Thursday, 14 August 2025
Bills
Crimes Amendment (Performance Crime) Bill 2025
Bills
Crimes Amendment (Performance Crime) Bill 2025
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:04): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Performance Crime) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill attempts to address performance crime, otherwise known as ‘post and boast’, a trend where certain crimes, often committed by young people, are filmed and posted on social media. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 to create an offence of this kind of behaviour. The offence is broadly defined as ‘where a person publishes or causes to be published material that depicts, describes or otherwise indicates the commission of a relevant offence by the person and that undertakes or causes that publication with the intention of attracting attention to the commission of the offence’. This offence is punishable by up to an additional two years of jail time on top of the penalties for the underlying offence. Offences that will be captured by this law include motor vehicle theft, robbery and armed robbery, burglary and aggravated burglary, home invasion and aggravated home invasion, carjacking and aggravated carjacking, affray, violent disorder and any incitement offence. The government have said that they have chosen these offences to target serious confrontational theft and violent group offences of concern to the community that are increasing in frequency and prevalence, particularly among young offenders.
While we agree that posting and boasting causes further harm to already vulnerable victims of crime, we are not convinced that having a new standalone offence in this way will deal with this issue. The act of posting your crimes online is already something that can be considered at the sentencing stage when deciding how harsh a penalty should be. Jurisdictions that have pushed ahead with these kinds of laws have seen no change in the level of offences. Instead these laws end up pushing young people further and further into the criminal justice system.
As the Legalise Cannabis Party we are particularly concerned about the risk of future changes to any legislation passed that would seek to expand the list of offences captured by these laws. While currently there are no drug offences included, this bill could represent a slippery slope. What is to stop this government or a future conservative government from deciding that posting and boasting about all offences, including drug offences, is deserving of additional time? While the bill as it stands is focused on crimes commonly boasted about on social media, there have already been calls for this bill to be expanded to cover every single loophole. The appetite is there. I will be putting forward some questions in the committee-of-the-whole stage to seek assurances on a number of matters, including that the laws proposed in this bill cannot, presently or in the future, be used to criminalise cannabis consumers.
We understand why this bill is before us today. People are scared, and there have been some deeply troubling instances of people posting and boasting about their crimes. In Victoria police have arrested dozens of alleged offenders following a string of horrific homophobic attacks where dating apps like Grindr were used to lure men to meet-ups where they were violently assaulted, filmed and publicly shamed. There is a trend in anti-LGBTIQA+ rhetoric, particularly with young men who are radicalised to hate. These crimes are deeply disturbing, but the solution is not pushing these people further into the criminal justice system and taking away opportunities to break cycles of violence and hatred. The laws proposed in this bill will not stop people from posting their crimes. As they are written, they may not even capture some of these homophobic attacks.
Coupling this with stakeholder concerns and the Victorian government’s backflips on progressing youth justice reform, the changes in this bill cannot be supported. They are at odds with the evidence and will lead young people to become lifelong criminals. We do not want a future where even a puff of a medicinal cannabis vape posted on Instagram could result in threats of jail time. It is for these reasons we will not be supporting this bill.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (27): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Noes (6): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (14:16)
Rachel PAYNE: Minister, what protections are in place to ensure that the list of relevant offences will be limited to those in the bill and not extended in future to capture drug offences?
Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset you would appreciate that the bill contains very specific offences. They have been drawn from the experience of incidents in practice, picking up on concerning behaviour in practice. The bill is designed to respond firmly to that and, hopefully, deter people from particularly not only committing the crime in the first place but publishing it for broader purposes. That is what we are trying to respond to here. There is no intention from the government to expand it beyond the list. I think in some of the conversations and the contributions that we have heard in the Parliament members have suggested we should have broader things, but this is really designed to be targeted. There are a range of laws that pick up other behaviours that are appropriate for other circumstances, I think. There are aggravated circumstances that are available for a lot of sentencing matters. A lot of the offences that may involve some recording still fall into that potential category for people to consider. This is specifically targeted for this conduct, and the government has no intention of expanding the list of offences.
Rachel PAYNE: What impact is the bill predicted to have on rates of youth incarceration?
Jaclyn SYMES: In all honesty, what we would hope is that these charges do not ever have to be used. We are responding to behaviour that has happened in the past. We hope that, through enabling police to have further powers in relation to charges, there are very few charges. We also hope that there is a deterrence effect in relation to the conversations that we are having about how this is unacceptable behaviour, it should not happen, and if you engage in it, you can suffer further consequences for your offending behaviour. So hopefully it has the effect of having less young people caught up in the justice system.
Rachel PAYNE: This is my final question, and it relates to the string of horrific homophobic attacks that have been reported through dating apps such as Grindr, where they have been used to lure men to meet-ups and there have been violent assaults. These have obviously been filmed and the men publicly shamed. Some people have claimed not all attacks of this kind are covered by the bill as it is currently drafted. When will and won’t these kinds of acts be captured?
Jaclyn SYMES: I share your concern about the horrific examples that have come to light in recent times of bashings that have occurred at meet-ups. It is appalling, and I know that the LGBTIQ+ community in particular have been very interested in the development of this legislation. It is not like most laws; I am not in a position where I can give you examples of what is in and what is out prescriptively. But I want to be very clear that the kinds of hateful, violent incidents that were reported in the media that occurred before this bill came into effect have informed what the government is trying to respond to. Homophobia has absolutely no place in Victoria – not in our streets, not online, not anywhere. Every Victorian has the right to feel safe. We certainly have listened to the LGBTIQ+ community. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them in relation to wanting to address those serious concerns and alleviate fear if we can but indeed enable the law to protect them when appropriate.
Nick McGOWAN: Minister, what is the logic of allowing an individual to share anything they have filmed at least once?
Jaclyn SYMES: This is about responding to conduct that is being driven by a desire to be seen, to big-note yourself, to be, sadly, of interest to others and to promote your offending, and it is done in a way that is referred to as posting and boasting. I guess the boasting is picked up by it being disseminated to a broader audience.
Nick McGOWAN: Perhaps I have not communicated clearly: my understanding is that this bill would allow people to share on at least one occasion without falling foul of the new proposed law. Is that correct or incorrect?
Jaclyn SYMES: The law kicks in when it is shared with more than one person, so it is about the audience. That is in relation to this law; that does not mean that other laws might not be applicable in those circumstances.
Nick McGOWAN: So if one person shares it just once – for example, live streaming; they can have a website and have it live streamed – that is just one share, and yet that is permissible under this new law, because nowhere in this bill do I see that that would actually mean that would be prohibited. That would be permissible as the law currently stands.
Jaclyn SYMES: That is not the intention. You have misinterpreted the law here. Sharing it to one person – so if I sent you something – is not captured, but if you broadcast it, that is sharing it with more than one person, so that is captured. If the one-on-one conduct of me sharing something to you has threatening or harassment elements as well, then that is also different; the law can pick up and obviously respond to that type of behaviour. But this law is about the performance element, which is described as broadcasting to more than just sending a message to one other individual.
Nick McGOWAN: As you know, in the future both lawyers and judges may well read what we are saying today, and they may be no clearer than I am in the answer you have just provided, because in essence this legislation still allows you to share it with one. So I go back to my original question, which is: why would you make it permissible for any of the content that is described to be shared at all? What is the purpose of allowing anyone – much less a perpetrator, but a perpetrator in this case – to share it even once?
Jaclyn SYMES: It is about the audience. You can share it once, and you are covered by the legislation.
Nick McGOWAN: That answer only heightens my anxiety, I have to say to you. This material is deplorable, sometimes heinous, and all this will do therefore is give legal code, protection, sanction to those criminals to share it even once. Why on earth would this government want to allow anyone to share anything like that in all its abhorrence even once? I just fail to understand what the government’s logic is here.
Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, you are, with respect, not interpreting the bill in the way that others are. This is about ensuring that if you are engaging in criminal behaviour and you go on to broadcast that, whether it is live streaming or putting it up on a site or sending it to multiple people, then you are going to be potentially falling foul of these new laws. This is absolutely about responding to the concerns that the community have and the conduct that we have seen, and it goes over and beyond the existing law in relation to aggravating circumstances which can be considered in sentencing. This is really targeted to that particular offending that the consultation and discussions and experience have narrowed it down to.
Nick McGOWAN: That answer is most troubling because, as you and I both know, aggravating circumstances is not a law in and of itself. It is a consideration that goes in respect to sentencing for other offences. Your answer gives great light to that fact. Let us go back to the core argument here, Minister. Why on earth would you allow anyone an ability to commit an offence in this state, film it and then share it once, even if it is with their mother, their father, their friend – whoever it is with? What possessed this government to make that a right that that criminal has – to not fall foul?
Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, you cannot invent laws from the opposition benches. What you are saying is false.
Nick McGOWAN: I will move on for the sake of all of us. Why wouldn’t you also therefore extend this to those fellow people, who are part of the scene and may well be charged with other crimes but not the crime that you have listed, that are actually filming it? In most cases it is not the person actually committing the crime, it is the surrounding people, the gang members – call them what you want – the other assailants. Why would you not include those in this legislation, given that we know that they are mostly the people who film this, because they are not partaking per se?
Jaclyn SYMES: The problem I have with your line of questioning, Mr McGowan, is that you are viewing this bill in isolation from the rest of the laws on the statute. There are a range of offences that pick up inappropriate behaviour and people breaking the law. This is about targeted laws to really drill down and send a strong message that this conduct is unacceptable. Many of the other conducts are picked up by a range of other laws, and I am not necessarily going to sit here and explain all of that to you, because it is not particularly relevant to this bill. But any statement that these new laws allow people a right that is not captured specifically by these offences or by the way they publish is just not a good way to describe how the justice system works.
Nick McGOWAN: Why has the government also chosen to make any potential sentence concurrent as opposed to cumulative?
Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McGowan, I am just interested in some of the other comments you made before, so I might come back to you if you want me to. But in relation to your specific question in relation to cumulative, by establishing standalone, separate offences it is a matter for the courts to decide on an appropriate sentence. Parliament is making it clear that it denounces this conduct and that sentences should reflect the additional criminal culpability. That is not an unusual way to legislate, and the courts have been asked to ensure that separate offences are considered because they will be able to consider the two charges at once.
Nick McGOWAN: Minister, you also indicated you had further information to provide in respect to previous questions.
Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. You raised a concern about those that film that may not be involved in the offending behaviour. If you look at new section 195U(1)(b), the offences that we have listed would often pick up accomplices, those that are in the vicinity of the crime, as well. So if there is a home invasion and you are just standing outside keeping watch, if you are the one filming, you will be picked up by this law if you publish the filming that you take. These are not only the offences that are listed. The new section also points out – let me read the exact words – that if you are inciting or attempting to commit one of the above offences or being complicit in such offending, so pretty much if you are involved in some way, you will be picked up in this instance.
Nick McGOWAN: Last question: what was the decision or the thinking in omitting some criminal acts? Assault, for example, is the obvious one. What was the logic to that?
Jaclyn SYMES: This is really about targeting serious offending. It is making sure that we are responding to the concerns of the community and making sure that we are drilling down on those offences that we know have happened. Let me put it this way: assault can be quite a broad offence. I am not sure that we would want to see a situation where there are squabbling neighbours and one shoves the other and that is posted, that we are really wanting to attract these types of offences to that type of behaviour. We are not wanting low-level scuffles and the like to be brought into this scheme. But to my earlier point, that does not mean that that conduct is not caught up by the Crimes Act in some other way.
Joe McCRACKEN: I said I was not going to ask a question, but here I am. I just want to get some clarity; it is to do with the definition of the word ‘publish’. I take your point about the audience, Treasurer, being a single person. So I guess just for simplicity’s sake, if a person who commits the crime sends one text message to one other person, that one communication is not captured by this. Is that a correct understanding? I am not talking about a live stream; it is just one text message to one other person.
Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, that is correct.
Joe McCRACKEN: My subsequent question to that is: if that second person then chooses to publish the material, who is deemed to have caused that publishing? Is it person A who might have originally filmed it and passed it on, or is it person B who then decided to distribute it more widely?
Jaclyn SYMES: I asked the same question in my briefing. It is covered if the original person sent it with the intention of it being published. So person A filmed themselves holding up someone at gunpoint. They sent it to someone who then further disseminated it. If person A was of the view that that was going to be published more widely, it could be caught up by these laws.
Joe McCRACKEN: I guess it is possible that we could have a person A pass it to person B, person B passes it to person C – you could probably create a chain as long as you wanted to. If each was just one person in that chain, at any point in that chain one of those people could decide that they might want to publish whatever that material might be without anyone else in that chain having the intent that that might happen. Is that a possible problem?
Jaclyn SYMES: What I would draw you to is the wording in the bill, which specifically refers to ‘causes to be published’. If you have sent it to one person and then it disseminates broader, you are still the cause of it being published, so you can be picked up in that sense, and that is whether it is a chain or whether it is scattergun after the second. Both would potentially apply. It would depend on the facts of each matter.
Nick McGOWAN: Minister, I was almost done, and you have now caused me to rise to my feet again. So person A – and we are not clear what that person and their intent might be, because the police will have to prove that – shares it with person B. One can in this case or scenario assume that there cannot be established intent. Therefore person B is able to publish that but is not subject to this law – because you used the word ‘could’ be.
Jaclyn SYMES: A can be. B cannot be.
Nick McGOWAN: That is more precise. So B cannot be and is not. Because a moment ago you said ‘could’ fall foul of this law. I will sit down so you can answer the questions.
Jaclyn SYMES: Person B is not captured. Person A can be. Basically, person B cannot be, because the law requires you to be the offender in terms of the substantive offence in the first instance – unless they are an accomplice.
Nick McGOWAN: Unless you say something else that causes me to rise again. But Minister, doesn’t that cause you concern? It concerns me greatly because, as I said today in my contribution, when we speak to mothers and fathers – and often they are the mothers and fathers of the victims, because we are talking about a lot of young people, potentially – the explanation to them that we sat here and had this conversation about how we are not going to hold B responsible but are going to hold A responsible is not going to be well received, I can tell you now. Why not include them in this aspect? Why allow that initial sharing to that one person is my point.
Jaclyn SYMES: Again you are crafting situations that these laws do not cover to be in some way a green light for that behaviour to occur. That is not the case. There are a number of offences that could apply to someone who just shares inappropriate material if it is designed to harass, if it is designed to threaten or indeed if it is gross and offensive. There are a number of offences that you could be charged with even if you did not know the offender and you caused that material to be placed on a platform where it caused harm to people. There are a range of offences for these types of behaviour. These laws are about posting and boasting. This is about offenders who capture their offending behaviour on film and then to big-note themselves, wanting people to know about it, go on to promote themselves. What we know is that it is almost encouraging copycats, it is encouraging crime, because it is broadcasting and bragging about this type of behaviour. Unfortunately, we are concerned about the impact that has, particularly on impressionable young people who might see it as a bit of a competition. That is why these laws are so targeted. In relation to material that is disseminated in other ways, that is dealt with outside of this bill in many instances.
Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (14:39)
Joe McCRACKEN: I move:
1. Clause 3, page 3, lines 4 to 6, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
My first amendment is just to change the meaning of ‘publish’ to exclude ‘one other person’ and let it be every single person. That is the thrust of it.
Jaclyn SYMES: Mr McCracken, we are not in a position to support this amendment. As I think I went through a little bit in the exchange before, the offence was designed to address public or wider audience sharing, which can amplify harm, encourage copycat behaviour and retraumatise victims. Sharing to one person, especially in private, non-public contexts, lacks the same community-wide harm element. If the sharing to one person is intended to threaten, humiliate or cause harm, other offences, including stalking, harassment and image-based abuse already apply.
Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We do not believe that the bill as it is designed is going to provide the deterrent effect the government is seeking, and consequently we do not support the broadening of the application of the offences as has been proposed by the Liberals.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Joe McCRACKEN: I move:
2. Clause 3, page 3, after line 11 insert –
“(i) section 15A(1) (causing serious injury intentionally in circumstances of gross violence);
(ia) section 15B(1) (causing serious injury recklessly in circumstances of gross violence);
(ib) section 31 (assaults);”.
3. Clause 3, page 3, line 12, omit “(i)” and insert “(ic)”.
4. Clause 3, page 3, line 25, omit “or”.
5. Clause 3, page 3, after line 25 insert –
“(xii) section 197(1), (2), (3) or (7) (destroying or damaging property);
(xiii) section 64(1) or (2A) of the Road Safety Act 1986; or”.
These amendments are very short and sweet. They are just to expand the relevant offences that are captured under this legislation so there are more than the ones that are currently described in the bill.
Jaclyn SYMES: We have real concerns with this amendment. As I explained, the new offence is to apply only to people who post and boast about their involvement in serious violent crime. We are not talking about a scuffle or a dispute between neighbours, we are talking about violent offenders celebrating their offences to gain notoriety. In relation to assault, affray and violent disorder are serious assault-type offences and they are already captured by the specific inclusion of those. This is about taking a targeted, sensible approach to a relatively novel area of law. The bill will introduce a crime that is very similar to what New South Wales have done, except we go further by adding in the violent disorder and affray offences. The list is important as it stands because it ensures that the law is focused and proportionate and directly addresses the criminal behaviour that is causing the greatest concern to the community.
I also note that it is not just assault that you are attempting to include; you have got some property offences that you deemed should be appropriate. Again, we do not think that these crimes fit what we are trying to do with the high-risk, high-harm offences. To the conversation I had with Mr McGowan, this is not about providing a green light to offences that are not included. There are a range of other measures that apply to this type of offending behaviour. This is designed to be targeted to the most concerning behaviours that are reflective of some of the experiences that the community have had to tragically endure.
Katherine COPSEY: Similar to the previous set of amendments, the Greens do not support the government’s approach in this bill overall, and so we do not support the Liberals’ amendments broadening the impact of those offences.
Council divided on amendments:
Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt
Amendments negatived.
Joe McCRACKEN: I move:
6. Clause 3, page 5, after line 14 insert –
“(6) Despite anything to the contrary in the Sentencing Act 1991 or in any other law, in imposing a penalty for an offence against subsection (1) the court must direct that any term of imprisonment imposed be served cumulatively on any term of imprisonment imposed for the relevant offence referred to in subsection (1)(a).”.
Again, this one is just about ensuring that any penalties that are imposed are served in a cumulative sense – they are not done concurrently.
Jaclyn SYMES: Online glorification of violence is real, it is harmful and it is happening. It is about recruitment, it is about escalation and it is about trauma. That is why we are creating a standalone offence. While it will be a matter for the courts to decide on an appropriate sentence, hopefully the Parliament today passes the laws, making it very clear that it denounces this conduct and that sentences should reflect the additional criminal culpability.
Katherine COPSEY: We think that it is more appropriate for the courts, which are well equipped to determine sentencing, and that those options should be available to the judiciary in conducting sentencing rather than directed by the Parliament. We will not be supporting the amendment.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; clause 4 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.