Bill: Justice Legislation Amendment (Community Safety) Bill 2025

BILL:

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMMUNITY SAFETY) BILL 2025.’

Tuesday, 2 December 2025.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:03):

I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Community Safety) Bill 2025.

I want to say at the outset that the Coalition will not be opposing this legislation. We will not be opposing this legislation because we believe that this Government has got it wrong for too long in addressing the community crime crisis that is gripping our State. But you see this Bill that has come to the Chamber today, a Bill that has only come about, frankly, because of front pages of newspapers, and you have to ask yourself: how did we get here? How did we get to a place where a Government who has done everything they humanly can to avoid acting on
crime and getting tough on crime can immediately do an about face, in contrast to every supposed ideological principle they have, to bring about a Bill that – in theory, if you listen to the Premier – gets tough, but secretly we know that what this Bill does is not very much, not enough. It is not tough enough. It is weak and it is full of loopholes, partly because it is rushed, but also partly because this Government does not really want to get tough on crime.

Every time I stand to speak on a Government-proposed Amendment on community safety I say very early on: it does not matter what the Government tells you they are doing on crime, it does not matter what the Government tells you they are doing to act on the crime crisis that is gripping our State, it will not be fixed by what the Government and this Premier is proposing to do today, because at the end of the day we know that this Government does not want to fix it and ideologically will not be able to fix it.

When you look at the Bill that is before the Parliament today, it is a gross betrayal of Victorians’ trust, even in the two weeks since the Government announced the bill. I will go into some detail why that is the case, though I do note that the Government is so embarrassed by the substance of this Bill that they will push it through this Chamber in under 2 hours. In less than 2 hours the Government will be guillotining – forcibly stopping – debate on this Bill. Not at the end of today, but in 2 hours, because they are so embarrassed to debate this Bill that they will guillotine it, force a vote and push it out of this Chamber. It will not be debated today in the Council by the way, because if it was urgent, it would be in the Council half an hour afterwards. It is going to sit and collect dust until Thursday. It is going to sit there until Thursday. Can it be debated in half an hour in the Council, at 5:30 today? It could be, but it will not be because the Government is so embarrassed they want to get this Bill through the Chamber as quickly as possible, without anywhere near the attention and scrutiny that it deserves.

I will say one small, tiny, nice thing, so let it not be said that I cannot say something nice. The Attorney briefed me on this Bill, and it is the first time the Attorney has briefed me on something, so I do pay her regard for briefing me on the Bill. Sadly, I will now tell the truth about the briefing in terms of the substance of the briefing. I did not find, unfortunately, there were many answers to important questions that were asked, and I will go through that.

When I asked about consultation, I was not provided with a single instance where the substance of the Bill – that is, the bill itself – was shown to anybody to be consulted. When I got the Bill I sent it to important stakeholders in the broader community, and any who had time to come back to me, and I thank them, did note that no-one consulted them. I am not talking about organisations that you would not expect to be consulted. I am talking about organisations that frankly should, as a matter of course, be consulted. I will note that the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) and the Federation of Community Legal Centres were both very kind providing their insights into the Bill in the very short space of a few hours. It is very important to note on the record that the Law Institute and the Federation of Community Legal Centres were both very kind in providing their assessment, and I will speak to some of the specifics that they went to.

We have seen a Bill introduced in this Chamber that, in my view, breaches the promise that the Government and the Premier more specifically gave to Victorians only two weeks ago. Victorians will remember two weeks ago the Premier holding an emergency press conference and mustering all the strength that she had never found to show how strong she was: ‘I am going to be tough on community safety and we are going to introduce adult time for adult crime in Victoria. Everyone look at Queensland, because we are going to introduce it in Victoria.’ I think Victorians were expecting a regime of adult time similar to Queensland’s –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

James NEWBURY: Because you would think, Leader of the Nationals, when you are introducing a regime and ripping the name off the Queensland model, that is what you would see in Victoria.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

James NEWBURY: Maybe, Leader of the Nationals, but what we have seen is a regime that has nothing much more of the Queensland model than the name.

Frankly, the Government has simply tried to pass off a product in Victoria that is tough like Queensland but is as weak as water. That is the problem with this legislation – it is as weak as water. But when the Premier made her announcement, she announced that eight crimes were going to be identified and fall under her policy for adult time – eight crimes. When you look at the press release – eight big bullet points in bold – you think, ‘Right. What they’ve done is they’ve modelled the Victorian system off Queensland.’ What they did in Queensland, for background, is they took 33 crimes and they said, ‘We are going to identify these crimes as serious because we have a crime crisis in Queensland. We will identify 33 crimes as serious, and when we do it we won’t just identify them as serious, we will also significantly increase the penalties – because they are serious.’ So for many of the offences they doubled the maximum sentences – massively increased the sentencing regime for those crimes.

When the Premier went out to announce her policy, the first point I made was: hang on, there are eight of the 33 in Queensland. You can understand why a couple may not transfer. Our laws are different, and certain offences in Victoria are dealt with separately, so it is not a straight translation of 33 – but eight? We are at a quarter of what Queensland is doing by way of the regime. Victorians could be forgiven for thinking the Bill that is before the House designates those eight crimes as serious. That is a fair and reasonable assumption. Yet it designates five. We have lost three, and one of the five has not got an increased penalty. Of the eight the Premier identified herself in her press release with her big, bold writing and dot points, only five are designated as serious, to use the Queensland terminology, but only four of them have had an increased sentence – so only half of what the Premier passed off as being the core of her policy actually have an
increased sentence. It is astonishing to think that the Premier can have so tricked Victorians with her policy announcement.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, impugning a member and saying the Premier tricked anybody – she has just worked hard every single day –

James NEWBURY: That is a point of debate.

Steve Dimopoulos: No, it is not. That language is not a point of debate. She has worked hard every single day to protect this community, and that is what we are doing.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: There is no point of order, because it is true. As I said, the Premier tricked Victorians, passed off getting tough on crime with those eight
crimes, but has only designated five of the eight as serious and only four have increased sentences. I will get to the recruitment promise separately, but to go through the Crimes Act 1958 reforms – and I have specifically referred to the eight originally promised – there are five designated offences, four with increased sentences. Now we will get to the other three, because it is worth mentioning what happened to the other three. I know I have just said one of them – one of themhas not had an increased sentence – but ‘What happened to the other three?’ you ask. Two of them are only increased in terms of jurisdictional hearing if they are serious and repeated. That means if you commit those crimes once, it is not serious necessarily or repeated, therefore that has gone from the list. It has dropped off from what a normal Victorian would have read and heard from the Premier’s initial announcement. The final one is carjacking, which the government says also has got an increased jurisdiction.

This is where it gets very, very interesting, because only in crooked Victoria could –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: I do not hate Victoria, Minister. But I will tell you what, this Government is crooked to the core, Minister. And only in Victoria could this crooked little Government propose a policy reform called ‘adult time for adult crime’ and allow the offender the right to opt out of being treated as an adult. The Chamber has gone silent. I cannot hear a Labor Member defending that. So a carjacker –

Members interjecting.

Paul Mercurio: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton is being particularly nasty, and I would ask you to ask him to stop being nasty.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): It is not a point of order, but I do ask Members to speak to the Bill.

James NEWBURY: Exactly, Acting Speaker. So, what this legislation says at new section 157B is that a carjacker can decide to ask that they not be treated as an adult. So, we are introducing and dealing with a proposed piece of legislation –

Steve Dimopoulos: I think you’ve misrepresented it.

James NEWBURY: No, not true. We have a piece of legislation before this place where an offender can make a request. And of course, it is not a simple tick and flick – there will have to be reasons around that request being approved – but  nevertheless it exists. Nevertheless, it exists that offenders will have effectively a right of request. But that says everything about Victoria, and you can understand why Victorians would be looking at this Bill now and saying, ‘Well, we can see why this Bill is being rushed through the Parliament.’

I mentioned earlier the Government’s commitment on recruitment of people into crime. When the Government made that announcement they committed to life for
recruiters of criminals – serious, serious penalties for the recruitment of criminals – and from memory, the announcement was made the day after the adult crime policy was announced. This Bill includes a new sentence for recruiters, lifting the maximum from 10 to 15 years. Now, I did ask the Attorney-General about that, because clearly 15 years is not life, as promised by the Premier only two weeks ago. And she said, ‘We’re going to create another offence next year. We’re doing this now. It’s something – it’s an uplift – and then we’re going to create another offence next year for aggravated recruiting. So, we’re going to do a little something now and a little something later. We can’t tell you when, but at some stage.’ I will tell you what, when it comes to community safety there is a lot of ‘We’re going to do something later at some stage.’ So, the Bill also does that.

The Bill also deems theft of a vehicle where a child under 10 is inside the car to be a carjacking. We have seen horrific crimes where, as the Attorney said to me, in many instances the carjacker did not even know the child was in the car; that may well be true, but they are horrific crimes. I would make the point that I made to the Attorney, which she accepted as legitimate but could not explain why it was the case: what will now occur in Victoria, because kidnapping was not included under this policy as was the case in Queensland, is that if a youth
offender kidnaps a child from anywhere other than a car, they will be dealt with in the Children’s Court and the sentence will be dished out at a lower level in the Children’s Court. So, if there is a kidnapping from a pram on a street, it will go to the Children’s Court and the Children’s Court will meter out the penalty at a lower level. But if that same youth offender kidnaps the child in a car through carjacking – by definition, kidnapping in a car – their case will be heard in an adult court and they will face a very, very serious penalty.

In no way am I suggesting they should not, because they absolutely should. But are we now at the stage where legislation is so ill thought through that mistakes of that nature can occur, where kidnapping in a car is dealt with in an adult court at a much higher rate of maximum sentence than kidnapping anywhere else, where it would be dealt with in a children’s court with a lower-level sentence? I put that to the Attorney, and she said, to be fair to her, that the Bill responded to high-profile crimes effectively, and the data had shown there had been highprofile crimes. I made the point that sentencing is much broader, so therefore you need to think of the implications of what you are doing, which clearly was not the case here. Further, the Bill creates a new offence for the use of knives in the commission of certain indictable offences and lists specifically what those are.

I do want to, though, before going further, move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide an “adult crime, adult time” regime in Victoria that will deliver consequences for a range of serious offences and a meaningful impact upon the crime crisis gripping the State.’

We want this Bill to be strong, and we are happy to work with the Attorney for the rest of the day to make sure that this Bill is tough enough and is passed this week in a tough way, to make sure that it is a regime that actually does something to fix the serious crime crisis we face in Victoria. As I have said, we will not be opposing the Bill, but we are seeking to toughen it. We are attempting to make sure that we have a Bill that goes through this Chamber this week, as the Government has indicated, that is tough. We have put that commitment and offer onto the table and said we will work with the Attorney for the rest of the day and into the night to make sure that it is tough, and that is what we are asking for by way of Amendment.

The Bill does a number of other things. I do note I promised to give my colleagues as much time as possible. I have raised a number of concerns in relation to the initial commitment and what has been delivered; the Bill being narrower and incomplete by comparison to Queensland; the issues around sentencing on various crimes, because there are clearly things that have been overlooked; and the opt-out request in certain circumstances, which a court would need to approve. But it is there, and I imagine that it will be the most used request in Victorian legal history. On those matters I should also finally just point out the analysis of some of the organisations that have taken the time. I do want to refer to the Law Institute of Victoria, which:

… acknowledges current community concern around youth crime and the importance of preventative measures and providing justice for victims.

However, Amendments that seek to criminalise conduct that is already criminalised do not address the root causes and only create complications, increasing confusion in legislative interpretation.

More broadly the LIV would observe that there is a concerning trend where the Crimes Act is amended unnecessarily to address specific conduct that is already addressed through other offences.

That does not go to their broader concerns. They have raised more broad concerns with not just the Bill but the announcements that were made by the government in that week. More broadly, I should put on record, they consider that exposing children to early incarceration will only serve to exacerbate their disadvantage and reduce availability for positive rehabilitation –

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

James NEWBURY: I am putting it on the record – increases the risk of recidivism. It is important in this debate to put that on record. That does not mean that I do not think we need tough laws, but it is absolutely the right of an Opposition – and in fact an obligation of an Opposition – to put the concerns of those organisations on the record.

The Federation of Community Legal Centres noted three concerns:

The proposed Bill has not undergone any meaningful consultation with the
Victorian community.
…
The proposed Bill will not make Victoria safer.
…
The proposed Bill will perpetrate significant lifelong harm to children and
undermines the integrity of our youth justice system.

I conclude where I started by saying that the Government have attempted to do a full spin on their long-held position that frankly they side with offenders over victims. You can see it in everything they have done. You can see it in every legislative reform where they have watered down the law and, frankly, been a central cause of the crime crisis in Victoria. I know that when I started raising home invasions the Premier at the time said that I was making it up. What a pig of a man he was. He said I was making it up. Well, it turns out now this government is amending the legislation on the crimes that I raised. Pig of a man. This legislation –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Well, he is.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I question whether calling someone a pig is impugning a former Member. I seek advice. Just because someone is no longer here, can you call them a pig?

James NEWBURY: Just because he is not here doesn’t mean that he isn’t. He is. Whether he is here or he is not, he is still a pig of a man.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will rule on the point of order. On the point of order, there is no point of order. I do ask the Member to come back.

James NEWBURY: Thank you. I appreciate your shielding, Acting Speaker. To conclude my remarks on this Bill, the Coalition will not be opposing it. We have put out the offer to the Government that we want to work for the rest of the day to toughen these laws. We have put that offer to the Government, and I am putting on record again the need to work, hopefully by the end of today, to toughen those laws. I would very much hope that the Government today can work with us to toughen them. It is a genuine offer, because we do not want to frustrate this Bill from being passed before the end of today, and neither will we. We just want to make sure that it is tough and it is fit for purpose, and we can do it by the end of today.

Tim Richardson interjected.

James NEWBURY: I can tell you, Member for Mordialloc: where there is a will, there is a way. We can toughen it very, very quickly, I am sure. I am sure where there is a will, there is a way. We want to make sure by the end of the day this passes, but we want to make sure that it is tough and it does something about crime in Victoria.