Wednesday, 29 July 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:36): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to provide for the Magistrates’ Court to make orders to prevent and reduce unacceptable conduct engaged in by members of the public in certain workplaces and for other purposes.

In the last year retail workplaces have seen 30,000 incidents of theft and, for the workers in those workplaces, 5000 incidents of assault. That is an average of 13 a day across Victoria. And what has this government done? Nothing. 250 days ago in this place we tried to change the law, and every Labor member of Parliament voted against it when we tried to change the law and include workplace protection orders.

What have we seen today? We have seen a stuntish Premier propose to change the law around workplace protection orders. But you have got to read the fine detail with this guy, because what he said is that he might do something in 350 days time. What does that mean? Well, firstly, he will not be Premier. But secondly, it means that, if we look at the last year, 5000 people will be assaulted. Think that through – 5000 people. That is why the Liberals and Nationals urgently propose to introduce a workplace protection scheme – guess when – today. We will make sure that it is in place the second it receives royal assent, because we tried 250 days ago.

I acknowledge the work of the member for Caulfield, who at the time did a power of work to make sure that 250 days ago we had a scheme ready to introduce into this place, which the new Premier voted against. At the time he was sitting next to the former Premier, and together they voted against this proposal. Then today, in a performative way, he announces a workplace protection scheme that will not come into place for a year. Where is the bill? Where is their bill? We have a proposed set of laws today.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Polwarth is warned.

Anthony Carbines: Speaker, given where we are at here, the point of order I am raising is on relevance in relation to the matters before the house. I do not consider the matters to be relevant.

The SPEAKER: This is about the introduction of a bill, not about the bill per se.

James NEWBURY: Of course I can also give background and illustrate why it is so urgent. I can understand why a government without a bill would be offended that we have one – because they are embarrassed. It is urgent that we introduce a bill and change the law to protect retail workers today. If this bill is introduced into this place, we commit to putting it through the Parliament with speed. We will see later today, when it comes to other bills, how the government is very quick at passing bills that it wants to. So we say on workplace protection orders: if this government is proposing a set of laws that do not come into place for another year, well, firstly, I would hope by the good grace of Victorians they are not in government, but secondly, it means 5000 retail workers will be assaulted.

Roma Britnell interjected.

James NEWBURY: Or more – absolutely. That is why we have a bill. It is urgent. It is here on the table. We are ready to pass this today, and we ask this government not to vote against these measures twice. What hypocrites you would be if you were to vote against this twice. Pass it right now, today.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (09:41): The only part of that torrent which was remotely sincere was the member for Brighton’s opening stanza, which suggested that he is nothing if not performative. What this government is doing is protecting retail workers in their workplaces. The Carroll Labor government’s first action was to strengthen integrity in this state through the announcement of a royal commission, to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent with probity and with respect for those taxpayers. The second step of the Carroll Labor government was the Premier’s announcement this morning that worker protection orders will be introduced into this state, and I am astonished by the Johnny-come-latelies on the other side who have decided that they are the friends of the retail workers.

Brad Battin: On a point of order, Speaker, it has to be factual.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for South-West Coast, you are warned.

Brad Battin: The member on his feet has to be factual when he is coming to the chamber. Isn’t this an admission that 12 years of failure from this Labor government cannot be fixed by what they are trying to put forward now?

The SPEAKER: Points of order are not an opportunity to make a statement to the house. I do ask members when they are on their feet that it is an important point that members are to be factual.

Iwan WALTERS: I will continue being factual. Let us rewind to 1992, when this mob last came into government. They began to systematically –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Rowville can leave the chamber for an hour. The member for Polwarth can leave the chamber for an hour. When I am on my feet, there will be silence.

Members for Rowville and Polwarth withdrew from chamber.

Iwan WALTERS: They do not like the truth, but they systematically undermined the pay and conditions of retail workers for seven years. And then what did they do at a federal level? They undermined the pay and conditions of retail workers with the introduction of Australian workplace agreements undermining the rights and dignity –

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker: relevance.

The SPEAKER: I remind members that this debate is about the introduction of a bill. It is the bill that is to be talked about, not in depth but about why it should be introduced.

Iwan WALTERS: I reiterate my opposition to this motion, because it comes from those opposite, who have no sincerity when it comes to genuinely caring about and protecting the rights, the dignity, the pay and the conditions of retail workers. I am astonished and I am surprised at their latter-day interest in the fine work of the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association in this state, led by secretary Michael Donovan, which has been working assiduously in partnership with this government to introduce workplace protection orders to keep retail workers safe. It is unacceptable that retail workers encounter abuse from customers and danger in their workplaces, which is why our Premier this morning, a retail worker who had his first job at Kmart Airport West –

Jade Benham interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mildura, you are warned.

Iwan WALTERS: began the process of his government, the second action of his government, to ensure that we deliver workplace protection orders in this place. It is not a stunt. It is not a latter-day conversion to the fine work of the SDA that those opposite appear to be exhibiting today. It is genuine work. It is committed work. It is representing retail workers as part of this government in this place. I am proud to stand with retail workers, proud to represent them –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Berwick! Member for Euroa, you are warned.

Iwan WALTERS: and proud to stand up for their pay and conditions – not to cut them, not to undermine them, not to do what this party has always done and will continue to do. This party over here, the opposition, has systematically undermined the rights and dignity of retail workers and systematically undermined their pay and conditions, and they have the temerity to come in here and suggest that they are the friends of retail workers. I tell you, they are not. That party opposite will systematically cut the pay and conditions of retail workers, and the member for Brighton knows it because that is his plan.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Berwick and member for Euroa, this is your last warning.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the current speaker is not speaking anywhere near the substance of the motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for Greenvale to come back to the motion.

Iwan WALTERS: I reiterate my opposition to the motion and my support for retail workers.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:46): Even I can say what a rant that was from the member for Greenvale. It is absolutely all talk and no action from a government that claims to support workers, when they have the opportunity to support workers today – to support the member for Brighton’s private members bill to ensure retail workers are protected today, not in 500 days time and not 257 ‍days ago, when it was first promised from the previous Premier’s wish calls. All we are getting is more spin from the government – more spin, no substance. 257 days ago this government said they would protect workers. Where are we? Nowhere to be seen. And what does the manager of government business say? ‘Well, we’ve got a number of other important bills to discuss.’

What could be more important than protecting workers? We have got 13 assaults each and every day on retail workers. Those behind the checkout and those in retail stores are not protected by this government that claims to be the friend of workers. How can the government be the friend of workers if they do not protect the very workers that they claim to be supporting? There is an opportunity to do that by supporting the private members bill that the member for Brighton is introducing today. We have seen it happen. We have seen it each and every day. We have got retailers calling for it. Michael Donovan, who the member for Greenvale quoted, was actually here a year ago on the steps of Parliament calling for it. This did not happen yesterday. This has been years in the making, but for some strange reason the government still does not want to protect retail workers, the very group that they claim to be the friends of. If the government were serious about protecting workers and standing up for workers, they would support this private members bill today.

You only have to hear what people have said: Woolworths, which called for the government to implement workplace protection orders following a violent incident involving a baseball bat at a Kyabram supermarket, and Bunnings, whose managing director Michael Schneider has spoken publicly about worker abuse and which reportedly spends an extra $6 million a year on tactical security in Victoria. When Bunnings spends $6 million on security, we all pay for that at the checkout. The workers pay it in terms of the abuse, and the customers pay for it because it has all got to be paid for somewhere when that extra money is spent. Master Grocers Australia, representing independent, family-owned retailers, have been calling for it. IGA, which I am part of a WhatsApp group with, each and every week talk about worker abuse, about assaults and about, again, crime – theft – which has been happening. We have seen under this government over 30,000 thefts that have been happening. So there have been thefts on the rise. We have seen abuse: 13 assaults each and every day under this government. And what does the government want to do? Kick it into the long grass, kick it down the road and say, ‘Well, you know what, we’ll send the new Premier out to Kmart to talk about it, but we’ll wait another 500 days before it gets introduced.’ What an absolute joke that is. If the Premier was serious about it, he would not be doing photo opportunities at Kmart, he would be in the Parliament supporting this bill. That is what the Premier should be doing, not photo opportunities in Kmart. Get out there and actually support workers.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, and I do not see the member for Caulfield as being relevant to those matters when the Premier is out talking about work from home with retail workers today.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Speaker, this is absolutely important and is why this bill needs to be introduced today, not the Premier doing photo-ops at Kmart.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not to do with the point of order. The member for Caulfield to continue on the motion.

David SOUTHWICK: It is imperative that we need to pass this bill today to protect retail workers. Enough talk. Talk is cheap. That will not protect workers on the front line, that will not protect workers at the checkout, that will not protect the workers that are being assaulted each and every day. But I guess this new Premier has got form. He is not protecting the education union in terms of supporting them, not standing up alongside them when they are underpaying teachers. He does not care about workers.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I again do not see how the member for Caulfield is being relevant to the procedural debate before the house.

The SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield did stray somewhat from the motion.

David Southwick interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, I do not appreciate that response. Disrespect in this chamber has gone beyond a joke. Indeed, you might want to scoff at that. It is absolutely disgusting. Member for Caulfield, do you have something else to contribute?

David SOUTHWICK: Yes, I do. I apologise, Speaker. I was actually speaking to the manager of government business, not to you.

The SPEAKER: Irrespective, I remind members that this is a place of debate. This is not a place of accusations and bullying across the chamber.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (09:52): I rise to speak on the government’s position on this stunt which has been confected this morning by the opposition. It is a stunt because just this morning, prior to those opposite entering the chamber, it was quite evident that the Premier said that we as a government are introducing legislation for workplace protection orders, not next year at all. Those opposite will just have to keep their powder dry, and all shall be revealed. Those opposite, as my dear friend the member for Greenvale so clearly elucidated, like to pretend they are on the side of workers. But how many of those opposite have supported retail workers in any decisions they have made or their federal counterparts have made? Let us talk about other ways in which they have absolutely ensured that retail workers are at the bottom of the pile. What is their position on adult rates at 18? I bet they are not supportive.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: I remind members that this is a procedural debate. It is not about accusations across the chamber.

Daniela DE MARTINO: In this procedural debate I will outline precisely why the government will not be supporting any bill introduced into this chamber by those opposite –

Bridget Vallence interjected.

The SPEAKER: The member for Evelyn is warned.

Daniela DE MARTINO: because the bill that will be coming from the government side is the bill that has been worked in conjunction with the SDA over many, many months, with Michael Donovan leading the charge to ensure that it is in the interests of retail workers, not the interests of oppositions who like to go out with headlines slamming everything that is done by our government. It is not in their interests for actually good, constructive legislation to be introduced. It is in their interest to grab a headline, pull a stunt and try and make themselves look relevant. Well, the relevance is here with the government, and the introduction of the bill will be –

Emma Kealy: On a further point of order, Speaker, the member is defying your previous ruling. This is a procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. But, member for Monbulk, I remind you about why this motion is before the house.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Apologies if I have strayed, but I am quite passionate about retail because that is where I started my work at the age of 12. I started in retail, and I worked through –

Emma Kealy: On a further point of order, Speaker, it is a procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Monbulk has an opportunity to talk to the procedure, but it is okay for her to talk about why she thinks it is important to introduce the bill.

Daniela DE MARTINO: I think it is important to outline that there are many, many members on this side of the chamber who have a background in retail, including the Premier himself, who made an announcement at Kmart this morning – quite symbolically – about the fact that workplace protection orders will be absolutely pursued and will be robust in this state of Victoria. Those opposite may want to check the news this morning. Then they can catch themselves up on precisely what we will be doing. But it will be robust. It will be done in conjunction – the legislation –

Emma Kealy: On a further point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, and if the member cannot adhere to your rulings, then I ask you to sit her down.

The SPEAKER: Member for Monbulk, come back to the procedural motion.

Daniela DE MARTINO: We will not be supporting any bill introduced by those opposite, precisely because we have no faith in the content of that bill because we do not believe what underpins what they have brought into here actually has retail workers’ interests at heart. What we believe is that underpinning the bill that has been introduced is a desire to create another stunt and to grab a headline and to try and deflect attention from the fact that the Premier himself this morning has come out clearly and strongly that workplace protection orders – basically it is the second announcement made by the Premier. All those opposite are trying to do with this bill that they are introducing is take away any attention from the fact that we are getting on with this. We have done it with the work of the SDA. I also –

Emma Kealy: On a further point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate. If the member cannot speak to the procedure of the motion, then I ask you to sit her down.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold your point of order, member for Lowan.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Lastly, the reason we will not be supporting it is because we have no faith in it. We know that the work has been done in conjunction with the union. Our bill will be better.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (09:57): I stand to support the member for Brighton in introducing this legislation, but I stand in a little bit of confusion. We have just had those opposite –

Anthony Carbines interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am confused by your position, Minister, because we have just had the other side elect a new Premier. The new Premier has gone out this morning and announced a policy to introduce workplace protection orders – not for over a year, I will grant you that. Now we come to Parliament, and the opposition, for the second time – not a stunt today, for the second time – brings in legislation to introduce workplace protection orders, and now the members of the government are going to vote against it. They are going to vote against what the Premier has just announced. I am confused because I thought the no-confidence motion was yesterday, but now we have members of the government already voting a vote of no confidence in the new Premier because they do not trust his policy.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I am just very keen that the opposition, who have brought in this bill that they would like to introduce, keep the focus on the procedural debate about why it is timely to do so now.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals to come back to the motion before the house.

Danny O’BRIEN: I think that is exactly what I was doing, Speaker, and he is arguing what the –

The SPEAKER: Order! It is not appropriate for members to argue with my rulings. The Leader of the Nationals will come back to the motion before the house.

Danny O’BRIEN: Exactly what I am doing, Speaker, is arguing why this bill should be brought in. If the member for Monbulk does not trust the Nationals and Liberals and what they are doing, how about letting us bring the bill in and you can have a read of it? That is exactly what the process does. We have done the work, and we know that this is an important issue because there are 5000 attacks on retail workers every year. We have got situations where Coles has shut down its Elizabeth Street store because of the undesirables and the retail crime and the attacks on their workers in that area, and it is moving it out. This government is saying, ‘Yes, we think it’s an issue. We’ll deal with it in 12 ‍months – 365 days.’ They had an opportunity previously. 253 days ago the opposition moved amendments to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025, and the government opposed them.

Is it simply that it is only a good idea when they do it? It just does not stack up. The evidence is there from the business community. We had literally a group of major businesses – and I believe the shoppies were there at the time – highlighting the issue of retail crime. Leah Weckert from Coles said:

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

The Rebel Sport chief executive said in relation to retail crime:

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

The Reece chief executive Peter Wilson was reported as saying Victoria is the toughest place in the country to do business. The co-founder of Seek Paul Bassat said:

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

Those opposite have liked to quote from the shoppies. 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, what has taken so long? Why are this mob on the other side so indolent that they actually cannot get anything done? They make announcements all the time, but they do not actually bring the legislation forward. They do not do the work. The opposition has actually done the work for you. If you were half sensible, you could actually just say, ‘All right, we’ll adopt it.’ We would be happy to say, ‘You’re welcome’. We are all on the side of good here, yet the government is just going to put it off for another 12 months. I say again to those opposite: the legislation is here. You do not need the new Premier to announce it. It is right here. All they have to do is say, ‘Bring it in. Let’s debate it. Let’s have a look at it.’ We might even consider amendments, member for Brighton, but the government needs to support this. It is about supporting retail workers.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:02): Well, fiddle-de-dee, the opposition are reinventing themselves. They suddenly care about workers. Who knew? Did we know this? It is a surprise, but it is a new day today. They have declared suddenly that they are there for the workers. But let me tell you, any time there is a pay rise on the horizon or we are protecting workers rights, what do they do? They run for the hills.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, it is a narrow procedural debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Albert Park to constrain her debate to the purpose of either introducing or not.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you very much, and I take your advice very sincerely. I am just noting that it is pretty galling on any front, from any perspective, to think that those opposite are actually representing workers. Let me think about just the last 24 hours. Premier Carroll has announced a royal commission with a special prosecutor to work in parallel alongside it. He has also announced follow-the-money powers for IBAC.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the speaker is defying your ruling. This is a very narrow procedural debate, and I would ask you to make sure that she is relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not want to anticipate, but I imagine that the member for Albert Park is coming to her point in regard to introduction of the bill.

Nina TAYLOR: You have absolutely read my mind, Deputy Speaker, because Premier Carroll has announced the government is introducing a tough new workplace protection order scheme, and those opposite are criticising him for coming out and committing to this. How dare he have publicity! This is such an important issue, but they want him to not talk about it, to suppress it. Oh dear. He has come out and shown our commitment on this side following intense and positive collaboration with the SDA, because that is how proper and appropriate legislation that reflects the needs of workers is developed, but how dare he have publicity on this issue, because heaven forbid that the community should know what we are doing. I mean, the audacity of the member for Caulfield. Come on – you have plenty of publicity yourself. I have seen plenty of selfies – and that is all good; that is what we do – so I do not think you are in a position now to be –

Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is continually using the phrase ‘you’, which is a reflection on the Chair.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Narracan for his assistance. I did hear a ‘you’, and I counsel the member to go through the Chair.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, and I made those comments with utmost sincerity and to reflect on promotion, as we must do in terms of having transparency with our community, letting them know exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what the Premier has done. I think we should get on with this wonderful and positive program. We have already passed the procedural elements, so let us get on with our work this week.

Assembly divided on motion: