Bill Debate - Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment And Other Matters) Bill 2026 - Council Amendments

BILL DEBATE:

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FAMILY VIOLENCE, COERCIVE CONTROL, GOOD CHARACTER, RISK ASSESSMENT AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2026 – COUNCIL AMENDMENTS.’

Thursday, 10 September 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:46):

I rise to speak on the Amendments that are being made to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 and note how deeply sad it is that a Bill that comes from such a good place – a place that the Coalition has supported and in fact raised policy matters on that we led – has been dirtied up in the days before an election and before the end of Parliament by doing deals with the independents in the Upper House to get their votes, buy their votes and curry their votes on other issues.

I will say for the Chamber about the Attorney-General – who you may not always hear me say great things about, but I will say something very positive about the Attorney – that when it comes to the Amendment today that we are considering on begging, the Attorney did not support it. The Attorney did not support the Amendment being put in the Council. Her office spoke to me numerous times about not supporting that Amendment and spoke to other Members of Parliament about that position – more than one Member of Parliament – and I support her view.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Speaker, the Member for Brighton is not being factual and is misrepresenting.

James Newbury interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I ask you not to yell across the Chamber. It is a matter of debate.

James NEWBURY: Multiple Members will confirm the advice of the Attorney’s office to us in relation to the position on begging.

I understand why the Attorney would not want to see the decriminalisation of an act without any consultation, without any feedback and, frankly, without even putting any thought into the implication of decriminalising something that will cause and encourage antisocial behaviour.

We know because over the period of 2017 to 2026 there were 850 offences in relation to begging. This is not the decriminalisation of an act by which there have been no charges and no instances occurring; we know that over that time period there have been a little short of a thousand – which means just under a hundred a year – offences in relation to begging. It does not surprise any Victorian to see this Government remove consequences for antisocial or bad behaviour in this state from the statute books. No-one is surprised by that, because there are no consequences in this State.

In relation to begging, I read into Hansard a quote from the Australian Restaurant & Cafe Association chief Wes Lambert, who said:

The decision by the State Labor Government today to decriminalise begging along with the proposed (working from home laws) will only further reduce demand and will decimate our sector already struggling with the nation’s highest taxes and regulation.

Restaurants and cafes across Melbourne are facing one the most difficult times in recent memory. One in every two claim they will either close or not renew their leases in the Melbourne CBD.

There has been zero dialogue with our industry and is a sad indictment on the new Premier who promised to make commonsense decisions and work with business.

We know that it was just hollow words, just like we know that when it comes to consequences for behaviour in this State, we have seen a Government simply do a dirty deal with independents in the Upper House to remove the consequence for begging. The sad fact is that this Amendment is being moved in a Bill that has good purpose.

In fact, it is so foreign a concept to this Bill that the Amendment to the Summary Offences Act 1966 has to be inserted into the Bill itself. What that means is the Bill never contemplated an Amendment to the Summary Offences Act. It was never contemplated when this Bill was drafted. But when it comes to consequences, the Amendments before us do not stop there. We just learned from the Attorney that 2200 outstanding warrants for imprisonment are being voided.

Sonya Kilkenny interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Attorney is saying to me ‘That’s right’, with joy, across the table. What this comes down to is a Government who do not believe in consequences. Think it through. Over 2000 instances of someone breaking the law in such a way that the State has previously determined they should be imprisoned. As of yesterday, the State’s position was that 2200 people should be imprisoned whose warrants are now, under this Government’s watch, being voided, which goes to the very heart of the concern the community has about the weak Labor Government’s lack of consequences.

Though I did not deal with the Attorney’s Office on this Amendment, I would be surprised if the Attorney had supported that Amendment initially. But as of yesterday, more than one Member of Parliament was advised that the Attorney’s position was of support in relation to our position that we would not support the decriminalisation of begging.

In fact, when I first heard that there was an alternate view, I contacted the Attorney’s office proactively and said, ‘I’ve just heard something which isn’t in line with the conversations I’ve had previously, which is completely out of kilter with what I’ve heard previously. It couldn’t possibly be right.’ The advice I got back was that it could not be right that they would support that Amendment and that they would check to determine whether the Premier’s office had overruled the Attorney without telling them. That is exactly what happened. I spoke to more than one Member of Parliament about it. After checking with the Premier’s office, we were advised that the Amendment would not be supported. On multiple occasions the Attorney’s position, as advised to multiple Members of Parliament, was to not support the Amendment, because how could you change a consequence for behaviour without –

The SPEAKER: The Member Brighton is not to use the word ‘you’.

James NEWBURY: How could anybody possibly change a consequence for behaviour without any thought on the change that they are making? But here we are. We have two significant changes which will affect, if you look at the statistics in relation to begging over the last 10 years, 850 people. As the Attorney has just advised the House, for 2200 people that as of yesterday the State believed deserved to be imprisoned, ‘Cut that up’ is what the Government said. So, when the Premier stands before Victorians and says he wants to do something about the crime crisis that we are in and acknowledges the lack of consequences, he has made it worse – and we know why. I believe the Attorney-General did not support this because I believe the Attorney would not flippantly make a change. I believe very strongly that the Government have only agreed to these Amendments because they want to pass their work-from-home legislation through the Council. That is what I believe, and I think there is no other way to see it.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a debate on a series of Amendments that the Attorney-General has introduced, and the speaker, the Member for Brighton, is straying from the Amendments and making assertions that have no basis in fact. I ask you to bring him back to the Amendments.

James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Speaker, I am speaking directly to the Amendments. I am speaking directly to the substance of them and the motivation around them. I am entirely in order.

The SPEAKER: The Member for Brighton to continue. I remind Members that many of these Amendments that come from the Council are quite narrow Amendments, and they are to be spoken to. The Amendments are to be spoken to; the justification behind those Amendments is a matter of debate.

James NEWBURY: Of course it is. I agree with you. It is a matter of debate, and it is only reasonable to assume that the Government has done a deal with the Legalise Cannabis Members because it wants their vote. I think that everybody can see what is happening here, and I hear that it is not the only deal that is being done with independent Members at the moment. I hear there are other Members who are doing deals.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, we are talking about the current Amendments.

James NEWBURY: That is right, and that is what I am talking about, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Are you arguing with me, Member for Brighton?

James NEWBURY: Not at all.

The SPEAKER: I will not tolerate backchat. The Member for Brighton will speak to the Amendments that are currently before the house, not proposed Amendments that might be coming.

James NEWBURY: I have only spoken to these Amendments. I have spoken to these Amendments because we can be certain that a dirty deal has been done, which is now seeing these before the Chamber. The proof of that is that the Attorney had a different view. The proof of that is that the Bill itself did not contemplate a Summary Offences Act 1966 Amendment. It did not contemplate it. These Amendments, if you read them clearly, make clear that they require acceptance in the Bill that the Summary Offences Act will be changed. It was not contemplated when this Bill was drafted, and that is why we know the dirty deal has been done. We know the dirty deal has been done – and doesn’t that say everything about this Government? This deal has been done purely to get a vote across on the work-from-home legislation. That is what it is all about. We know it. We know that is what it is about.

What Victorians have seen is another instance of consequences evaporating in this State, because the Victorian community knows only too well that consequences do not exist. So, when Victorians sit at home and ask themselves ‘Why don’t people who commit crimes and do the wrong thing have any consequences?’ and the Premier stands up and says otherwise, here are two actual examples of where this Labor Government today has taken away consequences for behaviour, and not minor ones. As the Attorney herself has said, there were 2200 people who as of this morning – not yesterday, this morning – the Government believed should be in prison, who had warrants issued for their imprisonment. Those warrants are now voided.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The former Minister is saying that it is okay because they cannot afford to pay the fine. What if everyone says they cannot afford to pay a fine? What if every single person says they do not want to pay a fine? Why have a consequence? Why have a consequence at all in Victoria? You know what, do not just do it for fines. This is Labor, soft on crime. Why not just do it beyond fines. Why not do it for crime? When they commit a crime, let them out. That is what is happening. You think I am joking, but all Victorians see that too. All Victorians know it does not matter what is happening in Victoria. It does not matter what you do in Victoria, there is no consequence, and Victorians know it, don’t they? Victorians know.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Member on his feet has strayed a long way from the Amendments before us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Brighton, I remind you that we are debating what has come back from the Council and to stick to those Amendments.

James NEWBURY: The implication of these Amendments passing is material to the debate on this set of Amendments. Of course, when we debate these Amendments we need to understand what it will mean if they pass. What it will mean is a signal that there are no consequences for certain behaviour. ‘Don’t pay a fine; it doesn’t matter,’ says the Government. In these 2200 instances where a warrant has been issued, they are cutting them up.

You can understand why the Government is touchy, because they did not want a debate on this. The Government did not want to debate these Amendments, they wanted to slip them through. They thought somehow, they could just quickly slip this debate through, and no-one would notice. You know why that was their plan? Because they did not publicly announce their intention to do this. At no point has the government, on these Amendments before us, told the community what they proposed to do. There was no public announcement, no public commitment, no public conversation about what they proposed to do, yet here we are, which is why you know that this is entirely a dirty deal. Yesterday the Attorney’s office could not even fathom the idea that this could be supported, and there will be multiple Members, I suspect, who will raise that, Attorney.

We know that this set of Amendments is entirely about dirty deals that are being done in the Council. It is shocking. It is absolutely shocking that the Government would think that the way to run Government is to simply amend laws without any consultation, without any broad engagement about the implications. Has anyone considered – because the Government clearly has not – what happens to our city that is already on its knees if we encourage further antisocial behaviour? Is there any thought as to what happens to our city of Melbourne, which is on its knees, if that antisocial behaviour is encouraged?

This is just one way. Of course, there are many other ways the Government has done that and has quite badly damaged in its time our beautiful city of Melbourne. But this is one additional way that the Government puts a knife into the city of Melbourne again. The traders have spoken so strongly today about what has occurred in relation to these Amendments. They have been immediate in their response and immediate with their concerns. As I raised earlier, the Australian Restaurant & Cafe Association chief said:

There has been zero dialogue with our industry and is a sad indictment on the new Premier who promised to make commonsense decisions and work with business.

That was said not an hour ago by a sector that found out after the act. The community found out what the Government was proposing to do after the Amendment had passed the Council. How can it be that a change of this nature could be made without consultation? How can it be that the Government could try and hide the change that is being made? It is not unreasonable to consult when you are proposing to change the Summary Offences Act 1966. It is not unreasonable to expect that that would occur. It is not unreasonable to think that a Government would, if it were proud to be making the change, announce it, consult on it, perhaps put out a media release about it, hold a press conference and discuss it, and then talk to the most affected communities where these issues have occurred. As we know, over the last 10 years there have been 850 offences in relation to begging. It is not as if this particular matter sat on the statute books and was never used by police.

The other part of the issue in relation to the removal of the begging offence – this is a very, very serious tangential issue – is we know that this Government have gone weak on move-on laws. Those two issues together will cause an increase in antisocial behaviour. We have seen that the weakness of move-on laws is having an effect. Even police have confirmed it. Everybody has confirmed, other than the Government, that move-on law changes have been a problem. This is why the coalition has been so strong on move-on laws, because we believe police deserve
the power. We believe police need the power and police think they need the power, but the Government does not think they need the power. When you decriminalise begging at the same time as having removed move-on laws, those two issues have a flow-on effect in terms of antisocial behaviour and police response. There are circumstances where police need to act. The culmination of
what the Government has done, by going weak again and again and again and cutting consequences again and again and again, has an impact on behaviour that is occurring. We are seeing a city that is on its knees, partly because behaviour is being not only tolerated but encouraged. Behaviour is being encouraged. We know that is true. That is why the Coalition has such strong views on these issues. It is sad to see, with these Amendments, what Labor is doing.

But what we also know is, though they were not aware of these changes, Victorians have worked it out. And this Parliament has another three sitting days, so there is only so much damage they can do in that time. I tell you what, these amendments prove one thing: this Government is hell-bent on damaging Victoria. Figure out a way to damage Victoria and this Labor Government will find a way. I look forward to this Premier standing up tomorrow and having to explain where the genesis of these two Amendments came from. Where did these two Amendments come from? Well, we know where they came from. They came from the crossbench the Government wanted to do a dirty deal with. That is where they came from. Is there any other point of principle in relation to these Amendments? Did they come from the Victorian Law Reform Commission? No. Did they come from any peak body? No. Did anyone even contact the Government to seek to amend their Bill to do it?

When the Attorney-General got up to speak about these Amendments, the Attorney did not justify the background as to what led them. The Attorney did not justify why, why, why. So, when the Premier gets up tomorrow – if he does, because he is very good at holding occasional press conferences, delivering single sentences and sitting down – he will have to explain where these two amendments came from. It is not an unreasonable question to ask, is it, when amendments are moved that have a serious implication, as does an amendment to the Summary Offences Act: how did this happen? Where did this come from? The truth is that this set of Amendments is purely about doing a dirty deal in the upper house, because there are so few votes this Government naturally have in the Council to support things they are proposing to do. The Government has now been forced to be bought – to go to independents and say, ‘How can we buy our votes?’

It is completely unreasonable to make these changes without any form of consultation. How can it be that these changes have been proposed without being announced? The two facts are that (1) there was no announcement of the change and (2) the Attorney’s office did not support the change, and I went through that in some detail earlier. In fact, there was genuine shock at the proposal that these could be supported in any way, and I am not the only Member of Parliament who will put that on the record, because it is true. It is true that the Attorney took the view, I suspect, that changes of this nature should not be made at a whim. Set aside the substance – when you make an Amendment, it is reasonable to understand what you are proposing to do and the implication of what you are proposing to do, and that is why you announce, you consult, you discuss. And so –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Essendon will come to order.

James NEWBURY: Obviously another long lunch. These Amendments should not be before this Chamber, because they were not announced. They were not supported by the Member who moved them. It is not an unreasonable point for us to make.

I would like to reiterate the point that I made earlier in relation to the implication. When it comes to begging, the most recent statistics show that between 2017 and this year there were 850 offences. In relation to the fines amendment, 2200 warrants are being cut by this Government – cutting consequences. Victorians know. That is why we will not support them. We cannot support it. There are 2200 instances that this morning this Government believed were people who had committed an offence in a way that should have seen them imprisoned. This says everything about this Government and the dirty deals they are willing to do to buy votes in the Council. That is what this is about, the dirty deals this Government is actually doing, and Victorians are being damaged because of it.