Thursday, 20 November 2025

 The PRESIDENT (22:16): I have received a further message from the Legislative Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 to create new offences for certain conduct engaged in against certain workers and to provide that a burglary that involves a ram raid is an aggravated burglary, to make consequential amendments to the Youth Justice Act 2024 and for other purposes.’

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:16): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:17): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 (Bill).

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

Overview

The Bill introduces new offences to specifically address incidents where offenders assault, or threaten to assault, retail, fast food, hospitality and passenger transport workers (applicable customer-facing workers) in connection with the performance of their duties. The Bill also introduces new offences for directing intimidatory, offensive and threatening words and behaviour towards applicable customer-facing workers. In establishing these offences, the Bill delivers on the government’s commitment to better protect these workers from assault and abuse.

The Bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act) to introduce a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties (maximum 5 years imprisonment).

The Bill will amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act) to introduce the following new summary offences:

a. A summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties (maximum 6 months imprisonment)

b. A summary offence of using without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties (maximum 6 months imprisonment).

The Bill also amends section 77 of the Crimes Act (aggravated burglary) to include where a person commits a burglary and uses a vehicle to cause damage to the building for the purpose of gaining entry to that building.

Human Rights Issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:

a. right to freedom of expression (section 15)

b. right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14)

c. right to culture (section 19)

d. right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16), and right to taking part in public life (section 18)

e. right to liberty and security of the person (section 21)

f. rights in criminal proceedings and right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (section 25), and

g. the protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 27).

Under section 7(2) of the Charter, rights can be subject to limitations to the extent reasonable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom and doing so may be necessary to protect and preserve the enjoyment of Charter rights by other members of the community. These factors are discussed below.

a.   Right to freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom ‘to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds’ in a medium chosen by the person. The right does not merely protect favourable or popular expressions, but also protects criticism and protest as well as offensive, disturbing or shocking information or ideas (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123) (Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, [49]).

Section 15(3) of the Charter provides for an internal limitation on the right, which allows freedom of expression to be limited where it is reasonably necessary to do so to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. It recognises that the right to freedom of expression will often be in conflict with the rights of other people, and with the public good, and so may be subject to clear limits, including lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to protect public order and health. This limitation has been held to extend to ‘laws that enable citizens to engage in their personal and business affairs free from unlawful physical interference to their person or property’ (Magee v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50). It is a recognition that the right to freedom of expression does not protect all forms of expressive conduct including conduct involving violence, or threats of violence (Magee v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50).

The Bill limits the right by restricting a person’s ability to impart certain information and ideas through words or conduct that they know, or that a reasonable person would know, is threatening or abusive to workers in connection with the performance of their duties. While the concept of threatening or abusive words and behaviour is well-understood, the new offences are intended to capture both serious conduct of such a magnitude that it meets the standard of an indictable offence, and less serious conduct which meets the standard of a summary offence.

The new offences provide additional protections to applicable customer-facing workers in the retail, hospitality and passenger transport sectors in Victoria who have been impacted by a spike in assaults, threatening conduct and verbal abuse. It is important in a diverse and pluralistic society that such workers can go about their business with the expectation of a safe working environment. Being subjected to assaults, threats, and intimidation can make workplaces feel unsafe and unpredictable, particularly for more vulnerable people. For example, a 2003 national survey of 4,600 members from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employee’ Association (SDA) found that a shocking 87 percent of workers had experienced abuse from customers in the preceding year, 76 percent had experienced regular verbal abuse over the preceding 12 months while 12.5 percent had suffered physical violence – a 50 per cent jump from a similar survey two years earlier. Such conduct has the potential to harm individual workers but also harms the community by undermining standards of acceptable behaviour and public order. Given how deeply upsetting and harmful to individual human dignity such behaviour can be and how damaging it can be to the functioning of a democratic and pluralistic society, it is appropriate that there be specific offences that prohibit such conduct.

The limitation of the right to freedom of expression that arises is consistent with the Bill’s purpose to protect applicable customer-facing workers from the threatening or abusive words and behaviour, while also ensuring that conduct done reasonably and for legitimate purposes is adequately protected. The applicable customer-facing worker offences clearly target assaults and extreme examples of threatening or abusive words and behaviour. A person will continue to be able to express themselves in such a way that does not cause harm, or that causes a person to feel unsafe. This balances the right of a person to hold and express an opinion and to engage with other members of the community with the rights of applicable customer-facing workers and in doing so protects public order and public morality and the stability of our free and democratic society. I consider these measures to be reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

To be less restrictive, the offences could be cast less broadly - for example, by specifying the exact kinds of threatening or abusive words and behaviour envisaged to be captured, or by stating what community standards of acceptable conduct are. However, this would mean the offences would not be sufficiently flexible to capture unforeseen types of conduct. Additionally, if the Bill articulated specific acts or community standards, the offences would not be adaptable to changing societal attitudes and values. This would mean that the offences could continue to capture conduct that the broader community has come to find tolerable or less offensive – effectively becoming more restrictive over time.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive words and behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the charter rights contained in section 9 (right to life), section 10 (protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), section 14 (freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief), section 18 (taking part in public life), and section 21 (right to liberty and security of person), and is reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the charter.

b.   Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14), right to culture (section 19), right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16), and right to taking part in public life (section 18);

Section 14 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including to adopt the religion or belief of their choice and to demonstrate their religious belief in public or private. It provides that a person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits their freedom of religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching. Historically, the right to have or adopt a religion or belief has been held to be absolute and unqualified (Eweida v The United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8); however, limitations on the right to demonstrate religion or belief have been found to be reasonable and justified (Victorian Electoral Commission [2009] VCAT 2191).

Section 19 of the Charter provides for the right to culture and is based on Article 27 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This right ensures individuals, in community with others that share their background, can enjoy their culture, declare and practise their religion and use their language. It protects all people with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background.

Section 16(1) of the Charter protects every person’s right to peaceful assembly, that is to gather intentionally and temporarily for a specific purpose. Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. The UN Human Rights Committee, when commenting on article 25(a) of the ICCPR, considered the right to participate in public life to lie at the core of democratic government.

The Bill could limit these rights where the relevant conduct amounts to a breach of the protections for applicable customer-facing workers contained in the Bill. For example, the Bill prohibits a person from exercising such a right through words or conduct directed towards an applicable customer facing worker in connection with the performance of their duties in a manner that can be objectively considered to be threatening or abusive. The purpose of the limitation is to ensure that applicable customer-facing workers are protected from the harm and distress that result from threatening or abusive words and behaviour in connection with the performance of their duties.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive words and behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the other rights contained in the Charter. The narrow scope of the Bill, which is targeted at threatening or abusive words and behaviour directed at applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties, means that people who demonstrate these rights in a controversial and even offensive manner may still be able to do so subject to existing laws and as long as they do not do so in a threatening or abusive manner directed at applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties.

The Bill could not be modified to entirely and expressly exempt these rights. Threatening or abusive words and behaviour, without a lawful excuse, cannot be justified because they expose applicable customer-facing workers to harm and undermine the sanctity and dignity of retail workplaces, which need to be maintained for the safety of those workers. The limitations on these rights are reasonable and justified given the potentially significant harm caused by threatening and abusive words and behaviours to applicable customer-facing workers and the broader impacts this can have on the Victorian community and economy.

c.   Right to liberty and security of person (section 21)

Section 21 of the charter provides that every person has the right to liberty, and that a person must not be deprived of their liberty, except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. Section 21 also provides that every person has the right to security.

The right to liberty needs to be balanced with the right to security, specifically, the community’s right to safety and security, which includes protection from being subject to criminal offending. Although conviction for the new offences may result in the deprivation of liberty, it will only arise because of a sentence imposed after conviction for an offence by an independent court after a fair hearing.

These offences and corresponding penalties apply for conduct directed towards a clearly defined cohort of victims, that is, applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties, where the prosecution proves that the offender knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was an applicable customer-facing worker. Applicable customer-facing workers play a critical role in the Victorian economy and in our community. Every single person in our community relies on these workers every single day to perform their duties for the orderly functioning of our society. In return, applicable customer-facing workers should be able to perform their duties with dignity and respect, and free from harmful threats or abuse. In these circumstances, the establishment of offences that may result in the deprivation of an offender’s liberty is a reasonable and proportionate measure to preserve the right to security of applicable customer-facing workers and maintain public order.

There is no less restrictive way to achieve the purpose of the offences, which is to protect applicable customer-facing workers from threatening or abusive behaviour. Any limitation of these rights is balanced with the other rights contained in the Charter including the right to proper treatment (section 21), right to be promptly brought before a court (section 21(5)), and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (section 25(1)).

d.   Right in criminal proceedings and right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (section 25)

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

The Bill imposes an evidential burden on the accused for the defence of “lawful excuse” for summary offences in which a person directs threatening or abusive words or behaviour towards applicable customer-facing workers. This may appear to limit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. It will be a matter for a court to assess whether the conduct in question had a lawful excuse. The purpose of the evidential burden is to support the proper operation and prosecution of the offences by ensuring that the applicable customer-facing workers are protected from threatening or abusive words or behaviour that is done without a lawful excuse.

Victorian courts have held that the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law is not limited by the imposition of an evidential burden on the accused (R v DA & GFK [2016] VSCA 325). The defence outlined in the Summary Offences Act 1966 imposes an evidential burden rather than a legal burden. The offences in the Bill do not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of the defence – which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge – the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence.

The Bill could leave the onus to raise and disprove this defence with the prosecution, thereby removing the evidential burden from the accused person. However, this would make the offence largely unworkable, as the circumstances listed in the defences are likely to often be within the peculiar knowledge of an accused person, and it is therefore appropriate that the accused should be required to raise or point to evidence that a defence applies.

In these circumstances, and as courts have held, it is reasonable and proportionate to shift the burden of proof to the accused, because only they may know and be able to articulate why their conduct did not breach community standards.

e.   Protection from retrospective criminal laws (section 27)

Section 27(1) of the Charter provides that a person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence when it was engaged in. This reflects the principle, long recognised in criminal law, that there can be no crime and no punishment, other than as established by the law. The Bill protects this right by ensuring that the new offences and the amendment to the existing aggravated burglary offence have prospective application only.

In particular, the expansion of aggravated burglary to capture the use of a vehicle to cause damage to a building to gain entry to that building to commit a burglary includes an express transitional provision to ensure that the new aggravating factor only applies to conduct that allegedly occurs after commencement of the amendment. Existing criminal offences may still be charged to address this conduct in the interim.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Enver Erdogan

Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation

Minister for Corrections

Minister for Youth Justice

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:17): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard:

I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 (Bill). The bill creates new offences under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Crimes Act) and the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act) that seek to prevent assaults, threats, and abuse against customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport. The reforms implement the Government’s commitment to give vulnerable customer-facing workers greater protection against assaults, threats and abuse.

The Bill will also amend the Crimes Act to ensure that ‘ram raid’ conduct is captured by the serious offence of aggravated burglary.

Customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport sectors keep our economy running and ensure that the people of Victoria can obtain essential goods; this was made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, when customer-facing workers continued to perform their duties during a time of great uncertainty. Deliberate acts of violence and abuse that occurs in connection with the performance of customer-facing worker’s duties is unacceptable and the Bill sends a clear message that such treatment will attract an appropriate criminal justice response.

The Government has heard deeply distressing firsthand accounts from retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers across Victoria who suffered abuse and violence in their workplace. This is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to be safe and respected at work. This is confirmed by data with the Australian Retailers Association reporting in June 2025 how 51 per cent of retailers said they experience physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers report experiencing verbal abuse.

Violent and threatening behaviour toward passenger transport workers is also an ongoing issue. Between January and August 2023, there were 381 reports of assault against taxi drivers in Melbourne, compared to 319 in the same period in 2022.

This offending is harmful to those workers, their families and the wider community. The new offences contained in the Bill recognise this and respond appropriately. The Government is committed to protecting our retail workers from acts of violence. The Bill sends a strong message of support to workers in the retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport sectors and is a warning to those who would seek to assault or abuse workers that such behaviour will not be tolerated and that perpetrators will now have tougher consequences.

I shall now turn to the substance of the bill.

The Bill establishes new worker harm offences specifically aimed at protecting retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport workers from assaults and harmful threats, intimidation and abuse.

The Bill will amend the Crimes Act to introduce a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker. This offence distinguishes itself from the existing offence of Assault and threat to Assault contained at section 31(1)(a) as it does not contain the requirement that the accused person had an intent to commit an indictable offence as an element of the offence. The impact of removing this element is that the new offence will apply to a greater range of conduct than the general offence, providing additional protection for applicable customer facing workers and sending a clear message that there are laws in place to respond to people who seek to do harm or to threaten customer-facing workers.

The Bill will amend the Summary Offences Act to introduce the following new summary offences:

• A summary offence of assaulting an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties.

• A summary offence of using without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties.

Establishing a summary assault offence is consistent with the existing tiered approach to assaults based on the seriousness of the conduct. As with the indictable offence, the conduct must occur ‘in connection with the performance of the workers duties’ for the offence to apply. This offence will have a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 6 months, which is higher than the existing general offence of Common Assault which has a maximum sentence of three months. This is appropriate as it reflects the importance of preventing harmful conduct towards customer-facing workers.

The new summary offence of using, without lawful excuse, language that is profane, indecent or obscene or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker will broadly replicate the existing offences contained at section 17(1)(c) and (d) of that Act. However, the new offence will be distinct from the existing section 17 offence as it will not be a requirement for the conduct to occur in or near a ‘public place’, but it will be necessary for the worker to be ‘in connection with the performance of their duties’ for the offence to apply.

Removing the requirement for the conduct to occur in or near a public place means that where a person carries out this conduct in private or isolated settings (for example, in a back office of a retail premises), the new offence would be available. This ensures that all retail, hospitality, fast-food and passenger transport workers are afforded the protection of the offences, including those that might work in roles that do not primarily engage directly with customers, such as a worker in a kitchen or a storeroom.

It is proposed that an offence for directing this conduct towards a worker will have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. This is an increase on the general offence, which has a maximum sentence of two months for a first offence and demonstrates that there will be a strong response to people that choose to direct this type of conduct towards customer-facing workers.

In order for a worker harm offence to occur, the conduct must occur in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. Whether conduct is in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties will be a matter for the courts to determine, but the Bill provides that, without limiting the meaning of this term, conduct is connected with the performance of the worker’s duties if it occurs:

• when the worker is performing their duties;

• when the worker is taking a break from performing duties;

• when the worker is arriving at or leaving a place at which they perform their duties;

• in response to a thing done or omitted to be done by a worker when performing their duties; or

• in response to a thing the person believes the worker has done or omitted to do when performing their duties.

In providing for these circumstances, the Bill ensures that the offences will apply to acts of violence, abuse and intimidation connected to an event or action that took place while the worker was performing their duties, even if the act occurs when the worker is no longer at the workplace. For example, if a person is refused service and then waits for a worker to complete their shift to then assault or abuse them, the new offences will apply.

The worker harm offences contain a mental element that must be proven before a person can be found guilty of these offences. It must be proven that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was a protected worker. This safeguards from the use of these offences where the conduct does not relate to the status of the worker as a retail, fast food, hospitality or passenger transport worker as it ensures that an accused cannot be found guilty of a worker harm offence if the mental element is not proven.

The worker harm offences are also intentionally tiered to address conduct of different levels of harmfulness. This is a sensible approach is it gives Victoria Police officers scope to consider the nature of an accused person’s conduct and to charge a person accordingly. Police officers will also maintain their existing discretion to issue a caution rather than charge an offender, if they consider that the circumstances warrant this.

The Bill will also amend section 77 of the Crimes Act 1958 by providing that the offence of aggravated burglary will apply when a person commits a burglary and uses a vehicle to cause damage to a building to gain entry to that building to commit the burglary. ‘Vehicle’ is defined inclusively and could include a motor vehicle, vessel or other vehicle such as a forklift or other heavy machinery that is sometimes used to commit ‘ram raids’. The amended offence retains the current maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for aggravated burglary, to better reflect the nature and severity of serious ‘ram raid’ offending. Such offending is of increasing community concern and can be extremely dangerous and traumatic for staff, business owners, and members of the community. The reform will give prosecuting authorities another charging option for this type of offending, but they will also continue to have discretion to charge a range of existing offences to suit the circumstances of the particular case.

The Government understands the importance of these reforms and the need to provide customer-facing workers with the strongest measure of protection from assault and abuse, particularly as we come into the Christmas season, when we know this type of conduct increases. With this in mind, the Government has consulted with Victoria Police to ensure that they are ready to operationalise these offences as soon as possible. Therefore, the Bill provides that the worker harm offences will commence two weeks after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. This rapid commencement will be an important measure to put an end to the mistreatment and harm that some members of the community choose to direct towards our frontline workers.

The Victorian Government will monitor the impacts of these reforms. To do this, the Bill includes a statutory requirement for the Attorney-General to commence a review of the new worker harm offences within two years of their commencement. This will ensure that that the new offences are working as intended to protect customer-facing workers and will enable the Government to consider the broader impacts of the reforms. In doing so the review will inform the Government about whether adjustments or further reforms to protect customer-facing workers are needed.

In conclusion, everyone deserves to feel safe at work. Customer-facing workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport are essential to the functioning of our economy and society and should not be subject to violence or abuse simply for the doing their job. I am very pleased to introduce this Bill, which ensures that assaults and other harmful acts against these workers are responded to with stronger laws and tougher penalties. The new offences are intended not only to provide a stronger deterrent against deliberate acts of violence against retail workers but also to better meet community standards.

I commend the efforts of the Worker Protection Consultation Group for their advice and expertise during development of these reforms. The bill is the culmination of their hard work, driven by objective evidence and distressing personal anecdotes highlighting the inappropriate treatment suffered by customer facing workers in workers in retail, hospitality, fast food and passenger transport at the hands of the public.

The Victorian Government is committed to improving the way our justice system protects workers and ensuring that criminal penalties are appropriate. These reforms serve as another very important example of this work.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (22:17): I move:

That debate be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.