Tuesday, 25 August 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:47): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026, and from the outset I want to acknowledge that debates about crime and criminal law are ultimately about the consequences experienced by real people, their families and their communities and are not just an academic debate here in the Parliament. We have seen those consequences tragically in recent weeks, with the death of Van Viet Truong, a longstanding and much-loved member of the Sunshine community. He was a local trader for some 30 years. The extraordinary outpouring of grief following his death demonstrates the impact that he had on that community and the terrible sense of loss that followed. His death has touched Victorians right across the state. It is another devastating reminder of what can happen when repeat and serious offending is allowed to continue unchecked, when dangerous offenders remain on the streets and when the justice system fails to provide consequences necessary to protect the community.

For years members on this side of the chamber have raised concerns about rising crime and the weakening of laws here in Victoria, indeed the weakening of laws here in this chamber in this term of Parliament. For years those concerns have been dismissed by the Labor government, by those opposite, which repeatedly sought to argue that there was no crime crisis and that Victorians’ concerns about safety were somehow exaggerated and misplaced. I remember Mr Galea talking about how we were just after a Herald Sun headline or a 3AW interview. I remember Ms Terpstra jeering at us from the other side about our concerns when raising valid concerns about crime. It is only now, on the eve of an election, that those petrified of community sentiment are seeing that they need a political fix, but it is not a genuine fix. If it was a genuine fix, they would not have weakened the bail laws in the first place, they would not have had a soft-on-crime approach that has resulted in devastating consequences and they would not have cut police. We would not have seen a dramatic reduction in police. There are less police now than what there were three years ago. That is a result of consistent underfunding of our police force and a lax approach to this issue. That position is no longer sustainable.

Victorians can see what is happening in their communities, they can see the impact of repeat offending and they can see the consequences of weakened bail laws. In particular we have seen young repeat offenders arrested through the hard work of Victoria Police only to find themselves back on the streets from what has become a revolving door of bail. This did not just happen; it is by design. Those opposite designed the system. They are trying to change some of it now to save their political skin, but the reality is that the system of laws that they designed has resulted in a catch-and-release bail policy. We have a catch-and-release bail policy under this Andrews–Allan–Carroll government because that is the way that those opposite designed it. It is by design, and it is not what you will get under the Liberals and Nationals. With an election approaching the government is scrambling to convince voters it has suddenly discovered the importance of law and order. After years of dismissing concerns about crime, Labor is now rushing legislation into this Parliament in an attempt to repair the political damage caused by its own record.

The Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026 is part of that response. The bill creates a new offence relating to the recruitment of children for criminal activity, an aggravated offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment when an adult recruits a child to engage in criminal activity; it is punishable by 15 years of imprisonment or more. The government says this delivers on the commitment made by the former Premier and the former Attorney-General in November last year to establish an aggravated offence for those who recruit children into serious criminal activity.

We agree that the recruitment of children by criminal organisations is a serious problem and one that demands a serious response. That is why the Liberals and Nationals will not oppose this bill. However, we do believe the legislation contains a significant and obvious loophole, and we will seek to amend it. The fundamental problem is that the new offence has been constructed around the age of a recruiter; the government has decided that the offence should apply to an adult who recruits a child rather than focusing on the conduct of the person doing the recruiting. This distinction matters. The objective of this legislation is to prevent children from being recruited into criminal activity. The law should target the act of recruitment itself rather than creating an arbitrary distinction depending on whether the recruiter happens to be 17 years old or 18 years old. Under the government’s legislation an adult criminal could recruit a 17-year-old and then use that 17-year-old to recruit other children. The adult has recruited one person, while the 17-year-old could potentially recruit many more, yet the serious recruitment offence created by this bill would not apply in the same way to that 17-year-old recruiter. That is a loophole that organised criminals will understand very quickly.

Criminal networks are not going to politely operate according to the intentions expressed in the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech. They will look at the legislation, identify where the weaknesses are and adapt the way they operate accordingly. Effectively the government risks creating the legislative conditions for a criminal pyramid scheme: an adult recruits one young person, the young person recruits many others, and the recruitment continues down the chain. If the purpose of this legislation is to genuinely disrupt the recruitment of children, why would we leave such an obvious weakness in the law? This is why the Liberals and Nationals are seeking to remove the word ‘adult’ from the relevant provisions. Put simply, if a person recruits a child to engage in serious criminal activity captured by this bill, the recruitment offence should apply. That is a commonsense proposition. If a 17-year-old is deliberately recruiting children into organised criminal activity, why should that conduct be treated fundamentally differently from the same conduct undertaken by a 19-year-old? The conduct is the same, the intention is the same and the potential consequences for the children being recruited and the broader community are the same.

The problem reflects a broader weakness in Labor’s approach to youth crime. Again and again the government constructs different categories of offending based overwhelmingly on age rather than properly recognising the seriousness of the conduct involved. This is a tired and lazy government that is addicted to bandaid solutions that might get a good run on social media rather than fixing the crime crisis that they have spent a decade presiding over. Although, if you have a look through the comments section of any of the Labor government MPs, you can tell they are not getting a good run on social media at all.

Can I point out the fact that we are only in this situation because the criminal underworld has set up shop here in Victoria. Criminal organisations and criminal operations have infested every sector from waste to construction sites, where they have been able to accumulate large amounts of funding from taxpayers – up to $15 billion. They are doing just as well off the tobacco trade. It is funding other criminal activities. It is funding the cash payments to young people to engage in criminal activity. Victoria, because of the weak laws we have, has created a black market ecosystem here in this state, and you have to wonder why. The ‘why’ is because Victoria is clearly viewed as the best place for the criminal underworld to set up shop. That is a deep mark of shame upon this tired, lazy, 12-year-old government that has been addicted to continuously weakening laws when it comes to our bail system, our justice system and crime legislation.

The consequences of the approach that this government has taken are increasingly apparent. The statistics referred to in relation to outcomes for children committing offences show an extraordinarily low proportion receiving detention. The overwhelming majority do not. That matters when we are dealing with a small cohort of serious repeat offenders who have learned what little consequence they may face for their behaviour. For those offenders, the system can be something to be exploited. If organised criminals know that younger offenders will be treated differently, they have an incentive to use them. If they know younger recruiters will not be captured by the same offence as adult recruiters, they have an incentive to structure their criminal activity accordingly. The government itself acknowledges that existing laws have not adequately dealt with this problem. At the bill briefing to my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General, the government confirmed that between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2024 there were just 29 charges under the existing offence and only four individuals were convicted. During the same period we have witnessed an extraordinary increase in serious offending, gang activity and concerns about children being recruited to participate in criminal behaviour. Four convictions demonstrates why stronger laws are required, but stronger laws only work when they are properly designed. There is little point creating a headline offence carrying a headline penalty if those responsible for organising criminal activity can simply change the age of the person they use to conduct recruitment. That is why our amendment is important. We will move it in this chamber because we believe the law should focus on the offending behaviour. If a person deliberately recruits children into serious criminal activity, the legislation should provide an appropriate consequence for that conduct regardless of age.

This goes to the wider frustration that Victorians have with Labor’s approach to law and order. The community is not angry because young people who make minor mistakes are being given opportunity to turn their lives around. Victorians understand that young people can make mistakes and that rehabilitation has an important role in our justice system. The concern is about serious violent and repeat offenders who continue to commit crimes despite having been arrested time and time and time again. One offender has been bailed over 50 times. There is palpable anger in the community when I am going out and about in my electorate, which I am constantly doing, and we are seeing continuous crime on our streets. It was barely a week ago that shots were fired at Craigieburn Central amidst machete attacks. I am constantly hearing about aggravated burglaries, carjackings, armed robberies and other serious offences, while the victims are left wondering why someone with a lengthy history of offending was still on the street. The same Craigieburn community are still mourning 15-year-old Darweish Mohamed, who was stabbed to death and dumped outside Craigieburn Community Hospital. Three young people, one only 14, have been charged with his death, and it would not surprise you that one of them was out on bail. There must be a distinction between a young person who makes a mistake and a serious repeat offender who repeatedly chooses to terrorise the community. Labor’s approach too often fails to recognise that distinction.

We see the same weakness in the government’s so-called ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws. Labor looked to Queensland, where around 50 serious offences fall within the relevant framework, but chose to apply the Queensland model fully to only five offences and partially to another three. That means only a fraction of serious offences that could have been included are actually covered. The Liberals and Nationals have committed to expanding the Victorian approach to 25 serious offences because we believe serious violent offending must carry serious consequences. When someone commits a serious violent offence, particularly when that person is a repeat offender, the justice system needs to respond to the seriousness of the crime rather than provide an effective get-out-of-jail-free card because of the offender’s age. And Victorians understand that. They understand the difference between youthful misbehaviour and someone invading a home armed with a machete. They understand the difference between a mistake and repeatedly stealing cars and committing aggravated burglaries, terrorising innocent people.

We saw a shocking incident in Donnybrook the other night where a car had flipped and a couple, as well as a number of other people, pulled over and were helping the man out of the car that had flipped, only for that same man who was in the car that had flipped over to hop in the very car of the people that were assisting him and steal it. It was found that the car that had flipped in the crash was also stolen. This is repeatedly terrorising our community. But we see the continuous neglect. There is no better example of neglect than the area of Donnybrook, which does not have its own police station in that corridor. Craigieburn is the closest station, and it takes police sometimes over 20 minutes to get to that Kalkallo–Donnybrook corridor, even with the lights on. That is not good enough. It has got no local police station. Wallan is basically a front counter, and even that is closed most of the time. This goes to the neglect that we continue to see while not actually engaging with communities like Kalkallo and Donnybrook that are consistently speaking out on these issues. Yet Labor continues to write legislation which contains these artificial distinctions, and every time concerns are raised about the consequences, the government insists that everything will work as intended. Too often it does not. The Liberals and Nationals have repeatedly warned that particular reforms would fail to address the underlying problems, and the evidence being experienced in communities across Victoria is proving those warnings correct.

Now we have a new Premier telling Victorians he is going to do something about crime, but Victorians are entitled to ask what exactly that means and why meaningful action was not taken earlier when this Premier was Deputy Premier. This is not a new government. This Premier was a senior member of the government that weakened bail laws in 2023. This Premier was Deputy Premier to Jacinta Allan when no action was taken in response to the crime crisis we are seeing in our community. Absolutely nothing has changed in their approach. He was Deputy Premier when the crime crisis escalated. He cannot separate himself from the decisions that have helped create the circumstances Victoria is now in.

We have also seen growing concern about police resources and police station closures. Following the tragedy in Sunshine, local mayors have themselves raised concerns about policing and station closures. These are legitimate concerns shared by communities across Melbourne and regional Victoria. Police see officers working incredibly hard to apprehend offenders, often dealing with the same offenders repeatedly. Then they see these offenders released and get off over and over again. We do see station closures. In my electorate we have seen the Flemington police station closed, and I know our Liberal candidate Tommy Ledoux has done a lot of advocacy on it. Thankfully, a Liberal and Nationals government led by Jess Wilson will reopen Flemington police station. But take this for example: we had a shocking case last Christmas Eve, I believe, where a woman was being chased by a former partner, a domestic abuser, with a knife and went to Reservoir police station, where she was slashed because Reservoir police station was not open. The government spent millions – I believe almost $20 million – building Reservoir police station. It was built at the time. In 2021 it opened. It had a smoking ceremony. Labor MPs were there – Lisa Neville, the then minister, was there – and they had the gall to bill it as a police station that would be open to the public for 24 hours. Yet five years later it got closed by this government. And you have the member for Preston out there boasting about it: ‘We’re just going to close the front counter.’ It is absolutely shocking that they would close a police station that was built as a 24-hour station, and the Reservoir community is deeply, deeply upset about this situation. It just goes to show the waste by this government in terms of their approach to crime. The good news for the people of Reservoir is that the Liberals and Nationals under Jess Wilson will reopen Reservoir police station to allow the community to visit that front counter to get access to all those important services. Communities should not have to see local police by appointment. Too many Victorians feel the system has become more concerned with the offender rather than the victim. They see people accused of extremely serious crimes receiving repeated opportunities, while victims are left with the consequences.

With only a handful of parliamentary sitting days remaining before the election, Labor cannot credibly pretend that after more than a decade in government it has suddenly arrived at a solution to Victoria’s crime crisis. They can change premiers, but they cannot change the utterly disgraceful way they have managed crime in my electorate and across the state. Victorians will judge this government on its record – this government in which Ben Carroll was a senior minister or Deputy Premier the entire time.

The recruitment of children for criminal activity is particularly disturbing and an example of why consequences matter. Organised criminals recruit young people because they believe that those young people are often useful to them. Part of that calculation is the distinct knowledge that young offenders can be treated more leniently by the justice system. We have seen serious allegations in public comments from police concerning children being recruited to commit arson attacks against Victorian businesses, and this should concern every member of Parliament, because the government’s ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws exclude arson from an offence which would be uplifted to a higher court, which shows their big act of suddenly being tough on crime is just a smokescreen. Deal with the offences. If the government were serious, they would have included arson in those laws. Why are criminal organisations recruiting children to undertake this work? They are not doing it accidentally. They understand the vulnerabilities in our justice system, and they understand that younger offenders can be used to insulate more senior criminals from consequences.

We have announced 25 serious offences that should be covered under the ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws, because we reject the idea that serious violent offending is somehow less serious simply because an offender is 17, 18 or 19. If a 17-year-old deliberately recruits younger children into a criminal network, the damage caused by that recruitment is not somehow less serious than a recruiter who is 18 or 19. That is the fundamental weakness we are getting to and are seeking to address. As drafted, this legislation risks allowing an adult offender to recruit one younger person and to have that person undertake broader recruitment operations. If we have identified the recruitment of children as sufficiently serious to justify creating a new criminal offence carrying extraordinarily significant penalties, we should make sure the offence actually captures those responsible for doing the recruiting.

The Liberals and Nationals therefore support the objective of preventing criminals from exploiting children. We support stronger consequences for those who draw children into serious criminal activity, and that is why we will not oppose this bill. Our amendment is designed to remove unnecessary age-based loopholes and focuses on the offence and the conduct Parliament is trying to prevent: the recruitment of children into serious activity. As I said, the Liberals and Nationals will not oppose the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill. However, we will seek to amend the legislation so that it does what Victorians reasonably expect it to do. We should close the loophole now rather than wait for criminals to exploit it and us return to this Parliament later to repair another law that did not work as promised. I cannot tell you the amount of times we have warned, in contributions and in committee stages, that a particular element of a bill will create consequences, only for them to happen and for the government to have to come back. So I think it is fair enough for the government to accept our amendment in this regard. That is the approach the Liberals and Nationals will take and is the principle behind the amendments that we will seek to make to this bill. I ask that my amendments be circulated.

As I said, this government has weakened the bail laws. They have continually taken a lax approach to issues of justice and bail and have repeatedly sought a worldview and a narrative that somehow prioritises – how sick they are – the offender over the victim and that see the scales of justice tilted towards the perpetrator being the victim of society rather than the victim being the victim. They are called a ‘victim’ for a reason – they are the victim, and they are the people we should be looking after. I will conclude my remarks there.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:17): I am pleased to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. This is a significant bill that strengthens Victoria’s laws and sends a clear message to adults who recruit children to commit serious crimes. There are few things more cowardly than an adult deliberately using a child to do their dirty work and commit a crime. It involves the exploitation of a young person’s vulnerability, their trust, their inexperience or their desire to belong. Sending a child out to commit a serious and potentially violent crime is absolutely reprehensible. These adults are not innocent bystanders, they are not simply a bad influence – they are deliberately putting children in harm’s way to protect themselves.

The bill before us implements the following: if you recruit a child to carry out serious criminal activity on your behalf, you will face serious consequences. We know organised crime is changing criminal networks, increasingly using technology and encrypted applications to reach young people, sometimes without ever meeting them face to face. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has found that children are increasingly being recruited by serious and organised crime groups because they are cheaper to hire, more impressionable and increasingly accessible online. Just think about the calculation involved in that – an adult involved in organised crime looks at a child and sees someone who is cheaper, someone who is easier to influence, someone who can be manipulated, someone who is easy to intimidate and someone who will take the risk while the adult stays at arm’s length. These criminals know and understand the consequences of the activities they are involved in. They know the potential for violence. They know there is possibility of arrest, imprisonment, injury or even death. When a child becomes involved in serious offending, that young person can easily be exposed to further criminal activity and violence, becoming trapped in a cycle of offending. Their education, relationships and future employment can all be affected.

Crime affects all parties. There are of course the victims of the serious crimes these young people are recruited to commit, as well as the wider community rightly expecting to feel safe. That is why we need to go after the adults behind this behaviour. These reforms will create a new offence for an adult to recruit a child to commit a serious crime. This will apply regardless of whether any criminal activity is carried out by that child or not, or even if different criminal activity takes place. The offence is the recruitment itself. That is where the harm begins. Last year the government increased the maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years in prison for the existing offence of recruiting a child to carry out a criminal activity. These reforms go further by creating a stronger maximum penalty where children are recruited to commit serious crimes. This is in direct response to organised crime networks that are increasingly recruiting children to commit offences on their behalf, including arson, aggravated burglary, home invasion and carjacking. If found guilty, offenders could face life imprisonment.

Importantly, the bill also addresses the reality of how recruitment occurs. An adult will not be able to simply turn around and claim that they did not know with certainty that that person they recruited was a child. The offences will also apply where the adult is reckless as to whether the person is a child or where they know the person is, or probably is, a child. That is particularly important when we are dealing with organised crime networks operating online. Recruitment may occur anonymously through social media or encrypted applications and at arm’s length. Our laws must reflect that reality. Adults involved in serious criminal activity should not be able to deliberately avoid asking questions about age, then use wilful ignorance as a shield. Community safety does require consequences. People who organise serious crimes and exploit children to carry them out need to know that Victoria will come down hard.

Community safety is also about prevention. The best possible outcome is that a young person never becomes involved with a criminal gang or the justice system in the first place. That is why I also strongly support the fact that our response goes beyond criminal penalties. The Victorian budget invests $30 million in the violence reduction unit to support programs that involve the whole community and disrupt patterns of youth offending early. There is also an additional $9.5 million for the Blue Light Victoria youth mentoring program. That program is about reaching young people who may be experiencing school disengagement, isolation or a lack of positive role models. Keeping young people engaged matters because organised criminals are looking for vulnerabilities to exploit. They are offending, but they are offering young people a false sense of belonging. We need strong communities, trusted adults and positive role models around them. I have spent some time speaking with senior police officers in Warrnambool about the importance of youth engagement. They told me that having strong sporting clubs and strong personal connections from schools to neighbours is one of the main reasons that youth crime is lower in our region. It shows that kids with trusting relationships and involvement in their communities are less vulnerable to hostile outside influences. That is why these programs matter, to help prevent violence before it starts, with programs that intervene early and support our young people.

I want to be clear: there is no choice between accountability and prevention. We definitely need both. We are providing serious consequences for those who commit serious crimes, and even stronger consequences for adults who exploit children for their own criminal purposes. At the same time, we need to intervene early and give young people every opportunity to choose a different path. Children must be held accountable for serious offending, but we must also pursue the adults operating behind the scenes. This bill also forms part of the government’s broader response to organised crime. Victoria Police has been given additional resources through Operation Eclipse to identify the adults exploiting vulnerable young people. We are investing $5 million to allow hospitality venues to opt into providing live CCTV feeds directly to police and establishing a $10 million Hospitality Security Fund to help eligible venues improve their security. An expert from the violence reduction unit is also being embedded within Victoria Police’s state command and coordination centre to strengthen our work preventing gang recruitment. The Victorian budget provides $62 million to recruit up to 200 reservists, helping free up more police officers to work in our communities. These measures have a common purpose: to make Victorian communities safer.

This bill is preventing crime, holding offenders accountable and keeping our children away from the criminal justice system in the first place. I commend the bill to the house.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (17:26): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. Let us be very clear: adults who exploit children and draw them into serious criminal offending cause enormous harm. They harm victims and communities. They harm the children that they recruit. Children should not be used as disposable labour by organised criminal networks, and Victoria already has laws to deal with this conduct. It is already an offence for an adult to recruit a child to engage in criminal activity, carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The question before us is not whether recruiting children into crime should be illegal – it already is. The question is whether this bill effectively targets the people who control and profit from that exploitation and whether the extraordinary increase in penalties proposed by the government is justified. The Greens do not believe it is. We will not be supporting this bill today.

This bill creates a new aggravated offence, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, where adults recruit a child to engage in criminal activity punishable by 15 years or more. It also broadens the existing recruitment offence so that an accused need not actually know that the person is a child. It is enough that they know the person is or probably is a child. These are serious changes, and they should be carefully targeted, and they should be proportionate. Instead, as drafted, this bill casts the net extraordinarily wide.

The government repeatedly, once again, has described this as a measure against organised crime gangs and targeted, but once again the rhetoric does not match the bill that they have actually brought to the chamber. Organised crime is not an element of the offence. There is no requirement that the accused be part of an organised criminal network, no requirement for commercial gain, an exploitative relationship or a position of authority or influence or even a significant age difference in the way the government has drafted these offences. It is entirely possible to draft a recruitment offence that targets organised crime by requiring a connection to a criminal organisation or an element of exploitation or commercial benefit, as other offences in the Crimes Act 1958 already do. The government has not done that with this bill. I will be asking the minister to explain why the offence has been left so broad.

This matters because the people that this law is most likely to reach are not necessarily the people sitting at the top of organised crime networks. The Federation of Community Legal Centres has given a clear warning about this. A young person who was themselves recruited and exploited as a child may turn 18 and have a younger sibling, cousin or friend involved in offending. Under this bill that 18-year-old can then be exposed to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Once again this government wants to expose very young people to life imprisonment.

Organised crime networks are sophisticated. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ACIC, describes organised crime networks as decentralised, digitally enabled and increasingly operating across borders and online. The people directing these networks do not necessarily approach a child themselves. They can recruit one vulnerable young person and have that person draw in siblings, cousins, friends and so on. Each additional layer of removal creates distance between the people making the money and directing this conduct and the young people who ultimately are the ones taking and bearing the risks. If the government genuinely wants to disrupt the business model, it should be targeting its efforts up the chain, not down it. This bill risks doing the reverse. It can punish the young person at the bottom while leaving the person directing them at arm’s length completely untouched. The government’s own statement of treaty compatibility acknowledges that First Peoples are already profoundly over-represented in the criminal legal system and that this bill may increase that over-representation. I will be asking the minister what modelling the government has actually undertaken to understand the scale of that impact. It would appear to be zero, but we can discuss that more in the committee. That should have been central to the design of this legislation from the beginning, and it is deeply disappointing, yet again, that we have a justice bill coming before this place which has such obvious implications for First Peoples, and it has proceeded, once again, without the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl even having an opportunity to advise on it.

The expanded fault element of the bill is also deeply problematic. In a group of 16-, 17-, 18- or 19-year-olds who socialise together, people may not know one another’s precise ages. Under this bill, an 18- or 19-year-old who involves a younger peer in offending can be caught because they knew that the person was probably a child. Again, that is a long way from the rhetoric and the picture that the government has painted of targeting senior organised crime figures deliberately recruiting children for profit. If the government genuinely intends to target exploitation, it should draft offences and laws that do that. The Federation of Community Legal Centres has suggested alternatives that would be more effective and obvious safeguards which would properly target this bill towards the cohort that the government states it is targeting. These could include a meaningful age difference; a position of power, authority or influence; an exploitative relationship; or protections for people of similar age or in peer or family relationships. Once again, the government has seemingly dismissed offers from the sector to try and create a law that more effectively targets the behaviour it states it is trying to address.

The second problem is the effect of this law on sentencing principles. The maximum penalty, life imprisonment, is the most severe penalty available under Victorian law. It is the maximum penalty for murder. This bill attaches the same maximum to a recruitment offence which covers a very broad range of underlying conduct. This disrupts the coherence of our sentencing hierarchy, and it can undermine the proportionality and rationality of our criminal justice system in Victoria. The existing recruitment offence, which exists prior to this bill, already criminalises the conduct this bill is directed at, and it already creates a very substantial maximum penalty of 15 years. The government has not demonstrated why this is inadequate or how increasing the maximum to life imprisonment will actually prevent or stop organised crime recruitment. We have not been told how much the existing offence is actually being used, how many people have been charged or convicted under section 321LB, how many of those cases have involved organised crime or what evidence demonstrates that the existing 15-year maximum is not a sufficient deterrent. It is not clear whether the extraordinary proposal for a life maximum sentence was referred, either, to the Sentencing Advisory Council for advice on this bill. And there is a revealing contradiction in the government’s own evidence for this bill. The government relies, in its public commentary on this bill, on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Opening the Books report to demonstrate that organised crime groups are increasingly recruiting children. But the ACIC’s own chief executive has been equally clear that harsher criminal penalties are not by themselves a solution. She has said:

… we can no longer arrest our way out of the problem.

The ACIC’s prescription is broader: better intelligence and technology; coordinated law enforcement; and stronger community resilience, prevention and support for vulnerable people who are at risk of being drawn into organised crime. That is the lesson that this government appears to have ignored, as this bill responds primarily by simply satisfying a sound bite, creating a broader offence and attaching the harshest penalty available under Victorian law. But you cannot cite the ACIC to justify the scale of the problem and then disregard the advice of the ACIC when they tell you what is required to actually address it.

Victoria Police’s own youth gang strategy makes the same point. It emphasises early intervention, mentoring, education, employment and rapid referral to support services, because children do not become vulnerable to recruitment in a vacuum. Many have experienced trauma, family violence, disability, disengagement from school, homelessness or poverty. Many have already come into contact with child protection or the youth justice system. Community legal centres have highlighted the particular vulnerability of children who cross over, with involvement in both child protection and youth justice, and the government itself recognises that some people remain sufficiently vulnerable to stay on child protection orders until the age of 21. Yet that same person, once they turn 18 – once this bill passes – can be treated as an adult recruiter and be potentially exposed to a life sentence. There is something profoundly incoherent about that and about this government’s stated acceptance of the evidence and what they do to try and make their political problems go away. Punishing young adults immediately around these children more harshly will not dismantle the criminal networks exploiting them. It will mean that the next group of young people continue to be used as cannon fodder. Nor will it address the conditions that make children susceptible to recruitment in the first place. This bill ultimately, we fear, will be ineffective and harmful.

There are also serious questions about consultation, once again, in this government’s approach to justice issues. The Federation of Community Legal Centres has expressed disappointment at the lack of consultation on a bill with consequences that extend well beyond the government’s stated target. The government should tell this chamber which community legal services, Aboriginal community controlled organisations and Aboriginal legal services were consulted before an offence carrying the most severe penalty available in Victorian law was introduced.

The Greens want children protected from organised crime. We want the people who direct and profit from that exploitation held accountable. We want communities to be safe. These are serious problems, and they require serious lawmaking, not simply reaching for the largest penalty available to further the race to the bottom with the Liberals on crime issues in this state, or for the sake of a sound bite, or for the sake of getting through another day of press conferences and media rounds. If the government wants to disrupt organised crime, it should target those who control and profit from it and invest in preventing vulnerable children from being recruited in the first place. This bill is too broad in its drafting and who it catches, too blunt in how it defines culpability and disproportionate and irrational in the sentencing that it imposes. It risks criminalising young and marginalised people who have themselves been exploited, and it risks failing to reach the people who control the criminal networks above them. The Greens will be opposing this bill.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:38): I also rise today to speak to the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. The interesting thing about this bill is that it is meant to be targeting those who are recruiting children. It is meant to be sorting out a major problem that we have. I have attested in this chamber many times to the increases in crime in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region which I represent, and those increases in crime in the last few years have been significant. But the reality is that the majority of the recruitment that is taking place of children, people who are still at school in many cases, is largely being done by other students in school or young people themselves. So a bill like this does not actually curb the problem, particularly, as everyone has mentioned today, as we have a real problem in Victoria with organised crime. This is the state for criminals to do business in. This is the state for cartels to move into and take over and start ruining and destroying the lives of so many people with their criminal activities.

I was very interested to hear what the Greens had to say. I have noticed that this increase is significant. I mean, we are moving from 10 years to 15 with the possibility of life imprisonment for recruitment, but it is not going to target the volumes of people who are actually doing the recruiting. In fact what it may do, as has been noted, is actually really have an impact on young people and those that maybe turn 18 and are engaged in this very serious offending and do not actually realise how serious what they are doing is. We know that when you are committing a crime, in most cases you know you are committing a crime and you know that there should be consequences and you know that you deserve to have those consequences. If you do not know that, then this is how you learn.

One of the things that was really interesting during the bill briefing was that the government confirmed that between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2025 there were 29 charges for the existing offence of recruitment and only four individual offenders were convicted. That does not sound like a lot, but if those four were at the top of the food chain in terms of recruiting children who were then recruiting more children, well, that would be significant. But this is an unknown factor. This is a weak bill from a Premier who is scrambling in a state that is in total chaos, because we have had Labor in government for far too long.

It is a big thing to actually have a life sentence in jail, but it is not quite what the Greens are saying – that it will be just arbitrarily given. It is a maximum life sentence that can be given in this increase in this bill, but it will also be increasing the penalty from 10 years to 15 years, and that is going to be a significant change. I was one of the ones that went to this bill briefing with the government and spoke up, because I know from the intel from my constituents that the majority of the recruitment that is taking place with young people is actually taking place with other young people. In fact I have heard that in some of the schools particular cultural groups get targeted by these criminal gangs. They target these particular cohorts and they use older students to recruit, for example, year 7 and year 8 students. In fact I have had young people in schools even tell me that children as young as 10, 11 and 12 in primary school are also getting recruited to recruit others and that large sums of money are being paid to young people to entice them. We are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. I think the most I have heard for a young person to do an offence, like Mr Mulholland mentioned, of arson was something like $20,000. I have heard other reports of $3000, $4000, $5000, $6000 being offered to young people to go and do a criminal offence with the thought that there are not going to be any consequences.

We have this lawless state that has been created by a government that simply does not know what to do, does not understand boundaries, does not understand consequences for actions and is not prepared to take the consequences for their own actions and for their own part in criminal activity. We have the CFMEU and $15 billion – at least – disappearing from the Big Build into opportunities to make money for themselves and for others. If they are not prepared to be transparent and really own up to their own part in criminal behaviour and activity, then why on earth would they want to be able or even know how to be able to bring in laws that are going to make a significant difference? However, we have to work with this incompetent government and, given that at least this is going to increase some of the penalties and hopefully be a deterrent for some, the Liberals and Nationals have got some amendments that we are going to make. We recognise that all people involved in recruitment need to understand the serious nature of what they are doing. The reason we have these gangs is that this recruitment is taking place, and the more that it takes place, the more people that see the opportunity to make a quick buck through criminal activity, the more we continue to have a community that simply does not feel safe on the streets, in their homes or in their businesses. It is not good enough. Everybody has, quite frankly, had enough.

I am so pleased that the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, have got a plan. We have a real plan on how we are going to keep Victorians safe – safe in their homes and safe on our streets – because we recognise that right now, because of this recruitment that is taking place, every 50 seconds a crime is being committed. We also recognise that every 13 minutes there is a theft from a retail store and that every 28 minutes there is a serious assault. Every week there are nine carjackings across Victoria. There are 1500 police vacancies and more than 40 police stations which have closed or have reduced hours. How can you fix a crime problem in this state with those kinds of numbers? You cannot. That is why we have such extreme penalties coming in with this particular bill, with a life sentence for recruiting children. I wish it was going to solve the problem, but as I have said, it is not going to solve the problem because we have young people recruiting young people. This bill is going to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to create a new offence that will be punishable with life imprisonment, but that is going to be only for the adult that recruits a child to engage in criminal activity. Their first imprisonment conviction could be 15 years imprisonment or more. That is what this bill is going to do. It is going to increase it to 15 years. It is also going to allow a person that is in their first offence to have at least five years but less than 15 if it is the very first time.

The big issue here is: how is this going to apply to the children that are recruiting? They need to understand the consequences of their actions and what this bill will do. There is one thing that is a little bit of a furphy. What can you expect? This is a Labor government that has been giving us furphies for years. They keep going around announcing ‘Under our plan, you will face a life sentence in jail.’ On 26 June they said that perpetrators will face life in prison. But when we look at the outworkings of this actual bill, while it creates a life penalty, it is not a mandatory sentence. The charter statement expressly states that the court retains the discretion to impose a sentence proportionate to the offending, including a non-custodial sentence where appropriate. So that is something that needs to be understood as well.

I need to also remind people that in my region, in the south-east, we continue to see escalating violence and repeat offending. I am also aware that schools in my region have a reputation for having young people that are actually encouraging younger students to be involved in criminal activity. Students that are not involved in criminal activity have told me about this situation off the record, very quietly, saying that they are worried because they feel that a culture is developing in the community where older students are being encouraged to recruit younger students. What they need to know, these older students who might be enticed, is that there are going to be really severe penalties, and they are likely to be the ones caught up in the severe penalties. While the cartels, the real criminals, the organised crime leaders who have recruited and trained you, are likely to get off scot-free, you may not.

It is important to have boundaries. It is important to have consequences for actions. I have talked about that many times in the chamber. That is one of the reasons we are in this situation: there have not been consequences for actions. I do want to see reform, and I do want to see young people having the opportunity to not get caught up in the criminal world. But at the same time we need to see sentencing that fits the actual crime, and we need to see it affect the people that are involved. But since this is all we have to work with from this government, the Liberals and Nationals see that at least the government is attempting to do something. We know that we need to get our community to a place where it feels safe: where people feel that they can be at home and not be worried about being broken into on a regular basis, where they do not have to be stressed at night as to whether that noise was someone trying to steal their car or break in and where they do not have to be worried about being in their business and waiting to be attacked again and again and again. We need to end this cycle of crime that has completely changed the lifestyle that we experience here in Victoria, and to do that we do need to stop the recruitment of children, because it simply is completely un-Australian. That is not the nation that we had the privilege of growing up in; that is certainly not the nation I had the privilege of growing up in. This has not been a place that has needed to have children investing their lives in a life of crime. There have never been such rewards for crime until recently for children, and we do need to stop it.

I think that this bill does not go far enough in actually addressing the real issues that are enticing these young people to do the recruitment, and I think that that would have been something that should have and could have been added into the bill and could have been looked at. The fact is that when they put this particular amendment together, they did not do the significant consultation that they needed to do in order to make appropriate changes, so we are left with an inadequate bill that is going to have inadequate and potentially unfortunate consequences for people that perhaps are not hardened recruiting criminals. Those who are are likely to get off scot-free, to find ways to avoid it and to find loopholes within the system. I know that has been spoken about in this chamber quite a lot, so without further opportunities to speak I just want to reiterate that crime is taking place in the south-east and throughout Victoria. People are being recruited. Young people are actually recruiting young people, and this particular bill is not going to address that situation appropriately or adequately.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:52): I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026, and I would like to thank the Attorney-General Ms Kilkenny and the Minister for Crime Prevention Mr Edbrooke for introducing this legislation to properly punish the criminals who recruit children into crime. There is nothing quite as evil as organised criminals recruiting young people into committing crimes and into gangs. The criminals who engage in such behaviour are some of the worst of the worst. They target young and vulnerable children across the state, and they recruit them into committing serious crimes. The crimes that they get these young people to commit are serious and have significant impacts upon victims. There is nothing quite as disgusting as what these criminals do. They prey upon the vulnerable kids in society to get them to do their dirty work so they can sit back and avoid the risk. Oftentimes the kids who these criminals prey upon are those kids who already have difficult lives or who are vulnerable due to their living situations or intellectual capacity. The Carroll Labor government recognises this fact and is actively working to ensure that they face consequences for the actions that they take. This bill removes the requirement of those convicted of recruiting kids into crime to have done so whilst knowing the age of the person they are recruiting. What matters is intent. If you engage in activity that could induce a child into committing a crime, that should be enough to face the full force of the law.

This bill is not just about targeting the scourge of youth crime and violent crime; it is a key component in the fight against organised crime. It was made clear by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that recruiting young people into criminal acts is done by a number of organised crime outfits, and we have responded accordingly. In the case of violent youth crime, it is why we have introduced adult time for violent crime. We are talking about serious crimes like assaults and home invasions. No-one should live in fear of assaults or home invasions. Adult time for violent crime in combination with this bill targeting gang recruiters demonstrates that the Carroll Labor government takes this issue of youth crime seriously and we are taking the tough but necessary actions to eliminate it from our state.

This bill before us today is part of the Carroll government’s ‘serious consequences, early interventions’ plan – early interventions to prevent crime from taking place and serious consequences once a crime does take place. We recognise this and have taken action to ensure that Victorians feel safe when going about their daily lives. To that effect, we have increased the number of PSOs and police on the beat and present in our communities, ensuring that people feel safe when going about their daily lives. According to the statistics available to us, this program made 84 per cent of shoppers feel safer and resulted in halving the criminal events taking place. Obviously, these Victorian police operations backed by the Carroll Labor government have worked to reduce crime in shopping centres and have made Victorians feel safer. Due to the efforts of the Carroll Labor government youth crime is down and overall crime is down. To March 2026, overall offending rates were down by 3 per cent, and youth offending rates were down by 6 per cent. This means that our reforms are already working, and today we build on that record with this bill designed to tackle criminals who take young Victorians under their wing for their criminal enterprise.

I want to briefly speak about the government’s amendments today. These amendments will let the Chief Commissioner of Police or a senior officer similarly authorised by the chief commissioner issue a notice to a financial institution to produce documents or information. If they refuse or give police false or misleading information, they will face a penalty of up to 1200 penalty units – just over $250,000. Powers like these already exist in the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia; now we will have them in Victoria too. This scheme will commence on 21 December and help police move faster on intelligence, because watching the adults who recruit children is only half the job. Organised crime is the root cause of the shocking violent crime we are seeing across our community, which is why we are backing Victoria Police with the powers and the resources to disrupt and dismantle these networks. The Carroll Labor government is treating this with the utmost seriousness, and that is why I commend the bill and the government’s amendments to the chamber.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:57): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Recruiting children into crime is completely unacceptable. It is wrong because it takes advantage of children when they are vulnerable. The government says this bill is about targeting organised crime gangs and stopping them from recruiting vulnerable children, and I support that goal, but I am concerned that this proposed offence does not actually do what the government says it will do.

Firstly, the offence is drafted very broadly. It could apply to any adult who recruits any child; there is no requirement that a person is connected to organised crime or that they are making money from that child. We also need to think carefully about how recruitment happens and who holds the power. A child who is recruited into criminal activity can be vulnerable themselves. They may have been groomed, pressured or exploited by someone older or more powerful. They may later involve a younger sibling or friend or someone within their community. These are children who may already be vulnerable and who may have experienced trauma, neglect, family violence, poverty, homelessness or other difficult circumstances.

When a child is recruited into criminal activity they are not simply making a choice in the same way that an adult does. Children are still developing. They are more vulnerable to pressure, manipulation and grooming, particularly when that pressure comes from an older or more powerful person. That is why our response must be about more than punishment; it must be about protection. Young people who end up in the criminal justice system are some of Victoria’s most vulnerable: 53 per cent were a victim of abuse, trauma or neglect as a child; 41 per cent either have a current child protection case or were previously subject to a child protection order; 49 per cent present with mental health issues; and 42 per cent have been witness to family violence. A young person who has experienced abuse, neglect, family violence, homelessness or other forms of trauma may be looking for safety, belonging, protection or a sense of connection. That is exactly the vulnerability that organised crime can exploit. But that does not necessarily mean they are part of an organised crime network; it may mean that they are caught in a cycle of behaviour that started with someone else exploiting them.

Within our youth justice system we see a significant over-representation of young people with disability, as well as children who have been involved in both the child protection and the youth justice systems. These are some of our most vulnerable young people. Some are being targeted by older people who recognise their vulnerability and use them to carry out criminal activities. These children can be directed, manipulated and coerced by adults who profit from their exploitation. We need to ask a simple question here: who are we really trying to target? If the aim is to dismantle organised crime, then we should be targeting the people who organise, control and profit from the exploitation of children. Simply prosecuting people further down the chain will not break the business model of organised crime. In fact we are risking criminalising vulnerable children who may themselves have been victims of exploitation.

If our goal is to dismantle organised crime and protect vulnerable children, then our laws must distinguish between those who exploit children and those who are being exploited themselves. Vulnerable young people need protection, intervention and support, not a pathway into the adult criminal justice system and potentially a life sentence. We need to invest in prevention, because by the time a vulnerable child is involved in the justice system we may already be too late. When we talk about keeping young people out of the justice system, we need to focus on early intervention and restorative justice. This is not about being soft on crime, it is about preventing crime in the first place. Yes, we should be tough on organised crime, but equally we should absolutely protect children from being recruited and exploited. But being tough does not mean making an offence so broad that it catches people who are not the intended target. Good laws should target those with the power, control and financial benefit, not simply those who are easiest to prosecute. If this bill is genuinely about protecting children and disrupting organised crime, then the law should focus on the adults who exploit children and the people who organise and profit from that exploitation. We need to make sure that in trying to protect vulnerable children we do not end up criminalising vulnerable people who are caught in the same cycle of exploitation. On behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, I say we strongly oppose this bill.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:02): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026 – the Fagin bill, if we can call it that. It is an important bill, but as Mr Mulholland has outlined eloquently, the bill is deficient in a number of significant ways. Not having a focus on a penalty for every time somebody tries to recruit a young person is a mistake, and I think that his amendment goes significantly towards dealing with that. But we do have a crime problem across the state. I know wherever you look in Victoria crime is up, and violent crime is up too. In my own area, when we look closely at the figures, it is very clear that this is the case. If you look at Victoria and you look across the three-year period to the end of March 2026, aggravated robbery is up from 2396 to 3016 and motor vehicle theft up from 18,000 to 33,653; that is an 86 per cent increase. If you look at stealing from a motor car, it is up from 53,000 to 85,000 – a 57 per cent increase over that three-year period. If you look at train station offences, they are up from 6870 to 12,558, an 82.79 per cent increase, and yet we have got a government committed to removing PSOs from train stations, which we think is a serious mistake.

I will turn to a couple of my key municipalities and just pick on a couple as examples of the problem that we face. Motor vehicle theft in the City of Boroondara is up from 370 to 748; that is a 102 per cent increase from the year ending March 2023 to the year ending March 2026. If you look at stealing from a motor vehicle, that is up from 1314 to 2000 – a 52.21 per cent increase. Stealing from a motor vehicle is a classic case. Stealing from a retail store went up from 463 to 753; that is a 62 per cent increase across those three years. That is the period Jacinta Allan came in. She really lost control of the situation in the state. There is no sign that Ben Carroll, as her deputy at the time and intimately involved with all of the decisions that were made, whether it be potholes as road minister, whether it be crime prevention – he was the Minister for Crime Prevention during this exact time. In Boroondara train station offences went up from 97 to 173; that is a 78 per cent increase.

In Monash, another municipality in my area, aggravated robbery went up from 52 to 76. Motor vehicle theft went up from 624 to 1074; that is a 72 per cent increase. Stealing from a motor vehicle went up from 2048 to 3160 – again, a 51.63 per cent increase over three years. This is frightening. Stealing from a retail store went up from 758 to 1136; that is a 49.87 per cent increase. You can see why shop assistants were so worried. You can see why that sector has been so concerned.

We moved a motion in this chamber last year that was opposed by Labor. Labor did not like the motion. They really kicked and fought against it, and all we were doing was asking for workplace orders to be brought in, like much in the rest of the country. The new Premier has said he will do that now, but he would not do it before. He would not stand up on these sorts of matters.

On the matter of train stations, offences went up from 183 for the year ending March 2023 to 511 – a 179 per cent increase. Yet in my region the number of train stations that have had their PSOs stripped is truly frightening. I do not think this is what people want. I think people want a safe, secure community.

The Liberals and Nationals have solutions on a number of these points. The amendments to this bill are an example of us creatively and constructively thinking about how we can actually develop a way forward to make sure that these things are dealt with. We have made recent announcements: a new court of criminal appeal to hold offenders to account. The appellate courts are important – creating a court of criminal appeal. There used to be one back in the 1990s. It is clear that this is a sensible move from James Newbury, the Shadow Attorney-General, and a recognition that creating a court of criminal appeal will actually set the tone, importantly, and make sure that the law and the sentencing arrangements and rules are being obeyed in lower courts. It will mean that where the Parliament changes the law and sends a clear signal to the judiciary that the judiciary will be in a position to ensure that the Parliament’s views and thereby the community’s views are properly reflected.

In the case of sentencing, we have also said greater sentencing statistics should be available and that Children’s Court sentencing data should be available in the same way some of the adult material is. This is, again, a sensible step. The plan to expand adult crime and adult time is a very important set of steps that we have proposed – cracking down on car thefts. The example I am giving here is the number of car thefts in my region, whether it be in the City of Boroondara or whether it be in in the City of Monash or other municipalities. It is true, I can say, right across my region of Southern Metro. We have been very clear that we will make sure that there are real consequences for youth offenders who do these sorts of crimes, and where there is an adult crime there will be a response with adult time.

Talking of the train stations, though, there are 119 train stations where the state government is stripping the PSOs from those stations, and this will leave them denuded. It will mean that people going home at night will not be secure in the knowledge that there is anyone there to protect them. Women in particular will be frightened to go to those stations in the evening or on dark or cold nights. They will not want to walk from the station to a nearby car park. We think that restoring the PSOs is a very important first step, and it is one of the ones that we will be very prepared to take. I know that in my area, in the electorate of Ashwood, Theo Zographos has been very active at train stations, talking to people and getting the message out that we need to restore PSOs to stations. A whole swag of these stations in the Ashwood electorate have been stripped. On the Glen Waverley line and on the Alamein line station after station has been stripped of its PSOs by this government. I think they have written off some of these areas. They say, ‘We don’t care about these areas,’ and I think that is a big problem.

We have also said there need to be new police – 3000 new police. We know new PSOs are important, and that is a part of the solution, but having new police is a very important set of steps. There are vacancies in the rosters under this Labor government. We know that Jacinta Allan’s achievement was a fall in the number of police in the time she was in the job, and that is a frightening outcome. The population is increasing, the crime rate is increasing, serious crime is increasing, violent crime is increasing, but Jacinta Allan and Ben Carroll, that team, that duo, are cutting the number of police, cutting the penalties, making it soft and making it straightforward and easy for criminals. We think that that is a significant mistake. There are solutions, like boosting the number of police and reopening the police stations.

I look at a police station in my area like Ashburton that has been closed by this government. We reopened it in government between 2010 and 2014, and this government closed it. It is just sitting there as a police station with no police at all. It is quite a long distance, and the distances in the metropolitan area should not be underestimated. The stretch that is on police resources in the metropolitan area should not be underestimated. It takes quite a while to get from a distant police station. The example I used in this chamber earlier in the day was a case in Murrumbeena on Saturday night where there was an attempted theft and break-in to a car in a street in Murrumbeena. A gang of two frightening people smashed the window of the car but also hit the owner of the car in the head, and he has got a serious situation now. It took a little bit of time for the police to come from quite some distance away, from Moorabbin. I know Acting President Berger will understand that that is not immediately close; they are at some distance and it takes some time.

The other thing I think is misunderstood is that local policing is powerful. Police who understand a small community understand the problems and understand even some of the characters who might be involved on occasions. But if you are in a big district office and you only very occasionally go to a part of the suburb, you are not going to have that background, you are not going to have that knowledge, and that is a serious point.

More police officers, PSOs returned to the stations, ‘break bail, face jail’, the ‘adult crime, adult time’ focus, stronger pursuit powers for our police, targeted prevention and intervention programs – the truth is, as I say, there is real concern about what we are facing in Victoria. My office is again and again regaled by people, good citizens who are just wanting to go about their business. They are just wanting to live peacefully in their area, but they do not want the violent home invasions, they do not want the carjackings, they do not want the theft and they do not want the violence. It is time it stopped. It is time it was ended. I have got to say this government has not stood up on this, but we will.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:14): I also would like to say a few words on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. I will tell you one thing that I agree with the government on: these criminals, especially with organised crime, who systematically recruit children to conduct crimes are scum of the earth. These people have nothing in common with decent Victorians. These people exploit the vulnerabilities of children for profit. They do not only do that, they put these children’s lives at risk. They put their lives at risk in two ways. They do it firstly by entrapping them into a life of crime, and they do it secondly by the crimes themselves. Crimes like car theft, like burglary – these are contact sports. These are not riskless crimes. Kids have been killed carrying out these crimes. They have car crashes and this sort of thing. It is only a matter of time before more are harmed, so I am fully supportive of throwing the book at people who want to use children to commit this sort of crime. It is absolutely wrong.

We actually already have offences such as incitement under the current criminal act that would allow people to be charged who try to recruit children for doing this sort of thing. But I do think that it is worthy of consideration of a special offence, such as what this bill is talking about, because it is such a heinous thing to engage in. We must send a message that our society rejects those people that would recruit children to do this type of thing. I am very sympathetic to that.

The problem I have got with this bill is I am very sceptical about how effective it will be. As we have seen with the methods of recruitment that organised crime has been using, some of this is driven from overseas. What are we going to do? Are we going to somehow go through the encrypted messaging and crypto payment services that these kids are getting paid with and hunt someone down in Iraq or wherever they are conducting this crime from? I do not think that is actually a feasible thing. We know this from other jurisdictions. Ireland has had similar types of laws, as we have heard – Fagin’s law. Actually it has been quite rare that this has been used in their prosecutions, so I am sceptical as to how effective this will be.

The thing that it is really missing here is, although we may condemn what criminals do in recruiting children, the bill again is only addressing the symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself. The problem itself is the types of incentives that have been caused by government policy. Let us look at some of the crimes that we are actually talking about here – in particular aggravated burglary, home invasions and car theft. Why do organised criminals recruit children to do this type of crime? One of the reasons is because they want to do firebombing attacks. They want to do arson attacks. We are very familiar with arson attacks in Victoria – far too familiar. They need to do this to extort or mark out some territory for one of their tobacconists or liquor stores or someone that does not want to sell the product that the organised crime group wants to sell. In order to conduct a firebombing attack, they usually need to steal two cars. They need one to carry out the raid and another one for the getaway. When you steal modern cars these days, you cannot hot-wire them anymore. It is not easy to do that. Usually you have to break into someone’s house and get the remote control. So for one firebombing attack, you need two home invasions and two car thefts. That is what these organised crime groups do. They say to these kids, ‘We’re going to pay you some money. You go and break into someone’s house. You steal their car. It’s got to be a good car, good enough that it will be reliable, and we can use it to conduct the attack and get away.’ They pay them to do that.

We have not addressed the incentives at all. In the case of tobacco, it is the federal excise tax and the fact that we have stupidly prohibited most nicotine alternatives, such as vaping and pouches and these sorts of things. Of course that has not actually stopped the sale of it at all. You can go anywhere and buy vapes in Victoria. In fact they are more available than they have ever been, but they are supplied by organised crime. Prohibition has totally and utterly failed, and yet the government continue with this failed policy because some health bureaucrat told them it was a good idea and they do not want to back down because they will look stupid. So they just continue letting the crime continue, and they ramp up the offences, ramp up the penalties and hope that somehow that will fix it – and of course it will not.

Regardless of all these incentives that have been set up by the government themselves – largely the federal government, but the state government washed their hands of vaping when they brought through the tobacco legislation for tobacco licensing. It was not talked about a lot at the time, but we used to have some regulations for vaping in Victoria that were regulated by the state government. The state government has just completely washed its hands of that now. There is nothing at all that is regulated by the state government to do with vaping now. It is all a federal thing, and the state government just pretends that every shop in the city is not selling vapes when in fact it is. You can buy them anywhere. In fact you can buy them online. As I have said before, organised crime is two or three steps ahead of the government, so it has already dealt with the government’s tobacco licensing scheme before it has even come into effect really. You can happily buy whatever you like that is advertised through Instagram. I get ads all the time on things that can be shipped from Brisbane to Victoria. They are so brazen they show pictures of the inside of their warehouse and the packing. And you will never guess who the biggest distributor of illegal tobacco and vapes in Australia is: it is actually Australia Post. Yes, they do it all through Australia Post. But I do not know, maybe online distribution will stop the arson attacks because they will not be selling it through retail outlets anymore. It is hard to know exactly what sort of effect that will have.

Nevertheless it is a serious thing recruiting children to do this sort of crime because it does two things: it puts the children into a life of crime, but it also puts their lives at risk. Putting children’s lives at risk intentionally of dying in violent circumstances is a terrible, terrible thing that should be rejected by a peaceful, civilised society and that should have some of the harshest penalties. Therefore, despite my concerns about the effectiveness of this bill, despite my concerns about the government refusing to seriously address the incentives for this type of crime, I will not be opposing this bill.

Sitting suspended 6:23 pm until 7:30 pm.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (19:32): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. It has been quite an interesting debate to listen to. I just want to start from the outset by saying that crime itself is traumatising. So listening to quite a number of people talk about how we have got to give people specific carve-outs if they happen to be traumatised or if they happen to have had a rough upbringing, these sorts of things, while I can understand it from a compassionate point of view, at some stage somebody has to break the cycle. Youth crime is at a crisis point in Victoria, and it is a multifaceted and devastating issue.

The first impact of youth crime is obvious, and that is that Victorians are less safe. There is a recorded criminal offence committed every 50 seconds in Victoria. That means that there are about 500 new victims of crime every single day here. But another angle that deserves our notice is the fact that we are losing a generation to youth crime. There is a pattern that seems to be so familiar that we see over and over again. It is a heartbreaking pattern that shows that youth offending starts when kids disengage from school, and nothing seems to be done, and then they start playing up, and nothing seems to be done, and then they get involved in petty crime, and nothing is done, and then they get involved in bigger crimes and might come in contact with the justice system – and then they are bailed. Then this cycle goes on and on and on. The pattern continues and crimes escalate, and it is something that absolutely must change.

Often young people are being exploited by adults when it comes to criminal activity. Many of the same children are committing four out of five home invasions. What this bill does is create a new offence, punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment, for where an adult recruits a child to be engaged in criminal activity, and that is something that I completely agree with. I think that adults who engage children and recruit children to be involved in criminal activity should have the book thrown at them. I really do believe that. However, there are some carve-outs here that I believe leave already vulnerable children more vulnerable, and I will talk about that soon. This offence is punishable on first conviction by 15 years imprisonment.

Due to soaring youth crime, in November last year the then Premier and the then Attorney-General committed to creating a new exaggerated offence. In their opinion, this bill acquits that. The first job of any government is to keep its people safe, and that is something that the Allan and Carroll Labor governments have failed Victorians dismally on. For a very long time the government that is bringing this bill today did not even want to admit that crime was an issue at all. I genuinely believe that this Labor government puts ideology above community safety. The government have put themselves above the victims of crime. They often put perpetrators above victims of crime, and I think that it is a completely inverted justice system. Victoria needs laws that work – laws that do not have carve-outs for everyone, allowing offenders to wriggle their way from justice and accountability. It is just wrong. We need to have more than the appearance of tackling crime, and police need to have the powers that they need to enforce the laws. I believe that this government has really fallen short on all of those points.

In February this year Labor’s adult time for violent crime laws came into effect, yet just in May Victorians watched as a 14-year-old girl had 109 serious criminal charges just dropped. Prosecutors could not overcome the doli incapax legal principle, which presumes that children aged 14 and under cannot fully understand the crimes that they commit – that they cannot understand the consequences of them or they cannot understand that they are morally wrong. This is something that I, quite frankly, completely disagree with. Children are brilliant little things. They have the ability to grasp incredibly complex concepts, and to say that they are not capable of knowing whether stealing a car, running over a person or murdering somebody is wrong is, quite frankly, insulting. In fact 3 minutes after this girl, who committed these crimes and had 109 of the charges dropped, hit a cyclist with a stolen car she actually googled, ‘How long is a sentence for running someone over?’ That is somebody who has the ability to understand consequences, because she looked them up. This proved to Victoria that the laws are so weak and the laws are so weighed in favour of the perpetrator above the victim – weighed in favour of somebody who can run someone over, google what sort of time you get for that sort of offence and then get rid of it completely – that you can in fact find a loophole and you can find a situation where you can wriggle your way out of consequences. You can google that and you can figure out what the consequences are, but legally you can be completely absolved of any responsibility. The government – the lawmakers, the people that are meant to keep this state safe – are saying that these kids have no ability to figure out what is morally wrong.

This young girl’s crimes included 15 car thefts, dangerous driving, weaponising vehicles to target pedestrian communities, aggravated burglary and committing crimes while on bail. The prosecution outlined several criminal instances, including antisemitic incidents in Ripponlea and Caulfield. This girl, who they are saying does not have the capacity to figure out what is wrong, searched, ‘Where do Jews live?’ and then swerved a stolen car targeting a Jewish family – overlooked. In Brighton she rammed a 45-year-old cyclist, which has caused a brain bleed. I do not know how that cyclist is doing, but I do know that after a head injury like that you are at a high risk of any other sort of head injury. If you get one within the next six weeks, for instance, you are unlikely to recover. This girl has put many innocent lives at risk, and her phone records showed that she thrived on the notoriety of these activities, closely monitoring social media engagement regarding her actions and seeing if she was getting a result. Yet all those charges were dropped. Community outrage really reached a fever pitch, and I believe it was completely justified. There really was not much that was getting this government to move until it hit them where it really hurts, and that was in their polling.

After years of rising youth crime and after years of injustice, it seems like Labor are just signalling a tough-on-crime approach but lacking the substance. The reason I raise this is because I worry that there is going to be a similar consequence from this bill, because this adult time for violent crime – Labor’s version of it – came into effect in February. Yet in May there was the first test for these laws, the first test of the policy, and it seems to have failed completely. While the government spruiked that if you are a young person who carries out a violent crime, you will face adult time, this young person had every single one of her 109 charges dropped – serious charges.

Labor said that it modelled this on what had been working in Queensland. However, it did not. The reason it worked in Queensland is because in Queensland, yes, they raised the penalty and they had 50 offences within their adult time for violent crime laws, but at the same time they invested $100 million into providing off-ramps for these kids. This is what the Labor government have not done. Labor just increased penalties while cutting youth justice prevention programs and cutting off-ramps for these kids. Not only that, but it was also proved in May, when all these charges were dropped, that their adult time for violent crime laws have no teeth.

I am going to read to you right now some of the areas where they have no teeth. Here are some crimes that Labor have not included in its laws, but we will: burglary – not in their adult time for violent crime laws; serious assault causing serious injury; manslaughter was not in there; rape was not in there; arson was not in there; trafficking large quantities of drugs was not in there; offences against children, including trafficking – what that means is forcing kids under the age of 18 to engage in sexual acts – was not in there. This is an absolute joke. In the state of Victoria laws are treated more like guidelines, and the evidence is that they are not upheld. What is happening here is a revolving door of bail.

What I have seen Labor do time and time again is have a great title, but then when you dig into the laws, they really do not have enough teeth for that outcome to actually be achieved. We could face a similar problem here. Like I said at the start, the bill does create an offence for adults who recruit a child to engage in criminal activity. However, there is a carve-out – of course, as there always is – for young people. We will seek to amend this bill to take out the word ‘adult’, so it actually gives this law some teeth – so that anyone of any age who recruits a child to be involved in criminal activity would then fall foul of this law and be guilty of this offence. Because, as it stands, this legislation leaves a whopping loophole for children to be more exploited. What can happen is that an adult can recruit a child recruiter, essentially outsourcing the risk to that child, and then that child goes and recruits other children, not falling foul of the law. I do not think this is protecting children. I think it is doing the exact opposite.

I am going to quickly read what Mr Newbury said in his second-reading speech. He put it well:

An adult offender will recruit one child who will now do all of the recruiting. This bill creates a new loophole which is encouraging an adult criminal to conduct a pyramid scheme. That is exactly what will happen as a result of this bill, and the government was not able to explain why the offence was only targeted at adults. Recruitment is not and should not be an offence that only an adult commits. If a 17-year-old conducts a recruitment campaign of criminals, why should that 17-year-old be treated differently than if that recruiter is 19?

I completely agree with what he says. What this bill does is it underlines the problem with this government and the way it creates different classes of offenders. One type of offender will completely get away with whatever it is that this bill is introducing to actually prevent and address.

I hope this chamber supports our amendments because Victorians deserve laws that actually work. Laws should be more than just signals from governments that they wish things were better. We have a plan to tackle the crime crisis and to establish community safety in Victoria again. That is why we are going to hire 3000 more police. We are going to reopen the police stations that this government has shut. We are going to restore the PSOs to all 119 stations that this government has taken them off, and we are going to add another 200 PSOs. We are going to implement real adult time for adult crimes, ones that will have teeth and will include things like rape, like trafficking children and like trafficking huge numbers of drugs. It is unbelievable that under this government they have had the title ‘adult time for violent crime’ but they have not given these laws the teeth that they need to actually implement that. That is why I brought up that case study of that 14-year-old girl. We will bring in a new tough one-strike bail rule. We will establish a new court of criminal appeal to ensure consequences match community expectations. And this is the part I wish I had more time to talk about: we will invest in giving kids the off-ramps that they need. It is so upsetting to see in the state of Victoria that if kids disengage from school, it is almost impossible to get them to turn their lives around. They are almost destined for a life of crime. These kids who have unlimited potential are set on a path of complete destruction because this government keeps overlooking the warning signs. That is why we will invest $100 million into these sorts of programs. What makes us different is we will implement deterrents. There will be accountability, there will be rehabilitation and there will be prevention.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (19:47): I rise to speak on this bill, which I have not 100 per cent decided if I will support. It depends on which amendments get through. I just want to say from the outset that my vision is bigger than this bill as it currently stands. I think if we are really serious about protecting children in this state from getting involved in a life of crime, then we cannot just deal with the issue at the serious end, with crimes already having been committed and at a serious level. You just cannot start right at the worst-case scenario; it is not going to work. You actually need to cut the legs out from under the whole entire model. You need to reverse the whole risk and reward model that currently exists. We actually need to make sure that children are no longer useful to criminals, so that they themselves actually put in all of the effort, to make sure that children are not involved in crime. It is not about whether they asked if the kid was over 18 or anything like that, it is that they make sure that there are no children involved in crime because it is not even worth the risk. If we were serious about keeping our kids away from criminals, we would make sure that it hurt too much for the criminals to even risk it. At the moment the reward travels upwards, while the children carry the risks. They carry the physical drugs or the physical weapons. They steal the cars. They are the ones whose bodies are on the line. Yes, they are at a smaller risk of incarceration – probably not at all with this revolving bail system that we have. But, look, we make the laws here, don’t we, so we can fix these things.

I have put some amendments forward, and they can be circulated by the clerks when they like. Under my amendments if an offender involves a child, that offender’s own legal exposure is set. They have already committed the offence. If the organiser places intermediaries between themselves and the child and responsibility travels back through those intermediaries, that does not mean that they get off the hook. If you transfer the danger onto a child while retaining the authority and the reward of the crime, that should increase your culpability. We need to send a message in society that if you involve children in crime, they will not be a shield for you. We are going to come after you. We are going to crush you harder than ever before. It is a whole separate offence. It is not just that you have committed a crime, but if you involve children in that crime with you, we do not care if you knew how old the child was. We do not care about anything. You have committed the offence, and we are going to add to your punishment. You do not get to use children as a human shield. Distance cannot be protection for these criminals. We are under no obligation in this place to tolerate the involvement of children in criminal activity. We are entitled to impose one absolute condition on criminal activity, which is to keep children out. The child and society should not bear the risk of criminals’ wilful ignorance. They should literally carry all of the punishment and the risk on themselves.

As I said, either the government is serious about protecting children from criminal activity or it is not. If it is serious, I believe that actual age must matter more than an offender’s claimed belief about the age of the child involved. A person who chooses crime is not entitled to a legally safe way of involving other people in crime, especially children, just because they did not find out their age. If someone under 18 becomes part of that criminal activity, the additional risk should fall upon the offenders, not upon the child. That is the standard against which I have assessed the bill. I think it is a central moral proposition. We all agree here that recruiting children into serious crime should be its own separate wrong. We all agree with that, and it should be charged over and above the underlying offence. I support the bill’s severe penalties for adults who recruit children into the most serious criminal activity, and I support imposing liability even where the child refuses or is stopped or never even commits the intended offence.

But the bill does not yet reverse the model that feeds children into a life of crime. If the purpose of this Parliament is to stop children being drawn into crime, then we have to look honestly at how that happens. We know that children do not just wake up one morning and suddenly decide to take part in an aggravated burglary, carry a weapon, pick up a machete or get involved in a gang. We all know about the grooming process that comes before it. We all know about the incentives. We know that criminals prey upon them like every other groomer that ever was who wanted to exploit children. We know how they work, and if we know these things, then we have the responsibility to do something about it. We know they watch for vulnerability. We know they offer money, approval, status – protection, even – or a sense of belonging. We know that they expose children bit by bit to criminal behaviour until it does not really feel wrong anymore; it feels normal. It feels like everybody is doing it. We know that, like with every other groomer, the first request may sound harmless. It might not involve much. It might be just a small thing: carry a bag and do not look inside. Who knows? Basically, the children are groomed. They are rewarded for crossing one small line, then another and then another, or they are coerced. But eventually, if they are not coerced, the requests become more serious. The child knows too much, owes too much or is frightened of what might happen if they try and leave. This is the pipeline into a life of crime of our most vulnerable children. It begins with grooming, testing and the first apparently minor criminal risk. By the time the child is recruited for an offence serious enough, it is often too late.

Again, we can look at how many children have turned into a pretty scary sector of our society. One of my friend’s sons was bashed last sitting week – knocked unconscious by three kids who just came up behind him. There were witnesses everywhere. It was unbelievable. There was no real reason. They were not stealing from him. He has now got some kind of long-form concussion. Obviously his parents are devastated. They are both emergency services workers, and they have both said that the people they find most frightening in society now are teenagers. They do not even have to be on drugs. They are irrational and violent. How did we allow teenagers as a whole set of people to become like that in this society? Clearly they are not following our example. Clearly they have been drawn into a life of criminality.

By the time we punish them with this bill, or punish the adults who drew them in, the effects of it are going to take another 20 years to dissipate, because they have already got all these other kids in the pipeline. The identified result at the far end of the pipeline, we all agree, is terrible. But the bill as it stands does not deal with what is feeding it. It creates no separate offence of grooming a child for later criminal activity. It leaves the first, less serious criminal tasks outside the scheme, even when those tasks are deliberately used to test obedience and make criminal behaviour feel normal.

It does not comprehensively address a criminal group that accepts and uses a child and where no-one can prove the particular conversation in which the child was first recruited took place. That matters because the people who commit these crimes are not foolish. If they have got to the point where they have worked out that they should get a kid to face the risks for them, they are clearly scumbags, but they are not idiots. They will organise themselves around whatever the law is that we pass tonight. I hope that we do not allow the pipeline into criminality to remain intact. If liability rests mainly on identifying the person who spoke directly to the child, then the organiser will use somebody else. If the first offence must carry at least five years, then the child can be started on smaller jobs.

If the prosecution must prove that the offender knew or should have known the child’s age, then the people involved have every reason to avoid asking. It is very simple to avoid that responsibility. Why would we give them an out when we can write the law and shut that loophole? The knowledge-of-age requirement is one of the central problems with this bill. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the adult knew the person was or probably was a child. They can say ‘Well, he told me he was 18’, ‘He looked older’, ‘I asked, he lied’, ‘I never asked’ or ‘Someone else recruited him’. The child’s actual age may be perfectly clear, but the trial turns upon what the offender claims was in his mind. That is precisely the incentive my amendments remove. The prosecution must still prove the accused’s criminal conduct and the child’s age beyond a reasonable doubt. But an offender should not be able to preserve ignorance, use an intermediary or rely upon somebody else’s assurance and then ask the court to give them an out – to use that ignorance as though it was innocence. The rule is simple because the moral duty is very simple. People who choose to commit crimes together must keep children out. The same moral distinction applies to very young children. The law protects a child under 12 from criminal conviction because of the child’s age and incapacity. That protection belongs to the child. It should never become a protection for the older people who involve them.

I am not sure if anyone here has read Freakonomics, but it is a book I find very interesting. They looked at, among other things, how youth were involved in crimes. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner put the economic point simply: criminals, like everyone else, respond to incentives. They reached that conclusion using research based on four years of financial records from one Chicago crack gang. That was just one historical American study and I am not saying that it could be completely transferred here, but I am pretty sure that the principles are obviously related. It showed that criminal activity is run in a hierarchy. That is what gangs are. The gang they studied had approximately 20 senior leaders forming what it called a board of directors. Local leaders paid revenue upwards. Officers managed enforcement, money and transportation. Beneath them were street-level dealers known as foot soldiers, and beneath them were unpaid rank-and-file members who actually paid dues for the chance to move upwards. It was not random. It was not just a collection of people behaving badly; they were organising around the laws. They were organising around the laws, and the laws as they stood incentivised recruiting children into their criminal enterprise. This is an old study. We should have done something about this long ago. The senior board members were estimated to make approximately US$500,000 a year, the local leader about $100,000 and the foot soldiers an hourly rate of $3.30. Across four years a member of that gang could typically expect nearly six arrests and more than two non-fatal injuries. The chance of being killed was one in four. Yet the top 2.2 per cent of the gang membership received well over half the money and were obviously never at risk like the youth they recruited.

That is the criminal model in its clearest form: the money travels upwards and the danger travels downwards. The people at the top keep the profit, the authority and the distance, while the people at the bottom carry the drugs, the weapons, the arrests, the injuries and the consequences. When a child is placed at the bottom of that hierarchy, the transfer of risk becomes more profitable, more morally repugnant and more urgent for us to do something about. I urge the people in this chamber to reverse that incentive and to reverse it early. That is why I have included tier 3, so that we immediately start punishing this from a lower level offence and we start diverting children away into helpful social services as well.

My amendments are designed to do four things, to address four ways in which children are corrupted into crime: recruitment, coordination, participation and grooming. They apply when a child is first groomed or tested through a less serious criminal task as well as when the child is drawn into the gravest offending. They remove the incentive to preserve ignorance about age, because it becomes irrelevant, and they require courts to confront the true culpability of those who transfer all of the risk downward onto children while retaining all of the benefits and the safety for themselves. The amendments also recognise that children can be used to corrupt other children. I have said in this chamber before that we make special allowances for children because we love them, because we have hope for their future, because they lack an adult’s wisdom and because we want them to be good adults. I still believe that a child who has been directed, groomed and coerced by an older person may be both responsible for the harm done to somebody below them and for the crime they have done and also a victim of people above them.

That is why my amendments deal separately with child offenders. The court must consider the child’s authority over others, their position in the hierarchy, whether an older person directed them and whether they were themselves groomed, coerced or exploited. We do not have to choose between placing minors in adult prisons and pretending that they did nothing wrong. We can have proportion, but accountability is necessary, and it is necessary from the start. Care for a young offender cannot mean shovelling justice out of the way for the younger child that they may have recruited. Rehabilitation, in my view, requires some kind of punishment – you have to acknowledge that something wrong has been done and you have to suffer a punishment. But that does not mean throwing a young person’s entire future in the bin. It means giving the conduct an honest consequence while giving the child a genuine path back. A system that teaches young people that responsibility itself is an injustice will not rehabilitate them, and it will not protect the next child that they may recruit.

Compassion for children and compassion for society is only going to be real if it has the outcome that we desire. If we say we want to protect children from becoming involved in criminal gangs and criminal activity, then we have to measure it properly by the exact outcome that we want. Otherwise we are doing what they are doing: we are literally using the idea of protecting children as a shield. This law sounds good, but is it actually going to do anything to disrupt that pipeline? If it does not, I really do not see how we are any better than them, actually. If we care about children more than we do about protecting ourselves from criticism, then we have to be willing to take the political hits necessary to protect them. We have to stand in between them and those criminal gangs. We have to be harsh. We have to intervene early. We have to impose real consequences on the people who feed the pipeline, even when those people are children themselves. We have to make sure that responsibility travels upwards through the criminal hierarchy so that they can never again use children as human shields for their own criminal activities, and then we have to provide a practical way for those children to come back to us and come back to a productive life in society.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (20:05): I thank the previous speakers on the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. There has been heavy engagement from others from this bill – I thank them for that – and that is evidenced in some consideration of what I would classify as very well intended amendments. I can go through in committee stage why the government has some problems with those, but at the outset I do appreciate the engagement. There is obviously somewhat universal support for the intention of this bill to crack down on child recruitment and the harm that it causes, so I do appreciate that.

As we have heard, the reforms create a new offence for an adult to recruit a child to commit a serious crime. The new offence covers 71 specified serious crimes, such as arson, carjacking, home invasion and aggravated burglary – indeed offences that are particularly concerning to members of the Victorian community. I just want to spend the summing-up talking about the house amendments that the government is bringing. I ask that they be circulated. We know that catching adults who recruit children is only one part of the job. We know organised crime is a root cause of the shocking violent crimes that we are seeing across our community and effectively organised crime runs on money. Money is the whole point – it is why they recruit children in the first place – so if you follow the money, you find the people giving the orders. We have listened to Victoria Police and responded with these amendments. They are powers that are really about dismantling the networks. They are complementary to the recent investment of $170 million to establish the organised crime command. We have previously also strengthened unexplained wealth laws, so criminals must prove they came to their wealth legitimately or lose it entirely. The amendments that I am circulating today are effectively the next piece of that work.

What happens right now is that if police want records from a bank, they have to go and get a search warrant. They have to set out every document they want and how it is linked to the offence they are seeking to gain more evidence from, and they need to do this in an affidavit. If the institution has no office in this state, they then need extraterritorial warrants, and then an officer has to physically attend a premises to collect documents that only ever existed as data. Effectively, this is a system that has operated in a world that potentially only considered filing cabinets. It is not necessarily fit for purpose for online banking, and it certainly was not built with an idea of how to deal with cryptocurrencies. The processes can be slow, and that means that the investigation can be slowed. It gives capacity for criminals to get ahead and potentially move money when the process is just underway.

The amendments will let the Chief Commissioner of Police or a senior officer authorised by the chief commissioner to issue a notice to a financial institution to produce documents or information. It covers banks, credit unions and building societies, and it also covers crypto exchanges, casinos and betting apps. A notice can be issued where police reasonably believe an institution holds documents that may assist the investigation or prosecution of an indictable offence – offences like recruiting a child to commit a crime, and offences like extortion, financial fraud and trafficking in weapons, drugs and illegal tobacco. Institutions will have between five and 28 days to comply, and there are penalties if they do not or if they provide false or misleading information. Of course institutions that do the right thing and comply will not be exposed to any civil liability for doing so.

They are serious powers, so they come with limits. An application must be in writing. It must name the offence, it must identify the account and it must set out the grounds for the officer’s belief. The officer issuing the notice must be the chief commissioner or an officer of at least inspector rank, authorised in writing by the chief commissioner. They must be satisfied that the institution holds the documents and that those documents may assist the investigation, and they must turn their mind to how reliable the information in front of them is. The chief commissioner must keep a record of every application, every notice issued and every document produced, and the chief commissioner must report to the Attorney-General every year on how many notices were sought, how many were issued and the kinds of offences they were used for, as well as any other relevant information that can be requested by the Attorney-General. Evidence obtained under a notice will be admissible on the same footing as evidence obtained under a search warrant, and the ordinary rules of evidence will apply. Powers like these already exist in the Commonwealth, in New South Wales, in Queensland, in WA and in South Australia. The scheme is proposed to commence on 21 December if it is not proclaimed earlier.

The new powers are, I think, self-explanatory, but effectively they help police move faster on intelligence and make sure that we are jumping on the paydays for crime bosses and hoping to avoid those and prevent crime. It is complementary to the bill and some of the announcements that the government has recently made. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

 The PRESIDENT (20:18): Before we go to committee, there is an out-of-scope amendment for consideration. Considering the amendments on sheet MD02C circulated by Mrs Deeming, in my view they are out of the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction motion can trigger a procedural motion debate.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (20:18): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to enact further provisions relating to the recruitment of children to engage in criminal activity and other forms of the criminal corruption of children.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (20:20)

Renee HEATH: Minister, I want to know: was the First Peoples’ Assembly consulted on this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to stakeholders, there was targeted technical consultation with legal stakeholders. When it comes to the First Peoples’ Assembly, they were still forming and therefore were not available to be briefed but were sent the information. You might remember that this bill was introduced two months ago.

Renee HEATH: So the answer to that question is: no, they were not consulted.

Jaclyn SYMES: I answered your question.

Renee HEATH: Okay, they were not consulted. Who, Minister, completed the statement of treaty compatibility of this bill with, as it says here, each of the objects in a section of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025? Who completed this task?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, I will draw your attention to the Statewide Treaty Act statement of compatibility, and you can read for yourself there in relation to consultation and other matters.

Renee HEATH: So it was the minister responsible that completed this.

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, I would draw your attention to the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 statement of treaty compatibility in relation to this bill. It goes for five pages. It is attached to the legislation.

Renee HEATH: So it was the minister that completed it. Is the minister that completed it a First Nations Australian?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, I am not in a position to confirm that in relation to the minister. I also do not consider it relevant to the bill. If you would like to bring me to an element of the bill that you would like to discuss, I am happy to do that. I have drawn your attention to the statement of treaty compatibility, a statement that would not exist under your party’s position, but it is there for you to read.

Renee HEATH: Well, it does relate directly to the bill, and the reason it relates directly to the bill is because it says –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: It does relate to the bill, because it says:

… I note that First Peoples represent less than 2 per cent of the Victorian population but in 2025 made up 14 per cent of alleged offenders proceeded against by police via arrest or summons as a result of alleged offender incidents.

It goes on to say:

The Bill also introduces a recklessness fault element for the new and existing recruitment offence. It is therefore expected that these amendments may lead to more prosecutions and increased custodial sentences for adult offenders which has a risk of further increasing First Peoples overrepresentation in custody.

The reason I raise this is because it is your government, Minister, that have made a song and dance about the treaty, but what qualifications has the minister got to complete this when, according to your own process, you should have consulted the First Peoples’ Assembly?

Jaclyn SYMES: When it comes to the development of legislation and when it comes to the development of statements, a range of advice is brought to the development of these documents. Again, you are asking about consultation. It is in paragraph 6 of the statement.

Renee HEATH: Will this legislation lead to increased custodial sentences for First Peoples?

Jaclyn SYMES: This bill is not targeting people based on their personal characteristics or whether they are First Nations people. Of course not. The way you framed your question would seem to suggest that this is targeting Aboriginal Victorians. I think you are conflating the purpose of a treaty statement to be very up-front about the fact that we acknowledge the incarceration rates of Aboriginal people. We have spent many years working with Aboriginal Victorians on separate policies and justice initiatives. We are just about to sign the Aboriginal justice agreement, iteration 5. These are issues that are very important to the government, and I think describing the treaty process as the government making a song and dance demonstrates your commitment to Aboriginal Victorians.

Renee HEATH: It is not an opportunity for you to reflect on me personally, and I think you are completely wrong in what you just said about me. What protections have you got for children that will be recruited through other children?

Jaclyn SYMES: What protections?

Renee HEATH: I picked up on what you just said. For example, right now this bill covers adults that recruit children, but it does not cover children that recruit children. A widely held concern is that a recruiter might recruit a child to recruit other children. What protections do you have against that happening?

Jaclyn SYMES: As always when it comes to criminal bills in particular or bills in the justice space, they should never, ever be viewed in isolation. When you understand the full justice system, you will recognise that there are a range of offences that already exist. There are already laws that cover children who recruit other children to commit offences, because they can be charged with offences like incitement or complicity. The maximum penalties for some of these are serious. They can carry a maximum penalty of 15 years.

We do not need new offences that complicate the existing law and make it more difficult for Victoria Police to decide how offenders should be charged. I understand that the opposition have amendments to that effect. The strong advice is that it is not required. As your question asked about what can happen to children who recruit other children, there are existing laws, as I have outlined.

Renee HEATH: So children recruiting other children falls within existing laws, is that what you are saying?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are other laws that could be applied, yes.

Renee HEATH: What are those laws?

Jaclyn SYMES: A child who directs, commands or encourages another child to engage in criminal activity may be charged with other offences such as incitement or complicity, as I just outlined to you in my answer to your first question asking what offences apply. Just to repeat: there are offences. Incitement can correspond to a maximum penalty of the underlying offence. For example, incitement to commit arson would carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. Similarly, a person found guilty of complicity is taken to have committed and is liable to the maximum penalty for that offence. Apologies, I do not have the sections in the Crimes Act 1958 that those offences are covered in, because that is not what this bill is covering today.

Renee HEATH: In the overview of this bill it states that it creates an offence for an adult recruiting a child to engage in serious criminal activity. What constitutes ‘serious’?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, indictable offences that carry a penalty of 15 years or above.

Renee HEATH: A maximum sentence of 15 years and above? Yes, okay. Does that include rape?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Symes, Dr Heath asked a question to which you just nodded. I think you should put the answer to the first question that she asked on record. Do you want to repeat that question, Dr Heath?

Renee HEATH: I just was clarifying. What I am trying to figure out –

Jaclyn SYMES: I had already answered it, and then she was just asking about it again.

Renee HEATH: What was that, sorry? I am really not trying to be cheeky. I am trying to get proper answers here.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am just concerned about getting the questions and the answers to the questions into Hansard, and a nod cannot be recorded by Hansard.

Renee HEATH: Okay. Does rape constitute a serious crime?

Jaclyn SYMES: That was not the question that she was referring to. It was the one before that.

Renee HEATH: Which was if it is 15 years or above, the maximum penalty?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

Renee HEATH: Okay. The question I asked – I cannot remember the exact wording – was: what constitutes a serious crime is a crime that could carry a maximum sentence of 15 years?

Jaclyn SYMES: At least 15 years – a minimum. You asked about what constitutes a serious offence for the purposes of these laws. It is offences that attract penalties of at least 15 years. The penalty for rape is 25, I am pretty sure, so yes, it would cover that offence.

Renee HEATH: I just want to know: what about home invasions and aggravated burglary? Are they considered serious crimes?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, they are all covered.

Renee HEATH: This leads me to a similar concern I have, which I believe relates to the intent of one of Mrs Deeming amendments: what happens if an adult, with the intention of grooming a child, gets them to carry out smaller crimes. Will they fall foul of these laws?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, I believe you would have been part of this chamber when we did recruitment offences for other offences, lower than 15 years. We have previously addressed that in this chamber. There are also aggravated circumstances that can apply for the recruitment of children for lower level offences. This is the next iteration. Arguably the lower offences have already been dealt with.

Renee HEATH: Just to clarify, though: with the lower offences, those recruiting children into lower offences that do not meet the serious crime threshold will not fall foul of these laws?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to be really clear on the question that you are asking, these laws that we are dealing with today apply to the serious offences that we have just had a conversation about. There are existing provisions and the ability to look at other forms of involving children in crime.

Renee HEATH: Then my understanding is, no, they do not fall foul of this law. What I am asking, and I am trying to get to a yes or no, is whether criminals, adults, that recruit younger children but not to carry out a serious offence – it might be to carry out a lower level offence at this stage, as a gateway, if you like – will fall foul of these laws.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have just got a slight problem with the way you are asking the question. The behaviour you are articulating is illegal; it is just what offence would apply to the relevant conduct. The legislation is introducing a new recruitment offence that applies to an adult that recruits a child to engage in serious criminal activity. There are existing laws that people can face that apply for offences of lower than 15 years but at least five years. I think you will remember that we have done some of this previously, so you have to consider them all together and what might apply in a suite of responses.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, do you have the number of people who have been convicted for the other recruitment-type offences?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not believe I do. I will ask and, if I can, get you that figure.

I do have that. Between January 2018 and 30 December last year there were almost 50 charges for the existing recruitment offence. Given the nature of organised crime, you would appreciate it can be difficult to prosecute these offences. Often it involves things like the reluctance of children to disclose information about who has recruited them or a lack of identifying information as to who is directing the criminal activity, which we can discuss a little bit in the house amendments in terms of being able to follow the dollar and see where transactions have been made, because the advice is that in almost all instances children that are recruited are paid, so some of that evidence will support, hopefully, more prosecutions in this space.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That was very detailed. How many of those 50 were under 18?

Jaclyn SYMES: The offences that I was referring to were offences that apply to adults.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Have any children been charged under the other recruitment offences?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, as in the answers that I was providing to Dr Heath, there are other offences that can apply to instances of children recruiting or encouraging other children to commit crimes. The specific crime of recruitment of children that I read out before is only applicable to adults.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, tier 1 attaches a maximum penalty of life imprisonment to recruitment, where the underlying offence carries 15 years to life. Can you explain how recruiting a child to steal or damage property can be treated as warranting the same maximum penalty as murder and a higher maximum penalty than rape?

Jaclyn SYMES: With respect, Ms Copsey, you are asking me, as the minister responsible for carriage of this bill, to give you a personal opinion.

Katherine COPSEY: I am trying to tease this out. There is concern that I have heard from stakeholders about the way that this bill has the potential to disrupt the sentencing hierarchy and the rationality and proportionality of sentencing in Victoria. I am asking you to reconcile the sentences that would flow from those different scenarios. In particular I am keen to understand how the government is putting this bill forward and asserting that it will not disrupt the sentencing hierarchy.

Jaclyn SYMES: When it comes to the penalties that have been arrived at with this bill, the maximum penalty reflects the elevated seriousness of recruiting a child to carry out these offences that are of significant community concern. It is about discouraging the recruitment of children by organised crime groups and providing courts with the ability to impose a sentence that reflects the offender’s culpability. It is sending a clear message that recruitment of children to commit serious offences has consequences, has a serious impact on children that are recruited and has a serious impact on victims and the community and that we are wanting to discourage this as much as possible. Of course, as with the existing offence, the new recruitment offence does not carry a mandatory sentence; it does not require a court to impose a custodial sentence. The maximum penalty is appropriate, given that the recruitment of vulnerable children, including by organised crime, is very serious offending, which, as I said, can have significant consequences. However, given the scope of the new offence applies to criminal activity punishable by 15 years to life imprisonment, it can apply to a broad range of conduct. Therefore it is appropriate that the courts retain discretion to impose a sentence that reflects the offender’s culpability. The government will continue to monitor the operation of the recruitment offences and determine whether changes are necessary to tackle the current prevalence of recruiting conduct and organised crime.

Katherine COPSEY: Organised criminal networks do not necessarily have senior figures approaching children directly. They may exploit a young person first, and then they may task that young person with bringing in others, who might often be their siblings, their cousins or their friends. Under this bill it is the exploited young person who could be charged and face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment while the older person may remain faceless and continue to profit from recruitment arrangements at arm’s length. Minister, can you point to anything in the drafting that distinguishes a young person who recruits because they themselves are being exploited –

Jaclyn SYMES: Do you mean a young person over 18 – but young?

Katherine COPSEY: Yes, a young person of 18 or 19, or around that age – I am not being too specific – who recruits because they themselves are being exploited, as distinct from the older person who is exploiting them.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, I understand the question that you are asking, and particularly with the house amendments that we have proposed, we really want police to be able to identify the leader, the orchestrator, the person who is often evading the laws and recruiting, as you said, potentially several levels down, networks of kids through WhatsApp and the like. We want them to be able to get to the top to stop this predatory behaviour. Those in the mid-tier, if they are adults, will be captured by these laws if the evidence suggests that they have been recruiting children and we think that is appropriate. But as I outlined in my answer to your previous question about the range of approaches and the discretion of the court, they would be able to look at the factors in relation to the evidence that is put before them, which would mitigate against some of the issues that you have identified. At the outset it is still a crime to be a middle person, but we hope that the tools that we are giving police give them the ability, and therefore the incentive, to keep going to get to the more senior offender, effectively, which stops the behaviour that is ultimately leading to several people getting caught up in the justice system.

Katherine COPSEY: I will deal with the government’s house amendments perhaps when we come to discussing those, but I want to ask, with the principal bill, how increasing penalties enables what you just outlined – reaching through the structure of exploitation to the person at the top of it. How is that achieved by just increasing penalties?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, Ms Copsey, there is discretion in the court for a broad range of penalties based on the offending behaviour.

Katherine COPSEY: But distinct from existing recruitment offences, how does this bill provide different tools, apart from heavier penalties, that will enable that structure of exploitation to be investigated and the person at the top of it to be targeted?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think there is probably a fairly long answer to that from a range of different positions, but I will have a go, building on where we have started this conversation. The new recruitment offence will apply to adults, including similar-aged young people – so an 18-year-old who recruits a 16-year-old or, as you said, someone who is 25, if we are talking about those that we normally consider to be relatively young people. This will be in the same way as the existing recruitment offence. It will be a matter for Victoria Police to make the initial determination about what charges to lay based on the available evidence. The young person may be a co-accused of the child if they are also involved in the underlying criminal activity – so that younger step-down recruiter role. A sentencing court will retain the discretion to impose a sentence that reflects the culpability of the conduct as well as a range of other factors. The new recruitment offences target adults who recruit children to commit serious offences. We are also committed to measures to break the cycle of reoffending and preventing youth crime before it begins. They include reducing violent youth crime with serious consequences and early interventions. There is the violence reduction unit, which works with a range of young people in a variety of communities. It is all about ensuring that the whole community is involved in programs and disrupting youth crime patterns early. There are also opportunities to prevent and stop crime through a range of other initiatives that we continue to expand on. The VRU are giving us lots of advice in relation to the programs that they are running which can benefit young people, even those slightly over 18.

Katherine COPSEY: So, Minister, the offence as drafted could capture an 18-year-old who invites a slightly younger friend to commit a property offence with them, even if they do not know their friend’s exact age. Under the offences drafted that 18-year-old could face life imprisonment for involving their slightly younger friend. Is that the government’s intent?

Jaclyn SYMES: The courts retain discretion, as we have gone through, but as we have gone through in the second-reading debate, this is really designed off the feedback of Victoria Police in relation to organised crime and the recruitment of young people. So when you ask about the purpose, the purpose is designed to crack into that particular behaviour. Of course, as you have identified, the offences could pick up younger people who recruit slightly younger people, so young adults that recruit children, where there might not be a large age gap, can be picked up. That is why there is court discretion and there is police discretion in relation to what is the most relevant charge to apply. That is why it is important to retain court discretion to impose sentences that reflect the culpability of the conduct as well as a range of other factors.

Katherine COPSEY: It would be entirely possible to draft recruitment offences that incorporated elements of organised crime – for example, a connection to a criminal organisation or an element of exploitation or commercial benefit – as other offences in the Crimes Act 1958 already do. Why has the government left this offence so broad?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would just repeat the answers that I have provided, Ms Copsey. You do not want to complicate the law, and I think I will have this conversation with Mrs Deeming in a similar vein. If you get too prescriptive about exactly when and you take the discretion away too much, it just means that you make everyone’s job harder and the law actually becomes vaguer.

Katherine COPSEY: Just also touching on consultation, as some others have in their questions as well, I just want to ask about some specific organisations and whether or not they were consulted on this bill before its introduction. The community legal sector, Aboriginal community controlled organisations, Aboriginal legal services, the Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service or the Federation of Community Legal Centres – were they consulted on this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have an exhaustive list of who was consulted. It was targeted consultation with the likes of Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) and VicPol. I will ask for any others that were consulted, but as I indicated in my remarks to Dr Heath, it was a targeted consultation with legal stakeholders. But also I would point to the fact that this bill has been in the Parliament for some time, and therefore there has been the opportunity to have conversations in the lead-up to the debate tonight.

Katherine COPSEY: How did the government satisfy itself that an offence carrying the most severe penalty available under Victorian law would operate as intended without hearing from organisations that work directly with the children and young people it will affect?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have indicated, the likes of VLA, courts and those that deal with the application of the law were certainly involved in the considerations of this bill, and as I think I had indicated, this is an area of law that we will be closely monitoring.

Katherine COPSEY: Was the proposed life maximum sentence referred to the Sentencing Advisory Council for advice?

Jaclyn SYMES: I took you through the advice that I have in relation to how the policy decided on the penalties.

Katherine COPSEY: What evidence does the government rely on for the proposition that the existing 15-year maximum sentence has proved insufficient?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said earlier, the rationale relates to the offences that they are connected to.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, apologies if you went through these stats earlier. How many people have been charged and convicted under existing section 321LB in the past five years?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have five years. I have got 1 January 2018 to 30 December 2025.

Katherine Copsey interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: That will do. I have got 48 charges for the existing recruitment offences that were heard in court, resulting in 12 convictions.

Katherine COPSEY: I am not sure whether you will have this, but in how many of those 12 cases where there was a conviction was there an established connection to an organised crime network?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I do not have that information, Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, could I trouble you to obtain that on notice for me, please?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not prepared to take that on notice, Ms Copsey. I would encourage you to perhaps ask offline. I know for a fact that it would not be data that would be available in an easy form, so I am not going to sign up the Attorney – the advantage of having held a portfolio – for that data, because I doubt that she would be able to get her hands on it easily. I think if you had a conversation with them, anecdotally the courts would probably have a view.

I am compelled to make some comments on it, just given the evolution of some of the crime patterns that would be reported – and this is not official data. You asked about the last five years. Victoria Police and the courts would both confirm that the prevalence or the number of cases of organised crime infiltrating young people has certainly been more concerning in recent years. This is not something that existed 10 years ago. This is something that has been facilitated by online cryptocurrency, encouraging people to commit crime for money and the like. We know through the advice, particularly from Victoria Police, that they are very concerned about the impact on young people from large organised crime groups. Does that mean that every child that is recruited by an adult is connected to organised crime? Probably not, but it is something that we have been told over the last maybe five years is something that they continue to be concerned about. So we are responding to concerns that people have – both those responding to crime and those that are working with young people – about them being targeted. This is, again, why these laws are catching up with the experiences that we are hearing from a range of stakeholders.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I am just going back to the impact of these laws and the potential impact on First Peoples. I think you have spoken to this before, but I want to ask: given the acknowledged potential for this law to disproportionately impact First Nations people in the statement of treaty compatibility and the existing over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in the criminal legal system, what modelling has the government undertaken on the likely impact of this new law on Aboriginal young people in particular?

Jaclyn SYMES: The new and the existing recruitment offences obviously apply to all adults. However, the government also recognises that Aboriginal people are over-represented in Victoria’s justice system. The changes in the bill may lead to more prosecutions and increased custodial sentences for adult offenders, which could have a risk of further increasing First Peoples over-representation in custody. We obviously recognise that the best outcome is for children to avoid contact with the criminal justice system altogether. This offence sends a strong message to deter organised crime groups and others that may recruit vulnerable and impressionable children to commit serious offences. The government remains committed to reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. We will monitor the reforms to see that they are achieving their intended community safety objectives and to understand and, where possible, mitigate the impact on Aboriginal communities and other vulnerable cohorts. But it is also relevant that we know that it is vulnerable kids that are generally targeted by organised crime. We know a lot of those vulnerable kids are out-of-home-care kids. They are kids that have had low-level interaction with the justice system. They include First Nations kids. This is a law that is designed to target adults, hopefully with the benefit of protecting those vulnerable young people.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, just on that, there is a difficult conflict that the government finds itself in here. The state may continue to consider a young person to be under a child protection order, for example, until they are 21. How can a young person who is aged 18 to 21 be treated as an adult recruiter under this bill when they could be in circumstances of vulnerability like a continued child protection order?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think you are identifying one of the exact factors that a sentencing court would have discretion to consider. They would be asked to ensure that the response to sentencing reflects the culpability of the conduct as well as a range of other factors, such as what you have brought to the chamber.

Moira DEEMING: I move:

1.   Clause 1, line 3, omit “1958 –” and insert “1958 to enact new provisions relating to the recruitment of children to engage in criminal activity and other forms of the criminal corruption of children.”.

2.   Clause 1, lines 4 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

3.   Clause 1, page 2, lines 1 to 4, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

In the interest of keeping things brief, the big difference between my amendments and the basic bill is that there is no need to prove recruitment. If your criminal activity involves a child, that is it – you have committed the base offence. You can recruit a child; you can coordinate a group that plans, arranges, organises, funds or recruits children to be involved; you can participate in criminal activity in which a child also participates; and you can groom the child. That is the only way that you would guarantee getting the punishment to the people at the top. I have also made sure that there are reduced maximums for child recruiters. They are still very, very harsh, and it is pretty terrifying to think that young people could do something to be exposed to that kind of a sentence. I do believe that you have to have some kind of punishment, but I do not think that under the age of 18 we should be as harsh as we are on adults for this secondary punishment that is not even committing the offence.

Then I have got sentencing directions, which also escalate and de-escalate in severity and punishment in proportion. Transferring physical, criminal or legal risk onto a child has to be considered as serious. The offender retaining control, authority or benefit while the child bears all of the risks has to be treated as very serious. I want the court to treat it as aggravating if the child actually participated in the crime, if there is repetition or protraction or if there are force, threats, coercion, blackmail, deception, exploitation, emotional manipulation using other children or insulating the offender through other people. All these things have to be taken into account.

That is what is different about my amendments to the other incitement laws. The main issue for me is that you do not have to prove that anybody knew how old the child was. I do not think we have to do that, and I do not think it is wise. I think we need to start the punishments at the lower end of the scale, and it needs to deal with this idea that it is just unacceptable in our society that you involve children in your criminal activity.

Renee HEATH: The coalition will not be supporting these amendments. Just from listening, I certainly appreciate the intent. But they were not given to us in time to go through the correct process, so that is our reason why.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting Mrs Deeming’s amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said in my summing-up, I appreciate the thought that Mrs Deeming has given to this legislation. I understand what you are attempting to do with your amendment. We are not in a position to support your amendment, Mrs Deeming, for a couple of reasons. At the outset, we had a little bit of conversation across various parties tonight in terms of what applies when and what are appropriate sentences, what is the level of culpability, do you consider the age of the offender, do you consider the age of the victim and a range of factors that the courts are well equipped to address. We would be concerned that your amendment would add complexity and confusion to the existing law. The offences of incitement and complicity adequately cover the field. If a charge cannot be brought because of an age reason, you can always fall back to those offences regardless of the age of the person who was recruited.

Fundamentally, the other concern I have with your amendments is that you are in effect seeking to overturn a pretty core principle of the justice system, and that principle is that to convict a person of a crime the prosecution must prove the person had a guilty mind when they committed the relevant act. That is why, the way we have crafted it, you still have to have known or should have known that you were recruiting a child. That is pretty standard across the statute books. We think the balance is right through that. It is also, as I said, consistent with other laws. We think the setting is consistent with how serious criminal laws have been written for centuries, and we are not proposing that we should depart from that principle. As I said, I understand what you are trying to do. We think that the laws cover the field adequately to pick up instances of behaviour that we all agree is inappropriate and illegal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mrs Deeming’s amendments 1 to 3, which test all her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendments 1 to 4, which test your remaining amendments.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 1, omit “an adult” and insert “a person”.

2.   Clause 1, page 2, line 3, omit “adult” and insert “person”.

3.   Clause 1, page 2, line 4, omit “child.” and insert “child; and”.

4.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 4 insert –

“(d) to provide that these offences may be committed by a child as well as by an adult.”.

I spoke about this in my second-reading speech, which I am sure everyone in the chamber was listening to. The amendments insert a new provision to reflect the bill’s purpose by providing for those offences to be committed by children in addition to adults. We do not believe there should be a difference between whether someone is 17 or 18 or 19 or 16. Ultimately, the recruitment of children to commit another act is a bad thing.

In terms of unintended consequences, we think the existing provisions unamended in this bill will have the consequence of using children to recruit other children, as we have already seen in the community. What we have been particularly asking about in committee have been other parts of the law where recruitment offences have been committed. About 50 of them have taken place and the minister could not name one that was a child. Obviously there probably is. We think that this bill would have massive unintended consequences if left unamended. It makes no difference whether someone is 16, 17, 18 or 19. Picking an arbitrary age is not the way we should be focused. We should be focused on the actual offence, and the actual offence is a sickening offence that we want to see stopped.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting this amendment. Describing 18 as an ‘arbitrary age’ when it comes to the creation of laws is not language I would use. We have laws that apply to adults and laws that apply to children in a range of appropriate circumstances. Eighteen is not arbitrary; it is the legal adult age. In any event the amendment that you are proposing is not necessary because children who recruit other children to commit offences may already be charged with existing offences like incitement and complicity. The maximum penalties for those offences correspond to the maximum penalty for the underlying offence. For example, incitement to commit arson would carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. We do not need new offences that just complicate the existing law, because that makes it harder for Victoria Police to decide how offenders should be charged and therefore creates complications in the justice system more broadly. We need a strong deterrent for adults who target children to do their dirty work, and that is what this bill is proposing to do.

David LIMBRICK: I have one question for Mr Mulholland. My understanding of this amendment – please correct me if I am wrong – is that this would essentially expose children to potential life imprisonment. Is that correct?

Evan MULHOLLAND: We do not believe there should be a difference between someone who is a child or someone who is an adult as to whether they are charged with this offence. We are very concerned about the unintended consequence of the bill being left unamended in relation to the recruitment of children.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting the Liberals’ amendment. We are concerned about the breadth of what is proposed. We know that the younger someone is when they first have contact with the criminal justice system, the more likely they are to reoffend, so I do not think it will achieve its purpose. It will also divert attention from the government’s stated intent, which is targeting those who are further up the hierarchy of the criminal organisations that are currently targeting young people. We do not think that the Liberals’ amendment will strengthen the bill.

David LIMBRICK: I thank Mr Mulholland for his answer. I feel like we have a fundamental disagreement here, though. I do think that children are different, and that is sort of the whole point of the recruitment of children idea in this bill. Therefore, the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment. I actually agree with the government’s position that if children have been committing crimes, then other offences such as incitement et cetera exist and they should be applied in those cases where appropriate.

Council divided on amendments:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendments 1 and 2, which test your remaining amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 4, omit “child.” and insert “child; and”.

2.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 4 insert –

“(d) to establish a new process for requiring financial institutions to produce documents that are relevant to certain offences.”.

I went through, in some detail, this house amendment in my summing-up. Effectively, in summary, these reforms seek to reduce delays and operational challenges that Victoria Police encounter when obtaining documents from a financial institution through the existing warrant processes. It does not change how you use the information, it just makes it easier to obtain and is complementary to some of the topics that we have been talking about tonight, because it helps with collating evidence about where the money comes from, which is often what is being used to incentivise people to commit crimes on behalf of others. There are some other benefits, but that is why it is relevant to tonight’s discussion.

Katherine COPSEY: I actually have a few questions about these amendments. The Greens are concerned and troubled by these amendments, and we will not be supporting them this evening. But I want to understand the breadth of what is being introduced here, very much at the last minute, in the bill that is before us tonight. Minister, can you confirm that these amendments would enable police to make financial institutions hand over information without a warrant or a subpoena in respect of any suspected indictable offence?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, I am happy to take you through some of the information I put on the record. This is a big change, and that is why they are significant powers and that is why I outlined some of the limits and the processes to be undertaken. Would you like me to repeat some of those?

Katherine Copsey interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, sure. That is okay. This might take a while. An application must be in writing, it must name the offence, it must identify the account that it is seeking information from and it must set out the grounds for the officer’s belief that it is related to an indictable offence. The officer issuing the notice must be the Chief Commissioner of Police or an officer of at least inspector rank authorised in writing by the chief commissioner. They must be satisfied that the institution holds the documents and that those documents may assist with the investigation, and they must turn their mind to how reliable the information in front of them is. The chief commissioner must keep a record of every application, every notice issued and every document produced, and the chief commissioner must report to the Attorney-General every year on how many notices were sought, how many were issued and the kinds of offences they were issued for as well as any other relevant information requested by the Attorney. Evidence obtained under a notice will be admissible on the same footing as evidence obtained under a search warrant and the ordinary rules of evidence will apply. I do note that powers like these already exist in the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Katherine COPSEY: You have put these amendments into this bill in particular. Why have you not restricted the offences to those related to serious organised crime, money laundering, fraud or serious financial offending?

Jaclyn SYMES: A production notice can be issued in relation to any indictable offence or offence prescribed by regulation. Enabling additional offences to be prescribed ensures that the production notice scheme remains responsive to evolving criminal activities. This has been a topic of conversation with Victoria Police and the courts, to land on that position.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what evidence has the government produced? I know you have just spoken about discussions, but this is, as you have just noted, a really sweeping power. What evidence has the government produced that existing investigative powers are inadequate across all indictable offences?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, the concerns that have been raised about the current system are in relation to operational delays experienced via the current search warrant process. I asked a similar question in the briefing, and effectively this process is not designed to replace the warrant system with this application process; it is not to necessarily expand an application process because the warrant system is not doing its job. It is just timely, and it is the suggestion that some investigations are actually being compromised because people move quickly in relation to particularly cryptocurrency, and the evidence disappears. So it is responding to modern methods of crime. It is not designed to be a catch-all fishing expedition.

Katherine COPSEY: I am concerned that this is coming in the form of an amendment to a bill which it is not related to – it is out of scope. What analysis has been done on the impacts of this and its interaction with Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, particularly the right to privacy?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I will just spend some time talking about the differences between the two frameworks, because there is an existing way to obtain information through the warrant process. They aim to streamline investigations and remove administrative barriers in the application process. The production model diverges from the existing search warrant framework mainly in procedural aspects, not in relation to the purpose for which the information is sought. The key differences are that production notices may be issued by Victoria Police while search warrants under the Crimes Act are issued by a magistrate at the application of a police officer supported by evidence on oath, affirmation or affidavit. Production notices will apply to indictable offences, as we talked about, while search warrants under the Crimes Act are typically limited to indictable offences and certain summary offences expressly provided for in legislation. Production notices will enable Victoria Police to specify how and in what form the requested documents are to be produced, while search warrants under the Crimes Act require Victoria Police to physically attend a financial institution premises to collect the documents and in fact to search when they are there. Production notices will impose clear timeframes for compliance.

A statement of compatibility is not required for a house amendment. This relates to the right to privacy, but the advice is that it would not be incompatible with that right as the policy is reasonably justifiable. As I have indicated, the information that is obtained will be treated the same way as if it had come via a warrant.

Katherine COPSEY: I just want to understand in practice how this would work. Would a person whose financial records are accessed and provided by the financial institution to police be aware at any point that the financial institution has had this notice served on them and had to comply with it?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Ms Copsey. It is the same consistent practice with the current process of warrants.

Katherine COPSEY: Why should police be able to secretly access private financial information without a judicial warrant?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, I took you through the reasons that we are proposing this amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: This is an extraordinary power that is being granted. Why has the government chosen as a threshold only that the information may assist in the investigation of a suspected offence? That is astonishingly low.

Jaclyn SYMES: The issuing officer needs to be satisfied that the financial institution possesses or controls a document or information requested and that the document may assist in the investigation or prosecution of an applicable offence stated in the application. The officer must have regard to the reliability of the information set out in the application. Ms Copsey, as I have indicated, this is consistent with New South Wales policy and similar to other states and indeed the Commonwealth. It is why we have included a range of safeguards in relation to applicants being required to identify the exact scope of the documents or information to be produced, mitigating the risk of financial institutions releasing too much private data. The records that have to be kept have to be ticked off by the Chief Commissioner of Police. They have to be reported annually to the Attorney-General. This is something that we will be monitoring closely. In relation to record requirements, the chief commissioner must record all applications. They must record each production notice issued. For each production notice served, they must record how and when it was served, and there must be a description of each document produced in compliance, or purported compliance, with a production notice. There remain quite stringent requirements for people that apply for these things. The chief commissioner obviously takes full responsibility in relation to letting them proceed, and the records have to be thorough and reported on.

Katherine COPSEY: Why has the government given the power for entirely new entities or classes of entities to be added through regulation to this already extremely broad power?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to keep pace with the way that people can be remunerated. As I indicated in my summing-up, these laws were largely written to respond to requests for warrants that would go in and search filing cabinets. This is now a world where currency is quite often transacted through online measures. We have got cryptocurrency. It picks up betting apps. We want to be agile to be able to adjust to any of the platforms that enable money to be transferred.

Katherine COPSEY: I am still not really understanding why search warrants are not the appropriate mechanism to retain in relation to this information, I must say. Why has the government introduced this major new coercive power through late amendments? We were only offered a briefing this morning, which I was unable to go to due to a prior engagement. Why is the government doing this through amendments? Why have you not brought this through as a standalone bill? It clearly is not entirely related to the subject matter of this bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think that is probably more of a statement than a question, but we are wanting to be responsive to the way organised crime is evolving in this state. As I have indicated, this is not new in Australia and is very consistent with other states and complementary to the purposes of the substantive bill, which is about responding to organised crime and the recruitment of young people. We know the ability to identify those recruiters is often by following where the money originated from.

Katherine COPSEY: I understand that, Minister. However, the scope of the powers that are granted by this amendment is not limited to organised crime. It is not limited to any particular class of offences. They are all indictable offences where it may assist the investigation. It is a frighteningly low threshold to meet, to be frank. When did the government decide that it was going to pursue this amendment?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Copsey, I know that we have missed one another in our committee stages, but I have always been consistent in that government goes through a range of processes when it is looking at policy reform. These types of issues have been raised for years. These types of issues were raised with me when I was Attorney-General.

Katherine COPSEY: Therefore why was it not introduced as part of the principal bill when you introduced it to the lower house?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not in a position to take you through the timing of the process except to indicate that these are issues that have been on the radar for some time. It has become an increasing burden and barrier for criminal investigations, according to Victoria Police. We committed to support these additional powers for Victoria Police to combat new types of crime. We committed to ensuring that we would do that this term, and the announcement was in late July.

Katherine COPSEY: The speed at which this has been foisted upon the chamber is worrying. What consultation has the government taken specifically on these production notice provisions? I would like to know, for example, have you consulted the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar, community legal centres, Liberty Victoria or any privacy experts in relation to these amendments?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am advised that there have been discussions with the Magistrates’ Court and Victoria Police, and we are committed to working closely with stakeholders to implement these reforms and monitor their impact, including identifying any necessary adjustments.

Katherine COPSEY: Mr Davis had a useful suggestion: has the Victorian information commissioner been consulted in relation to this?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that advice on me.

Katherine COPSEY: I will leave my questions there. I understand the stated intent that the government is putting forward in bringing these today to the chamber, but I am very concerned that what has been put before us is far broader than the targeted powers the government has stated that they want to bestow. Plus, there is the fact that this can be broadened through regulation. I do not think it is appropriate for something of this weight to be done through a last-minute amendment to a bill. I think, should the government wish to actually progress something of this nature, they should bring it as a standalone bill. I feel like this is the type of change that actually could benefit from real scrutiny rather than being rushed through at the last stage, so I would urge others in the chamber to oppose the government’s amendments today.

David LIMBRICK: Warrantless search and seizure powers are fundamentally incompatible with Western free societies, and the Libertarian Party has a long tradition of opposing this type of power; therefore we will oppose it. We do not accept the government’s position that because there are new types of crimes that require faster responses we should abandon the principles of Western civilisation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 2 (21:51)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3.   Clause 2, line 6, omit “This Act” and insert “(1) This Act (except section 7A)”.

4.   Clause 2, after line 7 insert –

“(2) Subject to subsection (3), section 7A comes into operation on a day to be proclaimed.

(3) If section 7A does not come into operation before 21 December 2026, it comes into operation on that day.”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.

New clause 7A (21:52)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

5.   Insert the following New Clause to follow Clause 7 –

‘7A New Subdivision (33) inserted in Division 1 of Part III

After Subdivision (32) in Division 1 of Part III of the Crimes Act 1958 insert –

“(33)   Production notices

470A   Definitions

In this Subdivision –

applicable offence means –

(a)   an indictable offence against the law of Victoria; or

(b)   any other offence against the law of Victoria that is prescribed or that belongs to a class that is prescribed;

bank means –

(a)   the Reserve Bank of Australia; or

(b)   an ADI; or

(c)   a person who carries on State banking within the meaning of section 51(xiii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth;

building society means a society registered or incorporated as a building society, co-operative housing society or similar society under an Act or the laws of another State or a Territory;

financial institution means –

(a)   a bank; or

(b)   a building society; or

(c)   a credit union; or

(d)   a body corporate that is a financial corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth (or would be if it had been incorporated in Australia); or

(e)   a provider of a registrable virtual asset service within the meaning of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 of the Commonwealth; or

(f)   a casino operator within the meaning of the Casino Control Act 1991; or

(g)   a wagering and betting licensee within the meaning of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003; or

(h)   an entity that is prescribed or that belongs to a prescribed class;

issuing officer means –

(a)   the Chief Commissioner of Police; or

(b)   a police officer authorised under section 470C;

production notice has the meaning given by section 470B.

470B   What is a production notice?

A production notice is a notice requiring a financial institution to do either or both of the following –

(a)   to produce to a police officer one or more documents that –

(i)   are possessed or controlled by the institution; and

(ii)   contain information in respect of an account that an entity holds or keeps with the institution; or

(b)   to compile one or more documents from information that –

(i)   is possessed or controlled by the institution; and

(ii)   is in respect of an account that an entity holds or keeps with the institution.

470C   Chief Commissioner of Police may authorise police officer to be issuing officer

The Chief Commissioner of Police may authorise in writing a police officer of or above the rank of inspector to issue production notices.

470D   Police officer may apply for production notice

(1)   A police officer may apply to an issuing officer for the issue of a production notice directed to a financial institution if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the financial institution possesses or controls information, or one or more documents, that may assist in the investigation or prosecution of an applicable offence.

(2)   The application must –

(a)   be in writing; and

(b)   identity the financial institution; and

(c)   identify the documents sought to be produced, including by identifying –

(i)   the account in respect of which the production notice is to be issued; or

(ii)   the entity that holds or keeps that account; and

Note

See subsection (3).

(d)   state the applicable offence the investigation or prosecution of which may be assisted by the documents; and

(e)   state the grounds on which the applicant has formed the belief required by subsection (1), including –

(i)   the grounds for believing that the financial institution possesses or controls the documents or information referred to in that subsection; and

(ii)   the grounds for believing that the production referred to in that subsection may assist in the investigation or prosecution of the applicable offence stated in accordance with paragraph (d); and

(f)   set out the facts, matters and circumstances on which the application relies; and

(g)   specify the period of time that the applicant proposes for the financial institution to have to comply with the notice; and

Note

See section 470E(6).

(h)   specify how, in what form and to which police officer the applicant seeks for the documents to be produced; and

(i)   if a form is prescribed, be in that form; and

(j)   if additional material is prescribed, include that material.

(3)   Without limiting subsection (2)(c), identifying the account, or an entity that holds or keeps the account, for the purposes of that provision may involve –

(a)   stating an account number; or

(b)   stating a name in which the account is held or kept; or

(c)   stating an address, an electronic address or a unique identifier associated with the account or the entity.

Examples

1   A residential or business address used by the entity.

2   An email address used by the entity.

3   An internet protocol address used by the entity.

4   If the account concerns cryptocurrency, a unique identifier, known as a wallet address, that is used by the entity.

(4)   The police officer is not required to give notice of the application to any person.

470E   Issue of production notice

(1)   On an application under section 470D, an issuing officer may issue to the applicant a production notice that –

(a)   concerns every document identified in the application; and

(b)   is directed at the financial institution identified in the application –

if satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (2) in respect of each document.

(2)   The matters of which the issuing officer must be satisfied in respect of each document are that –

(a)   the financial institution either –

(i)   possesses or controls the document; or

(ii)   possesses or controls the information from which the document is to be compiled; and

(b)   the document may assist in the investigation or prosecution of the applicable offence stated in the application.

(3)   In determining whether to issue the production notice, the issuing officer must have regard to the reliability of the information on which the application relies.

(4)   A production notice must –

(a)   identify the financial institution to which it is directed; and

(b)   identify each document that is to be produced, including by identifying –

(i)   the account in respect of which the production notice is to be issued; or

(ii)   the entity that holds or keeps that account; and

Note

See subsection (5).

(c)   specify, in accordance with subsection (6), the period within which the institution must comply with the notice; and

(d)   specify how, in what form and to which police officer the documents are to be produced; and

(e)   state the effect of sections 470H and 470I; and

(f)   if a form is prescribed, be in that form; and

(g)   if additional material is prescribed, include that material.

(5)   Without limiting subsection (4)(b), identifying the account, or an entity that holds or keeps the account, for the purposes of that provision may involve –

(a)   stating an account number; or

(b)   stating a name in which the account is held or kept; or

(c)   stating an address, an electronic address or a unique identifier associated with the account or the entity.

Examples

1   A residential or business address used by the entity.

2   An email address used by the entity.

3   An internet protocol address used by the entity.

4   If the account concerns cryptocurrency, a unique identifier, known as a wallet address, that is used by the entity.

(6)   The period specified in accordance with subsection (4)(c) –

(a)   is to begin on the day that the production notice is served on the financial institution; and

(b)   must be no less than 5 days and no more than 28 days.

(7)   A production notice may be issued in respect of a financial institution that is not located in Victoria.

470F   Service of production notice

(1)   As soon as practicable after a production notice is issued, the Chief Commissioner of Police must ensure that the notice is served on the financial institution identified in the notice.

(2)   A production notice is to be served –

(a)   by delivering the notice personally to the registered office of the financial institution; or

(b)   by sending it by post to the registered office of the financial institution; or

(c)   if the financial institution has given Victoria Police an electronic address that is to be used for receiving production notices, by sending the notice by electronic communication to that electronic address.

(3)   A production notice ceases to have effect if it is not served within 3 months after it is issued.

470G   Police powers in relation to produced documents

(1)   If a document is produced to a police officer in response to a production notice, any police officer may do any of the following things –

(a)   inspect the document;

(b)   take an extract from the document;

(c)   make a copy of the document;

(d)   take the document.

(2)   An extract taken or copy made under subsection (1) is to be retained by Victoria Police.

(3)   A document taken under subsection (1)(d) is to be retained by Victoria Police for as long as is reasonably necessary for the investigation or prosecution of an offence.

(4)   The Chief Commissioner of Police must ensure that a document –

(a)   that is taken under subsection (1)(d); and

(b)   the retention of which is no longer reasonably necessary for the investigation or prosecution of an offence –

is returned to the financial institution that produced the document.

470H   Financial institution must comply with production notice

(1)   A financial institution that has been served with a production notice must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with the notice.

Penalty:   Level 5 fine (1200 penalty units maximum).

(2)   A financial institution that has been served with a production notice must not, in purported compliance with the notice, provide a document that –

(a)   is false or misleading in a material particular; and

(b)   the financial institution knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty:   Level 5 fine (1200 penalty units maximum).

(3)   An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is a summary offence.

470I   Offence to disclose existence of production notice

(1)   Subject to subsection (7), a financial institution on which a production notice is served must not disclose the existence of the notice to any person (including the holder of the account to which the notice relates) except –

(a)   to a police officer in accordance with the notice; or

(b)   to an employee, officer or agent of the institution for the purpose of ensuring the notice is complied with; or

(c)   to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or representation in relation to the notice.

Penalty:   Level 5 fine (1200 penalty units maximum).

(2)   Subject to subsection (7), a person to whom the existence of a production notice is disclosed in accordance with subsection (1) must not –

(a)   while the person is of a kind referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c), disclose the existence of the notice to any person except another person of that kind for the purpose of –

(i)   if the disclosure is made by a police officer, the performance of the officer’s duties; or

(ii)   if the disclosure is made by an employee, officer or agent of the financial institution, ensuring that the notice is complied with or obtaining legal advice or representation in relation to the notice; or

(iii)   if the disclosure is made by a legal practitioner, giving legal advice or providing representation in relation to the notice; or

(b)   when the person is no longer of a kind referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c), make a record of, or disclose, the existence of the notice in any circumstances.

Penalty:   240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

(3)   An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is a summary offence.

(4)   Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the disclosure by a person of a kind referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of the existence of a production notice –

(a)   for the purposes of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; or

(b)   in the course of proceedings before a court.

(5)   Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the disclosure by a police officer of the existence of a production notice for the purposes of a report under section 470M.

(6)   A reference in this section to disclosing the existence of a production notice to a person includes a reference to disclosing information to the person from which the person could reasonably be expected to infer the existence of the notice.

(7)   It is not an offence against subsection (1) or (2) to disclose the existence of a production notice if the existence of the notice has been made known in any proceedings in open court.

470J   Protection from liability

The following do not incur any civil liability for any action taken or document produced in response to a production notice –

(a)   the financial institution identified in the notice;

(b)   a person who is an officer, employee or agent of that financial institution acting in the course of that person’s duties as an officer, employee or agent.

470K   Admissibility in criminal proceedings

If a financial institution produces a document in response to a production notice, neither the production of the document nor any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the production of the document is admissible against that institution in any criminal proceeding other than a proceeding against that institution for an offence against section 470H(1) or (2).

470L   Chief Commissioner of Police to keep records

The Chief Commissioner of Police must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the following records are kept –

(a)   a record of each application for a production notice;

(b)   a record of each production notice issued;

(c)   for each production notice that is served, a record of how and when it was served;

(d)   a description of each document produced in compliance or purported compliance with a production notice.

470M   Annual report to Attorney-General about production notices

(1)   The Chief Commissioner of Police must submit a report to the Attorney-General in respect of each financial year that includes the following information for that financial year –

(a)   the number of applications for production notices that were made during that year;

(b)   the number of production notices issued during that year;

(c)   information about the different kinds of offences (as determined by the Chief Commissioner) in respect of whose investigation or prosecution production notices were issued during that year;

(d)   any other information that relates to production notices and that the Attorney-General notifies the Chief Commissioner, in writing, is required to be included in the report.

(2)   The report must be submitted –

(a)   as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates; and

(b)   no later than 3 months after the end of that financial year.

(3)   The Chief Commissioner of Police must advise the Attorney-General of any information in the report that, in the Chief Commissioner’s opinion, should be excluded from the report before the report is laid before Parliament because the information, if made public, could reasonably be expected to –

(a)   endanger a person’s safety; or

(b)   prejudice an investigation or prosecution; or

(c)   compromise any law enforcement operational activities or methodologies of Victoria Police.

(4)   The Attorney-General must –

(a)   exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Police of any of the grounds set out in subsection (3); and

(b)   cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 12 sitting days after the day on which the Attorney-General receives the report.”.’.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (21:53)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

6.   Clause 8, line 27, after “Criminal Activity” insert “and Production Notices”.

7.   Clause 8, page 5, line 12, after “Criminal Activity” insert “and Production Notices”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (21:53)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

8.   Clause 9, lines 15 and 16, omit “the first anniversary of its commencement” and insert “21 December 2027”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Long title (21:54)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

9.   Long title, after “activity” insert “, to further amend that Act to establish a new process for requiring financial institutions to produce documents that are relevant to certain offences”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Short title (21:54)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

10.   Title, after “Activity” insert “and Production Notices”.

Amendment agreed to; amended short title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long and short titles.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:55): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:55): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.