Tuesday, 18 November 2025

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:01): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. Victorians know that not only do we have a crime crisis but we have a retail crime crisis in this state – a retail crime crisis that is not new. It is not something that has come out of nowhere. It has been ongoing. It has been deep. It has been shocking, frankly, in the examples, the high-profile examples, that we have seen. But more than that, every single day across this state we are seeing cases where people are dealing with things at work that they should not have to deal with, and that is why the coalition has been calling for action on retail crime. For some time – and for a long time – we have been calling for action. When the Premier committed in May last year to doing something, the coalition, though sceptical, took the government at its word that it would do something and it would do something with haste, because you cannot see the level of offending in this state that we are seeing without taking action – not words, not press releases, but action.

The most recent data shows that in the year to June there were 99,114 offences in a retail store setting, an increase of 20 per cent in one year. So between the commitment 18 months ago and this bill being put to the Parliament today we have seen a huge increase in retail store–setting crime, retail crime in Victoria, which is why the coalition has called for action. Retail thefts were up 26 per cent and retail assaults were up 21 per cent according to the recent Crime Statistics Agency data – 21 per cent on retail assault and, as I said, 26 per cent on retail theft. That goes to the broader picture of crime and the increase in the number of offences that are occurring in this state. There have been substantial increases in crime, not just year on year. In addition to retail crime, of which there were basically 100,000 offences in the year to June, there were 638,000 criminal offences in the 2024–25 year, which was 200,000 more than when Labor was first elected – 200,000 more, a third more, roughly, than when Labor was first elected.

Total offences have increased by 47 per cent, crimes against people are up by 63 per cent and property and deception offences are up by 38 per cent.

There is a crime problem in this state, and one of the biggest crime problems in this state is in the retail sector. The government in no way can suggest that this crime problem was not clear, because in addition to the shocking incidents on our screens, in media reports and, frankly, reports from people we know who tell us about what they go through and have gone through, we have also seen the biggest retailers in the country talk about that retail crime crisis in Victoria. Leah Weckert from Coles said:

… it is definitely the case that in Victoria, retail crime is escalating more than … we are seeing in other states.

The Rebel Sport chief executive said:

We’ve seen a disproportionate increase in Victorian stores. No doubt about that.

Reece chief executive Peter Wilson was reported as saying that Victoria was:

… ‘the toughest place in the country’ to do business …

The co-founder of Seek, Paul Bassat, said:

Whenever something … is done in this country that’s anti-business, the reality is there’s a good chance of it being done in Victoria.

These very, very senior executives are calling out and have been calling out the retail crime crisis in Victoria. What they have called for is real action that will solve the crime crisis in the retail sector. This bill will not do that. This bill will not fix the retail crime crisis in this state, and at its core any bill that comes to this chamber which seeks to solve a problem should be measured on whether or not it will solve that problem. Though the coalition will not be opposing this legislation, we do want noted very, very clearly and do want recorded very, very clearly our strong view that the retail crime crisis in Victoria will not be solved by this bill.

After waiting some 18 months for the promise of a bill, how disappointed, frankly, people will be to see this bill and find not only the measures contained therein to be mixed, and, as I will go into later, not actually substantially going to solving the issues it seeks to solve, but that an entire piece of the solution is missing from this bill, and that is workplace protection orders. It is an entire piece needed to address the retail crime crisis. That is why under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

We seek to do two things with this bill, which I will talk about in more detail. Increasing the penalties contained in the bill is the first part – increasing the measures – but then also introducing a workplace protection order regime into Victoria. It is no good to simply introduce proposed laws that try to solve a problem which are, frankly, nothing more than a press release realised through a draft bill, and then announce, as part of that solution, the need for workplace protection orders at the eleventh hour, and then backflip on the need for workplace protection orders so spectacularly that the government could not even draft the measures for this bill.

As we know, this Premier has been fighting workplace protection orders every single day. Every single day, this Premier has been fighting against the introduction of workplace protection orders in this state.

I will start by going to what is in this bill and talking through the measures, because it is quite a simple bill in terms of the measures therein, and go to a number of sector experts in terms of the Law Institute of Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association, who I would thank for the very, very speedy assessment they have been able to do on the on this particular bill. It is unusual for a bill to be introduced and not be considered by this chamber for 14 days, which gives the broader community time to think it through. Considering the measures in this bill were promised 18 months ago and, frankly, were rushed into a bill that has been put to the house only days ago, it is unfortunate that the sector has been unable to look at this bill, to have legal experts look at this bill with any real time. Not that introducing a bill that has increased punitive measures does nothing; it does something, which is why we are not going to oppose it. But we have not given the broader community time to consider the measures in the bill. And I can understand why, because firstly, the Premier had a promise to acquit, which the Premier was clearly dragged to in the final days of this year. There was a commitment that this bill would be acquitted this year, so a bill that was not fully formed has been brought into this chamber. The Premier has admitted that by way of acknowledging that the retail crime crisis will only be solved with workplace –

Iwan Walters: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, contributions need to be factual, and verballing the Premier and the hard work of the worker protection group, which has led to this bill coming to the Parliament, is not within standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: If I can go to the overview of the Law Institute of Victoria’s assessment of this bill and highlight their assessment that these measures:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

… may unnecessarily overcomplicate the Crimes Act as the proposed offending conduct is already captured through other offences within the act.

It goes further:

A judicial officer is already empowered to consider the specific circumstances of such offending when evaluating an application for bail or handing down a sentence.

More specifically it says:

Certain sections in the proposed act may inadvertently create gaps in the framework by only criminalising abuse directed at those in a customer-facing role, for example, but not exclude bank tellers, accountants, therapists, policy experts et cetera.

What the law institute has said is that this bill gets it wrong, and I will go into detail why. I made this point after seeing the bill very, very early on: this bill creates an offence that exists. In terms of an indictable offence, what this bill does is create an assault offence, in simple terms, where assault offences exist.

Frankly, this bill, with that particular offence, does very, very little. It does not create something new. There is no new power that cannot be dealt with by common-law assault. To make it even clearer, the common-law assault maximum sentence is five years. Right now if you commit an indictable offence, if you assault, through an indictable offence, in terms of common-law assault, you would be subject to, or you could be subject to, exactly what this so-called new provision creates. The power exists. When the Premier was producing social media talking about how a new power will exist, how a new law will exist to protect people from assault and how the maximum for that offence will be five years, it exists in law. As the law institute has pointed out, assault exists in law, and so all this does is create a new offence on top of an existing offence. It does not mean that the original law of assault is somehow better or different by nature of this bill passing. As the law institute has said:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The Crimes Act already captures common-law assault with a maximum of five years.

It is absolutely clear.

The second thing the bill does is it adds ramraiding, in short, into a new definition of aggravated burglary. In shorthand, ramraiding will be classified or could be classified as aggravated burglary. As the law institute has said:

The offence of aggravated burglary would likely already capture a ramraid under certain circumstances – for example, where the offender commits a ramraid during business hours, where there are staff or where there is a reason to believe that there are likely staff in the building.

Again, the institute has pointed out that this new offence is already captured in law. So we now have two offences created by this bill which are not new – they exist in law – which is the point that has been made repeatedly over recent days.

When it comes to the summary offences created by this bill, summary offences in relation to assault and threats, these are, as the law institute again points out:

… substantially similar to offences already contained in the Summary Offences Act.

What the law institute makes clear – as also will the Criminal Bar Association, and I will go into that as well – is that this bill will not fix the retail crime crisis, because frankly it is a bill that is more about acquitting a promise of 18 months ago than creating substantial or meaningful reform that will go to the core of this crime crisis and introducing measures that will actually create change. When you introduce a bill that rebadges or renames existing offences under the act, yes, you get your social media tile and, yes, you get to put out your press release and make the claim that you have put out your press release, but what you do not do is go to the core of the problem. That is what is missing from this bill: solutions to the crime crisis that will actually go to solving the crime crisis, especially when it comes to retail.

In relation to the Criminal Bar Association, I do make the point, as has the association, that my engagement with them was the first time that anybody had sought to go to them to seek their advice on these proposed measures. The government did not bother, and in fact that was a consistent piece of feedback, that the government did not bother to consult with legal experts.

When you understand what is missing in terms of this bill and how this bill is simply a rebadging of existing offences, you can see why. I do not think it was by accident that the government did not consult with legal experts. I think it was by design, because they did not want to be told that this bill is nothing more than a press release. This bill is not creating something substantial or something new. In fact the experts would say it is not and it is not necessary because these offences currently exist.

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The Criminal Bar Association has described the indictable offence created by this bill as being ‘of little utility’ and one ‘which would otherwise be captured by the existing offence of common law assault’. Again, it is of little utility and an offence that is captured by common law assault. I think it is very important for the house to understand what is missing from the bill and that these offences are already captured. That is what the legal experts are saying; they are saying that these offences exist. When it comes to the assault matter that I spoke about, the Criminal Bar Association has described the new offence as being of little utility. Further:

Were a customer-facing worker to be physically assaulted or even threatened in connection to their employment without the introduction of this new offence, there would be no impediment to the laying of the charge of common law assault. Given this, it is difficult to see what the introduction of this new offence will achieve.

Those are not my words. That is the Criminal Bar Association, who actually, frankly, know more than the government and deal with this subject matter every single day.

… it is difficult to see what the introduction of this new offence will achieve.

I mean, it will achieve something. It will achieve the acquitting of the Premier’s press release – there is no doubt about that. But what it does not do is create meaningful reform or bring about a new offence that sends a very strong signal. That is why when it comes to the offences proposed by this legislation, the coalition has moved amendments, because we would say that the offences in this bill require a level of toughness that is not contained therein, and that is why we have moved an amendment. On the assault provision, we are seeking to insert a new clause where the penalty moves to, if the assault does not cause physical injury, four years; if the assault causes a physical injury that is not a serious assault, six years; and if the assault causes a serious injury, 11 years. That is in line exactly with the New South Wales model. So when the government looks at these amendments and when the other place looks at these amendments in detail, we make clear that these provisions are modelled off New South Wales, measures where penalties have teeth. There is no point – and we have seen it over the last week – introducing new measures where those penalties do not have real substance. So that is why, through textual amendment, the coalition has moved a series of amendments to increase those penalties.

You can see, I suspect, the government has been forced in the bill to draft a two-year review into certain offences created in the bill – purely, I suspect, because the union has required that buy-off because the union is not happy with what is being proposed in this bill. The union has been calling for a bill and calling for a bill that is tough, and the only reason that that two-year review has been built into this bill – I think we can all see clearly – is because the unions have required it by way of buy-off, because the union not only wants these measures but wants penalties that are tough –

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton knows only too well to be factual. I would ask him to come back to the bill, actually be factual and not put the words of a union into his mouth.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: I thank you for your ruling, again. There is frustration when the truth comes out.

The big piece, as I have said a number of times, that this bill is missing, which is contained in our textual amendments, is the creation of workplace protection orders (WPOs). Workplace protection orders are needed, and it is very, very good that the Premier, finally, after kicking and screaming, has agreed that workplace protection orders are needed. So late, though, was the backflip that it could not be contained in the bill. So we have helped, and we have drafted the amendments for the government – we have by way of amendment provided them for the government – and the other place, including the government members, will have an opportunity to decide whether they agree with the implementation of a workplace protection order system or whether they will vote against it, because workplace protection orders are needed.

I will give you one example of a lovely young constituent who lives in my electorate who went through hell because of the horrific experiences she faced from a customer of a major retailer who had a fixation on her. Eventually this really hardworking young woman took a personal protection order out, and many, many times the order was breached, not just in the workplace but also at her home. This poor young woman was followed home, and on numerous occasions the order was breached. She obviously sought the help of police, who at every occasion tried to help as best they could with the resources available to them. They could not always help immediately because of resourcing, but they did everything they could to help. There were occasions when I also made representations on her behalf, because she went through hell because this person had a fixation on her. What struck me is that she battled this initially alone. What she needed was the big company that she worked for to have the power to seek a protection order and for that company to help her in enforcing it. When a big retail company manages that process and also enforces that process, through pushing to ensure that the order is kept up with in terms of the safety of the individual, we can be sure that there will be a greater force behind that order in terms of the capacity of that organisation to help that employee, which is why we have been calling for workplace protection orders.

We have not been the only ones calling for workplace protection orders. I know that the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association has said:

If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing WPOs is a no brainer.

Well, I guess you do need a brain to have it in this bill. The ACT police on workplace protection orders have said that in the eight months that WPOs have been in use in the ACT:

… police have noticed a “total change in behaviour where [the offenders] have just disappeared off our screens”.

That is a fix for that element of the retail crime crisis. ‘Disappeared off our screens’ – that is systemic change. We need more than press releases. We need solutions that have substance.

The coalition will not be opposing the bill, but we have concerns about the substance of what is introduced by way of this bill. As the legal experts who were not consulted by the government have said, this bill does not create substantially new powers that do not currently exist in the Crimes Act or the Summary Offences Act. They exist. That is what the legal experts say. That is not what I am saying; that is what the legal experts say. But what is missing are workplace protection orders, which is why we have sought to move amendments that increase the penalties so the penalties around the offences have teeth but also introduce workplace protection orders. That regime being proposed will be an opportunity for this government to show whether they really do support the workplace protection orders, because if they vote against it, it just shows that the last-minute backflip was nothing more than just another press release from the Premier. We will not be opposing this bill.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (15:31): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025, a bill I feel very passionately about as someone who started working in retail for my parents in their video library when I was eight until I was 20 and then later supported retail and fast-food workers at the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, or the SDA, and lastly, as the owner of a grocery retail store and a cafe in the hospitality industry.

I noted in the member for Brighton’s contribution there was much discussion about consulting with lawyers. I do want to state here that we have spent a lot of time and energy consulting with the workers – the people in retail, in hospitality, in fast food, in transport, those workers who are on the frontline who have been copping abuse from customers. We have been consulting with them, the unions who represent them and the retailers and employers in those industries, along with Victoria Police and the courts, in developing this. I know several of my colleagues will speak to the experience of transport workers in their contributions, and I look forward to hearing those, but I would like to focus on retail and fast food in the limited time that I have to contribute. This does not in any way, though, diminish the importance of this bill to workers within the transport industry.

As anyone who has worked in retail or hospitality would attest, whilst the work can be quite satisfying at times, it is not easy and it is certainly not well paid. Retail and food services are two of the lowest industries for median weekly earnings. Just under two-thirds of retail assistants are women, and over 20 per cent of employees across both industries are aged 15 to 24. These are industries that have a higher proportion of women and young people in customer-facing roles, who are some of the lowest wage earners in the country. The work they and transport workers do is essential, and we all had a clear lesson in that during the pandemic. But despite the importance of the work, they have been subjected to a rise in abusive, threatening and criminal behaviour from customers.

A recent survey of SDA members showed that 87 per cent of workers experience abuse from customers, and that was national. No-one deserves to be subjected to this level of abuse, least of all the hardworking frontline staff across these industries. The worker cohort that this legislation which we have introduced is designed to protect is defined broadly as including all workers that perform customer-facing duties for a retail or hospitality operator and workers who perform customer-facing duties for landlords or managers of retail shopping centres. Cleaners in food courts and security guards are also protected, whether they are direct employees or labour hire. It also includes customer-facing workers for or as a passenger transport service provider, which includes commercial passenger vehicle and public transport drivers, and operators and workers located at transport premises, such as bus stations, tram stops and train stations.

The bill that we have before us seeks to address the rising scourge of customer violence and aggression through three new offences. One is indictable, and two are summary. The bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to introduce a new indictable offence of assaulting or threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker and will carry a maximum of five years imprisonment, which is consistent with the maximum sentence for assault of an emergency or custodial worker. It differs from the general assault offence, which already exists in section 31 of the Crimes Act.

It differs in that it does not contain the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence, and therefore this will actually apply to a greater range of conduct, which seems to have been missed by the member for Brighton in his contribution.

The bill will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 with two new summary offences, which are assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties, and using

… without lawful excuse –

(a) language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(b) otherwise engage in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting –

towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with …

the worker’s duties. Both of these summary offences have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment, which is a higher penalty than for equivalent general offences.

Establishing a summary assault offence is consistent with the existing tiered approach to assaults based on the seriousness of the conduct, and it ensures there is a range of specific offences to protect customer-facing workers from assaults. The offence for threatening and abusive words and conduct is based on an existing offence of the Summary Offences Act. But unlike the existing offence, the new offence does not require the conduct to occur in or near a public place, and that will ensure that it is protecting workers who work alone, such as a cleaner in a storeroom. The worker harm offences will apply to conduct that occurs in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. This captures a broad range of circumstances, including while the worker is on shift or on a break, is arriving at or leaving work, or if the conduct is in response to something done by the worker when performing their duties.

We do know that leading up to Christmas is a time when violence towards customer-facing workers increases, which is shameful in and of itself. So this bill provides that the worker harm offences which I have just covered will commence the day after royal assent, with the aim that the offences can protect workers at this time of heightened risk. I am very pleased that the opposition will not be opposing this bill, which will ensure that it gets seen through as quickly and swiftly as possible, so that this law comes into effect absolutely as soon as possible.

The bill will also amend the Crimes Act to ensure that ramraiding, which is the use of a vehicle to forcibly enter a building to facilitate theft or criminal damage, will apply to all buildings, retail or otherwise, and it ensures that ramraiding will be captured by the serious offence of aggravated burglary with its 25-year maximum penalty. Ram raids can deeply traumatise workers even if they were not there at the time. Knowing that the place where you work has been ramraided does not fill you with confidence when you turn up to work; it makes people feel incredibly unsafe – never mind those who are actually there and have experienced it occurring in their time. The offence for ramraiding will commence a little bit later, on 16 March next year. But in the meantime police can continue to charge current offences such as destroying or damaging property, driving offences and conduct endangering persons.

We also know that at times those who are abusing customers or threatening them may be vulnerable themselves, and we do understand that any new offence has the potential to disproportionately impact vulnerable cohorts. With this in mind, the bill provides different mechanisms to ensure individuals’ vulnerabilities are appropriately considered when applying the new offences. For the worker harm offences to apply, it will be necessary to prove that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was a protected worker, and this mental element must be proven before an accused is found guilty of these offences. It really is an important safeguard that we have built into this. Victoria Police officers will continue to exercise their discretion to issue a caution instead of charging a person, where appropriate, or to recommend an offender be considered as part of a criminal justice diversion program. This bill does not limit a court’s judicial discretion to determine appropriate sentences either, and courts will continue to consider relevant sentencing factors, including any vulnerabilities of the accused and impacts on the victim.

It is a really sad indictment on society that we have had to introduce these laws. Poor customer behaviour has long been something which workers in service industries have tolerated, but in recent years we have witnessed a terrible rise. There are some truly awful stories out there. It is a sobering statistic from the SDA survey in 2023 of 4600 retail and fast-food workers that the most likely cohort to have experienced verbal abuse, at 92 per cent, was women aged between 18 and 25 years, followed by 90 per cent of women aged 26 to 35 years. And verbal abuse is not the limit.

12.5 per cent of respondents to that survey said they had been the victim of physical violence from a customer within the 12 months prior. Once again, it was young female workers aged 18 to 25 who reported the highest levels of physical violence, at 17 per cent, and young male workers of the same age followed closely at 16 per cent. Last year I met with former Woolworths assistant customer service manager Shefali Batta, who told me about the violent customer incident in which she was confronted by a woman wielding a knife attempting to steal groceries. The woman slashed at Shefali’s stomach as she tried to stab her and a security guard, and it was very evident that she still carries the trauma. Sadly, her story is not unique. It is for workers across retail, fast food, hospitality and transport that these laws are being made, to protect each and every one of them, because no-one deserves a serve and everyone deserves to go home in the same physical and mental condition that they arrived at work in.

I look forward to the worker protection orders, which will be introduced next April to Parliament. They will send threatening and violent customers out of the store and see them banned from that workplace. There is a bit of time needed – and I notice the clock is running down quickly – because we need to ensure that when we develop that legislation we do so carefully and in consultation with Victoria Police, the courts, the unions and all the retailers involved as well. We will not be so reckless as to accept these amendments put before the house today. We will develop it properly with all the machinery of government behind us, and I look forward to it coming in next year. I commend the bill to the house.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:41): I am delighted to rise and make some comments on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. The Allan Labor government has finally admitted that there is a crime crisis in Melbourne, and we have seen that over the last couple of weeks as bills have started to come to this place relating to crime. Today it is a bill about crime against retail workers and fast-food and hospitality workers – and can I say that as recently as 23 October, only a month ago, the Premier was still saying there was no law and order crisis in Victoria.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Tim McCURDY: She said, ‘There is no law and order crisis in Victoria.’ But something changed.

Members interjecting.

Tim McCURDY: She has also said the city is safe, and she has also said there is no law and order crisis in Victoria. But something changed. Was it more police on the beat? No, I do not think it was more police on the beat. Was it a reduction in the crime rate? No, I do not think it was.

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Ovens Valley is misquoting to the house, just like the Member for Gippsland South did during question time.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order. I ask the member to continue.

Tim McCURDY: So what changed? As I was saying, it was not more police on the beat, and it was not changed –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Nothing changed in our meeting today. The changes will be coming in yours very soon – all those backbenchers who are getting a bit touchy. But what changed is the polls. The polls changed, and all of a sudden the Premier said, ‘Well, we’d better look at this crime crisis a little bit differently to how we’ve been seeing it. We’d better get some colour and movement going.’ And now we see that colour and movement and new legislation coming in last week and this week about action stations, because ‘The polls are looking sick. We’ve got to be seen to be taking action, because the Premier’s going to be in trouble if we don’t take action.’ Let us be clear: Labor only govern via the polls. They do not govern for all Victorians. They look at the polls, and they base their decision –

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I ask the member on his feet to come back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Tim McCURDY: I am still clearly on the bill. We are talking about crime in retail, fast food and hospitality and the lack of what the government has been doing about it, and as I said, this government does govern by the polls. And let us look at Labor focus groups. Labor focus groups –

A member interjected.

Tim McCURDY: I have not changed our leader. Labor’s focus groups have more to say than half the backbenchers on that side of the house, and I have got to say there are a few backbenchers getting a bit jumpy because the polls are not going their way and there are a few going to lose their seat. They have been reading the tea leaves, and they are starting to say, ‘This is not going to look good for me. We’d better change. We’d better do something about this crime crisis that’s going on in Victoria.’

As I say, in less than a month we have gone from ‘no crime crisis’ to a crackdown on criminals, and even last week we heard them talking about locking up 14-year-olds for life. That is just ridiculous. That is not going to happen; it is never going to happen. I would not support it, and I suspect nobody in the Labor Party would ever support 14-year-olds being locked up for life. That is just another stunt, I would say. The government likes to continue to talk tough, but it will never happen.

In terms of retail crime let us look at the frontline services. We talk about frontline services in terms of police, ambos and firefighters, and that includes CFA firefighters as well. They are our frontline services. But I tell you what: retail workers are frontline services as well. They are at the coalface, and they work where the friction is every day of the week. They face the angry shoppers, and they are frightened. They are very concerned about their safety and their welfare.

I have met with some of Australia’s largest retail outlets, national brands, over the last month – think Woolworths, Bunnings, Coles, IGA and Kmart – the big national brands that go across Australia. When I asked them about their retail crime, one of those companies said 75 per cent of their retail crime is in Victoria – 75 per cent of everything nationally is in Victoria. Another company said theirs is not that high, with only 68 per cent in Victoria, and another one said only two-thirds of theirs is in Victoria. That goes to show that national companies are saying, yes, there are retail safety concerns right across Australia, but there is no doubt Victoria has the highest amount of crime against retail workers. Sadly, as the member for Brighton talked about, this bill will not fix the problem.

We have heard the Premier is not prepared to put her job on the line to say that if crime does not go down, she will give up her position. All she wants to do is more stunts to make sure they are seen to be acting on crime, but they are really doing nothing about it, when it is all said and done. As the member for Brighton also said, it is missing some key elements. It is missing workplace protection orders, and that is the major flaw in this bill. We have seen before time and time again with these rushed bills – we will be back here again next year beefing them up, tightening them up, to try and get some genuine laws rather than just a stunt that says, ‘Look what we’re doing. Look over here. This is what we’re doing.’ At the end of the day, it is not going to change what we have got happening in the retail crime sector at the moment.

On the workplace protection orders, South Australia and Western Australia are preparing to draft workplace protection order laws, and the New South Wales Premier has said he is closely looking at the laws in the ACT. We know that calls for workplace protection orders have been consistent and strong. Even the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association of Victoria secretary Michael Donovan said on the 12 October this year:

If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing –

workplace protection orders –

is a no-brainer.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, can you please check that the honourable member is actually the honourable member – that there is no kind of body double? Quoting a union leader in the Labor Party is very, very unusual. I am just not sure that it is actually him.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

Tim McCURDY: So a union representative said, ‘If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing workplace protection orders is a no-brainer.’ Further to this Woolworths, IKEA, Myer, Kmart, 7-Eleven and Bunnings jointly wrote to the Premier on 7 October 2025 and called for workplace protection orders, asking that the Premier implement legislation that enables courts to issue enforceable orders restricting high-harm repeat offenders from engaging in violence, threats or harassment in and around retail workplaces. That was coming from those big national providers that I spoke about before.

Even in the Australian Capital Territory, as we heard the member for Brighton say, an ACT police sergeant on 12 October said that in the eight months that workplace protection orders have been in use in the ACT, police had noticed a total change in behaviour where the offenders have just disappeared off their screens.

Sadly, Victorians will not do what is needed. They will do the minimum and be seen to be acting, but at the end of the day I suspect we will be back here next year doing more reforms to support retail workers – because they deserve the protection. The Law Institute of Victoria is also concerned. I will not go through all the listed details – the law institute has mentioned its concerns about the bill – because I know the member for Brighton has done that.

Our amendments include trying to get two genuine outcomes. One is increased penalties for assaulting workers in line with New South Wales, those being without bodily harm, up to four years; with bodily harm, up to six years imprisonment; and reckless wounding or grievous bodily harm, up to 11 years. I think the amendments are genuine changes that could make this bill a better bill. They actually serve the purpose of what it is trying to do – that is, cut down on offences against retail workers. That is what we are trying to do at the end of the day. I do not think this bill will do that at the end of the day. I think we will see a lot of colour and movement but not much change. The proof will be in the pudding, because I suspect we will be back here next year, again talking about retail workers and how we can protect them better, because this bill will not be doing that.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:51): It really gives me immense pleasure to rise to speak to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. When I think of those industries of retail, fast food and hospitality and of transport workers, I automatically think of the very fine unions that represent those workers. A very, very big shout-out to the members of the SDA; the United Workers Union, my union, the UWU; the Transport Workers’ Union; and of course the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) as well – all customer-facing workers who live amongst all of us in our communities. The very essence of this bill enacts our government’s commitment to give these customer-facing workers greater protection against assaults, threats and abuse.

Public abuse of retail workers has always been an issue. For many of us, we probably started our very first jobs as causal workers working after school in retail. Most of us faced that, but we all know that it has got much, much worse over the last few years. Many of us who have represented union members in the past know as well that these customer-facing workers who have faced tremendous abuse – assaults and the like – have had to turn to their unions to seek assistance. The union movement, together with the great political side of the movement, is helping to enact this legislation so that it can be passed through both houses, and that is a terrific thing.

The government has heard distressing firsthand accounts from retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers across Victoria who have suffered abuse and violence in their workplaces. It is just not on. It was confirmed by a Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association survey, which found that some 87 per cent of workers had experienced abuse from customers in the previous year. That was compared with the 2021 survey figure, where reports of physical violence against workers had risen by 56 per cent. The Australian Retailers Association also reported in June 2025 that 51 per cent of retailers said they experienced physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers reported experiencing verbal abuse.

It is clear that something needs to be done and stronger protections need to be enacted to curb this trend. These workers keep our state running, and they are essential to the functioning of our society and our economic needs. They do not deserve to be treated poorly or to feel unsafe at work. Our government is committed to improving the way our justice system protects these workers and ensuring the penalties are proportionate and appropriate.

The bill sends a clear message that poor behaviour will attract a corresponding criminal justice response. It contains three new offences to address violence and aggression against workers – one indictable offence and two summary offences. First is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1958, which will see a new indictable offence for assaulting or threatening to assault a customer-facing worker and will carry a penalty of up to five years in jail.

The bill will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1966. The new separate summary offences account for lower level assaults and for conduct that threatens or intimidates workers, such as with profanities or obscene or insulting language. That will carry a penalty of up to six months in jail. The summary offences will have a substantially lower threshold for conduct than the more serious indictable offence, which will give police a range of options to protect workers, depending on the circumstances.

Under this law you will be protected if you work front of house or back of house, at the check-out or in a storeroom, kitchen or bar. If you work for a workplace that has customers, even if you are a contractor, such as a cleaner, or work in security, it will also apply. The bill will also amend the Crimes Act to ensure ramraiding – that is where a vehicle is used to steal goods – is captured by the serious offence of aggravated burglary.

The next tranche of these laws will be the introduction of workplace protection orders. That will be following further consultation with industry, unions, police and legal and justice representatives, and that work is actually taking place now. Under these orders, if you are violent to retail workers, you can be banned from that workplace.

As I alluded to earlier, many of us know someone in or in fact have been in customer-facing work. Whether it is a supermarket worker, a fast-food or retail employee or a transport worker, the importance of these jobs cannot be understated. Workers in these industries work really hard. They do so to make sure that we have essential items, to help us find our way on our transport system or even to remember our coffee order. I thank all those working in these industries across my electorate and even in Parliament House as well. They keep our communities and our state running. We saw the importance of these workers throughout the pandemic, when they continued to perform their jobs during a time that was uncertain. They were essential workers.

But we all know that these workers can experience the worst of society in their public-facing roles. These roles are filled by a wide range of workers at all stages of life. Often they offer flexibility. However, that same flexibility can also attract workers who may be more vulnerable, such as younger teens entering the workforce for the first time or older adults who are transitioning into a new type of job. In fact most retail workers are women and a third are under the age of 24. Retail crime has a devastating impact on these Victorians and the businesses that they work for. Through this bill our government, the Allan Labor government, is making it clear that deliberate acts of violence and abuse that occur in connection with a customer-facing worker’s duties are just unacceptable.

The bill has been informed by consultation with a worker protection consultation group which comprises Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions and union and industry representatives as well. The worker protection consultation group has helped to oversee the development of this legislation, ensuring that we hear from a wide range of people and get the balance of these changes absolutely correct. As I acknowledged before, those unions – the SDA, the United Workers Union, the RTBU and the Transport Workers’ Union all do absolutely incredible work for their members, particularly those members who are in these customer-facing roles.

I know that those unions work tirelessly to combat unfair treatment in trade union industries, many of which are public facing, not only to fight for these types of laws but also to achieve real gains in wages for these workers, to ensure they have safe workplaces and to ensure that they have the dignity and respect that every single Victorian deserves. Hats off to them all.

This bill demonstrates the crucial role that unions play in protecting workers and pushing for change when problems occur. Every Victorian deserves to feel safe at work, and that includes people serving customers, driving trains and buses or working in restaurants and shops. These laws will commence in time for the Christmas season, which we know is one of the worst times for bad conduct against retail and hospitality workers. In many cases these changes should bring some peace of mind to parents who are sending their kids off to their first jobs, and we want these kids to have the very best possible experience as they enter the workforce. I hope that this bill serves as a strong deterrent and makes it clear to anyone who believes it is acceptable to abuse or assault a worker that they should think twice. On that basis, I commend the bill to the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (16:01): It is a pleasure to rise and talk about the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. Eighteen months ago the Allan Labor government promised to introduce worker protections to support retailers that were experiencing unprecedented crime. We waited, we waited and we waited. We were told we were going to see the biggest changes that were going to protect retail workers. We are now 37 sleeps before Christmas, and we see a bill before the Parliament that has so many holes in it. It has more holes than Swiss cheese. Compared to other states it clearly shows that this government is all about a press release, but lacks detail and has left workers unsafe just before the busy Christmas period, when we know that many shoppers are frustrated. It is busy and you see lots of issues within the shopping centres and the precincts. This could be a great opportunity to strengthen the legislation to protect retail workers and customers, but instead, this government has failed.

That is why I support the amendments that are proposed by the member for Brighton, which talk specifically about introducing workplace protection orders. We know that for the first time in a long time we have got both employers and employees on a unity ticket. You have got the SDA, the unions, and the Australian Retailers Association on a unity ticket to say, ‘Let’s get worker protection orders in place, and let’s get them now.’ The proposed amendments before the Parliament today talk about ensuring that there are worker protection orders similar to in the ACT and South Australia, because by doing that we can ensure workers are safe immediately.

A press release came out on Monday 17 November from the Australian Retailers Association that welcomed the Liberal–Nationals announcement to tackle retail crime:

“It’s encouraging to see both sides of Victorian politics recognise the scale of the crisis and take action,” Mr Rodwell said. “Retail crime is not a political issue – it’s a community safety issue, and an urgent one.”

The ARA and NRA strongly support the Victorian Opposition’s call to bring forward the passing of Workplace Protection Order legislation.

“The model for this legislation … is already successfully operating in other jurisdictions. There is no reason for delay,” said Mr Rodwell. “If the Opposition introduces –

workplace protection orders –

… we urge the Government to work constructively to pass it – because every day without these protections is another day retail workers are left at risk.”

I want to repeat that: every day without these workplace protection orders is another day retail workers are left at risk. That is why this government should support these orders.

On top of that, we have seen the government’s announcement that they are going to provide some PSOs to work volunteer hours – volunteer hours – to try and ensure retail precincts are kept safe. It is not good enough to have volunteer hours, to have many of these PSOs from transport networks work in retail, doing additional hours and doing effectively a second job because we know that retailers are struggling to keep safe. That is why the Liberal–Nationals announcement for a 200-person strike team, in addition to the PSOs on the transport network, will ensure safety for retailers.

Victorians should not have to choose whether they are safe on a transport network or in a retail environment. We should be able to have both, and that is why only the Liberal–Nationals will ensure that you are safe on the streets, safe in your homes and safe in your workplaces. This government has failed to do that, and that is why we urge this government to do it and do it properly: introduce the workplace protection orders that we are suggesting in this amendment.

The other amendment is to ensure that those that assault workers have serious consequences, not the six months that has been proposed but similar changes to what New South Wales have done – changes that incur penalties of between four and 11 years. If you assault a worker, you should get serious consequences. Six months is not good enough. Even with these proposed changes, we will have the weakest laws in the nation when it comes to protecting workers. It is not good enough. If the government were serious about protecting workers, they would look at what New South Wales are doing and they would implement the same. We have an opportunity to look at what is happening in the other states: workplace protection orders and the same in terms of assaults on workers.

The third part of all of this is to take the dangerous knives that are being used in shopping precincts. We are seeing machetes being used in Northland, in shopping strips, in Highpoint and in many of our big shopping centres and precincts, and this government is not doing enough to get those dangerous weapons off the streets. PSOs are one thing, but we want to make sure the PSOs have the wanding and search powers to be able to do this. Jack’s law would do that. Jack’s law, which has been introduced in Queensland, has seen over a thousand dangerous weapons taken off the street through stop-and-scan powers to stop individuals and scan them, to take the weapons off them and to charge them. That is the opportunity that we could have with Jack’s law, which would be introduced under the Liberals, and we encourage the government to follow suit. The government has failed to do that. It is not good enough having the wands if you do not have the powers, so we are suggesting that as part of all of this we have a specific Jack’s law to deal with that.

The other failure in this bill, which should be part and parcel, is the reporting of retail crime. We know that many of the smaller shops have to close their store and go down to the local police station to report crime because police are stretched and do not have the resources to turn up at the stores. A proper online reporting system would allow retailers to properly report crime when it happens and report theft when it happens, particularly with the huge increase in theft that we are seeing in stores. We have seen a 30 per cent surge in retail theft over a year, thousands and thousands of thefts happening each and every year – a 6 per cent year-on-year increase in retail theft. We are seeing an 87 per cent increase in worker verbal abuse. We are seeing workers abused, and stores are having theft happen in unprecedented amounts. You only have to talk to the likes of your IGAs, who are on a WhatsApp group because they do not have the police protection that they need and have to close their stores when there is a crime, because what we see is many of these gangs go from store to store to store, with weapons, to threaten staff, to take whatever they can, to turn stores upside down and to traumatise people and leave victims behind. It is not good enough to have to run a safety program on a WhatsApp group.

We need an online crime prevention program that reports crime, along with PSOs to protect some of these stores, and also assault legislation and worker protection legislation. That would be a plan. This government just has a headline. It is no use having a press release; we need a plan. This government has been running around and running around. They are taking our PSOs off our public transport network, leaving them unsafe. It will be a lucky dip as to whether you see a PSO on a train station, because they are being relocated to work additional hours – volunteer hours – in retail precincts.

This government do not know what they are doing. They do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. Why can’t they be both? Let us be both. Let us manage our retail precincts. Let us manage our train and public transport network. That is what the Liberal–Nationals will do. We have a plan. We have been working with the SDA and we have been working with the retailers, and that is what they have called for.

Although we say thank you for the half-arsed plan we have here, it would be great if we had a better plan that was properly done and properly worked through, like was promised 18 months ago. You see, if this happened and this plan came overnight to react to the crime crisis, you would understand. Eighteen months this Premier has had – this absolutely incompetent, lazy Premier who has been waiting for 18 months and done nothing. She has failed to keep retail workers safe, and that is why Premier Allan needs to do her job –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Edbrooke): Order!

Katie Hall: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, just in terms of parliamentary language, I do not believe ‘half-arsed’ is appropriate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Edbrooke): I uphold the point of order, and I remind members to keep using parliamentary language and refer to members by their proper titles.

David SOUTHWICK: This is a hopeless, useless, weak government that is not keeping retailers and workers safe at all. They have failed, and Jacinta Allan needs to wake up and do – (Time expired)

 Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (16:11): It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak after the member for Caulfield. The words ‘don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story’ could never be so accurate as in the last 10 minutes that we have just heard, but I have got to say, it absolutely gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025.

I must say, as a former secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, this is one campaign that we have been running for many, many, many years, and it was very much received with open arms last week from not only the current secretary, but everyone across the transport network. This is something that is very important, and the words could not be more true: you do not go to work to be in harm’s way. You go to work to be safe, to be respected, to be there with dignity like you deserve, and that is what this bill is aiming to promote. To the members of the mighty Rail, Tram and Bus Union – my former union – the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU), the United Workers Union (UWU) and of course the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and all customer-facing workers that are out there that keep Australia and Victoria moving: we thank you and we say that we see you and that we know you should not be in harm’s way.

Everyone deserves to feel safe in the workplace, and this bill will protect our customer-facing workers who assist to keep Australia moving, and that is what is important. The bill creates new offences under the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 that seek to prevent assault, threats and abuse against customer-facing workers in passenger transport, in retail, in hospitality and in fast food. These reforms implement the government’s commitment to give vulnerable customer-facing workers greater protections against assault, threats or any abuse, which is completely and utterly unacceptable in society, but especially at the workplace.

Customer-facing workers in the passenger transport industry have for too long been the subject of abuse, and I have seen that firsthand myself and it is not something that is okay. It was made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic when customer-facing workers continued to perform their duties during a time of great uncertainty, but customer aggression and violent behaviour against these public-facing workers in Victoria was rising. National data indicates this, with the Australian Retailers Association finding that 51 per cent of retailers said that they experienced physical abuse or monthly abuse and 87 per cent of retail workers reported experiencing verbal abuse – again, completely unacceptable.

Over 50 per cent of retail workers are women and more than a third are aged between 15 and 24 years old. These are people that we should be protecting and looking out for. It is a combination that increases the retail worker cohort’s vulnerability to violent repeat offenders. Unfortunately, too many of us have seen this occur, and I say to you that if you do see it occur, stand up. Also, do not forget to thank your retail worker or your hospitality worker or anyone that is there pointing you in the direction of which way to go. A simple smile or a simple thankyou is a very easy gesture to give, but one that a worker will definitely appreciate.

I want to commend the Premier for all of the announcements made last week and the announcements that I am sure will continue, along with the ministers who have also done a lot of work in this space, because these amendments matter. These bills that we are putting up and we are currently discussing and debating are incredibly important. Campaigning for safety on the job for all public transport workers was one of our major campaigns when I was the secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. It is why I am so rapt with the announcement that was made last week and so rapt that this has come to the house today, because public transport workers should be able to expect to go to work every day and every night without ever being spat on – yes, they often get spat on – and without being verbally abused, which also happens as a daily occurrence, threatened or, even worse, physically assaulted. Some of the photos that I have seen from public transport workers coming home from work bruised and battered or worse still are just horrific. It is unacceptable. They have the right to expect, just as much as all other kinds of public-facing workers, dignity and respect in the workplace.

I could talk to you about why I think this is so important, but instead I want you to hear the stories of a few people concerned. I have spoken to many Rail, Tram and Bus Union members since the announcement last week, and I picked out just a few. There is a customer service officer who was working behind the customer service desk at Epping station. One evening an angry member of the public spat through the slit of the plastic screen at her, spitting on her before he attempted to smash the screen in. That could have been someone’s mother, someone’s sister, and a member of the public did that because he was having a bad day. Then there is an authorised officer – too often, authorised officers in my opinion are the unsung heroes of our network, and too often they go unrecognised and get abused – who was yelled at by a passenger, angry that they could not bring their bike onto the train, looking for someone to take it out on. Who did they take it out on? The authorised officer. There is the station officer who just a few weeks ago had a knife pulled on him late at night – again, completely unacceptable. There is the train driver who was verbally abused before being physically assaulted while she was between her shifts at the depot station. All of these people that I have mentioned are public transport workers and proud RTBU members. They have names, they have faces, they have loved ones and they have friends. They have houses to go home to and families to go home to at the end of the night. They do not go to work to be in harm’s way or to cop abuse. It is unacceptable. Literally, not one day goes by when a public transport worker in our state is not subjected to either verbal abuse or worse still at work, and that is why this bill is so incredibly important. Everyone has the right to be safe and respected at work and to feel safe and respected at work – everybody, in this place and out there. This bill sends a clear message that such treatment will attract an appropriate criminal justice response.

The bill contains three new offences to address violence and aggression against workers – first of all, an amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 for a new offence of assaulting and threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker. The bill will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 with two new summary offences: a summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties and 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. Both summary offences have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment, and this is higher than for the equivalent general offences.

The new indictable assault offence distinguishes itself from the existing general assault offence in section 31 of the Crimes Act 1958, and it does not contain the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence. This means that the new offence will apply to a greater range of conduct than the general assault. The bill will amend the existing offence of aggravated burglary in the Crimes Act to capture this conduct. The amendment applies to all buildings, not just retail premises, and will ensure that the aggravated burglary offence, with its 25-year maximum penalty, can apply to ram raids.

In relation to who is protected by this legislation, the worker cohort is defined broadly to include all workers that perform customer-facing duties for a retail or hospitality operator. Workers who perform customer-facing duties for landlords or managers of retail shopping centres, such as cleaners or security guards, are also protected by these offences. Contractors, including labour hire, will also be protected.

This bill really goes to the depth of what we as the Labor Party believe in. We believe in dignity, we believe in safety, we believe in respect and we believe that everyone in this society is absolutely equal. You, as our people who keep Victoria and Australia moving, deserve our thanks. You deserve the certainty that every minute that you spend at work you will be treated with humanity, with compassion and with respect. You deserve to know that you will come home from work and be able to see your loved ones and be safe. Again, to the members of the SDA, the UWU, the TWU and the mighty Rail, Tram and Bus Union and all customer-facing workers: I thank you. I commend this legislation to the house.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (16:21): I also rise to address the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. In doing so I note a number of things. Firstly, I agree with parts of the previous member’s contribution insofar as it is an obligation upon members of this house and it is an obligation upon this government to keep people safe. It is an obligation upon those who put their hand up to be representatives of their community to treat everyone with dignity and to treat everyone with respect and for that to be reflected in our state’s law. But also I have a fundamental disagreement with the circumstances and with the posture that this government has adopted in order to get us to this point.

Retail crime is not something that just started last week, it is not something that started last month, it is not something that started last year; it has been there for some time. The Australian Labor Party, the party of government, for the time being at least, in this state, noted it in May 2024 at their Labor Party state conference. The now Premier promised to better protect retail workers from assaults and abuse. That was May last year. We are more than 12 months on from that promise. In that time the retail crime data tells no lies and speaks for itself. There has been a 41 per cent increase in threatening events in Victoria whilst, comparing that to New South Wales, there has been a 13 per cent increase in New South Wales. Many people in the retail sector have been quite vocal about the need to change the law and to get serious about the law. The Coles chief executive said:

… it is definitely the case that in Victoria, retail crime is escalating more than what we are seeing in other states.

The Rebel Sport chief executive said:

We’ve seen a disproportionate increase in Victorian stores. No doubt about that.

The Reece chief executive has said Victoria is ‘the toughest place in the country’ to do business. The co-founder of Seek said:

Whenever something … is done in this country that’s anti-business, the reality is there’s a good chance it is being done in Victoria.

So from a retail trading perspective, with the best intent and heart of small and family businesses across this state in mind, this is not a new problem, and I know that there are good people within the union movement in this state and in this country who have been asking this government to do more than they have been doing about this circumstance for some time also. Good on them for doing it.

But I look to other jurisdictions. This bill does not increase the penalty for assault on workers; it merely tries to expand the definition of indictable assault, effectively making no tangible changes that would protect retail workers. The penalties proposed in this bill are also not in line with other jurisdictions. For example, in New South Wales there have been a number of amendments to laws, with the key penalties including up to four years imprisonment for some, without bodily harm; with bodily harm, it is up to six years imprisonment. For reckless wounding it is up to 11 years in South Australia. Similarly, there is a prescribed occupation, being retail, and there is a maximum sentence of five years in that jurisdiction. Assault causing harm: there is up to a seven-year possible penalty in South Australia. Then you look to Victoria, where the government has announced these plans, has brought forward legislation, and there is a six-month summary offence for assault and/or verbal abuse. Yes, there is five years under the existing assault penalty, but the proposal here is not as strong or in line with other jurisdictions.

I think the question that Victorians need to ask themselves is this, and it is a very simple question: who do you trust to protect retail workers? I ask that question of Victorians. I ask that question of retail workers, who are the unnecessary, the avoidable and the innocent victims of crimes which could have been prevented if this government actually gave a stuff about them. I say to them and I say to every Victorian: who do you trust to do this? This has not been a new phenomenon. Retail crime just was not invented last week. Why has it taken the government so, so, so long to get to this point? Why in that time have there been so many unnecessary, innocent victims of retail crimes? I think to my own community, where just two weeks ago there was a firebombing in Mentone – innocent victims again, businesses decimated, destroyed. One day of not being able to trade is a kick in the guts to any small business in this state, let alone the three- to 12-month period that these small businesses are experiencing at the minute. We are not talking about theory here, we are talking about the impact of inaction and the impact of crime on the lives and the livelihoods of Victorians. It is a particularly serious topic. I say to Victorians, as I say to you: who do you trust?

By one measure, what Labor are seeking to do is to effectively say, ‘No, believe us when it comes to these matters. We can be trusted to understand this circumstance and to deal with it in an appropriate way.’ What they are effectively saying is, ‘It’s okay. Trust us to give the arsonist who has just thrown a petrol bomb at a small, innocent business owner the fire hose in order to put it out.’ That is what is being asked by this government, and we will not have a bar of it. Victorians know who can be trusted. They know who takes their personal safety seriously. They know who cares for them seriously. They know that when Labor say, ‘We care about people and we care about their safety,’ Labor cannot be trusted, because over the last 11, almost 12 years they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to community safety.

There is a crime crisis in this state that is the making of this government. It is the making of inaction by this government. Yes, I fully see it – last week there were a number of policies announced. Why did it take so long? Why have there been so many innocent people, innocent victims, in businesses and in homes impacted by crimes, perhaps unnecessarily? Why have there been so many people whose lives have been destroyed before Labor has recognised that they should do something about it? Arguably a lot of the stuff that was announced last week is but window-dressing, and again, Victorians know the truth of this. Those innocent victims of crime on this government’s watch know the truth of this.

The Allan Labor government cannot be trusted to keep our community safe. They cannot be trusted to keep our small businesses safe. They cannot be trusted to understand the impact of these crimes on our community and on our small businesses. I say to Victorians: if you want a government in this state that actually understands the heart of this issue, if you want a government in this state that is on your side and in your corner every day of the week, whether it comes to crime and community safety or whether it comes to paying down our debt and growing our economy, Labor have had a crack, and they have failed. It is Victorians who are paying the price for the last 12 years of the Allan government, a Labor government. We are only 12 months away from the opportunity to elect a new, fresh, cohesive and responsible government in this state, and I implore Victorians to consider that.

 Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (16:31): I proudly rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. This bill will introduce stronger consequences for those who assault or abuse front-facing workers. It will protect workers from violence, threats and abuse and make retail, hospitality, fast food and transport workers safer.

The bill contains three new offences to address violence and aggression against workers: firstly, an amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 for a new indictable offence of assaulting or threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker; and secondly, two amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1966, with a summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties and 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. Both summary offences will have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment, and the new indictable assault offence will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, which is consistent with maximum sentences for other assault offences, like assaulting an emergency worker or custodial worker.

I often say to young people across Ripon that working in hospitality and retail is a great way to build up your customer service skills and that it teaches you so much about human behaviour. I remember applying for a job at my local IGA supermarket as soon as I turned 14 and nine months old, and I worked on the checkout and in the deli for over three years after that. It was during the John Howard era, when WorkChoices was running rampant and workers protections were weakened by individual contracts over collective bargaining. I was earning next to nothing and did not know my rights, but I was still so proud to be earning a wage that was my own. The job taught me so much, especially how important it is to be kind to strangers and how much people love to complain about the weather in country Victoria.

Unfortunately nowadays, though, far too many workers in supermarkets are seeing the very worst of human behaviour. The same goes for retail workers, hospo workers, bus drivers and train conductors. They are being subjected to an unprecedented amount of assault and abuse. It is not on, and enough is enough. Every single person has the right to go to work without being subjected to violence, intimidation or abuse, yet far too often workers across Victoria are experiencing exactly that. Bus drivers and taxi drivers in Ripon should be able to do their jobs safely. V/Line workers on the Maryborough and Ararat train lines should not be subjected to violence. Retail workers in Wedderburn and Beaufort should feel protected as they serve the public. But the reality is that too many of them face threats and aggression simply for doing their job.

The data backs this up as well, with 51 per cent of retailers having this year said that they experience physical abuse monthly or more often, and 87 per cent of retail workers report experiencing verbal abuse. Between January and August 2023 there were also 381 reports of assault against taxi drivers here in Melbourne, compared to 319 in the same period in 2022. This offending has a lasting impact not only on workers but on their families and the entire community.

This is why this bill matters. It sends a clear message that anyone who abuses or assaults a front-facing worker will now face penalties of up to five years in jail. This is not about being punitive for the sake of it, it is about protecting workers and making sure that they can go home safely to their families.

I want to sincerely thank the unions across Victoria who campaigned tirelessly for these changes. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the mighty Transport Workers’ Union; the Rail, Tram & Bus Union; and the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association. Their tireless advocacy and their commitment to workers have led to these reforms, and our government is proud to partner with them to get it done.

The Christmas period is fast approaching, and we know that stress levels can rise at this time of year. People are racing around trying to get everything done. They have got a big to-do list, they are trying to smash it out and they are also tired and exhausted at the end of the year. Many are having to navigate family dramas or figuring out how to afford everything that their kids want, but there is absolutely no excuse ever for taking out stresses on a worker. With that in mind, our government have worked closely with Victoria Police to make sure that they are ready to operationalise these offences as soon as possible. The bill provides that the worker harm offences will begin two weeks after the bill receives royal assent. This rapid commencement will be an important measure to put an end to the mistreatment and harm that some members of our community choose to direct towards our frontline workers. Our government will also monitor these reforms via a review of the offences within two years. This will make sure that the new offences are working as they should and will enable the government to consider the broader impacts of the reforms, including any adjustments or other steps that need to be taken.

Workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport are essential to our society. They are the beating heart of our economy, and we would be, frankly, stuffed without them. We saw this no more clearly than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was these workers that kept us fed, connected and safe. Now it is time that we keep them safe, especially those workers who are just starting out in the workforce. The member for Sandringham was asking the chamber earlier, ‘Who has retailers’ backs, and who has hospo workers’ backs?’ We know on this side of the chamber it is only a Labor government that actually, genuinely has their backs. This bill will crack down on those who assault or abuse workers, and it will show them that there is a clear consequence for their actions. It will provide a stronger deterrent against deliberate acts of violence, and it will protect front-facing workers. Our community has been calling for these changes and we have been listening, because unlike those opposite, who are completely focused on themselves today and every single day, we are focused on workers rights. We want to see, on this side of the chamber, workers of all ages coming home safely, and we want to see respect for the people who serve us our meals, who drive us home safely at night, who check us out at the supermarket and who keep our transport system running.

Some may argue that harsher penalties alone cannot change human behaviour, and they are right to an extent. Legislation is only one part of the solution, but it is a critical part, because when the law reflects our values, it sets a standard for the community. It tells people what is acceptable and what is not. It gives workers the confidence that the system is on their side. Alongside this bill, our government will continue to invest in education, awareness and prevention to stamp out violence from the very beginning. We will work with employers to ensure that workplaces are safe and supportive, we will work with unions to make sure that workers know their rights and can stand up for themselves and we will work with Victoria Police to ensure that enforcement is swift and effective.

I want to also acknowledge the workers who have spoken about their experiences. It is not easy to relive moments of abuse or violence, but by sharing their stories they have helped shine a light on a growing problem. Their voices have driven this reform, and their bravery will mean that workers are better protected into the future. This bill is about fairness and it is about justice. It is about sending a message that in Victoria we value the people who keep our state running. Whether you are a teenager working your first job at your local supermarket, like I was, or a bus driver with decades of experience, you deserve to be safe at work and you will always be supported by the Allan Labor government. You will absolutely not be supported by those opposite, who are completely obsessed with themselves and not for the people of Victoria. I commend the bill to the house.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:40): I would like to say it is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025, but some of the concerns have already been illustrated by my colleagues, including the member for Ovens Valley, who I think only got half the speaking time due to the amount of points of order that were called on him. This is of particular interest, I think, to every Victorian and everyone who represents Victoria in this place at the moment, given that retail crime data shows an increase of 41 per cent in threatening events in Victoria compared to a 13 per cent increase in New South Wales. But any increase in this space is incredibly alarming.

I have got two step-kids. One works in fast food and one works in retail. My parents own a retail business. I worked in all of those. I worked at McDonald’s when I was 15. In fact I was a founding crew member at McDonald’s in Swan Hill when that was first built, back in the last century. I worked in hospitality– I am sure you did too, Acting Speaker Edbrooke. I always had a side hustle working in pubs, but that was during the early 2000s and 1990s when threats toward us were not really a thing. I would get the odd complaint working at Macca’s, because we know that if you go through the Macca’s drive-through every now and then it is like throwing darts at a dartboard, depending on what you get in the bag when you leave the place. It just was not a thing. I do have concerns now, particularly for my step-kids and teenagers and young people and anyone working in retail, fast food and hospitality now, because it can be quite dangerous. It really can.

In fact there have been a couple of interesting articles of late in the Mildura News. Stuart Kavanagh covers the court cases in the Magistrates’ Court in Mildura quite closely every week. There were two that I noted, one on 10 December and one on 13 December, which got me thinking when this bill was introduced. As has been stated by the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Ovens Valley and the member for Sandringham, our main area of concern is that the bill does not increase the penalties for assaults on workers. It merely tries to expand the definition of indictable assault, effectively making no tangible changes that would protect the retail worker.

This is a concern given the stories that have been in our local press of late, as I mentioned earlier. One of those spoke about a young woman who has been barred from every supermarket in town after a shoplifting spree. She was accused of swinging a fist at a young worker at an IGA after they asked to inspect her bag, which was doing their job, because it was suspected that she had stolen from the store. The magistrate, Mr Coghlan, referenced a recent ‘tsunami of offending’ when it came to shoplifting and pointed out that this particular person had hit ‘every supermarket in town’, sometimes in a violent fashion. He also said:

There has been a significant surge in violence inflicted on workers at retail stores, not just in Mildura, but across Victoria …

Magistrate Coghlan went on to say:

She seems to have hit the whole lot in Mildura, Coles, Ritchies and Woolworths … (it) seems … the prosecution case is particularly strong …

In this case the accused was actually refused bail, surprisingly, and was remanded in custody until the next court date.

There was another one – this was from 10 November, and again Stuart Kavanagh was the reporter. This one was in Mildura: a mum accused of stabbing two sports store staff members with a syringe during an alleged 10-day shoplifting spree. I know the store; it is where I buy all of my sports gear, including my socks. This is INTERSPORT in Mildura. I could not ever cite the staff in there for having bad customer service, in fact quite the opposite. It is exceptional customer service from Speedy and his entire team, and there is always plenty of stock. It is actually a great store.

Could you imagine, though, while you are just at work one day at INTERSPORT, being stabbed with a syringe? This was a part of another alleged spree of shoplifting across Mildura at stores like Chemist Warehouse, Coles, SportsPower, INTERSPORT and First Choice Liquor. This went on during the whole month of October, and it was during the alleged incident at Intersport that the person was accused of injuring those two staff members as they confronted her about the alleged shoplifting. I have actually been in INTERSPORT when a crime has been committed. It is just in alarming plague proportions. In this case the accused was bailed. The accused was bailed, again, after stabbing two retail workers. Bailed – I have no words.

What is missing from this bill is one of the most needed elements to address the current retail crime crisis, and that is workplace protection orders. The state government has been opposed to the measure and has only backflipped in the last week because of overwhelming pressure. The lack of that measure in this bill is the clearest indicator that this backflip was rushed. It has been noted how important workplace protection orders are in actually seriously addressing protecting retail workers and hospitality workers. The importance of introducing this is to implement legislation that enables the courts to issue enforceable orders restricting high-harm repeat offenders like those that take a syringe into a sports store, clearly with the intent of doing harm – and yet she is on bail. This will probably end up on that crime Instagram channel that I have seen myself pop up on before as well.

The mind just boggles at what is happening right now, with media releases and no serious attempts to actually curb what is occurring on the ground. You can read the data, but we all know in this place you can make data sing any way you want. Who the government should be listening to are the people on the ground, not the data. Again, you can make it sing any way you want to, but it does not help retail workers in any way, shape or form more than it does now, because police have, like I said, already banned these two particular offenders from going into these stores. But police cannot patrol the CBD or Deakin Avenue in Mildura every single day. They have got enough on their plate, and they are under-resourced. They plead to the magistrates that community safety is at risk – and still bail. It just defies belief.

Imagine how the parents, families and the rest of the team feel, not just at Coles, at Ritchies IGA, at SportsPower, at Chemist Warehouse, everywhere, because there is this crime epidemic through retail, through hospitality, when they are still getting bail and there is a press release, a press conference, a fancy slogan to say they are doing something about it but nothing that will actually make a difference to any of this, because it is already being done, as is illustrated by these two cases in particular. What is the point? How are workers supposed to feel protected in their workplace? It is a joke.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (16:50): ‘Listening to locals, working in government, fighting for our community’ is my mantra, and the protections enshrined in this bill that we are discussing today reflect the work I have done in the Werribee electorate to address those crime concerns raised with me. It is all well and good to yell and shout about crime like those opposite do, but the real work takes listening and learning from those on the front line. The latter, as I will explain, is where the law reform in this bill comes from, and it is the same way this government will continue to address crime in our community. During the pandemic, the front line between the community and basic needs became more apparent. In my community, many people could not stay at home because they were essential workers, keeping us fed and safe. That front line during the pandemic became clearer, but the abuse these customer-facing workers copped increased. Many people on both sides will talk about their experiences working in customer-facing roles. It is usually that first step into employment, and as a vocational education teacher and year-level coordinator, I usually heard the worst experiences of the young people that I taught. It is not just the Karens or the people having a bad day coming up to them in the store and making their lives hell; it is the people who set out to abuse someone on that day. None of my ex-students or any young person deserves this.

One of the key issues in this work over the last 12 months has been defining the worker cohort. We have already introduced strong protections for emergency service workers in this context, which is something this bill works with. In relation to who is protected by this legislation, that worker cohort is defined broadly to include all workers that perform customer-facing duties for a retail or hospitality operator, or for transport, as we have heard. Workers who perform customer-facing duties for landlords or managers or retail shopping centres, such as cleaners in a food court or security guards, are also protected by these offences. Contractors and labour hire will also be protected. That worker cohort also includes customer-facing workers working for or as a passenger transport service provider, which I will get to in a moment in terms of the advocacy I have heard from them too.

For my community in Wyndham, ABS statistics show that people in these roles form a significant part of the local workforce: 11,553 people work in retail trade; 12,823 people work in transport, postal and warehousing; and 5192 people work in accommodation and fast food – so a huge chunk of the worker population in Wyndham. Earlier in the year, I was contacted by the management of Sims supermarket in Werribee – it is a great supermarket with an excellent deli – and the union representative of those workers. People regularly targeting the store, not only stealing but also abusing staff in the process, had left that amazing team feeling vulnerable. I liaised with our local Victoria Police to share their concerns and fed in the experience to the government team and the minister responsible, who were considering how the law can further protect people from this. Theft is already illegal, and police in our community do act on complaints as appropriate. But it is clear we need to make protections against the abuse of customer-facing workers clearer.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

A week ago we saw a distressing incident at Woolworths in Werribee, with young people allegedly abusing and threatening workers. I had already been in touch with management before this incident and raised concerns that they had to police and fed that experience into government. However, this incident made it clear to me that workers like Amit and Mili, with their teams, need a strong message sent with the law that it is not okay for people to abuse or threaten customer-facing workers. We met online last week, and I also discussed the next steps with these reforms: a scheme for workplace prohibition orders to keep those people away from the stores and help stop that retraumatising from the behaviour that we saw from those people. I welcome the Premier’s announcement that this will be the next step for the government and for the working group that has been working on this.

Listening to and learning from the experience of the community is what this bill does. It was informed by close consultation with the worker protection consultation group, comprising Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions and union and industry reps. There has been a lot of discussion about the particular new offences that are created in this bill. There is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 for a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker, which is building off that work that this Parliament did a few years ago, led by the Labor government, around the emergency service worker provisions.

It will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 with two new summary offences: assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with that worker’s duties; and using without lawful excuse language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting or otherwise engaging in conduct in a threatening – and all those other things – manner towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with that worker’s duties. It is a fairly big list, but I think it is important that it captures those different circumstances that these workers may face.

It is not as clear-cut as someone coming up and yelling at them at the check-out; it can be that persistent behaviour of people coming back in to always have a go at them about different things. Amending the Summary Offences Act to make it clear that this is not okay sends a strong message to people who may be choosing to go in and be, essentially, serial pests towards these workers. It is sad that we have to have this kind of message, but it is something that we have seen increasingly since the pandemic, as people have seen these workers become so clearly that front line between the rest of the community and those essential needs like food and groceries and transport.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I would also like to reflect on the fact that a lot of our transport workers in particular cop this. People do require public transport in circumstances where they may be more at risk of offending and they may have no other options. But that is no excuse to have a go at bus drivers like Yu, who we met with last week with the minister. He has been working for over a decade as a bus driver in the Wyndham area, and when we spoke to him about these sorts of laws, he said that that will send a really clear message to those people who seek him out to have a go at him at his job.

On Monday before Parliament I took a whole heap of letters to our local stores and down to our Metro Trains counter as well to have a chat to the staff down there about what these provisions mean for their everyday work, and the overwhelming majority spoke about how this sends a message. Yes, we want to have laws that are applicable in court and where there is a clear sentence and there is justice out of it in that sense, but I think it is also important to send clear messages when it comes to the type of behaviour we want to see in the community. We have seen this with standards in schools around parent behaviour and student behaviour in particular. There has been an increase in people just being generally unfriendly and uncooperative in society. Having laws like these not only has that mechanism to hold people to account but also sends a clear message to people who are thinking of doing the wrong thing.

The summary offences have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. That is higher than for general equivalent offences. The new indictable offence distinguishes itself from existing general assault in section 31 of the Crimes Act as it does not contain the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence, making it a lot easier to try and achieve a prosecution in that sense. The bill also amends the Crimes Act to ensure ramraiding is captured by the serious offence of aggravated burglary, something that we have seen in the Werribee area, particularly around tobacco shops. This offending is not just done at night anymore; it is done during the day while there are workers in those stores, and it is important to have a clear law that will cover that particular type of offending.

Walking around the community on Monday as well, talking to these different workers, it was clear that one of the key things that they are seeing from this government is that we are coming out on the ground and listening to them. We are going out and doing this work with the worker protection consultation group. It is not just about what we see in headlines, it is about doing the work on the ground. Usually I would draw a contrast between this government and those opposite when it comes to doing the work on community safety. However, they would rather spend their time and advertising budget talking about me or rolling their former police officer leader rather than getting out and working on genuine reforms for community safety. So instead I want to return to talking about the workers we are protecting.

This bill, when passed, will come into effect before the busy Christmas period. Hopefully, the grinches opposite do not prevent this from happening. We know that the lead-up to Christmas is a time when violence towards customer-facing workers blows out of proportion. The bill provides that worker harm offences in this bill will commence the day after royal assent, and we will get that to the Governor as quick as we can with the aim that these offences can protect workers at this time of heightened risk. Listening to locals, working in government and fighting for our community is what I will continue to do every day, and with this bill I know our amazing customer-facing workers will be that bit safer this Christmas.

 Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (17:00): Crime in Victoria is at its highest level in 20 years under this Allan Labor government, with nearly 640,000 crimes reported just last year. That is one crime committed every 49 seconds in Victoria. Under this Labor government Victoria has a crime crisis. Victorians are suffering a retail crisis. There is theft from a retail store every 13 minutes. Over the past year retail assaults have increased by 21 per cent, retail thefts have increased by 26 per cent and retail crime has increased by 20 per cent. These are damning statistics – the statistics do not lie – that show that retail crime under the government has increased over the past year, and this Labor government has failed to do anything to keep our community safe and been failing to keep our retail workers safe. Of course these are statistics that I talk of, crime statistics of assaults in retail, but these are people that suffer these assaults and that suffer this crime. Behind these statistics are people that work in retail who are forced to suffer verbal abuse, being spat on, being assaulted or being threatened with a knife or machete or having to watch on while thugs steal from the shop.

This tired Labor government after 11 years in power has completely failed to keep Victorians safe. They have completely failed to keep retail workers safe. The mere fact that this Labor government has been dragged to this place to introduce this new bill we are debating today relating to worker harm in retail, fast food and hospitality as well as transport is an admission by Labor that there is a retail crime crisis and that there is a crime crisis in Victoria, and it is all happening under this Labor government’s watch. It is a bill that has taken too long. With retail crime on the increase, why has it taken so long for Labor to do anything about this? It is a bill that will, sadly, do nothing to solve Victoria’s retail crime crisis because the penalties are weak and there is no provision for worker protection orders that will be vital for keeping retail workers safe.

While we will not oppose this bill, it is so weak that it must be strengthened to be meaningful. I support the member for Brighton’s amendments, because only the Liberals’ amendments to this bill will toughen penalties for those who commit retail crime and assault retail workers, because frankly, this Labor government’s proposed legislation is weak. It will do nothing to fix retail crime. It will do nothing to stop retail workers from being assaulted and attacked. That is despite Premier Allan and this Labor government having promised to better protect retail workers from assault and abuse nearly 18 months ago. Retail crime has been on the increase. At that point 18 months ago, retail crime was on the increase and assault of workers in retail was on the increase when this Labor government promised to do something about protecting retail workers. Eighteen months later they introduce this rushed bill that is weak and fails on penalties to disincentivise people to do this to those who work delivering frontline services in retail.

You have got to ask: what on earth has this Labor government been doing for 18 months? While Labor made hollow promises 18 months ago, the retail crime crisis only worsened. Now we have got Christmas sales and the Boxing Day shopping period upon us. The government has only acted after significant pressure to do so, not only significant pressure from the community – the community’s expectation is that its government keeps the community safe – but also pressure from its own union, its Labor-led union the SDA.

They have only come to this place because of that pressure. That is not leadership. Not only that, retail crime in Victoria is worse than in other states in the country. What a disgraceful legacy left by this Labor government. Coles chief executive Leah Weckert said back in August this year, 2025:

… it is definitely the case that in Victoria, retail crime is escalating more than what we are seeing in other states.

Rebel Sport chief executive – and again, many young retail workers have their first job at Rebel Sport – Anthony Heraghty said back in August 2025:

We’ve seen a disproportionate increase in Victorian stores. No doubt about that.

That is in relation to an increase in retail crime. As a massive advocate myself for small business in my region and across the state of Victoria, retail theft, retail crime and assault of retail workers is felt particularly deeply by small retail businesses, those small, family retail businesses in our shopping strips and in our local communities. When a worker is abused or attacked with a knife or a gun – which has happened in small retail stores in my community, a worker being attacked by a knife or a gun –they completely and understandably need to take some time off work to deal with the trauma. That is completely understandable, but what that means for that very small business is that it leaves the business short on workers. It leaves them without their valued staff, and that can lead that business to having to close for periods of time and to lose sales. That is not good for our economy. It is not good for our local communities’ economies.

Retail crime has a ripple effect, which is another reason that it is shameful that Labor has taken so long to do anything about this. What they are doing with this bill is totally inadequate, and that is because workplace protection orders are totally missing from Labor’s proposed legislation. How serious is this Labor government about fixing retail crime and stopping retail assaults if it has failed in its promise to introduce workplace protection orders? Workplace protection orders are needed. Again, the bill is missing one of the most needed elements to address the current retail crime crisis in these workplace protection orders. It is certainly something that has been called for by the SDA. Back in October this year the SDA said:

If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing –

workplace protection orders –

is a no brainer.

Woolworths, IKEA, Myer, Kmart, 7-Eleven and Bunnings jointly wrote to the Premier back in October 2025 calling for workplace protection orders. They said orders would provide targeted legal protection where existing measures, such as banning notices, have proven insufficient. These measures, we know, are already in existence – in the ACT, for example – and they are working well. ACT police sergeant Mick Serbatoio said that in the eight months that workplace protection orders had been in use in the ACT police had noticed a total change in behaviour, where the offenders have just disappeared off the screen from retail settings. Do not forget that this Labor government in a media release promised workplace protection orders to be introduced by the end of 2025. There is only about a month left in 2025. Where are the workplace protection orders? Certainly not in this bill – it is a hollow bill in that regard.

The Liberals and Nationals in government will introduce workplace protection orders to ban abusive or violent offenders from shops and shopping centres and from contacting staff. Following extensive consultation with the sector, we will create new offences for assaulting, threatening or harassing customer-facing workers and bring the penalties in line with other states, and we will establish a dedicated digital platform where staff and employers can report abuse and crime, upload evidence or apply for workplace protection orders directly through Victoria Police systems. We have listened to the concerns of the retail working sector and the union. We have listened to retail workers so that they can be protected. Our plan will deliver immediate protections, tougher penalties and faster justice to keep workers and shoppers in retail safe. Every day, retail workers are being abused, threatened or assaulted just for turning up to work and doing their job. But the Liberals and Nationals will crack down on retail crime, because we will be tougher on crime. We will tackle the crime crisis. We will be smarter on justice, certainly smarter than this Labor government. This bill will not fix the retail crime crisis; this bill fails on fixing the retail crime crisis in Victoria.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (17:10): On behalf of the thousands of retail, transport, hospitality and fast-food workers that I represent in this place as the member for Greenvale, I am proud and very grateful to rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. I certainly welcome the strident support of those opposite for the hard work of the SDA, the United Workers Union (UWU), the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) and the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) in protecting and advocating for their workers, and I look forward to their wholesale endorsement of the broader parts of our agenda to protect workers across Victoria.

This crimes amendment is an important bill because it does seek to ensure that it will better protect workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport – those settings I articulated before – from violence, threats and abuse. I thank again, genuinely, the representatives in the SDA, the TWU, the RTBU and the UWU, the state secretaries, the industrial officers and, above all, the members who have articulated and advocated so strongly to me as the member for Greenvale, to members across this place and to the government who have contributed to the development of this bill through the worker protection taskforce that my friend in the other place Mr Galea has been instrumental in working on as well. Their efforts have led to this bill coming to this place.

The bill of course creates new offences under the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 that seek to prevent assaults, threats and abuse against customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport. These are important next steps in protecting workers that join similar legislative reforms that have already been implemented in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, the ACT and overseas, and others have made references in this place to Scotland and the UK more broadly. I think it is important that we recognise that specific offences, as well as tougher penalties, do provide a vital deterrent against assault after the fact. That is why I am very pleased that the government is engaging in the careful and very important work of developing a further suite of reforms, the worker protection orders, to proactively deter crimes and violence against retail workers and others before they occur. The Premier and the Attorney-General have talked about how important that work is and how important it is to consult, to get it right, and it is why I look forward to them being introduced in this place very soon.

We saw during the pandemic in particular – but I think it is self-evident in so many other different ways – that customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, transport and fast food are integral to the effective operation of our economy and indeed our society. It was made clear during the COVID pandemic that when others could protect and shield and stay at home, they could not. They were working. They were on the front line. They incurred the cost of doing that. They became sick. Many of them and their families, particularly in my part of the world, incurred a toll that was much worse than that. They continued to perform their duties during a time of great uncertainty, and they kept our economy and our society, as I said, afloat during that time. I think this bill recognises that pivotal frontline role that workers in those sectors do play, and it also calls out how abhorrent it is for deliberate acts of violence and abuse to take place in those workplace settings in connection with the job that people are doing in seeking to provide, quite literally, customer service. It is unacceptable – it is completely unacceptable – and I think as a house we recognise that, and I welcome that the opposition have indicated they will be supporting the bill ultimately.

The bill sends a clear message that violence against workers needs to attract an appropriate criminal justice response. Everybody has the right to be safe and respected at work. While the Australian Retailers Association surveys, which I think the member for Evelyn may have referred to in her address – certainly others have – from June 2025 discuss how 51 per cent of retailers said they experience physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers have reported experiencing verbal abuse and indicate that there is a significant scale to this challenge, it is not new.

I think members across the house have talked about their own professional experiences. I was never really allowed front of house. I was kept firmly as a kitchen hand, or as the generous expression went, ‘dish pig’ at pubs and bakeries, notwithstanding my TAFE Tasmania barista qualification.

But in spite of that, while kitchens have some of their own challenges that you might be aware of, the stories that those who were working front of house would come into the kitchen with – horrific stories of abuse simply for doing their job, simply for seeking to serve, seeking to look after customers – stick with me now more than a decade on from moving into other employment. No-one, particularly young people, particularly those who are perhaps without necessarily much economic agency, deserves to be put in that position. It is unacceptable, and this bill calls it out.

I want to refer to some of the data, because I think it is important we give light to the scale of the challenge that this bill is seeking to respond to. I note that the SDA undertook a pretty comprehensive survey in 2023. It was a couple of years ago now, but it was a very significant scale, with 4600 workers surveyed, so I think it provides a good statistical and qualitative picture as well of the experience that workers on the frontline have. That survey found that verbal abuse remains widespread, abuse is becoming more frequent and physical violence is increasing, with 12.5 per cent of respondents reporting having been physically assaulted by a customer. I think that is quite a stark number for me. Think about that for a moment – 12.5 per cent of the 4600 people who responded to that survey, approximately 500, have been physically assaulted at work. That is a scandalous statistic. It compels us, I think, to take action. It is why this bill is important. It is responding to a real challenge, and people have the right to feel safe at work. It is core to our entire movement; it is core to our party – protecting the rights of workers to go about their work safely and with dignity. Spitting incidents remain prevalent. Nine per cent of workers stated they had been spat on by a customer. Online abuse is rising sharply, sexual harassment and violence are on the rise, and repeat perpetrators pose a particular challenge. This manifests through specific case studies that the SDA also called out. A worker in fast food described how they were threatened with their skull being caved in when somebody was dissatisfied with a burger as part of their meal. A retail sales assistant aged between 18 and 25 talked about how a man tried to sexually and physically assault them in the coolroom – they had a knife on them. They went to jail – they are now out on parole – so a criminal penalty was relevant there, but imagine the lifelong consequence that those kinds of actions have upon somebody, particularly a young person perhaps in their first job. These are real challenges that need to be addressed, and that is what this bill does.

I think this context explains why the bill on the table is so important. The bill, as I said, establishes new worker harm offences specifically aimed at protecting retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers from assaults, harmful threats, intimidation and abuse. It also amends the Summary Offences Act with two new summary offences, both of which will have a maximum of six months imprisonment. There is a new indictable offence which distinguishes itself from the existing general assault offence in section 31 of the Crimes Act, as that does not contain the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence. I think that is important, because it gets to the heart of the challenge that this bill is seeking to counter.

The member for Preston I hope will have an opportunity to contribute to this bill in due course, but the instance at Northland earlier in the year I think highlighted most profoundly and viscerally why the measures in this bill are needed to keep workers safe, because criminality and violence should in no way impinge upon a worker’s capacity to do what it says on the tin: to go about their work serving the public and to get home safely without either physical or psychological injury.

In closing my contribution today, I again want to thank the SDA, the RTBU, the TWU, the UWU and all of the worker representatives who have helped to advocate on behalf of the frontline workers they represent in bringing this bill to this place. I thank Mr Galea in the other place for his work in leading the worker protection consultation group and indeed all members of that group for their advice and expertise during the development of these reforms. I thank the Attorney for working so closely with that group and indeed the other justice ministers in ensuring that this bill and the bills which are to come – the provisions around worker protection orders – effect the change that we all seek to see. I commend this bill to the house. I hope it does have a speedy passage, because I want this law to be in operation by Christmas.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:20): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment, (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Crimes Act 1958, the Summary Offences Act 1966 and the Youth Justice Act 2024 to create new worker harm offences for assaults, threats and abusive behaviours directed at customer-facing workers in the retail, fast-food, hospitality and passenger transport industries. It also expands the definition of ‘aggravated burglary’ to include ram raids, as a direct response to the rampant occurrence of this tactic in the illicit tobacco wars playing out in this state. We are not immune to this in the regions or indeed in South-West Coast. The bill also inserts a review mechanism for the worker harm provisions and makes consequential definitional changes across legislation.

This all sounds great, but if you look at the details, as is often the case with Labor’s bills, the reality is that this legislation falls terribly short. The penalties proposed are weak. The bill does not increase the penalty for assaulting workers; it simply expands the definition of ‘indictable assault’. That makes no tangible difference to the protections retail workers actually receive. Worse still, allowing assaults to be tried summarily means offenders can face as little as six months in prison. Under existing indictable assault charges the penalty is five years, so that is a significant downgrade, not an upgrade.

In South-West Coast the reality of retail crime is confronting and deeply troubling. I have spoken directly with Coles staff in Warrnambool, and I have witnessed shop footage of a young worker being violently assaulted while doing their job. I have spoken to this young person, and actually hearing how they were affected was quite disturbing. In another appalling case an offender who was out on bail who had already damaged a local food shop turned on innocent shoppers and even went so far as to kick a baby in a pram. These are not isolated incidents, they are clear evidence of a system that is failing to protect frontline workers and the community.

The challenges of retail crime cannot be separated from the broader social crisis we are facing: homelessness and the lack of mental health services. I have spoken in this place many times about the growing number of people sleeping rough in both Warrnambool and Portland, about how families are forced into cars and caravans because there is nowhere else to go and about the heartbreaking reality that our community services are stretched beyond breaking point. When people are left without housing, without support and without access to timely mental health care, the consequences spill over into every part of the community, including our shops, our transport hubs and our hospitality venues. Local police, health workers and charities tell me the same story over and over again: they are dealing with people in crisis who should have been helped long before they reached the point of desperation.

Warrnambool has been promised mental health services, yet not nearly enough have been delivered. We have been promised investments in homelessness services, yet families are still waiting, and housing targets that the government has set itself have been woefully missed. The Allan Labor government talks big about fairness, but fairness is not leaving vulnerable people on streets untreated and unsupported. Fairness is not forcing frontline workers to bear the brunt of abuse and violence that stems from systemic neglect. If we are serious about protecting retail and hospitality workers, then we must also be serious about addressing root causes: housing insecurity, untreated mental illness and the absence of proper support services in regional Victoria, a direct result of the long-term neglect of this Labor government.

South-West Coast deserves better. Our community deserves investment in crisis accommodation, the Lookout, drug and alcohol rehabilitation services – services that give people opportunity to find dignity and hope. The government’s neglect and lack of investment in support services is a foundation of this problem, and until this is addressed retail crime will remain a symptom of a much deeper problem that this government continues to ignore.

These are not isolated events. They are part of a growing pattern of violence and abuse directed at frontline workers. Under this bill retail and hospitality workers remain exposed. The government has failed to include one of the most critical protections: workplace protection orders. These orders would give the courts the power to stop high-harm repeat offenders from entering or harassing retail workplaces, providing targeted safeguards where existing measures have proven inadequate, and we know exactly why this matters. In Portland a local bike shop was broken into, its front window smashed and the offender arrested the same night, yet before the owner could even board up the damage, the same individual brazenly returned to the scene, taunting the shopkeeper with his freedom. In Warrnambool, just minutes after being released from custody barefoot, a man was spotted by detectives walking down Raglan Parade in a brand new pair of runners that had just been stolen from Target in Koroit Street. The same offender had already been charged with theft and bailed earlier that day, yet within 10 minutes he was back offending. It is a pattern of repeat offending that leaves local businesses and workers exposed.

When offenders can walk out of custody and immediately commit another crime, it shows how weak penalties and missing protections are failing our communities. Shopkeepers, staff and customers in Warrnambool are left vulnerable, while offenders are emboldened by a system that does not deter or restrict them. This is exactly why workplace protection orders and stronger sentencing provisions are needed – because without them frontline workers and small business owners in South-West Coast will continue to pay the price for this government’s inaction. That is the reality of weak laws and missing protections: hardworking business owners left vulnerable, offenders emboldened and communities shaken.

Workplace protection orders are already being considered in South Australia and Western Australia, and in the ACT they have shown that they can deliver safer workplaces. Major retailers Woolworths, Myer, Kmart, 7-Eleven and Bunnings have all called for workplace protection orders. The Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association has called for them, but this government has ignored these calls until overwhelming pressure forced a rushed backflip – and even then it failed to include them in this bill.

Another glaring gap is enforcement. Protective services officers, or PSOs, who are present in many of our communities, do not have the power to act in these situations. They are left standing by while workers and shoppers are threatened and assaulted. Our local police try their best, but they too are hamstrung by lack of resources. This is unacceptable. The people of South-West Coast deserve better. Retail workers, hospitality staff and transport workers should not have to go to work fearing abuse, threats or violence.

The coalition will move amendments to strengthen this bill. We will push for tougher penalties and the inclusion of workplace protection orders, but we will not oppose the bill because doing nothing is not an option. This government talks about fairness, but fairness does not leave staff in Warrnambool in shops like Coles, Woolworths, Bargain Buys, the Lifeline op shop, the chemist or the burger shop to fend off assaults. Fairness is not telling families in my electorate that a pram with a baby in it being kicked when mums are simply having a coffee is just part of life. Fairness is delivering strong laws, strong protections and strong enforcement. South-West Coast deserves a government that takes retail crime seriously, and this bill as it stands does not do that.

 Josh BULL (Sunbury) (17:29): I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. I start my contribution this evening by acknowledging and thanking our retail, fast food, hospo and transport workers for the incredible work that they do each and every day right across the state. As I am sure many members of this house have had the opportunity to do, I had the opportunity to visit the Sunbury McDonald’s on McHappy Day on the Saturday just gone, to spend some time with the team there, as I have done previously, and to have a great chat with Lin Larkin and the whole team at Sunbury Macca’s. To just have a chat about their role and the work that they do is something that I thoroughly enjoy. Of course, all funds raised on that day go towards such an important cause.

But also making some reflections on some previous roles that I have had, I started my working journey at IGA in Sunbury – that was the first job I had – and then went to the competition at Woolworths, also in Sunbury, spending a considerable amount of time working with those who work in retail and our supermarkets locally and across the state, knowing and understanding the important role that those workers play and knowing and understanding what occurs when really vicious behaviour occurs in these settings. From the position of being on the shop floor in the grocery department at the time and then as a duty manager later on through those six years that I was at Woolies in Sunbury, seeing some of these incidents where people are targeted, where workers are threatened, was incredibly damaging. It is damaging for so many reasons, and many of those have been articulated by other members in the house this evening throughout the journey of this debate. I remember some times when, as a relatively young duty manager, we had some issues on the shop floor where members of the team were threatened and violence occurred, and the damage and the harm that was done to the entire team is something that I will never forget. Knowing that people are just going about their business, going to work and doing everything they can to be good, decent, quality employees and are subject to violent or vicious behaviour, is shameful. We have an obligation, and this is where this piece of legislation and a lot of the work that has been done throughout the journey, both to bring this bill before the house but through other programs and mechanisms as well, goes to providing for harsher penalties for those that want to do the wrong thing. We should make no apologies when it comes to protecting workers and the incredibly important work that they do.

The legislation that is before the house this afternoon goes to that better protection in retail, hospo, fast food, as I mentioned, and passenger transport, from violence and threats and abuse, and delivers on a commitment made by the Premier to introduce the bill by the end of this year. As has already been alluded to, the bill contains three new offences to address violence and aggression against workers – one indictable offence and two summary offences – and an amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 for a new indictable offence for assaulting or threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker. The bill also amends the Summary Offences Act 1966 with two summary offences – a summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with worker duties, and 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 in an insulting manner where the customer-facing worker is in connection to their duties.

It goes to those beefed-up and additional powers that target those who want to target people within our communities that are just doing their important job, their important work.

We in this place have an obligation and have a really important role in making sure that we are identifying the risks for workers who are in these industries. For many of those that may be their first job; they may have been there for 50-plus years. Regardless, no worker should have an instance where they are threatened at work. No worker should have an instance where they are threatened with violence. I have seen this, as I mentioned earlier, in a previous role. I have seen the damage that that causes and the work that then needs to occur to be able to assist those that are targeted by people who want to do the wrong thing – those who want to do harm. It is, of course, immense and is in many instances life changing and ongoing.

What this piece of legislation seeks to do – as have the number of announcements made by the Premier last sitting week – goes to addressing a cohort, an element within our society, that needs to be called out but more than being called out need to face serious consequences when they, often consistently and repeatedly, do the wrong thing. This government makes no apologies for that. We make no apologies for making sure that we are standing with workers, whether they be in transport or hospo or whether they be some of the amazing people that I got to meet on Saturday whilst very poorly constructing a Big Mac. Those workers, those teams, deserve our support, and I want to take the opportunity in the house this evening to thank the amazing people that do amazing jobs within our community. Whether they be in retail or hospo or transport or in fast food, making sure that we are supporting and standing with those workers is something that we on this side of the house very proudly do.

I would hope in their reflections and in their contributions, in the times where they have the opportunity to reflect on where they might sit on these matters, members take the opportunity to – rather than wishing to pull apart or dissect for the purposes of politics – put the worker front and centre at the middle of this debate. And making sure that our agencies – whether that be Victoria Police or whether that be all of the support that often goes to helping and shaping somebody, particularly when they might first start their job for the very first time or, as I mentioned earlier, have many, many years of experience – have the opportunity to be able to support and assist is something that is incredibly important.

The provisions and the changes that are contained in this piece of legislation around the summary offences and the changes to the Crimes Act are something that I fully support. I support those through the prism of making sure that we are standing with those workers, we are supporting those workers and we are doing all of the things that have been articulated both in this legislation and by the Premier and others last week, going towards providing for consequences for the serious behaviour, violent behaviour and aggression that we see in the community but knowing that the vast majority of workers need our support. They will have it from this government, both today and every single day.

[The Legislative Assembly report is being published progressively.]