When police officers move into a crowd carrying launchers that resemble semi-automatic rifles, or deploy grenades designed to disorient and disperse, Victorians have a reasonable expectation of knowing what those weapons are. But as VCN can reveal, that basic transparency is being systematically refused — by Victoria Police, by their counterparts in every other Australian state, and in some cases by the courts themselves.
A combination of suppressed coronial findings, opaque procurement contracts and a blanket policy of non-disclosure means that weapons capable of causing serious injury or death are being deployed against crowds in Victoria with almost no public scrutiny — and experts say that should alarm anyone who cares about democratic accountability.
What are ‘less lethal’ weapons, and why does the name matter? #
The term ‘less lethal’ — sometimes written as ‘less than lethal’ — is the official designation used by law enforcement agencies around the world for a category of weapons intended to incapacitate rather than kill. In Victoria, this arsenal is understood to include rubber bullets (formally called baton rounds), capsicum spray, tear gas, stinger grenades, flashbang devices, and projectile launchers capable of firing what some researchers describe as bullet-like missiles.
The label is contested. Amnesty International and a number of academic researchers have documented cases globally in which baton rounds, rubber bullets and similar projectiles have caused deaths, permanent blindness, skull fractures and internal organ damage. The word ‘less’ does not mean ‘harmless’ — it means ‘less likely to kill than a conventional firearm under typical deployment conditions’. Experts consulted by VCN emphasise that distinction matters enormously when evaluating how, when and against whom these weapons are used.
What Victoria Police won’t disclose — and who is asking #
VCN understands that Victoria Police has declined to publicly provide the make and model of its rubber bullets and associated launchers, including in direct communications to Victorian parliamentarians. The force has cited ‘operational and community safety considerations’ as the basis for that refusal.
That justification has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates and transparency campaigners, who argue that knowing the manufacturer and specifications of a weapon deployed on Victorian streets is not a threat to operational security — it is a basic prerequisite for independent safety assessment. When a parliamentarian cannot find out what type of projectile is being fired at a Victorian protest, it is difficult to argue the oversight mechanisms Parliament is supposed to provide are functioning.
Nationally, VCN understands that every Australian police force was approached for a list of the manufacturer and model of their less-lethal weapons. All declined to provide one, with most citing operational safety grounds. The uniform nature of that refusal is itself notable — it suggests a coordinated approach to non-disclosure rather than case-by-case assessment.
Contracts worth millions — buried in third-party deals #
Part of what makes independent scrutiny so difficult is the structure of the procurement arrangements through which police forces acquire these weapons. VCN understands that contracts worth millions of dollars are frequently concluded with third-party distributors rather than directly with manufacturers. That layering means that even freedom-of-information requests — already constrained by law enforcement exemptions — are less likely to surface the actual product specifications, training documentation or safety data sheets that would allow meaningful review.
In practical terms, it means a journalist, a parliamentarian or a coroner seeking to understand exactly what weapon caused a particular injury may face the additional obstacle of piecing together a supply chain before they can even identify the product. Procurement secrecy, in other words, compounds the transparency problem at the point of use.
Suppression at the inquest: courts closed when weapons are questioned #
Perhaps the most troubling dimension of this issue arises in the coronial system — the very process designed to scrutinise deaths and prevent future ones.
VCN understands that in at least some cases where baton rounds or other less-lethal weapons may have contributed to a death, Victoria Police has sought suppression orders that prevent media from reporting any details of the weaponry involved. Those orders, where granted, mean that even findings of a coroner — findings made in the public interest and specifically intended to be shared with the community — can be partially or wholly shielded from public view when police weapons are at issue.
In other Australian jurisdictions, it is understood that details about conducted energy devices — commonly known by the brand name Taser — have been suppressed during coronial inquests, including training materials provided to officers. A training manual is not a secret weapon: it is a document that defines how an officer is authorised to use force. Suppressing it during an inquest into a death where that force may have been a factor is a significant constraint on the coroner’s public accountability function.
VCN is not suggesting any suppression order has been wrongly made — those decisions are for the court. But the pattern is one that deserves rigorous public attention.
What does accountability look like elsewhere? #
The opacity that characterises the Australian approach stands in contrast to arrangements in some comparable democracies. In the United Kingdom, the Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes guidance on the use of less-lethal weapons and maintains a public register of approved devices. In parts of the United States, legislative reforms following high-profile incidents have required police departments to publish their use-of-force policies and the specific weapons authorised under them.
None of this is to suggest a direct equivalence — Australian policing contexts differ — but it illustrates that transparency about less-lethal weapons is achievable without compromising legitimate operational security. The question is whether there is political will to require it.
What experts and advocates are calling for #
Civil liberties organisations and use-of-force researchers consulted by VCN have consistently identified three minimum transparency requirements that they say should be non-negotiable: first, that police publicly disclose the make and model of all less-lethal weapons in active service; second, that training standards for those weapons be subject to independent review; and third, that coronial proceedings involving less-lethal weapon use not be subject to suppression of weapon specifications except in the most narrowly defined circumstances.
Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has broad oversight of police conduct, and the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner administers freedom-of-information law. Neither body, however, has a specific mandate to audit the adequacy of less-lethal weapons disclosure. That gap — between the existence of oversight institutions and the specific transparency questions raised here — is one that advocates argue requires either legislative amendment or a specific parliamentary inquiry.
Where does this leave Victorians? #
At its core, this is a story about who gets to know what is being done in the public’s name. Less-lethal weapons are used by police acting on behalf of the community, funded by taxpayers, deployed on public streets and at public gatherings. The people most likely to be on the receiving end of a baton round or a stinger grenade are, in many cases, people exercising a democratic right to protest.
The argument that disclosing a weapon’s manufacturer and model would compromise community safety has not, to VCN’s knowledge, been publicly tested or explained in any detail. It is an assertion, not a demonstrated proposition. And until it is tested — in Parliament, in a coronial inquest conducted without suppression, or in a properly resourced independent review — Victorians are being asked to trust that the weapons being used on their behalf are appropriate, well-regulated and safely deployed, without being given the basic information that would allow them to judge that for themselves.
VCN will continue to report on this issue. If you have information about less-lethal weapons use, procurement practices or related court proceedings, contact our newsroom through the secure tip line on our website.
If you or someone you know has been affected by a use-of-force incident or is experiencing distress, the following 24/7 services are available: Lifeline 13 11 14 · Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636 · 13YARN (First Nations) 13 92 76 · Crime Stoppers 1800 333 000.
