Friday, 14 November 2025

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:37): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 to create new offences for certain conduct engaged in against certain workers and to provide that a burglary that involves a ram raid in an aggravated burglary to make consequential amendments to the Youth Justice Act 2024 and for other purposes.

Motion agreed to.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:38): I seek a brief explanation of the bill.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:38): I thank the member for Brighton. The Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 will amend the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 to introduce reforms to better protect customer-facing retail, fast food and public transport workers from assault and abuse.

Read first time.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:39): I move:

That the bill be read a second time immediately.

Under standing order 61(3)(b) I can advise the chamber that representatives of all parties and independent members have received a copy of the bill and a briefing in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:41): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill introduces new offences to specifically address incidents where offenders assault, or threaten to assault, retail, fast food, hospitality and passenger transport workers (applicable customer-facing workers) in connection with the performance of their duties. The Bill also introduces new offences for directing intimidatory, offensive and threatening words and behaviour towards applicable customer-facing workers. In establishing these offences, the Bill delivers on the government’s commitment to better protect these workers from assault and abuse.

The Bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act) to introduce a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties (maximum 5 years imprisonment).

The Bill will amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act) to introduce the following new summary offences:

a. A summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties (maximum 6 months imprisonment)

b. A summary offence of using without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties (maximum 6 months imprisonment).

The Bill also amends section 77 of the Crimes Act (aggravated burglary) to include where a person commits a burglary and uses a vehicle to cause damage to the building for the purpose of gaining entry to that building.

Human Rights Issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:

a. right to freedom of expression (section 15)

b. right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14)

c. right to culture (section 19)

d. right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16), and right to taking part in public life (section 18)

e. right to liberty and security of the person (section 21)

f. rights in criminal proceedings and right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (section 25), and

g. the protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 27).

Under section 7(2) of the Charter, rights can be subject to limitations to the extent reasonable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom and doing so may be necessary to protect and preserve the enjoyment of Charter rights by other members of the community. These factors are discussed below.

a.   Right to freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom ‘to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds’ in a medium chosen by the person. The right does not merely protect favourable or popular expressions, but also protects criticism and protest as well as offensive, disturbing or shocking information or ideas (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123) (Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, [49]).

Section 15(3) of the Charter provides for an internal limitation on the right, which allows freedom of expression to be limited where it is reasonably necessary to do so to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. It recognises that the right to freedom of expression will often be in conflict with the rights of other people, and with the public good, and so may be subject to clear limits, including lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to protect public order and health. This limitation has been held to extend to ‘laws that enable citizens to engage in their personal and business affairs free from unlawful physical interference to their person or property’ (Magee v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50). It is a recognition that the right to freedom of expression does not protect all forms of expressive conduct including conduct involving violence, or threats of violence (Magee v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50).

The Bill limits the right by restricting a person’s ability to impart certain information and ideas through words or conduct that they know, or that a reasonable person would know, is threatening or abusive to workers in connection with the performance of their duties. While the concept of threatening or abusive words and behaviour is well-understood, the new offences are intended to capture both serious conduct of such a magnitude that it meets the standard of an indictable offence, and less serious conduct which meets the standard of a summary offence.

The new offences provide additional protections to applicable customer-facing workers in the retail, hospitality and passenger transport sectors in Victoria who have been impacted by a spike in assaults, threatening conduct and verbal abuse. It is important in a diverse and pluralistic society that such workers can go about their business with the expectation of a safe working environment. Being subjected to assaults, threats, and intimidation can make workplaces feel unsafe and unpredictable, particularly for more vulnerable people. For example, a 2003 national survey of 4,600 members from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employee’ Association (SDA) found that a shocking 87 percent of workers had experienced abuse from customers in the preceding year, 76 percent had experienced regular verbal abuse over the preceding 12 months while 12.5 percent had suffered physical violence – a 50 per cent jump from a similar survey two years earlier. Such conduct has the potential to harm individual workers but also harms the community by undermining standards of acceptable behaviour and public order. Given how deeply upsetting and harmful to individual human dignity such behaviour can be and how damaging it can be to the functioning of a democratic and pluralistic society, it is appropriate that there be specific offences that prohibit such conduct.

The limitation of the right to freedom of expression that arises is consistent with the Bill’s purpose to protect applicable customer-facing workers from the threatening or abusive words and behaviour, while also ensuring that conduct done reasonably and for legitimate purposes is adequately protected. The applicable customer-facing worker offences clearly target assaults and extreme examples of threatening or abusive words and behaviour. A person will continue to be able to express themselves in such a way that does not cause harm, or that causes a person to feel unsafe. This balances the right of a person to hold and express an opinion and to engage with other members of the community with the rights of applicable customer-facing workers and in doing so protects public order and public morality and the stability of our free and democratic society. I consider these measures to be reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

To be less restrictive, the offences could be cast less broadly - for example, by specifying the exact kinds of threatening or abusive words and behaviour envisaged to be captured, or by stating what community standards of acceptable conduct are. However, this would mean the offences would not be sufficiently flexible to capture unforeseen types of conduct. Additionally, if the Bill articulated specific acts or community standards, the offences would not be adaptable to changing societal attitudes and values. This would mean that the offences could continue to capture conduct that the broader community has come to find tolerable or less offensive – effectively becoming more restrictive over time.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive words and behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the charter rights contained in section 9 (right to life), section 10 (protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), section 14 (freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief), section 18 (taking part in public life), and section 21 (right to liberty and security of person), and is reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the charter.

b.   Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14), right to culture (section 19), right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16), and right to taking part in public life (section 18);

Section 14 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including to adopt the religion or belief of their choice and to demonstrate their religious belief in public or private. It provides that a person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits their freedom of religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching. Historically, the right to have or adopt a religion or belief has been held to be absolute and unqualified (Eweida v The United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8); however, limitations on the right to demonstrate religion or belief have been found to be reasonable and justified (Victorian Electoral Commission [2009] VCAT 2191).

Section 19 of the Charter provides for the right to culture and is based on Article 27 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This right ensures individuals, in community with others that share their background, can enjoy their culture, declare and practise their religion and use their language. It protects all people with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background.

Section 16(1) of the Charter protects every person’s right to peaceful assembly, that is to gather intentionally and temporarily for a specific purpose. Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. The UN Human Rights Committee, when commenting on article 25(a) of the ICCPR, considered the right to participate in public life to lie at the core of democratic government.

The Bill could limit these rights where the relevant conduct amounts to a breach of the protections for applicable customer-facing workers contained in the Bill. For example, the Bill prohibits a person from exercising such a right through words or conduct directed towards an applicable customer facing worker in connection with the performance of their duties in a manner that can be objectively considered to be threatening or abusive. The purpose of the limitation is to ensure that applicable customer-facing workers are protected from the harm and distress that result from threatening or abusive words and behaviour in connection with the performance of their duties.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive words and behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the other rights contained in the Charter. The narrow scope of the Bill, which is targeted at threatening or abusive words and behaviour directed at applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties, means that people who demonstrate these rights in a controversial and even offensive manner may still be able to do so subject to existing laws and as long as they do not do so in a threatening or abusive manner directed at applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties.

The Bill could not be modified to entirely and expressly exempt these rights. Threatening or abusive words and behaviour, without a lawful excuse, cannot be justified because they expose applicable customer-facing workers to harm and undermine the sanctity and dignity of retail workplaces, which need to be maintained for the safety of those workers. The limitations on these rights are reasonable and justified given the potentially significant harm caused by threatening and abusive words and behaviours to applicable customer-facing workers and the broader impacts this can have on the Victorian community and economy.

c.   Right to liberty and security of person (section 21)

Section 21 of the charter provides that every person has the right to liberty, and that a person must not be deprived of their liberty, except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. Section 21 also provides that every person has the right to security.

The right to liberty needs to be balanced with the right to security, specifically, the community’s right to safety and security, which includes protection from being subject to criminal offending. Although conviction for the new offences may result in the deprivation of liberty, it will only arise because of a sentence imposed after conviction for an offence by an independent court after a fair hearing.

These offences and corresponding penalties apply for conduct directed towards a clearly defined cohort of victims, that is, applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties, where the prosecution proves that the offender knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was an applicable customer-facing worker. Applicable customer-facing workers play a critical role in the Victorian economy and in our community. Every single person in our community relies on these workers every single day to perform their duties for the orderly functioning of our society. In return, applicable customer-facing workers should be able to perform their duties with dignity and respect, and free from harmful threats or abuse. In these circumstances, the establishment of offences that may result in the deprivation of an offender’s liberty is a reasonable and proportionate measure to preserve the right to security of applicable customer-facing workers and maintain public order.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the other rights contained in the Charter including the right to proper treatment (section 21), right to be promptly brought before a court (section 21(5)), and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (section 25(1)).

d.   Right in criminal proceedings and right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (section 25)

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

The Bill imposes an evidential burden on the accused for the defence of “lawful excuse” for summary offences in which a person directs threatening or abusive words or behaviour towards applicable customer-facing workers. This may appear to limit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. It will be a matter for a court to assess whether the conduct in question had a lawful excuse. The purpose of the evidential burden is to support the proper operation and prosecution of the offences by ensuring that the applicable customer-facing workers are protected from threatening or abusive words or behaviour that is done without a lawful excuse.

Victorian courts have held that the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law is not limited by the imposition of an evidential burden on the accused (R v DA & GFK [2016] VSCA 325). The defence outlined in the Summary Offences Act 1966 imposes an evidential burden rather than a legal burden. The offences in the Bill do not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of the defence – which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge – the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence.

The Bill could leave the onus to raise and disprove this defence with the prosecution, thereby removing the evidential burden from the accused person. However, this would make the offence largely unworkable, as the circumstances listed in the defences are likely to often be within the peculiar knowledge of an accused person, and it is therefore appropriate that the accused should be required to raise or point to evidence that a defence applies.

In these circumstances, and as courts have held, it is reasonable and proportionate to shift the burden of proof to the accused, because only they may know and be able to articulate why their conduct did not breach community standards.

e.   Protection from retrospective criminal laws (section 27)

Section 27(1) of the Charter provides that a person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence when it was engaged in. This reflects the principle, long recognised in criminal law, that there can be no crime and no punishment, other than as established by the law. The Bill protects this right by ensuring that the new offences and the amendment to the existing aggravated burglary offence have prospective application only.

In particular, the expansion of aggravated burglary to capture the use of a vehicle to cause damage to a building to gain entry to that building to commit a burglary includes an express transitional provision to ensure that the new aggravating factor only applies to conduct that allegedly occurs after commencement of the amendment. Existing criminal offences may still be charged to address this conduct in the interim.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Hon Sonya Kilkenny

Attorney-General

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bulleen, I think you need to leave the chamber.

Member for Bulleen withdrew from chamber.

Incorporated speech as follows:

I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 (Bill). The bill creates new offences under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Crimes Act) and the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act) that seek to prevent assaults, threats, and abuse against customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport. The reforms implement the Government’s commitment to give vulnerable customer-facing workers greater protection against assaults, threats and abuse.

The Bill will also amend the Crimes Act to ensure that ‘ram raid’ conduct is captured by the serious offence of aggravated burglary.

Customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport sectors keep our economy running and ensure that the people of Victoria can obtain essential goods; this was made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, when customer-facing workers continued to perform their duties during a time of great uncertainty. Deliberate acts of violence and abuse that occurs in connection with the performance of customer-facing worker’s duties is unacceptable and the Bill sends a clear message that such treatment will attract an appropriate criminal justice response.

The Government has heard deeply distressing firsthand accounts from retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers across Victoria who suffered abuse and violence in their workplace. This is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to be safe and respected at work. This is confirmed by data with the Australian Retailers Association reporting in June 2025 how 51 per cent of retailers said they experience physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers report experiencing verbal abuse.

Violent and threatening behaviour toward passenger transport workers is also an ongoing issue. Between January and August 2023, there were 381 reports of assault against taxi drivers in Melbourne, compared to 319 in the same period in 2022.

This offending is harmful to those workers, their families and the wider community. The new offences contained in the Bill recognise this and respond appropriately. The Government is committed to protecting our retail workers from acts of violence. The Bill sends a strong message of support to workers in the retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport sectors and is a warning to those who would seek to assault or abuse workers that such behaviour will not be tolerated and that perpetrators will now have tougher consequences.

I shall now turn to the substance of the bill.

The Bill establishes new worker harm offences specifically aimed at protecting retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers from assaults and harmful threats, intimidation and abuse.

The Bill will amend the Crimes Act to introduce a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker. This offence distinguishes itself from the existing offence of Assault and threat to Assault contained at section 31(1)(a) as it does not contain the requirement that the accused person had an intent to commit an indictable offence as an element of the offence. The impact of removing this element is that the new offence will apply to a greater range of conduct than the general offence, providing additional protection for applicable customer facing workers and sending a clear message that there are laws in place to respond to people who seek to do harm or to threaten customer-facing workers.

The Bill will amend the Summary Offences Act to introduce the following new summary offences:

• A summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties.

• A summary offence of using without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties.

Establishing a summary assault offence is consistent with the existing tiered approach to assaults based on the seriousness of the conduct. As with the indictable offence, the conduct must occur ‘in connection with the performance of the workers duties’ for the offence to apply. This offence will have a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 6 months, which is higher than the existing general offence of Common Assault which has a maximum sentence of three months. This is appropriate as it reflects the importance of preventing harmful conduct towards customer-facing workers.

The new summary offence of using, without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent or obscene or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker will broadly replicate the existing offences contained at section 17(1)(c) and (d) of that Act. However, the new offence will be distinct from the existing section 17 offence as it will not be a requirement for the conduct to occur in or near a ‘public place’, but it will be necessary for the worker to be ‘in connection with the performance of their duties’ for the offence to apply.

Removing the requirement for the conduct to occur in or near a public place means that where a person carries out this conduct in private or isolated settings (for example, in a back office of a retail premises), the new offence would be available. This ensures that all retail, hospitality, fast-food and passenger transport workers are afforded the protection of the offences, including those that might work in roles that do not primarily engage directly with customers, such as a worker in a kitchen or a storeroom.

It is proposed that an offence for directing this conduct towards a worker will have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. This is an increase on the general offence, which has a maximum sentence of two months for a first offence and demonstrates that there will be a strong response to people that choose to direct this type of conduct towards customer-facing workers.

In order for a worker harm offence to occur, the conduct must occur in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. Whether conduct is in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties will be a matter for the courts to determine, but the Bill provides that, without limiting the meaning of this term, conduct is connected with the performance of the worker’s duties if it occurs:

• when the worker is performing their duties;

• when the worker is taking a break from performing duties;

• when the worker is arriving at or leaving a place at which they perform their duties;

• in response to a thing done or omitted to be done by a worker when performing their duties; or

• in response to a thing the person believes the worker has done or omitted to do when performing their duties.

In providing for these circumstances, the Bill ensures that the offences will apply to acts of violence, abuse and intimidation connected to an event or action that took place while the worker was performing their duties, even if the act occurs when the worker is no longer at the workplace. For example, if a person is refused service and then waits for a worker to complete their shift to then assault or abuse them, the new offences will apply.

The worker harm offences contain a mental element that must be proven before a person can be found guilty of these offences. It must be proven that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was a protected worker. This safeguards from the use of these offences where the conduct does not relate to the status of the worker as a retail, fast food, hospitality or passenger transport worker as it ensures that an accused cannot be found guilty of a worker harm offence if the mental element is not proven.

The worker harm offences are also intentionally tiered to address conduct of different levels of harmfulness. This is a sensible approach is it gives Victoria Police officers scope to consider the nature of an accused person’s conduct and to charge a person accordingly. Police officers will also maintain their existing discretion to issue a caution rather than charge an offender, if they consider that the circumstances warrant this.

The Bill will also amend section 77 of the Crimes Act 1958 by providing that the offence of aggravated burglary will apply when a person commits a burglary and uses a vehicle to cause damage to a building to gain entry to that building to commit the burglary. ‘Vehicle’ is defined inclusively and could include a motor vehicle, vessel or other vehicle such as a forklift or other heavy machinery that is sometimes used to commit ‘ram raids’. The amended offence retains the current maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for aggravated burglary, to better reflect the nature and severity of serious ‘ram raid’ offending. Such offending is of increasing community concern and can be extremely dangerous and traumatic for staff, business owners, and members of the community. The reform will give prosecuting authorities another charging option for this type of offending, but they will also continue to have discretion to charge a range of existing offences to suit the circumstances of the particular case.

The Government understands the importance of these reforms and the need to provide customer-facing workers with the strongest measure of protection from assault and abuse, particularly as we come into the Christmas season, when we know this type of conduct increases. With this in mind, the Government has consulted with Victoria Police to ensure that they are ready to operationalise these offences as soon as possible. Therefore, the Bill provides that the worker harm offences will commence two weeks after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. This rapid commencement will be an important measure to put an end to the mistreatment and harm that some members of the community choose to direct towards our frontline workers.

The Victorian Government will monitor the impacts of these reforms. To do this, the Bill includes a statutory requirement for the Attorney-General to commence a review of the new worker harm offences within two years of their commencement. This will ensure that that the new offences are working as intended to protect customer-facing workers and will enable the Government to consider the broader impacts of the reforms. In doing so the review will inform the Government about whether adjustments or further reforms to protect customer-facing workers are needed.

In conclusion, everyone deserves to feel safe at work. Customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport are essential to the functioning of our economy and society and should not be subject to violence or abuse simply for the doing their job. I am very pleased to introduce this Bill, which ensures that assaults and other harmful acts against these workers are responded to with stronger laws and tougher penalties. The new offences are intended not only to provide a stronger deterrent against deliberate acts of violence against retail workers but also to better meet community standards.

I commend the efforts of the Worker Protection Consultation Group for their advice and expertise during development of these reforms. The bill is the culmination of their hard work, driven by objective evidence and distressing personal anecdotes highlighting the inappropriate treatment suffered by customer facing workers in workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport at the hands of the public.

The Victorian Government is committed to improving the way our justice system protects workers and ensuring that criminal penalties are appropriate. These reforms serve as another very important example of this work.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:42): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (09:42): I move:

That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:42): Though the coalition will not be opposing the passage of this – the entry of this bill into the chamber –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The members for Preston, Narre Warren South and Melton can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Members for Preston, Narre Warren South and Melton withdrew from chamber.

James NEWBURY: I can absolutely guarantee you one thing, Speaker: I will not be doctoring Hansard. We will not be delaying the introduction or second reading of this legislation. I do note one of the reasons why we have repeatedly this week spoken about the need for draft legislation and legislation to be considered, to be properly thought through and to be considered by the community more broadly is because when you do things quickly, mistakes happen.

If you look at the statement of compatibility that was just tabled by the minister, it makes clear there is a difference between new offences, whether they be indictable or summary, and the maximum penalties carried with them. But the Premier today, being a little more loose, has tweeted that there is no difference between the offences, and implied in the commentary today that every single type of assault or threat of assault to a retail worker carries with it a maximum five-year penalty. It is not true. Summary offences carry a maximum of six months, which is made clear in this draft legislation. That is, why when you are briefing things out, as the government does to the media, before the legislation is finished, it is important to understand that there is detail, and the Premier has made that mistake. There is the implication. One of the reasons it matters is because threats of assault most of the time – in fact I would imagine almost all the time – will be dealt with as a summary offence, which will carry with it only a six-month maximum.

I am not debating the merit of either maximum penalty. What I am saying is the government this week has misled Victorians over and over again. They have made three big crime announcements without any legislation yet; they have not even drafted it. They have had time to print corflutes and they have had time to print posters but not to draft legislation. So I would say in relation to this legislation –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Speaker, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of any of the points that the member for Brighton is making, the motion before the house that has been put by the minister at my side, the Minister for Police, is a very narrow question: that it be considered tomorrow. The member for Brighton touched on that, but he has now expanded into the merits of comments that have been made outside this place and the legislation itself. This is a very narrow debate about the timing of when this matter will be considered.

The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Brighton that this is a narrow procedural debate.

James NEWBURY: I appreciate very much the need to speak to the matter, but it is important to provide context. When we are debating whether or not legislation be pushed through in one day, understanding the detail, making sure the detail is right and giving it time to be considered are important.

We will not be opposing. I do note that, again, the Attorney-General, who I understand may have another matter to deal with today, has not second read the legislation, as was the case with a further piece of legislation yesterday. The Attorney, who was in the building, did not introduce her own legislation. That is two days in a row the Attorney has not been here to introduce her own legislation. So I will say we will not be opposing the turnaround, but I do feel it is important to put our concerns on record and note that clarity is in what has been provided to the chamber, not what the Premier has been saying. It is important to do things properly, especially when they relate to laws of this state.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (09:47): I am really happy to speak to this because, as those opposite say, it is really important to make sure we have the correct information on the record. I think it is correct what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, that Victoria is the retail capital of Australia. No, you will not find that in Hansard, because he has already had his people there changing what it says from what he said yesterday. So I think if we are going to be certain that what people are saying is correct and on the record, I second the Leader of the Opposition.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mornington has a point of order – Sandringham. I beg your pardon.

Brad Rowswell: A bit further up the coast. Both lovely places. You are welcome anytime. On a point of order, Speaker, just in the same spirit as the minister made his previous point of order, the member on her feet at the moment is not remaining tightly focused on the matter at hand.

The SPEAKER: Member for Yan Yean, come back to the narrow procedural debate.

Lauren KATHAGE: Although those opposite might make mistakes when they rush, we are purposeful as we march towards improving the state as we get towards –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are going to be removed from the chamber without warning this morning.

Brad Rowswell: I am sure you would have observed this as well. The member on her feet practically paused what she was saying. A point of order was raised and awarded against her, and then when she got the call again, she resumed what she had been saying, not paying any attention to your ruling. I raise a further point of order, that being relevance.

Michaela Settle: On the point of order, Speaker, I believe that she was directly addressing the procedural debate, which is on the time and consideration that the government has given in presenting this bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are often required to speak on procedural matters. It is usually the thing that members stray far and wide from procedural debates. It is a –

James Newbury interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, you will leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Brighton withdrew from the chamber.

The SPEAKER: I would ask members to have a look at why they are on their feet and address the debate that is before the house. It is a procedural motion.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Lauren KATHAGE: When I think of people like Kodit, the bus driver for the 524 in Donnybrook, the route that we recently established with growth areas infrastructure contribution funds, and I think about him serving his community, getting people to school and to the shops – he deserves respect in his role, and that is why –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a narrow procedural debate. On relevance, I would ask you to ask the member to come back. There is nothing about Donnybrook in relation to this debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Yan Yean was making a descriptive assessment of why the bill is to be introduced.

Lauren KATHAGE: Kodit deserves respect and he deserves safety at work, as in fact do all transport workers and retail workers, especially as we come to the stressful and busy time of Christmas. We understand that people’s tempers can fray, that they are under pressure, but there is never a reason to attack or abuse workers. That is why it is important that we speedily work to have this bill before the house for debate.

For us, it is not a matter of debate, because those on this side of the house are very clear that what stands in this bill is something that urgently must come, because we will always stand on the side of drivers and of workers. Just recently I was at the delegates dinner for the Transport Workers’ Union with the drivers of Ballarat, who have worked together so hard to make sure that they are treated with respect by their employer, and we want to see them treated with respect by all passengers as well, because the service they provide to our community means that our community can function. Without our bus drivers, without our retail workers, we simply cannot function. That is why this government will always seek to introduce bills that keep them safe, that keep them well, because we value all workers and we value all ends of town, not just the owners of the big shops but the people who are turning up day after day to work as well, seeking to make an income for their families. So I am really pleased that we will be moving to debate this bill quickly.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:52): This government has spent more time chasing headlines this week than they have been catching crooks. This government has had 18 months to introduce legislation to protect workers and shoppers and have done nothing, and now, when they are introducing the legislation, the Attorney-General is not even here. It is such an important piece of legislation but the Attorney-General does not even support it and has not even turned up and shown the decency to retail workers to come up here and explain it. The Attorney-General does not believe in her own legislation. This is so important to retail workers to get it done right and get it done now.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the member on his feet is clearly so distracted by the government’s action this week and all that we are doing that he has lost sight of the purpose of this debate, which is a narrow procedural debate. I ask that you call him back to the matter at hand.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, come back to the procedural debate.

David SOUTHWICK: It is so important to get this done and get it done right, and we must get this done to protect retail workers during Christmas and over the Christmas break. But I looked at this bill, and I looked in a very detailed way at this bill, trying to find the worker protection orders that the government announced and that the government promised, and I could not them it anywhere. So we are going to go over summer – and the government is desperate to get this to protect retail workers over summer – but there is nothing, zero, doughnuts, when it comes to worker protection orders, because this government does not believe in protecting workers.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, I simply renew my point of order from before, Speaker. This is a narrow debate about this bill being read tomorrow, not the merits of the bill itself. The member is completely off the topic of the motion.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Caulfield to come back to the procedural debate before the house.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Caulfield to come back to the procedural debate before the house.

David SOUTHWICK: That is why it is really important to get this bill done to protect workers and to get it done properly. The concern here is because the government has not done their homework, there are more holes in this than there are in Swiss cheese. You could drive a truck through the holes in this bill. I am really concerned for workers as they go into the Christmas period that we do not have worker protection orders and we only have assault protections of six months compared to four years in other states. The Premier came out and said five years. That was pulled out of nowhere, because it is not in the bill. The concern here, like with every bit of legislation that this government does, is it is last minute, it is rushed, it is all about a headline and it is not about protecting people and keeping them safe. I think it is absolutely atrocious for those people, like IGA workers, who have been talking about closing their shops because of the violence that has been happening in these stores – individuals that have had their hands cut off because of people carrying machetes, wielding machetes – with this government doing nothing and now at the last minute rushing through a piece of legislation with no consultation, Minister for Health, lacking in detail and still light compared to what is happening in other states.

Yes, we do need to get this legislation through to protect workers over Christmas. We do need to make sure both workers and shoppers are protected during the most difficult, stressful period over the Christmas break. But this is nothing more than a headline. It is weak. It has got more holes and less detail in it than we have seen anywhere else. All this government needed to do was look at New South Wales, look at other states and take legislation from there. But this is a Temu, weak copy of what other states have done. The government needs to get it right. You know, Minister for –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Caulfield.

David SOUTHWICK: The Minister for Police may shake his head, but he has been left to clean up the Attorney-General’s mess, who will not even turn up today – will not even front the Parliament – because this Attorney does not even believe in her own legislation.

Colin Brooks: Speaker, I just simply renew the point of order that I made earlier on that this is a narrow procedural debate not a –

The SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield’s time has expired.

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (09:57): Indeed, this is a very strange debate – a strange procedural debate. We have on one side the government, who want to introduce this legislation and want to read it as soon as possible, and then we have the opposition vehemently agreeing that it needs to be introduced as soon as possible. They brought on this debate when we still have a lot of speakers on the government business program. We still have another full bill to debate, and we are going to be spending this half-hour talking about how much in furious agreement we are that this bill is really important and that we should get it on the program straight away. Maybe we should not be debating it tomorrow. Maybe we should be debating it later this day. Maybe we should be bringing it straight on. I do not want to put the minister on the spot; he might not appreciate that. But I am glad that everyone in this house agrees with the principles of this bill of protecting workers and bringing a piece of legislation like this to the house as quickly as possible.

Obviously the reason why the proposal is to do this is that not only is it an issue that we have seen from across all different types of retail workers and service workers, but particularly in the lead-up to Christmas, as has been said, we know how important it is going to be as we get into the busiest retail time of the year and people are also moving around on our transport system et cetera, et cetera. As I said, it is really much ado about nothing. I think we are going to have this procedural debate to discuss whether or not we should read this bill tomorrow – or in reality next week – which is, I think, perfectly appropriate. We should be looking at putting in this bill as soon as possible so that we can debate it.

I am greatly looking forward to the contributions of the other side when this bill comes up for debate. I think they have already flagged what their take is going to be. I am also looking forward to the many great contributions that will come on our side, many of whom have experience particularly in the retail worker space, either as retail workers or as workplace representatives or union representatives for those workers who are in that retail space or the transport worker space. There will be a lot of contributions, no doubt, and I am looking forward to being able to debate this legislation next week.

As I said originally, this is a procedural debate that really has absolutely no purpose. If there is a disagreement about when to introduce the bill and how long it is going to be debated, well, fair enough. And if we are going to have a division, we say fair enough – there is a difference of opinion. But do the Victorian public really want to see the Victorian Parliament spend half an hour of their time debating a procedural motion which we furiously agree on? I do not think so. I think they want to see us get on with the laws. They know that these laws and the issues that are raised in this bill are really important. They affect so many people in the community. They particularly affect young people in the community, because so many of our young people in the community are in the retail workforce or the hospitality industry, all customer-facing roles, so it is really important for them. It will affect every single one of our communities, and I am sure there will be, as I said, lots of speakers who will want to speak about this bill when it comes before the Parliament. I feel that using this half an hour for a procedural motion to debate what we believe we are in furious agreement about is a complete waste of time. With that I will sit down.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Box Hill for getting through 5 minutes on the procedural motion.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:02): I will do my best to continue the trend, Speaker, although you are leaving now, so I can do what I like. I will reiterate that the opposition is not opposing this procedural debate. The member for Box Hill talked about looking forward to members on both sides having the opportunity to have their say. I am speaking now because very rarely do we all get to have our say, particularly on something like this, where the government is rushing this legislation through, and that is what we are debating right now. The government is rushing this through, and we absolutely believe in the urgency of this situation. But what is hypocritical of the government is that the Premier announced it on 18 May 2024 with the media release ‘New laws to keep workers safe from assault and abuse’. I have not got the calculator available right now to work out how many days that is, but that is about 18 months – 18 months since the government announced it was doing this legislation. And now it is not just introducing it, it is introducing it in a rush and moving to the second reading straightaway. That is the concern that I have about the government’s chaotic approach to this.

We are here again for the first time in many, many years on a Friday because the government has not been able to manage its legislative agenda. We have actually had multiple pieces of legislation brought in. We are now sitting on a Friday because the government did not manage its legislative agenda. Everyone in this chamber can remember earlier in the year we were debating motions every sitting week because the government did not have anything to do. And now we are getting to the end of the year and we have got to put in an extra week, sit on a Friday, all because this apparently is so urgent – so urgent that it is 18 months since the Premier announced that this needed to be done.

We have seen already this week the government making announcements that do not match up with the legislation they have actually got planned, so we will be very, very cautious in going through this legislation. I am sure both the member for Brighton and the member for Caulfield will be going through it in very fine detail, because we know from this week and from past experience what the government says and what it actually does are not always the same thing.

It is a truism, I am sure, with this legislation. The member for Caulfield highlighted the fact that in the original draft of this legislation provided to the opposition workplace protection orders were not in place. And that is something that the retail sector and indeed the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union has been asking for. I will be interested to see what those members of the shoppies on the other side will actually say about this legislation, given it does not have that.

We have seen retail crime become a massive issue in my own electorate. The Wellington shire saw thefts from retail rise 135 per cent in the last 12 months. The member for Morwell has told us stories about the horrific amount of shop stealing going on in parts of his electorate too. But it is the threats to the workers that are of most concern. We know that this has been an issue for a lot of this year too. The Premier herself should remember the security guard at Bendigo Marketplace being attacked by a gang of youths running through. I wonder now why that happened in March. Oh, we have now got the Attorney-General here to maybe talk about her own legislation. The Attorney-General has walked in, so it turns out the member for Caulfield was wrong. But we had that attack in Bendigo in March, and here we are nearly halfway through November and the government is only now acting. Why are they acting? Because retail crime is out of control in this state under the Labor government’s watch. We have seen the retail sector come out in the last sitting week – we had Woolies, Bunnings, IGA, Coles, JB Hi-Fi and the Australian Retailers Association come out and say that Victoria is the worst place for retail crime in the nation. We have got a laggard government that takes so long to do anything because it is more focused on chasing headlines than it is on chasing crooks, and we have seen that a number of times this week.

This legislation should have been brought in much earlier. We will not be standing in the way of it proceeding today, and we will look forward to the debate next week. I hope that all members of this chamber will get the opportunity to speak, but we know the government is in chaos and has not been able to manage its legislative agenda, and that may well not be the case. We do need to crack down on retail crime, and the Liberals and Nationals will not stand in the way of that.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until tomorrow.