Laws to better protect workers on the job

The Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026 gives courts’ powers to impose restrictions on people who engage in unacceptable conduct connected to certain workplaces.

In her second reading speech, Minister for Violence Reduction and Carrum MP Sonya Kilkenny said the purpose of the legislation is to protect retail and specified transport workers from people likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable violence, abuse, stalking and other harassment.

‘While a workplace protection order, or WPO as it will be informally known, will be a civil mechanism for preventing harm, breaches of a condition of a WPO will carry a significant criminal consequence of up to two years imprisonment, a fine of up to approximately $50,000, or both,’ she said.

Retail operators, specific passenger train, tram and bus operators, or certain registered employee unions (where at least one of the workers at the workplace is, or is eligible to be, a member of the union) will be able to apply for a WPO. 

Despite not opposing the bill, Ovens Valley MP Tim McCurdy said there were some areas of concern.

‘The commencement date – the bill is to commence on 26 July 2027, which seems to be a long time away,’ he said.

‘The other concerns include police being excluded from applying for an order, as well as clause 17, which confines standing to an applicable business operator or an employee union. An individual worker, including the victim of the conduct, cannot apply in their own right.’

Monbulk MP Daniela De Martino told the Assembly chamber a worker protection consultation group, comprised of unions and employer associations, Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions contributed to the development of the bill. 

‘In terms of Victoria Police not being party to moving or to applying for a WPO… that is because of consultation with Victoria Police, who do not wish to be doing this,’ she said.

Eildon MP Cindy McLeish said the Opposition will be putting forward amendments to the bill in the Upper House.

‘We would like to see the date of commencement brought forward,’ she said.

‘We do not want to wait another 11 months; we think that is too long. 

‘We would also like the victim to consent in terms of when an order has been sought, except perhaps in the case of police application. But if somebody is applying for a workplace protection order for a particular worker, they should be consenting to it happening.’

Ms De Martino addressed the concern about victims not having consent rights.

‘It is because this is about the workplace. It is a workplace protection order, as opposed to an individual’s protection order,’ she said. 

‘It is about the threat to the workplace and all employees in there.’

Greenvale MP Iwan Walters said a WPO is a practical workplace safety measure.

‘It is about prevention, and prevention must be our first priority when it comes to community safety more broadly but workplace and worker safety in particular,’ he said.

‘Workers should not have to wonder whether the person who threatened them yesterday will walk back through those doors tomorrow to do the same thing.’

Speaking against the legislation, Richmond MP Gabrielle de Vietri described it as a ‘risky kneejerk reaction’, which ignores the symptoms causing poor behaviour directed towards workers. 

‘We will not stand by and support a law that, by the government’s own admission, is likely to have a disproportionate impact on First Nations people, who are already racialised and already overpoliced,’ she said.

‘The Greens will oppose this bill, and we will be considering amendments in the other place.’

The bill ultimately passed the Assembly 76-2, before going to the Council for consideration.

Track the progress of the legislation and read the full debate in Hansard.