Tuesday, 2 December 2025

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:39): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Every Victorian knows we are confronting a very, very serious crime crisis in this state that has been built over years of neglect, poor planning and a government that has been unwilling to accept the scale of the problem until very recently. It is a government that is more interested in what a focus group tells it about crime than what people actually care about in this state. That is what has motivated them, their political skin, not the safety of all Victorians, and they should be ashamed for that. They will not listen to Victoria Police, but they will listen to polls. For more than a decade of government the state has lurched from one reactive announcement to the next, shifting bail laws, changing the operation of our youth justice centres and closing key facilities at the time when they were needed most.

In 2023 they closed several youth facilities, and now just two years later they have conceded that some of them might need to be opened, including at Malmsbury, because the system is buckling under the pressure of youth offending and has surged to levels we have never seen before. This is more evidence of the Labor government in panic. It has lost control of crime, and it has no solutions for making Victorians feel safe. Not only can they not manage money, they cannot manage the crime crisis, and Victorians are well and truly paying the price. The result is clear: we now face a youth crime crisis that has become unprecedented. Violent offending involving young people has escalated in both frequency and severity. We are seeing attacks involving dangerous weapons, particularly knives and machetes, and violent confrontations in public that would have been unimaginable in previous decades. This is a situation that the government has let get out of control.

I have been long enough in this position that I was also the shadow representing the Shadow Attorney-General when the government weakened our bail laws. We begged them not to reduce and drop the test for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – begged them not to. We moved an amendment to try to stop them, then introduced our own bill twice to increase that test that the government weakened, that Jacinta Allan weakened, that this Attorney-General weakened, that the Attorney-General, now Treasurer, weakened, which set off a cavalcade of events that has led to a huge crisis that they were in denial about. I recall, as I was moving these amendments and motions, and I am sure my colleagues do as well, they were saying that we were doing this because we were keen for a grab on 3AW and keen for a Herald Sun headline. Maybe if the government had been out of their ivory towers and in their electorate offices speaking with their constituents, they would have realised that there was a crime crisis too, and they might have realised that they were responsible for it.

Across the northern suburbs in particular, police have reported repeated melees involving youths armed with machetes, knives and improvised weapons, leaving communities in places like Epping, Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn and Broadmeadows feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods. We are seeing just huge summary offences, particularly in my electorate. We see almost weekly incidents at Northland shopping centre, whether it be machete melees, whether it be stolen cars driving through or whether it be a gang of youths going through and ransacking, basically, a retail outlet. We are seeing incident after incident after incident. It is to the point where many people, including the elderly that I have spoken to, do not feel comfortable to go to Pacific Epping, to go to Northland or to go to Craigieburn Central. This is not a situation we want to be in.

A major component of this bill concerns mask removal powers at protests. The Premier claimed these powers would unmask extremists who turn up to demonstrations to intimidate, threaten and assault others. We have seen such incidents. We have seen rocks hurled at police during protests. We have seen masked agitators infiltrate rallies to provoke violence, yet the provisions before us today are watered down and weak. They are not a real ban. They are a polite request. The Police Association of Victoria has described them as the equivalent of saying, ‘Pretty please, will you remove your mask?’ I think we all saw a month or two ago when Commander Cheeseman gave that press conference, dropping the chains and the rocks on the press conference floor to demonstrate the targeting of police – and we know they were wearing masks – and to demonstrate the weapons being used to assault police.

We know he called out the undercurrent of pure hatred in this state that none of these people ever talk about. You know who he mentioned was responsible? Far left-wing protesters. That is who he said was responsible: fringe-dwelling left-wing protesters, who we have not heard called out and who we have not seen a parliamentary inquiry into. You get these weirdos coming in with trolley poles and chains and rocks, cowardly hiding behind a mask and assaulting the very people that are there to protect and serve our community and keep people safe in the community and in their own homes. These police who do their darn best to protect the Victorian community have to drive in from places like Craigieburn and Kalkallo and Mickleham, where there is already a huge uptick in crime, and come in to babysit these fringe-dwelling left-wingers who, cowardly, hide behind a mask. And what this government wants to do is say the police have the powers now to say, ‘Please will you take your mask off?’ – once they have already thrown rocks at them; once they have already thrown a trolley pole at them, or chains. This is the authority this bill gives the government to de-mask them. Once it gets to that stage it is too late. We had a police officer seriously injured and hospitalised and several others injured as well, bloodied by these ridiculous protesters, who are obviously missing their Sunday ritual and have to come into the city every couple of weeks and cause trouble because they have got nothing better to do. These are the people we need to be going after. These are the people we need to be sending a clear message to. They probably miss the days when this place would mandate people wear masks. We should tell them to take off their masks if they are going to a protest – not say ‘pretty please’. It is an absolutely pathetic attempt by this government and absolute weasel words by a Premier who has lost touch with the community, who has lost touch with our police command and who has lost touch with the police association and the people that do a darn good job to protect every single Victorian.

We need measures that will actually protect our community, and that is not what we are seeing at the moment. It fails to grant police the authority they need. Officers can only direct a person to remove a face covering if they suspect that person is about to commit a crime, and even then there are broad exemptions on religious, cultural or medical grounds. These exemptions, while well-intentioned, are so broad they undermine the effectiveness of the position. A senior KC has pointed out the absurdity of this, that a person could walk into a bank wearing a balaclava with their hand in a bag, appearing to conceal a weapon. Police might form the view that this person is preparing to commit a crime, but under the exemptions the individual could simply claim they are wearing a mask for cultural or medical reasons. This situation highlights how easily the law can be manipulated by those who intend to cause harm. The Zionist Federation of Australia, whose president Jeremy Leibler served on a working group drafting these laws, has expressed its deep disappointment. His concerns echo those of police on the ground – that if protesters can keep their masks even when police believe they are about to break the law, then the law is fundamentally flawed. These are not the robust powers that were promised. The bill does not reflect the urgency of the situation or the needs of communities that are affected by hate-motivated violence.

We know both the Attorney-General and the Premier have been forced to backflip on promised mask laws by their bleeding heart, left-wing caucus, who have obviously pulled them back to this pathetically weak position that does not have any effect at all. Again, we have got rabid, disgusting, violent protesters attacking Victoria Police with sharpened rocks, trolley poles and chains. We know from both the police command and the police association that there is a serious problem with the masking of these cowardly, gutless protesters. And what does the Premier do? What does the bumbling Attorney-General do? After announcing they would ban them, after receiving a backlash from their left caucus, they have come back and said, ‘We’ve got laws that say, if a protester is wearing a mask and they’re committing an offence or attacking police, the police can pretty please ask them to take the mask off.’ That is an abrogation of duty. That is a shameful backflip from a Premier clearly keen to move on to the next issue, who promised there would be a ban on masks at protests, which there is now not. That is what we are getting from this government, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Another area of concern is the Control of Weapons Act 1990. The government had the opportunity here to adopt Jack’s law, a proven system from the Crisafulli LNP government that enables police to carry out quick, non-intrusive scan procedures to detect knives. The system has removed more than 1000 knives from Queensland streets in a single year. In Victoria, by contrast, Operation Omni has seized only 129 knives across 39 operations. The difference between these figures is stark and demonstrates how ineffective the Victorian government’s system actually is. As I was saying, there has been an increased amount of crime. We are very keen to see Jack’s law in Victoria, which is why we have committed to that under a Wilson Liberals and Nationals government. Indeed, it was great to meet with Brett Beasley the other day. We know the machete bin program has now ended – and what a great use of taxpayer money that was! Instead of spending $13 million on machete bins, encouraging farmers and tradespeople to hand in their tools, the government should be stopping criminals from carrying these weapons in the first place. A good example of that in my electorate, again, are the almost daily incidents at Broadmeadows Central. I have had several Hume council staff contact my office concerned about their own safety right nearby there and in the car park. We see machete incidents a few times a week at Broadmeadows Central. Exactly across the road is Broadmeadows police station, where there is a machete bin. You would think those incidents would stop if there was a machete bin right there. Well, that has not been the case. The government system has proven to be a waste of taxpayer money and completely ineffective. Every day that passes without Jack’s law in Victoria is another day when more lives are at risk. The government were willing to look to Queensland for their new adult crime laws – which they have not copied and pasted; they have copied, edited, watered down and pasted – but only after they saw a bad poll. It is not good enough to deliver a half-measure and claim it as reform. Victorians deserve the real thing, and they deserve laws that work. For that reason, I notify the house of opposition amendments that have been drafted, and I ask for them to be circulated.

The Police Association Victoria secretary Wayne Gatt has already warned that police powers amount to little more than politely asking protesters whether they have a lawful reason to be wearing a mask. He described the proposal as the ‘pretty please bill’ – so we had the ‘double illegal’ bill first and now we have the ‘pretty please bill’. Government members are usually quick to stand with unions – not the police union, though. The government claims to support police, yet police are telling them the bill is too weak and they proceed with a law that the very people tasked with enforcing it say will not actually work. Again the bleeding-heart left caucus of the Labor Party seem to know more than Victoria Police about what measures will protect them. Imagine sending officers to approach 100 masked protesters one by one to ask whether they have an exemption. It is completely unrealistic; it is absolutely unworkable. But this is the commonsense approach from this government. It is crap. This is why our amendments will remove these exemptions to provide clarity that police can direct a person to remove a mask when public safety is at risk. Again, you have had to come back to the well so many times, and we spoke about it before on workplace protection orders. You had to literally announce twice that you wanted to do them, maybe once that you did not want to, and then you announced it again, only to come back in April. You are going to have to come back to this. This is why we saw multiple pieces after you finally admitted you were wrong and you should not have weakened the bail laws.

How many bills have we had now about the government’s appearance of being tough on crime? It is clearly not good enough. You even changed the name of the bill to say they are the toughest bail laws and then had to come back to the well on several occasions. I am glad this chamber voted to get rid of the word ‘toughest’, because it is clearly not the toughest if you keep having to come back to the well because there is serious crime going on in our community, which this Premier is responsible for, by the way, because she is the one that weakened the laws in the first place. So I warn the government: they are going to have to come back to this and pass an amendment that is very much like this.

Our third amendment concerns clause 82, which seeks to include public displays of images and individuals linked to terrorist organisations and symbols that closely resemble banned extremist insignia. The intent is to stop extremists from using near identical symbols that the average person could interpret as being of a terrorist group. If a symbol is deliberately designed to evoke a banned organisation, it should not evade the law simply because it is not an exact copy. We have seen that in examples on Bourke Street right here in Melbourne, where we see almost exact copies of the Hezbollah flag or the ISIS flag but not quite. I am sorry, that is not good enough, and the law should interpret it in a way that sorts that out. Communities should not be forced to tolerate displays of imagery glorifying violent individuals or extremist causes.

Our final amendments relate to clauses 84 and 85, which address the definition of ‘a meeting of persons assembled for religious worship’. It broadens the definition to ‘religious assembly’ to ensure that protections apply for all relevant activities. I urge the government to accept this change because it reflects the real way faith communities gather and interact. This is something many faith communities have spoken about.

The provisions dealing with confiscation are sensible. The changes to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 regarding the seizure and disposal of drugs bring Victoria into line with other states. There is a whole bunch of other stuff that we do not have too much of an issue with. But the central purpose of this bill is the promise to strengthen community safety. It is absolutely not achieved, and the government know it. They know it. We are given weak mask provisions, inadequate knife controls and a bill that fails to respond to the real challenges facing Victoria. The government now claims to have the toughest knife laws in the country. We know that is not true, because they have not implemented Jack’s law. Queensland has the toughest knife laws in the country. We know it is working in other jurisdictions as well. Victorians deserve better. They deserve a government that listens, that adapts and that adopts ideas that work regardless of where they come from.

I will finish where I started. The government promised strong action to fight hate and improve safety. Instead, they have given us weak face-covering laws and incomplete knife reforms. They claim to have strengthened enforcement but have cut PSO numbers on train stations. They claim to support police, but they have failed to fund the resourcing required for effective operations. They claim to have improved laws, yet the very organisations involved in drafting them warn they are flawed. Victoria is in the grip of a crime crisis. This crisis has well and truly developed under this Allan Labor government, and it has been made worse by indecision, inconsistency, lack of planning, delays, not listening to experts and not listening to affected communities. Again, this government will only react when things reach a crisis point. They will not sit down with people. They would not even sit down with victims of crime, post their weakening of the bail laws. They did not want to hear it. Even though I had constituent after constituent coming into my office or calling my office about incidents of aggravated burglary, crime and theft, this government did not want to hear about it. They only ever react when it becomes a political problem, not when it is a genuine problem you are trying to fix. Admit you got it wrong. Admit it was a mistake to weaken the bail laws, after we warned you not to.

The people of Victoria deserve a government that is serious about law and order, a government that invests in resources and a government that invests and stands with victims, not this tired, decade-old Labor government, who has not delivered any real solutions but only empty slogans for titles of media releases to try to divert the news story away from its absolute failures. This government has all the hallmarks of a government on its last legs. Whether it is charging people for a pedestrian tollway, spending $200,000 on plants for the Suburban Rail Loop Authority or continuing to bring through Mickey Mouse bills that are basically drafted as press releases, it is a government that has lost its way, and it is a government that I hope will be put out of its misery by the Victorian people in November next year. Until that happens, communities will remain at risk and Victorians will continue to feel unsafe in their own state.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (18:03): I rise to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025 and make the Greens’ firm opposition to this bill absolutely clear. This bill is a sweeping expansion of police and PSO powers that will erode the right to peaceful protest, that will criminalise longstanding forms of democratic expression and that will further entrench the overpolicing of already-targeted communities. There has been an open letter started by more than 100 civil society organisations sounding the alarm about Labor’s draconian anti-protest laws that we debate here tonight. The right to protest is not a fringe privilege, it is a foundation of our democracy. The Greens have consistently spoken out against Labor’s anti-protest agenda, which risks and is designed to stifle people’s fundamental democratic right to speak truth to power and to call out injustice. These laws will have a chilling effect on our democracy. They are designed to do that by a tired, old government that does not want to listen to its critics and that does not want to admit its mistakes. Peaceful protest is the practical expression of grassroots democracy. It is ordinary people assembling to be heard. It is protected under our Victoria Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, a document that this government is showing shameful disregard for this week. This bill takes us further down a path of shrinking civic space and expanding coercive powers, all in the name of safety. The evidence shows that existing laws already give police extensive tools to respond to violence and to serious offending, whether that is in public or at protests.

Part 10 of this bill does four key things. In new subdivision 1, section 6B creates a broad new definition of ‘public protest’. This definition will be the gateway for a whole suite of new police and PSO powers and offences. It is drafted so broadly that it could capture everything from a mass rally to a small community vigil or picket. In new subdivision 2, section 6D gives police a new power to direct a person to remove a face covering if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person has committed or intends to commit any offence at a public protest, with exemptions only narrowly provided for religious, cultural or medical reasons. In new subdivision 3, sections 6F to 6G create a new offence with up to 12 months imprisonment for using a lock-on device at a public protest where that is likely to cause injury or presents a serious risk to public safety, and these clauses are backed by extremely broad seizure powers, including expanded search warrants that police can use to reach into people’s homes and personal lives. New division 3 amends the existing offence of disturbing religious worship, and then it layers on new offences, all of them carrying up to three months imprisonment, where a person disturbs a religious assembly or assaults, intimidates, menaces, harasses, hinders or obstructs a person attending a religious assembly. This set of powers is a significant departure from the sweeping changes that the Premier initially flagged in her media release, but it is still a vaguely drafted set of provisions that will create significant uncertainty.

Part 12 of the bill significantly expands PSO powers, moving PSOs into broader public spaces like shopping centres and effectively giving them the same powers as sworn police constables, including powers of arrest, detention and, worryingly, carriage of firearms – providing all of these powers to a cohort that receives about 10 per cent of the training that Victoria Police officers receive. Community legal centres and VALS have been very clear that PSOs are already contributing to an unsafe environment for vulnerable communities, Aboriginal people and people experiencing social disadvantage because they replicate Victoria Police’s patterns of racial profiling and targeted behaviour for people experiencing homelessness, mental ill health and poverty. Giving PSOs the same duties and powers as a constable at common law and then expanding the places where they can exercise those powers, including shopping centres and other busy public places, is extremely unsafe. PSOs, as I have mentioned, receive significantly less training than police, yet this bill gives them increased access to firearms and a wider range of coercive powers in environments where children, young people and people in crisis gather every day. Taken together, this is no modest tightening of the law; this is a draconian shift in how this Labor government shamefully polices public space, attacks public assembly and deepens disadvantage for already overpoliced communities.

Going now to some more details on these areas of change that I have addressed, on the mask ban, we all watched that initial media release where the Premier said that there would be a blanket ban on masks at protests. That plan was so obviously unworkable and unlawful that it had to be walked back after legal advice and a public backlash, so the government now is framing this as a targeted power and a reasonable compromise. It still is not. Under new section 6D, a police officer can direct a person at a protest to remove a face covering if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person has committed or intends to commit an offence – any offence, including very minor summary offences like failing to follow a move-on direction. There is no requirement that the suspected conduct be violent, hateful or even related to safety concerns that the government spends so much of its time publicly talking about. Civil society organisations, including the Human Rights Law Centre, have pointed out that Victoria Police already have very broad-ranging powers to respond to violence at protests and that these new mask powers are likely to have a discriminatory impact on people who wear face coverings for health, safety or political expression, as we have a great tradition of protest activity in Australia. We know who are going to be most affected by these new provisions: immunocompromised people who are still masking to protect their health, survivors of family violence and stalking or other folks who do not want to be identified in a crowd, workers and students who might fear employer retaliation and marginalised communities, who are already targeted online and in person for speaking out.

Community legal services proposed to the government an alternative to the conduct the government says it is worried about: limit the mask removal directions to cases where police reasonably believe a person has committed or intends to commit the serious vilification offence in section 195N of the Crimes Act 1958, rather than tying this power to any offence at all. That would have been a much more targeted enactment. It would still allow police to act where there is genuine incitement to hatred or violence but without creating this roving power for police to unmask people and to approach people and to engage in interactions with people where they think there may be low-level summary offences occurring. But the government has declined that civil society recommendation. Instead this bill contains the narrow exemptions and the broad police discretion, and they are a recipe for selective enforcement. We already know, and we have seen it this week, that there are discriminatory ways in which these discretionary powers are applied by Victoria Police. Still, to this week, new evidence is coming to light that racial profiling continues. It is not speculation. We already have a pattern of overpolicing black and brown communities in this state, and using the reasonable suspicion thresholds to justify disproportionate stop searches and use of force will just continue this. Communities are telling us that they are afraid of how these powers will be exercised in practice. The government ignores those pleas and just marches on.

The lock-on provisions: the bill’s new 12-month lock-on offence is framed as a response to dangerous protest tactics. As the community legal sector has pointed out, police already have the power to seize items where there is a genuine danger to community safety. Once again we see the government making things double illegal, but they are targeting specific protest tactics that they know work. That is why they are doing it. Creating a new lock-on offence on top of existing powers that the police have does not fill a gap. What it does is criminalise a traditional nonviolent protest tactic that has been effectively used by climate and social justice movements for decades. Under this bill items like chains, bike locks and other simple devices which have been used for decades in peaceful nonviolent direct action, from tree sits to climate protests to Zelda D’Aprano chaining herself to the Commonwealth building for women’s rights, become the basis for a criminal charge, carrying a year in prison. The Greens have already warned that criminalising the use of these materials will stifle peaceful protest and will rewrite the history of the very movements that Labor likes to celebrate in bronze. We have all seen photos of the Premier standing in front of and taking selfies with the Zelda D’Aprano statue. The hypocrisy of then turning around and trying to criminalise these tactics – which they are cracking down on because they know they are effective and they secure change for marginalised communities – is just shameful.

Part 10 of this bill inserts a new section 6F in the Summary Offences Act 1966 about a thing or substance used to lock on or to otherwise secure a person to another person, surface or thing at a public protest. Crucially, it only becomes an offence if being locked on or unlocking is dangerous and presents an immediate risk to public safety. Particular devices and so on are not outlawed in and of themselves; the use of things and substances to lock on becomes the target of this offence if they are likely to cause injury or present a serious risk to public safety, and it is confined to conduct that could endanger the community. The explanatory memorandum crucially says expressly that this is not meant to cover peaceful lock-ons with no safety risk and notes that items like bike locks, glue, ropes or chains can only be seized when police reasonably believe an offence against section 6F is being or will be committed.

As I mentioned, the bill also enacts search powers. In terms of searching a person’s home or vehicle, the police will need to approach a magistrate to convince them that there is a reasonable risk in order to obtain a warrant for that search. Police, as I have said, already have powers to respond where there is genuine community safety risk. They can arrest people for trespass, obstruction, public nuisance, criminal damage, assault and more, as many peaceful protesters over the years have found. They can also seize items that pose a danger. What this bill does is not fill a gap in the law. It creates a new, very vaguely defined, protest-specific offence, and it is designed to deter nonviolent civil disobedience. Once again, with these provisions, our experience across Australia shows us who ends up bearing the brunt of these changes: climate activists, First Nations land defenders and young people, who instead of being listened to when they raise legitimate concerns through peaceful assembly and through disruptive tactics that are designed to point out that business as usual under this government is hurting people, will be met with harsher criminal penalties. That is exactly what this Labor government wants to do.

The bill also expands search powers in designated areas under the Control of Weapons Act 1990, and it removes the requirement – this is frightening – for a parent, guardian or independent support person to be present when an outer search is conducted on a child or a person with cognitive impairment by a police officer or a PSO. The only requirement is that some other person be present, which in practice could just be another officer, I suppose. Any search can be invasive and traumatic. There is a power differential when people are approached by the police, and removing the safeguard of an independent adult dramatically increases the risk that a person who is vulnerable or a child will have their rights overstepped in what is already, by its nature, a coercive environment. This is a truly frightening expansion, and it just goes to the dramatic increase in police powers and the police state that this Labor government is trying to institute in Victoria.

Just over the weekend these new powers that police have for the extended designations were used, and they were explicitly used to target a weekend when they knew that there was going to be protest activity undertaken. I would dearly love to know how many police hours were put into that operation and how many searches were conducted to discover one article that police could proudly pick up and wave around afterwards to try and justify those searches. There were journalists searched over the weekend in the state of Victoria – people who were at protests to cover issues of public importance, stopped and searched by police. That is what this Labor government has produced. Those sitting here with their backs to me on the benches, I hope tonight you go home, and if you cannot look me in the eye while this bill is being debated, look yourself in the eye this evening. You have a draconian bill before this Parliament. Is this what you stood for election for? Is this why you put your hand up to come and participate in our democracy?

Gayle Tierney: You’ve lost me now.

Katherine COPSEY: I do not think we ever had you, Minister Tierney, because these sorts of bills and this trend that we have seen under an old, tired government that has lost its way under this Premier are eroding rights that were won over decades in this state and in this country, and you have the nerve to take the advantage that those movements have delivered –

Gayle Tierney: On a point of order, Acting President, the member is not speaking through the Chair and is then making accusations about certain members of the Parliament – who are sitting in the chamber quietly listening to her contribution – and making comments that are derogatory about our behaviour and our ability to listen to her in peace and is accusing us of things that are absolutely unjust.

Katherine COPSEY: On the point of order, Acting President, I withdraw my comments about the direction that members were facing in while they listened to our contributions tonight. But I consider the rest of it is relevant to the bill, relevant to this government’s conduct, and I stand by it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Ms Copsey, I ask you to direct any further comments through the Chair, and I ask you to continue with the contribution.

Katherine COPSEY: The trends that we have seen under this Labor government are truly shameful. They seem happy to take the power that has been delivered to them by social movements over many, many decades and then throw it back in those movements’ faces by criminalising the tactics that have been used to secure social, environmental and economic progress in this state. It is hypocritical in the extreme of this government, and I hope that members feel ashamed of the bills that they are bringing through this place this week.

In regard to the religious worship elements, the bill creates new offences for disturbing religious worship or hindering or obstructing someone attending a religious assembly, with up to three months imprisonment. The Human Rights Law Centre has warned that similarly vague offences of disruption of a religious gathering could be used even to silence peaceful protests, including those that have been held by victim-survivors of clergy abuse protesting outside places of worship. I would love to get more clarification.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Katherine COPSEY: Mr Batchelor is interjecting that that is untrue. We are concerned about the vagueness with which this has been drafted. It is true that the government has had to walk back significantly the announcements that the Premier made in her media release because they were unworkable, they were unwise and they were disproportionate, onerous and draconian.

Protests, many of them, by their nature are disruptive. A silent protest can be disruptive. That is how people who have been ignored for decades finally force those in power to listen. Drafting offences around disturbance, hindrance and obstruction in the vicinity of religious gatherings without tight safeguards is to invite the use of these provisions against entirely lawful political expression.

Everyone does have the right to worship safely and free from hatred of course, and there are already strong laws to deal with genuine hate conduct, including the new vilification offences in the Crimes Act 1958 and the expanded civil anti-vilification protections passed in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025. Those laws are aimed squarely at inciting hatred, serious contempt or revulsion on the basis of protected attributes, including religion. The existing offences under the Summary Offences Act of disturbing religious worship in section 21, the bill states, will be modernised and re-enacted with the same maximum penalty as the existing offence. The offences around assaulting, intimidating, harassing, hindering or obstructing people attending religious assemblies, which are the new sections 21A to 21C, are the new offences, and they also each carry 15 penalty units or three months.

The concern I have – and I want to explore this in committee, and I hope that I will find reassurance from the government’s responses – is that a protest by its nature could be obstructive or a disturbance, and it could be located in the vicinity of but not directed towards people who are attending a place of worship. So it is the vagueness of the drafting here. The government have tried to say that they have tightly drafted these laws. However, there is a lot of room for interpretation in them still, and I would like to understand where people will be able to lawfully protest in the vicinity of religious institutions free from uncertainty and fear that they will be unfairly targeted.

Coming back to the expansion of powers for protective services officers, part 12 of this bill, as I have said, dramatically expands their role and effectively gives them the same powers as sworn police, including carriage of firearms. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service has been unequivocal about how dangerous they consider this move, saying:

Putting under-trained PSOs in shopping centres with handguns is a danger to us all.

PSOs receive significantly less training than police, and they can be appropriate in some circumstances, but now we are asked as a Parliament to sign off on them wielding the full suite of coercive powers in environments where vulnerable people, including young people, Aboriginal people, people experiencing homelessness and people in mental health crisis, gather every day. Communities, as I said, are concerned that the PSOs will continue to replicate the same patterns of racial profiling, harassment and escalation that we have seen. Extending their reach, arming them further and broadening their legal authority without even basic consultation with Aboriginal and community legal services flies in the face of every lesson we have learned from reports and recommendations into deaths in custody and from IBAC investigations into police misconduct. If the government is serious about community safety in public spaces, the answer is not more guns and people with less training wielding more power; the answer is investment in housing, mental health, youth workers, community-based outreach and de-escalation, the very things our legal services and Aboriginal organisations have repeatedly called for.

This government says that this bill is about keeping people safe – safe from violence at protests, antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and misogyny. Those aims are important. The Greens have consistently condemned antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks and all forms of hate. We are deeply disturbed that a Labor government is abandoning investment in the community supports that actually bring our society together and is turning its attention to a chilling of our democratic space. Safety is not built on overpolicing, vague offences and expanded coercive powers, which history and experience tell us will be most heavily used against First Nations people, migrants and refugees, young people and people experiencing poverty and distress. A different approach is possible. We could require that mandatory public reporting of the uses of all these new powers, including the numbers, grounds and the police’s perceived ethnicity as well as the outcomes of all the search powers, be built into the two-year statutory review of these offences and powers against our charter; enforce the anti-vilification laws that this Parliament has already passed; and resource community-led responses to racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia rather than pushing all of that work onto police.

Implementing and properly funding independent police oversight becomes more crucial day after day under this government. Rather than handing Victoria Police and PSOs new discretionary powers without any kind of robust transparency and accountability, we must invest more in mental health, housing and social supports that actually reduce harm and conflict in public space, and we must implement the remaining recommendations of the Greens-initiated inquiry into far-right extremism. Crucially, this Labor government should recognise that the ability of Victorians to freely assemble and participate in rallies, protests and community gatherings is a crucial democratic right that in and of itself strengthens our community – it is not a problem to be managed away. All Victorians deserve to participate in protest in ways that protect their health, their privacy and their safety. Responses to violent and hateful ideologies need to be targeted, proportionate and focused on specific criminal conduct, not on limiting people’s legitimate rights, and protected rights under our charter, to protest.

Around the world, attacks on protests are one of the first signs of a worrying slide towards authoritarianism. This government has form. They have enacted already this term harsher penalties and offences for forest defenders. They have stood with the forestry industry instead of those seeking to protect our environment. They have cracked down on animal activists trying to expose the cruelty and abuse that we know continues unseen in our farming industry, and they continue today. These anti-protest laws are straight out of the Trump playbook – do not kid yourselves – and they risk sending us down that path. This bill does not make our community safer, but what it does do is make it easier for this government to silence dissent – plenty of dissent at this point in your reign. It makes it easier for police to target marginalised communities and to push the hardest conversations further out of sight.

Our task in this place is not to make our streets quieter by making our democracy weaker, it is to protect the nonviolent means which people have – and will continue, by the way – to seek change: the marches, the vigils, the sit-ins, the masked student, the survivor with a yellow ribbon on a cathedral fence. Under this Premier, in bill after bill we see that the Victorian charter of human rights is being treated as optional. Human rights are not a luxury for the few, they are hard-won rights for all. We will continue defending them, and for these reasons the Greens will strongly and proudly oppose this bill.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:33 pm.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (19:33): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I think this is another piece of legislative reform that the Allan Labor government has brought to the Parliament in recent times focused on community safety. We have been very clear both in our legislative program but also more broadly across the government that we understand the absolute importance of keeping our community safe. We know that more needs to be done, and that is what the government is absolutely doing. We are doing that through laws like this and other bills that we deal with to address dangerous conduct, to address serious violent crime and to improve community safety. We also do it through the range of measures that we are delivering and have announced will be further rolled out to assist those who may be engaged in crime to prevent further escalation of criminal behaviour and to prevent people from becoming involved in criminal activity in the first place. We do that alongside the serious and tough consequences that we are putting in place through a range of measures to deal with crime in the community. It is part of this bill today in addressing things particularly to do with conduct across the community and a range of matters to do with police powers and the criminal justice system.

We are also, as I mentioned, investing to help prevent youth crime. A range of prevention initiatives are being implemented across the community, including funding for wraparound supports, assistance for people to finish school and early intervention programs. The youth crime prevention program is just one part of the government’s response to addressing offending behaviour by young people who are at risk of being involved in the criminal justice system, supporting young people long term over different stages of their journey, fostering strong connections and building stronger protective factors against further youth offending. The youth crime prevention program has been delivered in 15 areas across the state with higher rates of youth offending, and an evaluation completed in 2022 found that for young people who completed the program the incidence of their offending had dropped by 29 per cent. Participation significantly reduced the severity of young people’s offending, with high serious offences down 24 per cent, including sizeable reductions in offences like breaking and entering, burglary, property damage and assault. There are also things like the embedded youth outreach program providing outreach services as part of a police response to young people at high risk of anti-social behaviour, criminal behaviour or victimisation. These are some of the initiatives we are taking in the prevention space, because preventing crime, preventing youth crime, is an incredibly important part of the suite of measures that we need to enact and are enacting to keep our community safe.

We cannot just do prevention; we have also got to make sure that the powers are there for our police and the consequences for criminal behaviour are there, they are serious and they are real. We have demonstrated our commitment across these areas – for example, by continuing to back Victoria Police to do their incredibly important job of keeping our community safe, with additional investment that helps them to do their job, investment that helps prevent crime. We invest in this system. We have invested more than $4.5 billion to ensure our police are equipped with the resources and tougher powers they need to keep communities safe, with more police officers on the beat and investments of almost $1 billion to deliver new and upgraded police stations across the state, and we continue to invest in critical police infrastructure. As we go about all of these elements of our plan to keep our community safe, we will be doing things like bringing bills like this and others into the Parliament to make sure that the suite of powers, resources and support that the police need to do their job are there, and we back them in with investments. We do it through continually looking at the effectiveness of the range of laws that exist to keep our community safe, and we are unapologetic about making sure that those laws are right all of the time.

This bill today introduces a raft of changes, and it is reasonably comprehensive. I do not want to go through all of the aspects due to time constraints. I just want to mention a few. One of the things that is exceptionally important to the community at the moment is dealing with knife crime. You have seen the government take serious and clear action to make sure that we are giving police the powers they need, providing the resources that we need, to deal with knife crime. We have expanded Victoria Police’s stop-and-search powers and implemented a nation-leading machete ban. The machete ban and the amnesty and disposal system are continuing to get thousands of knives off our streets. Since the start of the amnesty period, almost 9000 knives have been surrendered by members of the public and more than 5000 by a major retailer. Between what has been surrendered by the public and those coming from retailers, more than14,000 dangerous weapons have been taken from the streets in the last couple of months.

I do want to point out that the Liberal Party – and Mr Mulholland in his speech – continues to try and attack the government over taking action on knife crime. We think what that demonstrates is they do not take this issue seriously enough, because if they did take this issue seriously, then they would not trivialise and undermine the efforts that the government is taking to deal with knife crime. We will find it difficult I think to listen to them seriously when they have more interest in getting cheap clicks on social media than they have in getting knives off our streets. I think that their approach to the trivialisation of the ban on machetes and the attempts to get machetes off our streets should stand condemned, because I think it demonstrates that they do not have the seriousness with which to tackle these issues.

The other thing I just wanted to touch on in this bill is the measures that are being put in place to stop harmful behaviours that will prevent or disrupt people from practising their faith. Those sorts of actions do not have any place in Victoria. I know because of the communities that I speak to in the Southern Metropolitan Region that particularly members of the Jewish community are concerned and have been concerned about protests that they have felt have impacted their ability to practise their religion. We do need to make sure that faith communities have the capacity to exercise their faith without fear of protest. In a multicultural and multifaith society such as ours, people should be able to gather and practise their faith free from intimidation and harassment.

The government is very clear that the changes that we are putting through with this bill today are setting out some very clear provisions about replacing an existing offence of disturbing religious worship with two separate, modernised offences. The first prohibits conduct that disturbs religious assembly and the second concerns the assault of persons arriving at or attending or leaving a meeting of persons assembled for religious worship. It is important to clarify this in the course of this debate, because we had some quite outrageous commentary from Ms Copsey on behalf of the Greens about this bill. She said that the bill was too vague and that these terms were too vague. In the course of legislative drafting, as legislators and as drafters of legislation, we cannot expect our legislation to precisely deal with every possible scenario that we might envisage. When matters are required to be left up to interpretation, what the courts have done – and I assume Ms Copsey is aware of this – is look at the materials that are presented and provided as part of the parliamentary debates to understand what the intention of the Parliament was in assisting the courts and the police and others in determining what the Parliament meant by certain things. Ms Copsey raised concerns, I think quite dangerously, that this bill would prevent, for example, the victim-survivors of sexual abuse from tying ribbons to the gates of churches, and that is just not true. It is disappointing that she would stand and say this, having not read the material that was presented as part of the second-reading tabling and having not read the statement of compatibility that was tabled by the minister which addresses this issue specifically.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not contest Mr Batchelor responding to comments I made in my speech, but I just want to clarify that I do not think I represented in my speech that these actions would be prevented. Rather I seek clarification from the government around their intent, to ensure that there are not unintended consequences of the legislation they have drafted. It is not a point of order really.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Thank you for your comment.

Ryan BATCHELOR: It may assist Ms Copsey to read the statement of compatibility that was tabled with the second-reading speech in this place by the minister, because it says what is intended by this legislation. I quote here from the statement of compatibility:

The new offences are not intended to prevent people from participating in peaceful political protests or demonstrations. For example, the new offences will not affect peaceful assemblies at places where religious worship takes place, such as the practice of gathering to tie ribbons outside churches to show support for survivors of rape and sexual assault.

I appreciate that Ms Copsey may not be intending to muddy the waters of what the government intends, but it is a little difficult to suggest that that is not her intention when the clarity she seeks is in the documents that have been tabled.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, Acting President, I believe that Mr Batchelor is reflecting on a member. If he wants to make assumptions about my intent in this place, I would ask him not to.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Mr Batchelor, I will just bring you back to the bill.

Ryan BATCHELOR: The legislation is very clear about what the government’s intent is, because it is in the statement of compatibility, and I am sure that all members who seek to understand what is intended could read these materials and it could be made very clear to them. It is a little difficult in the course of the debate to have to listen to members who have not read the statement of compatibility that was tabled with the bill when they seek to understand what the bill is intended to do.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, Acting President, I think that Mr Batchelor has continued to reflect on my conduct, and I would ask him to confine his comments to the bill. I will clarify my concerns about the government’s drafting and the effectiveness with which it is realising its intention when we get to the committee stage. I do not appreciate Mr Batchelor making assertions about my conduct in making a good-faith contribution to a bill that is going to significantly impact the rights of Victorians to peaceful assembly.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Further to the point of order, none of my remarks since the last point of order have mentioned Ms Copsey.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Mr Batchelor, I understand that you were talking generally about the bill in that section, but I just bring you back to the bill.

Ryan BATCHELOR: As I am talking about the bill, its application, what is intended and the statement of compatibility that was tabled, I think we have made that pretty clear. We know that in a range of areas there needs to be more done to continue to ensure that our community is safe and feels safe, and that is exactly what this bill in certain parts and elements seeks to do. We do not resile as a government from having the safety of our community as a top priority. We will continue to invest in the sorts of prevention programs that are required to ensure that we prevent offending, particularly youth offending, and we will also continue to ensure that the consequences for those who do offend are serious. This bill is an important part of the suite of measures that the government is taking, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (19:48): I too rise today to add my contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill is an omnibus justice bill that amends various acts ranging from the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to the Crimes Act 1958, the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, the Firearms Act 1996, the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, the Victoria Police Act 2013 and so on. Mainly there are a range amendments to acts dealing with criminal procedures, police powers and firearms as normal procedure to better police procedure and better policies and also to arrange improved regulations and legislation as technology advances to accomplish a couple of those areas. But also I note some of these amendments are trying to catch up on what has been lacking from this government in relation to the building crime crisis, and in doing so we do commend that they are trying to fix the problem they have initiated with watered down legislation in recent times.

Consolidating multiple operations and policy changes into a single legislative vehicle will support organisations like Victoria Police and other agencies in the justice system to assist them recording serious organised crime and related offences. There are so many acts being amended throughout this bill. I will touch on some of this legislation, which I would like to highlight – what it is trying to improve in relation to policies and legislation. For example, we have got the amendment to the Control of Weapons Act 1990. The amendments in this bill basically define what a planned designation of an area is in clause 9. This enables police and agencies to conduct various searches at declared zones, so they would be doing various searches for controlled weapons in those areas. It comes as a reaction to the various incidents that have happened in recent times in relation to the crime crisis. The issue with this is the government is trying to catch up in relation to searching for weapons, which has been an issue in relation to youth offenders using machetes. I will touch on the actual machete issue itself down the track. In relation to designated areas, we have seen a crime crisis happen across the board in Victoria, not just in one area, such as shopping centres or places of public transport where youth hang out. It is across the board, what is happening at the moment. Yes, the government is trying to amend this legislation to address some of the crime issues happening across the state. Unfortunately, having a designated area does not cover the whole state, whereas legislation like Jack’s law would enable police to scan and stop people across the board wherever they want, if they deem it appropriate, to search for weapons.

It is a half-measure amendment, what the government is trying to do. I do understand what they are trying to do, but again, this is just a reactive government, not a proactive situation that we are looking at. Something happened, they are trying to react – but they are not providing full cover in relation to making amendments across the board. If they adopt Jack’s law, as Queensland have, it would enable authorised officers like the police and PSOs to stop and scan – this is not searching; it is scanning – for weapons anywhere across the state, which is where crimes are happening at the moment. It does not happen in just one area. What this amendment does is enable a planned designed area. What it entails is the police having to advertise and publicise in relation to the area itself. This is good for people who attend the area at times, but it does not address the issue in relation to offenders and the crime crisis and people using weapons in those areas and in this time. It is addressing it, but it does not actually go for the full measure.

Other amendments are, for example, to the Firearms Act, which I do commend the government for doing. As technology advances, we know there is a crime issue in relation firearms in the state. There are a large volume of illegal firearms and unregistered firearms across the black market, and we know it is happening. Police are doing their darn best to combat this issue. Unfortunately, the technology has progressed so dramatically that firearms are no longer just a metal weapon but also can be made from plastics and through technologies such as 3D printers. This amendment to the Firearms Act enables police to search and prevent the distributing of manuals and instructions on how to print 3D objects such as firearms and weapons, and it is building forward in relation to technology that is happening at the moment. I do commend the government for doing something to keep up with technologies.

Just touching back in relation to the other amendment in the Victoria Police Act 2013. The PSO service clause 106 would enable police and protective services officers by definition to deploy models to enable them to have stop-and-search powers in designated areas. I mentioned earlier in relation to designated areas the bill does not fully address the crime crisis or the youth offenders across the state. Yes, it is detailed in relation to certain areas as being designated, but again, offenders do not just go to those designated areas carrying weapons. They know it is happening. They would not go there. That is the problem at the moment. In relation to law-abiding citizens, yes, they are being searched, they are being looked at and they are being scanned in those designated areas. Unfortunately, offenders know it has been designated, so it does not really address the issue.

Other legislation that is amended by this bill is in relation to wearing a mask. I know the government has talked about this, and the crossbenchers mentioned the wearing of masks. The wearing of masks has been going on for years. Unfortunately, during COVID there was an increased number of people who were wearing masks due to restrictions, and once restrictions were lifted the wearing of masks carried on, and that is where the issue lies. In combination with the crime crisis and the increase of youth offenders and in relation to the wearing of masks in protesting, this legislation has been brought forward to prevent people wearing masks and asking them to remove masks. Going back before this, due to the crime issues – people wearing masks and committing crimes during protests – the Premier promised a mask ban. This is a big issue for identification for police when activists protest.

Mentioning protests, I know the crossbench has mentioned peaceful protesting. Yes, we are all for peaceful protesting, and it is our lawful right to do so, but when it comes to violence – when you start throwing rocks, throwing weapons, throwing urine or throwing faeces at police officers during protests – that is not a peaceful protest. I do not know what definition of ‘peaceful protest’ you mean, but when this sort of thing happens it is not peaceful. Secondly, most of the time all these people – activists, so-called protesters – go to protests with no intention of protesting. They are there for one reason: to cause chaos and with violence. That is why they are there during protests. The police have been asking for the right legislation to define the removal of masks. They have been asking that for years. This did not happen recently after COVID, it happened before COVID. The identification of offenders is a vital key for police officers and law enforcement. It is not for people who actually go to the protests, it is for those who go there not to protest but to cause violence. I know we mentioned about religious rights. I do not know what religions wear masks other than those who have customs in relation to Islam for females wearing the burqa. I do not know any religions that actually wear masks as a religion. If you can find and show me anyone in a religion who wears a mask as a religion, I would love to see that. But you would be narrowing things down to a very small group of individuals you classify across the board under freedom of religion. Well, we are not referring to that. Please answer the question. When they see a female wearing a burqa, they will not approach that female. But we are talking about all these activists – male, female and whatever gender you want to define – wearing face masks, not a burqa, who go to these protests for one reason only, to cause violence, and with the tools to do so. So please do not use those religions and those diverse communities as your tools as defence for violence.

Secondly, we are talking about another piece of legislation about lockdown – lock in place. When you lock yourself down to an object or to the road, which causes chaos, that is not peaceful. You are actually causing mayhem and disruption to the general public and to the community. And I know she mentioned this in relation to the consequences in relation to some of the amendments the government has put forward. Well, for every action there are consequences, whether good or bad. If you act in good faith, there will be no repercussions, but if you act badly, there are consequences, and that is what legislation and law is all about.

With the remaining time I have left, I just want to conclude that in relation to this bill, there are some shortfalls. I understand there is some legislation the government is trying to rush through in relation to this bill to compensate for what has been going on. The coalition broadly support the bill and acknowledge that it has taken far too long for the government to bring this to Parliament. There are, some would say, some weak elements, as I mentioned, in relation to the weapons bill, for example, and also the face covering component, which could be more strongly enforceable, because this bill only mentions a law officer being able to ask them to remove coverings. When you are in a situation where people are throwing rocks at you, throwing objects at you, throwing faeces at you or throwing urine at you, you have not got time to go, ‘Please remove your mask.’ You direct the person to remove the mask and identify who they are. But you cannot have police officers ask, ‘Please remove your mask,’ if incidents are occurring. We do not oppose this bill, but I do express some concern with some of the shortfalls which the bill does not fully address and with some of the acts this amendment is trying to cover.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (20:03): I rise to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis. The bill expands police and PSO stop-and-search powers, it further restricts the rights of protesters, and it changes the rules around the destruction by police of seized drugs and drug-related equipment. We will come back with some questions about that in committee of the whole. It is the government’s latest regressive so-called tough-on-crime bill. This one implements an unnecessary and harmful expansion in police and PSO powers and seeks to further erode our civil liberties – the edge of the wedge driven further into our democratic hearts with each populist stunt. Over 90 new police powers have been introduced in the last five years with no corresponding increase in oversight, a seemingly endless recycling of old laws that have proven to be ineffective, discriminatory and expensive, all in the name of community safety. But this is about a government attempting to shore up its re-election chances, and it is about a Premier who jerks reflexively at every Herald Sun headline and seems to mistake legislating for leadership.

I confirm from the outset, as you may have already guessed, that we will not be supporting this bill. Our vote makes little difference, as the bill has been enthusiastically endorsed by the opposition, and it is really getting harder and harder to distinguish between our two major parties on some of these issues. It seems that, if anything, the opposition feel the government’s authoritarian overreach does not quite extend far enough. The bill hands more power to police to stop and search people without a warrant and without suspicion in key transit points outside a designated area – at bus stops and train stations or perhaps further on. America’s justice system has many, many flaws, but the concept of probable cause and due process are enshrined to a degree that the police powers proposed in this bill would be struck down there.

There are practical considerations as to why this is a bad piece of legislation as well. It weakens safeguards for children and people with an intellectual impairment by removing the requirement that a parent, guardian or independent person be present for a search –

David Limbrick interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, Mr Limbrick, it is disgusting. It requires only that another person be present, and that person can be a police officer. Random searches are also incredibly inefficient. Only 1 per cent of random police searches yield anything. Targeted ones have a slightly better hit rate of around 17 per cent, but it is still a lot of money for a pretty poor catch rate. There is gross potential for scope creep and misuse, particularly around police pre-empting criminal offences with no requirement to prove criminal intent.

We know these laws will disproportionately impact First Peoples in Victoria, along with all the other usual suspects. The cognitive dissonance of this government once again is stunning. Last month they passed the historic treaty bill – well done – and next week they will deliver an apology to our state’s First People, one that will acknowledge the responsibility of predecessors for laws, policies and practices that contributed to injustices against First Peoples in Victoria. But that is apparently as far as they are prepared to go. The Minister for Police himself told the Yoorrook Justice Commission about the challenges of combating racism, discrimination and unconscious bias in our police force, yet the use of excessive and illegal force continues against people from those communities and other marginalised communities with inadequate oversight. It is very disturbing, given the Centre Against Racial Profiling has found that profiling of Aboriginal, African, Middle Eastern and Pasifika communities has in fact worsened since the practice was outlawed by Victoria Police in 2016. Let us face it: police have never been known for using increasing powers lightly.

Protective services officers hold these same biases, these same patterns of racial profiling and targeted behaviour towards people who are homeless, people with mental health issues and people living in poverty. The difference is that PSOs get a mere 12 weeks of training. Youthlaw rightly notes that PSOs are not known for de-escalating situations. Sending them into more public spaces where children and teenagers hang out, like shopping centres, will intensify situations that should never involve force, let alone a firearm. Youthlaw’s clients are young people who are already overpoliced, traumatised and unfairly targeted. They are disproportionately stopped, questioned and searched, too often without any lawful basis. VALS, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, also noted PSOs’ contribution to unsafe environments for vulnerable communities, Aboriginal people and those experiencing social disadvantage over the years, and we are going to let them loose into yet more public spaces, fully armed with guns, tasers and OC spray and with the power to arrest and hold people. Seriously? It is profoundly concerning. The government barely consulted with Victoria Police and not at all with the legal sector. They ignored Aboriginal community groups, entirely contrary to their newly minted treaty. I mean, how does that work? Jeremy King represents people making civil claims against police after failing to receive any remedy from our police complaint system. His firm, Robinson Gill, receives many complaints about PSOs, and he has no doubt that the increased use of PSOs will see a rise in complaints and a rise in claims.

Moving on, we find ourselves again debating protest laws for the second time in a matter of weeks. I said it then and I will say it now: it is our right as citizens to protest. It is a basic right, and the right to protest in Australia is protected and should be celebrated. As I mentioned just the other week, I cut my political teeth in Queensland protesting Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s anti-protest laws – laws handing police powers to approve protest applications and to declare a gathering of two or more people without a permit to be illegal. I found myself musing over how far off Victoria might be from introducing something similar if this sort of legislation goes through. Anyway, I was one of thousands of Queenslanders who went to the protest marches, and I was duly arrested and charged a dozen or so times and beaten up by the Queensland police a couple of times, and I have never regretted my actions, because it is about liberty, it is about democracy and it is about justice.

This bill proposes handing Victoria Police extraordinary powers to arrest and harass protesters where there is no danger to the public. I acknowledge some slight government amendments to soften the face covering offence, reducing it to an offence for not removing a mask when police ask you to, and some exemptions. But this is a gross violation of our rights and another example of that creeping normalisation of police being able to arbitrarily interfere in our autonomy and in our privacy. I am so sick of government and police spruikers saying, ‘Well, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.’ This whole spin is based on the false premise that the sole purpose of people’s privacy is to conceal wrongdoing. It denies the possibility that someone may just want to conceal personal, embarrassing or sensitive information, and that should not be an offence. Why shouldn’t someone who has been subject to gender-based violence, stalking, doxxing or other violence be able to protect themselves and their families by preserving their anonymity while protesting, or those who wish to protect themselves from racial profiling or, God forbid, from the unlawful and indiscriminate use of OC spray and tear gas by police? Police already have powers to remove face coverings if a crime is reasonably suspected, so where is the justification for these further powers? Where is it?

A member interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Or the lack of intelligence.

Then we have the new lock-on laws. People who intentionally lock or affix themselves to something in a protest face up to a year in prison or a fine of 120 penalty units – that is over $24,000 – or both. I recently walked past Trades Hall, where there now stands a beautiful life-size bronze sculpture of Zelda D’Aprano, the historic unionist and campaigner for trade union and women’s rights and I am sure an inspiration to many people in this Parliament. Looking at that statue, in one hand Zelda holds a placard with the words ‘No more male & female rates. One rate only’ – equal work, equal pay. In the other hand, heaven forbid, she holds a chain, and it was with a chain that she attached herself to the doors of the then arbitration commission to protest the glaring wage inequality for women. That was in 1969. Today this Labor government, without a ‘u’, would have locked Zelda up for a year and fined her 24 grand. Even Henry Bolte, the then Premier, would not propose such outrageous punishment, yet this Labor government will not only do it but positively brag about it. It is appalling. Those on the government benches should be ashamed. Your actions betray hundreds of years of protest by the labour movement, by the women’s movement, by the anti-war movement and by the environmental movement, all of whom have had recourse to this method of calling out justice. Let us recognise that, by its very nature, locking on is a peaceful form of protest. We are talking about Violet Coco, not Violent Coco. Protest is disruptive, but it is also an integral part of our democracy. It may occasionally be inconvenient, and I am sure we have all sat in our cars as a demonstration passes. We may agree or disagree with their cause, but we must respect the right of those people to express their heartfelt concern. As the philosopher, author, Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel said:

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.

Sometimes you have just got to get people’s attention, and sometimes it takes a bold action to capture the public’s attention. It would all be much easier if everyone just stayed at home, but where would that have got us?

Let us recognise that once these powers are implemented, they are rarely or never ceded. For that reason many of us are concerned about the recent announcement of a six-month designated area being declared for the City of Melbourne. It is possible that these combined actions may reward the government with a boost in the polls – temporarily. Locking away more people in our overcrowded jails and remand centres may clear the streets a bit, and they may be able to scare enough kids away from shopping centres over the Christmas period. Who knows, the government might even be able to ride that bump all the way to the next election, but it will not make any difference to crime and violence in the long term. The shameful thing is that the government knows this. They know it because all the evidence shows that these types of policies are ineffective and they are expensive, yet they are still going to do it, and they know there are things that do work.

I understand the Premier was so taken by the remarkable work of the Scottish violence reduction program that she announced that we will be using that model to start our own violence reduction unit here in Victoria. I am not sure she entirely understands the Scottish model. That model is a holistic, system-wide approach to keeping young people out of jail. It is well resourced; it is evidence based. It requires that all sectors – schools, health, social work, homelessness services and police – work together to engage children with those foundational supports when they are first starting to show signs of disengagement. Its success has been in breaking the cycle of youth incarceration, not in finding further ways to incarcerate young people. It is cynical, it is tokenistic and it is a deplorable move by the government. I would draw the chamber’s attention to the reality that with a $2 billion budget the police allocate less than 1 per cent to crime prevention. I think that says it all. It also says that a $20 million violence reduction unit is going to make almost no difference at all.

Before I finish, there is another clause that Legalise Cannabis Victoria is interested in. For various reasons the bill will authorise Victoria Police to destroy drugs and drug-related equipment subject to certain safeguards for fair trial rights. These safeguards include the ability to seek an independent analysis of samples and the retention of sufficient samples for forensic evidence for, say, the duration of any court proceedings or appeal periods. However, it is not clear how these changes will impact someone who disputes their charges on the grounds of, for example, the weight of a seized cannabis plant. The initial weight may include the entire plant and root system, soil and all, and the water content of a freshly harvested plant can double the weight of the plant. The only sellable part of the cannabis plant is the dried flowers, and those can weigh less than a third of the entire plant. The difference in weight can mean the difference between a personal use quantity, a commercial quantity or a trafficable quantity, and that is quite a dramatic upscaling of offences just for being a good gardener and having the right soil conditions. We will seek some clarity on this clause in the committee-of-the-whole stage.

While we are talking about police resources, why are we continuing to waste them on policing cannabis? The 2025 Penington cannabis report has once again highlighted the ridiculous sums of money we waste. They write:

Prohibition of personal use cannabis continues to absorb billions in enforcement while failing to reduce cannabis use, instead funnelling everyday Australians into the criminal justice system.

We all know we cannot arrest our way to a safer community. Our Chief Commissioner of Police has said as much repeatedly. If the government is serious about community safety, it needs a different approach. It needs to fund those vital supports that help young people – youth workers, mental health supports, housing and early intervention – rather than continue to push them through the revolving door of the justice system. This is the world we have made, and young people are a part of it. They deserve support, not surveillance, and they do not deserve vilification. They certainly deserve better than to be sacrificed as fodder for the government’s election campaign. We do not create community safety by placing ever more restriction on people’s lives and by handing greater power to the police. It has not worked to date, and it will not work in the future.

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote in their work How Democracies Die:

The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy – gradually, subtly, and even legally – to kill it.

I urge members to consider carefully what you are voting for today and to oppose this bill.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (20:22): I also rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I just want to start by saying, from what I have heard from Mr Ettershank and Ms Copsey, I just do not find how their concerns about masks and all these things are founded in this bill at all, and it is something I will be interested in hearing about in the committee phase. Also, when Mr Batchelor says that the government is continuing to back police and give them the powers they need, I do not see how that is founded in this bill. However, the government tells us this legislation is about cracking down on dangerous extremists at protests and protecting religious communities. Those are most certainly worthy goals – if only they were genuinely true.

Let me start with the face covering provisions, because this is where the government’s broken promises seem to be most obvious. The Premier made a clear commitment in December last year. After the horrifying firebombing of the Adass synagogue, she announced that the government would ban masks at protests because they were used to conceal the identity of those engaging in violence and vilification. I do not see how Ms Copsey says what this bill does is criminalise nonviolent protests. That is just, quite frankly, not true. However, let me just make this point. The Adass synagogue and the chaos around that time was not an isolated incident. Since 7 October 2023 Australia has seen a surge in antisemitic incidents, including graffiti declaring ‘Kill Jews’, arson attacks on synagogues and threats scrawled across schools and community spaces. Let us not forget this is where this initial promise came from.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry recorded more than 2000 incidents last year, and when we include online hate that number absolutely skyrockets to nearly 7000. Experts warn that antisemitism now occurs at rates far exceeding any other forms of hate – sorry, there is so much chaos going on down here, but I think Mr McGowan has finally found a bill report potentially.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Renee HEATH: Good, I will continue. Yes, we are facing an antisemitism crisis. When extremists hide behind masks to spread fear and violence, we need to act decisively and protect our communities and uphold the values that bind us together. As I said, that was the Premier’s promise last December. But after waiting an entire year what we have here is fundamentally different. David Southwick in the other place put it clearly. He said:

They are not a ban, they are a ‘Pretty please, take your mask off’ request.

And he is not alone in that assessment. The Police Association Victoria secretary Wayne Gatt said:

… it amounts to our members having to ask protesters nicely whether they have a lawful reason for wearing a face covering …

He went on to describe the practical reality:

Imagine going up to 100 people wearing black balaclavas and asking them one by one whether they have a lawful excuse for wearing them. We don’t think it will make a significant difference to the protest environment our members work in.

So this problem is twofold. First, the threshold is impossibly high. Police must believe that a person has committed or intends to commit an offence before they can direct a mask removal. In a dynamic protest environment with thousands and thousands of people, many of them concealing their identities, this creates an operational nightmare. With thousands of people at a protest and countless numbers of them wearing masks and balaclavas, the police have to assess the likelihood of those individuals going on to commit a crime. It is a bit like going into maybe a bank that is about to be robbed and saying to the person with the balaclava, ‘Oh, hang on a minute, do you have a lawful excuse or lawful exemption to be wearing that mask?’ That is actually how ridiculous it is.

Secondly, the exemptions are so broad that it makes any of these changes essentially meaningless. Religious reasons, cultural reasons, medical reasons – these are legitimate, but they are so expansive that just about any person can claim them. That is why I have found Ms Copsey’s and Mr Ettershank’s arguments extremely interesting and potentially disingenuous, because there is a carve-out for just about everybody in this bill. As Mr Southwick illustrates, somebody could show up with goggles and a ski balaclava in the middle of summer and claim they were heading to the ski slopes. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria itself has expressed concerns that:

… including a cultural defence is so broad as to make the defence a catch-all and undermine the effectiveness of such a law …

What if somebody is coming to a protest with a veil? That could be defended as a religious right. So you can see the problem that this creates: anybody could make a claim, and legally there is no way to challenge it.

This is where I believe the ideological confusion of the government becomes apparent. This government has framed the bill as a response to right-wing extremism, yet the legislation is so weak, so hedged with exceptions, so limited in practical application that somebody has to ask why. How can you explain this gap between the Premier’s speech and media release in December and that commitment and what is being drafted here today? Part of the answer, I suspect, lies in the government’s own ideological inconsistencies. The government recently voted down a motion against criminalising the desecration of the Australian flag, specifically the right to burn the Australian flag, and they said that was protected as a legitimate form of political expression. The ideological inconsistency is stark, and I believe it is inverse logic. I suspect what is actually happening here is that the government, conscious of its own contradictions, has deliberately watered down these provisions. The weakness is not an accident, but I believe it is ideological. The government cannot bring itself to legislate robustly against protest conduct because doing so would expose the fundamental inconsistency in its position on political expression and actually put itself against the protesters on the ideologies they actually agree with.

Mr Mulholland mentioned before the way this is being framed around right-wing extremism. Can’t we just accept that extremists, whether right or left, are a threat to our community? Can’t we just accept that? I find it so interesting that people have just skimmed over what Mr Cheeseman said, where there was the protest, the clash of – I cannot remember what it was called – the Put Australia First protest and the other protest that came with rocks, trolley bars and shards of glass. Mr Cheeseman stood up and said, ‘Make no mistake, the people that were causing chaos here were left-wing extremists.’ That is what he said, yet this bill claims to frame it around right-wing extremists. I think that is something that actually has to be acknowledged. It is wrong. It is mischaracterising what was actually promised and why it was promised back in December. This is selective framing, and it runs much deeper than flag desecration.

Let us just go through what actually happened to kickstart this whole thing, the firebombing of the Adass synagogue. That attack was carried out by violent anti-Israel activists, left-wing activists who oppose Israeli government policy – nothing to do with what was happening here. This government’s own second-reading speech framing does not match the facts of the individuals that had targeted the legislation. Minister Carbines characterised part of this bill as a response to right-wing extremists, yet the attack came from the left in most of these –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Renee HEATH: I will continue on, if you will allow me. This is not a minor point. This goes to the heart of what this legislation is genuinely about and how it goes about protecting communities. We have seen significant violent protests that have cost Victorians $300 million in policing costs and amount to an enormous amount of damage and countless numbers for business and tourism. I do not mind if Mr Batchelor disagrees, but this has largely been driven by left-wing activists. The Disrupt Land Forces movement caused substantial disruption and violence at the defence expo in 2024. We have seen counterprotests against the March for Australia, rallies that involved burning the flags and violence and pro-Palestinian protests for two years, but most of those incidents do not seem to generate the same legislative urgency. Why? Is it because the government is ideologically sympathetic to those movements, which explains its reluctance in restricting them? It shows that the government does not honestly identify who and what the real threats to the state’s peace are and what the real threats to Victoria’s stability are.

Farmers across Victoria who are engaged in legitimate disputes with government agencies over land access, particularly around forced acquisition of their land for transmission lines, and companies to fulfil massive government-approved infrastructure projects, get demonised. When volunteers and farmers widely protest against the government’s draconian emergency services and volunteers levy, this new tax, those people get demonised. Of course, these are not extremists but law-abiding citizens defending their property rights against the government’s overreach and unfair and destructive taxes.

I am concerned that, given this government’s skewed view of reality, we will someday see these ordinary people sometimes labelled and described as far-right extremists. I will provide that to illustrate this government’s ideological confusion about which forms of protest deserve protection and which forms of protest deserve restriction. You have to be clear-eyed about this and that we have been seeing this in the state of Victoria. We saw it during COVID lockdowns, where there was a certain group of protesters that were anti-mask, anti-vaccine and anti-lockdowns and were completely demonised and shut down by this government. But then when there was another issue around Black Lives Matter, all of a sudden it was like the health advice that they were claiming was out the window. We have to be clear-eyed to this government’s ideological confusion.

Beyond the specific weakness in each provision, what generally concerns me is the inconsistency in this government’s approach. It was only a few weeks ago that it voted down a motion that we put forward in a private members bill around masks. They were saying how stupid it was and how ridiculous it was. Fast forward a few weeks and here they are bringing in a law essentially legislating the exact same thing. It is the same with Jack’s law, which has been brought up a few times: when we brought it forward, it was absolutely ridiculous, but once the government flips it, it comes forward as something of urgency that we were so blind for not seeing. I think that what we have to admit here – which is not covered in this bill, no matter how Mr Batchelor would like to spin it – is that it is both left-wing and right-wing extremists that cause harm in this state, and both should be treated the same.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:36): This has been an interesting debate. I have been listening very carefully to the contributions, and a couple of them stood out in particular. Mr Mulholland’s and Ms Copsey’s contributions stood out, and they stood out because in many respects I agreed with them and in certain respects I disagreed with them. I will start with Mr Mulholland. For the second time today I have heard Mr Mulholland get up in this place and describe how a bill that the government is putting forward essentially does not do much and then go on to say that the Liberal Party is supporting it anyway, which is quite bizarre, because if you thought that something was ineffective law, then maybe you would not support it: you would vote against it, as did I earlier today. I intend to vote against this bill this evening as well.

What has actually gone on here is a failure of the major parties. We have had this unassailable, terrible crime problem, and the Liberal Party has been goading the government into action. The government said, ‘No, no, no,’ but they have not done much. Then all of a sudden they realised that there really is a lot of community concern about this, there really is a lot of crime, and maybe we had better do something. So let us do a total 180, come back and do – what? Basically what the Liberal Party was suggesting in the first place. The problem is, as the Liberal Party themselves have pointed out, these measures are ineffective. Now, of course the Liberal Party thinks that they can do better. Mr Mulholland brought up Jack’s law, but Griffith Criminology Institute in Queensland have done extensive research into Jack’s law, and they have concluded that it has resulted in no reduction in knife crime whatsoever. It is totally ineffective policy that should not be copied in Victoria.

The other thing that has happened in the process of the Labor Party responding and trying to act like they are tough on crime is they do not seem to acknowledge there is this fatal conceit in their thinking. The Labor Party seem to think that they can legislate these effective measures to counter crime, and yet there is nothing in their recent history that would provide good evidence that they are capable of actually doing this. They have taken action to try and counter far-right extremism. It has backfired spectacularly. They have taken action to try and counter antisemitism. It has backfired spectacularly. They have taken action to try and remove machetes from society with these machete bins. They have become the subject of ridicule – everyone in the state is laughing at it, and that was the Liberals’ idea in the first place, so I do not know why the Labor Party keeps caving in to these crazy ideas from the Liberal Party.

What are they doing in this bill? Let us look at some of the things. One of the first things that has been very topical is around facial coverings at protests. I have been around this place long enough to remember when people were getting into trouble for not wearing facial masks at protests, and that is because the government had decided at that point in time that they wanted to tell you what you should and should not put on your face. Now they want to continue that, except they want to do the opposite. As has been brought up by many, if someone is committing a crime at a protest – they are throwing rocks or whatever – the police have the opportunity to arrest them. But if they have got a mask, what they are saying is that they will not be able to identify these people easily and catch them, and that is true. It will be harder. It will be a bit more work for them. They want to make their job easier and strip the masks off everyone so that they can collect intelligence on them. They have intelligence-gathering units in Victoria Police. They want to watch as many people as possible so that they can keep an eye on them, they can track them down easier and they can arrest them easier. But that is not what should be happening in a free society.

Let me tell you another society that stood up against authoritarianism, and actually these people are heroes of mine – the Hongkongers in 2019. They stood up against the Chinese Communist Party, and they wore masks. In fact masks were a symbol of their resistance because they knew that if they did not wear masks they would be identified by the police, they would be put in a database and they would be hunted down like dogs. And that is in fact what happened. Eventually the Hong Kong government put in a mask ban for protests, similar to what we are doing in Victoria – what the government is seeking to do today, like in Hong Kong after it had been overtly influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. One of the saddest things that I have ever seen is we saw these people pushing back against the horror of an authoritarian regime in Hong Kong. They fought back bravely, but then they just went quieter and quieter and quieter. Now we hear nothing at all from these people. I have met some of the people that have left Hong Kong, escaped Hong Kong. In fact one of them, Mr Ted Hui, actually now lives in Australia. He lives in Adelaide. Our government very kindly allowed him to live here with his family. He told me about what happened in Hong Kong. He got arrested because he spoke out against the takeover. They banned masks, and that was for the purposes of gathering intelligence. We should not be doing this.

There are very legitimate reasons that people might want to hide their face. Many people consider the Labor Party as, you know, this socialist dictatorship and stuff, and they have their bad points and stuff, but they are not that bad, right? We are not Hong Kong, right? We are not that bad, but we might get that bad one day. Maybe it will not be under the Labor Party. Maybe it will be someone from this side, or maybe it will be someone else. They are still going to have these powers, and they are going to collect that data. Facial recognition technology is already here. Police have done experiments with it. We already know it works. There might be very legitimate reasons that people want to hide their face. Maybe they do not want to be tracked by the state. Maybe there is good reason they do not want to be tracked by the state. Maybe it is not because they are criminals but maybe because they think differently to the government, maybe because they want to protest against something that the government does.

I listened very carefully to Ms Copsey’s speech, and again, I agreed with much of what she had to say. I think we are in agreement in opposing this bill and many aspects of it. Ms Copsey spoke – as the left tends to do, and especially the Greens – about all these minority groups and people who are in vulnerable communities and things like this. I am concerned about a minority group. In fact I am only concerned about one minority group, and it is the minority group that is under the most threat all the time: it is the minority of the individual. That is what we are not protecting with laws like these.

Let us look at some of the other things that this bill seeks to do. It seeks to enable pat-down searches for children or people with an intellectual impairment. They can be pat-down searched by Victoria Police without a parent, a guardian or an independent person there. There just has to be another person, maybe another policeman. Really, we are going to pat down intellectually disabled kids now, are we? Is that what Victoria has become? This is disgusting. How can the Labor Party support this?

The other thing we are talking about here is protesting out the front of or interrupting people at their places of worship. I acknowledge that there have been some horrible incidents that have happened around synagogues and mosques, of people doing hateful things, but as has been brought up in the debate, there are very legitimate reasons why people might want to protest against religious institutions. You only have to look at cases of institutional sexual abuse. Why shouldn’t members of the public protest against organisations that cover that up and do that? If, for example, we wanted to protest out the front of a mosque because we saw someone that was preaching against the interests of Australia or talking about terrorism there, why shouldn’t we be able to protest against that? It is a fundamental right to be able to protest against the government but also to protest against views we consider extreme in this state or when we think that harm has been done or there is an injustice. Taking away the right of people to protest against that is wrong. It is just wrong. We should not be doing it.

I will not be supporting this bill, because this is yet again another infringement on people’s rights with no proof that any of this will work. The government is just seeking to say that it is doing something, and the Liberal Party are going along with it even though they have admitted – they have said here – that it is not going to be effective. They are still going to support it anyway, which is totally irrational. It does not make any sense whatsoever, but they are scared of being called names. If they do not support it, what is going to happen is Labor is going to point the finger at them and say, ‘You’re soft on crime. We’re tough on crime, and you’re soft on crime.’ They do not want to be called names, so yet again they are just going along with what the government is proposing here even though they have said this is going to be ineffective.

We should not be pushing through laws like this. I note today we have been given an emergency bill for something even more horrible. This is the wrong way to go about this. I urge the government to rethink their approach on this. I think that there are many people in Victoria that, if you explain to them that these sorts of severe actions will not be effective, will understand and will look for other solutions. I think that there are other solutions here, and taking away people’s rights yet again – I just cannot support it. The Libertarian Party will oppose this bill.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (20:47): I also rise to speak in strong opposition to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Being an elected representative in this chamber grants me the ability to voice my dissent on bills like this and many, many others which we are doing this week. This bill actively seeks to limit other Victorians’ right to do the same thing. This bill is just like many acts across Australia intended to limit people’s right to freely participate in protests. It also fits firmly within a global context where we are seeing a dangerous encroachment on people’s right to assemble and to participate in protest, which is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy. Across the world we are also seeing a dangerous rise in authoritarianism, and history has taught us that this rarely appears out of nowhere. It comes from the gradual chipping away of our democratic institutions and individuals’ right to participate in them and hold our leaders accountable.

When we talk about supporting people’s right to protest, I am sure many others on the crossbench agree that often that means supporting people’s right to participate in protests, even if we do not agree with them, if they are doing so safely. Protest is not always convenient; in fact many times it is meant to be inconvenient – it is meant to be disruptive. That is what it is designed to do. It is to bring about change, to hold leaders accountable and to bring attention to injustices that are going on locally or even around the world.

This government have argued that these laws are in response to growing extremism in Victoria and particularly the disturbing rise in far-right, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. I just want to be clear that this is undoubtedly a problem. I do not think you will find anyone opposing this legislation who thinks that there is not a concerning rise in neo-Nazism, in extremism and in really concerning behaviours, particularly from the far right. I note that a parliamentary inquiry did offer the government many solutions to address extremism, and this was not one of them. This was not one of the solutions that was offered up.

I think when I speak on bills like this one there is potentially particular interest in my view, because in a few weeks I am going to become a mother to a daughter who I am acutely aware will experience antisemitism in her lifetime. That concerns me, and that upsets me. I live in a household where we speak about this issue every single day, sometimes from slightly different perspectives but with the agreement that something needs to be done to address this behaviour. Seeing the rise in hatred of Jewish people in Australia as a result of this is something that I am acutely aware of; it is not something that I would doubt for a second. And it is something that I obviously have a personal interest in addressing for the safety of the people within my own household. I just want to make that clear: my opposition to this bill is not a denial of antisemitism. It is not a denial of this really serious problem that we have. We need to address extremism, and we need to address it at its very root.

What concerns me is that it is here, in the place that so many Jewish people and, importantly, people of other faiths and cultures once found safety and refuge. This state used to be a place where many people would come fleeing persecution, fleeing mistreatment, and they would be welcomed. That is something that we once had to be proud of. Of course in recent times we have seen completely confronting and concerning scenes of literal Nazis marching proudly down the street. Collectively as a Parliament, across the political divide, we do need to do something to address this really serious problem. But I do believe that if the government wanted to act on the growing right-wing extremism, it would continue to do things like addressing extremism through forms of early intervention. There is some really good evidence to show that if we can capture this behaviour in its early stages, we can have the most meaningful change to address it. We could strengthen our vilification and hate speech laws, which we have already done some of, but there is still more work to do; importantly, we could target the organising of these groups before they even consider marching down the street with their masks and their banners.

Not only does this bill not effectively combat the rise of neo-Nazis, but it is also incredibly obvious that they are not the main targets. I know that they have been spoken about a lot in this debate, because it seems to be the most visceral and confronting component of extremism that we are seeing, but we just need to be really clear that the new powers and prohibitions in this bill clearly target the tactics used by those protesting the government’s lack of action on issues like climate change and of course Palestine protesters. I know there has been a lot of conversation throughout this debate about how these laws came about, but they were actually first announced in response to an incident a year ago with the Myer windows, where an organised protest was to occur. I just do not see how these laws, if they were in effect at the time, would have done anything to address that gathering or any of the instances that the government has referred to as justification for introducing and passing these laws and limiting our right to assemble. We have not seen Nazis use attachment devices like this bill bans, and recently we have actually stopped seeing them wearing masks. We saw the scenes in New South Wales recently where Nazis had a literal permit. The permit said what their sign was going to say. They took their masks off, they followed the rules, and they were allowed to do that. That is under the system of a state that we are modelling some of this legislation from. We are seeing Nazis making the decision to either challenge the laws or just simply comply with the laws and continue to do what they do and spread their far-right hate and extremism across our country.

We have seen time and time again – and I know Mr Limbrick has canvassed this extensively and we have had many, many conversations about it when we have spoken about what we need to do to address this issue – the fact that Nazis view these laws as a fun obstacle. It is an obstacle course to them, not a real barrier. Nazis do not care about protest laws in our state. These people are hateful extremists, and we have seen them take great joy in finding new ways to circumvent or challenge laws. We have seen them challenge the other laws that we have passed in this place targeting hateful symbols and targeting salutes. They do nothing to hinder real extremists operating in our state, but rather serve to limit authentic, nonviolent protests and legitimate acts of civil disobedience that have a real purpose and a real cause and people behind them who believe passionately in what they are doing, and importantly, are doing so in a way that is nonviolent.

Police already have a range of existing powers which allow them to do many of the things in this bill, and I will not be the first person to say that this week in Parliament seems to be the week of overpolicing. We are giving –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Georgie PURCELL: They have gone mad. That is correct, Mr McGowan. They have gone absolutely mad with police powers, and we are going to see more. And there will be strong opposition from many of us on the crossbench. But it is always really interesting to see the government introduce legislation to combat something where police already have the power to do something about it, and they are just kind of not doing it. The police already can declare a designated area to stop and search anyone without any suspicion of intention to commit an offence, and we are seeing that carried out at the moment in the CBD. We have seen the recent declarations for the next six months, and a report from the Centre Against Racial Profiling found that people of Aboriginal, Pasifika, African or Middle Eastern appearance or origin are at least five times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people, and that is the impact of these laws – they result in profiling and overpolicing. The outcome of these searches, which are already occurring – that police already have the power to do – is that between 2021 and 2023 Victoria Police stopped and searched almost 24,000 people in designated areas, with only just over 1 per cent of searches finding illegal objects or substances. I think what bothers me when we see this extension of police powers and more police powers is that we have, on the other hand, women across this state calling 000 begging for assistance when they are experiencing family violence or unsafe environments in their homes and they get told, ‘Sorry, no resources, no time for this.’ Meanwhile we are giving police more powers to do things like combat protesters, and throwing funding at them to combat protesters, when we are seeing people who legitimately need the support of police and other emergency services in this state be turned away. Our focus is on just the wrong area in this bad, bad bill.

I have spoken about this very extensively before, but I was an activist long before I became a politician. And one of the things that I have done on many occasions when participating in activism has been to cover my face, and I am not covering my face for any reason other than it is the safest way for me to undertake that work at that time. A very clear example of that is when I go out on duck rescue. I cover my face, and I cover my face because my personal privacy is important to me, particularly as I have been in this job and a lot of people know who I am, and these are people with guns and weapons and I am out on a wetland. I cover my face, and that is a personal safety decision. And many people have reasons to cover their faces. They might have jobs where they are participating in a legal protest, but it could be an issue within their workplace. They might have a medical reason to cover their face. They might have a religious reason. I know that there are exemptions in this bill, but they are yet to be tested and we do not know how they are going to carry out in reality. I have participated in a range of forms of civil disobedience, legal and illegal protests, some of which would probably be very confronting to many members of this place, and it has been an important tool in bringing about change. Many of the actions that I have been involved in have caught the attention of the government and have resulted in eventual legislation that has made Victoria a better place for animals, for people and for the planet. We cannot discount the critical role that protest and engaging in this very important part of our democracy has in the work that we do ultimately in here.

Many people have spoken about this person, but I just want to share a personal experience. When I was working in the union movement many years ago – it would be almost 10 years ago now – I walked early childhood educators off the job on Equal Pay Day in the fight for equal pay: again, another form of protest that has ultimately brought about early childhood educators securing a fair pay deal across the country, and that took many, many years. When I was working in this role, I received a call to my landline in the office. There was an old lady at the end of the phone and she said, ‘I just wanted to call up and send a message to those brave women who walked off the job for equal pay’. I took her message and then I asked for her name, and she said, ‘My name’s Zelda.’ I said, ‘Is this Zelda D’Aprano on the other end of the phone?’ And it was. She was calling me from her nursing home because she had seen these incredibly brave women walk off the job for equal pay. Everyone would be familiar with her story: that she chained herself to the Commonwealth building in her pursuit of equal pay for women. Under this legislation she would be arrested for having an attachment device. I was lucky enough that she told me an incredible story, actually: that she needed a chain to have this protest and could not get a chain. So she went down to the wharfies, and the maritime union actually gave her a chain and said, ‘Don’t tell anyone we gave you this chain’. She told me, years later, that that was the chain that she used. Under this legislation, that act that brought about incredible change for so many women and for equality in this state would be a crime. To see the Labor government do that when these are the people they previously championed – I mean, we have got a statue of her a kilometre down the road. We should all be very, very concerned by this decision and by this limitation on an activity that has been part of the base for the entirety of their existence.

This bill, it is also important to note, significantly expands the powers of protective services officers, including search, arrest and detainment and expansion of areas where PSOs can be on duty. It also removes the requirement for a parent, guardian or independent support person to be present when an outer search is conducted on a child or person with a cognitive impairment in a designated area by a police officer or a PSO. It seems to be a common thread at the moment for this government with their policies – these changes were made with no consultation with Aboriginal community groups or the legal sector, despite the fact that Aboriginal and minority communities are consistently targeted more than white Victorians, as I touched on earlier. We have the evidence to show that in practice we know that is already the case. The precedent is there to show that this will have effects that are essentially racist, and to see these decisions being made in the whole portfolio of crime so soon after we have just signed a historic treaty with First Peoples is something that we should all find deeply, deeply shameful.

It will come as no surprise, for the reasons that I have covered off, that I will be opposing this bill. It is very, very disappointing that it seems that it will pass, because I think we will be looking back on this one day when we see the very serious harms that it will cause to a range of different communities across our state. More importantly, on top of this, it will do nothing that the government intends for it to do. It will not stop extremism. In fact it runs the risk of worsening extremism when we see literal Nazis take these laws as a challenge and as an obstacle for them to overcome or something for them to become a hero to their cause for. Protest is a vital part of a healthy and functioning democracy. It brought many of us here to this place and to this Parliament, and it is something that we should support all Victorians’ right to participate in. Despite these laws passing, I will continue to support my community, the animal protection community and all the other groups that I work with in their right to assemble, in their right to gather, ensuring that they can continue their important work advocating for a range of different communities when these devastating laws pass.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:05): I am not quite sure where to begin with this one. I have only been here three years, and I have seen some pretty extraordinary things in my time, and this is going to have to take the cake a little bit, I think. I had the opportunity throughout the debate today to listen to members Copsey, Ettershank and Purcell, and I found myself agreeing with much of what they say because they raised some very good points, some very salient points.

Georgie Purcell: Join us!

Nick McGOWAN: I do not share all their points. It is no secret, and nor should it be, because I think as I am sitting here reflecting and listening to all the speakers, there is one consistent theme that is here, and that is: how did the government allow us to get to this point? For three years they have been sitting on their hands, they have been in denial, and this is the root cause – it is the government. So I am going to somewhat focus my speech on the government. It will not be a surprise to those opposite that I would do that. And I will try and say it jovially, because you can lose your sense of humour here and concentrate too much, as some of the other members have. Rightly, I think member Copsey pointed out the value of the human rights charter in Victoria, which I have often equated to the value of toilet paper – although arguably toilet paper has greater value, because we all need it, we use it every day and we could not do without it. I certainly could not do without it. This government dispense with the human rights charter quicker than I dispense with toilet paper.

Katherine Copsey interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: They flush it, and they would flush it down the toilet at Ringwood East train station, but they cannot because there is no toilet there. That is how quickly they dispense with the human rights charter. It is not worth the paper it is written on, and in this whole bill, the entire work we have been doing in this place today illustrates that quite painfully to everyone here. If COVID was not lesson enough for all of us, then this is just further evidence that the human rights charter, as devised by those opposite, is nothing but toilet paper, because they themselves have proved it time and again, because whenever they want to, they ignore it with wilful disregard, without even taking the time to consult communities properly. It has been pointed out by member Purcell too – and others here, including member Ettershank – that they can get up and pat themselves on the back for the treaty and all these other conversations, and yet they are the very first people not to consult with Indigenous peoples right across this state when it comes to aspects of this legislation. At the same time that they are passing the treaty legislation then lecturing those who do not support their aspect of treaty, they are locking Indigenous people up in record numbers, as has been pointed out by member Copsey today.

You just simply cannot trust what those opposite say. Do not trust what they say; look at what they do, because in every area, no matter what they do, they just lie. They just lie. I saw a meme, and they were taking the micky out of Wicked. It is a lovely Hollywood production. They were taking the micky out of our party, and I lament that they had to get partisan political. We have got 12 months to go for that, boys and girls. Let us just holster our weapons for a minute, although clearly not under this legislation, but whatever. Nonetheless, they had to take the meme, because in Wicked, of course, it points out that their leader lies. Well, unfortunately this Premier knows nothing but lying. They have got so accustomed to it – it is the first, second, third, fourth and fifth gear of this government. That is the truth: it is the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and probably reverse as well. It has been on no better display than in this legislation today.

While I do not agree completely with those three speakers, although I give them credit for the points they make, particularly around human rights and particularly in their support for protest, I too support wholeheartedly the right of every Victorian to protest, particularly when it comes to those opposite. There is no lack of things we can protest about. But in all seriousness, and it is reflected not only in what those three members said but what I think our side have said and what we continue to produce in terms of the policy proposals and alternatives to the government of the day, we will continue to respect the fact that the right to protest is critical in this state. I think there are some aspects – and we will discuss this in committee and go through the protections that are there – that are arguable from both sides. I mean, I saw that even Wayne Gatt has said that the laws are unlikely to work in practice. I think all of those in here who have taken the time to read anything on this legislation and the act probably all concede that. But the truth is we are at this point because of the complete failure of those opposite to do their job for the last three years and take anything seriously and actually listen to the communities. They have had this kneejerk response to things, and instead of seeking the middle ground or somehow wanting to make sure that they are responding appropriately and commensurately and proportionately, they have literally got to the end of this year and they have had a whole lot of brainwaves and have suddenly panicked. Member Copsey said this just before. They have suddenly panicked. They have looked at the polls, and they have thought more about their future than they have about the Victorian human rights charter. They have looked at the polls, and they have thought more about their own particular seats.

I was even listening to some of the debates in the other place today around several aspects of criminal activity and their response to it and so on and so forth. One of the members, for Narre Warren North, in speaking with the local police officers suddenly discovered that there had to be consequences for crimes. Wow. What a brainwave. Yes, there have to be consequences. Somewhere along the line they suddenly got the memo. It was probably in the Minister for Police’s bottom drawer. Remember that? Remember his bottom drawer? He would reach out. Well, if this is what the bottom drawer looks like, I do not want to see the others.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: There is more. There is plenty more.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: To my mind the poor police minister has spent way too much time at the track and in the tents. It is time to get off the track and out of the tents. In speaking of Mr Ettershank’s time fighting the Bjelke-Petersen government – and good luck to him too, because he was quite right to have done that – I would have probably found myself in a very similar situation. Somehow they thought in this state this was a great idea – ‘I’ve got an idea. Let’s put racing with policing,’ because they’re a pretty good match, aren’t they? Who honestly thought that was a good idea? If this side of politics had done that, everyone – for weeks, if not months, if not years – would be crying out about the conflict of interest in having the state’s Minister for Racing also governing police. I mean, are we serious? What is going on? Anyway, back to this –

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, I would be happy to discuss it with you at great length, if you would like to.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: The dogs, all those sorts of things. Just check out the social media any day of the week. I cannot keep up with those opposite actually. They have got so many coffee and wine chats; they are almost endless. The sad truth here is that, as member Purcell has just stated very clearly, we are investing all this money, very sadly, in these kinds of measures when we ought to be looking at and trying to prevent the sorts of behaviours we are talking about – and there is very little, if any, money. The number of women in this state, sadly, who go to Orange Door and simply get referrals on to other organisations that then have no places, no money and no accommodation and give no meaningful assistance for women who are trying to flee positions and circumstances of family violence is an interstate, national and international disgrace. That is the truth.

They have also just shut Parentline, which we know answered thousands and thousands of telephone calls from parents every year – every day, every week, every month of every year. It cost $1.3 million to $1.5 million. The government have just cut that service entirely. It was the front line in terms of preventative measures and giving parents the tools they needed to de-escalate situations to assist their children, to assist those they care for and to make sure they were not the very children who were going out and doing some of these things, behaving in some of these ways and doing the sorts of things we do not want young people – in fact any people – to do. But no, instead of investing in preventative measures in this state – that is simply not the case – what we are seeing time and again at the moment, and it is on great display, writ large, for everyone to see this week, is a government in its final throes – its death throes, I would say. In their desperation they are actually committing all this – I mean, it is unthinkable that those opposite are introducing some of this legislation. They are about to bring into this chamber 25 years for children, for 14-year-olds – from those opposite. So to any so-called high moral ground they thought they had – we know they have lost workers already. I have already debated that today, so I will not re-cover old ground. It is not even late. In fact it is very early in the evening, so I could cover it.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: It is early. That is right, member Purcell. We could well and truly cover that ground for them. But the truth is that those opposite are so desperate right now. They have lost their moral compass. Clearly that is in the bottom drawer. It has been packed away. It is not behind a padlock, because if they got a padlock, they could well be arrested, so they are not allowed to have a padlock. God forbid there are any chains. Poor old Miley Cyrus will never be able to come here with a wrecking ball. She would be arrested and sentenced and imprisoned within days. She would never see light of day, poor Miley Cyrus. She will not be welcome in Victoria ever again. A wrecking ball that size has to be extra, extra punishment. She would never get out of prison. Miley Cyrus, do not come to Victoria. You are not welcome. This government have made that very, very clear, because that is the sort of ridiculous approach those opposite are taking. They have absolutely covered themselves in no glory whatsoever.

While they continue this sort of Hollywood-style or East End, West End, Broadway sort of theatrical performance, of trying to make themselves somehow appeal again to the voters of Victoria, I think the voters of Victoria have actually got their measure. I think the voters of Victoria see this for precisely what it is: it is a dishevelled, half-arsed attempt at trying to fix a whole lot of problems, not doing anything particularly well, to the extent that we must support it or have to support it. Then of course we will have to do what we have to do, because the truth is the government have all brought us to this position and this circumstance where – and there is a very serious point here that I will end on – I for one do not want to see police officers continue to bear the brunt of anyone’s wrath. I am all for protests, and I have made that very clear in my speech tonight but – and there is a but – when you start to encroach upon the rights of others and particularly the safety of others, and I put police officers or security personnel in that category in the same way I did earlier today in terms of retail workers, then you have overstepped the mark. I absolutely, fully support anyone to engage in civil disobedience, and that is their right, it is their democratic right, but you certainly should not be hurting or harming others, and that includes horses as well.

In closing, I will also make particular mention, not only obviously of those who advocate on behalf of animals – and member Purcell is not here at this point in time, but her remarks remain relevant – who obviously cannot advocate on behalf of themselves but also, importantly, of those environmental advocates and those environmental activists. I wholeheartedly support their right to protest within the law and, on occasion, to act in civil disobedience. That is the heartbeat of a democracy. We have laws in place, and from time to time, members in this place – even like member Ettershank, who pointed out to us he had probably breached the rules. In fact he has been arrested on quite a number of occasions. That is the system working. He is entitled to do that. He is entitled to pay the consequences and be punished accordingly, as I am sure he was. But he has that right under our democracy, and that is a right we should be not only mindful of but we should be looking to protect and we should not be looking to overreach. And we certainly should not be looking, unfortunately, to the example provided by those opposite, who have simply had the blinkers on now for the better part of three years, have got to the end of the third year and are now panicking because they see the polls, and they are coming out with all these sort of odd solutions, in addition to which they are now saying that PSOs should be elsewhere in addition to the role they already have.

The PSO policy was brought in by a government of our persuasion over this side of the house. It was a good policy. It meant that not only every commuter but, importantly, women, the elderly, the young, pregnant mothers and carers could safely get from their station to their car if they wanted to be escorted at night-time. We know that that has been eroded by this government more than any other government previously. Now, what we actually see, in expanding the powers of the PSOs and actually pulling them off stations, which is actually what they are now doing, is they are now making our stations, our train stations – the majority of the metro train stations in Victoria are now going to be made less secure. This government is going to pull PSOs off those stations, which they are already doing but now they are going to do it writ large, and they are going to put them in shopping centres and they are going to put them in, potentially, other healthcare settings to try and fix the problem and fill that gap, because they have failed monumentally in so many parts of our community that they are actually now robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The truth is I think this is probably going to end up in a complete mess. They cannot even recruit enough police officers. They cannot recruit enough PSOs as it currently stands. We know that from the figures – that is public information. How they think this is going to work, I do not know. But what I do know and can guarantee is, unfortunately, that when I go and look at my local train stations, I am going to find fewer and fewer PSOs there, because this government has now made it their policy to pull PSOs off the public transport system and put them elsewhere because it simply has failed. It has failed the Victorian people. It has failed the people of Victoria in their first task, and that is to keep Victorians safe. Victorians know it. As they enter into next year, they will recall it, they will remember it and, hopefully, when it comes to the ballot box, they will also illustrate to this government what they think of their efforts in that respect.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill.

And in doing so, I would like to thank my good friend the Minister for Police and Community Safety in the other place, Minister Carbines.

And I would also like to thank my friend the Attorney-General, Minister Kilkenny, for her excellent work in pushing through the Allan Labor government’s reform agenda with respect to tackling crime.

This bill includes a wide set of amendments to a number of acts.

This includes:

•   the Confiscation Act 1997

•   the Control of Weapons Act 1990

•   the Crimes Act 1958

•   the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004

•   the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981

•   the Firearms Act 1996

•   the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984

•   the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004

•   the Summary Offences Act 1966

•   the Surveillance Devices Act 1999

•   and the Victoria Police Act 2013

The Allan Labor government has been committed to comprehensive reforms to ensure we deal with criminal elements in our community with the full force of the law.

And today, this bill acts to keep our community safe.

It introduces new powers for Victoria Police, aimed at streamlining processes and dealing with masked protestors causing illegal or otherwise severe public distractions.

It also includes new provisions to protect places of worship and religious assembly, by empowering Victoria Police to stamp out hateful and vilifying conduct.

This bill is all about giving Victoria Police stronger new powers to crack down on violent, dangerous and hateful protesters and to help safeguard places of worship.

In Victoria, we are very lucky to have the right to protest freely.

But importantly, that right is to peaceful protest.

The moment that a protest becomes violent and hateful, and even if they start inciting violence, then these perpetrators should face serious consequences.

And what’s worse is that some people think that they can get away with it.

That if you are masked, you can hide your identity and get away without any trouble.

We’ve seen extremist protestors from different persuasions try to hide their identity behind a mask and break the principle of a peaceful protest by either getting violent or espousing hate and bigotry.

That’s why we are now giving police new powers to unmask protestors who they reasonably believe have committed or intend to commit an offence at a public protest.

Because you should not be allowed to hide behind a mask when you commit a crime.

Police will also be able to issue new penalties of more than $1000 for those protestors who refuse to comply with a direction to remove their mask.

Masks are not a free pass to go break the law.

And in order to uphold public safety, Victoria Police needs the right to identify who is causing any sort of disruptive commotion, particularly if they are repeat offenders.

If we do not deal with these protestors who break the law repeatedly and try get away with it, it then sends a message that this sort of behaviour is okay.

Everyone has the right to protest peacefully, but no one has the right to spread hate or endanger others in the community in doing so.

If someone is coming to protests purely to cause trouble and endanger others, they will be dealt with under these new changes to Victoria Police’s powers.

It builds on reforms we’ve already delivered which allow Victoria Police to direct someone in a face mask to leave a designated area for the protest if they refuse to lower their face covering.

It’s about ensuring a safe, respectful, and peaceful environment for Victorians to express themselves without hate and violence.

Free speech and the freedom of protest is a right we are very lucky to have.

But it is not a free pass to be violent and hateful.

It is a right to peaceful protest and assembly, not a right to vilify and spew hatred.

If someone at a protest is engaged in a legitimate political protest or activity of some kind, they shouldn’t be frightened of being identified.

And under these laws, they will be required to comply with directives to lower masks for identification should the police have reason to believe they are a repeat violent offender or disruptor.

President, another change in this bill is the new prohibition on using attachment devices.

These are the sorts of things some protestors use to attach and lock themselves on to objects at public protests.

These actions endanger not just themselves, but other protestors, the public, and first responders.

This reckless behaviour will now be met with upwards of one year in prison, on top of any other charges that may be laid.

President, another commonsense and non-controversial provision in this bill is the new ban on federal listed terrorist organisation symbols.

What this essentially means is that if a symbol or an insignia of other sorts belongs to a terrorist or extremist group, as deemed by the federal government, it will now be banned.

These reforms have been developed in thorough consultation with key religious, legal, and human rights organisations.

They include very clear exemptions for legitimate cultural, religious, artistic, reporting or educational reasons.

But what is clear as day is that the use of these extremist or terrorist symbols in circumstances that are not cultural, religious, or educational in some way is wrong and will now be banned.

It brings Victoria in line with federal enforcement standards on this issue, and ensures that extremist protestors are not allowed to get away with spreading hate and division.

President, on the topic of religious exemptions, it is important to discuss the new provisions designed to protect places of worship in this bill.

This bill provides stronger protection for people or groups attending religious worship meetings.

It will protect the right of people to gather and pray, free from fear, harassment and intimidation.

Victoria is a diverse state, with people of many faiths and backgrounds calling Victoria home.

By the latest data, around 30 per cent of Victorians were born overseas.

And just over 60 per cent of Victorians identify with a religion.

For too long, extremist hate groups have sought to divide Victorians, by demonising and attacking migrant communities and people with another faith to theirs.

This is unacceptable.

We should be embracing our diversity, not demonising it.

And everyone should feel welcome in Victoria, not vilified.

The bill’s provisions move to modernise the existing offence of disturbing religious worship.

It introduces penalties for assaulting people at religious assemblies and creates new offences for intimidating, harassing or obstructing attendees at these assemblies.

Both of these offences will be punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment under this bill’s provisions.

It’s a significant change which highlights the Allan Labor government’s commitment to both protecting religious freedom, but law and order as well.

Victoria Police has seen a large boost in its investment by this Labor government.

Rising from $2.4 billion in 2014–15, Victoria Police now has a budget of around $4.5 billion for the 2025–‍26 budget year.

That’s a rise of about 88 per cent in just a decade.

It’s because the Allan Labor government is taking all the steps necessary to keep Victorians safe, and to make sure our police force is well equipped to deal with new emerging challenges.

And we are making the necessary investments both into the police force and into our prison system to accommodate this.

The 2025–26 Victorian state budget invested $727 million to ramp up capacity in Victoria’s prisons and youth justice centres, to ensure we have enough beds to deal with the growing influx of criminals being brought in under our tough new bail laws.

The increased capacity in our prison system means we will continue to have the space to lock up repeat offenders who should not be in the community.

And this bill will now include these repeat violent protestors in that category too.

President, we have seen some alarming behaviour at protests as of late.

Over in New South Wales, we recently saw a neo-Nazi protest in front of their state Parliament.

Here in Victoria, we’ve had demonstrations from far-right neo-Nazi groups, who hide behind face coverings, spewing antisemitic hate and lies, seeking to intimidate members of the public.

These extremists hide behind masks to avoid being identified.

Now, Victoria Police can order them to remove a face covering or they can face the consequences of these more severe punishments.

Because if you not only break the law, but espouse this sort of hatred, your views do not belong in a multicultural, diverse, and modern Victoria.

You do not have a right to commit violence against another person, and you do not have the right to twist the concept of free speech as a way to attack others based on who they are.

And you should not be able to just keep a mask up and hide who you are and escape facing the consequences.

President, this bill not only empowers Victoria Police to crack down on this behaviour, but also streamlines processes so we can deal with cases quicker.

There is no reason why these cases should be backed up or take longer than they need to, and these reforms to help streamline the process mean Victoria Police can spend more of their time keeping the peace at these protests and protecting ordinary Victorians, and less time doing paperwork.

President, I know in my community of Southern Metro, for example, the community that has the largest Jewish population in the country, many have expressed concern about these extremists and the hateful behaviour they have been espousing.

Nobody should be made to feel unsafe or unwelcome just because of who they are.

The sorts of hateful and bigoted speeches being spread at some of these protests are appalling.

It is offensive and against the very spirit of what it means to be Australian.

I’ve had constituents as young as 10 reach out to my office because of these sorts of people.

My message to the Jewish community is that you are absolutely right to be proud of your identity, and you should never feel as though you need to hide who you are, or that you should stay quiet.

These fringe extremists do not represent Australia or the local community.

They are a small minority which seeks to divide people by way of spreading disinformation, bigotry, and hatred.

The Allan Labor government has been unequivocal that these violent and extremist views and groups are intolerant and offensive.

Which is why I’m happy to see the new ban on insignia and items from these registered terrorist or extremist organisations.

The federal government, of course, is the body that determines the country’s foreign policy, and that includes the designation of terrorist groups.

Because that is a Commonwealth responsibility not extended to the states.

But it is only common sense that these organisations, deemed by the Commonwealth to be extremist or terrorist in nature, have their insignia and symbols banned here.

There are also very rational and commonsense carve-outs in the legislation here.

For example, the use of these symbols for educational or reporting purposes is mentioned.

That is because these uses are not malicious, or dog whistles, or otherwise attempting to solicit a reaction at the expense of a minority group.

The carve-outs allow for news agencies, for example, to report on a situation without fear of legal repercussions.

And it allows for schools and universities to properly and accurately teach about these movements and their histories.

But outside the specified carve-outs, these new symbols, items, gestures, and insignia will now be banned.

The Allan Labor government earlier this year moved to ban the Nazi swastika and the Nazi salute.

This was not an incursion against free speech.

It was justified and right for us to ban, because of what those symbols and gestured represented.

I am proud of that decision by this government to take a strong and unequivocal stance against antisemitism and the far-right extremists who are terrorising many in our community.

In that same spirit, we are banning the symbols of these extremist groups.

These are not groups designated as extremist or terrorists by the state government, but by the Commonwealth government, which has more access to resources and intelligence surrounding foreign movements and domestic threats to national security.

If there is a terrorist group somewhere in the world, then Victorians have no place in waving their signs around here.

President, the Allan Labor government will always champion the right to free, respectful, and importantly peaceful protest.

Victorians have a right to protest, demonstrate, or otherwise assemble in opposition or in favour of something if they choose.

But these should not be mediums by which to express hatred and bigotry towards vulnerable Victorians.

Especially the case when concerning places of worship.

You do not have the right to harass or protest at someone’s church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or any place of religious worship with this extremist and intolerant rhetoric.

These reforms will strengthen the powers the police have to unmask and identify these criminal elements, and the ability to keep protests safe and peaceful.

It gives Victoria Police the power to help manage these crowds and help protect places of worship, so that everyone can feel safe and secure.

I’ve said already that Victoria is a vibrant and diverse place, but it is important to understand this point.

Intolerance and bigotry have no place in a multicultural society such as Victoria’s.

It has no place anywhere in Australia.

And the right to protest enjoyed in Victoria should never be abused to harass, threaten, or inflict violence on anyone.

And this criminal behaviour should not be protected behind a mask.

These are the principles driving this very important set of reforms to police powers in Victoria.

The Allan Labor government will always support our hardworking police force, and we will always take the necessary steps to ensure that they are best equipped to keep the community safe.

And these changes to police powers are just another part of this government’s plan to make sure all Victorians are both safe and secure in public.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) incorporated the following:

I am pleased to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025.

This bill is a wideranging bill that updates multiple pieces of legislation in response to new and emerging issues and the application of Labor’s values throughout our justice system.

I intend to focus my contribution on protests and places of worship.

This bill will give Victoria Police stronger powers to crack down on violent, dangerous and hateful protesters.

Indeed, this will safeguard the right of citizens to peaceful protest.

This government stands strong against bullying, intimidation and violence.

Whether it is happening at work, school, or directed against retail and hospitality workers, or takes the form of stalking, or family violence: any form of bullying, intimidation, violence or threats are unacceptable.

We all deserve to feel safe and be safe no matter where we are and not matter who we are.

And the Allan Labor government does not shy away from upholding the same standards to public protests.

While people have the right to protest, they must do so peacefully. The moment they become violent or hateful, they should face serious consequences.

Together with our strong anti-vilification laws, this bill will empower Victoria Police to identify and prosecute anyone who is looking to stir up division and hate.

This bill will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to unmask individuals who police reasonably believe have committed or intend to commit an offence at a public protest. A penalty of more than $1000 will apply for failure to comply.

We’ve seen neo-Nazis and others attend protests to spread hate and threaten certain groups, simply for being who they are. Instead of hiding behind masks, these people will now have to show their faces.

With these new powers, police will be able to more effectively target the use of face coverings outside of the existing ‘designated area scheme’. This will enable them to properly manage unplanned protests, like a spontaneous Nazi demonstration.

Those who wear a face covering for a legitimate religious, cultural or medical purpose will be able to continue to do so without being liable for an offence.

This bill prohibits the public display of symbols used by terrorist organisations listed under federal law.

Such symbols can cause profound distress, fear and harm to members of targeted groups in Victoria. They have no place in this state.

This new offence will complement existing Commonwealth laws and are modelled on existing laws such as our prohibition of the public display of Nazi symbols.

Using locks, zip ties, glue or anything else to attach yourself to something in a way that endangers the public, first responders and other protesters will also be prohibited, with penalties of up to a year in prison.

We are not outlawing legitimate protest behaviour here. Rather, we are ensuring that people do not protest in a way that causes danger to others.

With new search and seizure powers in the bill, Victoria Police will be able to enforce this new offence and proactively prevent dangerous lock-on behaviour before it occurs.

The last element of this bill I would like to speak to is the strengthening of protections for the right of people to engage in religious worship, free from fear, harassment and intimidation.

The bill modernises the existing offence of disturbing religious worship, introduces penalties for assaulting people at religious assemblies and creates new offences for intimidating, harassing or obstructing attendees. These offences are punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment.

I am proud to be part of a government that stands against violence, bullying and intimidation in any context.

The right to protest does not include a right to incite hatred, to target others for their personal identity, appearance or beliefs, or to intimidate and threaten.

I commend this bill to the house.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (21:20): I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to sum up this debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2025. It was a discussion where a range of views were expressed throughout on what this bill is or is not, some of which, although I did not call a point of order, I felt fell well outside the realm and scope of this bill. Nonetheless we endured those contributions, and I will keep my contribution brief.

Can I take the opportunity to first of all thank the stakeholders that were consulted – the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Victoria Police and many others – and that worked to prepare this legislation. These reforms are about making it easier for police to protect Victorians, respond to emerging threats and keep our community safe. I did notice that there was a long debate about what this bill does and does not do, and what it does is tackle dangerous, hateful and radical behaviour at protests as well as protect the right of people to gather and pray free from fear, harassment and intimidation. There was a lot of mudslinging left and right. Irrespective of where it is coming from and your views, the government wants everyone to be safe. We have seen that there has been foreign interference as well – not just coming from different political spectrums here, but also from abroad – that has endangered Victorians.

These reforms are important changes that will support Victorians’ right to peaceful protest and practise freedom of faith, both issues that are at the core of our democratic rights, and this bill will also give police the powers they need to safeguard places of worship and crack down on violent and dangerous protests. We have seen prohibiting the public display of terrorist organisation symbols; banning 3D printing blueprints for firearms – some members in this chamber have concerns with that; strengthening search powers in designated areas where intelligence suggests there is a history or likelihood of weapons-related offending; supporting police in communities where they need to travel across state borders for a range of reasons, including safety, health care and emergency events; allowing the destruction of bulk exhibits of illicit substances, reducing costly and complex storage requirements; enabling PSOs to conduct hospital and crime scene guarding duties; and making a range of further amendments to support Victoria Police and the justice system.

The bill contains a comprehensive set of reforms to strengthen community safety, and it does this at a time when we as a government are focused on community safety and have already made a number of announcements and implemented a number of reforms that are targeted at the issues that Victorians are telling us are important to them. We have implemented a new active PSO deployment model, which allows the Chief Commissioner of Police to deploy our hardworking professionals to the places where criminal activity is occurring. Our adult time for violent crime reforms, which I understand will be debated in this chamber shortly, will mean young offenders who commit serious violent offences face adult consequences by uplifting more trials and sentencing from the Children’s Court to the County Court. Our anti-vilification legislation has been referred to by a number of speakers already, but it is important reform about protecting people. We are amending sentencing considerations and principles for young offenders to better reflect community standards, with increased maximum penalties for aggravated home invasion, aggravated carjacking and recruiting a child to engage in criminal activity. I was proud, as I stated in my ministers statement today, of the announcement of establishing Australia’s first ever violence reduction unit, which will operate across government and the community to identify and address the root causes of violent crime through early intervention. Taken together, all these reforms will improve community safety in Victoria.

It is a package of reforms – not just one but many – and it shows our government’s commitment to getting this right. They reflect the continued commitment to backing in our community safety and our police and making sure that we have the appropriate powers and laws to keep everyone safe. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (21:32)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just thinking of a broad question that I thought I would ask. The Premier was very, very clear when she first announced a mask ban at protests, and then we kind of got some, I guess, murmurs that it could be watered down. Later on it was significantly watered down. Did the government receive advice that the original plan to ban masks at protests was not possible, incompatible or against legal advice? Was there any other advice that the Premier or the Attorney-General or the Minister for Police received to have a change of heart in that particular matter?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just go to the box on that one.

I can confirm that the government always seeks legal advice when drafting legislation. We would have received advice about this bill also in its drafting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would you be willing to table that advice?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that the government is not willing to waive privilege in relation to those documents.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to ask: is there any particular reason why the government did not opt to specifically ban public displays of images of individuals linked to terrorist organisations but also symbols that closely resemble banned extremist insignia? We have seen several occasions in this state, and in New South Wales as well, where there have been flags very close to either ISIS flags or Hezbollah flags, which of course would be proscribed as banned if they were an exact replica. Is there any particular reason why the government did not, as part of this legislation, choose to go down such a path to ban symbols like that that closely resemble those kinds of symbols?

Enver ERDOGAN: As is the case at the moment, there is no Victorian specific offence for the banning of those symbols, so there was clearly a legislative gap from a Victorian law perspective. There is a federal law which has a higher threshold, and that is why our new offence is about providing a clear, simple offence to allow Victorians to address the display of these hateful symbols. We felt, as a policy decision, that the existing Commonwealth offence is the most appropriate in the circumstances, as it provides the greatest clarity and would be able to be applied in the quickest way possible.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This is just one based on conversations with several local police and command in the northern suburbs, where you and I both share an electorate. Are you concerned by the sheer number of police in stations, particularly in growth areas and other places, that are having to leave those areas in order to deal with unbecoming and violent protests in the city?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not sure if this is in the scope of this legislation, but it is fair to say and well reported that the amount of police resourcing that has had to be directed towards some of the protests – some peaceful, some not so peaceful – obviously causes strain on our hardworking police officers. That is clear, and I think that is a concern for everyone.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Part of this is in response to what happened about a month ago in Melbourne. Those protests were described by commander Wayne Cheeseman as one of the worst days in Victoria Police history. I think we all saw the images of him dropping rocks and chains onto the floor of the press conference. He also specifically called out fringe left-wing protesters as the ones causing the most difficulty for Victoria Police during these protests. Do you agree with that characterisation?

Enver ERDOGAN: Sorry, do you want to repeat that?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Do you agree with commander Wayne Cheeseman, in his words, that the protesters that are causing the most issues for Victoria Police are left-wing activists?

Enver ERDOGAN: I was not there that day, but he clearly articulated what had occurred during that protest. There is no place for that kind of behaviour in our state.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, what is your intention in respect to the PSOs? How many PSOs will you be taking off train stations and putting into other places?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal is not to take police away. There is no change to the deployment model in this particular bill. The goal is not to take police away from train stations, as you describe.

Nick McGOWAN: No, I referred to PSOs, not police. This act specifically allows for PSOs to be redeployed or deployed elsewhere. So my question is: how many PSOs does the government anticipate it will take off train stations and put elsewhere?

Enver ERDOGAN: In terms of the deployment of PSOs, what it does do is provide additional duties the Chief Commissioner of Police can deploy PSOs to. It is an operational decision that the chief commissioner will make depending on the greatest need. It is deploying them to where the activity is – an example in here is to hospitals where they may be needed, but to really anywhere where there is criminal activity. It just provides more flexibility for their use, but it is not about taking away from somewhere else. It is about deploying them more effectively.

Nick McGOWAN: We may differ on the terminology, but the question is nonetheless the same. How many PSOs is it forecast that the government will remove from the current designated areas of service – from train stations – to any other place, be it a shopping centre or a health facility of any kind?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr McGowan, you are asking really operational questions for the chief commissioner. He will decide as the need arises. If there is not a need, I guess they will continue to be deployed where they are. But these are operational decisions, depending where the need is. If the need is greater, then a larger number of PSOs will need to go to the area as the chief commissioner sees fit.

Nick McGOWAN: If there is no need, then there is no need for that part of the legislation at all. So I would suggest to you that given you have brought this legislation forward, there is a need, in fact, to redeploy PSOs from train stations – according to the government at least – and put them in both shopping centres and health facilities. Given that I understand that PSOs are actually already being rostered and will commence their duties at shopping centres next Wednesday, surely the government is in a position to tell the Victorian people how many PSOs will be redeployed from their current posts – that is, at train stations – to these other places.

Enver ERDOGAN: What this bill is focused on is giving the chief commissioner the option for that deployment. It does not affect his operational independence. So he will decide how many PSOs are needed, for the example that you gave, at a shopping centre or at a medical facility. That is a decision for him to make.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, I am not disputing who has operational capacity or who is making these decisions in terms of the chief commissioner; I am simply asking you for the purposes of transparency and for any Victorian watching us right now. You put this legislation forward. Surely you know (a) how many PSOs we have serving on our train stations and (b) how many of those PSOs are now going to be diverted from their existing duties at train stations to these other places. It is a very simple question. It is the purpose of this legislation coming into effect. It is not the detail; it is the basics when it comes to the purpose of this legislation, which is to take PSOs off train stations and put them into either shopping centres or health facilities, whatever those facilities are. All I am asking is a very simple question, which is: how many PSOs will you take off train stations to put elsewhere?

Enver ERDOGAN: I believe, Mr McGowan, I have answered your question. Neither I nor the Minister for Police decide where the PSOs are deployed to. That is a decision for the police commissioner, and he will decide how many PSOs need to be redeployed to the different areas. We are just giving him the option to deploy as needed.

Nick McGOWAN: It could well be a very long night, Minister, because that is clearly not an answer in any way, shape or form. I am not disputing whose role it is to actually roster and/or make those decisions. All I am asking is that for the purpose of transparency, the Parliament is being asked to consider a bill that fundamentally changes a very significant policy in this state and takes PSOs off their role at train stations and puts them elsewhere. So I am asking again: how many PSOs has the government been advised by Victoria Police it will put elsewhere, given that we already know they will commence their new duties next Wednesday?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this has been asked and answered already.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, with respect, how could you possibly say it has been answered? It is the simplest question. So let me ask a basic question: how many PSOs do we have then?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is an operational decision for the chief commissioner to make – how many PSOs need to be redeployed.

Nick McGOWAN: Again, these are not complex questions. Surely in all the briefing papers you have there and the advice you have from all your advisers sitting here tonight, someone can tell us (a) how many PSOs you have and (b) given that they are rostered already and they will commence next Wednesday, how many will actually be deployed to these new locations. I mean, this is the heart of this. This legislation enables that to occur. These are the basic questions about the operational reality of what you are proposing here in the legislation. You have gone nowhere near to answering the basic question of how many PSOs you have in total, much less how many of those PSOs will be redeployed to the new locations as envisaged, in fact enabled, by this legislation.

Enver ERDOGAN: This legislation does not call for the PSOs to be redeployed or change the number of PSOs that need to be deployed. It gives the police commissioner the power to do so as required.

David LIMBRICK: I have only got a couple of questions for the minister. The first one is around part 8, Amendment of Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. Could the minister describe the genesis of this part and where it came from?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Limbrick, you would recall that when the police commissioner was appointed there was some potential ambiguity, and this is just clarifying the outstanding potential matters.

David LIMBRICK: Can I conclude from that answer that this part 8 is to do with the appointment of the chief commissioner? Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that clarification. Does that mean that the amendment that we did last time did not actually correct whatever mistake was made and this is another attempt to fix that mistake? Because my understanding is that this is all around there being constitutional ambiguity around the appointment of foreign nationals to these roles. Are we saying that we did not actually fix it last time and now we are going back and fixing it again? Is that what is happening here? Because it does not look like it has anything to do with the rest of the bill.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this is about the avoidance of any doubt. The previous legislation did sort things out for the chief commissioner, but this is for the avoidance of any doubt. We are making sure this amendment is included for that reason.

David LIMBRICK: Can I just ask one other question on that part 8: was this amendment intended to address any other appointments than the chief commissioner, or is it just the chief commissioner?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might clarify my answer to the previous question. It is more focused on the implicated officers than the chief commissioner himself. It was more targeted towards the implicated officers and the other officers involved there.

David LIMBRICK: My next question is around clause 42 and the display of seized things. Subclause (1) provides that:

The Chief Commissioner of Police may display a thing seized under a warrant issued under section 81 to the public …

et cetera. Could the minister explain the genesis of this? Is this something that was requested by Victoria Police? They want to display seized drugs and things, I guess. Where did this come from? Did the government request this or did the police request this clause?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, Mr Limbrick, I can confirm for you that this originated from Victoria Police. They have similar powers under the Crimes Act 1958, so this was just making sure the equivalent exists in other acts.

David LIMBRICK: My next question is around 3D-printed firearms and accessories. I have had some correspondence with the Attorney-General’s office on this matter, but I just want to clarify. I know that there are some people in Victoria that run businesses that 3D-print firearms accessories – so they do not make firearms with 3D printers, but they do accessories, like things that clip on to the firearms and things like that. Can I confirm that these people will still be able to legally run their businesses after this and that this will not incriminate them in any way – assuming that what they are doing already is legal, printing those accessories.

Enver ERDOGAN: The act is to ensure that a person must obviously have a reasonable excuse or a firearms dealers licence or an exception listed within 59D. So if they have an existing firearms dealers licence or an exception listed in section 59D or a reasonable excuse, then they should be covered and it would be lawful to do so.

David LIMBRICK: Further on 3D-printed firearms, the bill mentions machines used to build 3D-printed firearms, but my understanding is that rarely are these machines specifically for the making of firearms. In fact they are quite general machines. In fact one of my sons has a 3D printer that could conceivably be used to print 3D firearms, although he does not do that – not that I know of, anyway. Exactly what type of equipment are we talking about seizing? Because I am unaware of 3D-printing machinery that is specifically targeted towards firearms manufacturing.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think you are spot on, Mr Limbrick. A lot of the machinery we are talking about is for the deposition of 3D printers more generally – you have got specific plasma cutters, laser- cutting machines and computer numerical control milling machines that could all be utilised. There are many others that could be utilised. You are right: there are different price ranges, from what you might call a consumer level up to commercial grade, million-dollar-plus machines. All of them could be potentially used and are capable of building a firearm or constructing or manufacturing a firearm.

David LIMBRICK: So are we saying here that the main thing that we are actually targeting through the amendments related to 3D-printed firearms manufacturing is really around the software and not the hardware? Is that what we are really talking about? Because I note that there is a lot in there about software as well, and plans and things for firearms. Is that primarily what we are talking about?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. We are not talking about the machines themselves capable of doing this manufacturing. It is about the blueprints or instructions to be able to construct or manufacture a firearm.

David LIMBRICK: If someone possesses the blueprints alone with no intention to distribute or use them, does that constitute an offence under this bill? For example, if someone is curious – there are lots of young men especially that are interested in engineering – they might download these blueprints to look at how these things are built and how they are constructed. Would someone who did that potentially be committing an offence under this bill, or do they require an intent to actually produce a firearm?

Enver ERDOGAN: Just to clarify, when we are talking about instructions and blueprints, we are talking about the code required to manufacture a firearm. Just a 3D model in itself would not land you in trouble. But if you had the actual code that can be inserted into these machines to print out a firearm – for possession alone, yes, you would be falling foul of these laws.

David LIMBRICK: That is quite an alarming answer, considering that there are lots of people in our country who like to research 3D printing and understand how things are made. You would be familiar with 3D-printed firearms being enormously popular in some other countries, notably the US, where there are lots of enthusiasts. I am concerned that there are going to be Australians that will look at this and be interested in seeing how it works and researching it. From what the minister is telling me, those people that want to educate themselves – they might be interested in engineering – about how these 3D firearms actually are made, if they download the code and look at it and inspect it, they will potentially face criminal charges under this bill. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think yes. There are of course exceptions more broadly. For an offence against new sections 59B or 59C, there are exceptions – I might read them to you, Mr Limbrick, because I think it will inform the chamber. If the person possesses or distributes in the public interest; for academic, artistic, educational, industrial or scientific purpose; or for the purpose of law enforcement, they may have an exception, but obviously the facts of the case will be important there. There is always a risk with this kind of legislation that people that have an inquisitive mind could be in a situation where they have this code and that could land them in a lot of trouble if they are not a firearms dealer and they do not fit within the exceptions or have good reason to have possession of it.

David LIMBRICK: The educational exemption is an interesting one. If I downloaded this code and inspected it to research it for my own education because I am interested in engineering, would that fit the educational exemption or not?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a difficult question, Mr Limbrick, because I think probably the facts of each case would be different. If you are telling me it may be for the purposes of your research as a member of Parliament, the facts of the case will need to be –

David Limbrick interjected.

Enver ERDOGAN: For a member of the public I think it would need to be open to interpretation and obviously for the courts to consider, but I might seek some further guidance.

Mr Limbrick, we do have broad exceptions, and on a case-by-case basis it would be a matter for law enforcement to consider whether they believed that your grounds were reasonable in terms of the exceptions that fall within them, and it would be a matter for the courts also to consider if the police were to press charges.

David LIMBRICK: It is also the court’s job to interpret the government’s intent, so what is the government’s intent for the educational exemption?

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare that the sitting be extended by up to 1 hour.

Mr Limbrick, you have asked a really good question because there is a lot of discretion and there is a level of subjectivity whenever you say ‘for educational purposes’. That is something that will need to be considered by law enforcement at the time as to the true intent: is it for genuine academic or educational or industrial or scientific purposes, or is there another purpose behind it? There will be discretion for law enforcement to consider and then, if law enforcement wants to proceed, for the courts to consider in the case before them.

David LIMBRICK: In hopes of saving some curious young person in the future, I will make one last attempt: would the government rule out an educational exemption in a scenario where an individual was downloading this code to inspect and research it for their own educational purposes?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated in my previous answer, that would be very subjective and it depends on the person downloading it and their state. With all factors considered, law enforcement or the courts would need to see if that was for genuine educational purposes or if there was another ulterior motive involved.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am just going to continue on the firearms thing a little bit here. Minister, you mentioned at one point in time that the offence would be to possess the code for the instructions and – correct me if I am wrong here – it was not, say, architectural drawings, for the want of a better term, or engineering drawings. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, that is right.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, I am going to out myself as a nerd here – 15 years in IT before I came here. I have a 3D printer. I know how they work. To design something there are various CAD programs you can use – computer-aided design. I use the beginner one. I am not that good, but I can create, should I want, a fully functioning – when I say ‘firearm’, I will get to that bit in a minute. I could create that as a drawing, and from my memory I could do one on a bit of paper if I wanted. From that drawing, as I understand what you have said, that would not be an offence if I have not turned it into G-code.

Enver ERDOGAN: It needs to be in a format that would be able to be input into a machine, so if it was just a drawing and it was not in a format that could be used as code to be put into a machine, then that would not fall within this reform.

Jeff BOURMAN: I see a wild problem here because I use Tinkercad, which is very easy. I download a stereolithography file, which you cannot directly print from until you put it into what is called a slicer, which creates the code. My understanding of this legislation is that up until I import it into that software, no offence has been committed. Am I correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Bourman, we are getting into areas where there is an element of subjectivity, because there will be a need to look at the intention behind that. We have tried to draft the legislation in a format that is technology neutral. Obviously the goal is to have those blueprints that are ready to be printed at this stage, but you are right that in future there might be easier ways to convert what you are suggesting. We do not want a situation where models and designs for educational or academic purposes are criminalised, but I can foresee a situation down the track where some of those models, designs or instructions could be easily converted to a format that could be printed and be very dangerous. We have tried to keep an element of subjectivity. That would be, I guess, down to the intent, and that would be something where the police, law enforcement or the courts would need to decide whether to proceed.

Jeff BOURMAN: I was kind of making a point there. I had a fair idea where this was going. I want to unpack a little bit of something that Mr Limbrick got onto about firearms parts. I think your answer to him was that you would need to be a licensed dealer. If I take that answer at face value, there are a number of parts I can make out of steel and no offences are committed, because they are not regulated items. Will they be regulated items? I am a shooter, obviously. I use what is called a Picatinny rail – it is a rail that goes on top of your guns, which you can mount stuff on – or a tactical bolt knob. If I make them out of metal, they are not regulated parts. But my understanding from that answer is that if I make it with a 3D printer, it is an offence. I guess what I am after is a clarification. If something is not a regulated item now, is it going to be a regulated item if it is printed with a 3D printer or code?

Enver ERDOGAN: A firearms part that is not regulated is not intended to change – if it is already an offence to manufacture, then that is not changing.

Jeff BOURMAN: That is exactly what I needed to know. Moving on to new section 59C:

A person must not distribute in Victoria or partly in Victoria instructions for manufacture of a firearm, without reasonable excuse …

Can you just let me know what a reasonable excuse would be, other than being a licensed person?

Enver ERDOGAN: We do not have a specific example of a reasonable excuse, but the purpose of inserting that into the legislation is to provide discretion and flexibility for the courts, because down the track there might be a situation that we have not foreseen in the drafting, where the courts might consider all facts before them and say, ‘Oh, that person has a reasonable excuse in the circumstance,’ and obviously ‘reasonable’ in the legal meaning is the community standard at the time that they view it as reasonable. That is why we are inserting that exception into the act.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, it kind of concerns me a bit. I will make this a statement. Obviously one of the things we do here is so that in the future a judge or a justice of some sort can look back and read these questions. They are not going to have a direction as to what a reasonable excuse might be. You have given me your answer. I cannot drag it out of you, but I just want to put that on the record. Whilst we are handy to new section 59, on 59D Mr Limbrick asked about academic and artistic and so on, but one above it is what got my interest:

A person does not contravene section 59B if –

the person possesses the instructions –

in the public interest …

What on earth could the public interest be?

Enver ERDOGAN: Public interest has a broad meaning. There is a lot of case law on this, but it could be for presenting before Parliament. You are preparing for a speech and you need to refer to documents that will inform you. Or it could be part of your work as a committee member. The Legislative Council has some exciting standing committees that are inquiring, and you have an inquisitive mind. That might be of genuine public interest. I think it has a broad meaning, but there is a lot of case law that you could refer to about the meaning of public interest.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will not be bringing in sheets of G-code for people to read in here; I can guarantee that.

Katherine Copsey: You could hand them out.

Jeff BOURMAN: I can hand them out, but if you can understand it, you are doing better than me. The last thing I will get into is imitation firearms. I look on the internet, and there are a lot of what are clearly toys but in this state could be imitation firearms. Some of them are quite realistic. Just for the record, for all those watching, I have not downloaded any of them. I have got enough real ones. I do not need 3D toys. But where does a toy and where does an imitation firearm and where does a real firearm come into being in the context of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: An imitation firearm is a prohibited weapon. It is not intended to be included as part of these reforms. It is quite separate.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, back to the PSOs: did the government consult the Police Association Victoria (TPAV) on their changes?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will keep it short: yes.

Nick McGOWAN: When did the government consult the police association on these changes?

Enver ERDOGAN: I would not have that detail with me, but we always have regular discussions with the police association about our reforms that affect their members.

Nick McGOWAN: So you can categorically assure the house and the people of Victoria that you consulted the police association on these changes before you introduced this legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGOWAN: Were the police association in favour of these changes to the protective services officers?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr McGowan, we would not go into the detail of their advice or the minister’s conversations with the police association.

Nick McGOWAN: My understanding, at least from what the police association have said publicly, is that they are not in favour of these proposed redeployments of their protective services officers. Is that not the case? Are they in favour of them?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the police association have stated their position publicly, and we respect that.

Nick McGOWAN: We are now slowly but surely getting somewhere. If they have stated their position publicly, what is their position, Minister?

Enver ERDOGAN: You are going to make me search for what they said.

It is fair to say that TPAV have made comments. I cannot find them right now, but they have said a number of things of late about some of the reforms. I cannot find that right now, exactly what they said about these specific reforms about PSOs. I will need to take that on notice.

Nick McGOWAN: I appreciate you taking that on notice, but with six advisers behind you I am sure one of them understands what the position of the largest representative organisation of the Victorian police force and PSOs in this state is given that this legislation is currently before the house. It is somewhat disappointing to know that nobody in this house, not a single adviser nor the minister, knows what the position of one of the biggest unions of every Victorian police officer is when it comes to a fundamental redeployment of every single PSO.

Harriet Shing: Keep it nice, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGOWAN: This is me being nice. I am being lovely. This is like me with caviar. This is about the redeployment of PSOs. Did the government consult the nurses union in respect to the redeployment of PSOs in hospitals?

Enver ERDOGAN: My understanding is that there was not a broader consultation about this specific change to place PSOs in hospitals, because it was obviously a change from police to PSOs.

Nick McGOWAN: There was or was not, sorry?

Enver ERDOGAN: There was not a broader consultation.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, just to be clear here, as far as we can gauge, you think the government consulted with the union that represents every police officer, or certainly the majority of police officers, in Victoria, but you do not know what their position is, and as far as we know the government did not consult with one of the biggest unions in this state, the nurses union, in respect to the deployment of PSOs in hospitals to stand guard over accused perpetrators. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated, broad consultation was not done as this was an operational change that was very confined.

Nick McGOWAN: I find it somewhat quizzical, and maybe I have been in politics too long, but I do recall a time when your government actually opposed PSOs both in hospitals but also standing guard over alleged perpetrators, shall we say, in hospitals.

Enver ERDOGAN: Long before my time, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGOWAN: No, no, not long before your time at all. So to be clear –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: Has the government taken any steps, then, to even consult with or engage with the AMA, the Victorian division, in respect to these changes?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is my understanding there was no broader consultation.

Nick McGOWAN: What about the Health Services Union and their workers in every hospital setting and other medical settings?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Nick McGOWAN: I am not quite understanding the government’s hostile attitude toward unions, given they have so far in fact excluded just about every major union and the workers they represent in one of the biggest –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: It does not matter if people are watching me. I will watch myself later, Minister.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: It is important. It is the biggest fundamental change to the way in which the PSOs operate. It is basically replacing police, as my colleagues opposite and those to my left-hand side have stated. With 12 weeks of training, you are now going to put them in hospital settings – in medical settings, that is, under the act – and you are going to put them in jailhouses. You are going to put them in shopping centres with their 12 weeks of training. There has been no consultation with the nurses union and no consultation with the doctors representative body. Seemingly we do not understand what the consultation actually resulted in in terms of those who represent Victorian police in this state, and yet this government has come here tonight with this legislation and put this forward without any consultation with these key stakeholders. What unions did the government consult on these proposals?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this has been asked and answered already. There was no broad consultation on this matter.

Nick McGOWAN: So the government’s position on the biggest fundamental change to the redeployment of PSOs was there was no broad consultation with stakeholders or the Victorian public on this change.

Enver ERDOGAN: I have already answered that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, did you wish to answer?

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered.

Katherine COPSEY: Just staying on this topic for one more question. Minister, can you confirm: were the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service consulted on the elements of this bill relating to PSOs?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: You are confirming that they were consulted on the elements of the bill relating to PSOs, Minister?

Enver ERDOGAN: I know they were consulted in relation to the legislation. I will ask about this specific clause.

I am informed it is yes to that as well.

Katherine COPSEY: I want to speak first about the changes that will allow increased searches of children and people with an intellectual disability. Part 3 of the bill removes the existing requirement for a parent or guardian to be present when a child or person with an intellectual disability is searched by a police officer or PSO. This will significantly increase the risk of harm, trauma and rights violations for children, young people and people with an intellectual disability. In the absence of having a guardian present, which is, I note, a critical safeguard that should not be removed, what specific, enforceable safeguards will be implemented with this change to ensure that searches are conducted in a manner that prevents harm and upholds the dignity and safety of young people and people with intellectual disabilities?

Enver ERDOGAN: Significant safeguards already apply to police and PSO searches in designated areas. This is recognition that these searches are commenced randomly, without a need for a warrant or reasonable suspicion. A graduated search regime exists where more intrusive searches are only permitted when police consider a person may be concealing a weapon. It is important to note and emphasise that police and PSOs must first endeavour to secure a parent, guardian or independent person. Additionally, designated area searches are conducted in a random graduated manner, with searches beginning with a scan of the person, using electronic metal detection, and only if metal is detected should a pat down or examination take place. Obviously particular rules already apply in terms of searches for children, but as a starting point for both children and young people, I think it is important to understand that police must first check that there is an independent person or parent or guardian available; that in itself is the main safeguard that is expressly retained, and it will not be removed. And obviously this bill makes it clear that rules around strip searches are unchanged.

Katherine COPSEY: So in referring to ‘existing’ safeguards, are you confirming that there are no additional safeguards added to accompany the significant change to this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: That is a very disappointing answer. On the same topic, the recently published data from the Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project found that in 2024 alone Victoria Police were 10 times more likely to use force against a person that they perceived to be Aboriginal. The data also showed that Aboriginal people were 15 times more likely to be searched than white people; African people were nine times more likely to be searched than white people; and Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander people were five times more likely to be searched than white people. This data shows us that with existing powers, certain communities continue to be targeted by police, and it is particularly concerning when we consider the increased prevalence of use of force against those communities. What reporting does the government receive from Victoria Police about racial profiling?

Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset, I might just add that every Victorian needs to feel confident that policing decisions are fair and free from bias, and especially from racial profiling, and any allegation that people have should be reported and should be investigated thoroughly. Victoria Police did formally make it clear that it prohibited racial profiling in 2015 and continues to train officers to make decisions based on behaviour and not on people’s background. In relation to these searches, they are designed to be short and non-invasive as a reasonable, practical step. That is why people are not asked to confirm personal details, including cultural background, unless an offence is in fact alleged.

Katherine COPSEY: The data shows that this is a continuing problem. How can you have confidence in the measures that you just spoke about, including training? They are clearly not working. What additional steps are you taking to understand the scale of this problem within Victoria Police and to stop it?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is clear that where an alleged offence has taken place this information needs to be captured, and I think that is an important step. But of course where this kind of behaviour occurs, it is important that it is also reported.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, this is around police use of force against people and use of search powers, so leave aside offences, please, for a moment. There is ongoing evidence of disproportionate targeting of communities of colour by Victoria Police. The training that you spoke of is clearly not proving effective. What additional measures are you taking to ensure that this problem is stamped out?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Copsey for her question and her interest in this important matter. In this legislation there are no proposed additional measures in regard to this matter.

Katherine COPSEY: Again, unfortunately, that is a very disappointing answer. What specific enforceable safeguards will be implemented to ensure that children from these communities will be protected against baseless searches and biased policing, given the statistics we have seen around the use of the existing powers and the huge expansion to search powers you are pursuing with this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I believe I have answered this question. There are existing safeguards in place, and there are no proposals to add additional safeguards as part of this legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: That is at least clear. Overall this bill provides a dramatic increase in police and PSO powers. In the last five years over 90 new police powers have been introduced, but the government has produced no accompanying new oversight system, such as an independent police ombudsman. The Centre Against Racial Profiling data that I referred to, which has been released very recently, shows very clear and persistent disproportionality in how Victoria Police stop, search and engage with Aboriginal communities and other communities of colour. Given how stark and devastating these disparities are, can you outline what concrete steps the government is taking to reduce and prevent racial profiling in Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: I have already outlined some of the Victoria Police policies that have been in place, in particular around racial profiling, since 2015. We have undertaken a broader piece of work as well around anti-vilification and about anti-racism strategy, as that affects all Victorians, not just Victoria Police, because this issue is not confined to law enforcement. The issue of racism occurs in different settings. We have heard this, and I have heard it as minister – whether it be in the courts, whether it be in the educational setting or whether it be in the health setting. So this issue is not an issue unique to law enforcement. I think some of the information is about educating people in the broader Victorian context, not just in a police context alone.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how do you intend to ensure the new police and PSO powers in this bill are not abused?

Enver ERDOGAN: We would say that the existing safeguards that exist within the legislation provide that check and balance. And of course where people are subject to a pat down, they can get information about the officer involved, and if they have complaints, there is a complaint mechanism in place.

Katherine COPSEY: So, Minister, in your view it is the current settings that are currently resulting in Aboriginal people being 15 times more likely to be searched than white people, African people being nine times more likely to be searched than white people, and Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander people being five times more likely to be searched than white people. In your view everything is working just fine with the current system and there is no need for the government to take further action.

Enver ERDOGAN: That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that these searches are designed to be as short and non-invasive as possible, and where there is an offence alleged, police should be recording people’s cultural background. It is the right of Victorians to expect the highest standards of integrity of Victoria Police and officers, and members overwhelmingly provide high standards of service to the community. Issues of racial profiling and racism are not unique just to law enforcement. I can say, as Minister for Youth Justice, I have heard stories of many young people of colour and shared their experiences, unfortunately, in sports, in education and in health settings. I think this is a broader community issue that as a government we are serious about tackling. That is why we have released the racism strategy. We have a number of programs to kick out racism, so to speak, from our society. Police overwhelmingly do a good job and to the highest community standards, but there are clearly issues that are more broadly affecting the community, not just in law enforcement.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, that is all well and good on a rhetorical level, but you must acknowledge that the use and exercise of search powers that are granted to law enforcement officials is a specific problem when those powers are being disproportionately exercised against communities of colour.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we need to trust that Victoria Police will do their job to the high standards of service that the community expects.

Katherine COPSEY: So, it is not your problem. Turning to police powers more generally in relation to anti-protest activities that this government is pursuing, the Guardian recently reported that police have used excessive violence against protesters, with one protester observing two stinger grenades and four flashbang devices along with rubber bullets and VKS PepperBall guns being used at a recent rally. People have reported injuries, people who were not resisting arrests, and in circumstances where no warnings were given by police prior to the deployment of weapons. What guidance will be given to Victoria Police on the use of weapons against protesters who are lawfully exercising their democratic rights?

Enver ERDOGAN: Could you just repeat that last question?

Katherine COPSEY: Certainly, Minister. What guidance will be given to Victoria Police on the use of weapons against protesters who are lawfully exercising their democratic rights?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a very operational question. It is an operational matter that I guess Victoria Police needs to consider in terms of what is appropriate use of force. There are established oversight bodies, if they believe there is any wrongdoing or excessive force used, that people could lodge their concerns with.

Katherine COPSEY: I hesitate to paraphrase you, but that sounded like police will determine what they think is appropriate in the circumstances, and if people have a problem with that, they can complain afterwards. That is the level of guidance that will be given to Victoria Police on the use of weapons against protesters who are lawfully exercising their democratic rights by this government.

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel it is largely out of scope because it is a very operational question about how police apply the law more broadly as well, not just in a protest. Obviously there is an expectation that what they use is reasonable in the circumstances, and where police do use excessive force then obviously there are bodies to investigate that misuse of powers.

Katherine COPSEY: Independent legal observers have recorded instances of police making sweeping requests to all protesters in an area to remove their face covering without a clear reason for a reasonable belief that all of those individuals were about to commit an offence. What safeguards will the government and police implement to ensure the powers in this bill are not used to effect an ultra vires ban, particularly given that the Premier initially recognised that a blanket mask ban risks a viable constitutional challenge?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is expected that Victoria Police use their powers as intended in the legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: I think we would all hope that is the case. My question was: what safeguards will the government and police implement to ensure that powers are not used to effect an ultra vires ban?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, I feel I have been asked and answered these questions. I think there are existing oversight measures in place for Victoria Police conduct, so if there is a misuse of powers, then people will have the ability to use those established channels to raise those issues.

Katherine COPSEY: So just confirming once again: despite a significant expansion of powers no additional safeguards are provided by the government.

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Katherine COPSEY: What public reporting will there be on the use of this mask ban to reassure the public that those powers are being used in line with the intent of the legislation, as you just stated? What public reporting will there be on use of these powers?

Enver ERDOGAN: There are no public reporting requirements in the legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: So, Minister, how will you assure yourself that police are exercising these powers in line with the government’s intent?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to understand these are operational matters, and regardless of whether it is these powers or other powers, I think you know the public expects Victoria Police to provide high standards of service to our community, which the overwhelming majority of police do.

Katherine COPSEY: Turning to the medical exemption which is available for face coverings, people in occupations such as teachers, nurses and carers who regularly interact with people with disabilities or autoimmune or other medical conditions may wish to participate in protest and wear a mask to avoid putting the health of other people at risk. Will the medical exemption apply to those who are wearing face masks to protect other people in the community?

Enver ERDOGAN: Okay. I think that question is a really good question. I think the medical exemption will apply where a person wears a face covering reasonably and in good faith for a genuine medical purpose. For many people, as explained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the exception for a genuine medical purpose might be where a person is wearing a PPE mask to protect an immunocompromised household member or colleague, or related to their work. I think whether the exception applies to other members of the community will depend on the circumstance and will ultimately be up to the court to decide if that is where it ends up.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, independent legal observers have already recorded instances of police telling demonstrators who want to wear a personal protective face mask for medical reasons that they were not allowed to do so and saying to people attending protests, ‘If you’re worried about your health, you can leave the area.’ Do you think that is acceptable advice for police officers to give someone exercising their right to protest?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a difficult question to answer, because these are obviously deeply operational matters that police need to determine on the ground at the time. But what I will say is that there is an exception for medical grounds, and where people have those grounds if police are satisfied that those grounds are genuine, then they should not be required to remove their masks. But it is up to police to be satisfied in the use of those powers that that is a genuine reason or a medical reason for the wearing of those masks.

Katherine COPSEY: What procedures will police use to establish this belief as to whether someone has a genuine medical reason for wearing a face covering?

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill does not require police to determine whether a person has evidence of a reasonable excuse before charging a person. Let me repeat that; that is actually an important point here. The bill does not require police to determine whether a person has evidence of a reasonable excuse before charging a person.

Katherine COPSEY: What protection does the medical exemption provide to someone who has a genuine medical reason for wearing a mask at a protest? What protection is provided if police can determine, based on no evidence, that they want to charge someone? If I have understood you correctly.

Enver ERDOGAN: It is effectively a legal defence to the offence of failing to comply with a direction. If the police require you to remove the mask, that is a direction. If you fail to comply, then obviously you will be committing an offence, and that medical exception would be a defence in court in the law.

Katherine COPSEY: I am trying to understand this. What you are saying is that, practically speaking, people may not be able to satisfy a particular police officer on the day that they have a medical reason for wearing a mask, and that will therefore mean that that person’s right to protest is compromised or their right to wear the mask is compromised. The police will basically say they can do one or the other, and the only remedy available to that person is to engage in legal proceedings in order to prove that the police wrongfully gave them a direction to remove their mask. Is that actually what you are saying?

Enver ERDOGAN: Not in those words. But in terms of the evidentiary burden – I think that is the point you are focusing on here – that evidentiary burden on a person relying on the exception is necessary to support practical enforcement of the direction power, since the evidence of the exception will often be within the specific knowledge of an accused person. Therefore if you do not comply with the direction, you will be subject to the sanction, and the medical exception would be a defence in a court of law.

Katherine COPSEY: Therefore how does this bill preserve the right of someone who is immunocompromised to participate in peaceful protest?

Enver ERDOGAN: Police need to be satisfied at face value that a person has a reasonable excuse. If not, they will charge them and it will be a matter for the courts to determine. They also only come to this point when the offence or likely offence threshold has been met. I will add that in drafting this legislation we have had to finely balance competing rights here.

Katherine COPSEY: That is not a very fine balance if you have effectively created an unworkable exemption that does not allow people who need to mask up to participate in peaceful assembly. Can you expand please on what you meant by ‘face value’ in your previous response?

Enver ERDOGAN: These are really operational matters. Police attend a lot of protests, and they will need to be satisfied in the circumstances, at face value, using their professional judgement.

Katherine COPSEY: I will just note that the Greens supported a public health response during COVID, and there were circumstances in which it was required for people to wear masks to be in any sort of gathering. We do not dispute the necessity of that. It is just deeply ironic that this government has done such an about-face on this topic that it now apparently has so little regard for public health and for individuals’ rights to be safe and healthy and at the same time exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest. How can you reconcile these positions that this government has held?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think what I have stated earlier is that we are balancing competing rights. Clearly, what we have seen, what has brought us to this point, is unfortunately the masked-up violence we have seen on our streets in Melbourne, which has meant we have had to legislate and trust the professional judgement of police that they can exercise those powers and be satisfied on face value that a person has a reasonable excuse. Where police are not satisfied, then they can issue a direction, and people could rely on their medical exception to, I guess, avoid penalty. But we have had to take this action because of the level of disgraceful behaviour we have seen on the streets, and therefore we have had to balance those rights. Obviously we have had to rebalance some of them in the current circumstances.

Katherine COPSEY: I am having trouble, Minister, with your seeming indifference to the legitimate reason that someone might be seeking to wear a face covering, a mask, for health reasons. I want to explore the logic you have just applied to that exemption in relation to religious face coverings. Are you asserting that a police officer might not be satisfied that someone is wearing a religious face covering for a genuine religious purpose, and then they would direct that person to either remove that face covering or leave the area, and the onus would be on the person to later follow up and challenge that officer’s determination? Is that seriously how you are saying these exemptions operate?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the application of the laws would be very similar to the way I have described it for the medical exception. Of course where people have a cultural reason, police would need to use their professional judgement. Like I said, police are in our communities, they are on our streets and they are at protests, and I think they are well placed to make a decision about whether someone has a reasonable exception to have a face covering in the circumstances. But it will be up to the police.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in the busyness of a protest do you expect police to simply arrest people who decline to take off their mask and work out exemptions later? And do you have any concerns of the risks that this would have for our already overburdened police and courts system through unnecessary processing and criminalisation, let me add, of people who have, in all likelihood, done nothing in actual breach of the law?

Enver ERDOGAN: These are deeply operational matters. I believe, again, it has been asked and answered. I think police are required to determine whether a person has evidence of a reasonable excuse before charging a person, but they need to use their professional judgement on face value about that exception. They do make discretionary decisions every day, so in that regard it would be no different to them exercising their professional judgement around these matters. It is my expectation that they do that to the highest community standard, which many police do do as they undertake their work. But they will have those powers.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you were speaking about how these are operational matters. With respect, this is legislation that the government is intending to pass tonight and bring into practice. The police will need guidance in how they are to exercise these powers, and the public will need guidance in order to comply with the law. Will police accept a medical certificate once a direction has been made by a police officer, but before a face covering was removed, as evidence of a genuine medical reason for wearing a mask, and would the police rescind a direction to remove a face covering in these circumstances?

Enver ERDOGAN: It would need to be on a case-by-case basis, and that would be at the discretion of police using their professional judgement in the circumstances.

Katherine COPSEY: One of the purposes of this division around face coverings is to protect persons from the harms of vilification at public protests. The note attached to new section 6D provides that the offence may be an offence of vilification on the basis of a protected attribute. Can we take it from these statements and this legislative note that the types of offences sought to be covered are offences of vilification on the basis of a protected attribute?

Enver ERDOGAN: Police will be empowered to direct the person to remove a face covering at a public protest where they reasonably believe the person has committed or intends to commit an offence. The legislative note referring to the new anti-vilification offence is an example of an offence that may arise at a public protest and emphasises the government’s intention for this kind of offending to be dealt with under this new power given to police.

Katherine COPSEY: If the government is really trying to target far-right extremism with this – which is one of the latest justifications that the Premier has been using for these sweeping powers – why not have this provision tied to this type of vilifying conduct? Why has it been drafted more broadly to capture broader criminal conduct?

Enver ERDOGAN: The requirement for a police officer to have a reasonable belief that a person has committed or intends to commit any criminal offence before issuing a direction is intended to provide flexibility to respond to a range of violent or hateful conduct at public protests. While this may include anti-vilification offences, it also includes violent conduct by protesters which puts others at risk, including those engaging in peaceful protests.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to the ban on lock-on devices, the purpose of this section is targeted at preventing risks of serious injury at protests and also protecting peaceful protests. When the bill speaks about serious risks to public safety, is this definition of a ‘serious risk to public safety’ referring to peaceful or nonviolent conduct? How will ‘serious risk to public safety’ be defined?

Enver ERDOGAN: New section 6F makes it an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to use a thing or substance to lock or otherwise secure any person to another person or surface. I think it is intended that the serious risk to public safety from this offence is confined to the most serious instances where community safety is jeopardised so that it prevents extreme and dangerous behaviours. Whether the use of a thing or substance to lock or its removal poses a serious risk to public safety will depend on the specific circumstances at hand. We have brought broad guidance and broad laws here for police to utilise, so in either case facts will change and police are best placed to make those decisions.

Katherine COPSEY: So it is a serious risk to public safety. Does it need to be immediate?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it will depend on the specific circumstances at hand.

Katherine COPSEY: Does the serious risk need to be hypothetical, or does it need to be readily anticipated?

Enver ERDOGAN: If it is a serious risk, irrespective of whether it is immediate or when someone is going to be removed, then police can take action.

Katherine COPSEY: I can read the words in the legislation. What I am trying to drill down to and understand is the government’s intent – what you intend for serious risk to mean in practice.

Enver ERDOGAN: We are looking where there is a risk of injury to another person, in particular physical injury. I think that is what we are really looking at here in this legislation in these parts. Where there is a risk to safety, whether that is immediate or could happen when someone is being removed, I think the clue is about the likeliness of causing injury to someone, in particular physical injury to another person.

Katherine COPSEY: The Victorian government helped support – everyone has talked about this tonight and I would love to hear your response on it – the creation of a statue of Zelda D’Aprano, an iconic women’s rights activist. It shows her holding the chains that she used to secure herself to a government building to protest against a ruling on equal pay for women. The Premier herself and other Labor MPs have happily taken photos in front of this Zelda statue. How does the government reconcile its support for figures such as Zelda with its targeting now of similar protest tactics?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is quite clear – I have heard this comparison in the other place as well by some members – and what I will say is that Zelda was not attached to the man that caused a serious risk to public safety or injury to another person. She is a great Victorian. I still do not have a photo in front of her statue, but I hope to. Yes, I need to go and get one, clearly. I think that is not a good example and the laws are not intended to be applied in the Zelda D’Aprano situation.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to devices or substances used to lock on, the division includes extending search warrants to enter people’s homes for up to 72 hours before suspected commission of the relevant offence here. Police entering and interfering within a person’s home or vehicle is an incredibly serious incursion on the right to privacy and the sanctity of the home, and it is often a terrifying experience for people who are targeted for this type of action. Videos posted online and media reporting of protesters have suggested that people are already having their homes raided by tactical police squads for relatively minor alleged offences, such as obstruction. What examples can the government provide of such seriously dangerous devices being used by protesters that it would justify this level of interference with the home?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think again that we need to look at case-by-case examples. The purpose of the reforms is to proactively prevent dangerous conduct from occurring to maintain public safety. I can think of an example that does come to mind. I know many in this chamber have talked about in the past the custom sleeping dragon attachment device protesters used to lock themselves to a truck blocking the West Gate Bridge in March 2024. There is the way of using concrete to fix people to the boot of a car blocking traffic like at the Land Forces exposition in September 2024 and a diverse array of things being used for locking on that have blocked access to the Port of Melbourne on numerous occasions throughout this year. I think these are some examples of the kind of stuff that we want to stamp out.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Minister, for confirming your government’s intention to stamp out peaceful obstructive tactics that are used to advocate for social, environmental and peace causes. It is shameful. Related to that, how does the government justify the framing of political protesters as bad and dangerous such that they are deserving of oppressive and heavy-handed police-led responses?

Enver ERDOGAN: Obviously these laws are subject to the court’s authority, but I think I gave a good example: I think in the West Gate Bridge incident in March 2024 we all recall people that needed hospital care – pregnant women were affected and many others. I have given another example of the Land Forces exposition: what we saw at that protest was disgraceful, and I would not describe them as peaceful protests. Again, case-by-case circumstances, but I think we are being very clear that these are the types of events that need to cease going forward.

Katherine COPSEY: Turning now to the offences around disturbing religious worship, the proposed section 21C: has the government received legal advice about the constitutionality of this provision?

Enver ERDOGAN: The government regularly receives legal advice about legislation that it intends to bring to Parliament. I do not propose, and the government does not propose, to waive privilege on any advice received in relation to these matters.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to 21C, how is ‘disturb’ defined?

Enver ERDOGAN: In this context I think it is best explained as someone trying to obstruct someone from taking part in religious worship.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I do not find that answer satisfactory, unfortunately, because there is a separate provision within 21C that talks about obstructing. I am going to ask you how that is defined next. So can you please check again: how is ‘disturb’ defined?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is intended that this offence will capture conduct intended to interrupt or interfere with a religious worship meeting, such as hostile, disruptive or confrontational behaviour. It is intended to capture anything that is intended to interrupt or interfere with religious worship.

Katherine COPSEY: There are several dictionary definition meanings of ‘disturb’. It can mean ‘to interrupt’ or it can mean ‘to create an emotional reaction’. What definition of ‘disturb’ is the government intending to apply in relation to your legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: Interrupt or interfere.

Katherine COPSEY: How is ‘hinder’ defined in relation to 21C?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the intention here is that there are narrower applications so far as it is confined to conduct that hinders or obstructs a person from attending religious worship, so the intention is to hinder or obstruct arriving at, attending or leaving religious worship. It takes a narrower approach; it is not our intention to have the offence be made out if a person lacks the specific intent to hinder or obstruct the person arriving at, attending or leaving a religious worship meeting. I think the intent behind it is important as well.

Katherine COPSEY: Similarly, and finally, how is ‘obstruct’ defined? I will just add while you go and seek clarification: these terms are stated separately in the legislation, so I am trying to understand the government’s intent in doing that and what they mean.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, you do make a good point about the different words and different descriptions, I think, so that these kinds of conducts are captured and we make sure we have covered them. But in terms of ‘obstruct’ in relation to these provisions, it is about kind of blocking someone from attending or deliberately trying to block someone from taking part in their worship.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you spoke just briefly before about the intent. What is the relevant intent that needs to be established for a person to fall foul of 21C?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the intent that we are targeting is that it is deliberately to prevent someone from attending their religious place of worship. That is the motivation for the behaviour.

Katherine COPSEY: So the intent is a combined intent. It is to obstruct or hinder or disturb, plus trying to do that in relation to a place or a practice of worship?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: So a person who intended to obstruct someone, however, did not intend to obstruct them for the purpose of disrupting or preventing them from engaging in religious worship would not fall foul of this offence. That is the government’s intent?

Enver ERDOGAN: No. But obviously that is case by case, because what you are describing there – well, if that is the case, yes, then you are right. But I guess that would be up to people to interpret in a circumstance. But I think you are right in a broad way.

Katherine COPSEY: With respect, Minister, that is why I am asking these questions, because the courts will have to interpret this legislation, and they will look at what you have said tonight to try and figure out what this government was trying to do. So if you have drafted a piece of legislation that is vague as to the intent that a person needs to hold in order to fall foul of this provision, that is not very helpful, Minister, or a very responsible execution of the government’s duties. I will ask again: what is the relevant intent that needs to be established under 21C?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the relevant intent is that you are trying to hinder attendance, arrival or departure from the meeting. I think that is the intent. Is your purpose for conducting yourself the way you are, your behaviour, to block someone from arriving at or departing their place of worship? If that is the intent, then you will fall foul of the laws.

Katherine COPSEY: So can you give guidance as to where people can protest in the vicinity of places of worship?

Enver ERDOGAN: There will be many instances. We are in the CBD, for example, where people have peaceful protests in the vicinity of places of worship. Around the Parliament building there are a number of places of worship. It is not intended to apply in those circumstances where the protest is unrelated to people’s prayers or religious practice.

Katherine COPSEY: So I think we will all acknowledge that many times – not always, but many times – protests are by their nature disruptive or disturbing. They aim to gain the attention of people in order to bring attention and focus to issues that people want to see change on. It is what makes them an effective and critical component of our democratic freedoms. And the disruptive nature of protests is protected under international human rights law. So how will the government ensure that this power is not used to silence legitimate and occasionally loud and occasionally obstructive protests that may be occurring in the vicinity of a place of worship?

Enver ERDOGAN: As long as the goal or the intent is not to hinder people attending their worship or their meeting, then it would not fall foul of the laws as they are drafted.

Katherine COPSEY: A protest movement may, for example, decide to temporarily occupy a public space. This may have a flow-on impact on pedestrian traffic or, for example, trams along Swanston Street. That kind of obstructive activity would not fall foul of 21C unless there was the combined intent to prevent people from attending a place of worship?

Enver ERDOGAN: Good question. Yes, you are right, Ms Copsey.