Wednesday, 10 September 2025

Production of documents

Machete amnesty

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:02): I move:

That this house, in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution, all invoices for the fabrication, transport and installation of the machete safe disposal bins.

The great machete bin mystery has captivated Melbourne, and millions of people now are invested in this mystery. I would like to thank all of the people that have contacted my office and the millions of people that have been watching this mystery unfold. What do we know so far? We know –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! All sides of the chamber, come on!

David LIMBRICK: Millions of people are invested in this mystery. What do we know about the mystery so far? We know that the government said that there is a $13 million budget, and we know that the government said that there are about 40 machete bins being installed. But the reason that people are interested in this mystery is not because of the machete bins. It is not even because of the $13 million, I do not think, it is because it is emblematic of the needless secrecy that this government always engages in.

Some of the things that we have uncovered here that we think we have good evidence of – firstly, we know that the bins were only about $2400 each, or $2800 including delivery probably, which is far cheaper than the retail price. I actually got a quote for a machete bin and it is about $4000 from a reputable manufacturer, so they are cheaper. The other thing that we have uncovered is very good evidence that at least some of them were made in a Mount Gambier prison in South Australia, and maybe the government can clear this up for us, whether that is true. We also have evidence that some of them at least were potentially made in Ravenhall; maybe the government can clear that up. Maybe the invoices will clear that up.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: On a point of order, President, can I please just finish my speech?

The PRESIDENT: Please let Mr Limbrick finish in silence.

David LIMBRICK: I think that if the government was just straight up about this and said, ‘This is what we did and this is why we did it,’ the Victorian people would actually be totally fine with that. In fact if you told the Victorian people, ‘We only need these bins to run for a few months, so we got them on the cheap and we actually did some contracts with some prisons because we didn’t want to waste taxpayers money,’ I think that the Victorian people would be happy with that. And if they said, ‘With the rest of the money, what we are actually going to use it on is this, this and this,’ and they itemised it. Now we know that a bunch of it is going to be used on advertising. I have already uncovered a whole bunch of ads on the Department of Justice and Community Safety Facebook page. If the government was just up-front about these things and explained it, there would not be this needless speculation. When the government is quiet about these things and remains silent, everyone thinks something shady is going on.

Until the government comes clean on this, people are going to continue thinking that something shady is going on. I would urge the government right now – if they wanted to, they could surprise me and stand up and spill the beans on exactly what is going on and tell everyone in Victoria. Just knock this on the head, there will be no more speculation and you will ruin the machete bin mystery series. I somehow doubt they will do that. Anyway, I will give the government a chance to speak, and maybe they can tell us or maybe they will not. But I look forward to their response, and I really look forward to getting these invoices, because I think they will shed some light on both how much some of these things have cost in reality and who actually made them.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:06): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in Mr Limbrick’s name, and I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this to the house. Of course, as is the government’s usual position on documents motions, we do not oppose this motion, but it gives me the opportunity to actually talk about some facts. But it is interesting, Mr Limbrick, because whilst you talk about everyone ruining the magical machete mystery bin series, what is really going on is the fear and misinformation campaign that is being perpetuated by those opposite, because they are not interested in facts; they are interested in just whipping up fear in the community and making people afraid. The thing is, it is shameful. It is disgraceful. It is all on those opposite. It is the worst opposition we have ever had in history. Mr Limbrick, you talk about there being no information on this publicly. Let me just go through. I am going to give a number of people a special mention of and shout-out a couple of organisations as well. In terms of this machete amnesty program, it was detailed in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in June 2025. So it is not secret. It is actually out there. PAEC hearings are not secret. They are broadcast and live streamed. So let us just follow the timeline and the details. That was June 2025, and the elements that were to be funded as part of the $13 million program included a public awareness campaign and an education campaign and then of course the cost of the bins, which we now know is around about $2400 per bin.

Nick McGowan interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Listen, because you are not interested in the facts. First of all, let us turn to the misinformation campaign. Let me count the number of ways that those opposite got it wrong. We can start with the member for Kew, who posted on her social media accounts about the real cost being posted in Parliament. Then we go to Jane Hume in federal Parliament, who doubled down on all things anti-family, anti-worker and non-police. Then Wayne Farnham – ‘I am a builder’ – in the other place also doubled down whilst on a sojourn with the member for Bulleen in South America. Then we have the member for Warrandyte in the other place, Nicole Werner, demonstrating her inability to do maths because she just divided $13 million by 45 and came up with a ridiculous $325,000 and talked about how that is the cost of a Ferrari. I would not know what the cost of a Ferrari is, and neither would people out in the western suburbs. But the member for Warrandyte certainly does. She has done her research clearly. Then Ms Crozier, Mr McGowan and Chris Crewther in the other place joined in on the Ferrari analogy and continued to double down on the falsehood. So that is the Liberals. Then we had the media doubling down. We had the lies perpetuated by 3AW, the cheer squad for the Liberal Party; Channel 7; Sky News; and also Tim Watson and Garry Lyon from SEN Breakfast radio. I want to give a special shout-out to Media Watch and AAP FactCheck, who took all this apart and methodically and forensically dissected the lies about this from the worst opposition in history. An honourable mention goes to AAP FactCheck for calling out those opposite who got this so wrong.

What I can tell you, and what we do know, is that in the first week of this amnesty operating – the very first week – 500 returns from only half of the 45 bins have occurred. The reason for that is because the public education campaign is working extremely well, and people are aware of it. They are not listening to the worst opposition in history or those shock jocks in the Murdoch media, the cheer squad for the Liberal Party. The public education campaign is well underway, evidenced by the returns, and it is funded from the $13 million which was set aside for the program, including the cost of bins, which, as I said, was around $2400 each. Mr Limbrick said it was all secret and they want to know where the bins were made, because he has got some conspiracy theory about it. But the point is I can tell you that these bins were made in Australia – that is a win – and they were made in Victoria, so there you go.

Despite those opposite always talking down Victoria, what we are doing is we are seeing real action on machetes, because we know that people are returning them and they are cooperating with the amnesty. As I said, the government does not oppose this motion. I will leave my remarks there. Hopefully the next speaker will get to complete their remarks in silence.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (10:12): I rise today to speak on the motion put forward by Mr Limbrick. As my colleague Mr David Davis said, it is a very simple, straightforward motion. It is seeking agreement for the release of all invoices for fabrication, transport and installation of machete safe deposit bins. We support this motion put forward by Mr Limbrick because it is very important. Transparency for every government is a serious thing. What we always seek with these motions is transparency in public expenditure. We believe taxpayers have the right to know what things cost and what measures are taken by the government to get the best deal for the taxpayer. This means doing your due diligence with procurement and deciding, having looked at different places. With this motion, basically we are asking for the invoices for the fabrication, transport and installation of the various bins.

At the moment what we have got is $13 million allocated to this program, and there are no other divisions relating to how much these bins cost. I know the crossbench has been saying this is misinformation. If you do not come forward with information regarding invoices, regarding how much it cost, people will speculate and assume that is all the costs for the physical bins at the police stations at the moment. The reason why we are asking for clarification in relation to how much these bins cost is because our state debt at the moment is at $146 billion. We are paying $20 million per day in interest alone. It is in the best interests of the public to know what is spent on these bins. I understand it is a very important initiative in relation to curbing the crime rate and getting machetes out of our community, as we on this side have advocated for for a long period of time. We support getting rid of the machetes, but how the expenditure on these bins was arrived at is important in relation to what has been bought with public funds. Transparency is all we seek –

Nick McGowan interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr McGowan, you are louder than your colleague who is making a contribution.

Trung LUU: All we ask is for clarification of the invoices for what has been spent on these bins. Having spent 20 years or so in the public service, I understand procurement – you have got to have invoices before you spend money. I am sure the government have those invoices in their possession. All this motion is asking is for the government to produce the invoices so we know what has been spent on these bins. In relation to the manufacture, where was this money spent? I understand that part of the $13 million allocated to this program went to the education program. All we want to know is what has been spent on this bin, how much it cost. It certainly would not cost $325,000 per bin, but we just want to know what it actually cost for installation and where it has been made. Clarification is all we ask. ‘Is this program value for money?’ is another question, and Mr Limbrick has mentioned the possibility that any bin would cost around $2000 or $4000 per bin. That is a reasonable price, and if you compare it to a Salvation Army bin, there is no difference between the machete bin and a Salvation Army clothing bin. There is not much difference between the two. So we just want to know what it cost per bin in relation to a place outside for machetes. It is also questionable in relation to how effective these bins are being placed outside of police stations opposite CCTV cameras. I do not know: if an offender has committed a crime, would he be willing to go in front of a police station on CCTV footage and deposit one of these in a bin?

As I have mentioned, this motion is a very simple motion asking for just a simple invoice of the fabrication, the transport, the manufacture and the installation of the machete safe deposit bins outside of police stations. Clarification and transparency of any government is a vital key.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:17): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion seeking documents with respect to the machete amnesty program. The Liberal Party’s attitude to this program would be comical if it was not such a serious issue. The Liberal Party’s perpetuation of lies in our community that seek to trivialise an exceptionally serious and important issue in our community is a disgrace and should be condemned, because they are –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, President, Mr McGowan’s interjections are constant. They occurred through my contribution and have continued to occur through Mr Batchelor’s contribution. I think he has been on his feet for about 20 seconds. I just point out that continuous interjections are unruly, and perhaps Mr McGowan should be brought to order so Mr Batchelor can complete his contribution in silence.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order, and I also ask the whole chamber if we can let Mr Batchelor speak in silence.

Ryan BATCHELOR: What we have seen is members of the Liberal Party – and my colleague Mr Terpstra has detailed several Liberal Party members, including the member for Kew, the member for Narracan and the member for Warrandyte – who have been out on social media peddling misinformation and garbage about what the machete bin program costs, and in doing so they seek to undermine an exceptionally important community safety initiative that this government have taken to get machetes off our streets, because we know that they have devastating consequences in our community and we want to see them off our streets. The Liberal Party wants to trivialise it. The Liberal Party see –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Welch, you are very loud.

Richard Welch: He is being very provocative.

The PRESIDENT: No. Everyone needs to let Mr Batchelor get his contribution in, even if you do not like it.

Ryan BATCHELOR: The Liberal Party, despite having knowledge that what they are saying is false, continue to perpetuate mistruths in the community about machetes. They are undermining efforts to keep our community safe. They should be ashamed of themselves and they should stand condemned. In their contributions and in their torrent of interjections they have demonstrated the lack of seriousness with which they take this issue. They could have listened to the evidence given to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee about this program. They could have listened to the contributions that we made in this chamber on the machete ban. They could have listened to the information that was presented to the community through the media about the cost of this program, about the cost of the machete bins, but they chose to ignore it all. They do not see community safety as an issue to be taken seriously; they see community safety as an issue to score political points over, even when they know that what they are saying is not true.

Mr Limbrick has credibility on this issue. He has stood up in this chamber, and he opposed what the government did on machetes on principle. He is the only one with credibility in this debate on that side of the chamber to be asking questions about this program, because he did not support the policy. The Liberal Party did one thing when they stood up here to vote for a bill, and they do another thing on social media and on the streets when they seek to ridicule and trivialise a program that is trying to get dangerous weapons off our streets. The fact that these bins only cost $2400 and that they have, as Ms Terpstra said, had almost 500 machetes put into them when they have been up and running for less than a week demonstrates their success. Frankly, the question I have got to ask is: even if they did, and we know that they do not, cost $300,000-odd, would the Liberal Party oppose the bins then? Do they oppose the program? Do they oppose the ban? Do they oppose the amnesty? Unless their actions back what they do in this place, we cannot listen to a word they say, and on community safety they are being hypocrites.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:22): I rise in support of this motion. There have been a lot of interjections going on around here about this. Yes, it is about money. But let us not lose sight of the fact that this is also about people being killed with knives. Earlier this week there were two boys killed. We still have not got to the bottom of this, so I think this should be treated with a little bit more respect. Yes, it is about money. It is a lot of money, and I think the government has something to answer for, but for God’s sake, let us just remember there are lives at the end of this discussion.

Motion agreed to.