and stop them being sold at Dandenong market, that will make a change. That is not politics, that is making sure machetes are out of the hands of young people who are – not guessing – killing people on the street. They are threatening people on the street. They are coming into people’s homes with them.

I say to Labor: for once, instead of calling me out for a stunt or whatever stupid crap you want to do, do the right thing. Stand up for Victorians and let us protect those that are sitting in their home at the moment where someone is going to come in with a machete. Let us protect the families in Alira estate who this week had kids come through their home with a machete. Get the machete off the streets. The way to do that is: do not listen to me, listen to Les Twentyman. This is a man who has continuously campaigned on this. Get listening to Les Twentyman, who wants these knives banned, and not just from those under 18; they already are. He wants them banned from every single person here in Victoria. Let us put machetes back to what they should be: a tool used in Queensland for getting rid of sugarcane, not a weapon on the streets. Anyone else on that side who wants to say they are not, I refer you back to those incidents that have happened at one railway station here in our state. I implore people to support our reasoned amendment to ensure that we can consult and get this right rather than waiting for more kids to die here on Victorian streets.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:13): I think it is always very important when speaking to legislation to go to the purposive rationale behind the bill. Of course what underpins this bill is assisting our very hardworking Victorian police to keep our community safe. It is a pity the member for Berwick left out swathing chunks of the bill to zone in on one tiny element. We are seeing that the opposition ‍–

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: No, no, no, it is important, but let me get to this: it is a significant element, but he left out –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! I would like everyone to just calm down. I would like to listen to the contribution. There is too much audible noise in the chamber. If you want to have a conversation, take it outside.

Nina TAYLOR: The point is that swathing chunks of the bill have not been spoken to as yet, and I am very happy to speak to those. The bill will crack down on organised crime and weapon sales by making it easier for police to serve firearm prohibition orders – that is a very important element of the bill – ensuring there is no doubt that a machete is a controlled weapon.

First of all, I also think that it is important to note that stakeholders were consulted in the development of these reforms, including, none the least, Victoria Police, IBAC, Victoria Legal –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! I have warned this chamber once. I cannot remove people – that is not up to me – but if I have to call the Speaker back, I will. Enough – I would like to hear the contribution.

Nina TAYLOR: Stakeholders consulted in the development of these reforms include Victoria Police, IBAC, Victoria Legal Aid, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus policy and legislative change collaborative working group, the Magistrates’ Court, the Children’s Court and the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, just to allay some of the concerns of the opposition, who conveniently overlooked those elements in the preparation of the bill. Fundamentally what we are seeking to do with this bill is to ensure the firearms industry operates safely and we keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

I will go to some of the objections with regard to the machete element. Why are we amending the Control of Weapons Act 1990? At the end of the day that is a key purposive element of this bill. It is because some people in the community do not consider machetes to be knives but instead consider them to be tools. Victoria Police has identified that some retailers, including market stallholders and wholesalers, do not consider machetes to be knives. For this reason restrictions on the sale of controlled weapons to individuals under the age of 18 years are not being fully complied with. Whilst it is true that machetes are used as tools for various legitimate purposes, including horticultural, agricultural and general-purpose activities such as clearing brush and cutting and maintaining trails, they are nonetheless knives.

Further, why should a machete not be reclassified as a prohibited weapon? A machete has a longstanding status as a knife and has many legitimate uses in the community. There is no need to reclassify a machete as a prohibited weapon because it is already appropriately regulated. Any proposal to reclassify a machete to be a prohibited weapon would require a detailed regulatory impact analysis and would be likely to impose a significant regulatory burden –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! I will ask the chamber again. Member for Berwick, you have had your say. Member for Nepean! And there is still too much audible noise in the chamber.

Nina TAYLOR: It would be likely to impose a significant regulatory burden on many sectors of the public who legitimately use machetes for lawful purposes.

Coming to other key elements of the bill that have not even been touched on to this point in time, I did want to speak to the element of the changes to the firearm prohibition orders, noting that the firearm prohibition order scheme was inserted into the Firearms Act 1996 by the Firearms Amendment Act ‍2018 to empower Victoria Police to proactively and quickly disrupt serious criminal activity associated with the illicit use of firearms. Is the firearm prohibition order scheme civil or criminal in nature? It is civil in nature, just to put that on the table. When can it be made? This speaks to an important safeguard that is inherent in the making of a firearm prohibition order. Section 112E of the Firearms Act 1996 provides that:

The Chief Commissioner may make a firearm prohibition order only if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so –

(a) because of the criminal history of the individual; or

(b) because of the behaviour of the individual; or

(c) because of the people with whom the individual associates; or

(d) because, on the basis of information known to the Chief Commissioner about the individual, the individual may pose a threat or risk to public safety.

The reason I am labouring those key elements is obviously this bill is strengthening powers with regard to Victoria Police, but it has a very good underlying rationale.

When does this firearm prohibition order apply? It applies to an individual immediately after the chief commissioner makes the order under section 112D of the Firearms Act, but – and this is the critical element, I should say, in terms of the turning point with this bill – an FPO does not come into force until it is served on the individual to whom it applies. Herein lies one of the key challenges, because on the one hand we have legislated to ensure that police have the powers to be able to disrupt serious criminal activity but on the other hand there are these noted and significant barriers that can impede them being able to fulfil those elements.

I want to also pose as a devil’s advocate. What are the operational impacts of requiring a firearm prohibition order to be served on a person by a police officer? Victoria Police advises – Victoria Police advises; I just note that – serving and FPO requires substantial planning and resource commitment, such as the use of surveillance, the critical incident response team or the special operations group to pinpoint the whereabouts of the subject and attempt to serve them. Further, Victoria Police advises that there is a significant time impost for police to wait for a tactically safe option to serve the order. In some cases several days are spent by detectives in the field trying to locate the individual to whom the FPO applies so that the individual can be served at a time that any firearms in the individual’s possession can be surrendered. So you can see already where the impetus is and the driver is for the significant changes in this bill.

Why should a firearm prohibition order be served in person? Well, this is really, really important. There are two reasons that service should be in person. The first is so that the individual has actual knowledge that the FPO applies to them; this is important given the serious consequences attached to the FPO. The second reason is so that the individual can comply with the duty to surrender any firearm or firearm-related item in their possession. Of course on the one hand we have the police seeking here to fulfil an exercise that will actually enhance community safety, and yet again they are being time and time delayed. What we are seeking to do here is to in effect empower police so that they can not only expediently serve the order but be able to give effect to the order as well.

What are the tactics used to avoid service of a firearm prohibition order? Victoria Police – you can see they were consulted on this bill – report the following service avoidance tactics employed by individuals to whom an unserved FPO applies: regularly relocating residence to frustrate police attendance and refusing to answer the door to a premises when police arrive. You can see that there are a number of significant barriers that can stand in the way of police being able to fulfil their role, and that is to protect us, to keep us safe, hence the imperative for the significant changes in this bill. Really, the amendments in this bill are designed to put Victoria Police in the best possible position to serve an FPO on an individual as soon as possible after it is made so that any risk to community safety can be actively managed through the FPO scheme under the Firearms Act 1996. There are many critical elements to this bill, and I did seek to speak to most of them.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (12:23): I rise today to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. The purposes of this bill are:

(a) to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to further provide for –

(i) the service of firearm prohibition orders; and

(ii) any related and minor matters; and

(b) to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to clarify that a machete is a type of knife.

The proposed bill aims to enhance police powers regarding the service of FPOs. Currently FPOs – that is, firearm prohibition orders – must be personally served by a police officer, leading to delays and potential safety risks. Victoria Police identified challenges in serving FPOs to individuals who actively avoid it, are untraceable or are detained. The bill suggests several measures to address these challenges, including allowing the Chief Commissioner of Police to authorise further police powers to deliver FPOs, apply for search warrants to serve FPOs, serve FPOs via registered post and use alternative measures to serve FPOs to uncooperative individuals. Safeguards are incorporated to ensure these powers are used judiciously, such as having specific criteria, procedural protections and oversight mechanisms. Additionally, the bill proposes amending the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to include machetes under controlled weapons.

I want to say something very particular about the Control of Weapons Act. The amendments put forward through this bill on the surface are very straightforward. Unfortunately, however, the amendment will have no impact on decreasing the prevalence of illicit machete possession and crime. It will have zero impact on the sale of machetes. It will have zero impact on the use of machetes in violent crimes. It is a bill utilised for political purposes to make the government look like they are doing something. Section 3 of the Control of Weapons Act defines a controlled weapon as:

a knife, other than a knife that is a prohibited weapon; or

an article that is prescribed by the regulations to be a controlled weapon.

Machetes as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary and confirmed by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel are knives and therefore are controlled weapons. The minister confirms that machetes are knives and therefore are already defined as a controlled weapon under the act. The government goes on to claim machetes should continue to be classified as controlled weapons because they are still used for legitimate purposes, largely in agricultural and horticultural pursuits. So ultimately we have a bill that has clarified a definitional ambiguity, with nothing actually being done to resolve the issue. Simply put, it is too little, too late.

In November 2023 the Liberals and Nationals introduced legislation into the Parliament to amend the Control of Weapons Act to ensure machete possession would be banned by making it a prohibited weapon, a move that was rejected by the state Labor government. In the meantime, machetes continued to be sold to youths and used in violent crimes, with the police lacking the power to proactively remove the weapons from the street. So what we have today is a particularly brazen example of the Labor government again playing politics and playing with the safety of Victorians. I cannot help but be reminded of the Paul Denyer legislation brought forward by the Liberals and Nationals in the form of a private members bill last year, which would have seen at the time Paul Denyer behind bars for life. Again at the time, the then Andrews Labor government rejected this move, completely backtracking and then introducing their own legislation, which effectively did the same thing. The hubris of this Labor government and their routinely demonstrated unwillingness to work with the opposition on matters concerning the lives of Victorians is profoundly alarming and disappointing.

I want to go on the record as saying as well that machetes are genuinely terrifying weapons, as I am sure we can all agree. Indeed they are terrifying partially due to their inefficiency as a weapon. They are designed more for chopping than cutting or thrusting, much like an axe, but unlike an axe the weapon is weighted towards the far end rather than being relatively balanced like a long sword or weighted towards the hilt like other weapons. All of this combines to create a terrifying weapon of raw power that does not kill or injure as cleanly as a sword or a bayonet. This is why many victims of machete attacks will have multiple large yet shallow cuts with a lot of blood. Some are even missing large chunks of flesh.

There is mounting evidence that the possession of serious weapons like machetes is contributing to violent assaults and home invasions in Victoria. Just several days ago, a young man was ambushed outside a busy shopping centre in Weir Views, when a group of masked –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! There is too much audible noise again. I will ask everyone just to speak quietly or take it outside. Thank you.

Chris CREWTHER: Noting what you have said, Acting Speaker, I hope that the government members here today will actually listen to the important points raised with respect to this bill. We note that a number of days ago in Weir Views a group of masked, machete-wielding youths exited a vehicle and began chasing him, ultimately leaving the young man bruised and bloodied in the bushes outside the shopping centre. In November last year a man during a bout of road rage slashed another in the head with a machete. May 2023 saw a fatal stabbing of a 16-year-old schoolboy by machete-wielding teens caught on CCTV at the Sunshine train station. June 2022 saw a 23-year-old stabbed repeatedly in Springvale in a savage machete attack. And what about the woman who attacked a girl at random with a metre-long machete at the playground in January 2022? This violence is of a terrible nature, and it is absolutely terrifying, yet the Labor government introduces a bill that really does nothing but feign affirmative action. Sadly, it is increasingly evident that Victoria is suffering from an acute violent crime problem.

Data from the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency released mid last year reported the following statistics. There have been over 19,000 alleged offender incidents involving 10-to-17-year-olds, the highest in a decade. There have been 5098 residential aggravated burglaries, the highest level in 10 ‍years and a 30 per cent increase on the preceding period. Theft from retail stores has risen by 19.4 ‍per cent, and motor vehicle theft is up 17.9 per cent year on year. Furthermore, the latest data shows that in the 2021–22 financial year 820 people went to emergency for a stab wound, a nearly 50 ‍per cent increase from the year before. This is also a jump of 140 per cent since 2012. These statistics, which are alarming, come as Victoria Police members are under-resourced and ill-equipped to combat the rising crime wave and follow significant funding cuts by the Andrews Labor government in early intervention and rehabilitation services, namely the $4.3 million cut to community crime prevention, the $6 million cut to youth justice community-based services and more.

Alarmingly the Mornington Peninsula is also one of the state’s top five youth crime hotspots. Figures from the Crime Statistics Agency published by the Herald Sun reveal a growing number of children, some as young as 10, are stealing cars, breaking into houses while residents are present and being busted with weapons. Our region, which has a population of over 170,000, as the member for Nepean here can attest to as well, recorded 598 incidents involving juveniles in 2023. There were 75 cars stolen, 45 aggravated burglaries, 26 serious assaults and 10 incidents involving weapons or explosives. Just north, in Kingston, teens armed with machetes have been terrorising school students, prompting youth worker Les Twentyman to call for a ban on their sale in Victoria. The Mornington Peninsula News just this last week reported that Mount Martha has become a hotspot for break-ins. Police are doing all they can, and I acknowledge the hard work of Mornington police and others on the peninsula, but resources are stretched. By way of illustration, Mornington police station has had its reception hours reduced from 24 hours to 16 hours from Sunday to Wednesday.

These are real, tangible problems that are beleaguering our state. Yet again, though, we have another bill that fails to make any strides of significance in terms of getting machetes off our streets and out of the hands of violent criminals. Sure, the Allan Labor government is banning the sale of machetes to people under 18, but why not extend this to the adult criminal cohort? There is simply no reason why somebody should be walking around with a machete in an urban area.

I do want to address some of the comments made by the Minister for Police as well. He claims that machetes should continue to be classified as controlled weapons because machetes are used as tools for various legitimate purposes, including horticultural, agricultural and general-purpose activities such as clearing brush and cutting and maintaining trails, yet advice received by the Shadow Minister for Police and others is that machetes are no longer used in many of these settings and should be banned completely.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Before the member for Mordialloc starts, I remind everyone in the chamber to have a bit of respect for the people who are speaking. I am finding it very hard to hear. I would like to hear the member for Mordialloc’s contribution because he had a bit to say earlier, so if you could please keep the audible noise down I would appreciate it.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:33): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 and follow the contribution of the parliamentary secretary for justice, who I think gave an important account of the work that has been done by the department in consultation with Victoria Police and a range of organisations that have been part of this consultative piece. This reasoned amendment – well, I do not know if you could call it reasoned. I do not know how it could be reasoned other than ‘We just push it off’, even though things have been consulted and Victoria Police have been engaged. I will get to that soon and to some of the challenges in walking from operational into political contexts and the dangers that has for the people that serve and support our local community.

But firstly I want to place on record the challenges that families and communities face when confronted as victims of crime. For anyone who has experienced that, it is a trauma. It sometimes has life-altering impacts. It can affect mental health and wellbeing. It is an individual journey for people then to go on, and for those that are impacted by violent crime or the indictable offences that we are talking about here, sometimes that is a mark on them for life and that impact lives with them. So we place on record that for those that have been victims of crime and sadly had loved ones pass away with some of the youth justice interactions and gang youth crime that we have seen in recent times it has been devastating.

For people that have experienced home invasions we had a community safety forum only a little while ago with our residents in the Mordialloc electorate, and it was a really important opportunity to have our serving Victoria Police members attend, some who are part of Operation Trinity and some who supply resources for Operation Alliance and the work that they do, and to hear directly from those that do the work each and every day on behalf of our community. We place on record our appreciation for the work that they do. It is important when they have got the lived experience each and every day that we listen to the law reforms that they ask for and put those forward. If you heard the previous two contributions in isolation, you would think that there has not been anything done in that space, and it is really disingenuous to come into this place and make such a claim – along with the fact that there has been the most substantive uplift in resources for over a decade for Victoria Police.

I did find it peculiar that the member for Berwick suggested that it was a time for bipartisanship or multipartisanship. I mean, this is the member who against all recommendations from Victoria Police went and created an origami set and did a doorstop for one of the most bizarre things – when the Leader of the Opposition was having his moment in the sun during a press conference and took all the attention away from him – undermined the police investigation and made it all about him. Then he comes in here and says, ‘Oh, can we be bipartisan?’ It is extraordinary. The former member for Warrandyte used to take the cake for being the most divisive on politics, but the member for Berwick has taken the gold medal in that space.

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask you to bring the member back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member has strayed.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, there is no point of order. The member is being entirely relevant to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I think the member has strayed a little bit wide. I would ask you to come back to the bill at hand.

Tim RICHARDSON: Can I seek clarification, just quickly, Acting Speaker? When points of debate are raised and they are said to be bipartisan, is there an ability to say why the point could not be bipartisan and why the approach of the member’s speech, the contribution made and the reasoned amendment are not bipartisan at all in their approach and to challenge that in debate? Where would be the line in that space in your ruling?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I have already made the ruling on the point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: Going back to the point around bipartisanship on police matters, this is a really important point, because when you say that you respect the operational integrity of Victoria Police and then you have political figures who say it is literally not safe to go out in Melbourne anymore, it is literally not safe to take your family into the streets of Melbourne, that is the kind of narrative and that is the kind of rhetoric that takes us down a low road. I have had the opportunity to serve my community now into a third term, and I remember the debates in 2018 from those out in the south-east – the member for Berwick and the member for La Trobe at that time, who continues to serve – and the narrative around the particular figures for those that were committing youth crime. When our Chief Commissioner of Police, our serving Victoria Police commissioner, comes out and says there is about a 220-member cohort that we are dealing with and that we are managing, that is the lived experience. When I take the Minister for Police to Springvale police station and we go and see the legends at Chelsea police station, Mordialloc and Cheltenham and those that serve SD2 and SD3, we hear directly from Victoria Police on the work that they are doing and the interventions they are making. It was completely wrong and disingenuous for the member for Mornington to say that we are not investing in crime prevention.

The budget alone put $54 million into supporting young people in the community and in custody to help improve life outcomes. As a former Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, one of the biggest elements of youth justice interaction is in the schools and the education that happen in our youth justice facilities, including at Parkville and the work that is done there. To try to say that you are looking for a bipartisan position but then to creep into operational matters and tarnish the work that is being done by Victoria Police by undermining the consultative work that they have done and their engagement, is just absolutely unfathomable. I just do not understand a shadow minister coming in and saying ‘Oh, we support the operational integrity of Victoria Police’ and then undermining them with this reasoned amendment and attacking them directly for the powers that they have asked for directly. It is absolutely atrocious. I do not know if there is an opportunity for other speakers to elaborate on their reflections on Victoria Police and their service, but the bill is well defined with what has been asked for, and we have done that each and every time.

When Victoria Police needed more resources, there were 3600 extra police officers, sworn officers, delivered. The academy is full at the moment. We have an issue with shortages and attrition, but that is being experienced across all states and territories at the moment. That is not a unique situation to Victoria. But it is not just about saying it and it is not just about trying to get political hits, it is about looking at the funded record, budget after budget. When you see Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing after Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing, we are supporting the work of Victoria Police – supporting and funding that outcome. We did not cut budgets to Victoria Police or emergency services, we have increased that funding and support into the future. That is the lived experience of Victorians.

Yes, there are challenges, but as the Chief Commissioner of Police has said, there is a cohort of about 220 Victorians that we are dealing with at the moment. They are some of the lowest rates that we see in the nation. Yes, it is a challenge when we see other states and territories and jurisdictions, but if we are evidence-based in our approach to crime prevention and intervention, the numbers are important. And the inverse of that is the amount of youth offenders who are in youth justice at the moment. We have seen substantially the challenges that are faced in recidivism rates that have not moved, that have stubbornly been the same. We need to do more to change the trajectory of youth offenders and offenders more broadly. It sits around the low 40 per cent mark in our system. So we need to do all we can, and that is why we are funding those reform projects. That is why we have transformational work in early intervention and why Victoria Police and a range of education providers create those community connections and links and support. That is how you do it. You do it through the hard work, not by trying to get a grab and a one-day sugar hit on a media attempt. It is about doing the hard policy work year in, year out – funding it, consulting on it and working through that. That is the approach that has been taken by the Allan Labor government in this space.

This bill is important for a range of reasons and is a segment in a range of works that we have done in law reform to make sure that we absolutely clarify the unlawfulness of having machete weapons and the impact that has. That sends a signal to community as well, and it goes with a wide range of law reforms. People quickly forget the law reforms that we did around home invasions. The member for Mornington is literally saying that nothing has been done. I know that he used to dominate in the federal space, but there was a huge amount done. The home invasion reforms which were talked about locally by our serving members of Victoria Police were a direct result of consultation that was commentated on by the opposition at the time in various forms and put forward respecting the operational integrity and respecting the powers that had been asked for and then the offences that have been put in place. And that offending has changed over time. Do not take my word for it – there were literally members of SD2, southern district 2, out in my area, representing my community, who said the offence type has changed as a result of those reforms coming in on home invasions.

If you are going to be serious and front up with a decent multipartisan approach to law reform that respects families that have been impacted and talks about some of the myriad of crime challenges that we have, from neurological challenges that kids have, to trauma and abuse – if you want to have a decent conversation and an electoral conversation, not some half-baked reasoned amendment here that does not stack up at all – then let us get serious about law reform and support Victorians and Victoria Police.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:43): I rise to make a contribution on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. Before going to the actual bill and the reasoned amendment I might remind the member for Mordialloc, who thinks he has dominated this chamber in his time in here, that if my memory serves me correctly, I think there have been 38 ministerial changes since the member for Mordialloc arrived here. So if he is such a talent, if he is so well spoken, why wasn’t he actually –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet knows that this is not a time to cast reflections on members of this place. I ask that you draw the Leader of the Nationals back to the bill. He has certainly been in this place long enough to know the forms and the rules of this house, and I ask you to bring him back to debating the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I would ask the member to actually start debating the bill. But I will remind people that points of order are to be succinct.

Peter WALSH: I was trying to reflect positively on the member for Mordialloc; I do not know why the Leader of the House took exception to it. But I go back to the bill and the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Berwick:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted following stakeholder consultation on what effect classifying a machete as a prohibited weapon would have on protecting the public against the use of machetes, while ensuring the bill retains the important changes to the service of firearm prohibition orders.’

The member for Berwick has got it in one with that reasoned amendment. It is a very good reasoned amendment. It goes to protecting the good part of the bill, which concerns the serving of firearm prohibition orders. On this side the chamber we are absolutely in favour of that part of the bill. I think the government is doing things with that particular part of the bill to protect Victorians. Where the failure is is around the classification of machetes, as the member for Berwick talked about in his contribution to this bill.

I have been involved in agriculture my whole life. I was born and raised on a farm. I was involved in agriculture before I came into this place. I cannot ever remember anyone using a machete as an agricultural tool, so to have it classified that people need a machete somehow on their farms to do stuff I find rather interesting. You can go to Bunnings, you can go to the Stihl shop – you can go to a lot of places – to buy things that will do this work a lot easier than a machete ever would. I cannot see people using machetes in the future for these sorts of purposes. To have that as a reason that a machete should not be made a prohibited weapon I find rather interesting, so I support the member for Berwick in saying that there should be more rules around machetes.

I had the opportunity last year, as you are going to this year, I think, Acting Speaker Farnham, to go and walk the Kokoda Trail. When you see the machetes that the porters carry for good reason – if they want to cut down a small tree or whatever – they are lethal weapons. I would absolutely hate and be petrified to be involved in a home invasion where someone invaded the house I was in with a machete or to be attacked in the street by someone with a machete. They are lethal weapons. They just look dangerous. They look like they would do a lot of damage if you were attacked with them. That is the point the member for Berwick has been making, but he has not been making it in his own right; he has been making it based on the feedback he is getting from the community.

One of the core responsibilities of the government of the day is to keep people safe, to keep Victorians safe. This is a debate that has happened here over time with some of the various legislative changes that have happened around community safety. I think this is one that should be had again, which is why I support the member for Berwick’s reasoned amendment that this bill be withdrawn until that consultation takes place and there is a better definition put around the sale and ownership of machetes and how people, if they do have machetes under an exemption, can make sure they are kept safe.

If you have a firearm, you have to have a gun safe. If you carry a gun, there are rules around how you carry that gun in your motor vehicle. If someone does have a machete, they should have the same rules there. To have one lying around the garden shed or to have one lying around the farm shed that can be stolen I think is something that needs to be addressed. Quite rightly, post Port Arthur there were increased rules brought in around gun ownership and the type of guns that people could own, and there were very strict rules brought in around gun safes and the fact that if you do have a firearm, you have to have a gun safe, and you have to have a different safe for your ammunition. They are stored under two different keys so if someone does somehow get your gun, they cannot get the ammunition and vice versa. They were good changes at that time. I would suggest to the government that how we are to deal with machetes in society in the future would be a good change to make as well, so I support that reasoned amendment from the member for Berwick.

On the wider issue of community safety, I think we are coming to a situation in Victoria, and there are other people with pieces of legislation around at the moment, particularly the bill from the member for Malvern – his bill in the other house – around the government’s proposal to change the bail laws. If you are talking about community safety, I would like to see the government act on that issue as well. Bail is not an entitlement. My observation would be that too many people that commit an offence think that they are just entitled to have a revolving door and get bail.

Bail is actually a privilege that people should respect. If they get bail, that is a privilege they have got to not be in the remand centre, a privilege they have got to be back in society living their life rather than being in the remand centre. Why would you have the fact that if someone is on bail and they commit an indictable offence, they are able to just apply for bail again, as anyone else would? That takes away the fact that it is a privilege. That means it just becomes a revolving door for people who are back in society, back in the environment they have been living in in the past, and if they are involved in circumstances where they may be under bad influences, the ability to commit an offence and then just get out on bail again is there, and they will not take it seriously. If bail is a privilege, as I have said, people will take it more seriously. If you commit an offence – you have not been found guilty but you have committed an offence – and you are out on bail, you know at some stage in the future there will be a court hearing, and you will know that if you commit another offence it is going to be a lot harder to get out on bail again under the amendments proposed by the member for Malvern. So I would urge the government to seriously look at that bill that has been brought into the upper house. Actually do not enact the legislation that is going to change those bail laws later in March. I believe that if the Labor members of this place actually went out into their constituencies constituents and had a conversation with the community about the pros and cons of both, I think they would find that they would get feedback that says, ‘You’re heading down the wrong path on this particular issue.’

On the two things that I have talked about, I urge the government to support the member for Berwick on his reasoned amendment. Let us go back to the drawing board. Let us have a look at the definition of ‘machete’ and who can and cannot own a machete, and as I talked about with gun safes, if someone does have a machete, let us look at how it is actually stored so it cannot be stolen and used with ill intent. And the other one, to finish off, would be just to urge the government to support the member for Malvern in making sure those changes to the bail law are enacted and we keep the community a lot safer.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (12:52): I too rise to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. I have to say that usually I stand here and I say it is with a great deal of pleasure I rise to speak on bills before this house, but it does fill me with a great deal of sadness to have to rise to speak on machetes and knives. I am going to in my contribution talk about some of the community safety issues my community, particularly in Brimbank and Wyndham, are facing right now in relation to machetes and knives as part of this bill and why this bill is so important to come before this house. I would urge the opposition to go ahead and support the bill. This is really important, the impact that it will have on my local community.

The purpose of the bill is to provide police with greater powers to tackle the prevalence of machetes in our community. I think that is something that the people in my local community will be very, very happy to hear. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the incredible work of Victoria Police in keeping our community safe. Each and every police officer and PSO that is on the beat every single day at all hours of the day in all weather conditions is doing their best to stop crimes and protect and serve Victorians, particularly in my local community, in my electorate of Laverton. Over the past two years we have had 500 new police officers and 50 PSOs be trained and funded on top of the 3100 ‍additional police that our government has already put on our streets since being elected to government in 2014.

Last year I had a really great opportunity to go ahead and meet many local police that serve my community in Melbourne’s west. The Minister for Police and I visited not one police station but three ‍– the three biggies in the west, I say: Sunshine police station, Wyndham North police station and the absolutely huge upgraded rebuild of Werribee station. It was really great to sit down and hear directly, alongside the Minister for Police, from local police, who were told to speak frankly and robustly about issues within our local community in relation to community safety and most importantly the support they needed from us to go ahead and do their jobs. I am not going to use up my time today to reiterate what was said at those meetings, but I do have to say that I found them quite insightful.

This bill before us today will play a really important role in doing exactly that: helping police stop the use and distribution of dangerous weapons in this state and in my local community. I will say that this bill is particularly important for folks in the west because, sadly, we have experienced these kinds of crimes involving machetes and knives too many times. It is never pleasant to have to stand here and speak about these kinds of things happening in my local community. Sometimes I tend to not speak about them, but I feel strongly about this one, because this bill is introducing a change that is going to be really important to help protect them. But I also want to acknowledge that these instances and incidents – tragic ones, sometimes leading to the deaths of very young people – do happen, and they do happen in my electorate of Laverton.

My office and I have had so many conversations with residents right across my electorate who have told us of all these types of crimes, like residents living near Sunshine station who have had boys knocking on their doors trying to hide from other young boys carrying machetes or where school students have been stabbed and tragically killed just trying to catch the train and go home. I have had parents out in Wyndham call my office and describe the worst kinds of home invasions where these weapons have been used. They have truly been terrified – their lives changed forever. I say this before the house because I want to acknowledge their pain and the experience that they suffered, and I do want to say to them: we hear you and we are doing something about it. That is exactly why we have introduced this bill and why we are debating it today.

Those on the other side might like to play politics with these sorts of tragedies and incidents that happen in communities like mine. I note the member for Berwick referred to me earlier today – sadly, I was not in the chamber. I do not believe we should be playing politics with these kinds of issues. They are serious, they are extremely complicated and they require serious people to address them. But all of us are grateful for the work done by our local police in Sunshine, Tarneit and Werribee, responding to crimes when they happen and then offering the support that they do indeed give to victims and families. But I also want to be very clear, and I want my community and people in this chamber to hear this: these extreme incidents and tragedies do not define our community in Melbourne’s west. The people who commit these acts and use these kinds of weapons do not represent Melbourne’s west. They do not represent Victoria or indeed the vast majority of Victorians. I mention this to highlight just how important a bill like this is for communities like mine in the west, and I know it will be the same for many members in this place and their electorates and their communities.

The bill makes a really important amendment to the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to provide absolute clarity that a machete is considered a knife and therefore is considered a controlled weapon. Under the current legislation a controlled weapon is defined as a knife other than a knife that is a prohibited weapon or another article that is prescribed as such under the regulations. As it currently stands, there are only four scheduled articles, those being spears, guns, batons, cudgels – I can only imagine what they look like – bayonets and cattle prods. What these provisions and regulations will mean for machetes is that it will be unlawful to possess, carry or use them without lawful excuse and they cannot be sold to or purchased by persons under 18. That is a very clear message to people in my community.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! It is now time to break for lunch, because I do not get a figure like this by skipping meals. The member may resume when the debate resumes.

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

Business interrupted under standing orders.