‘At the moment, in Victoria, there’s some exemptions for self-defence in your home, but we want them to look at strengthening that so that people who are defending their own home against violent criminals have more peace of mind that they won’t get into trouble themselves,’ said Libertarian David Limbrick.

‘There’s no real certainty. If someone invades my house and I’ve got a baseball bat and I hit them with it, it might be left up to a court on whether I get into trouble for that or not.

‘I think most people naturally feel that they should be able to defend their home without fear of legal consequences, as long as they don’t go over the top.

‘I’d like to see that if you’re protecting your home, protecting your family, and a bad guy gets hurt in that process then, you know, they’re found out the hard way that you shouldn’t get into trouble with the law.

‘In the United Kingdom they’ve got what they call Castle Doctrine where, effectively, if someone comes into your home and you defend yourself against an intruder, then you’re pretty much protected from harm as long as you don’t do anything egregious.’

Sounds reasonable.

Australians have long expressed a mix of anger and frustration with the government’s self-defence laws.

In safer times, these laws were mocked for their unreasonable demand of a ‘proportionate’ return of force. The wording conjured up imagery of victims searching for matching weapons to fend off invaders.

A knife to fight a baseball bat – would that be considered ‘too much’?

What if you’re basically John Wick in which case a pencil becomes disproportionate to a machete…

In the heat of the moment where fear, panic, and convenience are likely to take hold, odds are homeowners are going to grab whatever looks dangerous and start stabbing. Women, in particular, are probably making a bee-line for the biggest knife they can find to compensate for their lack of size and strength. The idea that ‘defensive action must cease once the threat is neutralised’ is also a woeful command when an unprepared person is faced with a mortal threat. Why should they be held criminally responsible for a survival instinct?

The vast majority of people in the world believe that if someone breaks into their home, the intruder’s rights pretty much cease. Crime was a choice, and the homeowner should be free from prosecution so long as they don’t start doing something scary out of Game of Thrones.

This is the prevailing sentiment and yet there is no means by which the Australian people can petition this change, especially in a legal environment where all manner of malicious criminal is perceived as a victim of circumstance, culture, or some kind of inherited victimhood.

The only person unlikely to be viewed as a victim is the victim.

Perhaps if victims had more leeway to defend themselves, fewer criminals would ‘chance it’ breaking into people’s homes and traumatising entire neighbourhoods of peaceful citizens.

Australia was a high-trust society. Was, being the operative word. It is undeniable that mass migration from countries with significant crime problems and differing standards has led to Australians feeling afraid in their own homes.

This is not only the case for Australia. It has been repeated across the Western world with London, for example, referred to as the ‘knife capital of the world’ under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Its streets are flooded with an unknown tide of illegal migrants (believed to be over half a million) engaged in all manner of criminal and anti-social behaviour. 81,000 phones were snatched on London streets last year with the Met Police putting pathetic ‘mind the grab’ messages on the sidewalk so that you can be distracted reading their warnings while some kid nicks your bag.

There is a more important reason to re-establish some form of justice in Australia and that is the perception of fairness.

In a world where the State goes out of its way to destroy a reasonable working person for the most minor of infractions, it stews in their social class the knowledge that genuine criminals are treated lightly or even rewarded for their hundreds of dismissed charges. The view that the perpetrators of grand theft auto, sexual assault, break and enter offences, or murder are likely to get off without punishment creates a gnawing tension within society that is set alight when a person is charged for defending their home and life against one of these professional delinquents.

In Britain this has become so severe they call their Prime Minister ‘Two-Tier Keir’ after the two tiers of justice. As a result, they have class riots on their streets related to, predominantly, migrant crime that goes unpunished against British citizens.

The government’s solution was the Online Safety Act brought in under the false pretence of child safety and was immediately used to hide social media content related to migrant crime, street protests and, incredibly, police involvement in the grooming gang scandal. It seems to be the solution of the Albanses government too, with the Under-16 Social Media Ban expected to have exactly the same impact on political censorship.

History shows us that there is nothing quite so destructive as the degradation of justice or the impression that justice suits politics rather than citizens.

If we are not equal under the law and the law is not aligned with natural law, then you get two things: vigilantes and revolution.

It is eminently sensible for Victorian Libertarian David Limbrick to push for self-defence laws in Victoria to be strengthened. London might be the ‘knife capital’ but Melbourne is the ‘machete capital’.

The $13 million ($325,000 per bin) outlay for a ‘machete amnesty’ is not only a waste of time (criminals are not going to hand in their weapon of choice), it will de-arm ordinary citizens.

Despite Premier Jacinta Allan lecturing everyone on the danger of machetes, a 14-year-old boy has been allegedly attacked at a shopping centre by six machete-wielding individuals who clearly did not take the Labor Party up on the amnesty offer.

In a previous machete incident, charges were laid against boys in the ages of 14 and 15.

What were you doing at this age? Most of us were engaged in lots of homework and afterschool sport. The reason so many young teens are wandering around with knives, attacking each other, stealing cars, or breaking into homes is a social problem that won’t be solved by a machete amnesty.

Of course, the Victorian Attorney-General supported the existing laws. ‘Our self-defence laws here in Victoria are proportionate, and Victorians are encouraged – in fact we plead with Victorians – to please call Victorian Police in any emergency situation.’

Out of touch. That’s how the Attorney-General presents. The advice is cold comfort to someone standing in front of their door while a gang of teenagers are in the process of kicking it down, armed with machetes and baseball bats. People have moments to protect themselves. Moments. And the law should side with them.

‘Self-defence laws are about what is reasonable, what’s a reasonable amount of force in any situation.’

The Attorney-General may like to discuss the finer points of ‘reasonable’ for a family defending their possessions in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis where the theft of their car and tools could mean their loss of their livelihood. People are broke. They’re suffering. Petty crime to the privileged has turned into serious crime for the working class and sinking middle class.

The government created a crime wave and the activist courts spur it on.

That is not the fault of law-abiding citizens.

The very least they could do is consider Mr Limbrick’s request to afford a bit of grace and certainty to the victims of Victoria’s failed state.