Thursday, 10 September 2026

 The SPEAKER (14:40): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 with amendments.

Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, line 29, omit “violence.” and insert “violence; and”.

2.   Clause 1, page 3, after line 29 insert –

“(i) to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 to repeal the offence of begging or gathering alms.”.

3.   Clause 2, line 31, after “Part 9” insert “, Part 10A”.

4.   Insert the following New Part after Part 10 –

‘Part 10A – Repeal of offence of begging or gathering alms

93A Section 49A amended

(1) For the heading to section 49A of the Summary Offences Act 1966 substitute –

“Offence to cause, procure or encourage child to beg or gather alms”.

(2) Section 49A(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 is repealed.’.

5.   Long title, after “the Sentencing Act 1991” insert “, the Summary Offences Act 1966”.

6.   Clause 1, page 3, after line 26 insert –

“(iii) to void certain warrants to imprison made in respect of a person in default; and”.

7.   Clause 2, line 31, omit “3” and insert “3, 3A”.

8.   Insert the following New Division to follow Division 3 of Part 9 –

‘Division 3A – Warrants to imprison

88A New section 171AAA inserted

After section 171 of the Fines Reform Act 2014 insert –

“171AAA   Historical unexecuted warrants to imprison are null and void

Any warrant to imprison a person in default of payment of any outstanding infringement fine (however described) issued by the Magistrates’ Court before the commencement of this Act under any of the following provisions, including any warrant to imprison re-issued under section 58(3) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 after the commencement of this Act in respect of the same outstanding infringement fine, that has not been cancelled, executed or recalled before the commencement of this section is null and void –

(a)   Schedule 7 to the Magistrates’ Court 1989 as in force immediately before its repeal;

(b)   section 68 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 in respect of an order of the Magistrates’ Court, under Part 12 of the Infringements Act 2006 as in force immediately before 31 ‍December 2017, for imprisonment in default of payment of any outstanding fine.

Note

This Act came into operation on 31 December 2017.”.’.

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (14:41): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The government will support these amendments to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. The amendments seek to do a number of things: remove old imprisonment warrants for infringement fine default made under repealed legislation and decriminalise begging. The fines amendment will void imprisonment warrants for infringement fine defaults that were first issued before 2018, even if they have since been reissued. We have estimated that the number of warrants to be voided is approximately 2200. As was noted in the other place, these amendments as drafted will not fully capture all imprisonment warrants for fine default arising from orders made before 2018. Cohorts left out include imprisonment warrants relating to court fine default, as only those relating to infringement fines are captured, and imprisonment warrants that were made in or after 2018 based on a court order made before 2018, pre fines reform. This means further legislative work will be required to realise the intention of this amendment in full.

The other amendment will decriminalise begging, just like it is decriminalised in New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. I want to thank Ms Payne in the other place for moving this amendment. I also want to thank the staunch advocates in this space, in particular community legal centres and specifically my local CLC, Peninsula Community Legal Centre and its CEO and my good friend Jackie Galloway.

Begging often stems from underlying issues such as homelessness, mental health conditions, substance dependence and family violence. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and express my sadness and condolence to those who knew and loved Jessica Geddes. Jessica was only 27 years old when she was killed by her abusive partner in 2020. Jessica often begged for food and money while her Centrelink payments were directed to her abusive partner. In his findings into Jessica’s death now retired state coroner John Cain recommended a welfare-oriented approach to people who beg rather than a criminal response. Today we take the important step of decriminalising it. A criminal response to begging disproportionately punishes the most vulnerable people in our community and is inconsistent with this Carroll Labor government’s commitment to early prevention, health-based reform and harm reduction. I want to acknowledge the work that Victoria Police already undertake to ensure those who beg get the support and services they need. They will continue that important work.

In closing, this bill does a mountain of significant and important work, informed directly by the voices and experiences of victim-survivors of family and sexual violence. This work is not work that happens overnight. When I first became Attorney-General almost two years ago, I knew I wanted to push reforms that would centre victim-survivors in their effort to seek justice for the wrongs done to them. This bill is the second bill since I became Attorney-General that has done that. Progress can be slow – sometimes painfully slow – but it is so important that laws like this are developed properly with victims and with experts; they are too important to rush. I want to thank the members, past and present, of the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council. VSAC was established by this Labor government after the Royal Commission into Family Violence. They have been instrumental in these laws, particularly criminalising coercive control. This law is for you.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:46): I rise to speak on the amendments that are being made to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 and note how deeply sad it is that a bill that comes from such a good place – a place that the coalition has supported and in fact raised policy matters on that we led – has been dirtied up in the days before an election and before the end of Parliament by doing deals with the independents in the upper house to get their votes, buy their votes and curry their votes on other issues.

I will say for the chamber about the Attorney-General – who you may not always hear me say great things about, but I will say something very positive about the Attorney – that when it comes to the amendment today that we are considering on begging, the Attorney did not support it. The Attorney did not support the amendment being put in the Council. Her office spoke to me numerous times about not supporting that amendment and spoke to other members of Parliament about that position – more than one member of Parliament – and I support her view.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Brighton is not being factual and is misrepresenting.

James Newbury interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I ask you not to yell across the chamber. It is a matter of debate.

James NEWBURY: Multiple members will confirm the advice of the Attorney’s office to us in relation to the position on begging. I understand why the Attorney would not want to see the decriminalisation of an act without any consultation, without any feedback and, frankly, without even putting any thought into the implication of decriminalising something that will cause and encourage antisocial behaviour. We know because over the period of 2017 to 2026 there were 850 offences in relation to begging. This is not the decriminalisation of an act by which there have been no charges and no instances occurring; we know that over that time period there have been a little short of a thousand – which means just under a hundred a year – offences in relation to begging. It does not surprise any Victorian to see this government remove consequences for antisocial or bad behaviour in this state from the statute books. No-one is surprised by that, because there are no consequences in this state. In relation to begging, I read into Hansard a quote from the Australian Restaurant & Cafe Association chief Wes Lambert, who said:

The decision by the state Labor government today to decriminalise begging along with the proposed (working from home laws) will only further reduce demand and will decimate our sector already struggling with the nations highest taxes and regulation.

Restaurants and cafes across Melbourne are facing one the most difficult times in recent memory.

One in every two claim they will either close or not renew their leases in the Melbourne CBD.

There has been zero dialogue with our industry and is a sad indictment on the new premier who promised to make commonsense decisions and work with business.

We know that it was just hollow words, just like we know that when it comes to consequences for behaviour in this state, we have seen a government simply do a dirty deal with independents in the upper house to remove the consequence for begging. The sad fact is that this amendment is being moved in a bill that has good purpose. In fact it is so foreign a concept to this bill that the amendment to the Summary Offences Act 1966 has to be inserted into the bill itself. What that means is the bill never contemplated an amendment to the Summary Offences Act. It was never contemplated when this bill was drafted. But when it comes to consequences, the amendments before us do not stop there. We just learned from the Attorney that 2200 outstanding warrants for imprisonment are being voided.

Sonya Kilkenny interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Attorney is saying to me ‘That’s right’, with joy, across the table. What this comes down to is a government who do not believe in consequences. Think it through. Over 2000 ‍instances of someone breaking the law in such a way that the state has previously determined they should be imprisoned. As of yesterday the state’s position was that 2200 people should be imprisoned whose warrants are now, under this government’s watch, being voided, which goes to the very heart of the concern the community has about the weak Labor government’s lack of consequences.

Though I did not deal with the Attorney’s office on this amendment, I would be surprised if the Attorney had supported that amendment initially. But as of yesterday more than one member of Parliament was advised that the Attorney’s position was of support in relation to our position that we would not support the decriminalisation of begging. In fact when I first heard that there was an alternate view, I contacted the Attorney’s office proactively and said, ‘I’ve just heard something which isn’t in line with the conversations I’ve had previously, which is completely out of kilter with what I’ve heard previously. It couldn’t possibly be right.’ The advice I got back was that it could not be right that they would support that amendment and that they would check to determine whether the Premier’s office had overruled the Attorney without telling them. That is exactly what happened. I spoke to more than one member of Parliament about it. After checking with the Premier’s office, we were advised that the amendment would not be supported. On multiple occasions the Attorney’s position, as advised to multiple members of Parliament, was to not support the amendment, because how could you change a consequence for behaviour without –

The SPEAKER: The member Brighton is not to use the word ‘you’.

James NEWBURY: How could anybody possibly change a consequence for behaviour without any thought on the change that they are making? But here we are. We have two significant changes which will affect, if you look at the statistics in relation to begging over the last 10 years, 850 people. As the Attorney has just advised the house, for 2200 people that as of yesterday the state believed deserved to be imprisoned, ‘Cut that up’ is what the government said. So when the Premier stands before Victorians and says he wants to do something about the crime crisis that we are in and acknowledges the lack of consequences, he has made it worse – and we know why. I believe the Attorney-General did not support this because I believe the Attorney would not flippantly make a change. I believe very strongly that the government have only agreed to these amendments because they want to pass their work-from-home legislation through the Council. That is what I believe, and I think there is no other way to see it.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a debate on a series of amendments that the Attorney-General has introduced, and the speaker, the member for Brighton, is straying from the amendments and making assertions that have no basis in fact. I ask you to bring him back to the amendments.

James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Speaker, I am speaking directly to the amendments. I am speaking directly to the substance of them and the motivation around them. I am entirely in order.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton to continue. I remind members that many of these amendments that come from the Council are quite narrow amendments, and they are to be spoken to. The amendments are to be spoken to; the justification behind those amendments is a matter of debate.

James NEWBURY: Of course it is. I agree with you. It is a matter of debate, and it is only reasonable to assume that the government has done a deal with the Legalise Cannabis members because it wants their vote. I think that everybody can see what is happening here, and I hear that it is not the only deal that is being done with independent members at the moment. I hear there are other members who are doing deals.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, we are talking about the current amendments.

James NEWBURY: That is right, and that is what I am talking about, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Are you arguing with me, member for Brighton?

James NEWBURY: Not at all.

The SPEAKER: I will not tolerate backchat. The member for Brighton will speak to the amendments that are currently before the house, not proposed amendments that might be coming.

James NEWBURY: I have only spoken to these amendments. I have spoken to these amendments because we can be certain that a dirty deal has been done, which is now seeing these before the chamber. The proof of that is that the Attorney had a different view. The proof of that is that the bill itself did not contemplate a Summary Offences Act 1966 amendment. It did not contemplate it. These amendments, if you read them clearly, make clear that they require acceptance in the bill that the Summary Offences Act will be changed. It was not contemplated when this bill was drafted, and that is why we know the dirty deal has been done. We know the dirty deal has been done – and doesn’t that say everything about this government? This deal has been done purely to get a vote across on the work-from-home legislation. That is what it is all about. We know it. We know that is what it is about.

What Victorians have seen is another instance of consequences evaporating in this state, because the Victorian community knows only too well that consequences do not exist. So when Victorians sit at home and ask themselves ‘Why don’t people who commit crimes and do the wrong thing have any consequences?’ and the Premier stands up and says otherwise, here are two actual examples of where this Labor government today has taken away consequences for behaviour, and not minor ones. As the Attorney herself has said, there were 2200 people who as of this morning – not yesterday, this morning ‍– the government believed should be in prison, who had warrants issued for their imprisonment. Those warrants are now voided.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The former minister is saying that it is okay because they cannot afford to pay the fine. What if everyone says they cannot afford to pay a fine? What if every single person says they do not want to pay a fine? Why have a consequence? Why have a consequence at all in Victoria? You know what, do not just do it for fines. This is Labor, soft on crime. Why not just do it beyond fines. Why not do it for crime? When they commit a crime, let them out. That is what is happening. You think I am joking, but all Victorians see that too. All Victorians know it does not matter what is happening in Victoria. It does not matter what you do in Victoria, there is no consequence, and Victorians know it, don’t they? Victorians know.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet has strayed a long way from the amendments before us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Brighton, I remind you that we are debating what has come back from the Council and to stick to those amendments.

James NEWBURY: The implication of these amendments passing is material to the debate on this set of amendments. Of course when we debate these amendments we need to understand what it will mean if they pass. What it will mean is a signal that there are no consequences for certain behaviour. ‘Don’t pay a fine; it doesn’t matter,’ says the government. In these 2200 instances where a warrant has been issued, they are cutting them up.

You can understand why the government is touchy, because they did not want a debate on this. The government did not want to debate these amendments, they wanted to slip them through. They thought somehow they could just quickly slip this debate through and no-one would notice. You know why that was their plan? Because they did not publicly announce their intention to do this. At no point has the government, on these amendments before us, told the community what they proposed to do. There was no public announcement, no public commitment, no public conversation about what they proposed to do, yet here we are, which is why you know that this is entirely a dirty deal. Yesterday the Attorney’s office could not even fathom the idea that this could be supported, and there will be multiple members, I suspect, who will raise that, Attorney.

We know that this set of amendments is entirely about dirty deals that are being done in the Council. It is shocking. It is absolutely shocking that the government would think that the way to run government is to simply amend laws without any consultation, without any broad engagement about the implications. Has anyone considered – because the government clearly has not – what happens to our city that is already on its knees if we encourage further antisocial behaviour? Is there any thought as to what happens to our city of Melbourne, which is on its knees, if that antisocial behaviour is encouraged?

This is just one way. Of course there are many other ways the government has done that and has quite badly damaged in its time our beautiful city of Melbourne. But this is one additional way that the government puts a knife into the city of Melbourne again. The traders have spoken so strongly today about what has occurred in relation to these amendments. They have been immediate in their response and immediate with their concerns. As I raised earlier, the Australian Restaurant & Cafe Association chief said:

There has been zero dialogue with our industry and is a sad indictment on the new premier who promised to make commonsense decisions and work with business.

That was said not an hour ago by a sector that found out after the act. The community found out what the government was proposing to do after the amendment had passed the Council. How can it be that a change of this nature could be made without consultation? How can it be that the government could try and hide the change that is being made? It is not unreasonable to consult when you are proposing to change the Summary Offences Act 1966. It is not unreasonable to expect that that would occur. It is not unreasonable to think that a government would, if it were proud to be making the change, announce it, consult on it, perhaps put out a media release about it, hold a press conference and discuss it, and then talk to the most affected communities where these issues have occurred. As we know, over the last 10 years there have been 850 offences in relation to begging. It is not as if this particular matter sat on the statute books and was never used by police.

The other part of the issue in relation to the removal of the begging offence – this is a very, very serious tangential issue – is we know that this government have gone weak on move-on laws. Those two issues together will cause an increase in antisocial behaviour. We have seen that the weakness of move-on laws is having an effect. Even police have confirmed it. Everybody has confirmed, other than the government, that move-on law changes have been a problem. This is why the coalition has been so strong on move-on laws, because we believe police deserve the power. We believe police need the power and police think they need the power, but the government does not think they need the power. When you decriminalise begging at the same time as having removed move-on laws, those two issues have a flow-on effect in terms of antisocial behaviour and police response. There are circumstances where police need to act. The culmination of what the government has done, by going weak again and again and again and cutting consequences again and again and again, has an impact on behaviour that is occurring. We are seeing a city that is on its knees, partly because behaviour is being not only tolerated but encouraged. Behaviour is being encouraged. We know that is true. That is why the coalition has such strong views on these issues. It is sad to see, with these amendments, what Labor is doing.

But what we also know is, though they were not aware of these changes, Victorians have worked it out. And this Parliament has another three sitting days, so there is only so much damage they can do in that time. I tell you what, these amendments prove one thing: this government is hell-bent on damaging Victoria. Figure out a way to damage Victoria and this Labor government will find a way. I look forward to this Premier standing up tomorrow and having to explain where the genesis of these two amendments came from. Where did these two amendments come from? Well, we know where they came from. They came from the crossbench the government wanted to do a dirty deal with. That is where they came from. Is there any other point of principle in relation to these amendments? Did they come from the Victorian Law Reform Commission? No. Did they come from any peak body? No. Did anyone even contact the government to seek to amend their bill to do it?

When the Attorney-General got up to speak about these amendments, the Attorney did not justify the background as to what led them. The Attorney did not justify why, why, why. So when the Premier gets up tomorrow – if he does, because he is very good at holding occasional press conferences, delivering single sentences and sitting down – he will have to explain where these two amendments came from. It is not an unreasonable question to ask, is it, when amendments are moved that have a serious implication, as does an amendment to the Summary Offences Act: how did this happen? Where did this come from? The truth is that this set of amendments is purely about doing a dirty deal in the upper house, because there are so few votes this government naturally have in the Council to support things they are proposing to do. The government has now been forced to be bought ‍– ‍to go to independents and say, ‘How can we buy our votes?’

It is completely unreasonable to make these changes without any form of consultation. How can it be that these changes have been proposed without being announced? The two facts are that (1) there was no announcement of the change and (2) the Attorney’s office did not support the change, and I went through that in some detail earlier. In fact there was genuine shock at the proposal that these could be supported in any way, and I am not the only member of Parliament who will put that on the record, because it is true. It is true that the Attorney took the view, I suspect, that changes of this nature should not be made at a whim. Set aside the substance – when you make an amendment, it is reasonable to understand what you are proposing to do and the implication of what you are proposing to do, and that is why you announce, you consult, you discuss. And so –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Essendon will come to order.

James NEWBURY: Obviously another long lunch. These amendments should not be before this chamber, because they were not announced. They were not supported by the member who moved them. It is not an unreasonable point for us to make.

I would like to reiterate the point that I made earlier in relation to the implication. When it comes to begging, the most recent statistics show that between 2017 and this year there were 850 offences. In relation to the fines amendment, 2200 warrants are being cut by this government – cutting consequences. Victorians know. That is why we will not support them. We cannot support it. There are 2200 instances that this morning this government believed were people who had committed an offence in a way that should have seen them imprisoned. This says everything about this government and the dirty deals they are willing to do to buy votes in the Council. That is what this is about, the dirty deals this government is actually doing, and Victorians are being damaged because of it.

 Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon) (15:16): I am very pleased to rise in support of the amendments that have been moved by the Attorney-General, who again reiterates her support for these amendments. There are two things we can be sure of at all times: first is that the Liberal Party will consistently do everything in their power to talk our great city down; second is that they will do everything that they can in their power to blame victims, to criminalise poverty and to show not one ounce of empathy when it comes to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Quite frankly what we saw just then from the member for Brighton was a hysterical and frankly nasty response to very important amendments.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on her feet knows all too well that she is straying very much from the bill and using this as an opportunity to attack the opposition.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member is being relevant. It was brought up in debate.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I want to first just talk to the amendments as they relate to begging. Let us be clear: what these amendments do is seek to decriminalise begging in our streets. And let us understand that begging, as it currently exists, is a crime of poverty. Right? So we are responding to recommendations arising from the eminent and highly respected former Victorian coroner John Cain in relation to the very tragic death of 27-year-old Jessica Geddes, killed by her abusive partner in 2020. Jessica often begged for food and money while she was waiting on her Centrelink payments that were directed to her abusive partner. So let us be clear about the people that we are talking about here.

I think it is also important to put on the record some facts in relation to the actual incidents of fines being issued in relation to begging here or charges being issued in relation to begging. Begging charges have dropped by 90 per cent in the last five years, and just 10 charges were laid in 2024–25. No jail time has been imposed for begging in more than three years, so let us be clear about the nature of the problem that we are dealing with here. What is more, the advice that the government has received is that police have all the powers that they need to deal with any problematic behaviours that are occurring on the street in relation to breaches of the peace for obscene, indecent and threatening language and so on. So the police have the powers that they need to deal with behaviour on the streets that may be disruptive to others.

I talked about the Liberals attacking our great city and state at every opportunity that they have. Do you know what Time Out magazine recently named as the leading city in the world? What city was that? That would be Melbourne.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I would ask where Time Out magazine is mentioned in relation to the matters currently being considered by the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): You have strayed from the amendments. I ask you to come back, member for Macedon.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, if I may, I am rebutting –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Macedon, I have just ruled. If you can continue with the debate, that would be great.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: In rebutting some of the points that were made by the member for Brighton, who talked about the fact that apparently Melbourne is in the depths of despair and that our traders are doing it really tough, I am not saying that it is not tough for some of our traders, but let us be clear: Melbourne is held up in lights around the world, including by Time Out magazine, and the Economist still has Melbourne as the third-most livable city in the world. Let us be clear: we have a great, great city. The Liberals will always talk down our great city, whereas we will do everything that we can to support it. Secondly, we know that the Liberals have a track record when it comes to attacking people living in poverty in this state. What they have done, and what we have heard from the member for Brighton, is an absolute attack on people, and women in particular, who are struggling in poverty and as a consequence –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, that is a straight imputation. Under standing order 118, I ask her to withdraw.

Daniela De Martino: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, it is a matter for debate. It was a discussion about the contribution being made and the nature of the description of the amendments before the house at the moment and the consequences of them.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member feels as though he has been impugned by another member and has asked for it to be withdrawn, so I ask the member for Macedon to withdraw.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I withdraw.

Danny Pearson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have never done this before, but I would like the member for Brighton to withdraw. I find what he said about me personally offensive.

James Newbury: I withdraw.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: As I was saying, what the amendments seek to do is ensure that where we can we seek to decriminalise poverty, and that is what these amendments do. We know that a criminal response to begging disproportionately punishes the most vulnerable people in our community and is absolutely inconsistent with our government’s commitment to early intervention and prevention.

That leads me to the violence reduction unit and the work that we are doing there to ensure that we are getting in early and working with people who are at risk of offending in the criminal justice system, and indeed this is already showing some really great signs that it is working. A good example of that is the community connectors program, which is getting social workers talking to people –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again the member for Macedon has strayed from the amendments. She has moved to the violence reduction unit, and I ask you to bring her back to the amendments.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am talking about various interventions that our government has made to address poverty –

Cindy McLeish interjected.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: It is about poverty actually – that is why the amendments are here – and about how this can lead to criminal behaviours. If we make early interventions, we can stop this before it starts.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Macedon, you had strayed slightly. I would like you to come back to the amendments that we are debating.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: In the time that I have left, I will support the Attorney-General in the amendments that she has brought to this place. Let us be clear about the intent of these amendments. This is about ensuring that we are acting to decriminalise begging in order to provide a response that is more appropriate – that is, a welfare-led response to poverty as recommended by the coroner John Cain. With regard to the fines amendment, this is in place in order to ensure that vulnerable people are not sent to jail for the crime of being poor. This is what the member for Brighton is arguing should happen: poor people – lock them up. Some people can pay their fines. Some people can access a million dollars from the Liberal Party slush fund to pay their legal fees. Others cannot. And as a consequence of that –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, that is out of order. The contribution is not relevant in any way to the amendment. Simply slagging off a political party is not relevant to the amendments that are before the house. I ask if you could bring the member back to the amendments that are before the house.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: You are nasty.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Before we go any further, member for Brighton, I remind people when they raise a point of order to be succinct.

James Newbury: Under standing order 118, I would ask the member to withdraw the comment she just threw across the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Macedon?

Mary-Anne Thomas: I withdraw.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:26): On the amendments – finally – the Greens will of course be supporting the amendments to decriminalise begging and stop people going to jail for unpaid fines. I have been listening to the debate carefully, and I have to say I am also appalled that the Liberals believe that people who are so destitute they have been forced into begging for food and for money to survive should be punished and potentially jailed and criminalised and charged and put through the criminal justice system. I mean, this is Trump-style politics, it is US-style cruelty. I did not expect that in a compassionate place like Victoria, but here we are. The thing is that we have had begging being illegal and being criminalised in this state for far, far too long. People who are simply asking for help should be met with compassion, should be met with assistance, should be met with understanding. They should not be met with punishment and they should certainly not be met with criminal sanctions.

Nine years ago my Greens colleague in the other place Sue Pennicuik MLC moved an amendment to decriminalise begging. Nine years ago I started advocating to decriminalise begging. As the member for the city of Melbourne, where I dare say most of the charges would be laid against people begging, I was very proud to advocate to decriminalise begging. I have an article here from the Age from nine years ago, back in 2017, before many people here were even in this chamber, about my advocacy. The headline is ‘Greens begging law reform is about compassion’, and that is exactly what it is about. Some of my quotes in that article are as relevant now as they were back then. Back then we had Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, who was taking a very punitive approach to people sleeping rough or facing hardship on our streets, a Liberal Party lord mayor. But we also had a Labor Party who refused to decriminalise begging. The only reason they are doing it now is because they have been forced into doing it by the independents and the Greens. My quotes in the article read:

The Labor Party and Lord Mayor want to keep begging a crime and keep throwing people in jail or finding them just for asking for help. That doesn’t do a thing to solve the problem …

I absolutely stand behind those words that I said nine years ago. I also said they should be investing in services rather than demonising people who are falling through the cracks. Absolutely, I stand by those words. That is why I am very pleased to support these amendments to finally do something that I called for nine years ago – to decriminalise begging to help people who are facing hardship on our streets, not put them through the criminal justice system.

We have seen a concerning rise in particular in governments and councils taking a punitive approach to people facing hardship on our streets. We know that housing is completely unaffordable. We know we have rising homelessness and rising rough sleeping on our streets. That is not the only form of homelessness that is rising, but it is the most visible form of homelessness. We know we have seen cuts to our mental health services. We have seen cuts to alcohol and drug addiction and rehabilitation services. There is barely a day where there is a public drug or alcohol rehabilitation bed available in Victoria right now – most days there is not even one bed available. So when the Liberal Party, the member for Brighton or others see people facing hardship on our streets, who might be begging, who might be facing a crisis, they should just think, ‘Why is that person there?’ Nobody chooses to be there. Nobody chooses that kind of life. You would not choose it, and you would not wish it on your worst enemy. But the reason those people are there is largely because systems and services have failed them. The child protection system has usually been the one that has failed people.

When I was first elected as the member for Melbourne something that happened just a few years into my first term was that we saw City Square occupied, before it was closed due to the Metro Tunnel work. City Square was one of our big open public squares in Melbourne. A number of people who were experiencing rough sleeping and homelessness went and occupied that square. They went and occupied that square because they wanted to shine a light on the homelessness crisis that was happening in Melbourne and the failure of services. They wanted to say, ‘We are not invisible. We are sleeping rough in our city, but we are not less than human.’ They wanted to say to people, ‘We are here, and these are the issues we are facing.’ They invited people to come down and talk to them, to talk to rough sleepers about why they were sleeping rough on our streets. I took up that invitation. I went down there, and I spent hours with people who were sleeping rough, who were occupying City Square, who wanted their city to take their issues seriously. The majority of people I spoke to had come out of the child protection system. That ultimately was the catalyst for them ending up sleeping rough on the streets of the City of Melbourne.

We have a government system, the child protection system, that has so fundamentally failed people that they have ended up sleeping on our streets. It is so obvious that it is system failure that is leading people to that situation. We have had a royal commission into the mental health crisis, but many of the recommendations of that royal commission have still not been fulfilled. I was meeting with Melbourne City Mission just the other day. They were telling me about the recommendation for 500 ‍beds with mental health support for young people who are experiencing homelessness and mental health issues and that those 500 beds had been promised and never delivered. They are desperately in need of those 500 beds.

Frontyard is the Melbourne City Mission’s drop-in centre. It is the access point or the first door that you can go to when you are a young person in the City of Melbourne who needs a place to stay and is experiencing homelessness; you go to Frontyard. I have been down there at Frontyard, I have seen the amazing work they do and I have spoken to the people who work there. The people at Frontyard have a big whiteboard. Before they open their doors in the morning, they get into the office and call around every crisis accommodation provider that is within cooee of the City of Melbourne to find out how many beds are available for young people, because they know as soon as they open their doors they will get an influx of young people who need somewhere to sleep that night. They put up on the whiteboard the number of beds that are available. They do that every single morning. Every single morning when they open their doors they have an influx of people and those beds are filled almost instantly, and then there are no more beds available. There are still people coming through the door, but they cannot house them. Those workers are at their wit’s end. They are like, ‘There’s just no beds. There is no housing to send these people to.’

When I spoke to people experiencing homelessness and particularly rough sleeping at City Square, a lot of them also told me that the reason they are sleeping on the streets of Melbourne is because there is no long-term housing available. Yes, they might get into transitional housing or crisis housing accommodation for a month, maybe two months, maybe three months, but after that there is nowhere for them to go because there is no public housing, because the government is not building any more public housing; in fact they are demolishing public housing. We have the lowest investment –

Members interjecting.

Ellen SANDELL: Well, it is true. It actually is true. We have the lowest investment per person in public housing of any state or territory. That is a simple fact. It is simply a fact that in Victoria we have the lowest amount spent on public housing and social housing of any state or territory. That is a fact. I notice the people opposite are quiet now, because they cannot dispute the facts.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member needs to be factual. People also live in social housing, so she is just taking one element of housing.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I ask the member for Melbourne to come back to the amendments.

Ellen SANDELL: I will come back to the amendments, and I am being entirely factual to say that this Labor government is demolishing and privatising public housing – all 44 towers, many of which are in my electorate.

I would like to go back to the City of Melbourne, because we are talking about an amendment which is about decriminalising begging, and this does affect a lot of people in the City of Melbourne. I was mentioning before that there has been a concerning rise in councils using punitive approaches when it comes to people begging on our streets or people facing rough sleeping and homelessness on our streets. We have seen it with Port Phillip, where they have sent in officers to just simply take – steal – people’s belongings and take them away and dispose of them without their consent. We have also seen it with the City of Melbourne, where they are spending $3.75 million to put security officers on the streets of the City of Melbourne who, homelessness services have reported, have been going around and essentially bullying rough sleepers and people begging and making people feel very unsafe on the streets. These are armed officers, who are security officers, roaming the streets. That $3.75 million would be much better spent on assertive outreach.

I know this government supports assertive outreach. They talked about it on Tuesday at the Council to Homeless Persons event that I attended. The City of Melbourne are also out there lauding their record investment of just over $2 million in assertive outreach – health workers, mental health workers ‍– ‍a health-led response, with people going around the city and actually getting to know rough sleepers, getting to know people who are begging, connecting with the services they need, forming a connection with them and providing some long-term solutions. The City of Melbourne has been celebrated for spending that $2 million. They themselves, I know, are very proud of it. That is a good investment. It is the biggest investment of any council in that type of activity and that type of program, which is very good. But it is dwarfed by the $3.75 million that they are spending on security officers. I very much hope that with the passing of this law to decriminalise begging, we can see that $3.75 million – which I know our Greens councillor Olivia Ball has been very outspoken against – redirected to health-led, assertive outreach on our streets to keep everybody safe, health workers visible in our communities to keep everybody safe and programs that actually work, not programs that are simply about punishing people or getting a good headline in the Herald Sun.

When it comes to decriminalising begging, I would like to thank Sue Pennicuik, my former colleague, for her advocacy on this matter. It has been nine years, but it is finally here. It is a very good change to our laws that will make our state and our city a fairer and more compassionate place to be.

The second part of these amendments is around people who have unpaid infringement fines. We know that the law in this state has been that you can go to prison for having unpaid infringement fines. This is a terrible, terrible law. I have also spoken about this many times, and I would like to thank the incredible people at Justice Connect and Westjustice who first brought this issue to my attention many, many years ago, and I have raised this in the chamber before. This is essentially the state acting as a debt collector for big corporations, particularly big toll road companies like Transurban. We know that big corporations like Transurban and the state Labor government have a pretty cushy relationship, but I do not think that the state should use its resources to act as a debt collector for a private corporation. I think that is very bad public policy. We do not get the state to act as a debt collector for other private corporations. If you do not pay your phone bill, for example, it is not like the sheriff can come knocking. But that is the case when it comes to CityLink tolls, for example, where Transurban has managed to get the Labor government to agree to act as their debt collector and do that work for them. I think that is pretty atrocious.

The Greens have been against this for years, and today we are seeing a partial reform to this system to remove some historical unexecuted warrants for imprisonment for unpaid infringement fines. That is good, and it is entirely appropriate. The Greens very much support it. Thank you to the community legal centres, who do not get nearly enough credit for the incredible advocacy they do on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in our state – people who walk into their office literally with bags of unpaid fines and warrants. It is community legal centres – really good people – who spend hours and hours sorting through these fines and warrants that are largely, again, due to poverty, due to vulnerability, due to failures in our government systems and due to this dodgy deal that the government has been able to do with Transurban that has largely created this horror for so many people.

I would just lastly say that if we are doing reform when it comes to fines, there is another issue that the Greens have put on the table for many years that I think warrants looking at very closely, and it is a very commonsense reform, which is concessional fines. This is something that we did during COVID that we put on the table for the government, and they picked it up, and it was a very good reform. It would mean that people who earn less pay less in fines and people who earn more pay more in fines. It happens in other places around the world. It is a fairness measure, but it is also an effectiveness measure, because a fine for someone who earns a decent income – a speeding fine, for example – is a lot less punitive and is a lot less punishment than the same fine for someone who is on income support or earning a much lower wage, for example. Essentially, the same fine has differing levels of impact and punishment and deterrence.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Melbourne, I ask you to speak to the amendments.

Ellen SANDELL: We very much support these amendments, and we hope that we go one step further in this Parliament or the next to do other fines measures that are similar to these amendments but extending them, such as concessional fines. We did it during COVID, and we can do it again. It is a very commonsense fairness measure. I will leave my comments at that.

 Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (15:43): I am really, really pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026, a bill that is iconic and emblematic of the type of government we are: a Labor government who supports women, supports the vulnerable and cares for people in Victoria who are doing it tough. We know that those opposite do not care about the most vulnerable Victorians. They do not care when they are locking them up, when they are wanting to make their lives even harder. They do not consider a trauma-informed response to these very, very vulnerable people, who are experiencing the very worst time of their lives when they have no other choice to survive and the only strategy that they have to survive is to beg.

It is not a lifestyle choice to beg people for money, to ask people for support. Extreme poverty should not be a crime, and that is what allowing people who have been found to be begging to be sent to jail would make it. It would criminalise extreme poverty, and that is not okay. I really want to say that we have to look at the kind of Victoria that we want to be – the Victoria we want to be today and the Victoria we want to be in the future, not only the short-term future but the long-term future. What does our state look like for future generations, and what messages are we sending our children and our future grandchildren about what Victoria stands for and who we are? I think that we have to really think about these terms. As Nelson Mandela wrote in his book Long Walk to Freedom, do not look at how a society treats its highest citizens, look at how a society treats its lowest citizens. That is what our values and our compassion are about. That is what the Education State is about. It is about lifting people out of poverty. It is about asking what is the best for the future, and locking people up for begging is not that. This is a moral test for this Parliament. This amendment is a moral test – you get to choose what side you want to be on. Do you want to be on the side of people who are trying to get by? We are on the side of those people, and that is why we have invested in Foodbank. That is why we are making sure that people who need food can get the food they need through organisations like Foodbank. I had the opportunity to visit Foodbank in Ballarat with the Premier –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Wendouree has moved far from the amendments. I ask you to bring her back.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Wendouree, I ask you to talk about the amendments, please.

Juliana ADDISON: Absolutely. When people in Ballarat are begging for food, for survival, I am saying that going to Foodbank is a way that people in their most vulnerable times can get food. There is an alternative thanks to our government, thanks to the care and the support we have for vulnerable Victorians, and I am proud of that. And I am going to say that when I was there the other day with the Premier, talking about people, about survival, so they do not have to beg, there was a woman there who said to me that she had not had a coffee in five years, because that is how hard it is. She did not have any spare money to get a coffee. When you go to the Foodbank in Mitchell Park, in the good electorate of Ripon, you get offered a coffee upon arrival and you get dignity. Dignity is the absolute opposite of begging. That is why I talk about dignity and the dignity that Foodbank in Ballarat gives, because it says to people, ‘You are worthy of more. You deserve respect’ and that is what is at the heart of these amendments. It is respect for people. It is respect for people who are at risk of homelessness. It is respect for people who are doing it really, really tough and who have no other means of survival but to beg.

I want to give a shout-out to Melissa Hardman, the CEO of Westjustice, who is an extraordinary person who is doing really, really good things in the west. I want to also give a shout-out to Allied Justice, who is supporting the most vulnerable. When every other door has been closed, Allied Justice in Ballarat, our community legal service, is providing legal advice and legal support to help people on the worst day of their lives, and I just want to say thank you. Allied Justice is based in my electorate of Wendouree but does great work across the Central Highlands region. And to Louisa Gibbs, for her leadership as CEO of the Federation of Community Legal Services: thank you for your commitment to supporting the most vulnerable people when they need legal advice. Whether it is for a summary offence or whether it is for any other legal requirements that they require, our community legal centres are about protecting the most vulnerable and really making sure that we are looking after the most vulnerable members of our community.

I just want to say that the section that we aim to amend is really, really important. We have seen these laws dismantled in other jurisdictions. In the UK they have dismantled these laws, and we have seen it in other states. Victoria is such an amazing jurisdiction that we often lead the nation, but in this case we need to catch up. We need to make these amendments to ensure that Victorians are given the support. And the reason we need to make sure that this amendment goes through is because of the disproportionate punishment that this provides to our most vulnerable. I do not often agree with the member for Melbourne, but I do recognise that for someone who earns a living wage or well beyond that, a fine is something that may be an inconvenience. For someone who is homeless, for someone who is couch surfing, for someone who has found themselves unable to get to a place where they may get a couch that night – they may need to jump on a V/Line train or they may need to get a bus somewhere and they may need to beg to get that – a fine has a disproportionate impact, and I think that us showing compassion and living our values is so important.

I know we have got the member for Shepparton coming up. With the consideration of the house right now I just want to say thank you to the member for Shepparton. She has been outstanding. I am really looking forward to her valedictory speech, because the member for Shepparton has just walked in and I am delighted that she can hear this. Thank you so much to the member for Shepparton for the four years that you have served in this place and also the eight years you have served your community. We are indebted to you, and you will be absolutely missed.

In wrapping up my contribution today I want to say that I am very, very pleased to be on the right side of history on this one, to stand up when the moral question was asked of this Parliament about what decency looks like. When someone is having the worst day of their life, what would Jesus do? I ask the member for Sandringham: what would Jesus do?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Through the Chair, member for Wendouree.

Juliana ADDISON: Through the Chair, I am looking over to the member for Sandringham, who is a man of great faith.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Wendouree has strayed very much again from the amendments. Could you please bring her back?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I ask the member to come back to the amendments.

Juliana ADDISON: Because we are so late in the 60th term of this Parliament, the member for Eildon is a little bit upset because she thought she was my favourite Liberal and I have not given her a shout-out. So, member for Eildon, thank you for your care and concern. Go Cats. We are still on a unity ticket when it comes to the Geelong Football Club but not on a unity ticket when it comes to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill. I commend the amendments to the house.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:53): I will be keeping my remarks to the amendments that we have. There are a lot of people in the chamber who have not been following this bill closely and following the amendments. The amendments were not brought forward by the Labor government. In fact they were brought forward by Legalise Cannabis, and there was a lot of debate during the three days on whether the government supported them or not, because there were points where they did not support them. I do want to also put on record that if those in government took care to research some of the most charitable organisations in the state, they would find that they were established by Liberal Party members and have done an amazing job.

This set of amendments has had a very topsy-turvy pathway through the chamber. On Monday afternoon we were advised that Legalise Cannabis had a couple of amendments that they were bringing forward. As we have heard, the first set related to the decriminalisation of begging, and that was including a new clause in the bill to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966. This act was not already in the bill. It was not part of the original bill. It was something that was not directly related to the really important matter that was before the house around family violence and coercive control and changes to good character. The second lot of amendments were addressing imprisonment in relation to unpaid infringement notices and fines. We had not been lobbied by any stakeholder with regard to these matters, and it was a little bit of a surprise when the government changed their tune probably three times about whether they were going to support these amendments or not. I have my notes written down from my discussions with ministerial advisers about the path of what was happening. They were debated on Tuesday, and instead of going into committee, where these amendments would have been discussed, they were pulled and it was adjourned, and no-one knew what was happening. Legalise Cannabis did not understand whether the government was supporting their amendments or not, and we certainly had no idea what was happening. We actually spoke to Legalise Cannabis, talked about our position on those and had some very good discussions between Ms Crozier and Ms Payne in the other place.

On Tuesday again we were advised that the Premier’s private office had a different view to the ministerial office; we were told at one point they were supporting them and we were told at another point they were not supporting them. We had different information given to different people. To hear what was talked about by government members when they had not been part of this is really quite affronting. The notes that I took yesterday from my discussions with the minister’s office show some were being supported and others were not being supported, and they expected them to withdraw them before it went to the vote, noting that the member who was moving those wanted to speak on them. We were consistently given conflicting information by a government who really did not know what was happening. They did not know whether they were going to support these or not. They certainly did not bring these forward, and it was never on their agenda to bring these forward; it was because they were raised by another member in the other place. We had spoken, as I said, to a member for Legalise Cannabis about our position and our concerns, and I think I will leave it at that. It has already been canvassed that we will be opposing these amendments. They have not had a smooth path through.

At the same time I reiterate most strongly our support for the changes regarding coercive control and good character, which are well overdue. They are something that we canvassed in this place 12 months ago. Even though the legislation is passing now, it is still going to be some time – another 18 months ‍– before those changes come into being.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (15:57): I am very pleased to rise and contribute to the amendments which have been returned from the Council to us here. I was listening with great intent to the member for Wendouree’s very fine contribution – very impassioned contribution – on the importance of these changes that we are very happy as a government to agree to. I actually had a look at amendment 4, which inserts part 10A, ‘Repeal of offence of begging or gathering alms’. That in itself gives us an indication of the age of this kind of offence, which is no longer now going to be an offence in the state of Victoria, and for that I am beyond thrilled. It is an Old English word ‘alms’, and it comes from ‘ælmysse’, which comes from the ancient Greek word ‘eleēmosynē’, and I did check with the Minister for Sport to make sure that I was correct in that pronunciation, and he thinks I was. It was the United Kingdom’s Vagrancy Act 1824 which first introduced this as an offence, and what a sad state it is to actually criminalise poverty. In accepting these amendments, what we are saying quite loudly and quite proudly as a government is that we will not criminalise people who are poor and who are at their lowest ebb and have to beg just to get by. As the member for Wendouree quite clearly stated, it is not a lifestyle choice to go out and beg, it is a point of absolute, complete desperation. If someone is at that point in their life where they have to sit there with their hand out or ask someone for something to be given to them because they have absolutely nothing, we should not be criminalising them. They should not be punished for that; instead they should be dealt with with care and with compassion and be taken care of when they are at their absolute lowest point.

I note that the clock is ticking down towards what I expect will be a very fine contribution from a person in this chamber, the member for Shepparton, who I have had so much time for over the past four years – a true woman of distinction, a real lady in this place. I am really delighted that I will be sitting in here to hear her very, very fine contribution, and with mere seconds to go I commend these amendments to the house, and I look forward to the member for Shepparton.

The SPEAKER: The time has come for me to interrupt business in accordance with the resolution of the house today for the member for Shepparton to make her valedictory statement. I remind visitors in the galleries that no photography or filming is allowed.