Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (10:11): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The purpose of the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026 (the Bill) is to establish a new workplace protection order (WPO) scheme in Victoria. A WPO is a civil order designed to protect persons who perform work at customer-facing retail and certain transport workplaces from people likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable conduct at those workplaces.

Applications for a WPO under the Bill may be made by retail operators, specific passenger train, tram and bus operators, or certain registered employee unions (where at least one of the workers at the workplace is, or is eligible to be, a member of the union).

A court may make a WPO if the respondent is of or over the age of 14 years and is not a worker at the workplace in question. The court must be satisfied that:

• the respondent has, within 12 months of the application being made, engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to a person who performs work at the workplace of a retail or transport operator at their workplace

• the respondent is likely to engage in such unacceptable conduct again, and

• making the WPO is appropriate in all the circumstances.

For the purposes of the Bill, “unacceptable conduct” means physical or sexual violence or abuse, stalking, or conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of harm.

Subject to a range of safeguards outlined in further detail below, a court has broad discretion to impose any condition to a WPO. This may include restrictions on a person’s access to the workplace or their contact with an individual worker.

A WPO may be in force for a maximum duration of 12 months, although a court may vary or revoke an order on application from a party to the WPO.

It will be an offence to contravene a condition of a WPO. The maximum penalty for the offence is 2 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 240 penalty units, or both.

Human Rights Issues

The Bill engages the following rights under the Charter:

• right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

• right to freedom of movement (section 12)

• right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

• right to peaceful assembly and freedom from association (section 16)

• right to take part in public life (section 18)

• right to freedom of expression (section 15)

• right to freedom of religion (section 14)

• right to culture (section 19).

In accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter, human rights can be subject under law to limits that are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Rights may be limited in order to protect other rights.

For the reasons discussed below, I consider that any limitations on rights resulting from this Bill are reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination. The purpose of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, without a discriminatory effect.

Section 3(1) of the Charter adopts the definition of “discrimination” in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which includes both direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of a protected attribute, such as race, disability and age. Indirect discrimination occurs where a person imposes a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with a protected attribute, but only where that requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable.

While the Bill applies universally to any person aged 14 years or older who engages in unacceptable conduct in a relevant workplace, I accept that the Bill engages the right to recognition and equality before the law because the practical consequences of a WPO condition could disadvantage persons with a protected attribute.

Crime statistics also show that First Peoples are overrepresented in the types of criminal offences that are likely to overlap with the WPO scheme, meaning they face an increased risk of becoming subject to a WPO and related contact with the criminal justice system.

However, I am of the view that the ability for a court to make a WPO is reasonable and justified as these provisions are directed at pursuing a pressing and legitimate objective of protecting persons that perform work at retail and transport workplaces from experiencing repeated acts of unacceptable conduct at those workplaces.

As noted, the Bill sets out clear criteria that the court must be satisfied of when making a WPO. In particular, the court must be satisfied that the respondent has, within the prior 12 months, engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to a person who performs work at the workplace of a retail or transport operator and is likely to engage in such unacceptable conduct again. The criteria reflect, and is appropriately adapted to achieve, the stated purpose of the scheme.

Further, the Bill safeguards the rights of persons who may be disadvantaged by a WPO by:

• requiring the court to determine whether the making of a WPO is appropriate in all the circumstances

• specifying that a condition must not be imposed under a WPO if it would limit the rights and liberties of the respondent more than is necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct (that is the court must ensure conditions are proportionate)

• specifying that a condition must not be imposed under a WPO if it would limit the respondent’s ability to obtain necessary good or access necessary services unless the court is satisfied there is another way for the respondent to obtain those goods or access those services

• requiring the court to have regard to the respondent’s ability to understand the nature and effect of the order and to comply with it where the respondent is a child or person with a cognitive impairment

• requiring the court to consider, when determining what conditions to impose in an order, any hardship that is likely to be caused by the imposition of a condition, and

• clarifying that a court may tailor conditions as it deems appropriate or necessary so that a condition can prohibiting the respondent from doing a thing either absolutely or only, or except, in specified circumstances or in a specified manner.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the right to equality may be engaged but is not limited by the Bill. However, even if the power to impose a WPO would limit this right, it would be limited only to the extent reasonably necessary to ensure that persons who perform work at retail and certain transport workplaces are protected from experiencing further unacceptable conduct in their workplace.

Right to freedom of movement (section 12)

Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to move freely within Victoria and has the freedom to choose where to live. The right extends, generally, to movement without impediment throughout the State, and a right of access to places and services used by members of the public (DPP v Kaba (2014) 44 VR 526, [100]).

I accept that the Bill may limit the right to freedom of movement by enabling the making of a WPO with a condition that restricts a person’s ability to move freely within Victoria. For example, a condition prohibiting a person from accessing a form of public transport or prohibiting a person from entering or being within a specified distance of a specified workplace.

However, I am of the view that any limitation on the right to freedom of movement is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified. As noted, the provisions providing for the making of a WPO, imposition of conditions and the offence of contravening a WPO, are necessary to ensure that persons performing work at retail and certain transport workplaces who experience persistent incidents of violence and abuse in the workplace are protected from experiencing further unacceptable conduct.

I am also satisfied that the test for making a WPO and safeguards – in particular, the requirement that a court must be satisfied that the making of a WPO is appropriate in all the circumstances, that conditions must be proportionate, and that a condition limit access to necessary goods or services may only be imposed if there is another way for the respondent to obtain those goods or access those services – ensure that freedom of movement is limited only to the extent necessary to protect persons that perform work at certain retail and transport workplaces against the harm of further unacceptable conduct.

As noted, the court has discretion to tailor conditions to provide that a person’s access to a particular form of transport is not completely restricted. For example, it would be open to a court to tailor a condition so that the respondent is prohibited from accessing a specific transport workplace subject to specified exceptions, such as enabling access at specified times or for specified purposes. Similarly, it would also be open to a court to tailor a condition so that a person is prohibited from entering or coming within a specified distance of specified transport locations, such as prohibiting the respondent from entering a particular train station or from using a particular tram or bus line.

Further, if a WPO is made, and the respondent’s circumstances change to such an extent that a condition of a WPO unduly limits the right to freedom of movement, the Bill allows a respondent of the WPO to apply to the court to vary or revoke the WPO, which may be granted at the court’s discretion.

I have considered whether these provisions could be less restrictive by further narrowing the circumstances in which a WPO may be made, including by requiring a court to be satisfied that a respondent has been convicted of a violent offence against a person that performs work at a retail or transport workplace, or by limiting the scheme only to retail workplaces. However, I do not consider these options are reasonably available to achieve the Bill’s purpose.

In my view, limiting the scheme to where an offence has already occurred would undermine the objectives of the Bill since it would fail to adequately protect persons that perform work at retail and transport workplaces from experiencing further unacceptable conduct that would fall short of violent offending. It would also fail to provide an additional mechanism to protect these workplaces during any period in which criminal investigations may remain ongoing. In cases, where a person has been charged and has not been remanded into custody, the Bill provides additional protection by ensuring that retail and transport operators have a means to seek appropriate conditions under a WPO. Further the Bill is appropriately tailored to addressing the protective purpose in these instances, by providing that a WPO may not be made for more than 12 months.

Limiting the scheme only to retail workplaces would also fail to achieve the purpose of protecting persons that perform work at certain transport workplaces.

For these reasons, I consider the approach taken in the Bill is the least restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of the Bill.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Section 13(a) contains internal limitations that permit lawful and non-arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy. Interference with privacy will be arbitrary if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable (Minogue v Thompson [2021] VSCA 358, [55]).

As noted, the Bill enables an application for a WPO to be made by a relevant retail or transport operator or an employee union in certain circumstances. This promotes the right to privacy and reputation by providing an alternative to workers that are the victim of unacceptable conduct from having to personally apply for a WPO or otherwise seek protections under other existing mechanisms, such as by applying for a personal safety intervention order, which would require the worker to reveal personal information such as their name and address.

However, the Bill also requires the sharing of information about a respondent, and potentially, victims of unacceptable conduct, with retail and transport operators who are not party to an application in certain circumstances. Specifically, an employee union is required to identify and give notice of an application for a WPO to any retail or transport operator that would be entitled to apply for a WPO by providing a copy of the application, and to provide a copy of an order under the Bill to any operator that was notified of the application. In addition, the Bill requires that a copy of an order be given to the Chief Commissioner of Police. These provisions limit the right to privacy of any persons named in those documents – in particular the respondent but possibly also any victim to the extent they are also identified – including the right to control one’s informational privacy and the right to not have their reputation unlawfully attacked.

I consider the notification and service requirements in the Bill are appropriate and necessary promote the effective operation of the WPO scheme and are thereby appropriately tailored to the Bill’s purpose. In particular, the requirements:

• support enforcement of the WPO, and investigations and prosecution for contravention of the WPO by ensuring police are aware when a WPO is made, and

• ensure that relevant operators are aware of applications that may impact their workplace and are able to assist with the detection of any contravention of a WPO and therefore supporting the effective enforcement of a WPO.

These provisions are also sufficiently circumscribed to ensure that any interference with the right to privacy is not arbitrary, unpredictable or unreasonable within the internal limitations contained in section 13(a) of the Charter.

Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14) and cultural rights (section 19)

Section 14 of the Charter protects the right to freedom of religion and belief. This includes the right to demonstrate one’s religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

The right to culture in section 19(1) ensures individuals, in community with others that share their background, can enjoy their culture, declare and practice their religion and use their language.

I accept that the Bill has the potential to interfere with a person’s right to freedom of religion and their right to culture, to the extent that a condition imposed under a WPO may restrict a respondent’s ability to observe their religious practices or express their culture in certain circumstances. For example, a condition that limits a person’s means of travel may effectively restrict them from accessing a location where the respondent wishes to engage in worship and prayer or enjoy their culture. Similarly, a condition prohibiting a person from coming within a certain distance of a retail workplace, could effectively exclude that person from entering a place of worship that falls within that area. Further, a condition that prohibits a person from entering a specified retail workplace may restrict their ability to purchase items required for cultural and religious ceremonies, such as food, clothing and other ceremonial objects.

However, I am of the view that any limitation of the right to freedom of religion and cultural rights is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified. As noted, the Bill is directed at responding to the legitimate objective of protecting persons that perform work at retail and transport workplaces from experiencing further unacceptable conduct. In addition, the test for making a WPO and the various safeguards set out above ensure that any limitation placed on the right to freedom of religion and right to culture are reasonable and proportionate.

I have considered whether a less restrictive approach could be to include an exception or defence to the offence of contravening a WPO where a person is travelling to, or entering, a place they are otherwise prohibited from entering, for religious or cultural reasons. However, I do not consider this option to be reasonably available. In my view, such a provision would undermine the objective of the Bill to promote the safety of persons that perform work at certain retail and transport workplaces and to prevent the occurrence of unacceptable conduct towards those persons in circumstances where reasonable transport or retail alternatives may be available and the court considers the conditions imposed are no more restrictive than is necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct.

I therefore consider that the approach taken in the Bill is the least restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose of the Bill.

Rights to freedom of expression (section 15), peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through a variety of mediums. The right contains an internal limitation in section 15(3) that allows freedom of expression to be limited where it is reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. Relevantly, the protection of public order ‘means, in broad terms, giving effect to rights or obligations that facilitate the proper functioning of the rule of law … include[ing] measures for peace and good order, public safety and prevention of disorder and crime’ (Magee ‍v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50, [151].

Section 16 of the Charter protects every person’s right to peaceful assembly, that is to gather intentionally and temporarily for a specific purpose, and right to freedom of association with others.

I accept that the Bill has the potential to interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. For example, a condition prohibiting a respondent from entering or coming within a specified distance of a specific workplace, may interfere with the respondent’s ability to engage in public protest regarding the practices of that workplace or in the vicinity of that workplace. However, for the reasons that follow, I consider that any interference falls within the internal limit of section 15(3) with the limitations imposed being reasonable and necessary to protect the rights of others (that is, persons that perform work at the relevant retail or transport workplace) and to uphold public order.

The power to make a WPO and the offence for contravening a WPO are necessary to protect public order as they will provide a targeted mechanism to deter members of the public from repeatedly engaging in violence and other types of unacceptable conduct against persons that already experience violence and abuse in certain retail and transport workplaces.

The potential interference on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable for the following reasons:

• The Bill is directed at preventing persons from further engaging in acts of unacceptable conduct against persons that perform work at certain customer-facing retail and transport workplaces and are not designed to restrict any specific form of expression protected by section 15 of the Charter.

• As previously noted, the Bill contains various safeguards that ensure any limitations placed on the right to freedom of expression are appropriate in all the circumstances, proportionate, and the least restrictive possible.

• The offence for contravention of a WPO is narrow and may only be enlivened when the respondent intentionally breaches any of the conditions set out in the order.

Similarly, I accept that a condition prohibiting a respondent from entering or coming within a specified distance of a specific workplace may engage a person’s rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Those rights would be limited in the protest example above but could also be limited where the respondent is unable to meet with a group or association within the specified distance of the workplace. In addition, prohibiting a respondent from using a specific public transport service may indirectly restrict a person’s rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association if there is no alternative mode of transport available for them to attend a particular assembly or gathering of a particular group. Similarly, a condition prohibiting a respondent from communicating with a protected worker may limit the person’s freedom to associate with that worker as part of a broader group to which they both belong.

However, as noted with respect to the right to freedom of expression, these provisions are not specifically aimed at preventing persons from gathering peacefully or associating with others as part of a formal group. Instead, as noted above, these provisions are directed at responding to the legitimate objective of protecting persons that perform work at certain retail and transport workplaces from experiencing further unacceptable conduct and the test for making a WPO is appropriately adapted to this purpose. The Bill, as previously noted, also contains various safeguards to ensure that any limitations placed on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association are appropriate in all the circumstances, proportionate, and the least restrictive possible. In particular, the court has the discretion to tailor conditions to be subject to exceptions – such as to enable a person to come within a specified distance of a workplace to attend a specified gathering or assembly, or to communicate with protected workers for a specified purpose. The Bill also does not allow for the application of a WPO for the purpose of preventing a person from picketing or engaging in on-the-job protests or industrial action related to, or at, their workplace.

I have also considered whether a less restrictive approach to these rights may be to include an exception or defence to the offence of contravening a WPO where a person breaches a condition whilst engaging in political communication or legitimate protest. However, I do not consider this option to be reasonably available as, in my view, it would undermine the objective of the Bill to promote safety of persons that perform work at retail and transport workplaces.

The court will be required to be satisfied that conditions imposed in a WPO are no more restrictive than necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct and may itself tailor a condition so that it is subject to exceptions.

I consider that the Bill’s approach does not provide further restrictions than necessary to fulfil the purpose of the Bill and the approach taken is the least restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of the Bill. For the reasons outlined above, any interference with the right to freedom of expression is in my view incidental only, lawful and reasonably necessary for the protection of public order. For similar reasons, I consider that any limitation on the right to peaceful assembly would be reasonable and justified.

Right to take part in public life (section 18)

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through chosen representatives. Section 18(2) further provides that every eligible person has the right to vote and be elected at periodic State and municipal elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors, and have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office.

I accept that the Bill has the potential to limit a respondent’s right to take part in public life, to the extent that a condition in a WPO prohibits, for example, a person from using certain transport to attend or take part in a political forum, or to attend a voting centre. Similarly, a condition prohibiting a person from coming within a specified distance of a workplace that is next to, for example, a voting centre or council building may also limit the right to take part in public life.

For similar reasons as noted above with respect to the right to recognition and equality before the law, a WPO condition may also indirectly discriminate against a person with a protected attribute from taking part in public life. For example, a person who is unable to drive a motor vehicle due to their age or disability may be disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate in local council meetings or take part in parliamentary and municipal elections if a condition of a WPO prohibits them from using certain transport.

However, as explained in the context of the right to equality, I am of the view that the provisions in the Bill that may impact this right are reasonable and proportionate to pursue the pressing and legitimate objective of protecting persons that perform work at certain retail and transport workplaces from experiencing repeated acts of unacceptable conduct at those workplaces.

The Bill also contains various safeguards to ensure that any limitation placed on the right to take part in public life is the least restrictive possible and provides for the ability to vary a WPO if there is a change in circumstances.

Accordingly, I am of the view that should the power to impose a WPO limit this right, it would be limited to the extent reasonably necessary to ensure that persons that perform work at certain retail and transport workplaces are protected from experiencing further unacceptable conduct in the workplace.

Conclusion

I am therefore of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

The Hon. Sonya Kilkenny MP

Attorney-General

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (10:11): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In my opinion, the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026 (Bill) is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (the Treaty Act). I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

2.   The purpose of the Bill is to establish a new workplace protection order (WPO) scheme in Victoria. A WPO is a civil order designed to protect persons who perform work at customer-facing retail and certain transport workplaces from people likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable conduct at those workplaces.

3.   Applications for a WPO under the Bill may be made by retail operators, specific passenger train, tram and bus operators, or employee unions (where at least one of the workers at the workplace is, or is eligible to be, a member of the union).

4.   A court may make a WPO if the respondent is aged 14 years or older and is not a worker at the workplace in question. The court must be satisfied that the respondent has, within the prior 12 months, engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to a worker at the workplace in question and is likely to engage in such unacceptable conduct again, and that making the WPO is appropriate in all the circumstances.

5.   For the purposes of the Bill, “unacceptable conduct” means physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking, or conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of harm.

6.   Subject to a range of safeguards outlined in further detail below, a court has a broad discretion to impose any conditions under a WPO to prevent the respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct in relation to a person performing work at the relevant workplace. This may include restrictions on a person’s access to the workplace or their contact with an individual worker.

7.   The Bill provides that any party to a WPO may apply to vary or revoke the order. A WPO may be in force for a maximum duration of 12 months, although it may be varied or revoked earlier.

8.   It will be an offence to contravene a condition of a WPO. The offence will be punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 240 penalty units, or both.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

9.   The First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl (Assembly) was provided with information regarding the Bill and an opportunity to advise on the Bill in June 2026. In July 2026, the Assembly accepted a briefing on the Bill in which information was provided on the Bill and its impacts on First Peoples. I note that, respecting Cabinet processes, the Bill itself was not provided during this briefing. Following this briefing, the Assembly provided a representation as follows:

9.1 The First Peoples’ Assembly was not provided with a copy of the Bill. The Assembly understands that extensive feedback was provided by First Peoples experts and organisations to the State and that the substantive concerns raised have not been addressed. The Assembly has significant concerns about the disproportionate impact that the Workplace Protection Order scheme may have on First Peoples.

10.   I note that, as highlighted through engagement with First Peoples experts and organisations, the Bill may have a disproportionate impact on First Peoples. As detailed in the compatibility assessment below, these concerns have been considered, and the Bill has been adapted to include some measures and safeguards in response to these concerns. However, I acknowledge that not all aspects of the Bill align with the concerns raised regarding its potential impacts on First Peoples. I note that the State will continue to work with First Peoples in the implementation of these reforms.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

11.   I have considered whether the Bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act):

(i) advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples; and

(ii) addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

(iii) ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

12.   I note that the Bill does not include any provisions which apply specifically to First Peoples. The Bill establishes a civil order (WPO) scheme and associated criminal offence for breach of a WPO with universal application. A WPO will apply equally to any person aged 14 years or older who has engaged in unacceptable conduct against a retail or transport worker at their workplace and is the subject of such an order made by the court. Similarly, the offence will apply equally to any person subject to a WPO.

13.   However, the Bill may, in its practical effects, engage the objects of section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act in two key ways.

14.   First, the creation of the new WPO scheme will enable courts to impose restrictive conditions on persons subject to a WPO, which are likely to impact the interests, rights and freedoms of First Peoples subject to a WPO. There is a risk that First Peoples will be disproportionately the subject of WPOs given their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. While the imposition of a WPO does not rely on a person having been convicted of a criminal offence, it does rely on a court being satisfied that a person has engaged in unacceptable conduct that, in some cases, may also amount to one of a range of criminal offences. Crime statistics data shows First Peoples are overrepresented as alleged offenders for such relevant offences (including physical and sexual assault offences, threatening behaviour, offensive conduct, stalking, riot and affray) recorded at retail and certain transport locations. First Peoples account for over 12% of alleged offenders for relevant offences recorded at those locations during the period from July 2022 to December 2025 despite representing less than 2% of the Victorian population.

15.   Second, the Bill also creates a new criminal offence for contravention of a condition of a WPO which will be punishable by a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 240 penalty units, or both. This may lead to prosecution and custodial sentences, which risk further increasing First Peoples overrepresentation in custody. Given that WPOs may be made against any person aged 14 or older, there is also a risk that the new offence will increase the number of young First Peoples persons in detention or otherwise engaged with the criminal justice system.

Advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples

16.   I acknowledge that the making of a WPO in relation to First Peoples that imposes restrictions via conditions on an individual, and enforcement of the order via the new offence for failure to comply with a WPO, will necessarily restrict an individual’s right to fully exercise some inherent rights of First Peoples as outlined in the United Nations Declaration into the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

17.   The Bill may, in practice, limit the right to equality and freedom from discrimination (article 2, UNDRIP) due to the potential for the scheme to disproportionately apply to First Peoples. Conditions that restrict or prevent access to particular forms of public transport, the purchase of necessary goods, or access to necessary services, and the potential to be imprisoned if those conditions are breached, may also impact a range of inherent rights of First Peoples. In particular, the rights to improvement of economic and social conditions (article 5, UNDRIP), the rights and special needs of elders, women, young people, and persons with a disability (article 22, UNDRIP), the right to education without discrimination (article 14, UNDRIP) and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (article 24, UNDRIP) may be affected.

18.   Limiting First Peoples’ access to retail premises or public transport risks significant disruption to social and economic opportunities, particularly in regional and rural settings where alternatives are limited. This may present barriers to key aspects of First Peoples’ lives including access to cultural connections and Country, employment, education, healthcare and housing and risk particular impacts on vulnerable groups such as elders, women, young people, and persons with a disability. Rights to culture and Country (articles 11, 12, 25 and 26, UNDRIP) may also be impacted; limiting First Peoples’ practical access to places of spiritual significance, cultural practices and cultural connections.

19.   However, taking into account the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of advancing the inherent rights of First Peoples. Preventing unacceptable conduct in relation to workers of retail and certain transport operators is important, and I acknowledge efforts to address it will impact upon the rights of First Peoples. However, as detailed in the proportionality assessment below, safeguards contained in the Bill, as well as judicial discretion, will aim to ensure any impacts on the inherent rights of First Peoples are no more restrictive than necessary.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples

20.   The creation of a new civil order containing conditions that will restrict where a person may go and how they can travel may compound the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation.

21.   As detailed above, there are risks that WPOs imposing conditions limiting access to transportation or retail premises can have far-reaching implications for First Peoples’ access to employment, education, healthcare, housing, cultural connections and Country. These impacts may be particularly pronounced by the application of the scheme not just to adults, but also to children aged 14 and above.

22.   As detailed in the Yoorrook for Transformation report, the Yoorrook Justice Commission (the Commission) ‘received evidence about the ongoing presence of racism towards First Peoples across all societal institutions’, impacting access to a range of social and economic opportunities on interpersonal, institutional and systemic or structural levels. Systemic racism and unconscious bias have a significant impact on the over-representation of First Peoples in the criminal justice system, and this is reflected in concerns raised by stakeholders during development of the Bill. First Peoples experience significant racism in retail and transport settings relevant to WPOs, and this may drive biased interpretations of unacceptable conduct and disproportionate applications for WPOs in relation to First Peoples. In this context, there is a risk that First Peoples will be disproportionately subject to WPOs, amplifying the broad-ranging impacts that associated conditions may have.

23.   Further, to the extent that the new offence introduced by this Bill may lead to increased contact with the criminal justice systems, the increased rates of incarceration of First Peoples may compound the unacceptable disadvantage further. The Yoorrook for Justice report considered the significant impact of First Peoples over-representation in the justice system, including the disruptions to family and the community when people are imprisoned. The report notes that ‘[r]emoving [First Peoples] from their community can have devastating effects on their personal and social wellbeing, with many families experiencing ongoing trauma and grief as a result.’

24.   However, taking into account the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation. The objectives of the Bill are to promote the safety and security of persons working at certain workplaces, and to prevent the occurrence of unacceptable conduct in those workplaces. However, as detailed in the proportionality assessment below, the safeguards contained in the Bill intend to mitigate negative impacts of the scheme on First Peoples. Judicial discretion will also operate to ensure the conditions of a WPO will not limit the rights and responsibilities of a person more than is necessary.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

25.   While the Bill applies universally to any person aged 14 years or older who engages in unacceptable conduct in a relevant workplace, I acknowledge that the Bill may, in practice, limit the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of First Peoples. As detailed above, crime statistics show that First Peoples are overrepresented in the types of criminal offences that are likely to overlap with this scheme, meaning they face an increased risk of becoming subject to a WPO and related contact with the criminal justice system.

26.   Specifically, I consider that the Bill may indirectly limit the equal enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms including inherent rights previously outlined and the Charter rights to liberty (section 21), freedom of movement (section 12), right to privacy (section 13(a)), the rights to enjoy cultural rights (sections and 19), the protection of families and children (section 17), as well as the right to adequate standard of living, adequate food, clothing and housing (article 11 of the ICESCR).

27.   These rights may be limited as a result of conditions included in a WPO, or the imposition of a custodial sentence following a breach. As noted above, the conditions of a WPO and potential for imprisonment or detention following the breach of such conditions can restrict movement and have other flow on implications for on connections to family, kin and culture, access to Country and enjoyment of various rights as well as restrict access to goods. In circumstances where First Peoples are subject to disproportionate rates of WPOs and potentially related detention, this may limit the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

28.   However, taking into account the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples. The importance of preventing unacceptable conduct in relation to workers of retail and certain transport operators through the restrictive conditions in a WPO must be balanced with an individual’s personal circumstances. As detailed in the proportionality assessment below, safeguards provided for in the Bill, such as requiring a court to only impose conditions that are appropriate in all the circumstances, will to help ensure First peoples are not disproportionately impacted.

Proportionality assessment

29.   While the Bill may limit the achievement of the objects in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) as outlined above, in my opinion the limitations are proportionate and therefore compatible with them for the reasons outlined below.

30.   The Bill universally applies to any person aged 14 years or older who engages in unacceptable conduct in a workplace and not specifically or only to First Peoples.

31.   There is significant and pressing need to increase protections for retail and certain transport workers in their workplaces from people likely to engage in repeated incidents of unacceptable conduct at those workplaces. The imposition of restrictive conditions under a WPO, as well as potential criminal sanctions for breaching an order, seek to prevent further unacceptable conduct in these workplaces. It is intended that the conditions and potential criminal sanctions will have a protective purpose, and any limitations on rights as a result are appropriate given the significant harm caused by the unacceptable conduct the Bill denounces.

32.   The Bill acknowledges the potential significant impact that a WPO may have on individuals and requires that a court may only make a WPO where it is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. This is intended to ensure that orders are only made with due consideration of a respondent’s personal circumstances. Additionally, courts can only impose conditions that are targeted and proportionate to the protective purpose of the order in those circumstances. This aims to ensure any such conditions are appropriately tailored to both protect workers from repeated acts of unacceptable conduct and reduce the impact on disadvantaged and marginalised communities by requiring the court to consider a respondent’s personal circumstances, including the key factors detailed below. This safeguard will be particularly important in rural, regional and remote communities where alternative transport or retail options may be limited, or where WPO conditions may be unduly burdensome on a person, allowing for courts to consider the impacts on fundamental freedoms and rights described above.

33.   In determining the conditions to be included in a WPO, the court must give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of the workers in the workplace but must also have regard to other factors, such as the hardship that is likely to be caused to any person. Critically, the Bill provides that a court must not impose a condition under a WPO where:

a. the condition would limit the respondent’s ability to obtain necessary goods or access necessary services, unless the court is satisfied there is another way for the respondent to obtain those goods or access those services; or

b. the condition limits the rights of the respondent more than is necessary to prevent a respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct that has a sufficient connection to the workplace.

34.   In addition, an application for a WPO must be made within 12 months of the relevant unacceptable conduct. This ensures that any order made responds to an existing risk posed by a person and that historic conduct cannot be used to form the sole basis of a WPO application.

35.   Further, in determining whether to make a WPO in relation to a child or a person with a cognitive impairment, the court must have regard to further considerations including the respondent’s ability to understand the nature and effect of the order and ability to comply with it.

36.   The Bill recognises that the needs and impacts of a person subject to a WPO can change over time. Consequently, at any time during the duration of the WPO, the applicant or respondent may apply to the court to vary the conditions of a WPO or revoke a WPO. Upon application, the court may vary or revoke a WPO where satisfied it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so and having regard to a range of matters, including: the applicant’s reasons for making the application; any hardship or harm that is likely to be caused as a result of any variation or revocation; and the likelihood that the respondent may engage in further unacceptable conduct that has a sufficient connection to the operator if the WPO is not varied or revoked. This will give the court an opportunity to consider any change in circumstances, such that the conditions of the WPO should be varied.

37.   Finally, the Bill requires the Attorney-General to commence a review of the scheme within three years of its commencement. This will ensure that the new scheme is working as intended to promote the safety of customer-facing retail and certain transport workers and will enable government to consider the broader impacts of the reforms, including on First Peoples.

Conclusion

38.   For the reasons set out above, in my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(i) to (iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

The Hon. Sonya Kilkenny MP

Attorney-General

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (10:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Incorporated speech as follows:

I am pleased to introduce the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. The Bill complements the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Act 2025 to deliver on the Victorian Government’s commitment to give vulnerable customer-facing workers greater protection against assaults, threats and abuse.

The Bill creates a new workplace protection order scheme to address unacceptable conduct – such as violence, sexual abuse, stalking or threats towards staff – in retail and certain transport workplaces. While a workplace protection order, or WPO as it will be informally known, will be a civil mechanism for preventing harm, breaches of a condition of a WPO will carry a significant criminal consequence of up to two years imprisonment, a fine of up to approximately $50,000, or both.

Retail and passenger transport workers are vital to a thriving Victorian community. The retail industry contributes over 73 billion dollars to the Victorian economy annually, while more than 490 million trips were recorded across the Victorian public transport network in 2025. These workers keep our economy growing and keep us moving around our state safely. However, they often experience violence, abuse and harassment just for doing their job.

The purpose of this Bill is to protect retail and specified transport workers from people likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable violence, abuse, stalking and other harassment. The introduction of a WPO scheme safeguards retail and specified transport workers by limiting a person’s access to a workplace and/or workers where that person is likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable conduct at the workplace. This sends a clear message to the community that the work of retail and passenger transport workers is valued and that it is never okay to abuse or threaten these workers just for doing their job.

I shall now turn to the substance of the Bill.

Applications for a WPO under the Bill may be made by retail operators, specific passenger train, tram and bus operators, or certain registered employee unions (where at least one of the workers at the workplace is, or is eligible to be, a member of the union). A union applicant may seek a WPO independently of a retail or transport operator allowing it to step in where a retail or transport operator is unable or unwilling to apply for a WPO. A union applying for a WPO must notify any other eligible applicant of its intention to apply.

A WPO may be made in relation to a person aged 14 years or above if the court is satisfied that the person has engaged in unacceptable conduct in connection with a retail or specified transport workplace within the previous 12 months, is likely to do so again, and the order is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Unacceptable conduct means physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking and conduct that causes a person at the workplace to experience a reasonable fear of harm.

A WPO can only be sought for unacceptable conduct that occurs at a workplace covered by the scheme. A retail workplace is a place where a retail operator conducts its business all or part of which is accessible to the public during business hours. For transport operators, the definition of workplace is limited to passenger trains, trams and buses, ticket sales locations and ticketed-access areas owned or operated by the transport operator, such as a train station platform.

Government recognises the need to ensure WPOs are appropriately targeted and proportionate to their protective purpose. To safeguard against potential disproportionate impacts on vulnerable Victorians, the scheme provides various considerations the court must undertake when making a WPO. For example, if the respondent is a child or person with a cognitive impairment the court must consider their ability to understand an order and comply with its conditions. In determining any conditions under a WPO, the court must give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of the workers in the workplace but must also have regard to other factors, such as the hardship that is likely to be caused to any person.

Further, a court must not impose a condition that would limit the respondent’s ability to obtain necessary good or access necessary services if there are no alternative options to access such goods or services, or if it would limit rights and liberties of the person more than is necessary. The court therefore has discretion to determine and tailor any conditions as it deems appropriate or necessary.

For example, retail and transport options may be limited in regional, rural and remote areas. If an applicant suggests a condition that would exclude a person from obtaining essential items such as food or medicine, the court may decide it is not appropriate to make the order due to the hardship this would cause the respondent, or may tailor the condition to restrict access to the relevant workplace except at specified hours or otherwise to impose alternative conditions.

A WPO may be in force for a maximum duration of 12 months. The applicant or the respondent to the WPO may apply to the court to have the WPO revoked, or the conditions of the order varied. This gives the court the opportunity to consider any changes in circumstances that may have occurred to ensure that the conditions of the order remain appropriate and targeted to effectively promote protection and safety of the relevant protected workers.

Government will monitor the impact of the WPO scheme by requiring a statutory review of the reforms be commenced within three years from the commencement of the reforms. This is a novel scheme, and the statutory review will provide an opportunity to consider whether the new scheme is working as intended and to consider the broader impacts of the reforms.

Customer-facing workers in the retail and transport industries provide essential services to our society and it is unacceptable that they are made to feel unsafe simply for doing their job.

I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Worker Protection Consultation Group, whose expertise, experience and ongoing commitment have been instrumental in the development of these reforms.

The Victorian Government remains committed to protecting workplaces and I am pleased to introduce this Bill that further strengthens our justice system to protect workers from harm.

I commend the Bill to the House.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (10:11): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday 13 August.