Thursday, 21 March 2024

Bills

Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024

Jacinta ERMACORA, Gaelle BROAD, Renee HEATH, Enver ERDOGAN, Evan MULHOLLAND, Trung LUU, Katherine COPSEY, David LIMBRICK

Download page

Table of contents

Bills

Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:07): In the family violence setting there are processes under the intervention order pathway that prevent an abuser from having access to or purchasing firearms. However, under this argument they can seek to have their access to weapons returned to them. A firearm prohibition order will prevent that once and for all.

Several studies from the US have identified the link between the prevention of violence and timely statutory interventions. One in particular – and I do apologise for the title of the organisation, which is an American organisation; it would not be acceptable here – was by an organisation known as the Battered Women’s Justice Project, based in Saint Paul in Minnesota. They did a study called ‘Domestic violence and firearms: research on statutory interventions’, and it was published in November 2018. This study showed that extra interventions such as prohibition-type orders reduced intimate partner homicides by 9 per cent and showed a reduction of 12 per cent in female intimate partner homicides committed with firearms. We know that the US is different to Australia when it comes to rates of firearm or gun ownership, but this data I think is still instructive in this context in Victoria. The study shows the risk relationship between family violence and possession of weapons, and as I am sure you can imagine, in some active family violence scenarios timely intervention can be the difference between a woman or child being injured or sometimes the difference between life and death.

In terms of the service direction determination, this is definitely a useful tool that will allow police to respond effectively in active situations or ongoing situations, and you can imagine – I will not go into any further detail – that in an organised crime environment, where the circumstances are changing on a regular basis, a similar scenario to the one I just described around family violence could also occur. So this service direction determination scenario is definitely a very good idea.

The last issue I want to raise is the relationship to do with knives – the definition of a machete as a knife. This is the other specific change that is occurring as a result of this legislation. As I stated earlier, there are some lawful excuses to have a machete but there are also perhaps unlawful, as defined, reasons to posses a machete. I think it is a very good thing that we are now going to regulate and define a machete as a knife and therefore it will become a controlled weapon. We will then know who owns a machete and what they will be using that machete for. Again, that will provide clarity and get rid of the ambiguity around regulation of the possession of machetes, the sale of machetes and the ability to purchase a machete, and certainly it will prevent children from purchasing a machete. Just in my own community, machete-like guns can certainly be used in meat processing and have some relevancy in an agricultural context, although machinery is more commonly used these days.

This is a really important piece of legislation that goes to the heart of the safety of Victorians. It supports Victoria Police to ensure the safety of the Victorian community, in particular communities that are vulnerable, like women facing family violence situations. I express my support and commend the legislation.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (14:12): I am pleased to speak about the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill does not go far enough. I know that on our side we did put forward a private members bill last November, and I want to thank Brad Battin for his work on that. At the time the government described that bill as a joke, and now they are trying in part to fix it, but it certainly does not go far enough. We need to ensure that we ban machetes on streets and we remove them from sale, because we need to get them out of the hands of people that are trying to harm others. We need to make them a prohibited weapon to increase the controls. I was speaking with a constituent recently who said they feel as though the government has lost control of the state when they look at the increased crime in the area and right across Victoria. The government claims that machetes should continue to be classified as controlled weapons because according to the minister:

… machetes are used as tools for various legitimate purposes, including horticultural, agricultural, and general-purpose activities such as clearing brush and cutting and maintaining trails.

I want to thank Brad Battin for his work on this in liaising with stakeholders, because we have found that machetes are no longer used in most horticultural and agricultural settings, as technology and machinery has rendered them obsolete.

At a time when we are seeing violent use of machetes in home invasions and other serious assaults, we need to move to clarify confusion around a machete’s status, because this bill does nothing to solve the actual problem. It is just more spin from the government, who have refused to acknowledge the real problem. Machetes really should be classified as a prohibited weapon.

We have seen this government weaken in a number of areas. We have had this with the weakening of the bail laws. Section 30B makes it an offence for a person to commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. However, Labor’s laws, which were passed, will abolish this provision. This offence makes it harder for a person who is on bail to get bail again if they commit a further serious offence. It does this by raising the legal test that an applicant for bail needs to satisfy. The Liberals and Nationals proposed a bill to preserve section 30B; however, Labor and the Greens voted it down in our chamber. With the abolition of section 30B now certain to take effect very soon, Victoria’s bail laws will be weakened and repeat serious offenders will find it easier to keep getting bail. Police admit that repeat serious offenders are one of the biggest threats to community safety. The current law reflects a simple principle: if you abuse the privilege of bail by committing further offences, you should face a tougher test to get bail again. By weakening the bail laws the Labor government are putting the interests of repeat serious offenders ahead of the safety of Victorians.

We have seen in a number of areas that the government are not taking enough action. We certainly know that with the tobacco laws. We have had over 40 incidents of fires at tobacco stores, yet there is still no legislation to require a licence to operate these stores. It is very different to liquor stores that do require that, and we have called for action in that space. I know in Bendigo we did have a fire at a tobacco store, and there was a lot of concern among locals that what we have seen in Melbourne is spreading to regional areas. With the public drunkenness laws what we have seen is the government introduce changes but not do their homework. It is important when you introduce things to think about the consequences and those next steps, but what we saw with that legislation when it came through was sobering-up centres only based in Melbourne and nothing available in regional Victoria.

The latest crime statistics are very concerning. When we look at the highest criminal incident rates in local government areas in the year to 31 December last year, we see Mildura is amongst the highest, with over 10,500 incidents per 100,000 estimated resident population – that is up over 15 per cent. When we look at the statistics for the highest recorded offence rates, again in local government areas, Mildura is near the top there with 14,000 offences per 100,000 – that is up 9 per cent.

In Bendigo we saw last year crime rates up 10 per cent. Looking at the latest data today, it is 6.9 per cent – up again. That is over 8000 total criminal incidents that happened in 2023. We have seen that children committing crimes in Bendigo has skyrocketed in the past 12 months, and we have seen that through the data that has come through from the Crime Statistics Agency, with a huge jump in the number of young offenders arrested. It was on the front page of the Bendigo Advertiser last month. We saw 646 cases of children, in 2023, aged 10 to 17 – that is 174 more than 2022.

Stolen cars are often used in other crimes, and the rate of dangerous driving has also been rising. Stealing from a vehicle was the second most common crime in the Greater Bendigo area, spiking to 1160 incidents last year, and thefts of motor vehicles rose by exactly 100 incidents in 2023. I was very concerned to speak with a resident recently whose father had only just come home from hospital. He was just home from hospital for one day, and he had five thugs enter his home. They stole three cars from the property. Cars may be found, but they are damaged, often excessively, to the point that they are written off. There could be smoke damage, a whole lot of damage to the vehicle or they can lose their books. It can cause incredible frustration to people even if a car is found.

In February Strathfieldsaye residents held a community meeting because they were very concerned about the rising crime in our region. It is very concerning that, when you look at the numbers, we have over 800 vacancies at the moment in our police force. We are seeing the numbers going backwards – declining – for our police, and we have had 43 stations reduce their hours. Again, this government does seem to be very soft on crime. When I read the Age recently it reported on the use of suppression orders in Victoria compared to other states, and it reported that we have a habit in this state of trying to hide the identities of people convicted of crime. To quote from an article published on 8 March by the Age, there were 521 suppression orders made in Victoria last year compared to just 133 in New South Wales. So there were almost as many publication bans issued in Victoria as there were in all the other states combined. Now, that is very concerning. At the end of the day, we know that people in Victoria are feeling unsafe. I get that feeling when I go to the Bendigo mall. I have had people raise concerns about not feeling very safe in the local community, which is very concerning. Police are warning people to lock their doors and lock their cars, and yes, we can do that, but the government also needs to take action because what we see in this bill is simply not enough.

It is concerning that our crime data released today shows aggravated burglaries are up 29 per cent and in Victoria 64 per cent of crimes are remaining unsolved. These figures just keep going up. They rise every quarter, as this government is taking police off the streets and they are putting them behind computers to do a whole lot more paperwork. It is very concerning when we look at what this government is doing because we are seeing the weakening of bail laws, the identities of criminals protected and police stations closing their doors. What we are seeing is a government pouring millions and millions – $15 million every single day we are paying in Victoria at the moment – just in interest on our state debt. That is not actually going to supporting police or adding to resources, it is just servicing the massive state debt that this government has run up.

I was very concerned to read a report in the Herald Sun last month about a teenager who went before the courts for an alleged home invasion in Bendigo with a machete. They were also accused of speeding at 137 kilometres an hour in a 50 zone. The police allege that he chased down a man and assaulted him. The fact that we have people invading people’s homes with machetes is very concerning. This is not just a problem in Melbourne, this is an incident that happened in Bendigo. It is spreading across the state. I ask the chamber to support the amendments to ensure that machetes are a prohibited weapon, because it is clear that this bill does not go far enough.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:23): I am delighted to also rise and speak on the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024. This morning the latest Victorian crime stats were released, and there are no two ways about it: crime is on the rise in the state of Victoria. Machetes should be a prohibited weapon and not a controlled weapon. I heard my colleague Mr Galea say before that this amendment would basically criminalise farmers who use machetes for their work and gardeners who use machetes for their work. This is simply just not the case. That is not the intent of the amendment. Mr Battin in the other house has spoken about it. What this is is a community safety amendment. What it would criminalise, however, is being in possession of a machete, carrying a machete or even going to the market and buying a machete – like, by the way, you can right now. So this is a simple community safety measure. We are not playing politics; this is in response to a need in the community. Aggravated burglaries are up, they are on the rise, and 64 per cent of residential burglaries are currently unsolved according to the statistics that were released this morning. So something does have to be done. It seems odd to me that a weapon that could be used to kill somebody is not a prohibited weapon, yet pepper spray, which could be used to protect somebody, is a prohibited weapon. This just seems the wrong way around.

Many people in this place have heard me speak about the case of Celeste Manno. Many have read about it in the papers. She was a beautiful young woman who was stabbed to death in 2020. She was stabbed to death by a guy who had stalked her and became completely obsessed with her. Her family have suffered a lot of torment, unfathomable loss, and the murderer was sentenced to only 30 years non-parole for stalking and murdering her. It highlighted the tragedy and the injustice that occurs when we are soft on crime, and offenders are often given more mercy despite the atrocities they commit. I do not understand why we are not being tougher on this when we have the chance.

I want to talk about stabbing because we are talking about machetes in this bill. She was relentlessly contacted by this former co-worker. The first time her mum reported it. They were told to basically go home and get off Instagram if she did not like the attention. The second time the police were fantastic, and they got an intervention order. It worked for a little while until he breached that and then was arrested. The next day he went and bought a knife that three months later he would use to murder her. He broke into her house, and he stabbed her 23 times. ‘Her death was caused by a single stab to the heart’ is what the coroner says. I sat in that courtroom surrounded by her family and friends and listened to him defend each of those stab wounds. He made excuses, and it makes you both sick and puzzled. Why I am bringing this up is you cannot prohibit knives. You just cannot do it. But you can prohibit machetes, which are a weapon that at the moment you can buy very easily. I believe with this bill the government could easily reduce the access that we have to machetes yet are choosing not to.

We need to get serious about crime because when we are tough on crime, every single person in the community benefits. There has been an overall increase in crime in the state of Victoria. In fact in the last year it has risen by 5.6 per cent. Criminal incidents have increased by 10.6 per cent, and 64 per cent of aggravated burglaries are currently unsolved. Forty-three per cent of crimes in Victoria are currently unsolved. To put that into some sort of perspective or comparison, I heard this morning that in Japan only 1.1 per cent of crimes are unsolved, so we have got a long way to go to catch up.

More locally to me, in the Bass Coast and in Wellington shire, crime rose in the last year by 4.5 per cent; in the Mornington Peninsula shire, 6.8 per cent; in East Gippsland, 8.2 per cent; and it just gets bigger and bigger. In Baw Baw it rose by 8.6 per cent, in Casey it was 11.9 per cent and in Cardinia, which is one of the fastest growing areas in our state, it grew by a staggering 15.4 per cent. Meanwhile the government’s response to what is actually happening in the community has not been sufficient. In fact 43 one-man police stations have been shut down. Many more have had their hours reduced, and there are fewer police now than there were this time one year ago. The police in the field are doing an amazing job. Often they are burned out and overworked, and I believe that in this place we need to be doing things that make their work a lot easier. We need to be increasing police presence, not decreasing it, and we cannot be making it easier for criminals to purchase weapons. I will leave it there. Thank you for allowing me to speak on the bill.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (14:30): Since the discussion has kind of diverged a little bit away from the bill, I will remind people that this bill is just another demonstration of our government’s commitment to keeping the community safe and continually making improvements across the criminal justice system. I know the Attorney-General has made a number of reforms, and the police minister brought this bill to the other place and to this chamber today. As one of the justice ministers, I am so pleased to be supporting this bill before the house, because it is part of a suite of reforms that we have introduced to improve community safety in Victoria.

I wish to thank members in both chambers for the relatively respectful debate. For all of you that have engaged, I know the minister’s office has appreciated all the different feedback from all angles in this chamber. I also want to thank the stakeholders more broadly that have engaged in the development of this bill: Victoria Police, the Police Association Victoria, IBAC, Victoria Legal Aid, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus, the Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court. I personally also wish to thank the minister and the minister’s office. They have done an amazing job. I know any law reform task is difficult, obviously balancing the interests of different stakeholders, but I think it has landed in a really good spot. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:36)

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, what impact will this bill have on importing a machete?

Enver ERDOGAN: My understanding, Mr Mulholland, is that this focuses on or clarifies that it is a type of knife and supplies clarification so that it can be clearer for the community but also for law enforcement. It does not necessarily relate to the importation of these kinds of tools. That is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, as is customs.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, under these changes can they still be sold to anyone above 18?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, they can be sold to people over the age of 18, especially if they have a proper purpose for their use.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, what is the actual change with the definition compared to the way it is currently defined as a knife?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the purpose of the bill is very clear. This is clarifying that it is a knife, because for many members of the public we have seen that they can view it as a tool, in the way it is being sold in markets. It is an emerging problem, as we know if we are looking at the types of crimes being committed. I think this is about clarification. It is a knife, but it is also a tool used in regional Victoria and across our state by people. I think this is more about clarifying that it is a knife and that it can be as such in the framework.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As the law currently stands, is a machete defined as a weapon?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Trung LUU: What is the impact on police powers, and will this change?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this will provide greater clarity for the community, but also it will assist Victoria Police in applying the existing laws around the way controlled weapons are used so that it removes any, I guess, ambiguity around this issue with members of the public. It will empower police to be able to enforce the laws around knives as they are. I think it is important to state that under the current framework having it in this way gives police that flexibility. If there was a wish or demand from police to prohibit these weapons, then that could be done via regulations.

Trung LUU: Just in relation to purchasing of these articles by those over 18, do you have to produce any types of documents, and are they recorded?

Enver ERDOGAN: No. It is not recorded. The onus would be obviously on the supplier. Whoever is selling the product would have the onus to state that they have verified the person that they have sold it to.

Katherine COPSEY: If it is all right, I have six questions I will ask on clause 1. Minister, when police are seeking a search warrant – a regular search warrant as compared to a warrant for service – the Chief Commissioner of Police is required to apply to a court for that search warrant. Why is this not required for the service of firearm prohibition orders?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just seek some advice on that.

I understand that that is the way it was implemented at its inception in 2018, and it is consistent with firearm prohibition orders (FPO) in other jurisdictions such as South Australia. I think there is a risk that this would be an additional burden on the commissioner and Victoria Police.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to monitoring stop powers, the bill adds a new ground for police to request a person’s name and address. Why don’t the protection provisions in relation to this match section 456AA of the Crimes Act 1958 – that is, in those circumstances the police officer is required to provide the person with grounds for belief that the person is the person who is the subject of the stop power. Why is it not similarly the case that police would have to provide the person who is the subject of the firearm order with their grounds for belief that the person is in fact the person to whom the order applies?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that this is more about the question of – is it in relation to receipting by Victoria Police?

Katherine COPSEY: I will clarify, because I did not express myself clearly; I apologise, Minister. The bill provides a ground for police to request a person’s name and address. In relation to existing provisions in section 456AA of the Crimes Act, when a police officer is exercising that type of power they are required to provide the person with grounds for their belief that the person who they have stopped is the subject of the order that they are seeking. Why is a similar protection not available for people who are subject to a firearm prohibition order in this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: The power in section 456AA of the Crimes Act arises only if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed or is about to commit an offence or may be able to assist in the investigation of an indictable offence. That section of the act turns on an individual’s conduct or suspected conduct or that the individual witnessed the commission of an indictable offence, so it is reasonable to require the police officer to generally describe the basis for that reasonable belief. I think it is reasonable for the police to describe the basis of their reasonable belief. The process should allow for the opportunity for the individual to challenge the basis of the police’s reasonable belief at the earliest possible stage and for the police officer to respond accordingly.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to the same section, why not require that a police officer must provide their name and address, rank and place of duty automatically by a receipt when they stop someone for this service, without the person being stopped needing to know that they have a right to request this information? Why not require the police to just provide that automatically?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are not aware of any statutory precedent for stop receipting in Victoria, and we do not believe it is appropriate to incorporate it into this bill, understanding that the bill does include quite extensive monitoring, oversight and reporting requirements that will reveal any misapplication or misuse of the power to direct an individual to give their name. The annual report will have some of that information, and there are oversight mechanisms for the use of this policing tool.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to monitoring the use of these powers by police, there have been some concerns raised – and we have seen it in relation to other powers by police – that there can be patterns of racial discrimination revealed. Information of ethnic background and appearance is often collected by police through their systems. Why would we not include in the provisions of this bill a requirement to make that information included in the public annual reporting on use of these powers, please?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this is the issue of the disproportionate impact. Stopping a person in public is an issue that does come up from a number of stakeholders and across a number of portfolios, and in my engagement, especially with a lot of the First Nations stakeholders, they do raise this as a concern. It is not in place, and the reason for that is we believe in the nature of this bill in particular that the oversight and reporting requirements will stop the misapplication of this power. I can understand there may be a different concern with general policing, but these are very specific powers. Their use is primarily targeted more towards organised crime and people that are known to law enforcement. I think the angle that Ms Copsey is coming from is very understandable. I do not think this order would be that sort that could be misused, and if it were, the oversight mechanisms and reporting would be able to capture that.

Katherine COPSEY: My next question relates to the impact that this bill and the powers granted may have on children. While we note the additional protections for children under this bill, legal and First Nations stakeholders have been very clear with us that the bill should not apply to children. Children should not be subject to search warrant, arrest and detention powers for the purpose of serving firearm prohibition orders. Noting that these orders can be given even if a child has not ever had, touched or owned a firearm, and given all of the evidence that we have heard through Yoorrook and its other processes around the impacts that early contact with the criminal justice system can have on children, are children subject to extended police powers under this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a very good question. I think it is important to understand that there are safeguards in place with the use of the firearm prohibition order, and a service direction determination of a service search warrant may only be issued in relation to an individual under the age of 18 in an exceptional circumstance. I think an exceptional circumstance is a new requirement, and it provides compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. As noted, a range of strict safeguards are introduced to protect children, including mandatory reporting by the Chief Commissioner of Police every time any power or duty exercised is against an individual under the age of 18. So I believe this additional reporting obligation will ensure the government maintains appropriate proportionate visibility over these powers and the safeguards are working as intended.

Katherine COPSEY: My last question is: given the amendments give the police the power to detain if a person fails to provide their name and address and to leave an order on the ground, having explained it to the person, we see no reason why there is a need for the additional transport and detention powers provided by this bill. Can you please provide a rationale, Minister, for why those transport and detention powers have been included when we see them as unnecessary?

Enver ERDOGAN: The powers arising under a service direction determination are to be exercised in the context of an unplanned police interaction. In that context a police officer does not have the means to serve an FPO on the individual on the spot but will need to have another police officer produce a copy and deliver it to the place or to revert to the nearest police station to produce and service that document. The electronic transactions act provides for electronic service only with the consent of the individual. There is no reason to presume that an individual who is avoiding service or who cannot be found will consent to this service or receive an FPO by electronic means in this circumstance. The transport and detention powers have conferred a complete set of powers to effect service on a person who is avoiding service or who cannot be found. The transport powers are required for safety. It may not be safe to detain a person at the place at which they have been stopped to be served the FPO. In many instances that could be on a road or on a freeway. It could be in a public space where it is not safe, so they may need to transport them to the nearest police station to do so.

David LIMBRICK: I have one question related to Ms Copsey’s line of questioning. How many children have been served with firearm prohibition orders?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will just seek some advice on that.

Thirty-nine times since the inception.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1. Clause 1, line 10, omit “to clarify that a machete is a type of knife” and insert “in relation to the classification of machetes”.

David LIMBRICK: My question is to the minister on this amendment. It is my reading of the bill, and maybe you could get clarification for me, that if this amendment is successful, it would become enacted upon royal assent. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for his answer. Whenever that happens – in a few weeks, I guess, that would be – does that mean at that point in time every machete owner in the state would effectively be a criminal under this new act?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Limbrick, could you just repeat that question?

David LIMBRICK: If the amendment succeeded and the bill obtained royal assent, let us assume in a few weeks time, does that mean that every owner of a machete in the state of Victoria would effectively be criminalised?

Enver ERDOGAN: If the amendment is approved, yes, that is a possibility.

David LIMBRICK: I suppose my next question goes to Mr Mulholland: how do we actually deal with this? If it was to be successful, let us say royal assent happened next week, what do we do about this? Do we go around and arrest everyone who owns a machete? How is this going to be handled?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I know we might have different views on this, but it would be very similar to the gun amnesty under the Howard government, I would suspect. Where it can be shown to be for legitimate purposes, that is no different to current prohibited weapons like guns. If someone can prove a need for them, then they obviously can use them.

David LIMBRICK: I do not actually accept that explanation from Mr Mulholland. It is my understanding that if I have another thing that is a prohibited weapon, like pepper spray, which as I said should not be a prohibited weapon, I can be arrested instantly. There is no amnesty on that, and there are no facilities in the amendment or the bill for amnesty for people. My assumption is that as soon as royal assent happens police could instantly arrest anyone who owns a machete. In fact it would be their job to arrest them.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Mr Limbrick, my advice is that the chief commissioner can use regulations to make exemptions if this is passed.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (15:05)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move your amendments 1 to 3, which are a test for your amendments 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 47, 48, 57 and 59 through to 63.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1. Clause 14, line 11, omit “Power of Chief Commissioner to” and insert “Magistrate may”.

2. Clause 14, line 13, omit “a police officer” and insert “the Chief Commissioner”.

3. Clause 14, line 14, omit “the Chief Commissioner” and insert “a magistrate”.

For the benefit of the house, the principle tested by this amendment is that the magistrate may make service determinations, and this amendment seeks to achieve oversight by the court so that the chief commissioner can apply to a court, to be consistent with the provisions for service of the search warrants and to provide external oversight of the power’s use.

Enver ERDOGAN: I just want to thank Ms Copsey. I understand the intent in moving these amendments, and I thank her for her engagement and advocacy on this issue, but I think what is clear in the bill and through some of our other reforms is that our government is committed to police accountability. Reforms passed recently in this chamber in relation to the police and other matters bill are one example of our government delivering on that commitment. A detailed consultation was undertaken with all stakeholders in the drafting of this bill, and I believe there are robust integrity measures and accountability measures already in the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I thank Ms Copsey for putting it forward, but we will not be supporting it.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I believe this is an improvement in oversight mechanisms for the operation of firearm prohibition orders.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Copsey’s amendments 1 to 3, which test a range of other amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (29): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, if you could move your amendment 4, which tests amendments 7, 8, 10, 19, 28 to 35, 50, 51 and 55.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

4. Clause 14, line 18, after “individual” insert “who is of or over the age of 18 years and”.

The principle tested by this amendment is that service determinations are not to apply to children. As I have stated in my comments so far, we are seeking to put this amendment to address stakeholder concerns that whilst there are additional protections for children in this bill, children should not be subjected to early contact with the criminal justice system and the criminalisation that goes along with that and should not be subject to search warrant or arrest and detention powers for the purpose of serving firearm prohibition orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, I thank Ms Copsey for her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. As a broad principle I agree that we should be avoiding young people having contact with the criminal justice system, and that is why taking and balancing those competing interests of the justice system was considered in the drafting of this legislation with the introduction of safeguards in the form of exceptional circumstances that are required where this is applied to someone under the age of 18. These are compatible with the Charter of Human and Responsibilities Act 2006 and have been included in the drafting of this legislation. There are additional reporting obligations also that will ensure that government maintains appropriate and proportionate visibility over these powers and that the safeguards are working as intended. On that basis, we will be opposing this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Copsey’s amendment 4, which tests a range of amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendment negatived.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

12. Clause 14, page 10, line 11, omit “90 days” and insert “28 days”.

The principle tested by this amendment is around the expiry of service determinations. This is similarly an oversight mechanism. The bill provides, I believe, for a 90-day expiry of service determinations, and this would bring the expiration to 28 days, in line with similar legislation.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendment negatived.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

16. Clause 14, page 10, lines 28 to 29, omit “is reasonably satisfied” and insert “believes on reasonable grounds”.

The purpose of this amendment is to replace the phrase ‘is reasonably satisfied’ with ‘believes on reasonable grounds’. This is similarly an attempt to bring the powers granted to police under this bill in line with existing powers and other legislation.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move your amendment 17, which tests your amendment 20.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

17. Clause 14, page 11, after line 20 insert:

“(aa) must inform the individual of the grounds on which the police officer has formed the belief required under section 112ZA(1)(a) in sufficient detail to allow the individual to understand the reason why the police officer has stopped and directed the individual; and

(ab) must state orally the officer’s name, rank and place of duty; and

(ac) must give to the individual a written document that sets out:

(i) the fact that the police officer has stopped and directed the individual under section 112ZA(1); and

(ii) the detail of the grounds for the police officer’s belief and the reason why the police officer stopped the individual; and

(iii) the officer’s name, rank, place of duty and operational type; and”.

The purpose of this amendment is to require police officers that are using the stop powers provided under this bill to provide information and receipting to individuals who are the subject of those stop powers. The information that is required is for the police officer to inform the person of the grounds for their reasonable belief, to allow the individual to understand the reason why the police officer has stopped and directed them, to orally state their name, rank and place of duty and to provide a receipt to the person who is the target of the stop order.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move your amendment 18, which tests your amendments 25 to 27, 36 to 40, 42 to 46, 49, 52, 54, 56 and 58.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

18. Clause 14, page 11, lines 25 to 33, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert:

“(b) must warn the individual of the effect of section 112ZA(2), if the individual refuses or fails to comply with a direction under section 112ZA.”.

This amendment relates to the principle of powers of detention. Given the principal bill provides police with the ability to undertake service through leaving the order on the ground, there is no need for additional transport and detention powers under this bill. This amendment would remove that ability.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will be opposing this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: Could I ask the minister: what is the government’s rationale for opposing this amendment? I would be interested to know.

Enver ERDOGAN: As we debated during the committee stage a bit earlier, these powers are designed to give police discretion to determine the situation where there is an unplanned interaction. It may not necessarily be safe for the police to serve these orders in those circumstances. They might not have a copy of the orders with them, so they will need to transport them to a safe place where they can actually serve the orders or wait for a colleague to get them. In the absence of these powers, they would need to detain a person. It may be in a public place or on the side of a road. It is not a safe environment, so these powers are needed to transport the suspects in this case.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Ms Copsey to move her amendments 21 to 24, which test her amendment 41.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

21. Clause 14, page 12, lines 5 to 6, omit “or go to police station or other safe place”.

22. Clause 14, page 12, lines 7 to 21, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert:

“(1) If the police officer is reasonably satisfied that a service direction determination applies to the individual on the basis of the information given under section 112ZA(1)(b), for the purpose of serving the firearm prohibition order, the police officer may direct the individual to remain at the place where the individual has been stopped.”.

23. Clause 14, page 12, line 23, omit “subsection (1)(a) or (b)” and insert “subsection (1)”.

24. Clause 14, page 12, lines 25 to 26, omit “or to which the individual has gone (as the case requires)”.

This amendment is similar in nature to the previous one we tested. It omits the ability for police to direct a person to attend a police station or other safe place and instead provides a power for the police to direct an individual to remain at the place where they have been stopped.

Enver ERDOGAN: Similar to the previous amendment, the government will oppose this.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (15:36)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move your amendment 53, which is a standalone one.

Katherine COPSEY: This is the final principle amendment that I will be testing on this bill. I move:

53. Clause 15, line 20, after “112ZA(1)” insert “and the ethnic appearance of each individual to whom such a direction was given”.

The purpose of this amendment is that in circumstances where police are recording ethnic appearance or background as part of the powers exercised under this bill, that information be included in the annual reporting that is proposed in the bill so that any issues regarding racial profiling could be identified and dealt with.

David LIMBRICK: My question is for the minister on this particular one. Would ethnic appearance normally be collected as part of this process, and therefore would it be able to be reported as would be suggested by this amendment?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Mr Limbrick, for a very good question. I am not aware of any statutory precedent for stop receipting in Victoria in terms of that data – ethnicity – but what I will say is that with firearm prohibition orders, the group of people they usually apply to are well known to law enforcement. No, we would not necessarily get that data, but they usually do know the people who they are serving or their ethnicity, because they are usually people that are well known to law enforcement. I am sympathetic to Ms Copsey’s amendment – I will say that. In the broad law enforcement space it is an issue that does come up with stakeholders, but I do not believe it is appropriate in this bill.

David LIMBRICK: For these 39 children, for example, who were served FPOs, do we know their ethnic appearance? Was that recorded for them?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, we do not keep a record of their ethnic appearance – for those 39 children.

David LIMBRICK: I appreciate the intent of Ms Copsey’s amendment here. However, I feel like there are potential unintended consequences with this sort of thing, and I also question the ability to determine someone’s ethnic appearance – in fact I am not sure I can determine the ethnic appearance of everyone in this chamber – therefore I will be opposing this.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 16 to 25 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (15:43): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (15:43): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (36): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (1): David Limbrick

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, a message will be sent to the Assembly informing them that the bill has been agreed to without amendment.

Back to the top

Our community

Latest Chevron-right

Thursday, 21 March 2024

Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024

Latest