In a tightly contested vote, the Allan government has rejected a motion to review Victoria’s self-defence laws, despite growing concerns over a record surge in violent home invasions across the state.
The motion was defeated by a single vote, 18 to 17, as Labor, the Greens, and Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell joined forces to block the proposed review.
Libertarian MP David Limbrick, who moved the motion, expressed disappointment, saying the decision left Victorians “vulnerable in their own homes.” Limbrick vowed to continue advocating for legal reforms to strengthen residents’ rights to defend their homes and families.
“The government is out of touch with ordinary Victorians who are sick of feeling like victims,” Limbrick said. “Criminals aren’t going to hand in their weapons, and we cannot expect residents to simply wait for harm to occur. I will continue this fight with campaigns and petitions to pressure the government into another debate.”
The proposed review would have tasked the Victorian Law Reform Commission with examining the application of the UK’s “castle doctrine,” which allows individuals to use potentially deadly force against intruders threatening their property or personal safety. Limbrick emphasized that the review, the first of its kind in over a decade, was urgently needed given the rising number of home invasions.
Voting against the motion, Purcell warned that expanding self-defence rights could escalate violence. Meanwhile, Opposition members including independent Adem Somyurek, One Nation’s Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, and the two Legalise Cannabis MPs supported the review.
Limbrick underscored that many Victorians are unaware of the legal boundaries surrounding self-defence, stating: “When someone breaks into a home, residents think about protecting their families, not the law. The law must protect them when they act to defend their loved ones.”
The issue has sparked a wider debate about public safety, property rights, and the balance between civil protections and the risk of escalating violence. Advocates argue the current laws are outdated and do not reflect the challenges faced by homeowners confronting intruders in real-life scenarios.
