A Legal Critique of the “Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 (Vic)" By Ian Wilson LL.B

Disclaimer: the following does not present legal advice; not does it invite any reader to act contrary to law. For debating purposes only!

The Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024, passed in March 2024, clarified that machetes are "controlled weapons" under the Control of Weapons Act 1990. This meant they couldn't be possessed, carried, or used without a lawful excuse, with penalties including fines up to $23,000 or a year in jail. Selling them to minors under 18 was also outlawed, with fines for traders up to $3,846 and for minors buying them up to $2,308. However, this didn't amount to a full ban—sales to adults with lawful excuses (e.g., farming, gardening) remained legal.

By early 2025, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan faced mounting calls for a statewide machete ban due to a perceived "crime crisis," particularly youth violence involving knives and machetes. Media reports from 9News and WAtoday on March 7-8 highlighted this push, with figures like Women's Minister Natalie Hutchins and Opposition Leader Brad Battin vocally supporting tougher restrictions. Battin criticised the Allan government's slow response, noting his party's 2023 proposal to classify machetes as "prohibited weapons" (requiring permits or exemptions) had been ignored.

The urgency stemmed from high-profile incidents, like a violent youth brawl at the Moomba Festival on March 8, 2025, where machetes were implicated. Posts on X echoed frustration, with some arguing existing laws already covered offensive weapons, while others demanded outright prohibition. The Allan government hadn't committed to a full ban but was reportedly reviewing knife laws amid internal pressure. Minister Lily D'Ambrosio hinted at imminent changes post-Moomba, saying, "I don't see why there is a need for anyone to have a machete in Victoria," though no amnesty or ban specifics were confirmed.

So, what is a "machete"? Do we have clearly defined terms here? I will argue, no, the legislation is a conceptual mess and must be challenged if passed.

The Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 in Victoria, Australia, does not provide a standalone, specific definition of "machete" within the text of the Bill itself. Instead, it amends the Control of Weapons Act 1990 to clarify that a machete is a type of knife, thereby categorising it explicitly as a "controlled weapon" under existing legislation.

What the Bill Does

The primary aim of the amendment concerning machetes is to eliminate ambiguity about their legal status. According to the Parliament of Victoria's documentation and the second reading speech by Minister Anthony Carbines on February 6, 2024, the Bill inserts an example into the definition of "controlled weapon" in Section 3 of the Control of Weapons Act 1990. Specifically, it states that a machete is a knife. This clarification addresses a "misconception by some people in the community, including by some market stall holders and other retailers as well as some members of the public, that machetes are tools and are therefore not weapons." The amendment doesn't redefine "machete" with detailed characteristics (e.g., blade length, shape, or purpose) but relies on the existing framework where knives are controlled weapons unless specified as prohibited.

Existing Definition Context

Under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 prior to this amendment, a "controlled weapon" is defined as:

A knife (other than a knife that is a prohibited weapon), or

An article prescribed by regulations to be a controlled weapon (e.g., spear guns, batons, cattle prods).

The Act doesn't explicitly define "knife," leaving it as a general term understood in common usage—a cutting implement with a blade and handle. By adding the example that "a machete is a knife," the 2024 amendment ensures machetes fall under this category without needing a bespoke definition. This aligns with the Bill's stated intent: to reinforce that machetes aren't exempt as mere tools and are subject to the same restrictions as other knives (possession, carry, or use requires a lawful excuse; sales to minors under 18 are prohibited).

Why No Specific Definition?

The absence of a detailed "machete" definition likely reflects legislative pragmatism. A precise definition (e.g., blade length or design specifics) could create loopholes—retailers might tweak designs to skirt the law—or overcomplicate enforcement for police and courts. Instead, the amendment leans on the broad, intuitive understanding of a machete as a large knife, a stance supported by Carbines' remarks. The goal was to "correct any misconceptions" and "bring clarity to any widespread misunderstanding," not to reinvent the wheel with a new term.

Implications and Gaps

This approach assumes "machete" is self-evident, which could spark debate. Posts on X have questioned whether machetes align with the Act's "prohibited weapon' category of "sword" (defined as a thrusting, striking, or cutting weapon with a long blade and hilt), suggesting overlap or confusion. The bill sidesteps this by keeping machetes as "controlled" rather than "prohibited," avoiding the stricter permit requirements of swords while still tightening oversight. Critics, like Opposition MP Brad Battin, argued in Hansard on February 22, 2024, that this is too weak—his party wanted machetes classified as prohibited weapons, not just controlled ones with lawful excuses permitted.

Thus, the Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 does not define "machete" with a specific description. It simply embeds it as an example of a knife within the Control of Weapons Act 1990's "controlled weapon" definition, relying on common understanding rather than statutory detail.

Thus, the Control of Weapons Act 1990 in Victoria, as amended in 2024, classifies machetes as "controlled weapons" by explicitly labelling them as a type of "knife." Problem is, "knife" isn't defined with specifics like blade length in the Act—Section 3 simply lists "knife" under controlled weapons (excluding prohibited knives like flick knives) and leaves it at common usage. Historically,knives cap out around 12 inches, with rare exceptions like 18th-century D-guard Bowies pushing that boundary. Meanwhile, "sword" is a "prohibited weapon" under the Act, defined as "a thrusting, striking or cutting weapon with a long blade with a hilt or handle." No minimum length is specified, but the implication is something larger, designed for combat, not utility. The definition is so vague that a Viking Dane axe would be classified as a "sword."

Enter the Cold Steel 24-inch "machete"—say, their Two-Handed Katana Machete. At 24 inches, it's well beyond the typical knife range and mimics a sword's design, complete with a katana-inspired blade and a hilt suited for two-handed use. Cold Steel markets it as a machete, sure, but its form screams "sword" under the Act's vague wording. A lawyer could argue it's not a "knife" (controlled, lawful excuse allowed) but a "sword" (prohibited, permit required), or vice versa, depending on the client's needs. The 2024 amendment's failure to define "machete" by length, shape, or function—just calling it a "knife"—leaves this wide open.

Legal Loopholes and Truck-Driving Lawyers

Here's how attorneys could drive a truck through this:

1.Defense Angle: "It's a Sword, not a Machete"
If someone's caught with a 24-inch Cold Steel "machete" and charged under controlled weapon rules (no lawful excuse), a lawyer could argue it's misclassified. "Your Honor, this isn't a knife—it's a sword, per the Act's definition of a long-bladed weapon with a hilt. The prosecution's applying the wrong category." If the court buys it, the charge could collapse unless the state proves it's a "machete' (undefined) and not a "sword" (vaguely defined). Good luck with that when the item's marketed as a machete but looks like a katana.

2.Prosecution Headache: "It's a Knife, But…"
Flips it—if the state charges it as a prohibited "sword," the defence could counter, "No, it's a machete, a controlled weapon, and my client has a lawful excuse (e.g., bush-clearing)." The amendment says machetes are knives, and knives aren't prohibited unless specified (e.g., daggers). Without a length cap or design test, the prosecution's stuck proving intent or use, not the object itself. The Cold Steel's hybrid nature muddies this further.

3.Ambiguity in Court:
Victorian courts often lean on "ordinary meaning" when terms aren't defined—in weapons cases. What's a machete to the average person? A 12-inch jungle tool, not a 24-inch katana clone. A judge might hesitate to call a 24-inch blade a "knife" without statutory backup, especially if the defence cites historical norms (the 12-inch knife ceiling) or sword-like features. Conversely, if intent-to-use-as-a-weapon is the test (per Section 5AA), a farmer with a Cold Steel could still claim lawful excuse, leaving enforcement in a tangle.

Why This is a Legislative Mess

The 2024 amendment's architects—cheered by Minister Anthony Carbines in his February 6, 2024, speech—wanted to nix the "it's just a tool" excuse without overcomplicating things. But by not defining "machete" (e.g., "a knife with a blade exceeding 12 inches but under 30 inches, primarily for cutting vegetation"), they've handed lawyers a blank check. Compare Queensland's Weapons Act 1990, which defines "knife" broadly but ties "sword" to combat intent—Victoria's looser wording invites chaos. A 24-inch Cold Steel "machete" could be a knife, a sword, or neither, depending on the courtroom spin.

The Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024 assumes "machete" is obvious, but the Cold Steel example proves it's not. Without a length or design threshold, it's a legal free-for-all—knives bleed into swords, and enforcement drowns in semantics. If South Australia or others copy this, they'd better nail the definition, or they'll inherit the same truck-sized hole. Victorian cops might nab offenders, but in court, it's a coin toss. Sloppy lawmaking at its finest, as usual!

Afterword: Deal with This! (with John Steele)

If a machete is duct-taped to a pole, transforming it into a makeshift glaive (a pole weapon with a blade, historically akin to a spear-sword hybrid), does it remain a "machete" under Victoria's Firearms and Control of Weapons (Machetes) Amendment Bill 2024? This hypothetical posed by John Steele exposes the amendment's flimsy foundation even more brutally, and I'll argue it's a legal Pandora's box that could render the legislation laughably impotent.

The Baseline: Machete as "Knife"

The 2024 amendment, effective March 2024, slots "machete" into the Control of Weapons Act 1990 as an example of a "knife," a "controlled weapon" under Section 3. No definition beyond that—just "a machete is a knife." Possession, carry, or use without lawful excuse (e.g., gardening) lands you fines up to $23,000 or a year in jail. Knives aren't defined by length or form, so we're stuck with common usage: a handheld cutting tool, typically 12 inches or less, though machetes stretch that to 18-24 inches (e.g., Cold Steel's Katana Machete). My earlier point about knives topping out at 12 inches historically, with 18th-century Bowies as outliers, already strains this, but now we've got a pole attached. Game-changer.

Duct Tape and the Glaive Transformation

Tape a machete—say, a 24-inch Cold Steel—to a pole, and you've got a glaive: a single-edged blade on a shaft, historically 6-7 feet long total, used for slashing or stabbing. It's not handheld anymore; it's a polearm. Does it stay a "machete" legally? The Act's categories—controlled (knives), prohibited (swords, daggers)—don't explicitly cover pole weapons, but let's test the fit:

Still a "Knife"?
The amendment says "machete," not "machete-like weapon." A knife implies handheld use—Minister Anthony Carbines' second reading speech (February 6, 2024) framed machetes as tools misused in public, not as components of something else. Duct-taped to a pole, it's no longer wielded like a knife; it's a fixed blade on a staff. A defence lawyer could argue, "This isn't a machete anymore—it's a new weapon, outside the controlled category." The Act's silence on modified weapons leaves this vague—courts might lean on "ordinary meaning," but who calls a 7-foot polearm a "knife"?

Now a "Sword"?
Prohibited weapons include "sword," defined as "a thrusting, striking or cutting weapon with a long blade with a hilt or handle." A 24-inch blade on a pole isn't handheld, but it's still a long, cutting blade. The "hilt" bit's tricky—duct tape isn't a hilt—but intent matters under Section 5AA (possession for a dangerous purpose). And the wood handle is the hilt. If you're swinging this in a fight, it's sword-like. Problem: the amendment didn't make machetes prohibited, so the state would have to prove it's no longer a machete but a sword. Good luck with that when Cold Steel still calls it a machete.

A New Beast Entirely?
Here's the kicker: it could fall outside both. The Act lists specific weapons—knives, swords, spear guns—but no "glaive" or generic "pole weapon." Regulations could add it via prescription, but as of March 10, 2025, they haven't (per Victoria's legislation site). Existing laws cover offensive use, but this hybrid sidesteps neat boxes. A lawyer could claim, "It's not a machete, not a sword—it's an improvised polearm, undefined and thus unregulated unless used offensively." Prosecutors would counter with intent, but proving it's still a "controlled machete" gets dicey.

Lawyers' Field Day

This duct-taped glaive obliterates the amendment's clarity:

1.Defense Play: "Not a Machete Anymore"
"Your Honor, the law targets machetes as knives—handheld tools. My client's creation is a pole weapon, not covered by the amendment. Dismiss the charge." If the court agrees it's morphed beyond "knife," the controlled weapon charge collapses unless the state reclassifies it on the fly—unlikely without precedent.

2.Prosecution Bind: Intent vs. Object
The state might pivot to Section 5AA—possession of an article for harm. Fine, but that's not the amendment's focus (sales, carry restrictions); it's a fallback. They'd argue, "It's still a machete, just modified," but without a definition tying "machete" to its original form, they're grasping. A 24-inch blade on a pole isn't a garden tool—it's a medieval throwback.

3.Semantic Chaos:
Courts often use "ordinary meaning," but duct tape shifts the paradigm. Is it the blade (machete) or the assembly (glaive) that defines it? A judge might squint at a 7-foot weapon and scoff at calling it a "knife," yet the amendment's sloppy wording—"a machete is a knife"—offers no anchor. Add your Cold Steel katana-machete hybrid, and it's a legal circus: knife? Sword? Something else? Guess!

The Legislation's Achilles' Heel

This exposes the 2024 amendment as a paper tiger. By not defining "machete" with specifics—blade length (e.g., 12-24 inches), handheld design, or purpose—Parliament left it vulnerable to modification loopholes. A machete alone is controlled, but tape it to a pole, and it's a Frankenstein's monster the Act doesn't recognize. Post-Moomba (March 10, 2025), as Victoria debates a ban, this gap screams louder: ban what? A blade that can become anything?

Lawyers could roll a tank through this. A duct-taped glaive isn't just a gray area; it's a legal black hole. Enforcement's a nightmare—cops might seize it, but courts could shrug: without a tight definition, "machete" laws are a joke when a $5 roll of tape turns a knife into a polearm!

So, why worry about such an issue? Because, like all these bans, it is one more attack upon freedom, using public panic to push an agenda.