Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (09:59): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Control of Weapons Amendment (Establishing Jack’s Law, Use of Electronic Metal Detection Devices) Bill 2025:

In my opinion, the Control of Weapons Amendment (Establishing Jack’s Law, Use of Electronic Metal Detection Devices) Bill 2025 (the Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to provide greater powers for police officers and protective services officers (PSOs) to use electronic metal detection devices to search persons for weapons without a warrant when they are in certain relevant places. These include licensed premises, public transport stations and vehicles, retail premises, shopping centres and sporting or entertainment venues. The Bill also introduces supporting amendments to notice requirements, record-keeping and reporting obligations, search procedures and consequential offence and seizure provisions.

The following rights under the Charter are engaged by the Bill:

• privacy and reputation (section 13),

• freedom of movement (section 12),

• liberty and security of person (section 21),

• freedom of peaceful assembly and association (section 16),

• property rights (section 20),

• equality before the law (section 8),

• protection of families and children (section 17) (engaged incidentally through police interaction with young people).

For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter. To the extent that any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Analysis of relevant human rights

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter protects individuals from unlawful or arbitrary interference with their privacy, which includes personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

The Bill introduces new sections 10CA and 10CB, which enable police and PSOs to stop and search persons, and search things in their possession or control, without a warrant, for weapons when they are located in a “relevant place.” Relevant places include licensed premises (and adjacent public areas), public transport stations and vehicles, retail premises, shopping centres, and sporting or entertainment venues.

These powers may interfere with personal privacy. However, several safeguards ensure that such interference is neither unlawful nor arbitrary:

Least invasive search practicable: Both ss 10CA(3) and 10CB(3) expressly require that officers conduct only the least invasive search practicable in the circumstances.

Limited detention power: Officers may detain a person only for so long as reasonably necessary to conduct the search. (ss 10CA(4), 10CB(4))

Application of Schedule 1: Searches must comply with the safeguards in Schedule 1 of the Principal Act, including requirements relating to dignity, same-sex searchers (where relevant), and explanations.

Notice requirements: Clause 9 requires search notices for searches under ss 10CA and 10CB to inform individuals that they are in a relevant place and that officers may search them for weapons.

Record-keeping and accountability: Clause 5 expands the Chief Commissioner’s annual reporting obligations to include the number of searches under ss 10CA and 10CB, the types of weapons located, the number of strip searches, and the number of individuals searched who were subsequently charged.

Given the very serious risks posed by weapon-carrying in crowded public environments, and the Bill’s extensive procedural safeguards, the measures strike an appropriate balance between privacy rights and the public interest in preventing violence.

I therefore consider the interferences authorised by the Bill lawful, proportionate and not arbitrary.

Right to freedom of movement (section 12)

Stopping and temporarily detaining a person to conduct a search may limit their freedom of movement.

This limit is minor and appropriately circumscribed:

• The power applies only when a person is located in a defined relevant place, such as licensed premises, public transport stations or shopping centres.

• Detention is limited to what is reasonably necessary to conduct the search.

• Searches must be the least invasive practicable.

The purpose of the limitation is to deter and detect weapons in high-risk public environments. This is a pressing and substantial public safety concern. For these reasons, any limitation on movement is reasonable and justified.

Right to liberty and security of person (section 21)

Section 21 protects against arbitrary detention. Although the Bill allows temporary detention for the duration of a search, the power is clearly defined, narrow in scope, and subject to strict temporal limits. A person may be detained only for as long as reasonably necessary to conduct the search.

Given the objective of preventing weapon-related harm and the procedural safeguards applied through Schedule 1, I consider that any limitation on liberty is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16)

The Bill may incidentally limit people’s willingness to attend public venues (e.g., sporting events or shopping centres) if they do not wish to be searched. However, the Bill does not restrict the right to assemble or associate; it regulates only how searches may occur within certain high-risk settings.

The measures are content-neutral, directed solely at weapon detection. Any limitation is proportionate and justified.

Right to property (section 20)

Clause 10 amends seizure powers to allow police and PSOs to seize suspected prohibited weapons located during searches under ss 10CA and 10CB.

Any deprivation of property occurs in accordance with law and is necessary to prevent harm. Rights under section 20 are therefore not unreasonably limited.

Right to equality (section 8)

The stop-and-scan powers apply uniformly by reference to location rather than personal characteristics.

These measures help ensure the powers are exercised consistently, transparently and without discrimination.

Protection of families and children (section 17)

These powers may be exercised in settings frequented by children, such as shopping centres and public transport.

Schedule 1 safeguards including requirements regarding dignity, explanations appropriate to the person’s circumstances, and minimal necessary intrusiveness apply to searches of minors. Officers must conduct searches only in the least invasive manner practicable.

Given the public safety objective and the protective framework governing search conduct, any engagement with section 17 is compatible with the Charter.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I conclude that while the Bill engages several Charter rights, any limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the significant public safety purpose of detecting and deterring weapons in high-risk public environments.

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (09:59): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I think this is a really important moment and a really important bill. This is a decisive step forward in restoring community safety across Victoria. The Control of Weapons Amendment (Establishing Jack’s Law, Use of Electronic Metal Detection Devices) Bill 2025 introduces Jack’s law for Victoria, an essential reform that will give police and protective services the wanding powers that they need to actually remove dangerous weapons from our streets, and it really goes a long way to preventing further acts of violence.

Victoria is facing a crisis of community safety. Across our suburbs and our regions business owners and young people are living with an increased sense of fear. Serious violent incidents, including assaults with machetes and bladed weapons, have shaken communities to the core. I read out earlier in the day a series of incidents in the one suburb, Broadmeadows, where machete crime is going through the roof. Broadmeadows Central has, on almost a daily basis, incidents – with a police station with a machete bin right across the road. And what I would say to the government is: doesn’t that tell you something – that the government’s approach is not working? It is not working. These violent offenders are not voluntarily giving up their machetes into a machete bin, even though it is readily available across the road from where on a daily basis machete crime is happening. The horrific killing of two young boys, attacked with machetes while simply going about their lives, is both heartbreaking and unacceptable. Boys should be able to go to basketball training and get home safely, and this really underscores why this Parliament must act.

Jack’s law for Victoria is actually named after Jack Beasley, whose life was tragically taken in an absolutely senseless knife attack, and I acknowledge the advocacy of Jack’s father Brett Beasley, who has worked tirelessly in a selfless way – he has worked his guts out – to make sure no other family experiences the same tragedy that his did and that his family has endured. We can look at other states such as Queensland and New South Wales. In Queensland Jack’s Law has already removed more than 1200 weapons from the streets. The powers have been used more than 122,000 times and have led to more than 3200 arrests. It is a proven, effective and long-overdue reform for Victoria.

I spoke about Jack’s father Brett; he actually met with the Minister for Police in July, and since then we have seen no reform – nothing – and since then we have continued to see machete attack after machete attack, with the government action not strong enough to actually prevent dangerous knife crime in our communities. This bill empowers police and protective officers to stop and scan persons with a prohibited weapon without a warrant in certain high-risk places like shopping centres, where appropriate. These could include licensed premises, their adjacent areas, public transport stations and vehicles, shopping centres, retail precincts and sporting and entertainment venues. One place you might have the power to do that is Northland shopping centre, where we have seen a spate of machete crime, and Broadmeadows Central in my electorate as well. You might see it at different shopping centres in the western suburbs as well.

These changes will enable officers to use handheld metal detection wands to detect and seize weapons quickly, safely and without the bureaucratic barriers that currently hinder proactive policing. We need to give police the powers that they need. In states like New South Wales and Queensland the police wear the wand, which is only about that big if you know what you are doing, on their belt. They have those stop-and-search powers. This government’s big solution is to say, ‘No, we don’t want to do that. What we’ll do is spend $13 million on 45 machete bins that we put around the place, and don’t worry, these violent offenders are just going to pop them in the bin.’ The logic does not add up, and it really highlights the government’s wasteful attitude in terms of cost. But also it is not practical; it is not realistic. You have a solution here that works, and they have gone, ‘No, we’re going to do this machete bin stuff instead.’

This government needs to implement Jack’s law, and because it is not we are doing it ourselves. We have already committed that if we come to government we will give police the wanding powers they need to take machetes off our streets. We have seen several attacks. I mentioned Jack’s law is in Queensland and New South Wales. It is also in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory but not in Victoria. Victoria is now facing a daily knife crime problem. Violent incidents are occurring at shopping centres, at entertainment precincts, in our streets and in our suburbs. Teenagers with machetes, groups armed with knives and offenders carrying blades into retail and transport hubs are frighteningly common.

I will give you a few recent examples. On 6 September this year at Cobblebank we saw 15-year-old Dau Akueng and 12-year-old Chol Achiek – they should be alive today – were fatally stabbed after being ambushed by a group armed with machetes and large knives. Seven offenders aged 15 to 19 have been charged with their murders, exposing the shocking scale of youth violence and the ease with which deadly weapons can be used on our streets. On 27 September in Morwell, Kaiden Morgan, an 18-year-old who should be alive today, had his life ended on a residential street after a machete attack. This tragedy did not have to happen, and with Jack’s law we can ensure that more young Victorians do not become victims. In early 2025 Saurabh Anand of Altona Meadows almost lost his hand after a horrific machete attack at Central Square shopping centre after a violent assault was carried out by teenagers for not handing over his phone, I believe. Again, this could have all been avoided. Saurabh is well known in particularly our Indian community in the western suburbs, and many, including me, have contributed to the GoFundMe set up by his friends to help cover some of his medical expenses due to his visa arrangements.

This is a huge issue in our migrant communities. It is their homes being invaded. It is they who do not want to go out to shopping centres anymore. We should be able to go out to shopping centres. At Werribee Plaza there have been multiple incidents. In August this year a 14-year-old boy was attacked by six offenders armed with machetes. On 2 October this year in Melbourne’s CBD a hospitality worker on her early morning shift was stabbed in the chest by a stranger in an unprovoked attack.

I think we were all shocked seeing that CCTV footage, knowing that this could occur not too far from where we are standing at the moment. This is why we are encouraging them. We need the government to act with urgency. I know Brett Beasley is in the Parliament today, urging us as legislators to do something. He actually met with the minister in July last year, and still there has been no action. All those incidences I read out could have been prevented. They could have been prevented, but this government has chosen not to act. The government announced it would spend almost $1 million for 800 wands at a cost of nearly $1200 a wand. This compares to $300 a wand in Queensland. It is like the $13 million machete bins all over again. It is like, in the previous time in government, then deciding, ‘Oh, we’re just going to do Myki ourselves instead of taking something off the shelf from Singapore or other countries that do it well.’ We are still paying the price for that, and of course we saw it with machete bins themselves. Just because an idea is someone else’s does not mean you cannot be pragmatic and adopt it and take something from elsewhere.

The government is promoting the use of their metal detection wands, but officers do not have the legal authority to use them proactively. Wanding for weapons should be like a random breath test. Police should be able to do them, and they should be done randomly and proactively in crime hotspots. It is very similar to what they announced on masks, right? Where police have powers to remove masks if the person is being aggressive. We saw the weapons. We saw the police show the rocks, trolley poles and chains that were thrown at police, yet we are not wanting to give police powers to intervene appropriately. In this same sense, the government is not doing it. Under the current laws police cannot randomly scan at shopping centres, train stations, entertainment precincts and knife hotspots.

Jack’s law will deliver simple, proven and targeted powers to remove knives before they are used. It will allow suspicion-free wanding at public places. Police and PSOs could stop and scan for weapons in shopping centres and retail precincts, at train stations on platforms, on public transport vehicles and at entertainment and sporting venues and licensed premises. These are the very locations that police need these powers. This is proactive policing. It empowers PSOs in high-risk retail centres, and a Liberals and Nationals government will deploy 200 additional PSOs to shopping centres and retail precincts. We will not yank them from train stations, as this government wants to do. We all remember the government used to call PSOs ‘plastic police’.

A member interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, they never liked it. They never liked, again, a good idea. If it is not theirs, they will go another way. In a sense they are causing another issue by solving one issue, by removing PSOs from train stations, keeping commuters less safe.

Again, this is not only a problem in metropolitan Melbourne, it is a problem in regional Victoria as well. These attacks are not a one-off. They are part of an escalating pattern. The current laws cannot keep up. The designated area powers are too slow. The machete bins are completely symbolic. As I mentioned, there is the example of Broadmeadows Central, where there are almost on a daily basis incidences of knife crime, of violent gangs sword-fighting each other with machetes in front of horrified commuters.

The council offices are just across from the car park. I have had council staff contact my office saying they do not think it is safe to go into work at Hume City Council. Recently, and I thank my friend. Cr Jim Overend, the council unanimously passed a notice of motion asking the government what it is doing about this escalating situation, particularly in Broadmeadows.

We saw also a horrifying incident at Greenvale Secondary College where the entire school was locked down because people turned up with machetes outside the college. The government has just sat on its hands. But if you look at Broadmeadows Central, as I said, right across the road from Broadmeadows Central is a police station and a machete bin. I doubt any of the young offenders that have been terrifying the locals in Broadmeadows have dropped their machetes in the machete bin. This is why we need to give the police the extra powers. It is not good enough to not give police the powers they need. The half-baked version the government has announced does not give them the authority to do what they need to do. It is just like masks, where you know they will wait for people to throw rocks at police before they have the ability to take their masks off.

With this government, it is always half-baked, half a day late and a dollar short; that is what it is under this government. Our plan will give police and PSOs real powers. It will remove knives before they are used, deploy additional PSOs at retail centres, protect Victorians in the places where they live, work and shop and deliver Jack’s law. I would like to particularly acknowledge the dedicated work of Brett Beasley, who has been a tireless advocate across all states in Australia and is so selfless in going out of his way to make sure that what happened to Jack does not happen to any other family. I think that is the most important thing. We are really encouraging the government to get on board with Jack’s law, get on board with wanting powers, make sure what happened to Jack and what has happened to countless Victorians that have become victims that I have read out today does not happen to any more Victorians.

This bill arms police with the tools they need. It removes dangerous weapons from our public places and gives communities the confidence that their government is acting to keep them safe. I commend the bill to this house.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:18): I move:

That debate on the bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.