Victoria Brings Forward Ban on Machete Sales After Violent Knife Brawl
A broader ban on possession will follow on Sept. 1.
The measure comes under Commonwealth consumer law, which allows state ministers to impose temporary sales bans on dangerous goods.
'When the interim sale ban is declared on Wednesday, a supplier (e.g. a retailer) must not supply the banned item for sale or possess them with the intent to sell during the banned period,' the government said in a statement.
Victoria's move comes after a violent, pre-arranged brawl involving machetes at the Melbourne shopping centre on May 25.
Up to 10 individuals clashed around 2:30 p.m., leaving at least one person injured.
Related Stories
5/5/2025
5/21/2025
Shoppers hid inside stores as police locked down the centre. Two people, including a 15-year-old boy, were arrested. Authorities allege the confrontation was planned between rival groups.
The sale ban will apply to all machetes—defined as knives with blades over 20 centimetres—and excludes kitchen knives.
Retailers holding excess stock have been told to store it safely until the start of the disposal, amnesty, and exemption schemes in September.
Non-compliance may attract criminal charges.
Premier Jacinta Allan said she was determined to keep machetes off Victorian streets.
'I hate these knives, and I will keep introducing as many laws as it takes to get them off our streets, out of our shops and out of our lives,' she said.
Possession Ban To Carry Stiff Penalties
From Sept. 1, anyone caught with a machete without a valid exemption will face up to two years in prison or fines exceeding $47,000.
Exemptions will be available for those with legitimate uses, including farmers and hunters, who must apply for approval.
The government acknowledged that some legitimate users would be unable to buy machetes during the interim ban despite qualifying for future exemptions, but insisted public safety must come first.
Authorities have seized a record number of knives from the state's streets this year.
In response, the state amended the Control of Weapons Act on March 19 to outlaw the sale and possession of machetes. The ban also builds on Australia's strictest bail laws and expanded police powers for random knife searches.
'The purpose of the interim sale ban is to dry up the supply of these items as much as possible before the possession ban comes into place,' the government said.
Crackdown Follows Surge in Crime
Victoria moved to ban machetes in December 2024, becoming the first state to do so after a spate of violent incidents involving the weapon.
The push followed a home invasion in Black Rock, Melbourne, where machete-wielding burglars stole two cars while residents were asleep.
Victoria has been grappling with increase in crime. According to police data for the year ending September 2024, overall offences rose by 13.4 percent to 578,762 offences.
Among the key contributors are 68,042 car thefts, including stolen number plates and power tools. Retail theft has also risen sharply, driven by inflation and cost-of-living pressures.
These new measures are seen as a necessary step in addressing public safety concerns and curbing violent crime in Victoria.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Decades of Socialist Rule at Stake as Bolivia Vote Count Starts
(Bloomberg) -- The vote count is underway in Bolivia's presidential and congressional elections that may end years of socialist rule and herald warmer relations with Washington. The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds The election took place amid unrest, shortages and the steepest inflation in more than three decades. The economic crisis has undermined support for the ruling MAS party, which has held power almost without interruption since 2006. Two pro-business candidates are battling for the upper hand in a field of eight presidential aspirants. Preliminary results are expected on Sunday evening. Samuel Doria Medina made a fortune in cement, then invested in fast food chains such as Burger King and Subway. Jorge Tuto Quiroga served as president in 2001-2002 when President Hugo Bánzer Suárez stepped down due to ill health. Both candidates say they would cut spending and seek international loans to inject capital into the economy. Both also would seek foreign investment in oil and gas exploration and in lithium production — Bolivia is home to the world's largest deposits of the metal. The highest-profile leftist candidate is Andrónico Rodríguez, a socialist senator who has distanced himself from both the current president, Luis Arce, and former President Evo Morales, whose feud split the ruling party. Arce opted not to run for a second term. Morales called on supporters to spoil their votes. The election is the first since 2005 when neither Morales nor a hand-picked successor were on the ballot. Under Bolivian election rules, a candidate can win in the first round with just 40% of the vote, provided there's a margin of more than ten percentage points over the runner-up. If no one wins in the first round, there'll be a runoff on Oct. 19. The new president will be sworn in on Nov. 8. The economy has been struggling for a decade amid declining natural gas production and dwindling central bank dollar reserves. Bolivia's dollar bonds have been among the top performers in emerging markets this year, on optimism that the election will herald a government able to unlock international loans and implement economic reforms. Under Morales and Arce, Bolivia had close links with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia and China but often had sour relations with Washington. What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Living With 12 Strangers to Ease a Housing Crunch Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan How Syrian Immigrants Are Boosting Germany's Economy ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Drive a wedge': Divide over WFH laws
A second Australian state is set to push for workers to be able to work from home one day a week; however, the move has not come without its detractors. MLC Robert Simms announced on Thursday the South Australian Greens were drafting a Bill to guarantee public sector staff could work from home (WFH) one day a week if it was 'reasonable', saying it would 'set a benchmark for the private sector'. His call comes after Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced plans to legislate WFH protections for workers who could 'reasonably' carry out their duties from home. Ms Allan said the reform, which would make Victoria the first state to enshrine WFH legislation, was about recognising modern work patterns and protecting employees from having flexible arrangements arbitrarily revoked. 'It's working now, but we know that we need to protect it,' Ms Allan said on Today. 'We need to protect it for workers but also make it really clear for employers as well who are already doing this that working from home should be a right, not a request.' In SA, however, the move has been greeted largely with disapproval. Earlier this week, SA Premier Peter Malinauskas told ABC Radio that he would not support the proposed legislation. 'To mandate things, I think, runs the risk of having unintended consequences,' he said. 'And occasionally I think employers should have the ability to say, 'Look, we're paying you to do a particular task and this is where I need you to perform those tasks'.' Mr Simms claimed more staff working from home would negate travel time, cut traffic congestion and boost productivity, along with saving workers and families vital dollars. However, the SA Business Chamber has rejected the plan, saying legislation could drive a wedge between workers and hamper investment. Chamber chief executive Andrew Kay claimed current arrangements were working 'perfectly well where employers and employees negotiated WFH arrangements'. 'Enshrining WFH rights has the potential to drive a wedge in the workplace between the haves and the have nots,' he said. Legal experts revealed the Labor-Allan government's push to legislate WFH rights in the private sector were logistically almost impossible. Stacks Law Firm special counsel Geoff Baldwin said a large number of workers in Victoria were already eligible to request flexible working arrangements, and any new legislation would be at risk of being 'struck down', as it would presumably be inconsistent with existing Commonwealth laws. 'It's hard to see what (the) Victorian (government) might do which would have any appreciable impact on the Victorian workforce as a whole,' he said. A SA government spokesperson added that 'the state government opposes any Peter Dutton-style attempts to ban working from home'. 'Working from home arrangements where practical are important in a modern workplace,' they said. 'These arrangements tend to work best where it is mutually agreed between employees and employers, which is why mandating such a practice through legislation is not being contemplated by the state government.'
San Francisco Chronicle
20 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
He earned a small town's trust. He owed $95 million in what authorities say was a Ponzi scheme
HAMILTON, N.Y. (AP) — For decades, Miles 'Burt' Marshall was the man you went to see in a stretch of upstate New York if you had some money to invest but wanted to keep it local. Working from an office in the charming village of Hamilton, down the road from Colgate University, Marshall prepared taxes and sold insurance. He also took money for what was sometimes called the '8% Fund,' which guaranteed that much in annual interest no matter what happened with the financial markets. His clients spread the word to family and friends. Have a retirement nest egg? Let Burt handle it. He'll invest it in local rental properties and your money will grow faster than in a bank. Marshall was friendly and folksy. He gave away gift bags with maple syrup, pickles and local honey in jars labeled with cute sayings like, 'Don't be a sap. For proper insurance coverage call Miles B. Marshall." 'He would tell you about all the other people that invest. Churches invest. Fire companies invest. Doctors invest,' said one client, Christine Corrigan. 'So you'd think, 'Well, they're smart people. They wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't okay to do ... Why are you going to be the suspicious one?' Then it all came crashing down. Marshall owed almost 1,000 people and organizations about $95 million in principal and interest when he filed for bankruptcy protection two years ago, according to the trustee's filings. This summer, the 73-year-old businessman was indicted on charges that his investment business was a Ponzi scheme. He could face prison time if convicted. Marshall's lawyers declined to comment. Total losses by Marshall's investors fall short of the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme masterminded by Bernie Madoff. But they loom large in the small, college town of about 6,400 people and its largely rural surrounding area. Many investors were Colgate professors, laborers, office workers or retirees. Some lost their life's savings of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Corrigan and her husband, who own a restaurant 30 miles (48 kilometers) east, were owed about $1.5 million. Now they're wondering how someone who seemed so reliable, who held annual parties for his clients and even called them on their birthdays could betray their trust. 'You look at life differently after this happens. It's like, 'Who do you trust?'' said Dennis Sullivan, who was owed about $40,000. 'It's sad because of what he's done to the area.' A reliable local businessman Marshall and his wife lived in a brick Victorian, blocks from his office. Aside from insurance and tax preparation, he rented more than 100 properties and ran a self-storage business and a print shop. His parents had run an insurance and realty business in the area and the Marshall name was respected locally. Though he quit college, he was a federally enrolled tax professional. To many in the area, he seemed knowledgeable about money and kept a neat office. 'He had French doors and a beautiful carpet and a big desk and he just looked like he was prosperous and reliable," Corrigan said. Marshall began taking money from people to buy and maintain rental properties in the 1980s. People got back promissory notes — slips of paper with the dollar amount written in. Withdrawals could be made with 30 days' notice. People could choose to receive regular interest payments. Participants saw the transactions as investments. Marshall has called them loans. For many years, Marshall made good on his promises to pay interest and process withdrawals. More people took part as word spread. Sullivan recalls how his parents gave Marshall money, then he did, then his fiancee, then his fiancee's daughter, then his son, and even his snowmobile club. 'Everybody gets snowballed into it,' Sullivan said. A number of investors lived in other states, but had connections to the area. The promise of 8% returns was unremarkable in the '80s, a time of higher interest rates. But it stood out later as rates dropped. Marshall told a bankruptcy proceeding that he assumed appreciation on his real estate would more than cover the debts. 'That's obviously false now," he said, according to filings, "but that's what I always thought.' The money stopped flowing by 2023. Marshall filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection that April, declaring more than $90 million in liabilities and $21.5 million in assets, most of it in real estate. He explained in a filing that he had been been hospitalized for a 'serious heart condition' that required two surgeries, costing him $600,000. As news of his illness spread, there was a run on note holders asking for their money back. The bankruptcy trustee, Fred Stevens, blamed Marshall's insolvency on incompetent business practices and borrowing from people at above-market rates. The trustee contended that by 2011, Marshall was using new investment money to pay off previous investors, the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. Prosecutors claim Marshall falsely represented the profitability of his real estate business and had his staff generate "transaction summaries' with bogus information about account balances and earned interest. Money was funneled into his other businesses and he spent hundreds of thousands of investors' dollars on personal expenses, including airline travel, meals out, groceries and yoga studios, according to prosecutors. Marshall's clients feel betrayed. 'We left it there so that it would accumulate. Well, it accumulated in his pocket,' Barbara Baltusnik said of her investment. The ripple effects of multimillion-dollar losses Marshall pleaded not guilty in June to charges of grand larceny and securities fraud. He's accused of stealing more than $50 million. Marshall's home and properties were sold as part of bankruptcy proceedings, which continue. People who gave Marshall their money stand to recoup around 5.4 cents on the dollar from the asset sales. Potential claims against financial institutions are being pursued, according to the trustee. Baltusnik said she and her husband were owed hundreds of thousands of dollars and now she wonders how she will pay doctors' bills. Sullivan's mother moved in with him after losing her investment. In Epworth, Georgia, retiree Carolyn Call will never see money she hoped would help augment her Social Security payments. She found out about Marshall though an uncle who lived in upstate New York. 'I'm just able to pay my bills and keep going," she said. "Nothing extravagant. No trips. Can't do anything hardly for the grandkids.'
