Thursday, 13 August 2026

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (14:51): It is great to be back to speak on this important item on the notice paper, the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. I want to begin my comments by taking some exception to the mischaracterisation that the member for Ovens Valley engaged in during his commentary on this bill. This bill has been some time in gestation, and those opposite might have been out of power for so long that they have forgotten what policymaking looks like and what good government looks like. But when you are undertaking substantive reform to keep workers safe, you cannot just drop a bill in here as a stunt on a morning of Parliament and suggest that that in and of itself is going to achieve anything. Instead you have to engage in substantive discussion, negotiation and work with the stakeholders who represent workers in this state: organisations and unions like the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA), the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU), who represent their workers and who understand the nuances of how this legislation will work in practice, as well as employer organisations and retailers themselves. You cannot do it through a stunt, as it were. It needs to be done in a way that actually ensures that the legislation on the table will have the effect that is intended, because it matters.

It matters that every worker has the right to be safe at work. It should not be controversial. Yet for far too many retail workers, abuse, threats and violence have become an accepted part of their working lives. That is also the case for far too many passenger transport workers, and that is why workplace protection orders matter. It is why the role of a good Labor government that works with employers and with worker representatives like the SDA matters. I want to acknowledge the work of the SDA, secretary Michael Donovan and the entire team, who have been working for years to protect retail workers from customer abuse and violence. It is not a recent interest. It is not something driven by polling. It is not a political stunt. It is not a convenient position that has been adopted because the issue has become politically popular. The SDA and this government have been listening to retail workers. Workers have come into this place to bravely tell me, my caucus colleagues and my fellow parliamentarians about the abuse, the threats, the intimidation and the assaults that they have encountered from repeat offenders returning to their workplaces. Unions have taken those experiences and turned them into a sustained campaign for change, and that change is represented by the bill that is on the table. Unions like the SDA, like the TWU and like the RTBU have worked with this government to develop a practical solution – one that will work, one that will keep workers safe in their workplaces – and that solution is workplace protection orders.

WPOs, as I will refer to them henceforth, are about protecting workers before the next incident occurs. They recognise – and I think this is an important truth to acknowledge – that some offenders are not simply difficult customers. The customer is not always right. Some are repeat offenders. Some are violent offenders who repeatedly threaten, abuse and assault workers who are often the lowest paid in our community, often the youngest workers in our community and often those in their first jobs. The workers who I represent as the member for Greenvale who work in retail at places like Roxburgh Park, at the Greenvale shops and at the Broadmeadows shops do not deserve – as no worker deserves – to go to work to be threatened, to be abused, to be spat on or to be assaulted. That is why WPOs matter.

Workers should not have to wonder whether the person who threatened them yesterday will walk back through those doors tomorrow to do the same thing. Businesses, as we have heard through the consultation engaged in by the Carroll Labor government, need a mechanism to keep repeat serious offenders away from their workers. That is what WPOs provide. Too often – and other members have noted this in their contributions – the response to workplace violence is to deal with what happened after the event. Police are called, an incident is recorded but a worker is left traumatised, and then the offender can potentially come back. It is unacceptable. We need to prevent the next incident, and a WPO gives us a way to intervene before another worker is harmed. It is a practical workplace safety measure. It is about prevention, and prevention must be our first priority when it comes to community safety more broadly but workplace and worker safety in particular.

The retail worker who is abused at the check-out does not care about political theatre. They do not care about the tactics that have been engaged in in this place. They care about whether they are safe at work. Parents who send their children, as it were, to work – though those children may be teenagers – care that they go to work safely, they are safe at work and they come home safely. The worker who is threatened in the stockroom does not need another speech in this place telling them that violence is unacceptable, they need protection. They need legislation in the form of this WPO act. The worker who sees a repeat offender walk back into their workplace wants to know that somebody has their back. That is the role that their worker representatives in the form of the SDA, the Transport Workers Union, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and others have played. The SDA has stood beside those workers. It has taken their concerns seriously. It has advocated for them to government, and their parliamentary representatives have advocated for them as well. We have taken their concerns seriously, and we have ensured that work has been undertaken – serious work, proper consultation – to get to the point where we have the WPO bill on the table.

It is all about dignity at work. No worker should be expected to tolerate abuse because they work in retail, in passenger transport or in any other sector. No worker should be told that dealing with aggressive customers is simply part of the job. No worker should have to choose between earning a living and feeling safe. Work should provide dignity. That is the entire premise of the labour movement, which I am proud to belong to. Work should provide security, and it should provide a safe environment. Workplace violence undermines all three premises. We need to draw a clear line. A customer, yes, is entitled to complain, and a customer may be unhappy with a product or a service, but nobody is entitled to threaten or to assault a worker. Nobody is entitled to repeatedly intimidate staff, and nobody should be able to repeatedly target the same workers and the same workplaces without consequences. WPOs send a really simple message in that regard: if you repeatedly abuse or threaten workers, then you can be kept out of their workplace.

I want to return to some of the comments I made the last time the party opposite sought to engage in what I would characterise as a stunt on this issue, and I want to reflect upon their industrial relations record, because there is a broader question about who has consistently stood up for the rights of retail workers. We must not rewrite history in this place, and we must not let those opposite rewrite history. The Liberal Party has a long record of pursuing industrial relations reforms that have not strengthened workplace safety but weakened the bargaining power of working people. Victorian retail workers remember the Kennett government. They remember the government which pursued sweeping changes to industrial relations and workplace arrangements which were part of a broader agenda to reduce the role of unions and to weaken collective bargaining. Retail workers know precisely what happens when workers have less power to negotiate their pay and conditions. It means less security, less bargaining power, less ability to stand together when employers seek to cut their conditions. Then at a federal level the Howard government introduced WorkChoices. They expanded the individualised contracts for Australian workplace agreements. This represented an even more aggressive attack on the collective rights of working people, stripped away important workplace protections and made it easier to put downward pressure on wages and conditions. It reduced the ability of workers and their unions to collectively bargain. So you will forgive me if I am slightly sceptical about the new-found conversion of those opposite when it comes to suddenly wanting to work with those same unions to strengthen the rights of workers to be safe and to have dignity at work.

We understand on this side of the house that when individual workers are forced to negotiate with powerful employers on their own, the balance of power is not equal. That is why unions like the SDA campaigned so strongly against WorkChoices. That history matters, because the same people who once supported measures that weakened workers’ bargaining power cannot suddenly present themselves as champions of those same workers and the great defenders of retail workers without themselves being held to account. Protecting workers is not only about what happens when someone walks into a shop and becomes violent; it is also about the fundamental rights that workers have every single day. It is about wages. It is about penalty rates. It is about secure employment. It is about bargaining rights. It is about union representation, and it is about having a collective voice at work. Fundamentally, it is about dignity and respect. This party, this government and the unions that we are affiliated with have fought for those things for decades. It is why the advocacy for WPOs is part of a much, much bigger tradition, but it is the same principle: workers deserve to have a voice, workers deserve to have respect and workers deserve protection.

I thank the SDA and others for their role in making this legislation happen, for bringing this bill to the table and for working with the Carroll Labor government, working with successive attorneys-general and with others in this government to ensure that we have laws which keep workers safe. Laws like this do not come out of nowhere; they come from workers raising their concerns, from those concerns being heard by their parliamentary representatives and from their industrial representatives bringing bills to this place which will make a change. So I commend this bill to the house, and I hope it has a speedy passage.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:01): I rise to speak on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill ‍2026 and say at the very outset that the Liberal–Nationals support workers, we support small businesses and we understand without having those workers properly protected in the workplace and supporting the workplace, then we would not be able to have those businesses survive and thrive. We know that the number of employees that are supported through small businesses represents over half of employees across the state. It is so significant in terms of those that rely on their livelihoods and are supported through many of those small businesses.

I am quite sick of this government trying to play games with something that is so important as this. It is not a them and us. It is always ideological when it comes to the Labor Party. It is always hating on and bashing up small business, and it is always, ‘Oh, you Liberals don’t understand workers or don’t care about workers.’ I think this is an absolute example of the fact that we do care. And I can demonstrate this, because back in November of last year we actually provided a set of frameworks of policy that could have been debated in this chamber, supported in this chamber in a bipartisan manner, and have had workplace protection orders in place. But instead, what does this government call it? A stunt, because if it is not the government’s idea then it is a stunt. Nobody else can have an idea except the Allan–Andrews–Carroll governments. Premiers and former Premiers – none of them can have such an idea.

This absolutely goes to show it, because what we had at that time was the ability to bring workplace protection orders in, supported by retailers and supported by the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association. I was very proud to meet with the SDA, work through it with them and see the frustration that the SDA had with not being able to get these laws up. And this is something that the retailers had as well. We had Bunnings stand out at the front here with their workers, talking about how vulnerable they were. We had a number of retailers – Coles, Kmart – also involved. We had Independent Grocers of Australia, the independent stores, also involved. A number of these retail stores all time and time again said to the government, ‘You’ve got to do something.’ If you look at the time it has taken until now to get this law debated in the chamber, that is 100,000 assaults that we could have avoided if we had actually brought the laws in back in November. Now this government says, ‘We’re getting on with it.’ What does getting on with it look like? Getting on with it looks like this law not coming into place until 26 July 2027. By that time we will have another 100,000 assaults in Victoria because we do not have the protection. So this government can cry me a river when it comes to supporting and backing workers. How about actually backing them by introducing these laws and having them implemented tomorrow? What are we waiting for?

We will go into another busy Christmas period where these workers are the most vulnerable, where you have customers at their worst running around in retail stores. Where is the protection this Christmas? MIA. The government gets up here and grandstands and says, ‘We’re for the worker.’ But when they have got a chance of backing workers, protecting workers, they are running a mile and saying, ‘We’ll do it in a year and a half.’ Bad luck – it is too late. Everything is too late with this government. Every 50 seconds we see a crime committed in this state. Every 10 minutes we see a theft from a retail store. Every 28 minutes there is a serious assault. Every week there are nine carjackings. There are over 1500 police vacancies on top of those that are on extended WorkCover. We have got police vacancies. We will deliver the 3000 police that are needed. The government talked about PSOs today. We announced back in November an additional 200 PSOs – again this government is late to the party. We also announced back then Jack’s law, to take knives off the hands of criminals before they use them. What was the government’s answer? $13 million worth of machete bins. Let us not use other people’s ideas from Queensland that are working – no, this government just wants to spend $13 million on machete bins, and crooks will hand the machetes into a police station on their way back from committing a crime. What a joke. What an absolute waste of money this has been.

This government has the audacity to stand up here and say, ‘We’re for the worker. We’re protecting people. We’re out there supporting people.’ The only thing that the government are protecting is their jobs. The only thing that they care about is their own jobs. This government do not care about retail workers, because if the government cared about retail workers they would support the amendment that the member for Brighton has put up today. The amendment talks about bringing these laws forward. Let us not wait until July next year. What are you waiting for? You have had this for over a year. You want to wait another 11 months? What a joke. What are you waiting for? Is it because the government have again not done their homework and instead are governing by press release? The government are presiding over a crime crisis and have done nothing to tackle the crime crisis other than issuing press release after press release after press release, and all we see as a result of it is a revolving door of crime. Police do their job. They arrest and take them through the courts, and off they go. They get let out again. That is why things need to change.

These workplace protection orders need to work. It is no use if the definition is so broad that we pass a bit of legislation today only to find that we see workers intimidated at the check-out, intimidated in the retail store, feeling vulnerable and not feeling supported. We know for many of these retail workers it is their first job. They are young people in their first job. They need to be supported more than anybody, and they are not. This government has failed them. The government keeps talking about being for the worker – ‘Labor for the worker’. If Labor is for the worker, Labor should have done this 18 months ago. If Labor is for the worker, Labor should support our amendments today and have them implemented before Christmas, before the busy period, before the most vulnerable are going to be targeted again. That is what this government needs to do if they are serious, rather than having to worry about being governed by press release and spin, because that is what this government is very good at doing. This government are very, very good at spin, making it up as they go along.

Our amendments are very simple. Our amendments are to amend the date of commencement of royal assent, removing the July 2027 default period, extend the right to apply for an order to police, so the police that are there, and it will give them the opportunity to apply the right too. Our amendments will expand the industry definition of ‘the worker’ to capture all retail and service-based industries instead of only retail and transport. Let us cover everybody. Let us not be picky and choosy; let us make sure that everybody is covered in this. Our amendments will require victim consent in seeking an order, except in cases of police applicants, because again, we need to put victims first. That is why we will ensure that we have victim consent in everything that we do, and we would encourage the government to do the same. We have said many retailers, like Woolworths, BWS, Bunnings and Coles, have written to the Labor government begging for action on retail crime, saying:

Without urgent action from the Victorian government, these already alarming trends will continue to worsen. This will further impact the safety of retail workers, the viability of businesses, and community confidence across the state.

I have been through the state. I have been to the likes of Shepparton to look at a Rebel store that only opens one side of the store because it cannot deal with the other side because of the crime coming through. I have seen stores have to close completely because of the safety issues. We have seen it with the firebombing. We have seen retail stores really suffering. It has gone from firebombing tobacco to firebombing restaurants. Only in Victoria are we seeing these kinds of threats: the machete attacks in retail stores that continue despite the government spending $13 million on machete bins. What a waste of taxpayer money that was. What a joke that was. If the government were serious, they would bring in these WPOs straightaway. They would get on with the job, stop talking about it, ensure the safety of all workers, put them first and listen to retailers, listen to small business and listen to the very workers that they claim to support, claim to protect and claim to stand up for. This is not a political exercise; this is about worker safety.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:11): It is extremely disappointing in fact to see the behaviour that is not infrequently manifested against people in their place of work, and my seat is not excluded from that either. I have had traders in my area complain in particular about certain people who often attack young females and just pick on them and frighten them to the extent that sometimes they cannot even recruit young women. They are of the appropriate age to work – let me put that in those parameters – but they will not do the pm shifts, particularly in places like Acland Street et cetera, because of some of this dreadful antagonistic behaviour. It is not only there. Also, in parts of South Melbourne I have had retail traders complain about the behaviour of certain persons, whether it is a cafe, whether it is a clothing store or whether it is a bar. They are really taking advantage of people literally just trying to earn a living and to provide a quality service. There would be other parts of my seat as well. I have been very alive to these elements. This is why I am so pleased about these reforms ‍– and it is an evolution of reform in this space; it is not a beginning point – because they are not only sending a signal but specifically targeting behaviours which are completely unacceptable: violence, threats, intimidation. They are building on offences we have introduced for attacking workers. This scheme will allow another flexible layer of protection.

Under this scheme someone who engages in unacceptable conduct against a retail or transport worker at their workplace can now be banned from that workplace, because they should not have to fear coming to work and having these very inappropriate behaviours manifest against them for no good reason at all. These workplace protection orders can also be subject to any other conditions that the court considers necessary, hence the flexibility of the model. I think that we do need to be careful when we are talking about the due diligence that has been undertaken to make sure that these workplace protection orders actually can have the desired impact. Therefore making sure that the legislation is appropriately crafted is important.

There is a broad discretion in the conditions that a court can order. Examples of this might include a requirement that the person not contact the worker, not access a particular shopping centre or parking lot, not come within a specific distance, not engage in threatening behaviour at a particular location et ‍cetera. This therefore allows a necessary element of nuance to be able to target where and how that particular person or persons is making the lives of our retail and transport workers really unpalatable, to say the least. Because the safety of workers is non-negotiable, breaching any condition of a workplace protection order will be a criminal offence. Penalties of up to two years imprisonment or a fine of over $50,000 will apply.

Another really important element of this reform is ensuring that employers and unions will be able to make these applications on behalf of impacted workers. This is a really important feature because this means the burden of protecting workers at their workplace does not fall on individual workers. I can imagine that particularly for some younger workers – but not only them; people have different personalities and different ways that they handle stress and difficult situations – making sure it does not fall on individual workers who have been subjected to unacceptable conduct is a really important foundation in terms of making sure these reforms will be carried through.

‘Unacceptable conduct’ means physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking or anything that causes a reasonable fear of harm. This new scheme will operate alongside and in addition to existing criminal sanctions. That is another important element. It is not in a silo; it is not in isolation. There are other reforms that have led the way, if you like, to these further protections for the benefit of retail and transport workers. I should say, businesses will also still be able to take all the steps they are currently able to in order to protect their workers. This scheme is about providing an additional tool in the toolkit to ensure workers are safe at work. Hence this is not the magic pudding, this is not the whole story, and I think painting it that way is a distortion. We need to see it in the whole framework of the various protections and legislation that are already in place.

At the same time as making sure that these new orders are accessible and effective to protect workers from unacceptable conduct, we have also carefully designed them to make sure that courts can take into account the specific context and circumstances of each situation. The courts are required to consider whether making an order is and any conditions under that order are appropriate in all circumstances. Furthermore, an order must be sought within 12 months of unacceptable conduct occurring against the worker and can last for up to 12 months. We can see – well, I would like to put it forward to the chamber – that these are reasonable boundaries to ensure the timeliness of applications in this domain. I should say a further caveat: the courts are only able to make an order when they are satisfied that unacceptable conduct is likely to occur again – it is not just a once-off – if not for the order. Therefore the order has a sound rationale for being put in place because it is actually genuinely seeking to prevent a repetition of disgraceful behaviour. Orders cannot be obtained against people younger than 14 years old or against another staff member at the same workplace, and there will be, importantly, a statutory review of the scheme three years after commencement to make sure it is working effectively and as intended to protect workers.

Who is covered under this scheme? The scheme covers workers at retail and transport workplaces. Retail workers include all workers in workplaces that are primarily retail businesses – that is, whose business is primarily selling things. This includes retail in the traditional sense but also may include something like a restaurant, which is primarily selling food and/or drink to customers. Transport workers include workers on passenger trains, trams or buses; those who work in valid ticket areas; and those who work where tickets are sold.

There were a number of points made about why only now and why this has not already been done, and I think it is important to think about the key stakeholders who are involved in terms of being able to enforce these orders. We have worked closely with stakeholders – and I am going to get to those stakeholders because that is significant in this discussion – to ensure that the scheme can commence as quickly as possible, on 26 July 2027. This is necessary to provide the minimum necessary amount of time for agencies to be ready to operationalise this novel new scheme, including for Victoria Police to be ready to assist. You say, ‘Bring it forward immediately.’ Well, we do have to factor in how the actual stakeholders are going to enforce this. We are working with them to make sure it has the greatest possible impact and also for the courts to be ready to hear applications and make these new orders to ensure that criminal processes which might be running alongside are not jeopardised and to ensure that the justice system is ready. I think, respectfully, you can see that there is a logic behind the proposed implementation timeline, and therefore passing this legislation is very, very important so that we can stick to that timeline.

I would like to close out by saying that I do give thanks to workers more broadly, but specifically I do want to reflect on those who may have already to date experienced things they should never have had to experience. It is completely unacceptable. Certainly I do take on board and have listened very closely and carefully to traders in my seat, and therefore I am pleased and I will be sharing with this them, assuming the timely passage of this legislation, that there are further controls being put in place to keep workers safe in their workplaces, as they are entitled to be.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:21): I am pleased to rise and have the opportunity to speak on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. What we have here is the creation of a scheme of civil workplace protections orders which are aimed at keeping our retail and transport workers safe in their workplace. I think it is important for us to all take a moment and reflect that this is a new bill; it is not an amendment to an existing bill. I wondered whether it could not have been incorporated into the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, but that was not to be at this time. Sadly, though, there is a real need for us to be implementing this legislation, because things are not like they used to be. Things have got a lot worse. People are on much higher levels of adrenaline and tension and treat people very, very poorly. The bill is targeted to retail workers and workers in passenger transport, and it is about unacceptable conduct at the workplace from others where they are fearful that they may be harmed in some way. This is about repeated actions as well. The opposition, as has been mentioned already, is not opposing the bill at all, but we do not think it is quite right and have some amendments that we will be introducing and talking through here and introducing again in the Council.

Too often workers in these settings have been subjected to violence, physical abuse, harassment and stalking, whether that is to or from work, and people hanging around. They might follow them, and then they are hanging around in the workplace and making people feel very uneasy. As I mentioned earlier, this is about repeated acts – repeated acts of violence, repeated acts of abuse and harassment – and that stalking and hanging around where people are uncomfortable, and workers too often have experienced this. The workplace orders are at the core of this legislation, and they limit access of somebody to a workplace and/or to a worker, and I think that is really at the nub of this, that we are restricting access to areas where people have pretty well been behaving poorly in a number of different ways.

The workplace orders that will be put in place occur at a normal place of business during normal hours, and that can vary. If you are at the food court at the casino, which may finish at midnight or later, the regular operating hours might be different to a food court in another area which shuts up shop by 6 ‍o’clock or 4 o’clock. It is not just in retail areas but, as I mentioned earlier, in passenger transport, so on the train, tram or bus or in the ticketing area. These workplace orders can be in place for 12 ‍months. If somebody is looking to have that revoked or altered in any way, they can apply to the court. The legislation allows for flexibility so that somebody can still get access to goods and services should they require them. Sometimes in regional areas the services are much less, as you would know, Acting Speaker Farnham. They are much more limited than in the city, and options and availability can be quite limited at times. Also, there is a statutory review three years from commencement. I think those sorts of things are always particularly useful.

I want to mention just briefly that we have occupational health and safety law in Victoria, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, which is about protecting people from health and safety risks arising from work and workplace activities. This is something that is a bit different. Although an employer has an obligation to secure the health, safety and welfare of employees and other people at work and look at eliminating or reducing workplace hazards, this is something that probably was not really thought about: exactly what you do in these situations. An employer does need to have a workplace that is safe for their employees, absolutely, but they are limited in something like this as to how they keep that pest away – that person who is abusive, who is hanging around all the time, saying things and making people feel very uncomfortable and fearing for their own safety. I think that having this in place is not a bad thing.

Among the sorts of abuse that workers are subject to is verbal hostility. That can be shouting or swearing, mocking over policies or pricing, and insulting, derogatory remarks. People might come in every single day and continue to do this – that physical assaulting, whether they are shoving or pushing. Sometimes it can be pushing with shopping trolleys filled with stuff. Often they may be people who have a substance abuse issue who continue to behave like this, and the staff will know. People know ‍– ‘Oh, here’s that person again’ – and feel fearful. It could be something like sexual harassment, making unwanted or intimidatory comments and threats, like threatening to get somebody fired, or tracking them to their car – things like that.

We have got a few concerns. This is why that we have got some amendments in place. It has taken a long time to get here, and the government have tried to mock what work we have done in this space previously to try to push this along and get it up. In November last year when the member for Caulfield was working on this he actually worked with the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, and they were exceptionally frustrated that they could not get headway to get this up and running through the government benches. But I think now that we are closer to an election people in this place who perhaps will benefit from SDA donations want to sweeten them up a little bit and are a lot more open to getting these changes done. Let me tell you, 12 months ago they were very, very frustrated with the government. It has taken quite some time, and it is going to be another 11 months before this is implemented. In that time, on current numbers, there will be another 100,000 assaults on retail workers. So in the time between passing this legislation and it being implemented, given the rate of assaults on retail workers, that is what you could very easily predict will happen.

We would like to see the right to apply for an order extended. At the moment it is the operators, so whether they are retail operators or the tram, train or bus operators, they can do it – and of course the unions can do it independently of the operators, but they have got to let any relevant eligible applicant know – but the police cannot. Often if there is an issue going on where somebody is consistently harassing people – we would know this with our offices, and we will get security involved and sometimes they will get the police involved – the police are there. They might think, ‘Actually, this is what we need. A workplace protection order is a good solution here.’ So we would like to see the right to apply for an order extended to the police. They do not need to be the lead agent at all. But the perpetrators might be so bad that that power should be there to draw on should it be needed, because as I mentioned, it is the police who are there to protect in times of a crime. And when things get pretty dicey, that 000 call to the police will be first up.

We want to expand the industry definition of ‘worker’ to capture all retail and service-based industry instead of just retail and transport. We have got to distinguish here between goods and services. The Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Brighton, referred to an example of a cinema complex where the cinema workers are not covered but the retail workers at shops just beside them are covered.

We would like to see the date of commencement brought forward. We do not want to wait another 11 ‍months; we think that is too long. We would also like the victim to consent in terms of when an order has been sought, except perhaps in the case of police application. But if somebody is applying for a workplace protection order for a particular worker, they should be consenting to it happening. If that was me in a particular situation, if somebody wanted to make something on my behalf, I would actually like to have the opportunity to say yea or nay rather than just have no say in the matter at all. They are fairly simple amendments and very reasonable amendments that I think could be dealt with a little bit more in the other place, and I hope that they can get dealt with. At the end of the day, though, the opposition will not be opposing this legislation.

 Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (15:31): I am really proud to rise today in support of the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. For over 100 years the mighty SDA has worked towards better wages and conditions for workers, and I am so proud that my dad was part of their history as both an organiser and an assistant state secretary. We grew up knowing the importance of unions and their role in making sure workers and their rights were protected. Michael Donovan has recently celebrated 30 years at the SDA and has achieved much, including recognition of public holidays and most recently the ‘adult wage for adult age’ campaign, which has seen the Fair Work Commission recognise that 18-year-olds do not get discounts on rent or utilities and as adults deserve the same wages as anyone else.

The SDA began the No-one Deserves a Serve campaign in 2017, and in 2025 they surveyed members in relation to the nature and prevalence of abuse and violence by customers. Over 3000 retail and fast-food employees provided feedback on their experiences. The survey found that in the preceding 12 ‍months 88 per cent of workers said they had experienced verbal abuse from a customer, 25 per cent had been the victim of physical violence from a customer, a shocking 10 per cent of respondents said they had been spat on and 19 per cent of respondents reported that the incidents they experienced were of a sexual nature. The survey also asked whether workers had experienced abuse, harassment or violence from a customer that referenced their ethnicity, race or cultural background. Tragically, 31 ‍per cent of workers responded that they had – almost one in three. Those workers who identified as other than white were most likely to have been spat on by a customer – absolutely abhorrent and disgusting in every way. I am really ashamed of those on the other side who continue to stay silent on the race-baiting and violence encouraged by One Nation, because their only pathway to government is a coalition with them. They do not deserve a seat in this place, and they should be deeply ashamed of themselves, as should those who abuse workers.

Workplace aggression and abuse can have long-lasting effects on workers’ physical and mental health, with stress and anxiety impacting almost three-quarters of workers, which is why this bill is so important. One of our Premier’s first actions was to announce today’s bill at his first workplace, Kmart in Airport West, where so many start their first jobs, including my best friend’s daughter, who I have known since she was in kindergarten with my daughter. As a kid myself, I just could not wait until I was 14 and nine months to get a part-time job. My first job was at the Chicken Machine, a Glenroy institution with the best chips and gravy and roast chooks in town. My next part-time job was at Payless Superbarn, which was renamed Festival IGA and is now the Pascoe Vale Road Market. This is where I joined the SDA. I found my membership card from 1995 the other day: member 3556. I am not sure what member number they are up to now, but I am sure it is no longer a four-digit number, given they represent over 200,000 workers across Australia. Back in 1995 the worst that I had to put up with was old blokes singing the Foster and Allen song I’ll Take You Home Again Kathleen to me. Whilst I was lucky to never need the union, I always felt that they had my back and I happily paid my dues so that workers across Australia had the collective advocacy and protections they needed.

Sadly, abuse and disrespect are so much more common these days, and for nearly 10 years the SDA has made it a priority focus. I thank the union workers who support and represent workers every day, and those who have pushed and advocated for this important legislation, including Michael Galea in the other place, who stood beside the Premier in Kmart where these reforms were announced, and my good friend Daniela, the member for Monbulk, who spoke so well on this earlier today and of her experience working at the union as well as being a retail worker and a shop owner. Whilst customer abuse has been a priority focus for the union for over 10 years, COVID brought the issue front and centre to the wider public’s attention, with workers getting abused over toilet paper – a sad indictment on society.

I believe one of the best things you can do for your kids is encourage them to get a part-time job where they learn responsibility, time management and self-sufficiency. While my teenage kids both now have part-time jobs, I do worry about them being abused or sexually assaulted at work. Statistics show my worry for them and all customer-facing workers is justified. Three incidents last week by a repeat offender at the Broadmeadows shopping centre where my office is show why this legislation is so important. The perpetrator has been arrested, but the fear and trauma for the workers will live on. I thank Ali Haider, security manager, for meeting with me about these incidents. I thank the security guards on the front line of this abuse and the local police, who work so hard every day to ensure the community is safe and that perpetrators are held accountable.

Community safety is the Carroll Labor government’s number one priority, and we have introduced the toughest bail laws in the country. Offenders must face consequences. The courts need to play their role, ensuring community expectations are met and people are kept safe and have confidence that our justice system will keep them and their loved ones free from harm. In this place we make the laws. Police are doing their very best to enforce the laws, and it is the courts’ job to give effect to the laws made in this place.

Today’s announcement of 150 extra PSOs has been warmly welcomed, and I thank Premier Carroll and Minister Edbrooke for allocating these important extra resources to support the critical work of our police. Just like the courts, police are independent of government due to the separation of powers, one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The police decide where PSO resources are most needed based on crime data. The successful Operation Pulse has seen the deployment of PSOs in shopping centres. It has resulted in 84 per cent of customers feeling safer, and retail theft is down by over 70 per cent. More than 1700 arrests have been made and more than 3500 charges laid since it started. Our police also do a wonderful job keeping us safe, and our police force is larger than every other state and territory’s. We have invested over $4.5 billion and funded more than 3600 new police. The PSOs play a critical role in supporting Victoria Police, and it is heartening to know that many of them go on and join the police force and they appreciate the special pathways that have been opened for them to do so. Today’s announcement significantly expands the number of PSOs across the state and goes hand in hand with this legislation, making people – and importantly workers – feel safe in their workplaces and as they go about their daily activities.

This legislation also complements the previous laws that we have passed to crack down on crimes against customer-facing workers, such as assault and using threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language. The Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill ‍2025 introduced a new indictable offence for assaulting or threatening to assault one of these workers and carries a penalty of up to five years in jail. Importantly, it protects workers both on shift or on a break, as well as when they are arriving at or leaving work. It includes not just workers that perform customer-facing duties in retail or hospitality, but also others that unfortunately experience threatening behaviour going about their work, such as cleaners in food courts or security guards in shopping centres. The bill also covers customer-facing workers in transport, including bus drivers, taxi and rideshare drivers, delivery drivers and people working at train stations.

Today’s Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026 goes even further to back our workers and address unacceptable conduct such as violence, sexual abuse, stalking or threats towards staff. It will target repeat offenders, who make up nearly 60 per cent of incidents. A workplace protection order, or WPO, can be sought as a flexible order and used to ban people from the workplace or impose specific conditions that the court considers applicable to protect the worker ‍– for example, not contacting the worker, not accessing a particular shopping centre and not coming within a specified distance from a workplace. The workplace protection orders will be kept in place for up to 12 months, and breaches of their conditions will carry a significant criminal consequence of up to two years imprisonment, a fine of up to $50,000 or both.

Retail and passenger transport workers are crucial to the Victorian employment landscape and to our economy. Everyone deserves to feel safe at work. This legislation will protect retail and specified transport workers from the unfortunate few who think it is okay to subject other people to unacceptable violence, abuse, stalking and other harassment. The bill 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 who are doing their job. Thankfully, the majority of my community acknowledge that our workers deserve respect. This bill is to combat those who do not and to keep workers protected from them. All the workers I know and work with will warmly welcome the protection this bill and this Carroll Labor government afford them. I commend the bill to the house.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (15:41): I rise today to speak on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. Every worker deserves to feel safe at work, and no-one should be threatened or attacked in their workplace. For that reason I can appreciate the intention of this bill, but it is a risky kneejerk reaction that ignores the symptoms that are causing poor behaviour directed towards workers. The fact of the matter is that this bill and these orders will disproportionately impact First Nations people and those experiencing homelessness, addiction or mental ill health. It risks pushing more vulnerable people into our criminal legal system without doing anything to address the reasons they behaved this way in the first place.

Banning people from public transport will have a huge impact on already marginalised communities. Think about those out in regional and rural Victoria. Banning someone from train or bus services could have vast impacts on their lives and make it impossible for them to get to work, to visit family or to see a doctor. This will have an even bigger impact on young people who do not have the option to drive. Many teenagers rely heavily on public transport to get around. If they are banned from a particular train or a station – we are not even clear how these bans will actually operate yet – what sort of effect will this have on them? Including public transport in these apparent workplace bans really takes them to a whole new level.

The bill introduces these workplace protection orders, or WPOs, which allow retail, hospitality and public transport operators to ban people from accessing the location following ‘unacceptable behaviour’ that has been committed at some point over the past 12 months. I absolutely want our retail, hospo and transport workers to be safe at work, but allowing shops and stations to ban people access for up to a year is not an appropriate solution. There is just too much risk that these bans will be used disproportionately against First Nations people, people of colour and people who need mental health support or housing. The government’s own statement of treaty compatibility had to admit that the First Peoples’ Assembly was not provided with a copy of the bill. The compatibility statement says:

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.

The same statement of compatibility also admits:

There is a risk that First Peoples will be disproportionately the subject of WPOs given their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.

And it says:

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.

The government needs to be investing in mental health services and in addiction support. We need desperately to build more public housing. If people in our community are well supported to live secure, healthy, connected lives, then they are much less likely to cause strife to workers. If people are actually committing violent crimes or abuse, these things are already illegal and can be dealt with in the usual manner. The threshold of unacceptable behaviour that can trigger a ban is extremely low and extremely vague. What I do not want to see is this ban being used to keep undesirables out of shops or unable to access public transport. Workers need to be safe at work; there is no argument at all on that. If people are committing crimes, such as physical or sexual violence, stalking and so on, then they should be held accountable under the existing laws. We will not stand by and support a law that, by the government’s own admission, is likely to have a disproportionate impact on First Nations people, who are already racialised and already overpoliced. The Greens will oppose this bill, and we will be considering amendments in the other place.

 Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (15:46): I rise to speak in strong support of the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. In Northcote we are incredibly proud of our local shops, cafes, restaurants and our beautiful retail precincts. High Street has even been named, and is the proud titleholder of, the coolest street in the world. That is something that brings visitors from near and far to our suburbs. Of course, behind the venues that make up our wonderful retail precincts, which we all love, are the thousands of people simply doing their jobs – the person opening the cafe really early in the morning, the young person on the supermarket check-out at Northcote Plaza, the pharmacy worker helping someone access their medication, the shop assistant working late, the tram driver getting people home.

Some 2.8 per cent of employed people in Northcote work in cafes and restaurants. It is above the Victorian average of 2.4 per cent and the fourth largest industry of employment in my electorate. Another 6 per cent of employees in Northcote are sales workers, and these workers form an enormous part of our local economy, our community and the fabric of our suburbs. They should be able to go to work, to do their job and to come home safely. For many young Victorians, a supermarket, a cafe, a fast-food restaurant, a local shop or a clothing store is their first experience of work. Around a third of retail workers are under the age of 24, and most retail workers are women.

Your first job should be about earning some money, learning some new skills and gaining some independence. It should not be where you learn that being screamed at is something that you should tolerate, and it certainly should not be somewhere you are expected to accept violence, yet almost nine in 10 retail workers have reported experiencing verbal abuse. More than half of retailers report experiencing physical abuse monthly or even more often, and around 800,000 retail crime incidents were reported across Australia in a single year. Behind every one of those statistics is a person who has to come back and do their next shift, and that is hard.

There are particular workers who do find themselves on the front line. I recall just a few weeks ago my husband and I were at one of the local restaurants in Northcote on High Street. We went for dinner, and we were just chatting casually to one of the floor staff. We could see that she was a little bit off, and so we inquired a little bit. Just a few hours earlier they had had a really awful incident with a customer who became increasingly aggressive, asking for things that were not on the menu and demanding more alcohol, to the point where they ended up smashing the front door glass pane of the restaurant itself. These workers and the team that are at that restaurant pulled themselves together and carried on. They kept going with the lunch service and the dinner service, but you could see that they were shaken up. They were shaken and rattled by it, yet they had to just persevere. That is not what we want in Victoria.

People should not have to face threats or intimidation or violence just for doing their jobs and for serving people, so Labor does not accept that violence and abuse are simply part of doing the job. That belief sits within a much longer record that we have in Victoria. When we have seen gaps in the protections available to working people, the Victorian Labor government has acted. We have introduced workplace manslaughter laws that I was very proud to speak on, because nobody should go to work and then not come home and because the most serious failures to keep workers safe should have serious consequences. We established labour hire licensing to tackle exploitation and lift standards for vulnerable workers. We established portable long service leave in industries where the nature of employment means workers could otherwise spend years doing the same work without ever receiving that entitlement. We strengthened protections against sexual harassment at work through restricting the use of non-disclosure agreements. And last year, when retail, fast food, hospo and transport workers told us about the violence and abuse they were experiencing, we acted again: we introduced new criminal offences for assaulting, threatening and intimidating these workers. Serious assault or threats of assault can now attract up to five years imprisonment, alongside separate offences for lower level assaults, threats and intimidation.

These reforms all respond to different problems, but there is a common principle behind them: the law should keep pace with what people are experiencing at work. That brings us directly to this bill, because after strengthening the consequences for attacking a worker, there was another practical problem we needed to address. What happens when they come back? What happens when someone has already threatened a pharmacy worker or a shop assistant or a supermarket worker and they know exactly where that person will be the next day? What happens when someone has repeatedly caused trouble at the same workplace and the people working there see them walking towards the door again? The criminal law can deal with what someone has already done, but the workplace protection orders give us another way to help prevent them from doing it again, and that is the gap that this bill addresses.

Where someone has engaged in unacceptable conduct at a covered workplace, there is a true likelihood that they will do it again, and a court can consider an order appropriate, and the protections can be put in place. That might mean preventing someone from returning to the workplace. It might mean preventing them from contacting a worker. It could mean requiring them to stay away from a particular shopping centre or car park or to keep a specified distance from the workplace. And the orders have teeth: breaching a workplace protection order will be a criminal offence carrying up to two years imprisonment, a fine of more than $50,000 or both. Importantly, the worker who has already been subjected to that behaviour does not then have to carry the entire responsibility of seeking protection themselves: an eligible employer can seek an order on behalf of their workers.

Registered employee unions can also apply, including independently, where an employer is unable or unwilling to act. That gives workers more than one pathway to protection and recognises something very practical: someone who has already been assaulted, stalked or seriously threatened should not simply be told what happens next is entirely up to them. This is an additional tool for workplaces to keep their people safe, and I know there will be questions about the scope of this scheme, but what about workers in other industries, that sort of thing? Those workers matter too, and this bill does not suggest otherwise, nor does it pretend to solve every form of occupational violence in every workplace, but it establishes a targeted new preventative scheme for particular customer-facing workplaces where there is a demonstrated problem of repeat, unacceptable conduct. It also builds on the broader criminal protections we introduced last year, which extend across retail, fast food, hospitality and transport. People on the front line told government they needed another way to deal with repeat threatening and violent behaviour. Employers told us they needed another tool to keep their workplaces safe, and we listened, and this is the outcome of that listening.

There is also a bit of a political history here that is worth reflecting on. The protections working Victorians have today did not simply appear out of nowhere: people fought for safer workplaces; they fought for fair pay and decent conditions; they fought for leave and time with their families; and they fought for the principle that when you go to work your employer and your government have obligations to you too. The mighty union movement has been at the centre of those fights, and I particularly want to acknowledge the SDA and the Transport Workers Union for their collective action and their leadership across many domains of workers rights. Our Labor government has turned so many of their principles into rights protected in law, and that history matters because workplace protections can never be taken for granted.

We know the Liberal Party’s record when it comes to strengthening workplace rights, and now Victorians face the prospect of a Liberal Party increasingly looking to One Nation for support – a party with its own woeful record of opposing stronger rights and protections for working people. There is a very big difference between putting on a high-vis vest and shaking the hand of a retail worker for a photo and actually doing the work of government and strengthening rights for the person wearing that retail outfit. When politicians argue that workplace protections have gone too far, working people are entitled to ask: which protections? Which protections have gone too far? We do not think any have gone too far, and we will defend them to the last. I commend the bill.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (15:56): It is a pleasure to rise to make a contribution on this bill. We have got a cohort of people in our community who you would probably best describe as gutless individuals who think it is okay and see fit to assault, spit on and abuse people who are doing their job. I think it is, to a large degree, unfortunate that we have to bring in legislation like this. It is a blight on our society that we need to bring in harsher penalties for those who are abusing people who are simply doing their job, whether they be in retail or transport workers or the like. I can remember in my first term in this place, back in 2014, when we introduced harsher penalties and new laws to better protect emergency services workers because they were getting abused on the job, and subsequent parliaments have also strengthened those laws. We have also had instances where we brought in new laws to afford greater protections and impose greater disincentives, if you like, for those who would like to abuse teachers. We have also had changes to laws relating to road rage when people lose the plot and go off their head. As I said, it is a sad indictment, I reckon, on society.

You and I, Acting Speaker Farnham, represent rural and regional electorates, and we know that the vast majority of people are good people. They do the right thing. They are respectful. They go about their way of life. When they are under stress or pressure, yes, they might get a bit niggly, but they do not go into abusing, spitting on or assaulting individuals who are doing their jobs. But we have this small cohort of gutless wonders who want to engage in this sort of activity. I cannot believe what I just heard up here a minute ago from the Greens. Our legal system is based on taking into consideration people who have underlying issues or needs, whether they have some form of disability or not. It is up to our magistrates and judges to make those determinations. But we should not be making excuses based on race for appalling behaviour. We have got to have one rule for all in relation to that.

The term in the bill is ‘unacceptable conduct’. When we are talking about unacceptable conduct – and I will quote the bill – it covers ‘physical violence or abuse’, it covers ‘sexual violence or abuse’, stalking or ‘other conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of harm’, so threats. In increasing amounts, we are seeing people engaging in these activities against workers. We cannot have a scenario where, based on your race, whatever it be, you are treated differently, and I note that this bill, in the statement, did not align with the outcomes of treaty because it may result in greater levels of incarceration rates. This bill should not be a consideration for treaty. There is no excuse or exception for appalling behaviour when people are assaulted while doing their own work. It is high time that we made people more accountable for their actions and held them responsible for these inappropriate behaviours that they undertake. We cannot go down the pathway that we just heard a moment ago of making apologies for poor behaviour. That is just not in line with community standards. The judges and our courts and our legal system will make provision for that, but we should not be making laws for different people within our community when it comes to these sorts of actions. It is just not right.

We have read cases in the media in relatively recent times of shop assistants being manhandled and transport industry workers being spat on and constantly abused, and unfortunately we have got to introduce this bill to have these cowards and bullies held accountable for what they are doing. In my own family I have had one of my kids on the receiving end of abuse – she is at uni – at her job over the Christmas period, being abused by some bloody nitwit Neanderthal who thinks it is fit as an adult male to abuse a young female for basically no reason. These are just self-entitled fools who think that they have the right to impose their anger or their frustrations on others who are completely innocent, and I will make the point that for young people it can have very profound consequences. If a young person is off at work and they are seriously abused, they are spat on – which we have seen in some cases – or they are manhandled, it can have an impact on that young person’s life for an extended period of time. We do not need to be apologists for that. We do not need to be saying, ‘Hang on, if this person has experienced this sort of interaction.’ There are no excuses for those sorts of behaviours.

I support the amendments that have been put forward by our side, but we support this bill generally. The overwhelming majority of Victorians do do the right thing. It is right that we stand up for those workers and we afford them these greater protections. As I said, it is sad that we have to do that for the gutless few in our community who do not show that level of respect and who maintain that sense of entitlement, and as a result we as legislators now have to make these amendments. Where does it stop, I put to you. In my time in this chamber we have changed the laws to protect emergency workers, we have changed the laws to protect teachers from parents who are going off their cruet, we have changed the laws around road rage. We are constantly coming into this chamber changing laws the basis and the genesis of which is simply a lack of respect for others in the community, and this is the latest raft of those changes. I will conclude my remarks by saying that whether the bill is amended or not, we support the basis of this bill. It is sad that we have to bring this in, but we need to hold these Neanderthals to account and change their behaviour with tougher consequences.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (16:04): I rise to support the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026, and of course, on a sombre note, I just want to acknowledge Van Viet Truong, the 60-year-old owner of the Hong Hung Asian Grocery in Sunshine, whose tragic death obviously deeply affected many people across Melbourne’s western suburbs, particularly our Vietnamese community. It is all the more reason why this bill is more important than ever. I am proud to support this bill as the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Safety. I am proud to support it as the member for Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West, which is home to so many proud local retail shopping strips right across the community, whether it is the Pentridge precinct, Sydney Road, the Victoria Street mall, Boundary Road, Pascoe Street out the front of Westbreen Primary School, along Devon Road, Coburg North village, the Bell Street–Melville Road shopping precinct with the amazing Mancini hair studio there, the Moreland–Melville roads intersection shops as well, Nicholson Street, Harding Street, Kent Road in Pascoe Vale, Merlyn Street in Merlynston, Albion Street in Brunswick West or so many other little pockets. We are home to so many proud retailers.

I am proud to support this bill as a proud member of the Transport Workers’ Union. Many of our workers work day in and day out to carry this country, this state and this community, and they should not be abused by anybody because of their work and what they do. I am also proud to support this as someone who grew up as a hospitality worker in my formative years – from about the age of 12, admittedly – working up and down many of the different restaurants and cafes on Lygon Street over the years as a high school student and then as a university student and beyond. I experienced my fair share of interactions with customers, which overwhelmingly were very, very positive.

I am pleased to support this bill, which complements the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Act 2025, which we moved in November 2025 to deliver on the Victorian government’s commitment to vulnerable customer-facing workers having greater protections 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 approximately $50,000, or both.

Retail and passenger transport workers are absolutely vital to a thriving Victorian community. The retail industry contributes over $73 billion 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 the bill is to protect retail and specified transport workers from people likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable violence, abuse, stalking or other harassment. The introduction of the 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 that workplace. This sends a clear message to the community that the work of passenger transport and retail workers is valued and that it is never okay to abuse or threaten these workers just for doing their job.

Applications for a WPO under the bill may be made under retail operators; specified passenger train, tram or 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 transport operator is unable or unwilling to apply for a WPO. A union applying for a WPO must also notify any other eligible applicants of its intention to apply, and it may be made in relation to a person aged 14 years and above if the court is satisfied that the person has engaged in unacceptable conduct in connection with the retail or specified transport workplace within the previous 12 months, is likely to do so again and the order is appropriate in all circumstances. ‘Unacceptable conduct’ means physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking or conduct that causes a person at the workplace to experience a reasonable fear of harm. A WPO can be sought for unacceptable conduct that occurs at the workplace that is covered by the scheme. In determining any conditions of a WPO, the court must give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of the workers in the workplace but also must have regard to other factors, such as hardship that is likely to be caused by any person subject to the order. The orders may be enforced for a maximum duration of 12 months, and the applicant or the respondent to the WPO may apply to the court to have the WPO revoked or the conditions of that order varied. This is all about improving safety for those in the retail and transport sectors. As I said, it builds on our previous work under the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Act 2025 of November 2025, because as I said, the economic value of these sectors is absolutely critical.

Across my local community both the transport and indeed the retail sectors play a very, very important role. In terms of local businesses across Merri-bek, retail makes up 7.1 per cent of our local businesses, with 1774 shops. In terms of transport, they are 13 per cent of our local businesses, with 2200 in the transport sector. In terms of retail workers, they make up 8 per cent of the local workforce, with about 7500 employed in retail. In terms of transport workers, there are 4000 local residents, or 4.2 per cent of our local workforce. We know as jobs have grown across these sectors that retail and customer abuse being experienced has, sadly, also continued to rise. This is confirmed by the data, with the Australian Retailers Association reporting some 800,000 retail crime incidents across Australia, 70 ‍per cent of retailers reporting increasing customer theft and 51 per cent of retailers experiencing physical abuse monthly or more. That is just totally unacceptable, and that is why we need to crack down in that regard. The bill contains three offences to address violence and aggression towards workers in these circumstances, including 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 to their duties. The offences have a maximum six-month imprisonment.

I want to acknowledge the SDA, the Transport Workers’ Union and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union for their work and their advocacy in helping us progress these changes. Of course they will also help local safety outcomes through the local retail precincts in my community. For example, on 11 February 2025, last year, the Central Coburg Business Association wrote to me about these very, very issues. They said:

Addressing safety concerns in Coburg requires an approach that includes both immediate interventions and long-term structural solutions …

•   A greater and more visible police presence in Central Coburg would serve as a deterrent to crime and antisocial behaviour. Consideration should be given to a dedicated local unit patrolling high traffic areas such as the Mall, surrounding shopping precincts (Sydney Road, Munro Street, Bell Street) in Central Coburg and public transport hubs.

Safety remains an ongoing issue in Coburg. In response, Merri-bek council has deployed security guards and CCTV outside the Coburg Library, and some traders, particularly those for whom English is a second language, have expressed concerns about engaging with antisocial behaviour and are seeking those effective solutions. As they say, a greater and more visible police presence in central Coburg serves really as the first step as a deterrent to crime and that antisocial behaviour. Many business owners and workers are from those diverse backgrounds and face many barriers reporting the crime, and expanded access to Victoria Police’s multilingual support services and proactive community policing efforts would help bridge those gaps. Crime data collection methods and resource allocation should be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect the safety concerns in the area and support effective responses. Investments in lighting, CCTV and urban design improvements could enhance security in key areas, particularly around the Central Coburg malls, laneways and overall precinct.

This issue intersects with multiple areas of government, including community safety, policing, small business, economic growth, multicultural affairs, local government, mental health, and urban planning. A coordinated cross-portfolio approach is necessary to address these concerns effectively. Safety concerns in Coburg impact business confidence, livability and economic growth. A thriving local economy depends on safe and welcoming spaces where people feel comfortable to work, shop and socialise. Addressing these issues will contribute positively to the community’s overall wellbeing and design.

I want to acknowledge a couple of residents who have approached me on these issues, including Layal, who said:

I am reaching out because in the last few months I’ve noticed an increase in drug/alcohol/wellbeing affected people in the area …

While walking on Sydney road near Coburg Mall, myself and my baby (luckily she was in the baby carrier) were verbally abused by a lady for no apparent reason as we walked past. She specifically said disgusting words about my baby.

…

I was walking with my husband and baby and a tall largely built man came up to my husbands FACE and asked for money …

I was walking from Sydney road to my home in Pentridge with my four children, including a baby in the pram and the man –

from the earlier incident –

… Was following us. I turned into urquhart street and by some miracle, a police car had stopped another car. Once I approached the police officers, the man following us turned and walked back in the opposite direction.

And Alex, a local dad, said that back in April 2025, while shopping with his wife and seven-month-old child at Coburg shopping precinct, he was assaulted in broad daylight whilst walking past the Coburg Library. But since these letters and this experience, we are continuing to take strong action in this regard. We are revitalising central Coburg, and we have the activity centre plan and ongoing investments to uplift the entire precinct, including the Victoria Street Mall. Outstanding work has been done by our local Victoria Police through Operation Priority and Operation Bluestone, which are targeting dangerous violent offenders.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (16:14): I rise to make a contribution to the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. I am grateful for the opportunity. I do support the intent of this bill. It is an important principle, and I am pleased that I think it broadly has the support of the whole chamber. No worker should go to work expecting to be threatened or intimidated or stalked or assaulted simply because they work in a public-facing role. However, the evidence tells us this is increasingly what retail workers are experiencing. I think anecdotally many of us will have seen it or perhaps not seen it directly but had it reported to us. We certainly know that you basically cannot walk into a workplace anymore without there being some reminder to people to treat their staff with respect. The signage is both unfortunate and probably useless. It is unfortunate that we have to remind people of that basic premise, and it is probably useless because I do not think the sorts of people who are going to behave like that, frankly, are going to take any notice of a sign either. But it nonetheless points to a broader social and cultural issue we have in our retail workspaces around safety and around treating people with just a modicum of decency.

We know that in the year to March 2026, stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour at Victorian retail locations increased by 10 per cent. That is 10 per cent in just one year, and since 2022 they have increased by over a third – in just four years. This appears to be something of a cancer – it is spreading, it is growing and it is making workplaces less and less safe, less and less pleasant and, frankly, less and less like the sorts of places most of us would want to be. That has an impact not just on the workers involved but of course on the commercial viability of the workplaces themselves. There were also – and this is a staggering number – 4823 assault and related offences at Victorian retail locations in the year to March 2026. That is according to the Australian Retail Council’s numbers. That is nearly 5000 ‍assault and related offences at Victorian retail locations last year, nearly 100 a week. That is a breathtaking number. Indeed a survey found that 71 per cent of shoppers had witnessed abuse directed at retail or fast-food workers, and of those that witnessed that abuse – more than two-thirds – more than a quarter had seen physical aggression, 20 per cent had seen sexual harassment or abuse and more than one in 10 had witnessed threats involving a weapon. WorkSafe data also shows that claims for injuries caused by workplace aggression or violence more than doubled between 2014 and 2024, over the space of a decade. Let there be no doubt. There are sometimes bills brought into this place for performative or political purposes. Sometimes they are responding to a manufactured problem, not a real one. That is not the case today. This is a real problem, and it needs a real response. I commend the government for delivering a response. I do have some reservations, and I will get to those in a moment.

The bill creates these workplace protection orders. An employer or an employee can apply for that order, and the court can act where a person has engaged in unacceptable conduct. I think these matters have been pretty well canvassed over the course of this debate, so I want to turn to the issue that I see with this bill, which is about what happens before the protection order is issued. What happens before the worker gets that protection? Under the bill an employer or union makes an application to the court, and that I think is the nub of the issue. The application has to be in writing. Sure, identify the respondent, set out the grounds. All of that makes sense. You have got to serve the details on the respondent. That all makes sense too. But there is no interim step; there is no interim workplace protection order. My submission is that a big gap in the protection that is available to workers. The worker still has to turn up tomorrow, even if they have been repeatedly threatened. Their employer has to believe the behaviour is serious enough to seek a workplace protection order, so there is already one level of review; why then not have an interim system or a system by which these matters are prioritised?

In the briefing that my staff participated in the other day it was clear that the government does not have a view yet about the operationalisation of this bill and does not have a view yet about the likely timeframes between application and receipt of a workplace protection order. That is alarming to me, because it seems to me that if it tracks along at the pace of many other matters before the court, like bail applications, then you are talking about six, nine or 12 months, maybe more. I would say at that point, if you are a 16-year-old working in a retail environment, you are probably long gone by the time the WPO comes through. The reality is that is just simply not quick enough. The period when a worker is waiting for an order may very well be the period when they are in fact most at risk, so I urge the government to make sure that we consider the fastest model, and there are different ways you could go about it.

The opposition has proposed a different model, including allowing police to be the processing agency or allowing police to even make the applications. I support the intent of the amendments put by the member for Brighton. I think they are good amendments. You will not often hear me saying this. I think they are sensible amendments from the member for Brighton. Having things like worker consent; having a mechanism by which police can make application; having a broader definition of the businesses covered to include retail services, for example, hairdressers, beauty services and such like; and making sure that the bill operationalises immediately from assent rather than being pushed back to July 2027 are principles that I support. We will not be voting on those amendments in this chamber. They are textual amendments, but I do support them. Were I to be sitting in the other place I would be supporting those amendments. I assume that the coalition will move those amendments in the other place, and I wish them success in that endeavour.

Coming back to my primary urging to the government, that is around the speed with which these matters are dealt with, I do not think we need to be overly prescriptive about that in legislation. I think there is scope to allow government to make that happen without broadscale legislative amendment, and certainly not the sort of amendment that would defeat the intent of this bill. I urge the government to have a proper think about what mechanisms work. You could just push these things to the front of the queue, but it comes back to this issue about resourcing of the court system. We know that in planning resourcing creates a huge economic knock-on far greater than the cost of appropriate resourcing. We know that in bail applications the lack of an ability to get a speedy trial means that more and more people are put on bail. That has a consequence to community safety. And more and more people are held in remand, which has an economic consequence. Again, those consequences massively outweigh the cost of resourcing the court system appropriately to deal with those problems. Whether it is bail or whether it is these workplace protection orders, whether it is interim personal violence orders or all manner of those categories of things that come before the courts, the appropriate resourcing of the court system would greatly assist not just the efficient administration of justice but the community safety knock-on effects and the economic knock-on effects. I urge the government to take a proper look at that as well.

I think getting Victoria Police better involved is potentially a means by which these things are sped up, but we should also have a good look at the way in which the lists are managed at the court level so that these matters are dealt with expeditiously, because getting a workplace protection order six, nine or 12 months after the behaviour in question might have exposed that worker to any number of additional unpleasant or unsafe events, and that is absolutely what we do not want to see happening. We need to move quickly to protect the worker who is just frightened to turn up to their next shift. I would urge the government to take a closer look at the ACT. They have workplace protection orders, but they have a mechanism to provide protection in advance of the final order being issued. By having interim orders you have the ability to make sure that protection is in place. The scheme defaults to protecting the worker as the interim measure before it is dealt with finally by the court. I think that would be a preferable process in this circumstance. Ultimately the question should be simple: if a worker is threatened today, what is going to protect them tomorrow? We ought to make sure that the system is as responsive and as speedily responsive as it possibly can be. These court delays matter, and protection delayed very likely will be protection denied. Worker safety ought to be paramount. We need to make sure that this bill responds to that very real threat in our community in a way that is balanced but also quick.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (16:24): It is a privilege to be in this place as someone who for many years worked in retail in Werribee as well as around the City of Melbourne and has seen my own fair share of violence directed towards retail workers and customer-facing workers. It is something that is shocking. No-one deserves a serve, and I really want to make sure that I put this bill that is in front of us, the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026, in the context of some of the work that I have been doing out on the ground for the last 12 to 18 months since I was elected around understanding the problem, consulting with the community and consulting with their representatives, because in the end listening is one of the most important things that we can do in this place. We are making sure that what we put forward in legislation is not just done for political point-scoring and stunts but going to stand the test of our criminal justice system, because community safety is our priority on this side.

From my experience teaching at Wyndham Central College I recall a couple of cases where I would have my year 10s come in and talk about how the night before someone came up and was yelling in their face. They are a regular that comes in and just gets angry. We have seen an increase in this kind of behaviour towards people who are just doing their jobs – an increase in aggressive behaviour but also violent behaviour. It has been increasing over these past years. There have been a lot of different social pressures out there that have led to this increase, and there has been a lot written about this. But what is important about this bill is that it puts together a scheme that is structured in a way that will work, and it will give those agencies time to make sure that it will work, because once these WPOs come in, we want to make sure that they work.

Last year I was contacted very early in the year by the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association representing workers at Sims supermarket, which is a great supermarket up on Shaws Road. I used to spend much of my time there after school picking up lollies, mostly. Sims is a great community supermarket, and those workers were really concerned, particularly in the liquor section, about a lot of regular faces coming in who would be there just to have a go at them about different things. I also spoke late last year to workers at the Woolworths store in central Werribee about their experience when it comes to violence in the workplace. I know last year we debated in this house additional safeguards and protections when it comes to assaulting people in those contexts and making sure that there were penalties that matched the severity of them.

I also last year had the time to speak to the executive team at Bunnings at the opening of the Manor Lakes Bunnings store about WPOs and some of the considerations that they wanted government to have. I went away and spoke to the then Minister for Police about some of those considerations, because it is not clear-cut. Traditionally an intervention order that is done by courts is assigned for an individual to an individual. This order goes to a workplace or a particular setting and is applied for by that workplace or by the industrial representatives of that workplace towards an individual, so it does change the way that things have to work.

This is particularly important for my electorate because in Werribee 10.1 per cent of the workforce are employed in retail and customer-facing jobs – one in 10 – and the majority of those are women and younger people. I have had conversations with people down at Werribee train station and the station staff down there, because quite often people moving through that space either can be in a rush or are under a lot of intense pressure, particularly if there is something happening on the train line, and they choose the first person to take it out on, which is quite often that poor Metro staffer who is just trying to do their job. We are sick and tired of this antisocial conduct. It cannot be condoned, and those who do it should face strong and serious consequences. This legislation introduces workplace protection orders. Those check-out kids and those workers down at the train station and those small business workers and employers need to feel safe, and we want to make sure that this legislation works.

There has been a lot of discussion in this place about the start date. Having a commencement date in 12 months, or July 2027, means that there is time for the courts and for police to be ready to implement these reforms. If there are current cases underway, it means that they can be managed and dealt with, but it also means that the Victoria Police manual, all those procedures, can be updated and people can be trained to be able to do this, because this will be something different for a lot of officers and a lot of people working in our courts.

Quite often we see things introduced into this place by those opposite that seem to be an interesting thought bubble or perhaps drafted by Shannon Deery at the Herald Sun that morning and then brought into this place as a desperate grab for a headline. All the time I sit here in this place and I hear those opposite verballing police on what they should be doing, not respecting section 10 of the Victoria Police Act 2013, to make sure that these laws give the Chief Commissioner of Police the delegated powers to be able to implement this, to have that operational independence. Having that is so important. We have seen what happened when those opposite got involved with Victoria Police and challenged that operational independence back in their time – in fact there was a whole report about it called Crossing the Line. They come into this place and they try and propose these things –

Brad Battin: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet needs to be factual when he is talking about section 10. Just this morning the government came out with a policy which directed Victoria Police on what they are to do with staff. That is absolutely against section 10. I think he needs to understand the facts in this.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule immediately on the point of order. Members are expected to be factual, but points of order pointing out purported factual errors are not an opportunity for other members to take up the debate. Other members will have their turn.

John LISTER: Having these safeguards built into the bill is really important in ensuring that we have that operational independence for Victoria Police and our courts to be able to implement. This is so important. We need to make sure that they are accessible and effective to protect workers, but we also need to make sure that they stick, particularly for the workers that I spoke about earlier that we have consulted with. I do not want to see circumstances where these WPOs do not work. We have seen the importance of taking the time to consult with those unions and consult with those representatives of the different retail associations to make sure that these work and they work from the moment that they are ready to go. Having the default commencement date does not mean that they cannot start earlier. In fact if Victoria Police and the courts are ready to implement it, they can do so – that is up to them – but we need to make sure that they are given that ability to do so.

It is so important to consult. It is so important to listen and do it properly. We have seen the farce of those opposite when it comes to some of their policies and the consultation with hospitals that occurred before they had their thought bubble announcement on the weekend. It was actually incredibly hard to watch that press conference with the shadow health minister, and that shows just how much, after 12 years, they still do not quite get the idea of consultation, of going out there and genuinely understanding what the impact of different policies might mean. You cannot just throw these things into the Parliament and expect them to stick. That is why it is important to go through this process and make sure that it works.

This scheme covers retail and transport workers. Those particular workers, we found in consultation, are at risk when it comes to this kind of behaviour that we are addressing. Other critical workers, like emergency service workers, are also protected by laws, and I know we are reviewing those at the moment to make sure that those convictions can stick when it comes to those emergency service worker provisions. When it comes to retail workers and transport workplaces, we want to make sure that WPOs can be taken out, they are clearly defined, and that person is not able to go to those businesses. The other thing about it is that we also need to be sensible. Some of these businesses, particularly in country towns, are the only places that people can go to get food. We need to have mechanisms to make sure that they are reasonable and for the court to be able to make sure that they are reasonable as well. Working closely with those stakeholders, we want it to start as quickly as possible. We need to make sure that Victoria Police and the courts have the operational independence to be able to implement this. I commend this bill to the house.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:34): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. I might just reference the member for Werribee at the start of this bill. The member for Werribee has got up here and given us all a lecture again for another 10 minutes about what we do well and what we do poorly, but this is coming from the same member that stated his community was whinging about crime. Then he got up here and spruiked. I find that pretty hard to stomach. He escaped quickly. Gee, he took off quick: run, rabbit, run – unbelievable.

Let us talk about this actual bill. It is good that the government have decided to turn up to the party on this bill, because they are a little bit late. They are a little bit reactive at the moment, this government. They are becoming just reactive. Everything we do, they jump on board, and that is what they are doing with this bill as well. They are late to the party again, but they have turned up, and for the benefit of the retail workers of Victoria it is a good thing.

We do not oppose this bill at all. There are some amendments that have been circulated by the member for Brighton. I have heard a lot of the debate today about them, and they will get discussed. But I am going to go to what annoys me about this place, and this is not the first time that it has happened. It seems to be that if we on this side bring in a bill, the government will not support it.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: I am happy to take up the interjection from up there. We have brought in bills in this place before that the government have not taken up, yet we have had to come back and discuss exactly the same bill. The Denyer bill is a classic example. The opposition introduced a bill twice, and the government knocked it back twice and then came back with literally exactly the same bill and it passed the Parliament. If it had not been for the member for Frankston, that would have never happened. I have said this before in this chamber, and I will say it again: I give the member for Frankston a lot of credit for pushing that through his caucus once there was a change of Premier. Then we got the bill through, and that is a fact. That is what happened. But this is where Victorians get frustrated. Bills come into this Parliament, whether on that side or from us putting forward private members bills on this side. Victorians have had enough. They go ‘Well, there’s a good intent behind this bill’ or ‘This bill should be passed through, even if it comes from the opposition’. Then they are just pushed away by the government. When we went to introduce this bill last November, I think it was, how many people –

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: The member up the back that is continually mouthing off really needs to listen. It is probably lucky she is retiring, but she needs to listen. Since we tried to introduce this bill back in November, how many assaults have happened on retail workers? I tell you what, if they were assaulted in my electorate, they would be sitting in the waiting room for about 12 hours, because the government have failed to build the new hospital that they promised. My point is that whoever brings a bill into this Parliament both sides of this chamber should look at the bill and go, ‘You know what, we like the intent of the bill; we should support it, we should work with them and we should pass it through this chamber,’ not be here seven months later, eight months later or nine months later talking about the same bill, because that is what we are doing today.

My partner is up in the gallery. She used to work in retail, and I am 100 per cent sure that she would have been abused at some point or spat on at some point or that somebody has thrown a coffee at her because they probably ordered something and she made it and it was not what they wanted or whatever was the case. That behaviour is unacceptable.

We had the Greens stand up today and want to make it based on race or colour. I am going to reference the member for Gippsland East in his contribution when he said that we do have a proportion of the community that are ratbags and that this behaviour is unacceptable. It does not matter what colour you are or what race you are; this applies to everyone, and so it should.

I have listened today to those opposite saying that we on this side do not care about workers. That is not true at all. Between 2010 and 2014 we had a body in this state that was protecting workers which this government got rid of. It was the anti-corruption body for union behaviour. Between 2010 and 2014 we had a state-based union watchdog. This government got rid of it. It was similar to this. If someone had a complaint on a construction site, they could go to the union watchdog, and that person could be blocked from union sites. How many people now, since this government has been in, have been abused on building sites? We have all seen it. We have seen it on the television. We had a system in place to protect construction workers from the behaviour of the CFMEU. This government removed that protection and put workers at risk, and no-one over that side can deny that. As much as they want to sit there and sledge me, no-one on that side can deny it. We have all seen the footage. We have all heard the stories, because they removed a protection that we had in place for people to take the union to the watchdog to curb their behaviour, to stop the bullying, to stop the harassment, to stop the extortion and to stop the threats. That is what we did.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: I do not hate unions. I have said in this chamber before I was a member of the CFMEU. For those opposite, I did work at the Yallourn power station at the SEC. They cannot sit there and try and sledge me and say I hate unions. Unions have a place, but when their behaviour gets out of control you need to jump on that. This government has failed to do that and put construction workers at risk in this state. It is well documented. We have seen the videos on TV. We have seen the road crews getting abused by people. Where they have failed the construction workers in this state is by removing that watchdog. I know those over that side object because they actually do not like hearing the truth. They get a bit sensitive. They get very, very sensitive when we talk about this subject because they know we were right and they know they were wrong and they did nothing to protect the construction workers in this state.

But I will come back to the workplace protection orders. We do not oppose this bill, and it is a good thing. Retail workers should be protected; we see it time and time again. I will say again what I have said in this chamber: I hate it when I see people videoing an incident and doing nothing about it. And I always say this too: if you are physically capable of helping, you should help; you should not be videoing. We saw the member for Footscray step in and try and help someone the other day, probably from someone that could have fallen under this bill. She actually hurt her hand quite severely. So it is a good bill. We need to protect our retail workers. We have to do that, and if this bill helps that, then all well and good. But we should not deny the fact that there are other workers that also are under threat. To the case in point that I just talked about with the CFMEU, where was the law to protect those workers? They have been under threat for the best part of a decade.

As I said, we do not oppose this bill. As I started by saying, it is great to see the government finally turning up and actually endorsing something we put forward again. It is just a shame in this chamber that it ends up being a competition: ‘if it’s not our idea, it’s no good until we believe it’s our idea.’ That is what is happening with this government. Even the royal commission now is a good idea. It was not a good idea three weeks ago.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Even the member interjecting said we did not need a royal commission, but now everyone is on board. The backflips of this government in trying to play catch-up to what the opposition is doing – well, that is the way it is. They do say imitation is the best form of flattery.

 Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:44): I rise to contribute to the Workplace Protection Orders Bill ‍2026. It is great to be in government, putting up legislation and passing legislation and having a great majority. One day those over there may get back into government, but hopefully not in my time. I am pleased to talk about this very important legislation. It is a Labor government that is protecting workers. That is fundamentally what we do; we look after workers. It is interesting to hear the friends of the workers over there. It is really interesting. I will tell you what, they were not too friendly to paramedics back in 2014. You can thank Mr Davis in the other chamber for why you are sitting on that side of the chamber. He was not too friendly to paramedics, let me assure you. What did he call them? Thugs and something else. That is how he treated the paramedics. That only went on for about two years, though. He cost you government; that is what he did.

This bill at its heart is about something very simple, and that is keeping people safe in their workplace. Everyone should be able to go to work each day and be safe and not be threatened, abused and intimidated. I just want to acknowledge the announcement this morning by the Premier, the Minister for Police and the Chief Commissioner of Police in regard to the additional 150 PSOs that will be patrolling shopping strips and shopping centres. I think it is a very good announcement, and it just adds to this legislation being put up and debated. It will add to the protection of people in their workplace, in particular in retail and hospitality. The other area is the transport area, where people are harassed, intimidated, abused and in some cases spat on in their workplace. It is just uncalled for, and unfortunately we have an element in our community that think they have a right to do it. Again, it is a fundamental issue for our community. It probably stems from what happens in a lot of households. They extend that out into the retail area. We have seen that people going to work are being threatened, stalked and assaulted, sometimes with weapons. I do want to acknowledge the member for Footscray on her efforts the other week. Unfortunately, she sustained an injury, but I commend her for her efforts, for stepping in and trying to help someone that was being abused and assaulted. So again, I just want to commend her efforts, and I wish her well for her recovery from her injury.

We know that retail workers can find themselves on the receiving end of this abuse, aggression, threats and intimidation from people. Some of them are really serious situations, and some of it goes to physical violence. I do not know why anyone would resort to even thinking of spitting on someone. I remember it happened to me once when playing football. The little bludger that spat on me – I chased him all day, and if I had got him I would have killed him, I tell you, but he was too quick. But in the good old days of football there was always an interval, and you would always catch up with them when the game stopped. But there is nothing worse than being spat on. It is the most insulting thing that can happen, and it is the weakest thing that anyone can do. To think that someone could go into a retail outlet and spit at a young person that is serving them – it is just disgraceful. It is certainly not acceptable in our society. But as I say, there are some people that think they have a right to do it.

Most, the majority, of our retail workers are women and young people. About one-third of our retail workers are under 24, and for some of them it is their first job. To think that they are confronted with some of this violence and threats at their workplace – it can really damage them for the rest of their lives. That is shameful. I have seen many times and have actually responded to many cases where people working in retail, hospitality and even the transport industry have been abused and assaulted. When I was a paramedic, I responded to a number of cases of violence against people in retail and hospitality. They are not good situations to be involved in, and yet some people think this is just normalised behaviour. It is just ridiculous.

About 800,000 retail crime incidents were reported across Australia in the last year, and unfortunately the scale of the problem tells us very clearly why further action like this bill is needed. Our local retail workers are part of the fabric of our community. As I said, they are our partners, they are our kids, they are our sons, daughters and relatives that are working in these outlets. As I said before, in some cases it is their first job. We see them in situations at the grocery stores, the retail outlets and the fast-food chains. It might be that you are driving through a McDonald’s and there has been an incident where the young kids behind the counter at McDonald’s have had hamburgers or drinks and that thrown back at them for whatever reason – who knows. But we see these situations happen. In some cases they are working for big companies, or they work for themselves. It might be that their parents own the business. It is just a terrible situation. Again, they are the reasons for this bill being put up.

My electorate of Melton is one of the fastest growing communities within the country, certainly within our state. Of course, as our population grows, so too do the retail centres, the supermarkets, the shopping precincts, the pubs, the coffee shops, the bars, the hardware stores, the kebab shops and the food trucks. We are seeing food trucks pop up everywhere, and you can see these situations occur in these particular areas where there are all these food trucks now that are popping up in different communities. We have people not only at the counters but also behind the scenes in supermarkets, where they might be stocking shelves or waiting on tables at restaurants, emptying bins, helping families and keeping businesses operating. We want people to be at work. We want people to have jobs like this, to earn a good wage and for them to be able to deal with the cost of living, deal with day-to-day life and buy things for themselves.

This Workplace Protection Orders Bill builds upon the work this government has already done and undertaken through the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Act 2025. Together, these reforms send a very clear message that violence and abuse against workers will not be tolerated and accepted here in Victoria. Many of these workers live locally. A lot of them are students. A lot of them are our neighbours. They are our friends. As I said before, they are our relatives and our family, and of course they are our future. We want to support them as much as we can, and we do not want them to be damaged by some of these incidents within the workplace.

You do not have to go far to find someone who has had to call security or the police to their workplace because of an incident like this because they were worried about their safety or they were worried about someone that was stalking them within the business that they work in. If there is security close by, it obviously assists, in particular at the bigger shopping centres. We see it a lot at some of the bigger shopping centres, like Woodgrove shopping centre here in Melton, and I know at Highpoint it is very similar. The response by security and police has been very good, but we should not have people going to work and having to be provided security just to get through their working day. It should be a safe workplace.

You have just got to wonder: would we in this chamber think about expressing any anger towards anyone in retail, hospitality or transport? I know sometimes we get frustrated with Uber and taxis and things like that when they want to charge you too much just to go a couple of kilometres down the road or something like that, but it is still no excuse to express your anger and violence, at times, towards those people that are serving our community. I know there is very little time left, but as I said, it is, in a lot of cases, our younger generation working in these settings. The majority of them are female, and, as I said, a lot of them are our friends or our relatives. We would expect for our kids and for our relatives to be safe at work. That is why I think this is such an important bill, and I commend the bill.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (16:54): I rise on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. I am going to first of all agree very much with something the member for Melton said then, and that was when he spoke about working and people spitting on particularly emergency services workers. I remember specifically having this conversation about one of the worst things in previous roles. It was actually the fact that I would prefer to be punched than spat on. I think it is just one of the lowest acts that you can see. I know they are different roles, a paramedic to a police officer. I am not saying either should ever expect it. Paramedics are generally there to help; sometimes coppers are going into more violent situations. It does not make it right. But to think that someone could go into a Macca’s and spit at a staff member in a Macca’s, throw a thickshake across the counter or try and attack one of the young people who are in one of those stores is just simply disgraceful. I would say most people in this place have started their career in a Macca’s or working in a local shop. My kids did it.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Brad BATTIN: Sorry, the member for Narracan started his life in a pub. He is still there. But there are many different roles where you put yourself on the front line, just for a normal job. But I will say from when I was there and working in some of these retail stores compared to the next generation coming through them, the level of anger and violence has changed, and we are seeing it rapidly change more still. The only part that I do disagree with is obviously in relation to the timing of this. It has taken a long time for the government. They can talk about the consultation, they can talk about the process, but the reality is they voted against bringing in this legislation when it was desperately needed here in this state in November last year. Since then we have continued to see an increase in attacks on staff. I think it is vital now – taking all that out of it – that we do get together and put it through as fast as possible to protect that next generation in our workplaces.

The legislation itself will obviously allow workplace protection orders to ensure that people who are regular offenders can be banned from a location. We have seen that too often, where a regular offender will continuously go back. I was down in Colac with the member for Polwarth, and we were speaking to one of the businesses down there where a regular would go into the store but the staff did not know what to do and did not know how to handle it. If they had had the workplace protection orders, they could have gone to the police and gone through a process to ensure that person could not come back to the store, because it is not just while the staff are in the store. They are afraid to walk out while that person is outside, and it creates all of those extra fears for those people out there.

But we know whilst workplace protection orders are very important and they will make a difference in the way you can keep staff safe in many of these workplaces, like they have in South Australia, it has got to be added to, obviously with what we have committed to, with the extra police here in Victoria to fill the 1500-plus vacancies. We have been speaking for a while around the vacancies here in Victoria. It delays the response. There are less police on the beat to go out and respond to crimes or to 000 calls. We are seeing those response times slowing down all the way across Victoria, and that includes to people in retail areas.

One of the things I think that should be raised is in relation to people ringing 000 for theft in a store. As we know, if people get away with crimes, they slowly get worse, more violent. That is why these orders are in. But if we had had the police responses when they called 000, just maybe we would not be seeing the crimes that we are today. Retail theft in Victoria in the last couple of years under the Labor government is up about 33 per cent. That retail theft is part of the reason this young cohort, like we saw in Mordialloc, think they can just run through a store and do what they want because there are zero consequences for their actions. That is the message that we need to send as well. It is not going to be just a workplace order, in the same way an intervention order does not solve all domestic violence; you need to have a whole world of other elements around it.

We still believe on this side of the house that one of the best things that we can do is ensure we have that Victoria Police presence around those shops. We are not against Operation Pulse, but we are definitely wanting to see the extra police – the vans, the proactive patrols, the police working with kids in schools and explaining to them about the consequences for violence, particularly against workers here in Victoria and those on the front line. As I said, everyone in the house says one of the best things we can do in here is do our best to work towards providing a safe workplace for all people in their workplaces across Victoria. We are just sad that it took so long for the Labor government to follow our policy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.