Thursday, 13 November 2025

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:40): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025:

[CONTENT TO BE INCORPORATED]

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

[CONTENT TO BE INCORPORATED]

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:41): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:41): The coalition will not be opposing the four-day turnaround on this bill, but we do want it noted that we are concerned. The government has gone slow when it comes to fixing some of the biggest problems that we have seen in this state. They have gone slow on making changes that need to be made. When I look at what I presume is going to be in this bill I recall the face masks promise that the Premier made earlier this year, standing outside a synagogue that had been burnt down – a promise given to a community. What the government have announced in relation to face masks is a capitulation to the left of their party, a complete failure of leadership and a broken promise to the Jewish community. That you could make a promise outside a burnt synagogue and then go back on that promise says everything about character.

When it comes to the bill more broadly, obviously with bills we think that it is important that the community and experts have an opportunity to consider them in detail. That will not be the case with this bill. Obviously, we will not have an opportunity for the broader community to see it in the way that it should be seen, and experts will not have the time to consider it in the way that they should. We can understand why the government are rushing these changes through, changes that are clearly hot off the press in terms of the speed and sloppiness of drafting: because the government know that they are in a very deep hole when it comes to community safety and are now trying to rush through changes to get themselves out of a political mess. This is a not an actual fix that will solve the crime crisis, but it is to get out of the political mess that they see themselves in, and we can see that with the rushed legislation today.

Of course we will not be opposing the need for stronger laws in this state; in fact we have been calling for them. We have been moving private members bills in this chamber. We have been putting them to the government, who have been voting against them, across many, many matters. But we would say that we want it noted that we understand why the government is rushing legislation into the Parliament: so that the mistakes that will invariably be there will not be able to be picked up and neither, frankly, will the weakness in some of their legislation. A supposed mask ban was described by the police association as a ‘pretty please’ policy. Now police are going to be forced to go up to offenders and ask if they would not mind taking off their mask. If somehow it fits within the very thin parameter of reasons that a mask can be removed, police will be able to do that. The coalition will not be opposing the four-day turnaround, but we do want those concerns noted very, very strongly.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:45): I want to endorse the comments that the Manager of Opposition Business just made, because the government is in a bit of a political hotspot with justice. They have made a number of announcements, and things need to be done, because our communities are suffering. But one of the things that does happen, although we understand and we are not opposing the four-day adjournment, is that it does not get the time for scrutiny that it should.

I am just actually having a quick flick to see the number of acts that this amends – quite significant – but also some areas that are questionable for me. Looking at the commencement dates, some of them are to commence after the bill receives royal assent; that is fairly normal. One of them – and this is the most interesting one – comes into operation:

… on the day on which the motion for the second reading of the Bill for this Act is moved in the Legislative Assembly.

That is saying that some of these have come into operation now – right now – if I read that correctly: when the second reading of the bill for the act is moved in the Legislative Assembly. That is what has just happened, so section 59 – and I do not know what that is – has already apparently come into operation. These are the things that we do not get the time to scrutinise.

We do know that there is a serious crime issue, and the government have sat on their hands for too long and need to get things moving. Other parts of this are coming in in March 2026. So we have got a real mix of things here, and it is going to take us considerable time to go through it. But it is not just us; the stakeholders that are involved in this area have significant and serious concerns. I include also community members who have been calling out for so long for changes to be made, because the government, despite what it says, weakened bail laws substantially. They had to come back and have a crack and strengthen them a little bit, and then they had to have another go, and they are still not as strong as they were previously. So we do know that the government is rushing a lot of these things. We are not going to stand in the way of this being debated next week, but there are a number of issues that I think are important for us to get on the record, because this is not normal process and protocol.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Monday 17 November.