Hansard debates

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:18): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Victoria Police Amendment (Police Reservists) Bill ‍2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced in the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Victoria Police Amendment (Police Reservists) Bill 2026 includes reforms to establish a modern police reservist framework that enhances operational flexibility and Victoria Police frontline workforce capacity. The Bill reinstates the Chief Commissioner of Police’s (CCP) power to appoint reservists and makes supporting and consequential amendments to enable the effective operation of the reservist scheme.

Human rights issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill

In my opinion, the human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are –

a. The right to privacy and reputation (section 13); and

b. The right to property (section 20).

For the reasons outlined below, I am of the view that the Bill is compatible with each of these human rights.

The right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. The proposed amendments in the Bill empowering police reservists to perform support functions may engage this right.

An interference with the right to privacy and reputation is justified if it is both lawful and not arbitrary. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Proposed amendments

The Bill engages the right to privacy as this reform allows police reservists in the course of their duties, to perform administrative and support tasks including asking members of the public to provide personal information such as their names and address as well as making initial inquiries in supporting investigations. However, the Bill does not provide an express statutory power for police reservists to request this information, nor does it establish an offence for failing to provide such information. Therefore, there is no compulsion for a person to provide their personal information and if a person does not wish to provide their personal information, they may elect to leave the police premises or cease the communication with the police reservist.

In my opinion the Bill is consistent with the right to privacy and reputation.

Property rights (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

The right to property under section 20 of the Charter will be limited when all three of the following criteria are met: the interest interfered with must be “property”, the interference must amount to a “deprivation” of property, and the deprivation must not be “in accordance with law”.

Proposed amendments

To the extent that police reservists, once appointed, may be involved in receiving property and exhibits seizure or the handling of property in the course of performing their support functions, this right may be engaged.

However, the Bill does not confer any new powers to seize or otherwise interfere with property. Accordingly, the Bill does not limit property rights protected by section 20 of the Charter.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because no human rights are limited by the provisions in this Bill.

The Hon. Anthony Carbines MP

Minister for Police

Minister for Community Safety

Minister for Victims

Minister for Racing

Leader of the House