Thursday, 13 August 2026

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (14:41): I will start my contribution by commending the contribution by the member for Brighton. It was a very thorough contribution on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026 and certainly highlighted the failures of this government, which I will go into a bit further as well. As people know, the coalition strongly supports protecting frontline workers from violence, threats, intimidation, abuse and repeated antisocial behaviour, unlike the Carroll Labor government, who have let violence and intimidation run rampant, particularly on the Big Build worksites. Workplace violence is a serious law and order problem, particularly in retail, hospitality, public transport and, as I mentioned, the Big Build. Around 5000 attacks on retail workers occur each year, which is disgraceful, particularly when the Labor government says every worker deserves a safe working environment and then does absolutely nothing about it. Labor has been way too slow to act on this. We have previously attempted to introduce workplace protection measures, which the government rejected earlier on two opportunities, and to bring in these changes to offset poor behaviour under their watch. After nearly 4500 days in government, this government, with only 100 ‍days to go before an election, has finally realised we have got a problem with workplace bullying, intimidation and culture. What an amazing coincidence: we are only 100 days out from election, but they have had nearly 4500 days to work it out. This coincidence is quite surprising.

We attempted to bring forward our own workplace protection legislation immediately before Labor introduced its bill on 29 July this year, but the government used its numbers to defeat that attempt. In fact, I think it was last year when they brought it in. That is not uncommon. We often see in this place Labor using their numbers to cancel and to stop debate on a particular issue, only for them to reintroduce it when they find it is a good idea that we have put forward. As the Leader of the Nationals pointed out recently, if Labor now accepts that workplace protection orders are necessary, it should explain why similar coalition proposals were previously rejected. What I can say to the Leader of the Nationals, which he already knows, is it is actually the polls that have changed. Every decision that is being made at the moment is based on the polls. It is not based on community concern. It is certainly not based on crime statistics or even logic. It is the polling, and that is how this Premier is deciding his priorities as we go forward. He is the third Premier in as many years, and now we find Victoria is being governed and controlled by, or the directions and priorities are via, the polls.

This bill allows employers or unions to apply for protection orders to protect workers from people engaging in unacceptable conduct connected with certain workplaces. These orders can exclude offenders from a workplace, and this provides an important preventative tool rather than requiring workers to simply endure repeated offending. The Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court will have power to make the orders depending on the circumstances, and breaching an order will become a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or a $50,000 fine. We on this side of the house support strong penalties for deliberate breaches. An exclusion order needs meaningful consequences if it is going to genuinely protect workers. This needs to target genuinely threatening or dangerous behaviour, and the definition of ‘unacceptable conduct’ needs to be clear enough so that police, businesses, courts and the public understand where that threshold lies. It is important that everybody knows where we stand on ‘unacceptable conduct’ so it can be universally agreed upon. Time and time again we see magistrates and judges using the wet lettuce leaf when sentencing criminals in this state. That is a real concern, and again, the polls are saying that, so it is not surprising that we are seeing some changes in direction by this government.

We know that procedural fairness remains important. Strong orders should protect workers without creating unnecessarily broad restrictions against people who do not pose a genuine threat. Small businesses need a simple system. A family-owned shop, pub, service station or takeaway should not require expensive lawyers or complicated court proceedings simply to protect its staff. Regional Victoria must receive equal protection. Workplace aggression is not confined to Melbourne. Workers in country supermarkets, service stations, hospitality venues and public transport deserve that same protection. We need to ensure that in small regional communities like mine and others – Katamatite, Tungamah, Tawonga South, Everton and the likes of those smaller communities – they have the protections they deserve in the workplace as well, not just in metropolitan Melbourne, not just in the big, major regional centres, but all communities and even small communities, as I have mentioned. We also know that police need adequate powers and resources to enforce the orders. A court order is of little value if repeat offenders can just game the system where breaches will not be detected or prosecuted, so it is important that that occurs.

Protection orders cannot be a substitute for broader action on crime. On this side of the house we continue to argue that Victoria still needs stronger policing, consequences for repeat offenders and effective bail and sentencing laws. Labor needs to acknowledge that the Liberals and Nationals were pushing this policy earlier. We sought workplace protection measures through amendments to the crimes amendment bill, which Labor opposed. We support the objective but highlight that workers should not have to wait another year for protection when a workable scheme can be established sooner. We do support workplace protection orders because nobody should go to work fearing violence or abuse, but Labor needs to explain why it rejected earlier coalition action, which allowed the problem to worsen. It is only now adopting an approach that the opposition and frontline businesses have been calling for for many, many months. As I said, because we are now at 100 days out from an election, all of a sudden, remarkably, there is this coincidence and things start to change. Making good decisions is relative to the amount of days that we are out from an election, by the sounds of it.

We do have some areas of concern, as was mentioned by the member for Brighton. The bill is to commence on 26 July 2027, which seems to be a long time away. If this is such a concern to the Labor government now, why would they not bring it in much sooner? Why are we waiting till 26 July next year, 12 months away? Given the delay in introducing the bill, the commencement date just certainly is not appropriate. My understanding is that even the department gave feedback to the government agencies to request this delay. The other concerns include police being excluded from applying for an order, as well as clause 17, which confines standing to an applicable business operator or an employee union. An individual worker, including the victim of the conduct, cannot apply in their own right. In addition to our concerns, neither Victoria Police nor the Chief Commissioner of Police can seek an order, even when police have attended repeated incidents and hold material evidence of an escalating risk.

As the member for Brighton said in his opening remarks, we will not be opposing this bill, but we do have some amendments – and they were circulated earlier by the member for Brighton – certainly to amend the date of the commencement to royal assent, so removing that default of July 2027. We also intend to extend the right to apply for an order to police and expand the industry definition of ‘worker’ to capture all retail and service-based industry instead of only the retail and transport sectors. The other amendment is to require victim consent in seeking an order, except in cases of a police application.

With these comments, I do support workplace protection orders. We need to make our workplaces safer. As I have said through my contribution, I am just concerned it has taken so long. As we head towards 4500 days of this government being in office, we are waiting until the last hundred days, until the death knock, for things like this. It is not as though intimidation, violence and threats in the workplace have only just started; this has been going on for many, many years. It is just surprising that we waited until we are a hundred days out from an election to debate this. With that, as I said, we are not opposing the bill, but we are tabling these amendments and we will take them through to the upper house.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Artificial Intelligence and the Digital Economy, Minister for Major Events, Minister for Medical Research, Minister for Racing, Minister for Economic Development) (14:50): I move:

That debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.