Tuesday, 2 December 2025

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:14): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. This bill comes before Parliament at a time when Victorians are acutely aware that our state faces serious and growing crime challenges. While crime is everywhere under this government, it is most visible in our retail sector. People see it across Victoria, in news reports, on their Instagram feed and in firsthand accounts given by friends, family members and colleagues, and retail crime in Victoria has become a defining feature of the broader law and order landscape. Locally in my electorate not a day goes by without a report of a machete melee or incident at Broadmeadows Central or incident at Northland shopping centre where people are coming into food stores and ransacking the place, or incidents at Craigieburn Central or Craigieburn Plaza. It is not new and it is not isolated. It has not emerged suddenly. It has been gathering pace for several years. We see that the severity and scale of it are now impossible to ignore, even for this tired, decade-old Labor government.

Every day across our state people who work in retail, fast food, hospitality and transport go to work and face situations that should never form part of anyone’s workplace experience. Staff are abused, threatened, intimidated and at times physically assaulted. Many feel unsafe at work, and many do not feel properly supported by the system that is meant to protect them. That reality is why the Liberals and Nationals have consistently called for action on retail crime. We have been calling for stronger measures for a very long time.

When the Premier made a commitment in May last year to act, the opposition – the Liberals and Nationals – although sceptical based on past performance, nonetheless took the government at its word. We believed the government would respond decisively, because the levels of offending across Victoria demand more than speeches and press conferences. They demand real action delivered with urgency, and the most recent data demonstrates how urgent the situation really is. In the year to June there were 99,114 offences in retail store settings. This represents an almost 20 per cent increase in only 12 months. These numbers should alarm any responsible government – sadly, it seems not this one. They also highlight the failure to deliver on the commitment made 18 months ago. While the government delayed, the offences went up by tens of thousands. The Crime Statistics Agency also reported that retail theft increased by 26 per cent and retail assaults increased by 21 per cent in the same period. A 21 per cent increase in assaults is not just a minor shift. A 26 per cent increase in theft is not just a statistical blip. These are signs of a system under real pressure and a sector in which people no longer feel protected.

These retail figures sit within a broader landscape of the rising crime rate in Victoria. In addition to the nearly 100,000 retail offences recorded in the year to June, there were 638,000 criminal offences in 2024–25. That is roughly 200,000 more offences than when Labor was first elected. Think about that. That is an increase of about one-third. Total offences have increased by 47 per cent, crimes against the person have increased by 63 per cent and property and deception offences have increased by 38 per cent. These are not small movements; they reflect a significant deterioration in community safety. The government cannot credibly claim that the retail crime problem caught it by surprise. For years and years, as I have stated, there have been high-profile cases that have shocked the Victorian community. Anyone who speaks with staff members of retail stores, supermarkets, hospitality venues and service stations, which I have done, knows the extent of the problem. It is something that has been a consistent feature in the northern suburbs and particularly in the outer northern suburbs. I speak to many service station workers and owners but also particular retail stores near my own electorate office in Meadow Heights and also in Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn, where there has been an absolutely significant uptick in retail crime. We have deep empathy for them as well.

I was subjected to and also witnessed several incidents back when I worked at Woolies, which was then called Safeway. No-one would wish it upon their worst enemy, to be caught up in a situation as frightening as many, many young people but also our migrant communities are going through in our communities. I assume any member of Parliament worth their salt would be hearing the same thing from their communities about the uptick in retail crime and how this has really affected many, many workers. I have chatted to and had the shadow minister out to the IGA in Thomastown, which has been subject to frequent attacks and incidents, particularly around the shopping strip as well.

The largest retailers in the country have drawn attention to the issue. They have said clearly that Victoria has a unique and serious issue with the retail crime problem. CEO of Coles Leah Weckert said:

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

The chief executive of Rebel Sports said:

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

Reece CEO Peter Wilson has been reported as saying that Victoria is the toughest place in the country to do business. The co-founder of Seek, Paul Bassat, said:

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

These are not minor comments from fringe commentators, they are the most senior executives of major national companies, who have a close understanding of retail trends and are responsible for the safety of thousands of staff. The message has been consistent. They have been calling for real action that would provide genuine protection to deter offending.

Unfortunately, this bill does not deliver the change that the sector needs. At its heart any bill that is introduced to address a problem should be assessed on whether it actually solves the problem. The Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this legislation, but we certainly want it recorded that this bill will not fix the retail crime crisis in Victoria, and anyone who thinks it will is kidding themselves. We want it stated plainly on the record that, after 18 months of waiting, what has arrived in this bill does not create meaningful change and does not go to the heart of this issue. To make matters worse, an essential component of any effective response is missing entirely, and that is workplace protection orders, which should form a central part of a package to protect workers. They are nowhere to be found in this bill. The government has announced these orders and then backflipped and then suggested again that they might be needed. Which one is it? They have failed to include them in this legislation. It is extraordinary that such a key reform was omitted. For that reason, I notify the house of opposition amendments that have been drafted, and I ask for them to be circulated. Our amendments do two things. First, they increase the penalties associated with offending against customer-facing workers. Second, they introduce a workplace protection order scheme for Victoria. Before turning to those amendments, it is important to outline exactly what the bill contains and why those measures fall well short of what is required.

The bill is relatively simple. It includes new offences for assaulting or threatening workers in the retail, fast-food, hospitality and transport sectors. It also introduces measures relating to ram raids by placing them within the definition of ‘aggravated burglary’. Those appear to be positive steps. However, a closer reading reveals that these offences already exist in Victorian law, so this is largely performative. The Law Institute of Victoria has assessed the bill. I thank the institute for undertaking the assessment in extremely limited time. Normally experts would have at least 14 days to consider a bill and provide informed feedback. The law institute said the amendments:

… may unnecessarily overcomplicate the Crimes Act as the proposed offending conduct is already captured through other offences within that Act.

The institute went on to say:

… a judicial officer is already empowered to consider the specific circumstances of such offending when evaluating an application for bail or handing down a sentence.

The institute also observed that certain clauses in the bill:

… may inadvertently create gaps in the framework by only criminalising abuse directed at those in a ‘customer facing role’ …

for example, but they would exclude accountants, bank tellers, therapists, policy experts et cetera. In other words, the bill attempts to create offences that already exist while potentially excluding groups of workers who do not have face-to-face customer interactions. The core criticism is simple. The offence of assault already exists. Assault under common law carries a maximum sentence of five years, the same maximum penalty as the new offence that is created by this bill. The government has repeatedly claimed that this bill establishes a new assault offence with a maximum sentence of five years. Again, it already exists. Nothing in this bill strengthens the offence, nothing adds new powers or new deterrents, and nothing provides a higher maximum penalty than the existing law. The same is true for the ramraiding provision. The law institute has explained:

… the offence of Aggravated Burglary … would likely already capture a ‘ram-raid’ in certain circumstances. For example, where the offender commits a ‘ram-raid’ during business hours when there are staff, or there is reason to believe there are likely staff, in the building.

Once again, what this bill presents is a new measure that is in fact a duplication or restatement of an offence that already exists. This is why these measures will not address the retail crime crisis. They do not change the legal landscape in any way.

The Criminal Bar Association reached similar concerns. It is worth noting the association informed the member for Brighton that his engagement with them was the first time anyone in Parliament had approached them for feedback on these kinds of proposals – certainly not the government. The government did not consult with them, and that omission is telling. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government knew what the experts would say and wanted to avoid hearing it. The Criminal Bar Association has described the indictable offence created by the bill as of little utility and one that would otherwise be captured by the existing offence of common-law assault. The association said:

Were a ‘customer-facing worker’ to be physically assaulted (or even threatened) in connection to their employment without the introduction of this new offence, there would be no impediment to the laying of a charge of common-law assault. Given this, it is difficult to see what the introduction of this new offence will achieve.

These are the views of legal experts who deal with criminal offences daily. They are not political views; they are observations about what the law already provides.

The bill does, however, give the government the chance to claim a promise has been fulfilled. It allows a press release to be issued and a social media graphic to be posted. It allows those Labor MPs who are worried about retail crime in their seats to feel a little bit calmer. For MPs who get up and talk about it in the party room, it allows for the ministers to pat them on the head, saying, ‘It’s going to be okay. We’ve just introduced this bill which introduces new offences that already exist. Yes!’ They can go back to the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association and say, ‘We got a win for you.’ They say they are for workers but are introducing laws into this place that do nothing for them. That is not leadership for the people who are coming home to their parents in tears about what happened to them at work that day or on the increasing examples of retail crime we are seeing go through the roof. The government has introduced a bill that will not deal with this issue.

I have been here long enough to remember when the government was raising the age of criminal responsibility and when the government weakened our bail laws. On our concerns about crime and specific concerns about retail crime I was told by those opposite that I was just seeking a Herald Sun headline or a 3AW interview. That is what that side of the chamber said in response to our serious concerns from constituents about this issue. Now they rush to the chamber with basically a press release saying they are doing something. But they are doing something that already exists, and it is not going to solve the problem of retail crime here in this state. For that reason, they should be condemned.

The opposition has drafted amendments that strengthen penalties. Our amendments introduce a three-tier system that actually reflects the seriousness of the assault. If an assault does not cause physical injury, the maximum penalty will be four years. If an assault causes physical injury but not serious injury, the maximum penalty will be six years, and if an assault results in serious injury, the maximum penalty will be 11 years. These provisions are modelled on the New South Wales approach, which has been shown to be effective. They ensure penalties have real force rather than symbolic value. The opposition has also drafted amendments to introduce workplace protection orders, which are essential. The workplace protection orders have been called for by industry, by unions and by frontline workers. The Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, an organisation with many friends in this place, has said:

If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing WPOs is a no brainer.

And still we are seeing no real action to address this. The only real action is from the opposition. The government wants to introduce performative acts that take place inside of a bill but do not actually fix the problem at hand. It wants to announce in a press release that it is addressing the issue and then take months and months and months to actually get a bill here. That is not good enough, as we have seen in that intervening period huge increases in retail crime. People are left to suffer while the Labor Party dithers. Looking interstate, ACT police have spoken about their experience with workplace protection orders, stating that in the eight months since they were introduced, police have:

… noticed a “total change in behaviour where [the offenders] have just disappeared off our screens”.

That represents real change, and the type of change Victoria desperately needs. Workplace protection orders also protect workers in a way that criminal charges alone cannot. They allow early intervention, they provide a clear and enforceable barrier between offenders and staff and they are a proven tool. The government claimed recently that it believed workplace protection orders were needed, yet the bill does not include them. The Premier’s last-minute backflip came so late that the government could not introduce these measures as part of the inclusion in this bill. I mean, parliamentary members of the SDA and parliamentary members altogether must be scratching their head and wondering what the Attorney-General and the Premier are actually doing: rule in, rule out, rule in, rule out, rule in, but ‘Oh, we can’t even attach it to the bill.’ When people are suffering and retail crime is surging massively, people must just look at the actions of the Premier and the Attorney-General and seriously shake their heads. We know that is going on over that side at the moment, but this is a clear example of incompetence – incompetence with serious consequences, because the government has failed to act.

We know that WPOs are a proven tool. The government claimed recently that they believe the workplace protection orders are needed, but again they do not include them. The amendments we have circulated give the government a real opportunity to support the introduction of WPOs. If government members vote them down, it will become clear that their statements of support were nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Premier to get through another news cycle. They all went to the back garden to announce these changes. My colleagues here were at that press conference cheering for workers – workers who are most likely behind the shopfront getting assaulted while you wait for the Premier and the Attorney-General to have another backflip and another stuff-up. They cannot even include it in this bill. They must be absolutely shaking their heads at the incompetence of their Premier and the Attorney-General.

As I said, the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this bill. However, our support for the bill does not indicate support for its adequacy. As I have said, the bill does not go far enough. We support the bill because some action is better than no action at all, but the bill in its current form will not solve the retail crime crisis. As legal experts have said, the new offences created by this bill already exist under Victorian law. The government has failed to include workplace protection orders despite acknowledging their importance. The penalties proposed by this bill lack the strength needed to act as a deterrent. Victorians rightly deserve a plan that fully addresses the seriousness of this problem. Retail workers deserve to go to work knowing the law is on their side and that meaningful protections are in place, and employers deserve a system that responds effectively when their staff are abused, threatened or assaulted. The community deserves a justice system that is capable of enforcing real consequences for unacceptable behaviour. The opposition amendments provide a straightforward and practical path forward. They strengthen penalties, they introduce workplace protection orders, they align Victoria with successful models used interstate by Labor governments and they address the very gaps that legal professionals and industry bodies have identified. They provide a comprehensive response that has been seriously missing from the Premier and the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police.

The government now has a choice, and members on that side of the chamber now have a choice. The government can support these amendments and demonstrate a genuine commitment to worker safety or it can vote them down and accept responsibility for a bill that does little more than repackage existing provisions. They can either vote with us or vote with the incompetence of the Premier and the Attorney-General, who backflipped so quickly they did not even have time to include them in the bill that is before us today. I mean, how embarrassing. How embarrassed must government members, who I understand do care deeply about this issue, be? They must be completely embarrassed and ashamed of the incompetence of both the Premier and the Attorney-General for stuffing this up so much.

I do genuinely feel for the many retail workers. There are extraordinary statistics on increases from our retail workers in our retail stores. I have spoken numerous times in this chamber about real-world examples: families that were at Northland as people were running through with machetes, residents that have come to me with concerns about what is going on at Broadmeadows Central literally every single day and what has gone on at Craigieburn Plaza, Craigieburn Central and Roxburgh Village, where we have had serious issues with retail crime. As I said, I do not come to this as a stranger to the retail setting. Back in the day for about four or five years I did work at Woolies. In fact for that entire time I was a member of the SDA.

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Don’t call me a scab. Throughout my time working for Woolies, which was then Safeway, there were several frightening incidents that I would not wish on anyone. Examples of that have increased enormously, particularly in the last few years, yet the government has seriously failed to act. It said that workplace protection orders were needed. It then said they were not needed. It then backflipped to say they are needed, but it did not put them in the bill in time for what we are dealing with today. Here today we have literally got a bill that duplicates existing provisions for assault. Yes, we do not oppose this bill – we will not get in the way of this bill – but it is literally meaningless. We urge the government to take the opportunity to support our amendments. The Victorian community expects nothing less.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to also speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. While its stated aim is to protect customer-facing workers from violence and abuse, this bill takes an approach that risks criminalising vulnerability rather than offering anything substantively new that will reduce harm for those workers, so the Greens will not be supporting it today.

The bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 to create a new category of applicable customer-facing workers covering retail, fast-food, hospitality, transport and shopping centre workers. It purports to create new offences for assaulting, threatening, intimidating or engaging in offensive or abusive conduct towards those workers, with penalties of up to six months imprisonment or 60 penalty units. These offences apply not only while a worker is on shift but also on breaks and while they are coming to or leaving work, provided the conduct is linked to their duties. The bill also introduces a new aggravated burglary style offence for ram raids. It expands the definition of ‘aggravated burglary’ to include ram raids where a vehicle is used to gain entry to a building during a burglary.

No-one disputes that violence against workers is unacceptable. The problem is that this bill responds by expanding vague, subjective offences and harsh penalties, which experience tells us will fall hardest on the most marginalised people. Clause 7 in the bill is concerning, and I understand several members have raised queries about the intended scope of this clause, which creates a new summary offence for using profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour towards a customer-facing worker, punishable by up to six months imprisonment. That is three times the current maximum for indecent language in public. It is in effect giving the state the power to jail people for swearing or using coarse language in a heated interaction in a cafe, supermarket or taxi, even where no physical harm occurs. We will have queries for the government around their intention when we come to the committee stage of this bill. Indecent and offensive language offences are widely recognised as archaic and inconsistently applied. They are inherently subjective, and they have historically been enforced in a discriminatory way against young people, people experiencing mental illness or distress, those with a cognitive disability and people living in poverty or homelessness. Extending these offences into workplace and private settings risks replicating those same problems on a larger scale without any credible evidence that this approach will improve safety for workers.

As has been noted already in the contributions to this debate, the government’s approach in this bill is also duplicative. There are already offences in the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act that cover assault, threats and intimidation, regardless of who the victim is. Those provisions are available today, here and now, to respond to serious abuse of retail, hospitality and transport workers. The answer lies, clearly, in proper enforcement of those existing laws but also – and that is where this bill falls down – in better workplace safety measures and investment in de-escalation training and support, not in creating duplicative offences and measures that will police everyday language and expand low-level public order policing.

The bill expands the indictable assault provision in section 31 of the Crimes Act by specifically adding customer-facing workers to the list of protected workers. The Greens do believe that this is duplicative and a bit of a performative act by the government, as all forms of assault against any person are already captured by section 31 of the Crimes Act. This bill does not create new protection beyond what is already in law, but what it may do is further criminalise people experiencing mental illness or distress or homelessness, who often come into contact with frontline staff during crisis situations. The proposed new offences are also likely to have a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people and other communities of colour because of racism and racial profiling. Aboriginal people and people of colour already experience discrimination and overpolicing in retail and transport settings, and they live with a well-founded fear of being targeted when complaints are made about their presence or behaviour or conduct in a retail setting.

The case of Aunty Tanya Day, who died in police custody after an unnecessary escalation involving transport staff and public intoxication, shows how easily these interactions – staff interventions and police involvements – can lead to tragic, unequal and unintended outcomes. This bill gives no regard to that dynamic or to the constructive role that workers, properly supported, can play in de-escalating tensions. If the government were truly serious about this important issue of keeping customer-facing workers safe, it would start by reducing the social crises that show up at the shop counter, not by expanding criminal law. That means properly funding mental health services, crisis accommodation and long-term housing so that people are not forced to live, sleep and end up in visible crisis in public spaces. It means investing in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, detox and harm reduction so that people can get help when they ask for it, instead of being turned away or left on waiting lists until things boil over – and that may be in a supermarket aisle or on a tram.

We also need models of support that de-escalate in these situations. That includes expanding outreach and co-responder teams with mental health and AOD workers who can attend incidents like this, sometimes in retail and transport settings, instead of the default response in these situations of conflict having to be police. The state could require and fund evidence-based de-escalation training and trauma-informed practice for employers and staff alongside clear guidelines that do prioritise worker safety instead of just zero-tolerance marketing slogans. And it should be talking with employers about secure employment and strong occupational health and safety standards so that workers are not left alone and under-resourced and expected to manage what are sometimes complex social problems without the backing of a properly funded support system.

In closing, I just want to say that protecting workers from violence is vital, which is why this bill, as drafted, is a disappointment. It has the potential to criminalise vulnerability. The expansion of some of the subjective offences is vague and requires further explanation of the government’s intent in committee. It risks deepening racial and social inequalities, and it is duplicative and does not actually involve an increase in protection through those offences, which are already crimes under the Crimes Act. There is more that the government could do to make workplaces safer. The Greens will not be supporting this approach today.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:50): I am delighted to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. This legislation is close to my heart. Prior to entering this place I was proud to work for 11 years as an organiser at the SDA union, where I had the privilege of representing retail and fast-food workers with their workplace issues and concerns. Throughout that time it was very clear to see that the issue of abusive customers was as widespread as it was corrosive to the wellbeing of staff. It is an issue that I was sad as well to observe becoming all the more exacerbated in recent years in the wake of the pandemic. The SDA has run a very successful campaign over many years now entitled No-one Deserves a Serve, which is aimed at targeting customer abuse from the lower level to the more extreme. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the SDA and to Victorian branch secretary Michael Donovan for his relentless advocacy in the interest of keeping workers safe through the No-one Deserves a Serve campaign and indeed through his advocacy for the legislation that is before us today. The campaign has been aimed at changing habits amongst customers and retailers themselves. At the pointy end it has led to the development of these and similar laws to combat violence against staff. This aggression exists on a spectrum, ranging from relatively minor abuse that retail staff have to endure on a near daily basis to the serious level of offending addressed by this bill.

One of the more depressing days which stands out for me was when I was undertaking a site visit to a supermarket in an affluent suburb of Melbourne. A 15-year-old was on their first shift of their very first job and in the first hour had already been abused by a customer. This was not an isolated example, and it is not something that these workers should ever have to accept as being just part of the job. We are, fortunately, moving away from the days when the mantra ‘The customer is always right’ prevailed. Many retail staff would know all too well the deflating feeling of an abusive customer being rewarded with a gift card by management to stop them complaining. In one particularly egregious case I represented a check-out cashier who had been given a warning simply because a customer had thrown a loaded bag of groceries at her head. The warning was overturned, but the message from her employer was clear. Today retailers are much more proactive in messaging to customers that the safety of their staff is paramount. I acknowledge their advocacy in this space for these reforms and thank them for it as well.

The bill that is before us today brings in tougher penalties for those who see fit to assault or violently abuse retail and other service workers, including those working in fast food, in hospitality, in public transport, including station attendants and bus drivers, and in shopping centre ancillary services, including cleaners and security staff. Also, crucially for these workers, an offence will be deemed to have been committed if it is perpetrated against one of these workers in connection with their duties, not necessarily merely in the course of the duties themselves. This means, for example, that an offender who finds a worker after their shift in the car park or at the station on the way home from their store or a railway worker coming out of the station depot who is then targeted because of their profession or from an earlier incident will be covered by this legislation.

The penalties for assaulting a worker defined under this bill will be uplifted to a maximum six months imprisonment for a summary offence and five years for a more serious indictable offence. Noting some of the misinformation that was put out by the Shadow Attorney-General, I can confirm for the house that the five-year penalty is found on page 3 of the bill, despite statements by the Shadow Attorney-General to the contrary, who apparently had not understood the bill. This bill also bears some familiarity to laws passed by this government in a previous term which increased penalties against those who assault frontline emergency services in recognition of the work that they do. There are some differences, however – notably the provisions in the emergency worker laws relating to obstruction or hindrance are deemed not to be required as relevant in the same way in this bill. But conversely, this bill will be unique in that it will consider the intimidation of a worker as constituting an offence. This reflects the fact that retail, fast-food and hospitality workers are much more likely to be younger or from vulnerable backgrounds than the general workforce, and it acknowledges the impact that this offending can have on people just getting started in the workforce.

I am also particularly pleased that the uplift to the maximum penalties in this bill both for summary and indictable offences will commence the day after royal assent, meaning that should this bill pass the chamber today, as I very much hope it will, these laws will be in place in time for Christmas this year. A further aspect of the bill, which will come into effect in March next year, will be the classification of ramraiding offences as aggravated burglaries, thereby also uplifting the maximum penalty for this type of offending to 25 years. This also reflects the significant impact such crimes can have on retail staff.

This legislation is very important to me, and indeed it was something that I advocated for in my first speech in this chamber. I have been privileged to assist with the formulation of these laws as part of the worker protection consultation group alongside the Attorney-General, who I thank for her work. With voices from workers, industry and the justice system at the table, the group was comprised of the SDA, the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association; the RTBU, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union; the TWU, the Transport Workers’ Union – I note I have got a former branch secretary and former national president of the great TWU sitting next to me right now; the UWU, the United Workers Union; industry groups, including the ARA, the Australian Retailers Association, and the Pharmacy Guild; as well as police, DPP and the department. This working group shaped the bill before us today. In addition, I appreciated the many conversations I had with various other stakeholders, including with both Metcash and Woolworths. As well as those mentioned, I would like to particularly acknowledge Lauren Johnson from the Attorney’s office for her dedication to this bill.

This bill is a major step forward, but it is not the only step. When this bill was tabled the Premier announced the second tranche of reforms in this space to keep retail workers safe, with legislation to implement workplace protection orders to be in the Parliament by April next year. Workplace protection orders, or WPOs, operate as an instrument of the courts to keep serious and often repeat offenders out of workplaces where they can harm and cause distress to customer-facing workers. Those who breach a WPO will then face further serious consequences in the court system. They are currently in effect in the ACT, and indeed also similar laws have just passed the Parliament in South Australia. The consultation group set up for this bill will now continue its work to develop and hone the model for WPOs in Victoria and how we will most effectively be able to implement them.

WPOs are important reforms, but they need to be done properly. I do note that in response to the Premier’s announcement of WPOs in Victoria, the opposition attempted to rush out a set of amendments to incorporate them into this bill in an effort to be seen to be perhaps relevant or proactive. Rushing in amendments at the last minute to make a political point, though, is not going to achieve the aim of doing these important reforms properly. Understanding that these were first moved in the Assembly and Mr Mulholland has moved, I believe, a similar set in the Council today – and I take the opportunity to acknowledge Mr Mulholland’s former membership of the SDA union as well – I am concerned about some of the potential issues that have been discovered in the way in which these amendments have been put forward, concerning specifically in some cases the wording of some of the amendments, where an offender may turn out to be required to be convicted of an offence before a WPO can be applied, which would dramatically delay their application. I note that the Liberals’ proposal for WPOs would completely shut the union out from the process as well. Given the rushed nature of these amendments as a reaction to the government’s announcement, I am not convinced that they have taken adequate consultation on them. This government will legislate WPOs, but we will do so properly.

As a further step, I am also pleased to note the policing operation over summer which will see police and PSOs deployed at select shopping centres. This is an important initiative, which will deploy frontline police and PSOs where they are needed to respond to incidents and be a visible force to provide workers and customers alike with the peace of mind that they deserve to have, especially in the busy shopping period ahead. This operation, like the bill before us today, is also about responding to the changing trends that we are seeing with crime in this state. As the nature of offending evolves, we are evolving our laws with it.

In the first speech I gave to this chamber three years ago, I remarked on my desire that the members I represented in my time at the SDA would always be front of mind in this place. Today I am proud to contribute to this bill passing and to making our workplaces safer for Victorian workers. I emphatically commend this bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:01): I also would like to say a few words on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. I do not think anyone is disputing that no-one wants to see workers at their place of work being abused, assaulted and harmed by customers. I think everyone in this chamber agrees on that from what I have heard so far. The real question is how to address that. I heard from Mr Mulholland earlier about how the Liberal Party formed the view that many of these things are effectively already covered by existing laws, and in fact that is my view as well. What we are seeing here with this bill is what I like to call a ‘double illegal’ bill, where the government need to act as if they are doing something so they make something that is illegal ‘double illegal’ so that they can tell everyone that they are doing something. But of course it has no real effect in the real world. You know, they can tell people that they are proud of the bill and that they are really happy about it and that all their union friends are happy about it, but the reality is everything that they are talking about in here is already a crime. It is already a crime to assault people. It is already a crime to break into stores. It is already a crime to ramraid stores. These are already crimes. The real problem is that the crimes are not being enforced, and if they are being enforced or found, the offenders are being let out again. That is one of the problems here.

Another problem is the incentives that are causing these crimes in the first place. I note that one of the biggest forms of crime is theft, in particular theft of tobacco products. That is a direct result of the federal government’s excise tax regime, which has caused an explosion in crime, both petty crime and organised crime, in this state. I do not wholly blame the state government for this as it is the federal government, but I will have more to say about the 14 authorised officers that are scheduled to be rolled out for the government’s tobacco licensing scheme and sent up against the entire organised crime apparatus in this state. I will be very interested to see how the government actually intends to make any impact whatsoever.

I also worked in hospitality once upon a time when I was a young man. I worked in a bar, and I also worked as a waiter. And yes, it is rough work. You get nasty customers. People say bad things to you, they abuse you and it is not nice. We do need to do something about it. What I would like to see is the government allowing shopping centre owners and small businesses that have these problems to be able to enforce property rights themselves. I note that recently we have had the expansion of the designated areas legislation, and the police have subsequently used that to designate the entire CBD a pat-down paradise zone for six months. They have expanded that more recently to shopping centres with PSOs, so shopping centres are also a pat-down paradise. But what they do not allow shopping centre owners to do is have security guards that can actually do anything serious. I would really like them to enable shopping centre owners to have security guards that are at least armed with pepper spray and can do something about people that are misbehaving in their store and abusing customers and hit back against these people. I think that it is wrong that we have effectively taxpayers paying to handle the security concerns of private businesses because those private businesses are not enabled to handle those security concerns themselves. All they can do is install CCTV, and some of them have got fogging systems and stuff now. I have seen that the local supermarket near me has got a fogging system. They can have security guards that stand there and check bags and things, but they cannot stop anyone doing anything. I would like to see the government allow them to have security guards that can actually do something and stop these people, put the PSOs out doing other things that are going to be higher value and not effectively subsidise the security of shopping centres.

As we have seen with these designated areas limiting people’s rights, I know that some shopping centre managers like the idea of this. I would be interested to see what their reaction is once their customers start getting randomly searched within their premises. They might change their mind on that, because people who run shopping centres focus a lot on customer experience, they focus a lot on customer service and that sort of thing and they focus on customer safety as well. If you have got PSOs going around and randomly patting down customers and waving wands over them – and it will have to be random of course, because if it was not random, then that would be racial profiling or something – I imagine that customer experience will not be so good.

So although I agree with Mr Mulholland on many of his conclusions about this bill and its ineffectiveness, these are the exact reasons that the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. I said a while ago that I will not be supporting any more ‘double illegal’ bills because really they are just legislative virtue signalling; they do not actually achieve anything. I think that the right approach here is to ensure that the current laws are being enforced, to ensure that people who are brought in and do commit these crimes suffer serious penalties, which can happen under the current laws but for some reason does not seem to be happening much, and to allow businesses to enforce their property rights with more capabilities than they have got now, because they do not really have much capability at the moment. At the moment they have the cameras. They have a security guard that stands there and watches people commit crimes but cannot really do anything; they have to call the police and wait for them to turn up. I do not think that Victorians want to get patted down by PSOs when they go to the shopping centre.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:08): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 to protect workers in customer-facing retail, fast-food, hospitality and passenger transport industries from harm. As my colleague David Ettershank has previously raised in this place, the Allan Labor government has failed to adequately respond to a surge in crime in retail settings in Victoria. According to data from the Crime Statistics Agency, there were over 41,000 incidents of theft from retail stores in the 2024–25 period, an increase of 27.6 per cent in the past year alone. Food theft has risen by over 80 per cent, and cigarette and alcohol theft by 58.6 per cent. While these statistics are gobsmacking, increased rates of shoplifting are symptomatic of a cost-of-living crisis in this state. It is concerning that this rise in abuse and violence towards retail staff is what we are seeing. According to the Victorian Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, or SDA, state secretary Michael Donovan, workers are being screamed at, spat on, shoved, dragged across counters, slashed and stabbed. That is just appalling. Data from the Australian Retailers Association shows that 51 per cent of workers experience physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers experience verbal abuse.

In my former professional life, before becoming a member of Parliament, I actually represented retail industry workers. I represented adult industry workers. I always like to reflect on my time there, because, interestingly, those businesses were more often than not self-regulating in this space around safety. Things like duress alarms, security cameras, internal training mechanisms and safety precautions were all part of the business model that the adult industry reflected upon, because everyone deserves to feel safe at work, no matter what they are selling or what kind of work they are offering. But increasingly, retail workers are confronted with violent harassment and abuse. It is not an easy job, but for many, it is often their first job. More than a third of the workforce is made up of young women between the ages of 15 and 24. We are deeply concerned that it is only a matter of time before a fatality occurs, particularly as we head towards the Christmas season, when demand on retail workers is at an all-time high.

Turning now to the details of this bill, it will introduce three new offences. This includes a new indictable offence for assaulting or threatening to assault an applicable worker in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. The maximum penalty for this offence will be five years imprisonment. This is modelled on an existing offence, but it will be easier to prove as it does not require an accused to have an intent to commit an indictable offence. Secondly, this bill will introduce a new summary offence for lower level assaults for applicable customer-facing workers in connection with the performance of their duties. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 60 penalty units or six months imprisonment. This is intended to be used in place of the existing common assault offence that it is modelled on, allowing for a doubling of the penalty.

Thirdly, this bill will introduce a new summary offence of without lawful excuse using language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards a protected worker in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 25 penalty units or six months imprisonment. This offence also builds on an existing offence but will not require the conduct to have occurred in a public place and will triple the existing maximum penalty of two months imprisonment.

Another notable element of this bill is that it will provide that the offence of aggravated burglary will apply when a person commits a burglary and uses a vehicle to cause damage to the building for the purpose of gaining entry to that building. This will ensure that ram raids are taken seriously when it comes to sentencing, recognising that a car is effectively being used as a weapon.

The final notable component of this bill is the requirement that it be subject to a statutory review within two years of commencement. It is particularly important to us that this legislation be reviewed, as it is nowhere near perfect. We have heard from legal stakeholders that a lot of what is in this bill seeks to merely duplicate offences and adds further unnecessary complexity. Statutory review will be essential to understanding whether these new offences end up being used at all and if there are any unintended consequences. We also want to make sure that the offence in this bill for language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting does not end up capturing people who are frustrated and may have dropped a swearword or two. We will raise this and other issues during the committee stage of this bill.

We are also deeply concerned that the impacts of this bill will not be felt equally. Data from the Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project has again showed that Aboriginal people are overpoliced. Aboriginal people are 15 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police officers than non-Aboriginal people and are 10 times more likely to have force used against them. This is despite Victoria Police claiming they banned racial profiling in 2015. We expect that if a statutory review shows that these new offences are not keeping workers safe and are instead targeting marginalised communities, these laws will be repealed. I reiterate: every person has the right to feel safe at work; no-one should be intimidated or threatened or harassed or harmed when they are in their workplace. But amid an epidemic of retail crime across this state, often young, inexperienced people are the ones who are put on the front lines, and they deserve better.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:15): I am pleased to make a contribution to this bill, which has been too long coming to this chamber. Just a few weeks ago we moved a motion calling for greater attention on what was happening with retail and hospitality workers, and the government voted against that motion. You have got to ask yourself how heartless, how thoughtless, how odd it is to vote against a motion that called for action on these matters. Now, finally, the government is pushing forward with a bill, desperately wanting to respond to what is a crisis in our community.

Mr Limbrick and others have spoken, and the points they made were right. There is agreement across the chamber that those in these hospitality and retail areas ought not be targeted by thuggish people, that they ought to be able to go to work safely, that they ought to have a pleasant work environment and that there should be protections for that, and we strongly support that. That is why we moved in the way we did. That is why we called for protection of retail workers. That is why we moved a motion in this chamber. But the government, the Premier, the Minister for Police, were very weak on these matters until their sort of conversion experience just a week or two ago where they realised that they were losing the battle in the community and the community had formed the view that the government did not care about crime, did not care about the epidemic of crime, did not care about the carjackings, did not care about the home invasions, did not care about the violence that was landing on people. And do you know what, they did not care about retail workers either.

When we moved that motion, Mr Welch, in his then new portfolio of industrial relations, spoke to the shop distributive union and had a very good conversation with them. I do not think he would mind me saying that he found that instructive. The fact is that those unions understand that the government has been slow, it has been incompetent and it has not been up to it. So we say yes, bring forward these changes. There are some amendments which will seek to improve the flaws in this hurried bill. Mr Galea tried to say the amendments were hurried, but the bill is hurried. I mean, that is the truth. The government has flapped around on this bill and has got no idea what it is doing. It has been slow. It has been absolutely sloth-like. It has been slow to get to the point where it thought it had better do something. Then just a week or two ago it realised, ‘Oh my goodness, we’re in deep trouble on crime.’ Clearly some polling came into Jacinta Allan’s office and she flipped. She then thought, ‘I’d better start doing something.’ Then there was this flurry of bills, many of them ill thought through, many of them not sharply focused and many of them too late in the day to have the best effect and to get the best result. So the bill is hurried, but it was very slow in its early genesis. It was very, very slow, but it is hurried in this later phase.

I have to say that the opposition see ways to improve this bill, and we will seek to improve it. But we will do so with the focus on helping those in the community and helping those in the retail sector and the hospitality sector in particular. I say that transport workers also deserve proper protection. Indeed we brought bills to this chamber in an earlier cycle to try and strengthen penalties, and there was no support out of the government at that point. There was no support out of the government when we sought to strengthen the penalties for those who were assaulted or threatened whilst going about their work as transport employees in a number of key areas. Bus drivers, train drivers, train staff – all of those workers deserve to have a safe and pleasant work environment. They do not deserve the threats that have become too much a part of these points.

Yes, the government has brought this bill. Yes, it was very slow in getting to the point where it thought it had better do something on these matters. As I say, it was only about a month ago that we had a motion in this chamber that the government voted down, shamefully.

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: It was attacking you because you were not doing anything. That is the problem. You did not seem to care and nor did anyone over that side of the chamber. All of the Labor people on that side of the chamber did not care. That is the truth of the matter. You did not care. I have to say that the Labor Party were in a position where they were not listening to the union movement, not listening to the community, not listening to the workers and not listening to the wave of people in the community saying, ‘Enough is enough. We don’t need more violence. We don’t need more threats. We don’t need more hostilities, more home invasions, more carjackings.’ I quoted a number of the retailers when I moved the motion. The major retailers are going off their tree on this. The major supermarkets, all of them, are going crazy about the fact that the government would not take the proper steps.

If the government had have listened a year ago, six months ago, three years ago, there would have been a better outcome here. Mr Galea then wants to say, ‘You’ll have to wait for a system of orders. You’re going to have to wait longer and longer for a system of orders.’ The attack on the government is that they did not do this previously. They had to be dragged to it by the community, who said to Jacinta Allan, ‘Enough is enough. We see that you don’t understand what’s going on in the community. We see that you don’t understand the threats and the violence that are in the community. We see that you have been dismissive of that for so long.’ They weakened the bail laws – that is a big part of it. The weakening of the bail laws by this government is a big part of what has gone wrong. The government has got to face up to its errors, its faults, its mistakes.

Nick McGowan: We’ve got a part-time police minister. He’s too busy at the races.

David DAVIS: He is probably one of the better ones, actually. He is actually trying to do something, but he has been stymied by the left of the Labor Party, who have blocked him at every possible turn. Leaving that aside, we will not be opposing this bill. We will be seeking to amend it. We will be seeking to introduce a system of orders. As I said, Mr Galea said they have been done too quickly. It is the government that has rushed this legislation at the last minute after it has panicked. I say it is not good enough. The community knows that this is a political response by the government, a political response at the last minute and a response that is not driven by the genuine care and concern for the community that should be driving it.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:23): I rise to speak to the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. I have just been listening to Mr Davis’s contribution, and he is quite right. About a month ago we were discussing this very issue of what is happening in our community and how the community feels, especially around retail workers, who have been let down by this government for far too long. What has been happening right across our community and across the state is a crime crisis that has escalated to a point where the vision has just been so appalling of what is happening in shopping centres, in our communities, in our streets, in our homes and – to the point of this bill – to the retail workers, the thuggish behaviour and the very aggressive behaviour that has accumulated.

I want to also place on record the work of my colleague David Southwick in prosecuting this case over many, many months – and others. As Mr Davis said, Mr Welch really brought to the fore a number of excellent points around retail crime. If you look at the stats, the stats tell a story and paint a picture about what is happening in Victoria on this very issue. Those leaders of corporations and businesses have spoken out against the government. We are coming into the busiest retail period of the year of course, with Christmas, and the government has panicked with the polls, knowing that this is a really big concern for the community and for those working in our retail shopping centres and retail outlets. It is appalling to see what is occurring with these thugs wielding machetes roaming around – they do not care, and they have got away with blue murder, quite literally, for far too long because the government has turned a blind eye. They have been soft on crime. Now they are trying to crank it up and pretend they are tough on crime.

David Davis interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, they are panicked because of the polls, Mr Davis. The polls are really slamming the Premier and her approach to crime. It has been appalling. There are a number of us who have been victims of crime or know people that have been victims of crime. I reckon everybody in this chamber would know someone who has been affected by crime in the last year or so. But again, in terms of the very significant crimes that have occurred in our state, it is disgraceful.

If I just talk about those stats that I mentioned, in Victoria retail crime is at a 10-year high. There is a theft from a retail store every 13 minutes. I hear this when I go around my electorate, and this has been happening for years down Chapel Street: these people just come in, and they take. They go into Malvern Central: they come in, they threaten and they just take goods. It is those businesses that are really suffering. In fact I was in a shop with my sister not so long ago down on Chapel Street, and the shop owner had to go and close the door because of what was happening out on the street. She said, ‘This happens all the time.’ It was quite alarming to think, ‘My God, these people are just going about their business, and they’re impacted by the behaviour and the out-of-control crime that it is, in our communities.’

In the last year in Victoria retail crime offences rose 20 per cent. I mean, these are massive figures. They are not insignificant, they are massive figures. And retail is the third-highest location for crime. In my area of Southern Metropolitan Region – I want to say this, because it just points to what I have been discussing – Port Phillip is up 38 per cent, Boroondara is up 29 per cent, Monash is up 24 per cent, Melbourne is up 23 per cent, Stonnington is up 16 per cent, Whitehorse is up 14 per cent and Kingston is up 9 per cent. These are real statistics that are impacting those retail workers, who are being subjected to this huge increase in crime every single day. And as I said, every 13 minutes it is happening.

Looking at some of those who have spoken out – and I want to commend them for doing so, the business leaders calling for action – the Coles chief executive Leah Weckert said in August:

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

Rebel Sport chief executive Anthony Heraghty said:

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

Reece chief executive Peter Wilson said Victoria was:

… “the toughest place in the country” to do business.

What an appalling –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: indictment. It certainly is, Mr McGowan. It is too hard and too expensive to do business in this state, and that is what we hear all the time from business leaders and small business owners. All the time they are just absolutely up against the wall. Whether it is energy costs, whether it is payroll taxes or state taxes that are being imposed or whether it is this retail crime and theft – trying to deal with that all the time – there is no wonder they have said it is the hardest place to do business. But it is also the most expensive place to do business.

The co-founder of Seek Paul Bassat said:

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

Again, it is a scathing indictment on the situation that we have in Victoria – but you do not hear it. I think it is disappointing. On this side of the house we have been talking to victims of crime and to those that have been impacted, whether it is somebody at home that has been subjected to crime or whether it is a business leader, like I have just said, or those retail workers. They are talking to us, and we understand. I do not think you can say the same about the government. They have had their heads in the sand for far too long on the crime crisis in Victoria, and this retail crime is a shameful indictment and black mark on the state and on this government, like so many other things.

I want to go back to some of the issues that have been spoken about in my area. The stores are being forced to close early, and that is affecting traders, staff and customers. The chief executive of Ritchies supermarkets – there are a number of Ritchies supermarkets in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region – Fred Harrison said that the revenue lost from shoplifting has doubled in the past three years to $15 million each year. These are just staggering figures, and somebody has got to pay for that. The consumer or the taxpayer pays for that, or the staff lose their jobs. They just say, ‘It’s too hard to do business; we’ll shut our business down.’ He said that while not one store in Queensland or New South Wales has been hit, in Victoria staff have been ‘pushed and punched’. When you have Bunnings and Woolworths staff wearing body cameras as a security measure, you know something is seriously wrong. Our state has declined into such a degraded state – that is what I am trying to say. The degradation is there for all to see. We see that in our communities, and this is just a reflection on the broader crime crisis that is impacting our communities.

At the Bernard Street, Cheltenham, IGA there have been a number of robberies in the past few years. In 2024 a group of knife-wielding youths assaulted a worker. In April 2025, this year, another group of armed offenders targeted the store again, terrifying the staff and demanding cash, cigarettes and goods. There are just countless stories that we hear every day. We have people coming into our offices, we have emails, we have phone calls and we have a whole lot of Victorians speaking about what is occurring, yet the government has just been way too slow to act on this. As Mr Davis said, the government has weakened the bail laws. It has led to a whole range of issues that have really been impacting the community on such a level, and now the government are pretending that they are tough on crime. They are bringing in offences, but if you look at the detail of the legislation, it is quite extraordinary to think that what they are spruiking and what they are spinning to the public is not actually what is in the legislation, and we are seeing that with legislation being introduced into the Parliament today in the other place.

On this side of the house, we are very, very committed to restoring community safety as a priority of government. Communities deserve to feel safe, whether that is in their home or whether that is in their workplace. Whether it is those retail workers or whether it is anyone that is running a business and supporting their workers, they want their workplace to be safe and they want workers to be safe. I think it is absolutely shameful that we have got to this state where those business leaders have called out what is happening in Victoria. I want to say again that it is definitely the case that in Victoria retail crime is escalating more than we are seeing in other states. We have seen a disproportionate increase in Victorian stores, no doubt about that.

Victoria is the toughest place in the country to do business. Whenever something is done in this country that is anti business, the reality is there is a good chance it is being done in Victoria. These are business leaders who know what they are talking about. They employ tens of thousands of people, and they want those people to be safe at work. They want them to earn a good salary and to know that they will be able to come back to work and that they will be safe in doing so. They are fed up with it, they are sick of it, and I think it demonstrates again why the government just a month ago voted down our motion on this very issue. We brought the motion because they were failing to act on this very important issue. They voted it down. Here we have a bill, and I do hope that the government supports the coalition’s amendments, which will make this bill a better bill than it is now.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:34): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. My colleague Ms Copsey has already covered many of the details of the bill and the impacts of its various provisions on retail settings and the broader community. What I would like to cover more are some of the engagements that my office has received or engaged in with respect to the lived experiences of retail workers right across the state, and there is no question that they are facing aggressive and abusive behaviour that we should be doing far more to prevent and respond to in a way which is evidence based. Earlier this year my team ran a survey of sorts asking retail workers about their experiences in retail settings across the state, and I want to share with you some of what we heard. This is just a handful of more than 500 responses like this that my office received:

My first day a man came in and verbally abused staff because we weren’t allowed to return vitamins. Many people stole, we had to work as security when the security guard went on breaks.

Employees are forced to do bag checks resulting in abusive behaviour from customers.

Customers yell at us about the cost of products despite us only being pharmacy assistants.

even as a minor I would have older men hitting on me or making inappropriate comments.

A customer pulled a knife on me, the owner told me to get used to it. Didn’t ask if I was ok, didn’t offer any mental health support.

Workers in this country are doing it tough, and they have been for a very long time. That has not changed under the federal Labor government, and it has not changed under our state Labor government either. It is the result of a system that puts corporate profits and capital growth above the interests of workers in these settings and the broader community, and this legislation unfortunately does nothing to help with this. These workers are on the frontlines of aggression and abuse, which, speaking in an intersectional lens, is often misogynistic in nature, it is often racist and it is often homophobic or transphobic in nature. Time and time again we hear that bosses are not doing enough to support their workers facing abuse in these settings. Whether it is understaffing causing long wait times and aggravating customers, whether it is raising prices beyond what people can afford or refusing to pay for adequate security, corporations know that it is the workers on the ground who will face the consequences, not the bosses.

Until workers in the community are able to come together to negotiate safer staffing, better safety standards and better mental health support, this situation will not change. We know that duplicating or increasing penalties for criminal behaviours that are already illegal does not reduce crime. We need stronger social supports to stop violent behaviour before it occurs. That means more access to mental health services. It means more stable housing. It means drug and alcohol harm reduction measures. We need alternate first-responder models to de-escalate these situations when and where they occur, to respond when something is escalating in a way that is evidence based, for example, responding to someone experiencing mental health crisis or someone who is experiencing the impacts of drugs or alcohol use. We need an evidence-based response with an alternate first responder model. These are the services that this government needs to be investing in, not underfunding. These measures will help make retail workers safer, not duplicate or expand penalties that sound good but are simply not effective. My Greens colleagues absolutely want to see retail workers safe in their workplaces, but this bill will not see that occur. We will not be supporting it.

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (15:38): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. It is about time this bill was brought to this chamber. We heard many contributions in relation to the increase in retail crime. I will say that my contribution relates not only to this bill but several bills of a similar pattern relating to why we are speaking on these amendments. Like everything else, shopping theft is a common occurrence. With 28 years of policing, I will tell you now that shoplifting is a common thing. But unfortunately, what we have here now is an issue that has risen and concentrated over many, many years, and it has accumulated until it has become a crisis. It has become a crime crisis where now people are not just taking or stealing items from shops and retail stores but committing acts of violence against another person where the other person is getting injured, spat on, assaulted and is fearing for their own safety. That is of great concern.

Like on everything else, this government has refused to act when it has been asked, when it has been pushed and questioned. They refuse to act on what the community wants. Like everything else, you need to identify what the situation is. You need to acknowledge it is happening before you actually find solutions. In this chamber we have tried to warn the government. We have tried to tell the government what is happening. Retail theft has been occurring over the years; it has not just happened in the last six months. I have been raising retail crime over the last two years in relation to how it has increased. Not only has the violence been increasing to staff, but also there is the organised crime behind retail theft. As my colleagues mentioned in this chamber, we have tried to warn the government. We have tried to raise motions, and yet they are dragging their feet.

Unfortunately, this is a reactive government that backflips on things. They do not listen to the community or workers until the very last minute, when it comes to a crisis; then they just react. That is what is happening here. We are in these situations because this government has been soft on crime. It has gone backwards. It has weakened legislation and weakened bail laws and has in a way given an impression to those offenders that there are no consequences. All this has built up to a crime crisis, and not just retail crime. I have spoken to this on many other bills. All these situations have contributed to a large increase in crime in Victoria, in this state. As we see with this particular bill, we are talking about retail crime and violence at work itself. Like I said, the consequences of weakened bail laws and weakening legislation are why we are here.

As I mentioned, this bill has finally come to the chamber, and I welcome this bill because it actually addresses something that we have pushed for on this side of chamber. The creation of the new worker harm offence is for those who assault, threaten or use abusive behaviour directly to customer-facing workers in the retail, fast-food, hospitality and passenger transport industries. Just think about it: the majority of these people are young teenagers trying to find extra money working in retail stores or shops, whether it is Coles or fast-food stores. They are trying to get an extra buck, and they are getting assaulted and threatened on a regular basis.

On my recent visit to a Woolworths in Werribee – and not just recently; I also did it last year – I spoke to the managers there, the senior staff. They have raised concerns with me over the last two years. It is alarming to hear staff say, ‘I’ve been assaulted and threatened on a regular basis.’ Kids and teenagers at the age of 15 are trying to earn extra pocket money doing extra shifts, and they are being assaulted on a regular basis. Unfortunately, as a result, these staff are fearful for their life and are not likely to return to work. That is not the kind of society we want. As a result of that, the instruction from management, who try to protect their staff – and rightly so – is to tell their workers: ‘Do not confront these shoplifters.’ Too often these shoplifters, when confronted, instead of dropping the item and leaving or denying it, react in violence and aggression. That is what we are seeing at the moment. Why? Again, they know the legislation, the law, and that under this government there are no consequences. They get arrested for a theft and then they get charged, but they know they are going to get released. Whether it is a first offence, a second offence or their 20th offence, the possibility that they are going to be released is 99.9 per cent, because the government and the Greens are constantly pushing for it and saying, ‘Theft is just a minor offence.’ It is not when you start threatening staff, when you start using violence, when you start abusing staff or when you are using tools to get away from staff. It may be theft, but it is not an indictable offence. Whether it is $1 or $100, it is still theft. If you think it is just a minor offence, it is not a minor offence when they continue committing it time after time. So wake up, government, Greens and the other minor party, Legalise Cannabis, who are constantly saying these are only minor offences. They are not minor offences when you start committing serious indictable offences and start assaulting people who are just trying to do their job.

I know my colleague quoted various percentages and increasing numbers in relation to this crime crisis. I just want to refer to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Committee for Melbourne community safety and business impact survey. Ninety-two per cent of employers stated their concern for staff safety has increased – that is 92 per cent, almost every employer. Seventy-four per cent stated safety and crime issues have directly influenced their major business decisions. That is whether they close the store, reduce the hours or not sell certain things – how they want to run their business. We want to invest in this state – seventy-four per cent said that. Forty-nine per cent of businesses – half of the survey responses – stated safety and antisocial behaviour had worsened over the past years. Why? There are no consequences under this Labor government – constantly no consequences, constantly getting bail. This is not just theft. Think about all the serious offences in the past two years. You hear it on the news. What happened? Bail after bail. It was not theft; it was much more serious than that, yet they got released. Just think about it. The Labor government and the Greens attitude towards shoplifting is that it is only a minor offence. Think about it. Consequences? None whatsoever under this Labor government.

The Crime Statistics Agency Victoria confirmed an enormous 41,667 incidents of theft or shoplifting from retailers in 2025 – 101 per day, 27.6 more than last year, constantly increasing. Thankfully, the Labor government has finally listened. This bill inserts section 31(1)(b), creating an indictable offence for assaulting or threatening customer-facing workers. Finally they are listening and coming to the table. Basically what this says is if there is intent to commit a crime against a worker, you are committing an indictable offence. Hopefully what that means is you will be charged – and hopefully we will speak about the bail thing another time in relation to trying to strengthen the bail bill – and that you will get remanded if you keep assaulting workers.

This bill, thankfully, has also created an offence for using profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting language against staff. It is about time they actually come to the table and create this offence. I know it is only a summary offence, but it is an offence. Hopefully that will show the community that this bill has some sort of merit to it. However, I do stress this bill does not increase the penalty for assault on workers. Unfortunately, they are still dragging their feet on the other side of the chamber. The bill merely tinkers at the edges with the expansion of the definition of what indictable assaults on workers are. It does not come with an expansion of protections for retail workers.

Before closing, I do stress I am thankful that they actually came to the table. Hopefully they will listen to our amendment to try to strengthen this bill. We do owe the workers their privileges in relation to their rights as citizens. But before my closing remarks, I want to mention one glaring omission that the bill has missed: workplace protection orders, which are used to address current retail theft crises in other states. Other jurisdictions under Labor governments in other states, such as South Australia and Western Australia, are preparing for workplace protection orders to be drafted into law at the moment. New South Wales confirmed they are looking closely at these orders, as are the ACT, yet this government in Victoria is just dragging its feet. I hope those like Mr Galea and those who are members of the SDA will strongly support and advocate for this. To finish off, take the word of Acting Sergeant Mick Serbatoio, who said in October that in the eight months that workplace protection orders have been used in ACT police have noticed a total change in behaviour, where offenders have disappeared off of their screens. That is coming directly from the police officers where the workplace protection orders are in place.

Finally, I refer to the media release the Premier put out back in May 2024:

Premier Jacinta Allan today announced the Labor Government will change the law to send a clear message that attacks against retail and other customer-facing roles like transport and hospitality workers are unacceptable.

If the Premier stands by her media release, she needs to accept that the way to do this is to introduce workplace protection orders and really put some backbone behind this bill which we are talking about today. This will send the strong message the Premier wants us to believe this bill will bring about today.

As a finishing remark, I wish all workers a safe and merry Christmas. I hope you go about doing your duty, doing your job, without any confrontation from offenders. Again, I thank all those who have contributed today in this very busy festive season.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:51): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly about the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. Crime is a huge issue in northern Victoria. I am aware of students recently that went into a shop in Bendigo and were confronted by someone coming in and stealing a whole lot of goods. I have heard the same from local businesses that have been confronted by people coming in and abusing them. I think we have all said in this chamber today how important it is that our retail workers, those working in hospitality, Uber drivers and others are safe. I have two kids with summer jobs, and during the year they work in the industry, in hospitality, and they are on the front line as workers are now.

The Premier did say back in May 2024 – well, there was a promise made to protect retail workers, but here we are in December 2025 and what we are seeing is the introduction of a bill that enables the government to do a media release. But as we have heard in the chamber today, it has little effect on what actually happens. I know Mr Mulholland and Mr Limbrick spoke to that earlier. We have seen news reports. I know the Age reported in September that:

Victorian retail workers are dealing with a crime every five minutes as the state grapples with an “alarming” crime crisis that shows no signs of getting better.

We have heard that both verbal and physical abuse towards customer-facing workers has reached very worrying levels. We know that unions and employers have raised concerns, but we have all raised concerns certainly and share those concerns.

I know the Department of Justice and Community Safety provided some data when they were looking into this bill. It is interesting to see some of the statistics. It states that in response to a survey of Australian Retailers Association members, the ARA reported in June 2025 that, anecdotally, 51 per cent of retailers surveyed said they experienced physical abuse monthly or more often and 87 per cent of retail workers experienced verbal abuse. Additionally, 55 per cent of transport workers undertaking gig work – including food delivery, parcel delivery and rideshare – who responded to a Transport Workers’ Union survey reported experiencing threatening or abusive behaviour, with 43 per cent noting the risk of being abused by a customer as a significant concern to them. Data released by the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency is consistent with this. The CSA report for the year ending June 2025 showed recorded retail crime offences in Victoria rose 20 per cent, and that is up to nearly 100,000 – up to 99,114 – from the previous year. The CSA data also reported that assault and related offences in retail settings increased 21 per cent year on year. That is extraordinary. To quote Chris Rodwell from the Australian Retailers Association:

We’re seeing a criminal offence at least once every five minutes in a retail setting, an assault every couple of hours and cases of aggravated robbery and weapon-related offences daily or more.

I know my Nationals colleague Ms Benham in the other house shared a couple of instances that have happened in Mildura recently, and it is appalling to hear what has been reported. There were two cases where there was a spree of shoplifting. A young woman was one of them. In one of those situations the retail workers went and approached them because they were conscious that shoplifting had been taking place. They got stabbed with a syringe while working. The magistrate did acknowledge that there has been a tsunami of criminal cases, and not just in Mildura but across the state. But as Ms Benham pointed out, these offenders were released on bail. As Mr Trung Luu mentioned earlier, the weakened bail laws are contributing to the situation that we find ourselves in now.

We know that there is a lot of retail crime that does not get reported. I have spoken with business owners that are very concerned about reporting issues; they are afraid about getting retaliation. I was shocked recently to see that there are now self-defence classes being subsidised by the City of Greater Bendigo in Bendigo because we are so aware of the issues that we have in our community, and we continue to see the crime rates go up and up across all areas. We know that we have had the ‘toughest bail laws’, and then we saw further legislation to toughen the toughest bail laws. But the response of this government has been very slow, and very odd in some cases. We saw $13 million spent on the machete bins, which are under cameras, expecting criminals and others to come up and drop off their machetes. I certainly know that a lot of law-abiding citizens have done that, but I am not so sure about those that should be returning them. But here we are again with this legislation that brings in changes that are just expanding definitions but possibly not going to address the issues.

We have said very clearly that if a Liberal and Nationals government is elected next year, we will introduce a number of changes to really tackle this crime crisis that we are facing head on, and Jack’s law is one of those – to allow the police to search people for knives. There will also be tougher policy on breaching bail to combat Victoria’s record crime rates. We have talked about the need for rehabilitation programs and prevention programs, because that is very important. There are so many different aspects to addressing this crisis. I know we held a crime forum in Kangaroo Flat, and I have had listening posts in Kennington. Wherever I go across northern Victoria, even at Wodonga last week, residents do raise the issue of crime.

This is, as I mentioned, rushed legislation. I know Mr Walsh in the other house talked about the workplace protection orders and how important they are, and as Mr Mulholland pointed out, we have put forward amendments to be considered by this chamber. But Mr Walsh in his contribution talked about the number of organisations that have been really pushing for this – places like Woolworths, IKEA, Myer, Kmart, 7-Eleven and Bunnings – and asking that the government introduce workplace protection orders and implement legislation that enables courts to issue enforceable orders restricting high-harm repeat offenders from engaging in violence, threats or harassment in and around retail workplaces. I know Mr Galea talked earlier about the further work that is going to be done, but it should have been done, and this needs to be a priority for this government. We have seen this legislation in other areas, such as the Australian Capital Territory. A police sergeant in the ACT police said that in the eight months that WPOs have been used in the ACT police have noticed a total change in behaviour where offenders have just disappeared off their screens. So some good outcomes have been delivered by having those WPOs in place, but as has been mentioned, this bill certainly does not have that.

I know our electorate offices, as I have mentioned before, have security. We have the ability to lock the front door. We have glass screens. My office is right in the middle of Bendigo and we have this incredible security in place, and yet all the other shops and retail stores in Bendigo do not have that. Their staff are vulnerable, and they are feeling threatened in many, many instances. I have spoken to people about a number of different issues that have been happening. So more needs to happen. This bill certainly does not go far enough. We do think of all those workers during Christmas who are flat out as we head towards a very, very busy season, and we do want to see them safe and protected. But as I said, this bill will not do that.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:01): I will tell you what: if incompetence was an Olympic sport, those opposite would be gold medallists in every discipline imaginable. What a hopeless bunch we have opposite. For years and years and years those opposite were warned that we had issues not only in our retail centres, not only in our shopping strips, but right across Victoria. And do you think those opposite bothered to listen once? No, they did not. This has been years in the making, and in very many respects what this actually symbolises is a complete abandonment of the workers by the Labor Party. I will repeat it: it is the complete abandonment of the workers of this state by the Labor Party. It has been going on like some sort of insidious behavioural sort of pattern. They have continued to persist with ignoring workers rights, ignoring workers in this state and in fact ignoring everyone – not only workers but families, young people, seniors, you name it. It is only when this government –

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I am happy, Minister, to take the label of ‘champion of the workers’, because very sympathetically, the ministers opposite have failed in every test they have been set for the last three years, and we are going now into the fourth year. They have absolutely failed. Whether it be WorkCover and even when there is an established injury to individual workers, you are now cutting them off at the knees. Literally that is what you have done to the workers of this state. You have ignored them for three years straight. It is that simple. For three years straight you have done nothing. You have done nothing to support workers, who every day either help us when we go and buy something in a shop or assist us when we are going to put petrol in our car. Whatever it is they are doing, whether they are helping wait a table and serve us food, no matter what they do, those opposite have been relentless in their ignorance and in their failure to act. It is that sad. We have seen this state become a state where we actually do not stand up for those who are doing the right thing, and that is what we are talking about here. We have actually failed as lawmakers, and this government has monumentally failed.

Just keep in mind for a moment that the Premier said back in April she would address this issue, and suddenly, at the last moment, in the last sitting week of this year, they have rushed through this legislation. They have done so, guess what, without a single aspect of it actually providing a protection order. Every survey imaginable says that 90 to 100 per cent of Victorians support protection orders for our workers. Yet what has this government done in this legislation? Zero. So while those opposite in the past might have wanted to lecture all of the rest of us about workers rights and doing the right thing by the workers, the truth is they have been absolutely abandoned by the Allan Labor government. They should even consider taking the word ‘Labor’ out of their title and just calling it ‘party for self’, because that is sadly what this government have become. They have become a party for themselves. They have been dragged kicking and screaming and fighting their own people, fighting their own unions. Even just yesterday the Premier was out there making all sorts of scurrilous, ridiculous, baseless accusations against members of the United Firefighters Union, saying they were trespassing.

These are firefighters who have a duty. They have a call-out area, and they have a duty to make sure that public safety is the foremost concern. Yet here we have the Premier of the state taking a whack at them, the very people who in 60 per cent of cases will be called out as first responders. If there is a cardiac arrest, if there is a car incident or if there is a fire that threatens either person or property, they will be the people who save Victorians, and yet our Premier was out yesterday absolutely canning them and accusing them of trespassing. Do you know why they were being accused of that? Because they had the audacity to stand up and say it is unsafe and had the audacity to say that their radios do not work. When we send our firefighters down into a tunnel, guess what, they cannot communicate with each other. They cannot protect each other, much less protect the public. This government’s response to that was to shut them down, shut them out and use government resources – that is to say, use taxpayer-funded money – to fight them in the courts, throw barristers at them, throw lawyers at them, throw solicitors at them and take them to Fair Work. In fact they have made sure that we do not give a single firefighter in this state a single cent in a pay rise for five years straight. This is how this government has treated workers.

It is not a surprise that three years into these four years of government they have taken to giving reforms and giving protections to workers in the retail space so belatedly and so haphazardly. It is haphazard because it simply does not provide the protection orders that we ourselves know retail workers are crying out for. If you can rush through all this legislation at the last moment, then what stops you also putting those protection orders in place? What is so insignificant? What is so wrong about our workers that you do not want to stand up for them? What is it you have got against the workers of Victoria that you are happy to come into this place and push through all this other legislation? We are happy to sit here. We will come back. We will come back next week. We will come back the week after. We will come back on Christmas Eve if that is what it takes to put through real protections for workers in this state that include protection orders. But no, Labor has no intention of doing that.

Do you know what Labor is going to do? This government is actually going to string it out even longer. There is no regard at the most critical time for retail workers, which is the Christmas period. There will be absolutely no protection in place for our retail workers in this state when it comes to protection orders for them, because this government simply did not get around to it, having known about the problem and having helped manifest the problem because they sat on their hands and did nothing. All they have done for three years straight is lecture workers about what they should and should not do, take away their rights in terms of compensation for mental health and undermine their own unions time and again. Their own unions are having to fight the Labor Party to make their point. Just the other week we were sitting in this same chamber talking about protections for those workers who have signed non-disclosure agreements. It took months and months. It took way too long. There we had Trades Hall crying out for it, and it took this government months, if not years, to actually deliver on that commitment, for no other reason than it simply was not their priority.

Yet we have seen crime run rampant across this state. The saddest part of all is that it is not simply about protecting our workers. What it is also about is protecting not only Victorians who are based here and Australians who live here but also our immigrants and our migrant communities. All of us know that our country is heavily dependent on migrants who come here, study here and work here part time, and we have provided them little to no protection at all. Every time you care to go into a service station in this state, you well know that we are supported in an awesome way by our immigrant population, who are either here temporarily or permanently perhaps, because they might have a stream to permanent residency and so forth. But I tell you what, we have done nothing to protect them.

What is worse than that is that we have actually sat back while seeing people going into shops, as my colleagues have described here today, and literally picking up groceries, berries, apples and oranges, not paying for them, putting them in their bags and walking straight out of the shop. Keep in mind Coles does not even report theft now that is under $500. The degree of the under-reporting of theft in this state is through the roof every single day in Victoria: ‘Welcome to Victoria. Come and see how Victorians do retail crime really well and how the government here fails to protect workers.’ I tell you what, it is happening every second of every day in Victoria. What is worse is that we have allowed it to exacerbate to the point that it is actually becoming graduated behaviour. While initially those people who are thieving and stealing from companies, from small businesses and from individuals might just take what is on the shelf and walk right out – I have witnessed that myself – the person behind the counter has no way of knowing that that is the case. The person behind the counter has no way of knowing whether that person has a knife, a machete, a gun or any other implement or whether they might come up to them and their behaviour might start being graduated. That is to say, they will simply go, ‘Do you know what? If I can just take anything off the shelf here’ – because they just let it rip in Victoria and that is the Labor government way; they can just take whatever they like – ‘then I’m going to turn my attention to the poor cashier or the worker.’ They will say to that worker, ‘While I’m here, why don’t you give us your cash? Hand that over too.’ And then in every instance – not only those where the worker is confronted but those where they are not – they are terrified.

This has not been going on for weeks, it has not been going on for months; it has been going on for years, and those opposite and this awful, rotten so-called Labor government have stood by and abandoned the workers of this state and allowed them to be traumatised. The other aspect here that we must remember is that, by and large, a good proportion of our workers in the retail sector are young people, our very youngest people, our most vulnerable people, those who are making the effort themselves to get off their backsides and earn themselves a living, earn themselves some pocket money between school –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: It is high school students I am talking about here. Between university – that is, college and university – between TAFE and all the studies they are trying to do to support themselves, these young men and women are doing their darnedest not only to make a bit of pocket money for themselves and see themselves through but so they can actually perhaps put money away to be able to afford an unaffordable house under this government. They are doing all the right things, and yet from day one this government has actually failed to protect them. They have failed to step in to protect young people. They have failed to step in to protect retail workers. They have failed to step in to protect workers. In fact they have completely abandoned the workers of Victoria.

What is worse, by the end of the term of this government – we are three years into four – they are already turning on all their unions, from Trades Hall to the Health Services Union to you name it. I could list almost every union this government has fallen out of favour of. And you have got to ask yourself the question at some point: who is the problem? Is it all those unions who represent workers and employees, or is it those opposite? Because I tell you what, it is looking like it is those opposite, and the public know that is absolutely the truth.

Yet they have the gall to come into this place today and pretend this is business as usual: ‘We promised to deliver this.’ No, in fact, you promised to deliver it in April of this year. That was Easter. Heads up, news release: it is Christmas. We are weeks away from Christmas. We are weeks away from the busiest time of year when it comes to retail workers. And even now as I stand here, even after today, notwithstanding we have some amendments to put forward, the truth is that this will be completely incomplete, completely inconsistent with the other states in Australia, which have already done the right thing by workers, and that is by including protection orders. You cannot tell me this government did not have time to think about it; of course they did. But do you know what – like everything they do, they are just going to string it out. Why? Because they want to suck people in. They are not interested in people’s protection.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Yes, they put another media release out. They are not interested in people’s safety, they are not even interested in workers and they are certainly not interested in their own unions anymore. We can see that, crystal clear. It is there for everyone to see. But what they are going to do is they are going to string it out all the way to the election and make it look like they are providing some sort of gift. It is like you have got one gift for this Christmas and one gift for the next.

But I tell you what: before the next Christmas comes, the Grinch is going to come, hopefully, and pay a visit to those opposite. I tell you what, the present from the Grinch to those opposite is going to be zero, Fanny Adams, not much – not much for you guys. That is your scorecard: zero out of 10. I am generous – I will give you one out of 10 for showing up. At least you did show up; I will give you one out of 10. But one out of 10 probably overrates the extent to which you have responded to the crisis, a crisis which is in large part of your own making.

In all seriousness, that is the saddest aspect of this legislation today: the fact that we should even need this, the fact that this should be in place. What has happened is those opposite have fundamentally lost touch with those in the community. They are absolutely out of touch. They have got a tin ear. It has taken them months and months and months. Let us not forget, just some short months ago, had there been an awful result – that is for those opposite; not for me, but for those opposite – and the federal government had lost its way and had not been elected, then the Premier and the minister sitting there today may not be the same Premier and minister sitting here right now. Those opposite know it. It is a hard thing to cope with, but they know that there is more fractiousness in those opposite than there is on this side now. It is a lovely turning of the tables, and it is precisely timed – it is well timed indeed.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! I am on my feet. Can we stop yelling at each other. We are nearly there, Mr McGowan. And Mr Galea, can we do this without assistance.

Nick McGOWAN: Thank you for that call to order. It is a great opportunity to call to order, because it has taken the better part of the entire speech for those opposite to actually find their backbone and stand up for workers. But even then, guess what: they were not standing up for workers just then, they were standing up for themselves yet again. When the criticism came on themselves, they were all too happy to stand up and protect themselves, but when it was about the Victorian worker, silence. You could hear crickets in this place – not a word to be said for the Victorian worker.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr McGowan, please, with no assistance.

Nick McGOWAN: I do not mind the assistance if it helps, because that assistance just simply gives voice to the concerns, the anguish and the anger from the Victorian workers. Those opposite, once upon a time, perhaps understood what it meant to be a worker. I mean, I do not know the last time any of you actually had a real job over there, to be honest with you. You have been in government so long, you have actually just gone from one government to the next. You have gone from one position to the next. It would do you some good to actually get behind a desk and serve and be in their shoes for one moment. Because if you did, I proffer this to you: rather than giving us this piece of legislation here today, which is completely incomplete as you all know to be the case, you would actually be putting forward legislation that provided a protection order for those workers in this state that absolutely deserve the best protection we can afford – not the political expediency of those opposite, who are now going to string this out, who are going to actually leave every single worker in Victoria.

I want to finish my speech today on this. Every worker in Victoria should hear this loud and clear: you do not have the full protections that those in other states have because this government have chosen to delay any implementation of any kind of orders that would protect you in the workplace. That is the truth. It is hard to swallow. In fact we are happy to come back here next week and put that legislation through if you want to do that. But the truth is you are going to string it out and they will not have that protection over Christmas – and they are owed every protection because they are the youngest and most vulnerable workers in this state.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Just before Dr Heath starts, I ask that when people are yelling they pay attention to the Chair. Standing is dangerously like exercise, and I do not want to keep on having to do it.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:16): I just want to start off by saying I completely agree with Mr McGowan’s contribution. That is not drama; that is the truth of what it is like to be a worker in the state of Victoria. Labor has abandoned the mantle of being the party of the worker. They do not protect the worker, and they bring in half-cocked measures like this for headlines. I just want to say: walk into a shopping centre in Victoria and ask the staff how they are feeling – or even better yet, ask parents of the staff how they are feeling. It was not long ago that I brought a story to this place of a constituent that contacted my office because her 16-year-old teenage daughter got her first job at a check-out and was told she had to wear a body camera – at Woolworths.

The numbers, which we have all heard and read, tell us why. According to the Australian Retailers Association, from July this year 51 per cent of retailers are experiencing physical abuse monthly or more. Over half are experiencing physical abuse every month – that is unbelievable. Eighty-seven per cent report verbal abuse. Unfortunately, that has become the new normal in Victoria. I really hope that this is not going to be, but I think it is, another situation like we have with bail in this state, where every time the government come under pressure and feel a crisis, they come in and they rush in new laws which they have not thought through, because they have got to be seen to be doing something. It is unacceptable, and I believe it is immoral. The Crime Statistics Agency’s data is even worse. In the 12 months to June this year we saw 99,114 offences, up 20 per cent in just one year. Retail theft jumped 26 per cent. Retail assaults jumped 21 per cent. And now we are seeing 638,000 criminal offences in Victoria. That is 200,000 more than it was when Labor first took the reins in government. To put that into perspective, Victoria now accounts for 35 per cent of the whole nation’s crime incidents – 35 per cent is happening right here in this state. I tell you what, the statistics and the truth do not line up with Labor’s feel-good narrative; it is not even close.

The government has really shown us where its values and its true priorities lie. The Premier knew about this crisis years ago, but to be generous I will say the Premier knew about this 18 months ago. That is 18 months of waiting while workers have been assaulted, businesses have installed security measures and more than 350 businesses in Victoria have closed their doors every single day. More than 350 small businesses have had their dreams crushed because the environment is so unacceptable in Victoria, whether it is taxation, regulation or just that crime is absolutely out of control. Just about every week in the main street of Pakenham windows are kicked in by young kids on bail, and guess who has to pay for that? Business owners, and the increasing cost of doing business because of these –

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Renee HEATH: I will pick up on Mr Erdogan’s interjection there about bail laws. Labor should actually stop and think through their bail laws, which they have had to change five times in the last two years because they cannot manage to get it right.

Over 129,000 businesses closed in 2024 alone, and that number has continued to escalate. Victoria has seen the second-largest number of businesses moving to other states or territories, a net loss of 3254 businesses – shocking statistics that do not line up with their narrative. Business leaders are not exactly being subtle about this either. The CEO of Coles said:

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

The CEO of Reece called Victoria the ‘toughest place in the country’ to do business. So when you read this, from the co-founder of Seek:

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

That is not partisan. This is business leaders. This is business CEOs just spitting the truth. It is not going to be your shout-outs and your headlines and the cheap politics that we are seeing that are going to attract business back into this state. Victorian businesses are completely fed up, and they are moving interstate in their droves. This is a systematic failure of governance, and businesses are responding rationally by leaving, and I think it is a crying shame. If Mr McIntosh was in the chamber at the moment, he would be yelling out things like ‘Why do you hate Victoria’ and all this sort of stuff, all this ridiculous propaganda. The reality is it is our love for Victoria that is causing us to stand up for what is right and to try to amend legislation to make it better. I really hope, by the way, when Mr Mulholland brings his amendments that you will absolutely support them.

This government has form when it comes to legislation that sounds tough but actually achieves nothing meaningful. For example, what was it you called them – ‘toughest bail laws’? Is that what they were? ‘Toughest bail laws’ they called them. However, they skimmed over the fact that those toughest bail laws were still weakening bail further from what it was in this state 18 months prior, but that is an aside. They announce reforms with incredible fanfare, some new banners, a couple of press conferences, but then what they actually deliver falls short of what is needed and it does not even go close to fixing the problem. I am just going to skip forward due to time, because I think it was Mr Galea who said that it was bulldust, essentially, what we were saying in comparing laws to other states.

I will quickly touch on workplace protection orders, which are not in this bill. Who knows when they will do them. They say they will do a lot, but okay – watch this space, I guess. But it is not just that the penalties are weak; this bill is missing one thing that would actually work, which is workplace protection orders. The one thing that industry experts have been crying out for is ignored in this bill. If you are not familiar with these, I will explain. A workplace protection order is like an intervention order but specifically for workplaces. It allows courts to ban violent or repeat offenders from even entering retail premises. It is a simple concept that is proven to work. That change alone, that one change, would make retail workers, young kids that are getting their first jobs, instantly safer. It would give their parents peace of mind. But the government has not even been able to do that. The evidence is overwhelming. Allow me to compare some of this legislation to what is happening in other states. In the ACT police reported what they called a total change in behaviour, with offenders just disappearing off their radar. Why? Because they were able to put into law workplace protection orders. One law made offenders, in their words, drop off the radar. Research shows that 10 per cent of offenders commit around 60 per cent of retail crime. If that is the case, you need to deal with that 10 per cent rather than just allowing all these things to go unnoticed. It is said that workplace protection orders would provide targeted legal protections where existing measures, such as banning notices, have proven insufficient. In South Australia – which passed these laws just last week, by the way – it has been described as ‘a landmark moment for retail worker safety’. In New South Wales the Premier is looking closely at these models, and I have no doubt that they will get them done, because unlike this Labor government, they want to see protection in private and public industries.

To summarise, we have proof that this works. Unions, major employers and other Labor states are successfully using them. But Victoria, the state with the worst retail crime in the nation and fleeing businesses, has not included them in this bill when other states have. We saw the extreme reaction when Mr McGowan said, ‘Your laws here are weaker than in other states.’ These are just a few dot points. Hopefully you can hold up a mirror and realise that what you are saying is absolutely not true. Before I close I might just say that Victoria is a uniquely dysfunctional state.

I actually do not blame it on the Labor brand, because other Labor states seem to be doing what it cannot achieve. South Australia, for instance, is a Labor state. They have topped the Business Council of Australia’s ranking for the third year running. Queensland, while not a Labor state, has implemented Jack’s law and removed over 1100 weapons from the streets. Yet when the coalition introduced laws because of the Labor government’s extreme arrogance and inability to accept any bill other than their own, they rejected it. I think it was actually Acting President Bourman that said that there has not been a private members bill passed in many, many years, certainly not in the last 10 years of Labor, but even beyond that. This is not about Labor versus Liberal in this sense. It is about competence versus incompetence. That is what it is. That is the reality of this state, because there are Labor governments all over the nation that are managing to make this work.

In closing, I just want to say that Victoria is becoming a failing state. It is a big claim to make, but there are well-documented characteristics. Number one: a failing state cannot keep its citizens safe. I do not need to give that any explanation. It cannot manage its finances responsibly. I certainly do not have to give that any more explanation. Corruption goes unprosecuted or even thrives. We have seen that in the recent history with the CFMEU, unions, worksites – all of these things. It drives away productive enterprise. I have just spoken about more than 350 businesses closing per day. I have spoken many times in this place about the statistics of businesses and rental providers fleeing the state because it costs more to grow a tomato in this state than it does anywhere else in the country. It cannot provide basic services, and we have seen that with our waitlists for ambulances, which are ramping at hospitals. We have seen that with the outrageous surgery waitlists and with justice of course. Finally, it loses the confidence of its people, and polling shows Victorians have lost faith in this government and the government’s ability to keep them safe.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

I am pleased to speak on the crimes amendment bill 2025.

We are committed to keeping Victorians safe.

We heard the voices in our communities asking for change, and we have made those changes to keep our communities safe.

We have delivered changes to our bail laws, the toughest in Australia – which has resulted in more alleged serious offenders being denied bail.

The government’s legislative changes in this area have meant that repeat offenders are finding that they are not released on bail.

But they are held on remand – while awaiting trial.

We have also introduced adult time for violent crime.

We have heard time and time again that there are too many victims and not enough consequences.

And we have introduced a trial scheme that allows courts to order eligible children to be subject to electronic monitoring of their compliance with certain bail conditions.

All these laws strike the right balance, they ensure we keep people who aren’t a risk to the community out of prison and that we maintain the tough approach that Victorians expect towards those who are.

They address the most urgent changes needed to our justice system so that we have a more balanced approach for those accused of minor, non-violent offending.

These reforms deliver on our commitment to keeping Victorians safe.

But we are not stopping there.

Our crimes amendment bill 2025 aims to address the alarming rise in violence and abuse against workers in the retail, fast-food and passenger transport sectors.

And to make sure we get this bill right, we have consulted widely.

We have consulted with industry, unions, WorkSafe and key legal and justice stakeholders.

This bill delivers on the Victorian government’s continued commitment to community safety.

It delivers on a commitment made by our Premier to introduce a bill by the end of 2025 to protect these workers.

This long consultation period ensures the bill achieves its aim.

The aim is to protect vulnerable workers and meet community expectations.

It is a deliberate process.

A process that ensures the new offences included in this legislation are targeted, practical and effective.

It’s important that we protect the retail, hospitality, fast-food and passenger transport industries.

And as we opened the Metro Tunnel last Sunday to such enthusiasm from commuters, this bill protects the very transport staff that will move the thousands of workers, students and tourists who will use the Metro Tunnel and its five brand new stations safely and securely.

This bill helps our transport staff to do what they do best: help us move around our state with our world-class transportation system.

The changes will complement work already underway by the Labor government to strengthen the state’s anti-vilification laws, with many reports of abuse against workers relating to the worker’s ethnicity, race or cultural background.

Everyone has the right to be safe and respected at work.

These amendments will send a clear message that harmful behaviour towards customer-facing workers will not be tolerated.

The bill

The bill contains three new offences to address violence and aggression against workers: one indictable offence and two summary offences.

First, an amendment to the Crimes Act 1958 for a new indictable offence of assaulting and threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker.

The bill will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 with two 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 in manner towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties.

Both summary offences have a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. This is higher than for the equivalent general offences.

The bill also aims to address community concerns about burglaries that are committed by using a vehicle to cause damage to a building to gain entry into a building, also known as a ‘ram raid’.

The bill will achieve this aim by amending section 77 of the Crimes Act to add ram-raiding conduct as an aggravating factor in the aggravated burglary offence.

Working in retail or hospitality is not easy and certainly not well paid.

Retail and food services are two of the lowest wage-earning industries for median weekly income.

In addition, two-thirds of retail assistants are women, and over 20 per cent of employees across both industries are aged 15 to 24.

These are industries that have a higher proportion of women and young people in customer-facing roles, who earn some of the lowest wages in our country.

They are essential workers.

The work retail and transport workers do is essential and vital and we all had a clear lesson in their importance during the pandemic.

But despite the importance of the work, they have been subjected to a rise in abusive, threatening and criminal behaviour from customers.

A recent national survey of SDA members showed that 87 per cent of workers experience abuse from customers.

Workers are experiencing an increase in the frequency of verbal abuse over a sustained period of time, rather than just isolated events.

Of those who experienced verbal abuse, 76 per cent experienced it on a more regular basis (monthly, weekly, daily) compared with 54 per cent in 2021.

Everyone deserves a safe workplace – during and after their shift.

No-one deserves to be subjected to this level of abuse, least of all the hardworking frontline staff across these industries.

Defining the working cohort

The work cohort this legislation is designed to protect is defined broadly as including all workers that perform customer-facing duties for a retail or hospitality operator and workers who perform customer-facing duties for landlords or managers of retail shopping centres. The worker cohort also includes all customer-facing workers working for or as a passenger transport service provider.

‘Ram raid’ conduct

There has been growing concern from the community regarding ‘ram raid’ conduct, where offenders use a vehicle to forcibly enter a building to facilitate theft or criminal damage.

This can deeply traumatise retail workers in particular, whether they are in the store or not at the time of the offence.

This bill will amend the existing offence of aggravated burglary in the Crimes Act to capture this conduct.

The amendment applies to all buildings, not just retail premises, and will ensure that the aggravated burglary offence, with its 25-year maximum penalty, can apply to ram raids.

Commencement dates

We know from industry and unions that the lead-up to Christmas is a time when violence towards customer-facing workers increases. The bill provides that the worker harm offences will commence the day after royal assent with the aim that the offences can protect workers at this time of heightened risk.

This is for all offences except for ram raids, which commence in March 2026.

In the meantime, police can continue to charge current offences such as destroying or damaging property, driving offences and conduct endangering persons.

Conclusion

In closing my contribution, I again want to thank all unions and all of the worker representatives who have contributed and advocated on behalf of all the frontline workers they represent in bringing this bill.

I would like to note Mr Galea and his work in leading the worker protection consultation group and indeed all members of that group for their advice and expertise during the development of these reforms.

I commend this bill to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise to make a contribution on the crimes amendment.

And in doing so I would like to first thank my good friend the Attorney-General, Minister Kilkenny, for bringing forward this important piece of legislation which will move to bring in more protection for customer-facing workers across Victoria.

President, as many in this chamber will know, I was secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, Victoria–‍Tasmania branch.

And I also had the privilege of serving as the TWU’s national president before being elected to this place.

I started out as a baggage handler at Ansett, where I joined my union and fought for the rights of members at work, including not just their pay and conditions, but their safety as well, which is why I would like to affirm that every worker has the right to a safe work environment, free from abuse and any violent attacks.

But unfortunately, that is just what so many Victorians experience.

Whether you work at an airline desk, as a shop assistant in retail, as a barista – you name it, these workers face violent and abusive customers and passengers.

Imagine, if you are in their shoes, facing angry customers unduly raising their voices, or shouting threats and attempts to commit violence.

It is traumatising, and it is not easy to recover from such a horrible experience.

Not to mention, it endangers the lives of these workers, and can leave lasting psychological and physical harm if matters take a turn for the worse.

Too often, we’re seeing retail and transport staff attacked at their place of work.

That’s why the Allan Labor government is acting to target these criminals and ensure workers are protected in their place of work.

President, this bill will beef up how we deal with violent individuals who harm workers.

Ranging from retail workers to transport and delivery drivers, this new bill is aimed at stamping out this violent behaviour and sending a clear message that it is not okay to harm a retail or transport worker.

And those who try will face the full force of the law.

We’ve worked with industries, unions, and workers to ensure that these reforms respond directly to their concerns about the rising number of cases of abuse and violence in workplaces across Victoria.

And one of the most common workplaces where workers are facing this unacceptable behaviour is in retail.

I would like to thank the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association for their advocacy in this space, fighting for more protections for retail workers and shop assistants, and to ensure these perpetrators feel the full force of the law.

Retail workers have been experiencing an increase in the number of violent incidents at shops.

And as the rush for Christmas shopping starts to pick up, shops will be busier than ever, and that can mean more stressful or difficult customers, some of whom can get violent.

But it’s not just in retail settings that this is happening.

Assaults against taxidrivers and other transport workers are also a serious and ongoing problem.

More than half of transport gig workers who responded to a survey from the Transport Workers’ Union said they experienced threatening or abusive behaviour.

Those gig workers are people who deliver food to you from apps such as Uber Eats or DoorDash, and include rideshare drivers such as Uber drivers.

The Transport Workers’ Union and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union have been advocating for more protection for transport workers, and I’m proud of this latest step in building a safer environment for them.

This bill extends these protections to transport workers, many of whom face unruly or violent customers or passengers every day.

It’s not a very different story with retail work either.

Across Australia in the last year, there were around 800,000 retail crime incidents that were reported.

The Australian Retailers Association has also said that 70 per cent of retailers reporting an increase in customer theft.

On top of that, more than half of retailers and shop assistants experience physical abuse monthly or more often.

Almost nine in 10 retail workers reported experiencing verbal abuse.

These numbers may be shocking to Victorians, but for retail and transport workers, this comes as no surprise.

Those figures are the lived experiences of each and every one of them.

President, these are workers who provide each and every one of us with the most fundamental and essential services that keep our communities running every single day.

They are the backbone of our society, and the fact that they experience this as frequently as they are, is appalling.

We must protect the rights of our workers to have a safe work environment.

So that is why the Allan Labor government is taking action with this bill.

This bill makes amendments to several acts, namely the Crimes Act 1958, Summary Offences Act 1966, and the Youth Justice Act 2024, to introduce reforms designed to protect customer facing workers from harm and threats.

Under a new indictable offence, assaulting or threatening to assault one of these workers will carry a penalty of up to five years in jail and separate summary offences for lower-level assaults. And for conduct that threatens and intimidates, the worker will carry a penalty of up to six months in jail.

That includes things like using profanity or otherwise intimidating a worker with obscene or insulting language.

These summary offences will have a substantially lower threshold of conduct than the more serious indictable offence, giving Victoria Police a range of options to protect workers depending on the circumstances.

And this is not only applicable to those facing customers on a regular basis, but workers at this worksite as a whole.

It applies to both the front-of-house and back-of-house staff.

Whether you’re in retail working at the check-out and storeroom, or in a kitchen or bar, you will be covered by these new laws.

You will be covered if you work for a workplace that has customers, even if you’re a contractor like a cleaner or part of a third-party security team.

President, the Allan Labor government announced our commitment to adult time for violent crime.

And this bill will introduce longer sentences for ram raids.

A ram raid is a crime where a vehicle is used, being driven into a shop in order to break down a window or a wall, for criminals to then steal items.

It is incredibly dangerous, distressing, and violent.

Compared to petty theft, this is not just about stealing something, but severely damaging property and frightening, if not injuring, workers and other shoppers there.

That’s why this bill will amend the aggravated burglary offence to include ram raids.

It will apply to any building, not just shops.

But it will give shops who might be targeted for ram raids the assurance that tough new laws and penalties will be in place for this violent criminal behaviour.

As it currently stands, the sentence for aggravated burglary carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.

And irrespective of your age, repeated acts of aggravated burglary will land you in prison with adult sentencing lengths.

No matter your age, you will feel the consequences of this horrible crime.

President, this legislation introduces something the union movement has been advocating on, for quite some time.

And that is workplace protection orders.

These are means by which workers or businesses can force threatening and violent customers out of the store.

This bill will establish workplace protection orders as the next step in our response to retail crime.

Under these workplace protection orders, if you are violent to retail or transport workers, you can be banned from that workplace.

This is not something done without precedent.

In the ACT, workplace protection orders are a legal means to protect workers and bar violent customers.

Other states and territories are also looking into introducing their own kinds of legislation modelled on the ACT’s legislative framework on this matter.

In consultation with police, unions and industry groups, we are drawing on the expertise and strategies to combat retail violence taken interstate and overseas, in order to review what models are working.

Because we want Victorians to have the best, and that means studying and reproducing harm minimisation strategies conducted across the world, to ensure workers are safe and secure at work.

The provisions in this bill are in the best interests of Victorian workers and in the best interests of Victorian businesses.

When workers don’t feel safe at work they can’t perform at their best and they will be more likely to leave their jobs.

When I was at the Transport Workers’ Union, representing workers in one of most dangerous industries in Australia, keeping our members safe on the job was one of the most important responsibilities we had.

That is why it was important that the federal Labor government passed significant transport reforms last year to keep our roads safe.

That is also why I am so pleased to see that the employers and industry groups have worked with us on this bill.

Keeping workers safe isn’t just good for the workers; it’s good for the businesses too.

In November, the Australian Retailers Association and the National Retail Association welcomed the government’s action and leadership in keeping Victorian workplaces safe and combatting retail crime.

They recognised that workplace protection orders and tougher assault penalties will protect their workers and their business interests alike.

Further, there is another third group of people who also depend on retail environments being safe, and that is other customers.

Abusive and violent customers are not just hurting the business and the workers, they are also making life worse for their fellow shoppers.

Whether shopping for essentials at the supermarket or buying themselves something nice after payday, Victorians deserve to have the security and the knowledge that their local shops are a safe place for them to shop, to browse, and to go about their business.

So, with a number of stakeholders to consider in this proposed legislation, it is great that we have been able to come up with a bill which looks after the interests of all involved.

This bill is good for workers, good for employers, and good for the overwhelming majority of customers who are not violent or abusive, but who just want to go about their day in peace.

It is a serious credit to and great victory for the TWU, the RTBU, and the SDA that they have soundly won the argument on this issue and that, with the passage of this bill, they will see their members clocking on at safer, better protected workplaces going forward.

It also goes to show what can be achieved when industry groups and the private sector work constructively with the union movement and with the government on issues of mutual interest such as keeping their businesses and the workplaces of their employees safe.

As someone who started my career in the transport industry and who spent decades representing workers in that industry, I can speak on this issue with a fair bit of knowledge and experience.

Likewise, no doubt others in this place have experience in the retail, fast-food, and hospitality industries, allowing them to speak with firsthand knowledge and experience about what it’s like having one of those jobs.

So not only have we listened to workers in these industries about what they are seeing and experiencing on the job, but many of us are also able to draw on our own experiences when considering and debating this legislation, leading ultimately to better outcomes.

This bill is not the beginning or the end of the Allan Labor government’s agenda of putting public safety first.

We have also passed the toughest bail laws anywhere in Australia.

This includes the bail test uplift for repeat serious offenders, removing the principle of remand as last resort, and enshrining the principle that all bail decisions must prioritise community safety into law.

It also includes our successful machete ban which has seen more than 6400 dangerous weapons surrendered by members of the public, and many more handed over by retailers.

It includes our new performance crime laws, also known as ‘post and boast’ laws, making it a crime to post and share your crimes on social media, addressing a disturbing trend which was influencing some young people to see crime as socially acceptable and empowering.

It includes organising our violence reduction unit which will work with at-risk youth to address the root causes of crime, preventing crime before it happens based on the successful approach implemented in Glasgow and London.

It includes increasing funding for Victoria Police from $2.4 billion in 2014–15 to $4.5 billion in 2025–26, ensuring that our police officers have the resources they need to help keep our communities safe.

It includes our recent announcement of adult time for violent crime, meaning that young people who commit some of the most serious crimes will face adult courts and adult sentences.

With this bill, it means greater legal protections for workers in customer-facing industries who do not deserve to be faced with violence and abuse while they are earning a living.

This public safety agenda from the Allan Labor government is something that we on this side of the chamber can be proud of.

For me, it is important that I am able to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that our government is doing everything in our power to keep our city safe.

Public safety is one of the keys to livability and maintaining the high quality of life which we enjoy here in this city and indeed across the entire state of Victoria.

It is that high quality of life which has drawn millions of people over the decades to our city – skilled migrants, international students, people fleeing wars and persecution, and any others who come from overseas.

The same can be said for the many Melbournians who moved here from regional Victoria or interstate to make their way in the big city.

Without maintaining high levels of public safety, including safety at work, we wouldn’t be able to maintain the high quality of life here in Melbourne which benefits all Melbournians and allows us to continue to attract the best, the brightest, and the most ambitious from all over Australia and all over the world to our city.

I commend the bill to the house.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) incorporated the following:

I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025.

The bill will:

i)   create new offences for certain conduct engaged in against certain customer-facing workers,

ii)   provide that a burglary that involves a ram raid is an aggravated burglary,

iii)   make consequential amendments to the Youth Justice Act 2024 and for other purposes.

The main provisions include:

Part 2, division 1 amends the Crimes Act to make it an offence when someone ‘assaults or threatens to assault an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties’.

Part 2, division 2 amends the Crimes Act to classify a ram raid as an aggravated burglary, if someone ‘used a vehicle to cause damage to the building, or to part of the building, for the purpose of gaining entry to the building or the part of the building’.

Part 3 amends the Summary Offences Act to insert a new section making it an offence to ‘(a) use language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting; or (b) otherwise engage in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive or insulting towards an applicable customer-facing worker in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties’.

We know that there is a crime crisis in Victoria.

Not only a crime crisis but a retail crime crisis.

Big national retailers like Woolworths, Bunnings, Coles, IGA and Kmart are all saying that retail crime is out of control.

And small retailers like newsagents and delis, boutique clothing stores and gift shops are also reporting the damaging impact of Jacinta Allan’s crime crisis.

Leah Weckert from Coles said: ‘it is definitely the case that in Victoria, retail crime is escalating more than … we are seeing in other states’.

One retailer said 75 per cent of their retail crime is in Victoria.

The crime numbers are staggering.

The statewide statistics on theft from a retail store show massive jumps, with a 27.6 per cent increase since last year, and a 90 per cent increase since 2016.

The breakdown in regional areas is even more shocking.

In Bendigo, for the year ending June 2025, there were 1033 incidents of stealing from a retail store, an increase of 42 per cent over the previous year.

In Whittlesea, retail theft increased by 52 per cent.

In Macedon, it jumped by 136 per cent.

And in Shepparton, there was a massive 158 per cent increase in retail theft.

The rise in retail crime didn’t start last month or even last year – it has been growing for years and has increased dramatically under Labor’s failing crime policies.

Retail stores are seen as an easy target for violent thieves, and stolen goods are resold to raise money for criminal gangs.

Labor’s soft-on-crime approach has encouraged criminals, giving them the green light to offend – they know that they will be released on bail and can go back to offending again.

Crime and violence are out of control in this state.

Just the other day, two gangs with machetes clashed at a shopping centre in Doreen – Woolworths had to be locked down, and shoppers were frightened for their lives.

Police arrived at the scene and arrested a 17-year-old boy and an 18-year-old man from Doreen, who were both charged but then immediately let out on bail.

This cycle of catch and release has taught criminals who steal from shops that under the Allan Labor government there are no serious consequences for repeat offenders.

We don’t have to live this way.

And Victorians don’t want to live this way.

Only the Liberals have a real plan, a comprehensive plan, to tackle the crime crisis and make Victorians feel safe again.

While the government have tried to portray that they have adopted the Liberals’ policies, the reality is the government’s policies lack the depth and strength of the Liberals’ plan.

Once again, Labor is going soft on crime.

Rampant retail theft hurts businesses, both large and small, who often have to raise prices to recoup losses from theft, making the cost of living even higher for honest customers.

Just because people own a shop doesn’t mean they are wealthy – often they are barely surviving, and a series of thefts can put a small store out of business entirely.

Last year there was a record number of business closures in Victoria, with ABS data showing that in 2024 more than 350 business shut their doors in Victoria every single day.

Retail theft also hurts retail workers, who are on the front lines in customer-facing roles.

Workers in retail and hospitality deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and they deserve to feel safe at work.

But so often they are subjected to horrendous abuse or threats, or even physical violence, and many end up leaving the industry.

These sectors often have a higher proportion of more vulnerable workers.

Almost two-thirds of retail assistants are women, and over 20 per cent of employees in customer-facing industries are aged 15 to 24.

Criminals see retail stores as a soft target.

Cashiers and people stacking shelves are often threatened with knives, or baseball bats, when gangs burst into a shop to steal.

Such an experience is often deeply traumatic for a retail worker, who may be forced to stop working out of fear for their safety.

I think back to the shocking smash-and-grab incident at a Bendigo jeweller that happened right over the road from Jacinta Allan’s office.

I also think of the footage that circulated of brave 31-year-old father Anthony Haby, who stepped in to tackle the thief and perform a citizens arrest.

In this one action, Mr Haby has single-handedly done more to improve safety in Bendigo than the Allan Labor government.

I applaud such people, and their sense of civic duty, but they shouldn’t have to put themselves in harm’s way like that.

If we had a functioning justice system that enforced real consequences, criminals would think twice before brazenly stealing from shopping centres in the middle of the day.

Not only are retail workers assaulted and threatened by thieves, they are also verbally abused and harassed by customers who cannot control their emotions and lash out in anger at retail workers.

There is an epidemic of retail worker abuse in Victoria, and it is totally unacceptable.

Respect in society has been declining for a long time, and it shows up in the disgusting ways that people speak to waitresses and taxidrivers, cashiers and baristas.

If we want more respect, the government should lead by example, but for a long time Labor has sent the signal that abuse and disrespect is okay.

Remember how Dan Andrews led the way in perpetuating verbal abuse of people.

He spoke to journalists with utter disrespect, and openly denigrated other members of Parliament.

Anyone who has worked in hospitality would know what it is like to be verbally abused by someone like that, on a power trip and with no respect for your work.

People who work in customer-facing roles perform vitally important jobs and should always be treated with dignity and respect.

Victoria needs to reform the law to better protect people who work in retail and hospitality – but this bill will not do anything to actually improve protection for workers.

This bill has two major flaws.

First, it introduces offences that are unnecessary and are already captured by existing law.

And second, it leaves out several reforms that would actually make a positive difference for retail workers.

Senior executives of large retailers have been calling for real action to solve the crime crisis in the retail sector. But this bill will not do that.

The coalition will not be opposing the bill, but we note that legal experts who were not consulted by the government have said this bill does not create substantially new powers to tackle retail crime.

The bill simply rebadges already existing offences.

Let me quote the Law Institute of Victoria: ‘The Crimes Act already captures common-law assault with a maximum of five years.’

The Criminal Bar Association has also said that the new offence created by this bill is ‘of little utility’ because the prohibited behaviour would already be captured by the existing offence of common law assault.

This bill does nothing new, other than generate a government press release and a newspaper headline – but it completely fails to get to the core of the problem.

Let me talk about what is missing from this bill.

First, this bill fails to introduce workplace protection orders.

I never thought I would quote the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, but that union has said, ‘If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing WPOs is a no brainer.’

Likewise, the Australian Retailers Association said they ‘strongly support the Victorian opposition’s call to bring forward the passing of workplace protection order legislation’.

Many women report being stalked by men who see them in a retail shop and become fixated on them and follow them home from work and harass them.

These women deserve protection, and that’s why the Liberals insist that we must amend this bill to add workplace protection orders.

The second thing this bill fails to do is increase the penalty for assaulting a worker; it makes cosmetic changes to the definition of ‘indictable assault’ but does nothing to strengthen the consequences for offending.

The third thing missing from this bill is a solution to the problems associated with reporting retail crime, whether that’s theft or threats and abuse.

Police won’t even attend calls about shoplifting anymore.

Under the Allan Labor government, police budgets have been cut and police are overstretched and don’t have time or resources to visit stores that have been attacked.

Stores with a small number of staff also can’t afford to close the shop to send someone down to report the crime and fill out the paperwork.

There is a massive amount of under-reported retail crime just because reporting it is too onerous.

A proper online reporting system would go a long way to supporting businesses and retail workers who want a quicker and simpler way to report retail crime, but there’s nothing in this bill to enable that.

Victorians need to ask themselves – who do you trust to really fix the crime crisis?

Who do you trust to take real action on retail crime?

Who do you trust to take real action on verbal abuse and threats against retail workers?

Labor cannot be trusted.

All Labor has is spin, press releases, and social media posts – but when you look deeper, there’s no substance to the changes, and there’s no meaningful reform in this bill.

The Premier is worried about the polls and wants to be seen to be doing something, but we know that Labor will never follow through and impose real consequences for criminals.

Only the Liberals will prioritise the safety of retail workers over repeat offenders who are constantly let out on bail.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) incorporated the following:

I am very happy to support the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025, which protects our frontline workers in retail, hospitality, and public transport.

The amendment seeks to add two new summary offences:

1. for assaulting a customer-facing worker in connection with the worker’s duties, without lawful excuse, using language that is profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive; and

2. insulting or otherwise engaging in conduct that is threatening, indecent, offensive, or insulting towards customer-facing workers.

These offences will apply when the worker is performing their duties, taking a break, or arriving at or leaving their place of work.

A new indictable offence will also be added to section 31 of the Crimes Act 1958, which does not require an intent to commit an indictable offence, allowing the offence to capture a greater range of conduct. The indictable assault offence will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, consistent with other assault offences.

These workers deserve better. They deserve our protection, and they deserve respect. Instead, they are often subject to the worst kinds of abuse and violence.

On Sunday I had the absolute pleasure of being on the first passenger train to pass through the new Metro Tunnel. On every platform of every station stood smiling workers, looking so proud and assisting the tens of thousands of curious and excited passengers.

This workforce of Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) members give so much for Victorians to ensure that we all get where we need to go, all the way from rural Victoria to the centre of the CBD.

Public transport and other frontline workers should not face traumatising assaults, and perpetrators should be held responsible for their actions.

The workers across the multiple sectors that deliver so much for our state should go home safely after every shift, and that’s why the RTBU and other unions have been advocating for better protections for these frontline workers.

As we enter the worst period for worker assaults, this amendment will apply for worker harms from the day after royal assent. We have acted quickly to protect workers during the holidays so they can all get home to their friends and families safely and be able to go to work without fear of harassment just for doing their jobs.

The amendments protect workers by capturing more areas where the previous laws didn’t apply, such as places where workers may not be in a public place, such as a cleaner in a storeroom.

Worker harm offences will also apply when a worker is harmed in connection to their duties, such as while on shift or on a break, or arriving at or leaving work.

The bill aims to protect all customer-facing workers who perform duties for landlords and managers of retail shopping centres and workers performing duties for hospitality operators, passenger transport providers and retail operators that sell or rent retail goods.

This includes workers for businesses that are primarily a service provider but that also sell goods alongside their core business – for example, workers at hair salons that sell hair products or a day spa that sells beauty products.

As the bill extends assault offences from the previous common law assault charges, which only required proving intent to commit an offence, many cases of these awful behaviours will now see appropriate charges brought, and some of the most important workers in our state will be able to feel safer when going to work.

With this amendment, we’re bringing Victoria in line with the rest of the nation. Thanks to laws specifically protecting customer-facing workers, in New South Wales 136 individuals have been charged since commencement on 1 May 2025 and there have been 215 criminal charges related to violence and aggression in the retail sector in South Australia.

Labor will not tolerate abuse towards frontline workers.

This bill also reforms aggravated burglary laws to capture the conduct of ramraiding. Ramraiding, where a vehicle is used to gain entry to a property for the purpose of burglary, is a deadly act that may severely injure or kill people inside.

Currently police will lay a range of charges including serious driving offences, theft and burglary, and the destruction of property, and this bill aims to provide a specific charge to reflect the brutal nature of this type of attack, which has recently seen more prominence, concerning many communities.

This means that a person is guilty of aggravated burglary if they commit a burglary and use a vehicle to damage, and gain entry to, the building for that purpose. This will in effect raise the maximum sentence of ramraiding from 10 years when charged with burglary to 25 under aggravated burglary.

This sends a clear message that ramraiding has serious consequences and will act as a strong deterrence against this behaviour.

Victorians deserve to feel safe at work and this bill adds important protections for frontline workers, and for these reasons I support the bill.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:30): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. I also take this opportunity to thank all members for their contributions. I will add that some were much more thoughtful than others, but I do want to thank everyone for taking the time to contribute to this very important debate. More importantly, I thank the people who give this bill its weight: the retail, fast-food, hospitality and transport workers who keep the Victorian economy running. These are the workers who keep shelves stacked and buses moving and who unfortunately cop the brunt of rage in supermarket aisles, at fast-food counters, in hospitality venues and on trams, trains and taxis. Many of them are young, casual and in their first job. Too many of them now walk into a shift expecting to be abused, threatened or worse. This bill is about drawing a clear line and giving those workers the protections they need to fulfil their occupations without fear.

It is an important bill. It is an important bill because it builds on what our government has been talking about – prioritising community safety. That is why we introduced legislation this year, the toughest bail laws in the nation, to make sure we took dangerous repeat offenders off our streets. That is why we will be debating later this week adult time for violent crime. We are focused on community safety – that is our priority – and this bill builds on that work. It does this in a number of ways. First, it creates an indictable offence in the Crimes Act 1958 for assaulting or threatening to assault an applicable customer-facing worker without the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence. The maximum penalty of five years imprisonment aligns with the protections we already give emergency and custodial workers. Secondly, it establishes two new summary offences in the Summary Offences Act 1966 applicable to customer-facing workers in connection with the worker’s duties: (1) for assault and (2) for using language or engaging in conduct that is profane, indecent, offensive, threatening, abusive or insulting. Both carry a maximum of six months imprisonment and will have a substantially lower threshold of conduct than the more serious indictable offence. This will give the police a range of options to protect workers depending on the circumstance and will apply wherever the conduct is in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties, including when workers are arriving, leaving or targeted after their shift. Third, it strengthens our response to the deeply traumatic practice of ram raids by ensuring that using a vehicle to smash into a building to commit a burglary is explicitly treated as an aggravated burglary, with a maximum penalty of 25 years.

The union movement has warned us about the abuse and assaults customer-facing workers often endure. The Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association’s 2023 national survey of more than 4600 retail and fast-food workers found that 87 per cent had experienced verbal abuse in the past year, 12.5 per cent had been physically assaulted, 9 per cent had been spat on and 17 per cent reported incidents of a sexual nature, with young women at particular risk. One in four workers said that the abuse they experienced referenced their race, ethnicity or cultural background. This bill is crucial because these numbers are not only statistics but a reflection of what many Victorians witness and experience every day.

There has been a mischaracterisation of this bill during this debate, and I think it is important to clarify these mischaracterisations. Some in this chamber and in the other place have argued that the new indictable offence with a five-year maximum adds nothing because the general assault maximum is already five years. Those with that belief miss a crucial point of this reform: that the new worker harm offences remove the additional requirement to prove an intent to commit some other indictable offence, like theft or causing serious injury. In simple terms, under the current law a customer who punches a cashier because they are angry about being refused a refund may fall through the gaps of the general indictable assault offence. Under this bill, that conduct is squarely captured by a worker-specific indictable offence for a clear five-year maximum. The intent factor is removed, making prosecutions more straightforward. The bill also deliberately defines ‘applicable customer-facing worker’ broadly. It will include not only the person on the till but cleaners, security guards, kitchen hands, food delivery drivers and workers across our public transport and commercial passenger vehicle network. This definition is broad because it reflects reality: abuse does not stop at the counter.

In this chamber we have spoken about worker protection orders. I am pleased that our Premier has committed to introducing new laws to establish worker protection orders as the next step in our response to crimes against customer-facing workers, because we know they do work; they have been implemented in other jurisdictions. Several unions, particularly the SDA, have long advocated for a scheme that allows courts to bar repeat high-harm offenders from returning to workplaces where they have abused or assaulted staff. These laws are needed. As emphasised by the SDA Victorian state secretary Michael Donovan:

… no worker should have to face the same offender walking back through their workplace doors.

This is similar to the scheme that exists in the ACT and legislation that was recently passed in the South Australian Parliament. We will be passing it in this chamber in the first half of next year. I do expect the support of those opposite, who today seem to be championing workers rights when in many other instances when this government has introduced laws to protect workers they have voted against those laws. When these laws and these worker protection orders are introduced I look forward to the support of those across the chamber. These are powerful tools that are needed to ensure that we do not just have the tools to respond to such harm but we can prevent it from being repeated. They do potentially restrict a person’s movement and ability to enter certain premises, so they are not something to be done lightly and done in a rush. We are going to do them carefully and make sure that we have the best model to lead the nation.

This bill is about immediate, clear criminal consequences for assaults and abuse that happen every day and spike over the Christmas period. That is why this bill will come into effect the day after it receives royal assent, underscoring the urgency of these offences becoming law. Workplace protection orders are the next step, and we are doing the careful work now so that when the bill comes before the Parliament in April 2026 it is robust, proportionate and durable. None of that has been designed in a vacuum. This has been done through deep and strong consultation. The worker protection consultation group brought together Victoria Police; the Office of Public Prosecutions; the Australian Retailers Association; the Transport Workers’ Union; the United Workers Union; the Rail, Tram and Bus Union; the Pharmacy Guild; and, crucially, the SDA, whose No-one Deserves a Serve campaign has been highlighting this issue for a number of years. Their message has been consistent: workers are facing escalating abuse and violence, existing offences are not being used consistently and we need clearer tools, from tougher penalties to better reporting and stronger civil mechanisms, to change behaviour.

As we head into the Christmas and summer trading period, retail, hospitality, fast-food and transport workers will once again shoulder long hours, big crowds and frayed tempers. They do that whilst the rest of us can go about buying our presents, sharing meals and enjoying a break. They deserve more than our thanks; they deserve the full protection of the law. This bill tells them: we see you and value your work, and if someone assaults, threatens or abuses you because you are doing your job, the justice system will treat that with the seriousness it deserves. I commend this bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

 The PRESIDENT (16:44): I have considered the amendments on sheet EM57C circulated by Mr Mulholland. In my view amendments 5, 12 and 13 are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. This could trigger a procedure motion.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:44): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and a new clause to amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to provide for the Magistrates’ Court to make orders to prevent and reduce unacceptable conduct engaged in by members of the public in certain workplaces.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (16:46)

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you confirm there are no mandatory sentencing provisions within this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm there are no mandatory minimum sentences for any of the offences in this bill.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, on the expansion of ‘assault’ under section 31, can you explain why the government considers it necessary to create a specific indictable assault offence for customer-facing workers, given that existing assault provisions already apply to all alleged victims?

Enver ERDOGAN: The new indictable assault offence is distinguishable from the existing general assault offence in that it does not contain the requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence as an element of the offence. Therefore in theory – and we will see it in practice if the law is to be implemented – it should be easier to apply this new provision than the existing general provisions under the existing law. So the goal is that it does not contain a requirement that the accused person intended to commit an indictable offence. Therefore there is a lower threshold to prosecute someone on this basis, and it means the new offence will apply to a greater range of conduct than the existing offence under section 31(1)(a), addressing the trends identified for customer-facing workers.

Katherine COPSEY: What assessment has been made of the likely impact of these changes on people experiencing mental illness or homelessness, who are already over-represented in low-level public order and in assault charges?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a really good question, and we do understand that it is important that we tackle the issue of retail crime and the harmful effects it is having on frontline workers, especially in this environment, as the data shows us that that seems to be a growing trend, unfortunately. But it is also relevant that they be proportional, and we know that there are groups that are disproportionately vulnerable cohorts, including people experiencing mental illness and other issues, as you have stated. I think in terms of their application, we do know that there are a number of steps that need to be proved or thresholds to be met for this law to apply. We will need to prove, for example, that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the victim was a protected worker. The mental element must be proven before an accused is found guilty of these offences. That is an important safeguard. Of course for an offence to apply the conduct must also be in connection with the performance of the worker’s duties. That is another threshold question. Really, we do know that there is an element of existing provisions in our laws that deals with the way vulnerable people are treated, and Victoria Police continue to exercise their discretion to issue a caution instead of charging a person where appropriate or to consider whether an offender should be considered part of a diversion program. Police will still have that discretion. Ms Copsey, as you would be well aware as an officer of the court yourself, the bill does not limit the court’s judicial discretion to determine appropriate sentencing in terms of the relevant sentencing factors, including any vulnerability of the accused and the impacts on the victim, so enforcement have the discretion and the courts have the discretion still to consider those vulnerabilities. I think they are the main relevant factors that they could consider.

David LIMBRICK: I have just got a couple of questions. Proposed section 51C(2) provides some guidance for what is defined as customer-facing duties, but subsection (4) mentions such duties may not involve interacting with customers. My question is: would such duties include those performed over a carrier service, such as interactions via phone or the internet?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a very good question, Mr Limbrick. It is my understanding that the bill deliberately defines the applicable customer-facing workers broadly so that it reflects a broader definition than a definition that would exclude people. I might go to the box to get some clarity on that specific example.

I can confirm that it is intended for this to apply to people that work at a premises with an outward-facing look, so therefore telemarketers are not intended to be captured by this act.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that clear answer. That clears that one up. My next question is: why did the government decide to include landlords or managers of retail shopping centres in the coverage of these laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Limbrick, I think you can see many circumstances where they are on the frontline themselves in dealing with customers as landlords and therefore responding to what we are seeing – more so that people that are employed by landlords are included; I think that was the real purpose. The landlords themselves are protected, because they are usually on the front line also.

David LIMBRICK: That leads me to the next question. For the purpose of proposed subsection (6), would a business renting a premises from a shopping centre operator be treated as a customer of the shopping centre?

Enver ERDOGAN: Could you just repeat that, Mr Limbrick?

David LIMBRICK: In terms of the customer of the service provider–client relationship, I am just trying to clarify: if a shopping centre operator is included in these laws, would a tenant of that shopping centre be considered a client and therefore subject to these laws? Let us say the tenant in the shopping centre abused, for example, the shopping centre owner, would they be captured by these laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: If they are employed by the landlord, they would be captured; that is the goal. But if they are not necessarily a customer-facing worker, then they would not have the same protection.

David LIMBRICK: I think you are telling me that a tenant is not employed by the landlord or the shopping centre owner, they are paying a fee to run their business there. So they would not be covered under this law.

Enver ERDOGAN: Unless they are working in a front-facing role themselves also.

David LIMBRICK: All right. Understood.

Katherine COPSEY: I want to speak a little bit about the new offence of offensive or insulting conduct under clause 7, which will amend the Summary Offences Act 1966. What is the policy justification for introducing a new summary offence criminalising profane, indecent, obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting language when there are existing offence provisions that already capture similar behaviour?

Enver ERDOGAN: I guess the purpose of this new summary offence is to provide specific protections for applicable customer-facing workers to protect them from having to face this kind of language and behaviour, because we do know that it has a deep impact on frontline workers. Although in many of these instances we are referring to non-physical violence or abuse, I think the impact it has on workers is quite telling. We have seen an increase in this kind of behaviour. In my contribution I talked about frayed tempers, and we are seeing that more and more in the way people interact with each other. So I think the real issue here is that we are seeing more and more of these instances occurring, and there is a lot of evidence to show that. I pointed to, for example, the SDA survey in 2023, which showed that 87 per cent of workers had faced some sort of abuse, and some of that was in the form of insulting or profane language.

Katherine COPSEY: How will the government ensure that this offence is not used to criminalise vulnerable people, such as those who are experiencing mental illness, homelessness or distress in public places, including retail settings?

Enver ERDOGAN: As with my answer to your earlier question, the new offences will only apply if specific elements are met, but at the same time I think our justice system does have the flexibility to respond. Victoria Police or law enforcement have the powers to issue cautions or divert people away when they believe it is not appropriate. Of course, if someone is then charged and convicted, judicial officers still have quite significant discretion, enabling them to take into account all relevant factors, including people’s vulnerabilities. So I think there are existing protections more broadly in our justice system that would be applicable for people that are vulnerable.

Katherine COPSEY: Just to discuss now the proportionality of some of the penalties set out in this bill, why does the bill set a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment for this new indecent or offensive language offence, which is triple the existing maximum for similar conduct in public?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the government has been clear in our intention to send the strongest possible message, and this penalty is designed to respond to data and consultation advice that there is a disproportionately high prevalence of this kind of behaviour in the retail, fast-food, hospitality and passenger transport industries. The sentences reflect the need to protect these vulnerable customer-facing workers from this kind of behaviour and to deter potential offenders from such acts. Therefore we believe there is a strong need to increase these penalties.

Katherine COPSEY: Does the government believe it is proportionate or consistent with community expectations in this state and in Australia, which has a great love of, in common usage, very direct language, in 2025 to impose a term of imprisonment for swearing or offensive language?

Enver ERDOGAN: Of course in all our justice settings we believe there needs to be a proportionate response, and that is why these are matters for the courts to consider in the circumstances. We know that obviously in the vernacular that people use there can also be a class basis for that. So I do accept that there are other reasons for the way people express themselves, but I think these are matters for courts to consider when assessing whether the conduct meets the criminal threshold. There is case law around this, existing case law, that has found that for it to be offensive it must be calculated to wound the feelings of or arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person. The test more broadly is ‘reasonable person’, and that would be a test that is applied in a number of court settings, and on ‘reasonable person’ the court’s assessment is based on the prevailing community standards at the time. So it is something that should be durable, as we said, with this law, and that will be something that the courts will need to consider.

Katherine COPSEY: If I could just put this in plain English, I have had outreach from community members, essentially, keen to understand what the government is trying to do with this new offence. They were curious as to whether it is the government’s intent to criminalise someone who, for example, gets a cup of coffee that they do not like in a shop and says, ‘This bleeping coffee is not what I wanted.’ Is it the government’s intention to capture that type of casual swearing?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is clear that the intention is to protect workers from abuse more broadly. It is a reasonable person test. We do know that even verbal abuse can have a dramatic effect on workers’ wellbeing, and they deserve protection. That is why we are here today. It is a reasonable person test that courts will need to consider, but obviously, before the courts, police will need to also consider it, as there is a lot of discretionary decision-making in our justice system. The reasonable person test is the same test that would apply to that.

Katherine COPSEY: Just finally, on your consultation with Victoria Police about the creation of these new offences, has there been assessment done by Victoria Police about how much time officers may use investigating and responding to new offences created under this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is clear our intention is to provide greater protection, and therefore we would hope to see more use of these existing settings and the more general laws that do exist at this time. Victoria Police has been a member of our worker protection consultation group and was consulted on these reforms. But the application of this will still be up to law enforcement and the courts, which still have discretion to apply them.

Katherine COPSEY: Finally, does Victoria Police support the creation of these new offences?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that Victoria Police does not oppose these reforms.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, you did touch on this just before in response to Ms Copsey, but I just want to clarify it. The data from the Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project has shown that Aboriginal people in this state are overpoliced. As I highlighted in the second-reading debate, Aboriginal people are 15 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police officers and are 10 times more likely to have force used against them, and this is despite Victoria Police claiming that racial profiling has been banned since 2015. So I am just wondering what protections this bill puts in place to prevent these new laws from further exacerbating any of these disturbing trends.

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a really important issue and an issue which is very close to my heart, because we hear these stories all the time. The research that I pointed out, the SDA 2023 national survey, shows that one in four workers – 25 per cent – experienced abuse based on their race, ethnicity or cultural background, including First Nations people. So people from these vulnerable cohorts are also more likely to be victims. But you are right: in terms of the way the justice system operates, including law enforcement and other stages – the court system – there are many discretionary exercises of power, so to speak. That will still exist, because that is the way the legal framework is. It is something we will need to monitor. That is why it is important we have the two-year review to see how many prosecutions in fact do take place, and maybe a piece of work that we should consider as part of that review is in terms of the profile of those who are captured by this legislation.

Rachel PAYNE: I was actually going to go to the statutory review, but you have answered my question on that one, so thank you for that. Just to follow on, has any modelling been done on how these new laws will impact rates of offending, and if so, what did the modelling show?

Enver ERDOGAN: We did not do specific modelling in relation to these laws, but we do know from the emergency worker laws that we have in place that we are expecting a similar uptake. We did see an increase in prosecutions and convictions in relation to these types of offences, to the different tests we have applied, and that is what we are expecting here.

Rachel PAYNE: There is a clear relationship between increased rates of violence in retail settings and cost of living. We know that this kind of violence is inexcusable, but while people are struggling to afford groceries, it is not unexpected. How is this government addressing cost of living at the same time that these laws are being introduced?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Payne, for touching on an issue that is really, again, close to my heart. I think as a government cost of living has been our number one focus, in particular with our power saving bonus, the support we are providing for free child care and also for young families with three- and four-year-old kinder, and support for sports programs in the health sector. In every part of the work we do we are focused on cost-of-living measures to support Victorians. I do appreciate that probably it is a broader question you are asking, which is outside the scope of this bill, but hopefully I was able to assist.

Rachel PAYNE: Just turning to other measures to support this legislation, what other measures are being put in place alongside the increased penalties to address rates of violence against retail, fast-food, hospitality and transport workers, if any?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is an issue that has been discussed at length during the contributions. We are also focused on introducing worker protection orders. These are in the form of intervention orders that will be in place next year based on what we have seen in ACT and South Australia that have been implemented. As well, I talked during my ministers statement today about our violence reduction unit, because we know a key goal needs to be about working with young people in particular to turn them away from a life of crime. One example is through lived experience mentoring. Others are done through programs at the school level. I know the Deputy Premier and the Premier were also out today talking about some of their partnerships, for example, with the Melbourne Storm, about having programs that engage young people in sport. I think we need to do that work out in the community as well as specific direct changes to the laws, such as worker protection orders, which we will be doing in the first half of next year.

Rachel PAYNE: This is my final question. It is intended that the new summary offence for lower level assaults will be used in place of the existing common assault offence. How will it be ensured that this occurs?

Enver ERDOGAN: I guess with these laws in place it is intended that, where the elements are met – that being a front-facing worker is abused – the police will have the discretion to apply the applicable law.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just wondering if this bill also applies to other customer-facing roles that might not be retailers. I have had a couple of local councils reach out, obviously acknowledging that many of their customer-facing staff have experienced incidences of assault. I am just wondering if I could get some clarification around that.

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal is to ensure that the protections are extended to all of what I would call traditional retail-facing roles. I did listen to your contribution, Mr Mulholland, which was a point that I have seen as well, to talk about retail, fast food and hospitality as being some of those traditional roles, including the commercial passenger transport sector. An example is convenience stores or petrol stations; they are expected to be covered, as they are front-facing roles. People that work in Chemist Warehouses – that is why the Pharmacy Guild was involved in the consultation, for example – are expected to be covered. We try and take a broader front-facing role, not necessarily extending it to what I would call a professional services level, but more the retail space.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just to clarify, that is a no?

Enver ERDOGAN: Could you ask the question again?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I asked if the classification in this bill also applied to front-facing customer service workers, like at a local council.

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is important for clarification. Mr Galea in his contribution mentioned a reference group that he was a part of in relation to this bill. Would you be able to let me know who the members of that reference group are?

Enver ERDOGAN: Members of the worker protection group are brought together – they might not be permanent members. But groups that were part of and involved in this group were unions and obviously industry. The Worker Protection Consultation Group brought together a number of stakeholders, including the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Police, the Australian Retailers Association, the Transport Workers’ Union, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the Pharmacy Guild and the SDA. All of those groups were consulted as part of this Worker Protection Consultation Group.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How many members of Parliament were on that group?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Michael Galea and the Attorney-General were on that group.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on clause 1, I will invite Mr Mulholland to move his amendment 1, which tests his amendments 6 to 8.

Evan MULHOLLAND: These amendments create a three-tier system that reflects the seriousness of assault. If an assault does not cause physical injury, the maximum penalty will be four years; if assault causes physical injury but not serious injury, the maximum penalty will be six years; and if an assault results in serious industry, the maximum penalty would be 11 years. These provisions are modelled on the New South Wales approach, which has been shown to be effective and was indeed endorsed by the Minns government. They ensure that the penalties have real force, rather than symbolic value, by making assaulting a retail worker a summary offence. Labor’s legislation actually makes this assault a lesser offence than an assault that takes place elsewhere. I move:

1.   Clause 1, lines 5 and 6, omit “assaulting, or threatening to assault,” and insert “assaulting”.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Mr Mulholland for his amendment. I wish to confirm that the government will not be supporting his amendment. We believe we have struck the right balance in sending a message, and this is an important step in addition to worker protection orders, which we will be introducing next year.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. As I spoke to in the second-reading debate, we consider the new offences created are not going to assist, and on similar grounds we will not support the Liberals amendment to strengthen those.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendments 2 to 4, which test your amendments 9 to 11.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

2.   Clause 1, page 2, line 9, omit “new offences” and insert “a new offence”.

3.   Clause 1, page 2, line 9, omit “assaulting, or”.

4.   Clause 1, page 2, line 11, omit “intimidates,” and insert “intimidates”.

These are basically the summary offences ones. They make assaulting a retailer a summary offence. Labor’s legislation effectively makes assault a lesser offence than what exists elsewhere. As Mr Limbrick put it, it is a ‘double illegal’ bill, and this makes it have a bit more of a serious consequence.

Enver ERDOGAN: Similar to my response to the previous question, I believe we have struck the right balance, and we will not be supporting Mr Mulholland’s amendments.

Katherine COPSEY: On similar grounds, the Greens will not be supporting these amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

5.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 15 insert –

“(ba) to amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to provide for the Magistrates’ Court to make orders to prevent and reduce unacceptable conduct engaged in by members of the public in certain workplaces; and”.

This amends the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to create workplace protection orders. Workplace protection orders have been called for by industry, by workers, by unions and by frontline workers. Workplace protection orders protect workers in a way that criminal charges alone cannot. They allow for early intervention. They provide a clear, enforceable barrier between offenders and staff. They are a proven tool. It is why such a broad section of our workforce supports them. It is why the Premier supported them, did not support them and then supported them again but not in time to put them in this bill. I am providing the chamber with an opportunity to support them within this bill.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will not be supporting Mr Mulholland’s amendment, because we are already taking the next step and preparing to introduce workplace protection orders early next year. In April next year, as the Premier has outlined, they will be before this chamber, and I look forward to everyone’s support when they come to the chamber.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment from the Liberals today. We note the government’s comments that they are progressing legislation in this regard. We will look at that with interest when it is brought forward. These orders may have some merit where they are in operation. They do, however, raise tensions. For example, what if someone is banned from the only food shop that is accessible in their home town? There are rights issues that need to be carefully worked through in the development of this sort of legislation. We look forward to seeing that scrutinised as it comes through but do not have the confidence that, if implemented today, that work would have been done. That is why we will not be supporting the amendment today.

David LIMBRICK: I am sympathetic to the idea of these orders. However, I do have concerns about how this might operate, so I will not be supporting this amendment today. But I will reconsider this issue when the government brings forward a bill early next year.

Council divided on amendment:

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:29): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:29): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.