Thursday, 22 February 2024

Bills

Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (14:53): I am very pleased to be able to continue my contribution on this very important bill, and I am going to start where I left off. I am going to say it again and I am going to put it on Facebook, because this is what I am saying to my community: these provisions and regulations will mean for machetes that it is illegal to possess, carry or use one without lawful excuse. They cannot be sold to and cannot be purchased by a person under 18. It means that a lot of young people that we are seeing use these weapons will not be allowed to purchase them or have them sold to them. We know that a lot of the time retailers who may sell knives or other similar controlled weapons will have special technology in place to identify products that require proof-of-age cards and prevent them from inadvertently selling them to a minor. This way retailers who sell machetes as tools for legitimate activities – because, let us face it, there are legitimate activities that require a machete, such as for horticultural and agricultural purposes – can continue to do so. They just have to apply the same standards that are already in place to prevent breaches of this law to their products. If they do not ‍– this is important – they are going to face a penalty of over $3000 for selling a controlled weapon to a person that they know is under 18.

Importantly, what it means for young people who try to get their hands on a machete illegally is that they will also face a fine for illegally purchasing one. Importantly, for young people who are illegally trying to get their hands on machetes, it means they can face penalties of up to $23,000 and a one-year jail term for carrying a machete without a lawful excuse. These penalties to some may seem harsh; I think they are pretty fair in fact. This goes a good way toward trying to stomp out the activity that has been going on in my electorate with machetes. It provides the deterrent that we need to young people looking to get their hands on these weapons to engage in serious crime, to harm innocent people in communities. It will capture only a small minority of young people who are involved in this kind of criminal behaviour – this is not the vast majority of people in Melbourne’s west doing this, and it is really important to point that out. This is a small minority of people engaged in criminal behaviour.

This is such an important bill. I will certainly run out of time before I talk about firearms and what this bill goes towards introducing – some more good steps towards preventing and removing firearms from our communities. But I do say to the people in Melbourne’s west who have contacted me: we have heard you. This bill is for you.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (14:56): I rise to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. I say at the outset that this is a really important piece of legislation that we need to be debating. In November last year the Shadow Minister for Police the member for Berwick brought a private members bill into the Parliament that was very much about banning machetes from the streets, taking them off the streets, in this state, making sure that they were not available for sale and making sure that they were a prohibited weapon. At the time we had the government calling it a stunt.

I remind the government that they do not have complete control of all ideas. Ideas should come from everywhere, and that is the idea of having a Parliament with an opposition – to come up with good ideas that ultimately become legislation to make our state better. On that occasion we had the member for Berwick and the opposition bring an idea to the Parliament that was criticised by the government, that was called a joke, only to be up here today talking about looking at making machetes a controlled weapon and recognising – as all contributors in this debate have rightfully said – that machetes are a major, major, major problem in our state and a major problem on our streets.

We have had people say that with a home invasion, the frightening experience of being confronted with somebody with a machete in their hand – I mean, you could never think of something more frightening than having that happen, being woken in the middle of the night by someone with a machete. It is a horrible, horrible experience that people would never recover from, so we all agree on that. But the problem is that was back in November when we, the opposition, put forward the idea of machetes becoming a prohibited weapon banned from sale to ensure people could not buy them in retail stores and could not buy them online. What the government have done is they have effectively half baked the idea. They have come to this Parliament making them a controlled weapon. That does not preclude them from being purchased. It does not preclude them from being made available, and ultimately, although it might send a message that we do not like them, it certainly limits the ability to ban them by making them a prohibited weapon.

I support the reasoned amendment that the member for Berwick has moved, and I would hope that the government, in the spirit of what we are trying to do here today – that is, to take machetes off the streets and get them out of the hands of people that want to hurt others – would work with the opposition to ban machetes, because that is what we want to do. We want to take them from the hands of people that are trying to harm others. Again, I really would hope that we put politics aside and we get the government to work with the opposition to have them banned completely.

I do want to just turn to something local, and I have mentioned this a number of times. We had a horrific incident in my electorate back before the election where we had a young boy, Benjamin, who was attacked after leaving his school, Glen Eira College, on the way home, by youths, three teenagers, who were armed with machetes and box cutters. This was obviously a horrific situation. He was mowed down, he was dragged and he was kidnapped. He suffered horrific injuries that put him in intensive care. He was dragged 150 metres hanging from the door of a car before being run over and stabbed with one of these weapons. He suffered brain and spinal injuries and had to undergo surgery, and a bone in his ear was crushed. He was left fighting for his life after this incident, and he was placed in a coma for six days at the Royal Children’s Hospital. He also spent a further two months in that hospital.

Benjamin celebrated his 15th birthday in hospital with his parents by his bedside. Now Benjamin has thankfully returned to school. He went back to school just at the end of last year – they are slowly introducing him back to Glen Eira College – and he has spoken publicly about his ordeal. He said that, as we have heard, hopefully lightning never strikes twice, so he would hope this would never happen to him again, but he still has that element of fear. He still has that element of being psychologically harmed from this incident. He does not remember what happened, but he is still trying to get back to where he was before the events. He suffered injuries that no-one ever should in a time of life when a young person should be full of life and enjoying life – but in fact that did not happen for Benjamin.

At the time these three teenagers also went on an attack on other students around the area of Caulfield, near Caulfield Racecourse, and other areas as well. They were granted bail. One of the offenders, a 14-year-old boy, faces 70 charges relating to several armed robberies and multiple counts of theft. The 14-year-old and 15-year-old boys are alleged to have stolen a Volkswagen, which was used in the abduction of Benjamin, before the incident. On the day of the attack the pair also allegedly tried to steal a Mercedes-Benz, worth more than $170,000, in Prahran. These are pretty serous crimes, serious offences. If you go out and take a machete with you, you are not going out there to make peace. So we need to ban them and get them off our streets.

We have seen an increase in crime. We see community safety as a real issue in our state, in our suburbs and on our streets. Certainly, Glen Eira is feeling that. We have seen a whole lot of incidents in terms of criminal activity. We have had a number of businesses in my area burnt down. We have all seen the tobacco shops that have been burnt down. We had a gym that was burnt down. We had a burger shop that was burnt down. We have had four businesses burnt down in the last six months in Caulfield. I cannot remember when anything like that of a criminal nature has happened. So there is criminal activity no doubt.

We need to ensure that community safety is an absolute priority. We have got to look at dangerous weapons and getting them out of the hands of criminals. We have got to not make it easier for these criminals but make it harder. We are looking at bail laws in terms of them being softened and the issues and results of that under this government, with people out on bail reoffending. We have seen the consequences of that. We cannot have that, and we have got to do everything we can to ensure that people are safe. Now, that does not mean that we lock people up and throw away the key. We have got to look at programs to stop young people offending in the first place. We have got to look at what turns particularly young people to a life of crime. But also, machetes are not used just by young people, might I say. Machetes are used by a lot of criminals in all kinds of ways to target and harm people.

So we have got to get them off our streets. We have got to ban them. We have got to ban them in terms of sale in our state. This bill will not do that. This bill falls short of that – although it is important for us to talk about it and it is important for us to move the dial. I acknowledge that the government have at least recognised that what they once saw as a stunt is now something that is serious, but let us go a little bit further. Let us not just acknowledge it as a serious problem; let us get a serious solution to the problem. Let us not just talk about how we deal with the sale of machetes; let us ban them altogether. They are not necessary. We do not have people in the suburbs using machetes for crop acreage reduction. There are plenty of tools to do that. If people want to use them on a farm, then that is fine too, but what we are seeing in Melbourne, what we are seeing on the streets, is not that. So I really plead with the government to actually do what is intended here. Let us get machetes off the streets. Let us do that in a bipartisan way. Enough of the politics. Let us ban machetes altogether and take them out of the hands of criminals.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:06): Today I rise to contribute on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill supports Victoria Police to maintain community safety by reasonably expanding police powers in relation to the serving of FPOs – that is, firearm prohibition orders. It also contains an important amendment to the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to clarify that a machete is a knife and therefore a controlled weapon for the purposes of this act.

Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Police, who has just come into the chamber and is at the table, and of course his staff for all the work that they have done on this bill. There is a lot of work that has been done, and I really appreciate that this bill is now before the house. I have had many discussions with the Minister for Police about machetes in the past, in particular about some incidents that have gone on in my electorate of Melton. I am very pleased to speak on this bill today.

I will go first to the reasoned amendment that was raised by the member for Berwick. Clearly I do not accept and I do not think there is any need to accept that amendment. I think it is just a delaying of the passing of this bill before the house. I think one thing that we need to stress is that VicPol were heavily consulted. Both VicPol and the Police Association Victoria were supportive of this bill, and in fact VicPol were the ones that requested this bill. They did not seek prohibitive legislation; they wanted this controlled weapon legislation, so again this government is working with our fantastic police force to deliver what they need to try and keep our communities safe.

We have heard a number of times during this debate that legally a machete is considered a knife and therefore it is a controlled weapon. When you look up what exactly a machete is, you quickly learn that it is a broad, heavy knife used as an implement or weapon from Central America and the Caribbean. It has indeed a broad range of uses as an agricultural tool, similar to that of an axe here in Australia. Crops such as rice, sugarcane, corn, barley, buckwheat, oats and many others can be easily harvested with a machete. But as we have seen, the ease with which a tool becomes a weapon in the eyes of those seeking to turn a profit is remarkable. I know, and it has been raised, that these machetes are being sold at local markets. I think down at the Laverton Market they were selling them on a regular basis, and it is quite astounding that that was happening.

Of course when you drive through Melton and the Melton electorate you cannot help but notice the lack of sugarcane in our streets and in the paddocks around Melton. I do not see any reason for people in Melton to have a machete, because as I say there is not much sugarcane in our area. There is no legitimate reason for anyone in Melton to carry a machete. I cannot see any reason for it, let alone anywhere else in the state, unless you are a butcher or something like that who needs to chop meat. It beggars belief that anyone would claim self-defence as a reason to carry one. If you are carrying a machete, clearly your aim is to harm someone or even to kill someone. That can be the only reason why you would want to carry one.

Look, I might be one of the few members in this Parliament and in this chamber that has seen the damage caused by a machete to a human body. I can go back to my days as a paramedic through the 1980s and 90s, when I saw absolute carnage across the western suburbs as a result of the use of machetes. These are weapons designed not to stab but to chop people up, to chop things up. Machetes hack and they chop, and they are simple weapons that can kill. I have seen defensive wounds where people have put their arms up above their head to protect themselves from being chopped with a machete and I have seen arms amputated, arms cut to the bone, nerves cut. Then if you picture a watermelon being split by a machete, picture the head, a human skull, being hit by a machete and what it would do to a human skull, and I can assure you it is not a nice view when you see that happen. Unfortunately during the 1980s and 90s I did see that happen in the western suburbs. So again I can only strongly support this bill in regard to reducing and stopping the purchase and the use of these particular weapons. As I say, these are weapons that in the wrong hands are designed to kill.

This bill will make it criminal and enforceable by Victoria Police, and this bill will expand the powers of VicPol, again as I raised earlier on, in regard to serving firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs, on a particular individual. An FPO is only served when the Chief Commissioner of Police believes that in order to protect the public a person should not have access to a firearm or a firearm-related item. This could be based on an individual’s criminal history or that of their associates, on their behaviour or on criminal intelligence. Of course people that legitimately own firearms will not be caught up in these orders; it is only about people that align themselves with criminals or have a criminal history themselves. The FPO scheme is a proactive way for VicPol to keep violence and other criminal activity off our streets, and we all want that. We all want our communities to be safe and we all want criminal activity to be reduced. This bill will allow VicPol to serve these FPOs in a prompt and efficient manner.

When you have 16-year-olds or 15-year-olds or 14-year-olds going about their business in their local suburbs brandishing machetes at each other, it is clear that there is going to be a long list of failures that can be pointed at and a long list of damages that could also be pointed at. We had an incident in Melton only a few weeks ago where the police had to shut down the Woodgrove shopping centre for 30 minutes because two or three youths decided that they were going to attack each other with knives that I think they took from the local Woolworths store within the shopping centre. Thank God nothing eventuated; the police handled the matter very quickly and everyone was safe. But as an outcome of that Woolworths have decided I think across 70 of their stores not to stock knives anymore. I do not know which knives they are referring to, but I am assuming it is in their homewares section. So now when I go to Woolworths at Woodgrove I will probably have to go to the counter and ask for my new cheese knife set over the counter and I will have to produce evidence that I am a person that is capable of being responsible with a cheese knife set. I thought it was a bit of an overreaction, but I understand where they are coming from; it is about the safety of people, and I suppose Woolworths are trying to send a strong message.

I should say that one of the other things that came to mind when I was thinking about this bill was that it is almost like the big fish that got away – you know, those stories that men tell about how they caught the biggest fish and all this sort of stuff. But I thought back to the Crocodile Dundee movie where the character in the States pulled out the knife and Paul Hogan says, ‘That’s not a knife.’ So what does he do? He whips out a big bowie knife and he says, ‘That’s a knife.’ To me that is almost the culture around machetes, where these kids have got them stuffed down their pants and they wear these baggy pants so they can disguise what they are carrying, and it is almost like they pull their machete out when they are going to try and violate someone and they say, ‘That’s a knife.’ Well, guess what, it is deemed to be a knife now under this legislation, and I am pleased to say that this government is acting on it to keep our communities safe.

I extend my thanks and appreciation to our VicPol members. They do an amazing job every day under extreme circumstances sometimes. They work really hard to deter youths, and most of them are male youths, in regard to using these types of weapons. There are a lot of prevention programs, they do a lot of community work, but unfortunately there is still an element of our community that think that they can resort to using these particular weapons to do damage against some of their peers or against some of their, I suppose, opponents as they may see it. This is a really important bill. I do not see any need for the reasoned amendment, and I commend the bill to the house.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (15:16): Thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak on this bill, the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. I have been eagerly awaiting legislation in this space. This bill represents a significant step in addressing public safety concerns in my electorate and across Victoria and ensuring the effective enforcement of laws aimed at protecting our communities. However, like most legislation introduced by those opposite, it sounds good but misses the issue at hand.

The bill expands police powers to serve a firearm prohibition order, otherwise known as an FPO, on an individual after an FPO is made by the Chief Commissioner of Police. The intention behind these provisions is clear: to prevent individuals who pose a threat to public safety from obtaining firearms. However, while it is essential to ensure that the FPOs are effectively served, we must also safeguard against potential abuses of power. I welcome the safeguards, such as stipulated criteria, procedural protections and court-supervised search warrants to prevent the misuse of these powers. It is imperative that these safeguards are rigorously enforced to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in our state.

Additionally, I especially welcome the amendments to the Control of Weapons Act 1990, specifically regarding the classification of machetes as controlled weapons. While the amendment bill seeks to clarify the status of machetes under the law, I am reticent to say whether this will actually affect the possession of illegal machetes. As the Minister for Police claimed in his second-reading speech, machetes are knives and therefore are already defined as a controlled weapon under the act.

This bill is especially important and close to my heart because of the story of just one man whose life was tragically cut short at the hand of a thug wielding a machete in a senseless act of violence just outside of my electorate, in Doncaster East. On behalf of him and his family I am here to demand justice, accountability and change. Although there was a significant amount of press attention, the story of Dr Ash Gordon’s murder is not just a headline, it is a stark reminder of the failures within our state government and our justice system. It is a story that echoes the pain and frustration of so many in my community who have been touched by reckless and senseless violence and have been met with the cold, silent shoulder of a government that does not have its priorities right, of a government that did not listen. To quote those closest to Ash:

It’s an absolute disgrace to mankind to do something to someone so, so wonderful and the world is a worse place now because he’s been taken from us. Not only us, but the wider community …

Another person said:

His patients he loved so much, he poured his heart and soul into his work and I hope like hell –

you are –

… caught and justice is served to my brother.

Another said:

We just need harsh punishments to come in and for these people to be caught.

Another said:

… He was such a cheeky, lighthearted, fun person. He gave his all to everyone in his family, in his job

…

He was caring, he was so caring.

To quote his patients:

He was one of the more compassionate doctors I’ve seen.

And:

My elderly mother would come here from out of state just to see him because he was so good to her …

But amidst the grief and the anger this was to me a call to action. Dr Gordon’s death cannot be in vain. We cannot simply mourn his loss and move on. We must demand accountability from those responsible for his murder, but we must also demand accountability from our government and from our justice system because, as has been reported, the truth of it is this: one of the accused perpetrators was out on bail at the time of Dr Gordon’s death. There were warning signs, and this tragedy could have been prevented.

I will repeat it so that those opposite can hear: the accused perpetrator was out on bail when he committed this offence. I have spoken to the family affected, who were subject to a machete attack and who reached out to me when they realised that that same person that attacked their family member was out on bail, thanks to the Allan government and their weak bail laws. This is what the family said to me, and I quote:

Our heart breaks for Ash’s family and loved ones during this … time.

These are their words, not mine:

The Allan government and the justice system have blood on their hands, and ultimately should be held accountable.

We have seen the statistics – rising rates of violent crime and a broken system in desperate need of reform – so we must ask ourselves: how many more lives must be lost before we take action? How many more families must suffer before we demand change? How many more tragedies like Dr Gordon’s murder will it take for us to say enough is enough? That is why the bill introduced by the member for Malvern, the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024, is so important. The bill, as summed up so eloquently by the member for Malvern, does the following: if you abuse the privilege of bail by committing further offences, you should face a tougher test to get bail again. Well, what a simple proposition. Who could oppose this basic, commonsense proposal –

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, with respect to the speaker on her feet, I ask you to bring her back to the substance of the bill at hand.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member has strayed from the substance of the bill, which relates to firearms orders and machetes. I ask her to come back to the bill.

Chris Crewther: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I note that she is referencing the other bill in the context of talking about the machetes bill. The point of order is that she is referencing the bail bill with reference to the machetes bill that is being discussed at this moment, so I do not think she has strayed from the bill in question.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I have ruled that the member come back to the bill.

Nicole WERNER: When those opposite lie to the Victorian people, the Victorian people trust them less, so why should it be different for violent criminals?

To the essence of this, as we know, those opposite’s bail amendment bill will make it easier for repeat offenders to get bail again, repeat offenders like the alleged murderer in this case. So I call upon the government to listen to the cries of the victims, to heed the warnings of those who have suffered and to take more meaningful action to reform our justice system and address the causes of this crime. In the words of Dr Gordon’s sister Natalie:

We just need harsh punishments to come in and for these people to be caught.

Let us honour her plea, let us honour Dr Gordon’s memory and let us pass some good legislation on this critical issue.

I think in particular the members for Greenvale, Laverton and South Barwon need to hang their heads in shame, because when they last had a chance to speak on this bill to ban the machete, late last November, they took the opportunity not to support the bill and not to support the banning of machetes but instead to speak against it. I wonder if the members for Greenvale, Laverton and South Barwon, who are so quick to defend criminals and so slow to defend our most vulnerable, will be voting. I wonder: does it hang upon their conscience –

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I note the member did use unparliamentary language before. The word ‘lie’ is unparliamentary.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I ask the member to consider her language.

Nicole WERNER: Well, okay. Thank you, Acting Speaker. We presented a near identical bill to this place back in November and they spoke against it and voted against it. That is absolutely relevant. So does it hang upon their conscience – the blood that is spilled from machete crime since that day in November when they opposed the very same bill that we put to Parliament? Does it? There have been a swathe of machete attacks since that bill has come to this Parliament, and they could have been prevented. It beggars belief.

The member for Laverton reiterated earlier that we should not be playing politics on this issue. Let us not forget when the member for Laverton spoke on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. What did she speak about? The member for Bulleen, she said, has gone to an election twice in this place on being tough on crime. The member for Laverton wants to lecture us about playing politics, but when she gets an opportunity to speak on crime she speaks about elections. So no, I will not take a lecture from those opposite about playing politics when that is all they do each and every day when they come into this place.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:25): Jeez, I am not sure how to follow that. It was a bit of a journey. I am not sure where we ended up. I would just like to make the point, though, that the member for Bulleen did go to two elections being tough on crime. How did that go for him? I think you have got 19 members over there. It went well. It is fantastic to rise this afternoon to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024.

At the outset on this bill, I would like to reiterate what I said earlier in the week: community safety is and always will be the number one priority for the Allan Labor government. Indeed that is exactly what this bill goes to. It will play an integral role in our government’s commitment to public safety, as it seeks to extend police powers in relation to serving firearm prohibition orders. It also seeks to clarify that a machete is a knife and therefore a controlled weapon for the purposes of this bill. We stand here speaking in favour of this bill after significant consultation with the community but also, really importantly, with Victoria Police. I would like to commend the Minister for Police, who is at the table, for that consultation.

This is what Victoria Police has asked for. This is what Victoria Police has asked for to keep our community safe. And what we will not do – what we will never do – is come into this place and politicise the safety of the Victorian community. We will never come into this place and politicise the safety of the Victorian community – unlike the member for Berwick, who came in here this morning and not only moved an amendment that seeks to amend nothing, that only seeks to delay this legislation and put the safety of the Victorian community at risk, but indeed undermines the Victorian police force and undermines those exact people that are there to keep our community safe. I will reiterate once again that this bill was born out of consultation with Victoria Police after they had told us and told the minister who is at the table that this is exactly what they need to keep our communities safe.

The bill introduces essential amendments to two critical pieces of legislation. They are the Firearms Act 1996 and the Control of Weapons Act 1990. The proposed changes are twofold. Firstly, they aim to expand police powers to serve firearm prohibition orders, enhancing our law enforcement’s ability to act swiftly and effectively against those who pose a risk to our society. Secondly, the bill seeks to clarify the classification of machetes as controlled weapons, addressing a widespread misconception and ensuring adherence to existing laws regarding their sale and possession.

It is important, as other speakers have noted, at this point to address that there are in some very limited cases legitimate uses for machetes by farmers. But as the member for Melton said earlier in his contribution, just like Melton, if you come out to Tarneit or Hoppers Crossing, you are not going to find any sugarcane. In fact you are not going to find any agricultural industry that you will need the use of a machete for.

I know that that surprises the member for Brighton. He has not been out my way, but that is indeed the case. Unfortunately, that has not stopped some in our community from possessing this weapon, and indeed only last year we had an incredibly tragic event in my community of Tarneit where there was an attack on a 16-year-old boy by a gang using machetes. The boy sustained significant injuries, significant defence wounds and significant psychological trauma, and I will say as I stand here that he was quite lucky to survive. That is the reason – sorry, that is not in isolation the reason, but that contributes to the reason that we have done this piece of consultation with Victoria Police and now come into this chamber with the proposed amendments to the acts that I spoke of earlier. It is all about community safety. It is all about keeping our community safe.

On that point of community safety, as I said earlier, it is, always has been and always will be the number one priority of the Allan Labor government, and the proof is in the pudding with that. Whilst those opposite – I mean, they are not quite opposite to me anymore as we occupy half of their benches. But unlike the opposition, we do not come in here to politicise these matters. We just get on with the job of keeping Victorians safe. The recent report on government services shows we have more police on the beat than any other state or territory in Australia, and of the more than 3600 additional police funded by the Victorian government, 144 of them have been deployed to the Westgate division, which of course services my community of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing.

Since 2015–16 the Allan Labor government has invested over $6.3 million in 37 crime prevention grants to improve community safety in the Wyndham local area – $6.3 million. This may include grants to projects that cover Wyndham and other local government areas. In the recent 2023–24 budget we provided $13.6 million in funding to intervene early in youth offending by extending the youth crime prevention program, which operates in 14 LGAs across the state, including the City of Wyndham, where my communities of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing are. The youth crime prevention program in the City of Wyndham is operated by the Centre for Multicultural Youth through their Change It Up program, providing intensive support to young people who are at risk of involvement in the youth justice system, giving them the tools they need to get back on track.

Last September I attended the Wyndham community safety grant launch, and the following are the successful recipients. The Wyndham Community and Education Centre received $75,000 for their Horizons: Empowering Multicultural Youth for Success project, which aims to empower youth from diverse backgrounds to cultivate a strong sense of identity and belonging, as well as their Karuna Compassion in Action Incorporated, which received $60,000 for their Wyndham Karen Youth project, and there were many more.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, we will never, ever come into this place like the member for Berwick did at the beginning of this debate or indeed like the member for Warrandyte did just before I rose to my feet. We will never ever come into this place and seek to politicise community safety, because it is so much more important than cheap political games. I know from consultation with my community how important legislation like this is. I know how important it is to my community that the Allan Labor government continues to get on with keeping the Victorian community safe, as it always has. This is an incredibly important step in just that, and I commend the legislation to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:35): I rise to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. This debate is a difficult debate. It is a difficult debate about issues that I know all of us in this chamber are concerned about, and we have seen over time deep concerns in our community about safety, so throughout this debate a number of members have made important contributions about crimes that have occurred in their communities. Only this week some terrible crimes occurred in my community in Hampton – shocking crimes where there were people, families, who were subjected to home invasion. Unfortunately it was not the only instance where this has occurred. It has been ongoing. We have seen members across both sides of the chamber speak to those matters and speak to these incidents occurring across their communities.

It is important when we talk about these issues that we do it with consideration and we do it with the spirit that it should be spoken about, and that is to speak on behalf of the community and the victims, those who have been affected, and talk about what we can do as a Parliament to make sure that people are safe. At the end of the day that is what we all want, isn’t it? It is safety for our broader community. We want to make sure that people are safe in their homes and on their streets. I know as I look across the chamber and see the Minister for Police, I am sure both sides of this chamber want to ensure that we have a level of community safety where people feel safe in their homes – not just are safe in their homes but they feel safe in their homes – and this bill is a measure to increase safety for the community in terms of control of machete weapons.

Sadly, it would be fair to say that crimes involving machetes have increased terribly. They are crimes that have, I think, scared the community in a way that has certainly caused increasing concern for all Victorians. The idea that you could have someone break into your home is an unimaginable fear. It is unimaginable. As a father of young children, and I am sure for every parent of young children, the idea of someone coming into your home while you are asleep is one of the scariest things that you can imagine. To know that they may be carrying a machete scares the life out of you, honestly – it absolutely scares the life out of you. So when these crimes actually occur and when those fears become a reality – when you see videos of those crimes and you see pictures of those crimes – as a Victorian you are just shocked to the core that these crimes have occurred. So I am sure I say on behalf of every member that we want to do everything we possibly can to make sure that these crimes do not occur, that they do not happen to anybody.

I have spoken about it before in this place but there was quite a shocking incident near Bay Street in Brighton where a father went out to go for a morning swim in his back pool and left the back door open. It was about 7 o’clock in the morning. It probably was not an uncommon thing, you know – Dad went out to have a swim in the morning before heading off to work, and while he did two people came in through the back door. It is not an uncommon thing to think that if you go out into your backyard you can leave your back door unlocked. The partner of the daughter of the home owner walked out of his bedroom and into the kitchen, and there were two home invaders standing there with machetes. When you talk to the families, the victims, after an incident like that, it really shakes you in terms of how they are. Your immediate thoughts go to the victims, of course they do. Your first thoughts are about understanding if they are okay. But you do immediately think, ‘Where else is this happening? Could this happen again? Who else could be victims of such a crime?’

Knowing crimes of that nature occur in our community certainly brings fear to your mind. I do not think for any Victorian that should be part of their thinking. No Victorian wants to think that it is possible for these crimes to occur, so it is important in relation to this bill and in relation to the law that we protect the community from these crimes occurring. Whether it be increasing penalties, whether it be enhancing the law or whether it be ensuring our bail system works and acts as a deterrent, all of these measures are important. But so too are police resources, and police resourcing is an issue in my community. I say that in as constructive a way as possible.

My community feels very, very strongly that the local police in our community do an incredible job. Many of the police force that are located in our community are known to the community through their community work and through their community engagement. We have a community forum next Tuesday night, which is a fantastic opportunity for Bayside people to speak to police to understand work that is going on in our community. I would strongly recommend to anybody in Bayside that they go down to that community forum in Sandringham. The community know how hard the local cops are working in our community, but we do need to also point out that we are seeking increased resourcing in our community, and I say that to the minister in as constructive a way as possible.

I have spoken previously about the need for an additional police station. It is something that my community feels very strongly about, and so they should. Before the election many people in my community raised this, and we took a policy to the election of a new police station in Brighton. Post the election I have run petitions, surveys and everything that you would expect a member to do, and thousands of people have called for that increased resource. I say that in a constructive way, and I do hope the minister takes my comments in that way. They are not in any way to detract from the work of our local police, because our community, to a man and a woman, knows how hard the police in our community work. We engage with the local cops in a fantastic way all the time.

I will give a second shout-out to the community forum next Tuesday evening in Sandringham, a really great opportunity for Bayside people to come to the Sandringham Yacht Club, I believe it is, and to talk to the local police about their work, their programs and what they have been doing and to ask questions. It is great for people in our community to meet the people who are protecting them and put a name to a face – nothing could be better than that – and work together in good spirit. I certainly encourage everybody in our community to do that.

But in relation to the bill, it is important that we ensure that our laws fully protect us – that is what they are there for – and machete crimes have increased. They are concerning. Not only has there been a 68-burglary-a-day average in recent times, but we are seeing these machete crimes, so it is important that the government implement laws that protect us from these most heinous crimes, not just the home invasions but where these types of violent, violent weapons are used. I am sure, as the shadow has mentioned, that there are ways that the coalition has put forward that we could have more fulsome protections in relation to these weapons and the laws more generally. This week we have had a debate in this place about bail laws and ensuring that our bail laws are more fulsome. We had a question in question time about that very issue today. But this bill does something, and we need to as a Parliament do something. We must do something to protect our community from these crimes. These new laws will do something, and it is important that we do to protect our community.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (15:46): I rise to speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so I would like to acknowledge and commend the work of the Minister for Police, who is at the table, his office, the department and Victoria Police for their respective work in bringing this bill to the Parliament. All Victorians deserve and have the right to feel safe in their homes, communities and workplaces, and as a government and indeed as a Parliament we should be working every day towards helping make Victoria a safer place that is free from violence, family violence, prejudice, hate, local crime and the fear of crime. Community safety is an essential part of our individual and collective wellbeing and is a critical pillar for supporting and fostering healthy and sustainable communities. We know that every day in any weather and at any hour our hardworking Victoria Police officers are out there patrolling the front line, often putting themselves at risk to keep all of us in the community safe. In that respect I would particularly like to thank all of the members of Victoria Police and their families for the service they provide to the state but particularly those from Fawkner police station and Brunswick police station, who service my community.

That is also why since 2014 we have continued to make record investments of more than $4.5 billion in Victoria Police to deliver Victorians the modern world-class policing services that they deserve. This thus far has helped us deliver almost $1 billion towards new and upgraded police stations across the state; more than 3600 additional police officers since 2014, including funding for an extra 502 ‍police officers and 50 PSOs through the recent budget; and $214 million in funding to roll out tasers to all frontline police officers and PSOs, ensuring they have nonlethal tools at the disposal to respond to violent and dynamic offenders. Significant investments and initiatives towards crime prevention and early intervention issues have also been provided, which I will touch on shortly.

The latest crime statistics show that these investments have been playing a role in stabilising the offence rate following a period of lower crime rates while more people were at home during the height of the pandemic, with the offence rate now remaining below 2019 levels. In my community of Merri-bek crime agency statistics show that the criminal incident rate per 100,000 population remains lower than prepandemic levels, with a rate of 5995 in 2019, and as of September 2023 we are experiencing an even lower rate of 5472. In terms of total criminal incidents for Merri-bek in 2019 it was 10,752, and in 2023 as of September it was recorded at 9989.

However, of course notwithstanding these investments we know we can always keep doing more to keep our community safe, particularly when it comes to preventing dangerous weapons from coming into the hands of potentially dangerous people, including through the reforms and measures contained in this very bill. In this respect I draw the house’s attention to the IBAC ministerial report pursuant to the Firearms Act 1996 that was tabled in this house in November 2023. Firearms prohibition orders were introduced in Victoria in May 2018, and the scheme operates together with the existing prohibited person scheme to protect the community and reduce firearm-related crime by targeting those that possess, use or carry firearms for unlawful purposes. Upon the scheme’s introduction the Chief Commissioner of Police referred to it as a game changer in Victoria Police’s continued efforts to disrupt organised crime in particular. Since its inception the police have issued over 2200 FPOs to violent offenders, serious youth offenders, outlaw motorcycle gangs, crime groups and counterterrorism persons of interest. However, IBAC’s review and report on the measures identified a number of variables that may impact Victoria Police’s timely and efficient serving of an FPO to the FPO subject.

Whilst IBAC accepted that the reasons for the delay in service of an FPO can be justified in certain circumstances, IBAC also observed that the service of an FPO must be given priority by Victoria Police, because an FPO is made on the basis of an affirmative conclusion by the chief commissioner that there is a serious risk that the FPO subject will come into possession of a firearm in circumstances where the firearm may endanger public peace and safety. The IBAC report went to Victoria Police, and it has identified three classes of individuals whom it has particular difficulty serving FPOs to. They include individuals who actively avoid the service of their FPO, individuals whose whereabouts are unknown and prisoners in detention or individuals in immigration detention who refuse a visit from a police officer for the purpose of receiving an FPO, especially those where it is important that the FPO is served upon their release from detention.

Essentially, under the current laws, the FPO must be served in person, which can be difficult for police when an individual is actively evading service. That is why this house has introduced amendments to the Firearms Act 1996 to support Victoria Police maintaining community safety by expanding police powers in relation to serving these firearm prohibition orders. Building on what already are in this state some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, this will enable police to stop a person in a public place and direct that they remain there or accompany them to a police station or other safe place for up to 2 hours for the purposes of serving an FPO. Police will also be able to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter a premises to search for and serve a person with an FPO. Where an individual in detention has declined a visit by a police officer, police will also be able to serve an FPO on that person via registered post.

These changes are what police have told us they need – they asked for them – to ensure that this game-changing scheme continues to provide police with the powers they need to keep our communities safe. This bill also includes safeguards so that additional powers to serve FPOs on an individual are exercised only when necessary and never as a first resort and not merely because it is more convenient for police. Following consultation with the Attorney-General and other legal stakeholders, the bill will require the chief commissioner to report as separate information any power or duty exercised against an individual under the age of 18 years, which is authorised only in exceptional circumstances. This additional reporting obligation will ensure that the government maintains appropriate and proportionate visibility of these powers and that the safeguards are working as intended.

Additionally, the bill also contains an amendment to the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to clarify that a machete is a knife and therefore a controlled weapon for the purposes of the act. By clarifying the definition of ‘controlled weapon’, the legal status of machetes will be absolutely clear: they cannot be possessed, carried or used without lawful excuse or be sold to anyone under 18 years of age. It clarifies to traders that machetes are controlled weapons and that proof of age must be checked before the sale to make sure machetes do not end up in the hands of young people whilst making an appropriate distinction for farmers and others who do have legitimate reasons to use them.

When combined, the measures in the bill will crack down on organised crime and weapons sales by making it easier for the police to serve FPOs and ensuring that there is no doubt that a machete is a controlled weapon. Stakeholders consulted on the development of this bill included Victoria Police, IBAC, Victoria Legal Aid, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus policy working group, the Magistrates’ Court, the Children’s Court and the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee.

But along with these new measures, we know that ultimately the best way to keep Victorian communities safe is to work to address the root causes of crime. This means that we must also work to tackle disadvantage and inequality and other risk factors, including education, employment and sustainable housing and connections to family, community and culture. That is why we have continued to invest in a range of community and crime prevention measures since we were elected in 2014, particularly through the rollout of Victoria’s youth strategy, more than $100 million towards more than 900 initiatives to prevent youth crime, $40 million specifically for the youth crime prevention program and $12 million towards the Aboriginal youth cautioning program to embed youth outreach.

That is also why things like free kinder; Best Start, Best Life; free TAFE; the Big Build and apprenticeship pathways; upgrading every primary and secondary school; the Big Housing Build – community, social and affordable housing; building better local sporting facilities; Get Active Kids sport vouchers – all these things and more – will play such a vitally important role in making communities safe in the future. While stronger powers provided through this bill are critical to keeping our communities safe today and tomorrow, it will be these lasting legacy investments that will stand the test of time for a safer community down the track.

It was advocacy around youth issues and youth affairs that very much got me interested in public policy and youth issues. As a young person growing up in Coburg, along with Jeff Kennett’s decision to close around a dozen schools in my community – how did that turn out for youth justice? – it was the fact that my community did not have a dedicated multipurpose council-run youth facility that sparked my advocacy. After getting involved in my local youth action committee, we helped build a campaign which went on to become known as the Oxygen youth project, a project and campaign that was all about building breathing spaces for young faces. Ultimately we went on to successfully open a hub in 2013, and we just celebrated the 10-year anniversary actually, just recently, with the Minister for Youth Justice, who attended the event too. I also visited Oxygen again on 12 August 2023 with the Minister for Youth to meet with the local youth ambassadors to commend them on their ongoing work, including Shireen, Natalia, Sihaam, Meena, Henry, Marlie and Naim. The Oxygen legacy also will stand the test of time, because the ‘Y’ in Oxygen represents the legacy of gen Y to future generations that are provided through the services of that hub.

There are so many other organisations in my community I would also like to acknowledge. I have done a lot of work closely with Les Twentyman over the years to establish Oxygen but also Youth Activating Youth, that was established in 2014 by local leaders Ali Ahmed and Ahmed Hassan. Ahmed actually was the Victorian Australian of the Year a couple of years ago and still does tremendous work. YAY has supported over 15,000 young people through all of its respective programs and placed 450 young people into jobs. I would like to commend Youth Projects, including Melanie Raymond, Monica Gould, Ben Vasiliou and all the staff there. I commend the bill.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (15:56): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

I interrupt the debate today because in less than four months Israel has killed 29,313 people – Palestinians in Gaza. Another 7000 are missing beneath the rubble. Another 69,333 Palestinians have been injured. We are not talking about a bruise or a scratch; we are talking about people barely holding onto life. We are talking about the more than 1000 children who have had one or both legs amputated without anaesthetic. Imagine that. Imagine your child. Thousands more have been killed or injured in the West Bank. Israel has destroyed every single hospital, 37 of them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Richmond that this procedural debate is about the reason to adjourn. We are not debating something else.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI: I am providing this information as context as to why it is so important that we urgently interrupt business today, because schools and hospitals have been razed to the ground and because Israel has manufactured a famine and denied access to drinking water and medical supplies. Tens of thousands of children are on the brink of starvation, and Israel is preparing right now for a catastrophic ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltering in an area that is just twice the size of the CBD. They are living in unbelievable fear. They have nowhere to go, so I move to interrupt this debate because we should all be asking ourselves: how do we stop this? This Parliament must be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Is there anything more urgent right now?

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, with respect I understand that the member has moved to adjourn debate, but it is not an opportunity for the house to ask questions. Just to understand, it is a procedural matter and I ask you to draw the member back to the substance of what the member is proposing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would encourage the member to keep her comments to the reason for the adjournment and stay there as close as possible.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI: The reason for this adjournment is because there is nothing more urgent to discuss right now than the Victorian Labor government’s relationship with Israel during a potential genocide. We do know some things, but we need to know more. We know that the Victorian Labor government has signed an agreement with the Israeli defence ministry to support the development and manufacture of military equipment, but the details of this agreement are secret. We need to know more, and that is why I am interrupting business today. We need to interrupt business now to give the Labor government the chance to explain to the Victorian public what the MOU contains and why they have refused until now to cancel their agreement with the Israeli military.

We also know that as part of a $6 million defence program the Victorian state government formed a partnership with Elbit, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. This is to drive research, development and commercialisation of –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the seriousness of the issues the member is raising, she has strayed from the procedural nature of this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I appreciate some context, but bring it back, please.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI: It is essential that we interrupt business right now because Victorians need to hear from the government about the nature of these relationships. I moved to interrupt business because my grandfather escaped the worst of the anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, in Odessa, which was formerly Russia, and the trauma of antisemitism is in my blood. It compels me to fight with everything that I have got to stop the persecution, to stop the death and to stop the annihilation of Palestinian people.

It is essential that we interrupt debate today to give the government the opportunity to review their position in light of these atrocities and because today community and social service workers are walking out of the job to demand that our government stop enabling Israel. I interrupt business today in solidarity with them because, while our communities seethe with horror, they see the government continuing on with business as usual.

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Racing) (16:01): I rise to oppose the motion from the Greens to interrupt business in this procedural motion and to make it very clear that earlier this week the government business program was voted on and was adopted by this house. That business program includes the debate on the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. It also deals with the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024 and, up until just moments ago, a very serious debate on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024, a bill which I have responsibility for as Minister for Police and which I know very many members in this place have spoken on in very heartfelt ways, in very serious ways, about the importance of the changes that we need to make in relation to that bill, and that goes through some broader issues. But bringing that back, it is about a government business program that has been adopted by this house this week, that has been voted on and that has been the work of the Parliament this week and today, and that work needs to continue.

We have seen interruptions to the business program, interruptions to the running of this place, by the member for Richmond and some of her fellow members that have not complied with the standing orders of this place. At this moment in time perhaps some are starting to work out how business is conducted in this chamber and are making sure that in this procedural motion there is an effective way in which they seek to raise issues and seek to interrupt business. That is why we are having this debate and this discussion now, not doing it in ways that over the past week have seen the suspension of the member for Richmond and the suspension of other members by the Speaker in relation to interrupting business in ways that do not comply with the running of this house.

So I do say that in this debate now, this is the way at the very least that we go about business in this place. But I put on the record again that the government does not support the procedural motion being put by the member for Richmond. Regardless of the merits or the desire to have a debate or a discussion, whatever the content, the house has made a decision this week and voted on the government’s business program. The matters that are before the house require a vote before the conclusion of business today. The matters before the house in debate include amendments that have been moved by those opposite, and it is critical that we continue to pursue those matters. That is why the government does not support that procedural motion. It is why the government wants to return to the business program. There are vital matters that need to be considered, need to be debated and need to be voted on before the house rises today, and of course the rising of the house has been determined by the Leader of the House through this week. So it is important that we return to debate on the matters that are before us and that have been determined by this house through this week.

I would further say on the matters that have been raised by the member for Richmond that there is a time and a place for a debate and a discussion on them, but it is not in this format, it is not in this forum and it is not now. At this time we seek to debate and discuss the bills before the house, the matters that have been determined by the house this week, and to vote on them, and that is appropriate.

I call on the opposition and I call on other members of this place to support a return to the debate on the bills before the house – bills that include amendments that have been moved by those opposite – so we can continue the debate and the important discussions. There are people who have also attended here today to hear the debate on those matters. We have members that are still listed to speak on those matters – they are important matters. I would encourage those opposite, and I encourage the opposition in particular, to support the continuation of the business program and the debates before the house, particularly in relation to the matters that have been raised and moved by the member for Berwick so we can have further consideration and debate on those matters and vote on them before business concludes in the house. I know that my colleagues will speak further to these matters, and I look forward to their contributions in relation to this debate. I reiterate that the procedural motion is not supported. We have business in this house that needs to be concluded and legislation before this house, and we need to get back to it as soon as possible.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (16:06): I rise to make some comments about the political stunt that the Greens have tried to make today in this Parliament at a time when we are talking about safety on our streets here in Melbourne and dealing with machete crimes, which many people have been traumatised by and killed by. My community, the Jewish community, are feeling very unsafe. It is a real issue. I certainly understand that all communities need to feel safe. We need to restore social cohesion in this great city of Melbourne, and that is why it is really important for us to take the temperature gauge down and not use Parliament for political stunts. We should not be seeking to adjourn the debate here for political stunts. This is effectively the DNA of the Greens. This is what the Greens have done. They continue to use Parliament for political stunts. Many Jews have been traumatised since 7 October, when 1200 Jews were killed in Israel and 250 hostages were taken. At the same time, we know many Palestinians are grieving in terms of what is happening in the war as well. We know that both Muslims and Jews need to come together at this time and look at how we can rebuild. But what the Greens are trying to do with political stunts will not do that. Using Parliament for political stunts will not do that. What we need is sensible discussion. We need to work together to ensure we restore safety here in this wonderful state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member can come back to the procedural motion.

David SOUTHWICK: At an event last night we had members of the Jewish community wanting to leave Melbourne because they do not feel safe. We have had events, which we saw outside Melbourne Town Hall, at which people were harassed because they were Jewish, and they do not feel safe.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caulfield to come back to the procedural motion, please.

David SOUTHWICK: It is really, really important that we do not use the Parliament for political stunts. This motion that the Greens are trying to put is a political stunt. It is for political purposes – it is for none other than that. I note that the Greens have brought in members of the public, like they have continually done, for this political stunt. That is not what the Parliament should be used for. There are many, many opportunities to sit down and discuss things in an appropriate way but not by using Parliament as a political stunt. We have an agenda and we have a program which we should be working towards. The Greens have not spoken, might I say, about the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024, which is all about community safety locally. People need to feel safe in our state as well as internationally. We do not need the events of what is happening in the Middle East unfolding here on our streets in Melbourne, and that is what is happening at the moment, largely because we have the Greens trying to fuel things with political stunts. I think the time has passed for the Greens to try to use Parliament and use the streets of Melbourne, and city councils and other councils, for political stunts. We need to get people working together in our wonderful, multicultural state. We need to learn from one another, we need to love one another and we need to restore peace and integrity back into our state. That is not happening with the Greens. The ones that are absolutely trying to harm both Jews and Muslims are the Greens, by fuelling this debate. Parliament should not be used for this matter –

Gabrielle de Vietri: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I take offence to the statement that the Greens are trying to harm both Jews and Muslims.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, member for Richmond?

Gabrielle de Vietri: I take offence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, member for Richmond. The member for Caulfield to continue on the procedural motion on the need for the adjournment.

David SOUTHWICK: There is no need for this adjournment, simply because what the Greens are trying to do is to politicise something that is really important when it comes to human life. Human life is really important. But there are ways to do that – not to spread lies and fear, as the Greens continue to do; not to fuel one group against another group; and not to instil hate, as the Greens continue to do. We are dealing with a piece of legislation in the Parliament which is all about community safety, but it seems like the Greens have forgotten about community safety and instead want to fuel hate and violence, because that is what they are doing. Every time they come into this Parliament and try to divide and instil fear and hate, all that does is harm those in Melbourne, people who love our state but are currently leaving our state because of the agenda and hatred that the Greens are trying to instil in this state.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (16:11): We are members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Victoria, a state parliament. The Victorian government is a sub-sovereign jurisdiction, and that is why I also oppose the motion moved by the member for Richmond. The idea that this Parliament would adjourn debate on a bill that is completely within the remit of this Parliament to talk about a conflict in the Middle East, no matter how horrific that conflict is, is something I do not support.

I would also contribute this: the member for Richmond has brought a different element to this Parliament that I have not seen in my decade in this place. It is, frankly, an unsavoury element. The member for Richmond is a protester; she is not a parliamentarian.

Tim Read: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I do not think comments about the member for Richmond are relevant to whether or not debate should be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will make the general statement that impugning members is unparliamentary, and I ask the member for Bentleigh to continue carefully.

Nick STAIKOS: Nothing we say in this house is going to impact the war in Gaza; therefore this is a stunt. It is a protest. I will just say this: grief is not a binary choice. A dead Muslim child or a dead Jewish child, to me, is a dead child. It is not a binary choice who we grieve for. As someone with no personal skin in the game as to what is happening overseas, I think it is absolutely horrific. The loss of life we have seen in that part of the world since 7 October has been absolutely horrific. But what is our role in this Parliament? Our role is to promote multiculturalism, to keep the peace, to keep tensions down. One of my duties as a parliamentary secretary is multicultural affairs. I am acutely aware of the efforts that our Victorian Multicultural Commission is going to as we speak to bring together the Jewish and Islamic communities and to keep tensions down.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the procedural motion.

Nick STAIKOS: I am also acutely aware of the measures that this government is taking. I was with our Minister for Multicultural Affairs when she announced $3 million to combat both antisemitism and Islamophobia. That is the right thing to do. But stoking these tensions in this place – this is why I oppose adjourning debate on a bill that is about community safety.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Bentleigh to come back to the procedural motion. You had strayed.

Nick STAIKOS: I oppose adjourning debate on this bill because I see it as stoking tensions – absolutely stoking tensions. Our role is to keep tensions down. It is unacceptable to me that there are Australians here in our state who feel unsafe just because of who they are. That is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to every member of this house. But sadly, this is where we are at right now. Sadly, these are the times we are living in. While most members of this house are trying to keep those tensions down, I am absolutely offended that there are some in this house who are trying to stoke those tensions. Again, I reiterate, what is happening in Gaza is absolutely horrific. The loss of life we have seen since 7 October of both Jewish people and Islamic people has been absolutely horrific.

But do you know what, a week ago the Prime Minister released a statement on these matters, because this is a federal government matter as to Australia’s position on these issues. This is a state Parliament; it is not for us to adjourn debate on a bill that is squarely within the remit of this Parliament just so that the Greens can pull a stunt. I oppose the motion.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:15): It concerns me that –

Tim Read: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Melbourne was clearly on her feet well ahead of the member for Brighton.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proportionality in the chamber – and both members stood at about the same time. The member for Brighton has the call. You can seek leave to have the call following the end of the debate, I presume.

James NEWBURY: Firstly, the coalition will not be supporting this motion. As I have raised in this chamber a number of times, we will not be supporting this motion because what we are seeing sadly in this place is a set of tactics that are being used, like the motion before the house at the moment, that are an inappropriate use of this house. I am not suggesting that there are not circumstances where debate should be adjourned. There are circumstances where debate should be adjourned, but what we have seen over recent weeks, almost consecutive weeks, is a set of tactics that are seeking to use this house in an inappropriate way, and that is what this motion does. What this motion intends to do is to frankly light a fire under an issue. That is what the intention is.

Today the Greens had an opportunity to ask the Premier of this great state a question in question time ‍– that is their right, and so it should be their right – and they did ask a question of the Premier. There are opportunities in this place to raise issues, and the Greens did that this very day. They have many opportunities to raise issues. In no way am I arguing that there should not be more opportunities for the non-government side of this place to speak on matters. There should be more opportunities, and it is one of the reasons why I proposed a second chamber of this very place, so that we could have debates on other matters. But this place is not a place that should be used to light fires under issues, and that is what this motion seeks to do.

What concerns me – and the coalition, as I said, will not be supporting this motion – is that the impact of what is happening in this place is having a profound effect outside this chamber. I would say to every member, as they consider how they will vote, to consider what the impact of voting yes would be outside this chamber. Every occasion over recent weeks – the repeated incidents of the Parliament being shut down, or in this case shut down or diverted – has had an impact outside this place. That is why this side of the house and, as I understand it, the government could not in good conscience support this motion. How can you support this motion? I would say to all members of this place: we need to look at the way these tactics are being used and whether or not that is an appropriate use of this place. We need to think through the impact that this is now having very closely, because we certainly would not want to make changes that impinge on rights of members to do things in this place as they should. But there is a difference between using this space appropriately and not, and I think we almost all in this place agree that what we have seen over recent weeks is of deep, deep concern. The Premier spoke to that matter. I have spoken to that matter. There is, I believe, in terms of the major parties a bipartisan concern over what is happening in this place. And on this very motion, which is another instance of that behaviour, we cannot let it continue. We cannot let an activism creep into this place which is dangerous and has an impact outside of here. So on the motion, I would say the coalition will not be supporting it. I think that as a Parliament we need to consider what has been happening recently and consider what options we may have, because we cannot allow people to be hurt, and that is what is happening.

Motions like this hurt people. It fuels fires that people in leadership and community leadership should know better than to do, so the coalition will be strongly opposing this motion today.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:20): I rise to oppose the motion to adjourn debate. I will keep it to a tight debate I think. There is of course the government business program, which the Greens are welcome to add to. They could have been here for that. Instead we have this influencer-style version of politics where we introduce motions to interrupt really important debate. I think what I would say is: this is a very complex issue. But like the member for Bentleigh, I am a member of the Victorian Parliament – not the federal Parliament, not the UN, not the Knesset – and I fail to see what difference this will make. I really think that we are going through a stage in this Parliament that is quite concerning as well. Right now you can look on your Instagram and you can see fires burning in my electorate.

Dylan Wight interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Tarneit! I can hear you from here. The member for Tarneit is warned.

Paul EDBROOKE: You can see fires burning in western Victoria. There are firefighters, police, SES and emergency workers that are going to have a bloody big night and a dangerous night, and they are going to be in that environment for a long time tomorrow as well. I think that is where the hearts and minds of people in this chamber need to be. That is where our thoughts need to be. When we actually support our communities, we do not end up making these motions that are very influenceresque. This house has run very well, and it is not many times I will find myself agreeing with the member for Brighton, but on this one I wholeheartedly do. Do not take that home with you. There is a wind change coming, from north-west to south-west, and that will make the right-hand flank of that fire, a very large fire in north-west Victoria, come to a head pretty soon. That is of huge concern to most people, I think, in this chamber. It affects a lot of people, a lot of Victorians, who we represent ‍– who everyone in this chamber represents.

I am not by any chance trying to minimise what is happening overseas, but what I am saying is that people in the Victorian Parliament run by a policy of a government business program. Right now I think I am the next speaker on the bill, and I would like to speak on that bill and then I would like to go back to my electorate and make sure that the people keeping my electorate safe are safe themselves and are supported and feel supported. I know there are people in the north-west and there are people in Gippsland right now without power, and their MPs need to do the same. As far as I see this, I am not going to say it is a waste of time, but it is time that could be better spent on the government business program, and I oppose the motion to adjourn the debate.

Assembly divided on motion:

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

Noes (69): Juliana Addison, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Tim McCurdy, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Brad Rowswell, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson

Motion defeated.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:29): It is a pleasure to rise on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. We know that every day, in any weather and at any hour, our hardworking police officers are out there patrolling the front line, often putting themselves at risk to keep our community safe, and we thank them for that. We thank every Victoria Police member and their families for the service they provide to our state. I am proud that the Allan Labor government has a record of working with Victoria Police to ensure that they have the resources they need to keep on doing this important job.

Since coming to government we have made record investments of more than $4.5 billion to deliver to Victorians the modern, world-class policing they deserve. As part of the 2022–23 budget we invested $342 million to deliver 502 additional new police officers and 50 PSOs, building on the more than 3100 additional police already on our streets. That is more than 3600 additional police funded by our government since 2014. That is an absolute record. We have also invested in new equipment for our police, including the $214 million taser rollout, which the minister spoke about earlier, to all frontline police officers and PSOs to ensure that they have another nonlethal tool at their disposal to respond to potentially violent offenders.

We have also invested more than $1 billion to deliver new and upgraded police stations across our state and our government will continue to invest in critical police infrastructure. As the parliamentary secretary for police at one stage, it was great to get out to some of the regional areas and open some of those police stations as well. Importantly, we are also investing in early intervention programs, including $12.4 million in the most recent budget to continue and expand the important work of the Aboriginal youth cautioning program and embedded youth outreach program. In Frankston, that is going along great guns and working very well.

As far as the firearms control section of this bill goes, as a former chair of the firearms community round table I think under the current laws a firearm prohibition order must be served in person, which can be notoriously difficult, especially when a member of the public might be evading police actually giving them that FPO. It is true to say that there was nervousness around firearm prohibition orders with some members of the gun-owning community at first, but I think now they have got the confidence that this FPO legislation is squarely aimed at offenders. There have been plenty of examples of relatives of bikies et cetera that are the people I think everyone who is reasonable in this chamber would believe would have a reason to have an FPO served on them. As far as I know, among licensed owners with legitimate registered firearms there are not any examples of people that feel they have been targeted or hard done by.

What this legislation does is enable police to stop a person in public and direct them to remain there or accompany them to a police station for 2 hours for the purposes of serving that FPO, which is really important as part of our community safety program. Police will also be able to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter and search premises and serve a person with an FPO. It really goes to the context of who we are serving FPOs to. They are looking to be the types of characters that might not want an FPO served on them, the types of characters that might want to hide from police, so I think this is a great piece of legislation to enable police to actually keep our community even safer.

Where an individual in detention has declined a visit by a police officer, police will also be able to serve an FPO on that person by registered post. These changes are what police have told us they need to ensure this game-changing scheme that is the FPO scheme continues and police are provided with the powers they need to keep our communities safe.

I think it is fair to say that the Allan Labor government is proud to actually work with our police force and police command, not against them, to ensure our police actually have the tools they need to do the job of keeping Victorians safe. This is another example of us doing that in a legislative sense. As far as stakeholders go, we had some questions from the opposition about consultation. In the development of this bill, there was consultation with 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. I am proud to say I did chair that committee. A finer bunch of people to work with you would not find, and they really represent the firearms industry and other firearms stakeholders around the place.

As far as machetes go in this amendment bill, it is an interesting argument that has been brought up by some of those opposite. And I do not want to labour the point, but Victoria Police have actually asked for these powers. What this bill does is insert in the definition of ‘controlled weapon’ that ‘A machete is a type of knife.’ This is a clarification, and it confirms the current legal position that a machete is a knife and therefore a controlled weapon. Up until this point there have been cases of people seeing machetes not as knives but as tools. We have heard plenty of examples of them being sold in markets et cetera. I think this part of the legislation enhances the community’s appreciation that machetes may only be possessed and purchased by people who are over 18 and those who have a lawful excuse to be using them. I just want to reiterate that a controlled weapon cannot be sold to anyone under 18. Anything that is a knife or categorised as a knife is a controlled weapon and cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18.

Victoria Police, as I said, have identified that there are some market stallholders, wholesalers and members of the community who more broadly consider machetes as not a weapon but a tool. Therefore this clarifies that machetes are indeed weapons and you do not need to own one unless there is a reason to do so – and a lawful reason at that. And while it is true that machetes can be used as tools, I could not put it better than some other members have in saying I do not see too many cane fields around Frankston that require the use of machetes, nor Victoria, and I would disagree with anyone that thinks they have to drive around with a machete in their car or have anything like that on their person.

Police actually do not support making machetes prohibited weapons. I think it is pretty common sense. A prohibited weapon is something like a gun, for example, or a balisong knife, a butterfly knife or knuckle dusters – those sorts of things Those sorts of things are prohibitive weapons. With a gun, for example, if you were to own a gun and become a licensed gun owner with registered firearms you would need to undergo a safety course, you would need to be seen as a fit and proper person, undergo the test and be given a licence. I do not think we want to go down the path where we give police and our departments the laborious task of making sure everyone has to apply for a machete, get a licence and do a safety course. I do not think that is what police want.

Then you can go to the other side of the coin. If we did that, then I believe it is pretty common sense that you would probably have people trying to buy kitchen knives, and there are some pretty big kitchen knives out there. Again, they cannot be sold to people under 18, but that is the next step down the track I think. So this is common sense, and it strikes a balance that indeed police have asked for and they support this legislation.

In clarifying that a machete is indeed a controlled weapon there can be no excuse for retailers or for people in markets to be selling these long agricultural-style blades and acting as though they do not know what they are doing, because that absolutely do. There is no excuse for anyone to be carrying a machete around town. As previous members have said, it is just not an excuse to say that you need it as some kind of tool or for some other use. It is obviously being used for or carried for a possible nefarious purpose. This bill goes a long way to ensuring that police have the powers they need, but it also makes sure that people in our community know that they will not get away with this anymore and there are significant fines. Just to conclude, I think there is some, I guess, confusion on the other side about this bill, but I certainly commend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (16:39): I also rise to talk on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Berwick for his lead today and for providing us with some inside thoughts on the bill and everyone who has spoken on this particular amendment bill in the chamber today. Obviously our side is a little bit different to the other side there. We are thinking that the part with the machetes does not go far enough, and I will touch on that shortly. But the purpose of the bill is (1) to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to further provide for the service of firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs, and any related and minor matters and (2) to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to clarify that a machete is a type of knife.

The member for Frankston just spoke before about how bringing machetes in as a type of knife is going to change the current way the bill is read. Where I am from, I have got a good mate down in Flynn, Peter Ayres. Pete is farmer and has been a farmer for a very long time down on his property in Bonnie Brae, and with the work that he does on his farm I do not think I have ever seen him use a machete for anything. If he is clearing some trees or anything like that, he is jumping on his backhoe and removing them that way, if they need to be done, or he is getting his beautiful Ryobi power tools out and using them. So for someone to have a machete, especially here in Victoria, and to be carrying it on their person, I think we all in the chamber realise it is not needed.

Even though we are moving an amendment to the bill to make carrying a machete as though you are carrying a knife, I do feel that – I get a little bit of feedback from the people down in Morwell. Of course, like everybody in the state of Victoria, we are all seeing our youth crime rate spike a little bit around the place. We are no different down in Morwell. Our youth crime rate has gone up markedly. So if we have stuff we are doing here in the chamber to amend this bill, why can’t we take the extra step to make it that you cannot carry it on you when you are walking down the street? It is becoming a weapon of choice with our younger people, as members have spoken about before, with the advent of social media and people wanting to seem to outdo each other in the way that they are being very aggressive in committing crimes and engaging with other people. The social media stuff – you have only got to get onto Facebook or any other platforms and you will see just how prevalent it is. We can actually stop this by amending this bill with the member for Berwick’s reasoned amendment. Why do we need to carry something around on our person? I do not think we really need to do it.

A controlled weapon, which is what the government’s amendment will make it, is a weapon that can be possessed, carried and used for legitimate purposes but may pose a potential danger to the community. As I said before, I do not think anyone in the chamber here has probably carried a machete, unless they have seen one in a market and as they have walked past had a look. But in my time being a plumber I do not think I ever picked up a machete to use it to clear a workspace for myself. If we make it a prohibited weapon, prohibited weapons are items considered inappropriate for general possession and use without the Chief Commissioner of Police’s approval or a Governor in Council exemption order. So if we are at the stage where we are going to make changes to the bill, why can’t we take that extra step further before – hopefully not – there is a major incident on our streets where a machete is used to hurt someone or, in the worst case, to actually kill someone and we are back here talking about why we didn’t take that extra step to protect our community?

It is stuff like that that we do need to consider. I understand listening to the government with their proposals of what they are trying to achieve. With the FPOs, it does expand the bill and gives police the power to serve a firearm prohibition order. We need that. The police have said they need that and the stakeholders have said they need that, so we have no issue at all with that part of the bill. But it is just that with our youth gangs now getting smarter and smarter – and they really do not care if they are carrying a concealed weapon or not – if we make it so that a machete is a prohibited weapon I think that is a great thing that we can do.

On Morwell crime figures, I was having a look before at the figures released by the Crime Statistics Agency Victoria in December, which show criminal incidents in the Latrobe local government area for the year to 30 September last year were up 13.6 compared with the previous year. In the town of Morwell, where my office is, criminal incidents spiked by a massive 25 per cent in 2023.

When I engage with residents when I am walking down the street or I am purposefully standing at the bus interchange or at the train stations around the place, the one particular thing that they all come back to is how they feel at times unsafe on our streets, because obviously we have some unsavoury people that are standing on the corners, but also just the way that our youth gangs are going around – they do not have one bit of respect for our police or any of our local law officers at all. Our police do an absolutely magnificent job down there. We engage all the time. Next week we have a community safety forum which we hold every three months with the police out of Moe, Morwell, Traralgon and Churchill, which are the police stations in my seat of Morwell. We also engage with the Latrobe City Council and other stakeholders. The one thing that we do get when we sit down and talk is a good grasp of just what the issues are around the valley, and one of the prevalent ones is the feeling of being unsafe on our streets. I actually talk with a lot of our older generation down there, the wonderful people that have now retired. They love to get a bus to go down the street to go to the shopping centres. They are getting off those buses and being confronted with unruly and unsavoury people that hang out there a lot of the time. I think everybody in this chamber would have come across that in the towns they live in. You do not have to walk too far to come across an incident.

I agree with those on both sides of the chamber about how well and how hard our police officers work in engaging not only with the community but also with youth. They do the best they can to make sure that everyone – the youth in general that they are trying to deal with and the people on our streets – feels safe. We do have some diversionary programs there for the youth to do that.

To get back to the point, if we are taking the machetes and making them harder to get, why don’t we take the next step and make them illegal to have with you? Make it safe. Be succinct, straight up: ‘Here you go – police.’ You would not have to worry. If you walked up to someone and they were holding a concealed weapon or a machete on their body, they could not say, ‘Well, I’m walking down the street to go and actually do some work around the corner.’ They would be doing the wrong thing, and the police could deal with them.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (16:49): ‘I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the youth of today, but certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was young we were taught to be respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful’ – so said Hesiod in the 8th century BCE. From time immemorial people have been concerned about the youth of their day. That is a common feature throughout all time. In fact we heard it from the member for Morwell across from us just now. He was concerned about young people at bus stops and train stations, which I consider a form of public transport. He was kind enough to quote the crime statistics for his area, and he reported that crime is up within his area. I am so glad that the learned member for Point Cook beside me was able to quickly bring up his crime statistics for the area that he was quoting and note that crime in fact is below 2019 levels. Crime remains lower than before COVID in his LGA, which he referred to. We have a problem with perception versus reality, and we have to be careful that we do not contribute to the perception by going around and saying that crime is up when it is not.

However, there is a type of crime in his area that remains stubbornly high, and that is family violence. I hope that the member for Morwell, when at the bus stations and the train stations in his area, when walking around, will recognise that family violence offenders are not always able to be picked out and determined and that family violence is a scourge in all parts of our society. I hope that he will be able to champion the recommendations and the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence. Women know, women are told – I am sure every woman in this chamber at some stage has been told – that the most dangerous place in your house is the kitchen. Stay away from the kitchen if you are with a person who perpetrates violence, because that is where knives are. Of course knives are the subject of our discussion today. In the context in which we talk about it, we should recognise that women know all too well that knives are a weapon. When we classify them, we are not going to prohibit knives in family kitchens, but in fact they are the most dangerous thing for women in Victoria and across all of Australia.

I speak about the difference between reality and perception, and unfortunately those opposite today have tried to say that we do not back police to allow them to be able to do their job. But the reality is that this is a bill that was developed in response to a request from the police. We back police. In fact the firearm prohibitions order scheme was first introduced in 2018 by this government. That is how much we back the police. At the time that that original scheme was introduced in this place – I may have told you the other day – we heard concerns from those opposite. We heard from the member for Gippsland South that he was worried that police would use these powers against people that they had a gripe with. Fancy talking about our police misusing something which they have to help keep safety in our areas! Having a gripe – that is not backing police.

I can proudly say that this government certainly backs police. You only have to look at the budget papers to see that. Just fiscally we can say that it is $4.5 billion over nine years. The graph shows an arrow that goes up and up. That investment has been in everything from technology and equipment for our police officers through to their ability to target high-harm crimes. It has involved recruitment of additional police officers and upgrading of police stations so that they can have more ability and more freedom to serve people.

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Lauren KATHAGE: I would love to respond to the member for Malvern, because when I talk to members in my community they want to see police out on the beat. They want to see people out on the street patrolling and checking that everything is okay. That is why I was happy when I met with, for example, members of the Donnybrook community regarding local crime. They were happy to hear that police were away from the station and patrolling the area. In fact those things made people feel reassured, because crime does not occur in police stations, crime occurs out on the street. It is good to have police out where the crime occurs.

Michael O’Brien interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Malvern is getting dangerously close to reflecting on the Chair.

Lauren KATHAGE: That would be as though we would have highway patrol sitting at the police station. Nobody wants highway patrol at the police station. We want them out on the highways patrolling, so it makes absolute sense to me that the Chief Commissioner of Police in fact has made the decision. That is his duty to make operational decisions, and we back the chief commissioner to know what is best for his policing force and for the safety of our community. And I think safety of the community is what this bill is essentially about.

Certainly in recent times I have met with a couple of community groups who wished to speak about burglaries or local crime in their area and talk about their concerns and what they hoped to see. They encouraged me to speak with our local constabularies about that, which I certainly did. I was very happy to speak with members of the Mernda and Epping police stations, with their senior sergeants. In fact I believe the Minister for Police will be visiting us at the Mernda police station tomorrow, and so I will be happy to relay to the police at the station what people have relayed in this debate.

When I met with the police officers, who cover a very large area, what they said to me and what they asked me to tell community members was that the crime in your area remains low. ‘The crime in your area remains low’ is what they wanted people to know. They asked me to assist with the poor perception that was rising around crime, and that is why I speak about perception versus reality in my area, in my electorate that I represent. There are sensible things that people can do, such as truthfully report the crime statistics in their area. Do not come into the chamber and say that crime is up in your area when it is historically low. That is really unhelpful for feelings of comfort in the community, and it is unhelpful for the police, who are seeking to maintain an appropriate community attitude. Nobody wants feelings of vigilantism or anything of that nature.

In fact nobody wants to see people coming into contact with the criminal justice system, and that is why this government has invested so much in crime prevention, especially for our young people. That work and that funding for crime prevention – we can see that our investment and reform in youth justice coincides with a long-term decline in the rate of alleged offender incidents in Victoria for people aged 17 and under. Youth crime is reducing in Victoria per 100,000 head of population – perception and reality. It is important that we stick with what the reality is. The reality is that our government invests in our police, we back our police and we support young people to keep them away from crime.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:59): In the limited time I have to make a contribution – saving the best till last – can I say that I support the member for Berwick and the amendments. Can I say to those on the other side who spoke on this bill that they missed an opportunity today. They really did miss an opportunity. There is a chance to actually make Victoria safer, and you have chosen to sit on your hands and do nothing. You have just read the government notes rather than standing up for your communities and letting them see that you really do support them. Nearly every member has talked about violence in their electorate with knives and machetes, but still you read the government notes. You had a chance. You had an opportunity to do something about it today, and you did not.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. The minister has moved that this bill be now read a second time. The member for Berwick has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion. He has proposed to omit all the words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words which have been circulated. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Berwick should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (49): Juliana Addison, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, 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, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (22): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.