Wednesday, 23 September 2026

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (09:34): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to provide greater powers for police officers to search persons for weapons and for other purposes.

The reason I introduce this bill in this Parliament today is obviously a reflection of what has happened around Jack’s law here in this state. We have actually seen here in this very Parliament that the Victorian Labor Party have continued to try and stop legislation going through to give Victoria Police the powers they urgently need. Last year the then shadow minister for police the honourable member for Caulfield tried to introduce Jack’s law here in this state. The reason he did that was because knife crime was out of control here in Victoria. The Labor government refused to even allow a debate on the bill, even though we had the Beasley family here with us at the time, who had lost their –

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: It highlights the disinterest of Labor when it comes to protecting people here in Victoria that they can sit in this chamber and totally ignore the fact that we need this legislation and we need it urgently.

When Jack died in Queensland, the Queensland government acted and brought in Jack’s law. That gave the police members up there the powers to stop and scan to ensure they could get knives off the street. There have been more than 2500 charges since that time – the opposite here in Victoria. Since the legislation was attempted to be introduced in November last year, we have continued to see more young people die at the hands of knife crime here in this state. We continue to see offenders walking around the streets with machetes. We saw just the other week another graphic image of a person who was attacked with a machete across the face. I met with a victim this week who is still going through surgery after a knife attack in his own home, where he has had to get surgery on his arm continuously and will never be able to fully use that arm again.

This is what the Victorian Labor government do. Unless it is their idea, they think it cannot be done. But what is worse is this week the Premier has come out and said if re-elected he will introduce Jack’s law next year. I would say to the community: you cannot wait for that to happen. If it had been introduced in November and gone through, the police would have the powers and the wands, and we would have less knives on our street. We all know the machete bin stunt did not work. The only thing the machete bins did here in Victoria was highlight how incompetent Labor is with money. But the reality is that what we wanted to see was weapons off the street using wands here in the hands of Victoria Police.

We all know Victoria Police do the best job they can with the resources they have got. I note the former Minister for Police sitting at the table who on many occasions in here has said, ‘I will give and have given the resources to Victoria Police they need to keep the community safe.’ Well, Victoria Police want Jack’s law and Labor stopped it. That is the fact, the absolute fact that Labor stopped Jack’s law coming in, had opportunities to introduce it themselves, to bring it through this Parliament to keep the community safe, but have decided they want to use it as an election ploy rather than a safety ploy here in Victoria. That is what happens under this government. The current Premier was part of the cabinet that made the decision to ensure that Jack’s law would not go through. This is a Premier who talks about new direction, but the reality is all he is trying to do is backtrack and walk away from the many decisions he has made that have left Victorians less safe, whether it is less police here in Victoria or the closing of police stations. Even worse, not only did he come out and say he wants to keep police stations open, but a week later he closed four more here in the state. He closed the four around Collingwood, Fitzroy, North Melbourne and Southbank. That means we have got less opportunities for Victoria Police to go out and keep the community safe. We must see –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Brad BATTIN: They never did open Heidelberg West police station after they closed it back in 2010. But what we do know is that we need to see Jack’s law here in Victoria. We need to see legislation to give Victoria Police the powers they need to get the knives off the street, because what we do not want to see, what we cannot afford to see, is more people being attacked with knives, more people being at risk because of the knives on the street, and we cannot afford to see one more death here in this state, because we have seen far too many because Labor failed to act.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (09:39): The Premier has been very clear that a re-elected Labor government will support the implementation of Jack’s law, but not only that, that we would invest in a second police academy, because it is all very well to say, ‘Oh, we’ll have thousands of police’, but if you do not actually have somewhere to train them and you do not commit to that, how are you going to get all these new recruits up to speed? Unless they are actually legit on this holistic picture when it comes to supporting our police, how can you take them seriously?

Jess Wilson: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, this is a procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: Members will come back to the procedural debate about the introduction of a bill by the member for Berwick.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, I am well aware – and I take your advice, Speaker – that this is a procedural debate, but it is the opposition who have raised the issue of Jack’s law. We need police to be able to implement Jack’s law, so we have promised a second police academy. That was the reason that I raised that issue, because you cannot say, ‘Yes, we’ll have 3000 police, but we won’t train them. We’ll just say a nice number for the purposes of perhaps disguising the actual intent behind the reforms.’ We also have reservists that are helping with our police stations. I will say about Southbank that I was –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for South-West Coast!

Jess Wilson: On a point of order, Speaker, I renew my point of order on relevance.

The SPEAKER: Come back to the motion before the house about the introduction of a bill by the member for Berwick.

Nina TAYLOR: Absolutely. We have many important matters to discuss this week as part of the government program –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Members will cease shouting down the member on her feet.

Nina TAYLOR: I will reiterate – and I think this is within the ambit of the discussion – that we have committed a re-elected Labor government to implementing Jack’s law. It was, in fact, the member for Berwick that raised the issue of police in Southbank; that is why I raised the issue. But anyway, we might reserve that discussion for another day because we have got plenty more to get on with this week.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (09:41): I rise to support the member for Berwick in his introduction of Jack’s law into the chamber. Unfortunately, this law not being in is costing Victorian people their lives. The inaction of a government that refuses to bring in a sensible law, a law that has been proven to work up in Queensland, is to the detriment of people here in Victoria. The Premier talks a tough game about how he is completely different from the previous government that sat here for the last four years. Today is the day that he can stand up and prove that by allowing us to debate the law, to keep people in Victoria safe.

I only have to reference and go back to one person, Dr Ash Gordon, who tragically lost his life after being stabbed multiple times on the streets of Doncaster a few years ago. I still, to this day, have conversations with his family.

The one thing that I am very passionate about is making sure that weapons are not being carried by particular people on our streets by giving police the laws and the powers that they do need to be able to use wands and to tell someone on the street, ‘You need to be checked because we think you are carrying a concealed weapon.’ That, unfortunately, goes to the fact that people are losing their lives on the streets of Victoria.

Jack’s law is a sensible bill that we need to bring in. As I said before, it has been proven that it is working in Queensland; it is keeping the people of Queensland safe. We tried to bring the bill in last year, and the government voted it down. I am expecting that again, after we finish here today, they will vote that bill down again today, and in their defence they will say, ‘We will bring it in if we are re-elected.’ We need to bring it in now. If it is brought in after the election, it is going to be too late once again for some poor individual going about their daily routine, walking the streets of Melbourne or regional Victoria where they are going to possibly or probably lose their lives when they interact with a person that is walking the streets carrying a concealed weapon. Enough is enough. It is time this government stands up. It is a sensible bill. It is the right bill. It is the right time to bring it in and debate it. We have nothing else to debate in the chamber this week, so bring this on. Let us keep the people of Victoria safe. Let us keep young people, mums and dads, and tradies that are on the streets going about their daily routines safe, because at the moment they are not.

When I walk the streets of Morwell, which has the highest crime rate outside metropolitan Melbourne, I can see with my own eyes individuals that I am not going to go near because I know they are carrying a concealed weapon.

It is frightening that we are putting elderly people going about their daily routines – going to the shops and going to the supermarket to go shopping – under the stress of running into these individuals because the government is not prepared to debate this bill today to keep them safe in their homes and on the streets. We need to do the right thing. As I said before, Jack’s law works. It works. It has been proven to work up in Queensland.

The one thing that you want to do as an MP in this place is keep your constituents safe. As I said, this is sensible. It is a great bill the member for Berwick has brought in, because he knows it works. We talked to the police. They know they need the powers to be able to walk up to individuals and say, ‘We need to check you.’ If they have got an issue with that, they are probably the ones that are actually carrying a concealed weapon that is going to be used to hurt someone, threaten someone or, as in the case of poor Dr Ash Gordon, kill someone and make his family go through birthdays and Christmases and live a nightmare every single day. Their beloved son, who was doing the right thing as a doctor and going about his daily routine, lost his life because the government will not debate this law to keep people safe.

As I said, we do not have anything else to debate today and tomorrow, so let us do the right thing by the people of Victoria. Let us keep them safe. Let us introduce this bill and once and for all bring it in. They tell us that they want to do it after the election. Well, after the election will be too late for one individual. Bring Jack’s law in today. It is a great bill by the member of Berwick, and we should be debating it.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (09:47): I rise as the member for Pascoe Vale, of course, but also as the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Safety on this matter, because every single person across our state deserves the right to feel and be safe. Whether it is in their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in their streets, in their workplaces, in their retail precincts or in their school spaces, every single Victorian has the right to feel safe. That is exactly why we as a government have been taking that strong, real and tough action when it comes to cracking down on serious violent crime and tackling the root causes of crime.

Members interjecting.

Anthony CIANFLONE: For the member seeking to move this bill, which I respect and I acknowledge, to suggest that we have been doing otherwise is totally, totally incorrect, because we have been taking that action. And in many of the ways and on many of the occasions we have been progressing that action through this chamber, as you can hear through interjections here, the opposition have been constantly trying to create obstacles, obstruct, oppose and delay a lot of that tough action we were seeking to progress, whether it was banning machetes, the nation’s first ban on machetes, which collected almost 30,000 machetes that were either seized or returned during the amnesty period – yes, through the machete bins. That is almost 30,000 dangerous weapons that are now off the streets that would still be on the streets if the Liberal–National opposition had had their way. They did not support us introducing that strong measure.

We have introduced tougher reforms. We have introduced firearm reforms largely consistent with the national cabinet decisions that were introduced following that tragic incident and tragic massacre in Bondi. That includes the tougher background checks that we are introducing. I say that, as well, as someone who is the chair of the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, which brings together people from right across the shooting sector, the sporting sector and also the community safety sector. We are taking strong action –

James Newbury: On a point of order on relevance, Speaker, the member is starting to stray.

The SPEAKER: Members have been speaking quite broadly on this motion. I do remind members that these are fairly tight motions, so, if you could, speak to why the bill should or should not be introduced.

Anthony CIANFLONE: Thank you, Speaker, and of course I take your guidance. I am simply providing the context, before getting to that substance on that strong action that we have been taking. As the member for Albert Park said earlier, we have made a commitment to introduce Jack’s law, which is to introduce the expansion of search powers. By the way, to a large extent these powers already exist within designated zones at the decision and discretion of the Chief Commissioner of Police.

We have committed to expanding that, consistent with Jack’s law that has been introduced interstate, to provide police and PSOs with the use of hand-held wands to search in broader public spaces across Victoria where there are threats or perceptions of threats, and suspicious individuals. We have made a commitment to introduce that as well. That will be accompanied by 1200 extra hand-held wands for our police and PSOs to undertake that work. But it is also important that, when we introduce this legislation, we get these measures right. I would have thought the party for civil liberties and freedom would be very conscious and cognisant of that, particularly as we work to refine and introduce this legislation in a way that is consistent with community expectations, with keeping us safe and also with the philosophy, largely, of the Liberal Party.

We are introducing and recruiting more police. We have made the commitment to set up a new academy in the western suburbs and in the Gippsland region as well. We have introduced tougher bail laws, which have seen remand at record highs and more people who have breached their bail conditions be held on remand as well. We are taking that strong action. We have established the violence reduction unit as well, with $30 million to tackle the root causes of crime – which, if the Liberal–One Nation coalition got in, they would cut. They would cut the violence reduction unit. They have not made a commitment to retain it or expand it.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, you have put to the member that he needs to contain his comments to the introduction of the bill. The member is now simply sledging, misusing the Parliament’s time. He certainly is not being relevant.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I would ask you not to use a point of order as an opportunity to make a statement to the house.

James Newbury: I am not, but I am making the point that he is sledging.

The SPEAKER: I would also ask you to cease reflecting on the Chair. Member for Pascoe Vale, come back to the introduction of the bill.

Anthony CIANFLONE: When it comes to community safety, we are taking that action.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:52): I rise to support the member for Berwick’s call to introduce Jack’s law immediately into Victoria. 308 days ago we had Brett Beasley come to this Parliament seeking an urgent meeting with the Premier to bring Jack’s law into Victoria. We saw day after day knife crime happening on our streets in Melbourne and the government doing nothing about it except for introducing $13 million worth of waste-of-space machete bins. We saw a solution to knife crime, a solution which was brought about by Brett and Belinda Beasley after losing their son Jack in 2019 to a knife crime, where their son was killed outside a nightclub in Surfers Paradise. They have been campaigning since to bring in Jack’s law right across the states and also overseas, including the UK. We have seen other states introduce this. We have seen WA introduce this. We have seen New South Wales and Queensland, obviously, introduce this right across their states. So we have seen a model that has worked.

We saw Brett waiting, trying to get a meeting with the Premier. He finally got 10 minutes with the Premier and the former police minister, with an undertaking that they would look at this. 308 days later, what do we have? We have a new Premier that says, ‘Well, if we win the election, then we’ll look at it then.’ How many other people need to die before this Premier actually does something? We do not need more stunts; we need action. If this Premier was serious in his word, he would come in here and back our call to introduce Jack’s law into this Parliament. That would show some guts and courage from a Premier that says one thing on the steps but something different in this Parliament. If this Premier was serious in his word that he is different from the former premiers that we have had under this government, then we would see some action. This is an opportunity for them to stand up and show some courage. We have seen something that works in other states – why not have this in Victoria? Why not have it? We heard the member for Pascoe Vale say, ‘We’ve got other powers. We don’t really need them,’ contradicting his Premier, who is saying, ‘We do need them.’ If we do need them, then let us introduce them.

Every day we have Victorians waking up to another knife crime. This is a simple scan-and-search power that gives police the power to go up, use a very small wand and search somebody, and if they have a knife on them, use police powers to then deal with those individuals. That is the way to take knives off the streets, not these waste-of-space machete bins.

Who handed in the machetes? Was it crooks on the way after they had committed a crime? Of course it was not. It was just a stunt. We know the machete bins did not work. We know they did nothing other than have retailers and good Samaritans hand in their agricultural knives and farming knives. The crooks still have the knives – the ones that we need to get off the streets.

How do we deal with it? We deal with it by introducing Jack’s law, by giving scan-and-search powers to police to do their job. We know police want it. We certainly know that we have got a precedent of how these particular powers work. The government needs to get on with it. This is a really important test for this government, for the new Premier who calls himself a new dawn Premier with a whole lot of new leadership. Well, let them show some leadership here today. Let them show that this government actually cares about Victorians that are being attacked on the streets, in their homes, in their cars – that feel unsafe, with the worst crimes happening in this state for a decade. This government has completely failed to keep Victorians safe. They all talk the talk but do not walk the walk. This is an opportunity today.

I call on the Premier to back the member for Berwick and bring in Jack’s law so we see it once and for all. The former police minister was all talk. He did not do anything when it came to actually introducing this. Here is the opportunity. Here is the opportunity to stand up, be counted and ensure Victorians are safe once and for all. Because you cannot say one thing on the steps of Parliament, ‘We’re going to keep Victorians safe,’ but then when we have got an opportunity to do it today in this Parliament find every excuse under the sun. All we are doing over the next period is sledge motions. We have got a great opportunity today to bring in real powers, real laws to keep Victorians safe. I call on the government to do something and ensure Victorians are safe once and for all, and I commend the member for Berwick for bringing this important set of laws today.

 Ella GEORGE (Lara) (09:57): I rise in opposition to the procedural motion introduced by the member for Berwick today. I fully support Jack’s law. All of us on this side of the house do. Victorians are appalled by knife crime, I am appalled by knife crime, and police must have more powers to get knives off our streets. That is exactly why a re-elected Carroll Labor government will implement Jack’s law. I say this as the member for Lara: every Victorian deserves to feel safe. My community is impacted by knife crime. I have met victims of knife crime and they deserve to feel safe, like every single Victorian deserves to feel safe.

But this approach is not the right approach. This is an important reform. We do need to get it right. We will not rush legislation. We will consult with the community, with Victoria Police and with victims of knife crime to make sure that we get this legislation right. Introducing laws like this is incredibly important, and I commend the member for Berwick, because I know this is something he cares deeply about. I commend him for his work in this space. It is very, very important. On this side of the house we fully support Jack’s law, but we want to get it right. We want to make sure the reform is right. We want to make sure the legislation is right. We want to make sure that this is something that the community are comfortable with and that it is the right approach. So while I very much support Jack’s law, I do not support the procedural motion introduced by the member for Berwick.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (09:58): (By leave) Just a brief contribution to put our position on the record. We do have some serious concerns about the laws that are being proposed. We do not support them as the evidence shows that these kinds of sweeping police powers do not keep the community safer. The evidence shows that. The evidence shows that they are disproportionately used to target people of colour and vulnerable Victorians. In 2023 some documents were released under freedom of information that showed that Victoria Police were 11 times more likely to stop and search people they perceived to be of Aboriginal appearance, eight times more likely for people to be perceived as African appearance, five times more likely for Middle Eastern appearance and four times more likely for Pasifika appearance. It showed that they also have an incredibly low success rate, but that force is much more likely to be used at a stop-and-search on people, for example, of Aboriginal appearance.

However, we do support the right of non-government members to be able to introduce bills and have them debated. Our view is let us have the debate. Let us bring these facts about community safety and the ineffectiveness of these laws to the floor and have a conversation about why we need more investment in community safety processes and policies and systems and services that actually do work to keep our community safe, because it is the government’s responsibility to keep the community safe. We all agree on that. More needs to be done in community safety, but it needs to be things that evidence shows actually work: investment in mental health, for example, and investment in homelessness. Let us have that debate. We support the principle of non-government members being able to first read bills.

Assembly divided on motion: