Thursday, 27 August 2026

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:04): I am pleased today to rise to speak on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026, a bill which I had the privilege of working on to help it take shape. In helping to keep retail and other service workplaces safe, it is close to my heart, given my time when I proudly served as an organiser for the SDA, a union representing retail and fast-food workers, and saw firsthand the impacts that the full spectrum of customer abuse and violence can have. It is a spectrum which can start with simple rudeness and disrespect but can escalate to extreme forms of workplace violence.

Last year this government legislated important reforms to the Crimes Act 1958 and toughened the criminal penalties for those who assault retail, service and transport workers. Workers in these industries typically face the public more than most and are therefore most susceptible to this type of offending. These are workers who deserve to be safe at work. Today we have before us a bill that you could call the second tranche or a natural next step of the earlier reforms. This bill will help to keep these workplaces safe by providing a civil exclusion order mechanism that targets repeat offenders, backed by criminal penalties.

I do acknowledge the calls by many for workplace protection orders to be established, none more forcefully than by the SDA union through two of its campaigns: No One Deserves a Serve and Ban Aggressive Customers. Victorian state secretary of the SDA Michael Donovan has been particularly focused on WPOs, and I commend him and all SDA members on their successful advocacy that has brought us to this point today. I am also grateful to have had meaningful dialogue with major employers and representatives such as Woolworths, Metcash and the Pharmacy Guild, among others.

In the formulation of this bill and the retail assault penalty laws legislated last year I was privileged to serve on and co-chair the worker protection consultation group alongside Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny. I would also like to thank the Attorney and her team, in particular Anthony Xu, for their efforts to bring this bill to this point. The group was a valuable forum in which proposals could be tested and improved. This bill before us today is stronger thanks to their work and contributions. I do want to acknowledge the voices of everyone who participated, including unions the SDA, the Transport Workers’ Union, the United Workers Union and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union; employee representatives the Australian Retail Council and the Pharmacy Guild; and representatives of the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Police and the community legal sector.

This bill focuses on protecting workers in these public-facing work environments, including retail, food service and public transport operations. These workers, particularly in retail, are more likely to be young, more likely to be female and more likely to be from a migrant background. The definition of a workplace under this bill includes, for retail, customer-accessible areas, which may be shop floors or car parks; the latter would apply to workers engaged in such tasks as click-and-collect or trolley collection. It also covers back-of-house areas of retail stores and back-of-house areas of depots and stations where a customer has made unauthorised access.

It is important to note here that the conduct must pertain to the workplace. The opposition has suggested that a matter outside of a workplace, such as a family violence matter being disclosed, could prompt a workplace protection order to be lodged against the victim’s will. That is simply untrue, as the definitions in this bill make clear that the conduct must be connected with a workplace specifically. Applicants for a protection order will in most circumstances, of course, be employers, given that employers are the ones most likely to have direct access to information pertinent to supporting an application, such as the ability to gather witness statements from staff and to gather CCTV and other evidence. It is important, however, that an employee union registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 with coverage of the workplace in question will also be able to apply. This is a necessary safety net for employees to be able to be supported in an application in a situation where their employer is not willing to lodge one, but it will also support smaller employers who may be willing but not resourced to make a claim by themselves. It is also important to note that WPOs cover entire workplaces or sections of workplaces and are not applied to individual workers.

The opposition have referenced the rushed amendments to implement WPOs that they sought to insert into the previous retail crime bill last year. I said at the time, and I repeat here, that those amendments were half-baked and flawed. One notable example of this is their failure to include registered unions as applicants, as is the case in other jurisdictions such as South Australia and is the case in this bill before us today. The opposition have also moved amendments to say that police should be applicants for protection orders. As I noted earlier, Victoria Police were a part of the workers protection consultation group, and I certainly do not wish to speak on behalf of Victoria Police, but I think it is safe to say that these amendments show that the opposition have, for the second time in a matter of weeks, not bothered to consult with the police about reforms that they seek to make to policing work. They also have not demonstrated why having police as applicants would be beneficial, nor how they would resource the police to acquit this function.

Workplace protection orders are civil protections and will be heard in the Magistrates’ Court for adult respondents and in the Children’s Court for those aged 14 through 17. In order to grant an order, a court must be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to a defined worker, that the conduct occurred within the previous 12 months, that the respondent is likely to engage in such conduct again and that making the order is appropriate in all the circumstances. On that last point, it is important to clarify as well that, for example, if a respondent would be unable to access work or study or food in a remote area as a consequence of a protection order being placed, that will be a valid consideration and must be taken into account in determining, firstly, the granting, but secondly, the scope of an order if it is granted. This threshold is important as it allows for a WPO to be issued when the circumstances are met, regardless of whether a conviction has been applied or sought, meaning that immediate threats to a workplace can be addressed in a timely fashion. It also removes the need for interim orders, as under this bill the threshold for a substantive order can already be met where the court is satisfied. The opposition’s amendments for interim orders seek to apply the same thresholds as already apply to a substantive order in this bill, making such proposals for interim orders both duplicative and redundant.

WPOs can be applied to someone 14 years of age or older who has committed unacceptable conduct against a worker or workers. Unacceptable conduct is defined as physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse or conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of harm, and it can include threats and other forms of intimidatory behaviour. Whilst workplace protection orders are a civil instrument, a breach of a WPO does carry significant criminal penalties under this bill of up to two years imprisonment or up to 240 penalty units in fines, which is currently a little over $50,000.

In passing these important laws, Victoria will be joining the ACT and, more recently, South Australia in legislating for workplace protection orders. Evidence from stakeholders from the ACT shows that they are an effective way to prevent and deter reoffending on the part of abusive and violent customers, certainly in terms of reducing the offending once an order has been issued, but also in many cases it has been reported that the mere start of a process or the announced start of a process to lodge a workplace protection order has been sufficient to deter that type of activity and offending.

I do also note that the Greens are seeking to amend this bill to remove protections for transport workers. Public transport workers are much like retail and food service workers – essential workers who we rely on. We relied on them in the pandemic to keep their jobs going so that the economy could continue and we could continue as a society. They carry large public-facing duties. Many, particularly bus drivers, operate in solo operation where they are in constant communication with the public. It is in no way sufficient to say that these workers are in any way less deserving of being safe at work. To issue an order, a court must be satisfied that the order is appropriate in all the circumstances, as I mentioned before. This is precisely to avoid a respondent who has committed harm against a worker but is disadvantaged in a particular way from being further disadvantaged as a result of the order. This is a provision that is set out in section 21 of the bill, and this, in my view, completely covers the concerns raised by the Greens.

As we progress this important legislation, I am very conscious of the fact that it has come after the work that we did last year on toughening penalties for those who do seek to violently abuse or assault retail, food service or public transport workers by doubling the summary offence to six months and indeed the full indictable offence to five years. That sends a very clear message to anyone who would seek to assault these essential frontline workers that it is not tolerated in the state of Victoria. But more work is needed, and that is exactly why we are here with workplace protection orders today, a meaningful mechanism by which these types of particularly violent and particularly extreme repetitive offenders can be dealt with in a more streamlined manner, to ensure that people who go to work – people who work in supermarkets or on our public transport system or in cafes and in food service – can be safe at work. It is something that is so essential to our dignity, indeed, especially given retail does attract many younger people. It is the first job for countless Victorians, and it is so important that that is a good experience.

I recall from my time at the union dealing with countless instances of people suffering the emotional and sometimes even physical after-effects of a workplace assault or abuse by a customer. It can be deeply traumatic and it can change people’s lives permanently. I even recall meeting with some 15-year-old workers on their first shift in a supermarket in suburban Melbourne. On their very first shift, in their first hour, they had been abused by a customer. None of this is acceptable. As I say, it exists on a spectrum from the relatively mild, everyday casual rudeness and even some yelling, but it does go into a much darker place and there is a spectrum. No amount of customer abuse or violence is acceptable. What this bill does is address that more serious end of offending and keep some of these repetitive offenders out of people’s workplaces.

It dovetails of course with important reforms and important operations such as Operation Pulse, which is currently underway and has now been extended for another year, providing additional policing and also PSO resources to a number of shopping centres across metropolitan Melbourne. In my own electorate in Fountain Gate and Bayside I have seen the impact that it has had and heard from retail workers in these stores. I have also heard from SDA members in other centres where the program has been rolled out, including Eastland, and they have told me about the significant effects it has had, both on reducing crime and addressing crime in the centres and also on the very significant way it has boosted staff morale in making them feel supported. That is why I particularly welcome the expansion of the program, firstly for another year but also giving the police those powers and giving the Chief Commissioner of Police that discretion to expand the program on an as-needed basis, whether it be across other shopping centres or strip malls or other public high street areas, to address the offending where it is occurring. These are all particularly important things, and they all do go towards addressing retail violence as well.

In my first speech to this chamber I spoke of my desire to advocate for retail workplace safety reforms in the face of customer aggression. Today I am especially honoured to be able to commend this bill to the house, because no-one deserves a serve.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18): I will start by saying that I totally acknowledge that workers being abused in retail environments, such as has been outlined as the reason for this bill, is a serious problem and is totally unacceptable. I agree with Mr Galea that it has been a big problem, and especially in the south-east, as we have seen in many shopping centres in the south-east. In fact I have seen crimes committed with my own eyes in shopping centres. In Cranbourne Park shopping centre a while ago I saw some workers being abused and then a group of young men actually just stole from the shop. On the face of it what the government is trying to do here seems like it would be something that is good. A shopping centre or other retail business is a private space. It is not a public space, it is private property, and one of the principal beliefs of the Libertarian Party is supporting property rights. It would seem that a business that has private property that runs in its own private space should be able to exclude people that cause trouble for its staff and other customers. So that, on the surface, seems like a good thing.

My problem here is the way that this is being implemented. We already have laws against trespass. We do not really have good ways for supermarkets to, for example, exclude people that are causing trouble. In fact my preferred means of enacting and enabling this right would be for guards at supermarkets – they already have guards at supermarkets now – to be able to exclude people that are causing trouble. One of the things that I have heard from many companies is that they would like security guards to be able to have access to something like pepper spray so that if someone is causing trouble they can defend themselves, and if it comes to that, then that is the point at which the police become involved, because then we are talking about someone initiating assault or trespass and it is appropriate for the police to become involved at that point.

What we see with this workplace protection order is that not only must the business be able to identify the person somehow, which might be a bit of a stretch, they also must be able to apply to the court, get an order and then somehow serve this person with a notice. If you look at some of the types of conduct that we are talking about here, there might be some person who is affected by substances who has gone into a store, caused trouble and abused staff. The idea of tracking them down somehow, serving them papers, them being able to comprehend what is happening and that somehow being enough to stop them coming back to the store I just think is totally unworkable. It seems much more sensible to have a security guard at the front to say, ‘No, you’re not allowed to come in here anymore’ – and some smaller businesses already do this. They have photos of people that have come into the store and stolen from them or abused staff, and they will just refuse them entry to the store. You do not need to go to a court. You do not need to serve papers to someone.

The other thing I am concerned about here, although, as has been pointed out, this is a civil matter, is if someone breaches this – it could be an unintentional breach if they do not understand the order properly – then they face criminal penalties, despite never necessarily causing harm when they go into these stores. I think that is a big problem with the way this is set out.

Another problem I have got is it is very selective about the types of businesses that can actually have this ability. Businesses that sell goods, like supermarkets, can apply for these WPOs. Businesses that have unionised workforces, because the unions can apply for these orders as well, are fine. But then other businesses, like, for example – this one was brought up in briefings – really high risk businesses like brothels, cannot do anything, unless their workforce is unionised. They might want to join a union; I am not sure which union they would join. So it really does seem like this is a very selective way of dealing with this, and it seems like a way too complicated way of dealing with it. I just feel like this is going to be totally unworkable. It is going to have very severe unintended consequences, and I am not convinced that this will work at all.

As I said, I think that there is a far simpler solution here, and that is enabling private businesses to exercise property rights and exclude people that they feel are causing trouble for their customers or their staff. That seems like a far simpler solution to this. I do not know why the government has come up with something that is so complex and unworkable. I am concerned about the unintended consequences. In many of these cases, as was pointed out, if someone cannot necessarily understand the order, then the order will not apply. How does that work with someone who has been causing trouble who has mental health or substance abuse issues? With these people it is basically going to have no effect. Or if they do serve it on them, maybe they are going to end up committing a crime without even understanding what the order meant. I just think that this is totally unworkable, and the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this bill.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:24): The Labor government is committed to keeping Victorians safe, whether they are at home or at work. No worker should be assaulted, abused or threatened in their workplace, and no worker should fear that they may be subjected to repeat unacceptable conduct by the same person. That is why this bill creates a scheme for the courts to issue workplace protection orders, to allow for individuals who behave in an unacceptable manner towards retail and certain passenger transport workers to be banned from that workplace. The workers in these environments, whether they be in our retail settings, whether they be in passenger transport settings, keep our economy moving, keep our industries growing and keep us fed and clothed. The retail industry alone contributes more than $73 billion, from the major brand stores through to the corner stores and the local family-run businesses in our suburbs, and hundreds of thousands of Victorians use public transport. When these workers go to work, they have got to feel that they are safe and know that there are systems in place to keep them safe should there be any unfortunate incident.

The workplace protection orders will work alongside other laws the government has passed to create offences to address violence and aggression targeted at workers. As Mr Galea in his contribution so eloquently outlined, too often we hear of stories of workers who are left traumatised after incidents in their workplace. Many of them are young and are just seeking to take their first steps into the workforce by doing some part-time work. It can be a deeply traumatising experience. They want to feel confident that they can go and seek help, also from their union, who can then go and seek these protection orders so that they know the next time they go into that workplace they will be safe and that the person who was there will not be able to come back. The other benefit of course is that often it is not just the worker themselves – obviously they are the primary victim of any aggressor, but the environments that are created in some of these settings for passers-by and for other retail customers can be unpleasant. I hope that what this legislation does is gives everyone a sense that, particularly in larger retail environments where we know we have seen all too many unfortunate incidents, there are steps being taken to improve overall community safety as well.

The protection orders will have a simple objective: to limit a person’s access to workplaces or to workers if that person subject to the order is likely to engage in repeated acts of unacceptable conduct. That includes a range of behaviours that could cause a reasonable fear of harm for workers, including physical violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking, intimidation or making threats. As I said, so that the system is simpler to use and all the burden is not placed on the individual, who often is in their first job or quite young, employers and unions will be able to make applications on behalf of impacted workers.

The conditions that a protection order may impose are various, in recognition of the various contexts, circumstances and situations which give rise to the complaints. For this reason the courts have been given broad discretion to impose conditions that include but are not limited to requiring a person not to contact a worker, requiring a person not to access a particular workplace, requiring a person not to come within a specified distance of a workplace and requiring a person to not engage in threatening behaviour at a particular location. In determining the conditions of the protection orders, the courts are going to be required to prioritise the safety and protection of workers but also must carefully consider the circumstances and context of the specific incidents that give rise to the applications so that any conditions imposed are proportionate to the targeted response. This helps ensure that the rights and liberties of individuals are not disproportionately limited so that they do not experience unnecessary hardship as a result of the imposition of an order. We know this is particularly important for vulnerable Victorians, and it includes vulnerability for a range of circumstances. To balance the safety of workers against access to essential goods, the courts may set conditions to limit the contact between the person and the protected worker.

The orders will cover all retail workplaces where the sale of things is their primary form of business. It is a broad definition. Coverage for transport workers will include those on passenger trains, trams or buses as well as extend to workers in valid ticket areas and in ticket offices. There are a range of penalties that are put in place.

Just a couple of broader remarks: I think the work that Mr Galea has undertaken in the last couple of years on this is diligent and should be commended, obviously working with the trade union movement and with the Attorney-General and her team to develop both the concepts and the application of this regime here in Victoria – it is obviously something that other jurisdictions are also moving on – but also giving some real thought to how the system should work. It is that sort of engagement that this government does with representatives of workers, with businesses and with the police that really does benefit and show that good policymaking is at the core of many of the things that this government does. Sadly, the increase in harm and in threats and aggressive behaviour in our workplaces is real, and we see it both from the stories that we hear and also from harder data. Clearly there are a range of reasons that these increases in violent and threatening behaviour have taken place, and they are multifactorial. Some relate to broader issues within society. The impact particularly on certain individuals, whether it is violence or substance abuse or mental health issues, we do not know. But there are a range of factors.

One point I want to make, though, in the context of this debate is that I do not think that the retail companies themselves can avoid their share of responsibility for what is changing inside of their stores. There has been a very deliberate strategy, particularly from larger retailers in the last decade, to strip back the staff that used to be at the counters, to change the cashiers and the cash registers at supermarkets and larger stores ostensibly to what they say would make things more efficient and to strip costs out of their business. But that takes away humans, and it is undeniable that over time those changes – the removal of retail staff from the front line, the sacking of workers, the replacement of people with machines – have caused and contributed to a shift in the attitudes of some in our community to these stores.

I think the changes in the physical layout of some of these stores are a factor in what we have seen in terms of a rise of things like retail theft. Retail theft is increasing because of a range of factors, but one of them quite clearly is the decisions of the supermarkets and these large retail chains to take away people from the cash registers and instead replace them with machines or, in the case of some retailers, to move the cash registers and the check-out from the entrance and exit of a store into the middle and to create exceptionally open environments that have, sadly, resulted in people engaging in theft. They have contributed to this. The decisions of the retailers to remove staff and to change the layout of their stores have been a contributing factor in the attitudes that people have taken in those stores. They should not, and we do need to pass laws. We do need to put protections in place. But I do not think we can let this debate go by without putting on the record that actions that retailers have taken in their stores have been a factor in the rise of aggression towards their workers and they should take some responsibility for that. Maybe they should think about bringing back some of the staff who historically have been at check-outs and who have been there to assist customers. Maybe that will help dial down some of the aggression and negative and antisocial behaviour that exists in our stores. No actions are without consequence, and in this instance we can probably see a very clear one. That does not diminish the importance of what this legislation is doing. It does send a very strong message from Parliament and from the government that acts of violence and aggression towards retail workers are unacceptable and that we have put protections in place.

Our message to retail workers and transport workers is: we have got your back, and we are going to be here to support you and to put the laws and protections in place, working with your union to make sure that when you go to work, you feel safe. Every Victorian should expect that.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:36): I was not planning on speaking on this bill, but apparently the minister needs some time. I will be supporting this bill and, at this stage, none of the amendments. One of the things I have noticed over my years of not being in the political elite is that workers face violence in the workplace and they face it way too often, and at this stage this state’s pitifully weak trespass laws do not do a thing. They are absolutely more or less pointless, and I have pointed that out in the context of some other stuff before. This is why we need to do this. A workplace protection order, at this stage, is giving a person who is going to work the ability to go to work without being harassed, without being assaulted and without fear of going to work. If this person is harassing, assaulting or intimidating someone and they have mental issues, they have substance abuse issues or whatever, that is all good and fine, but that is not the fault or problem of the person who is being harassed, intimidated or assaulted. So what we really need is a mechanism to deal with this. This may not be perfect, but it is a mechanism.

I will pre-empt, for my Greens colleagues here, that I will not be supporting their amendment because public transport could be, from some perspective, a fundamental right, but I feel the fundamental right of the person driving the tram, train, bus or whatever is more important than the right of someone who has just thrown urine, blood or other stuff at them or assaulted them. We are all meant to be responsible for our actions. I am not saying that there should not be a pathway back, but just saying that you cannot ban someone from the public transport network because they might need to catch a bus or a train is not a good enough reason to let a violent offender back on the train.

In one of my previous occupations I dealt with violent offenders on trains. Police are trained to deal with these things. They are given equipment to deal with these things, and they have backup. Someone driving a train, a bus or a tram is not and has none, so it is important that they be able to have some sort of mechanism to give them that peace of mind. None of these things are going to be 100 per cent; none of these things is going to be guarantee. But as it is, it is quite the – I am trying not to swear – show. We can guess the other word. Without a police officer there, without a PSO there, without some form of security, all they have got to rely on – I will use a bus as an example – are those cages that they are given. I have seen time and time again on security footage, which is great after the fact, that those cages can be dismantled by an extremely violent person, and then what becomes of the driver? So I am quite happy to support this bill. I think it has been a long time coming. I think the minister is nearly ready, so I will leave my contribution at that.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (10:39): I am pleased to rise to speak on the debate on the Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2026. I want to from the outset thank every member of the chamber who has contributed to this debate. It is an important debate, one about worker protections. Fundamentally for me as a Labor minister, it is a core issue for us in terms of workplace safety being the reason for our movement and the reason for our political party. That is the reason why we do this work. It is about providing greater protection to working people and working families, and we know those in retail and the transport industries are on the front line. They are the people that provide the goods and services, the people that transport us around the city and state, and they play a vital role – not just an economic role but a social role. For many of us in this chamber our first job would have been in retail. Just as Premier Carroll talked about his first job at Kmart in Airport West, I know for many in this place, at 18, fast food or retail is where a lot of us got our start in life. That is why it is important that we provide the protection to these workers.

We know and we have heard, and government does consult; we listen and we act. We have heard from industry and from unions in this space about the growing trend, unfortunately, of behaviour that is unacceptable; the rise of incidents of abuse and threats and harassment and violence towards customer-facing workers has truly reached a level that is just quite unsustainable. It has always happened, but it is unfortunately a new type of vitriol that we are seeing. I do want to take this opportunity to thank those advocates like the retail association but in particular the unions such as the SDA and their strong secretary Michael Donovan for his leadership in advocating for and delivering greater protections to retail workers in our state. Thank you, Michael. I also want to thank the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the Transport Workers’ Union, the United Workers Union, Trades Hall and everyone that has engaged in the consultative working group. My colleague Mr Galea very ably chaired that committee, bringing different stakeholders – employer and employee groups – together. That is when government works best, and that is what the Carroll Labor government is about. The consultation group worked on a civil mechanism that will protect workers and impose significant criminal consequences on individuals who breach this civil order.

I do have an important announcement to make as well, because there has been some debate about the commencement in July next year. I can say, by proclamation, that it is the goal of the government and the Attorney-General to proclaim that this law will commence from 1 March 2027 instead of the original July 2027 timeframe. That is a positive development, and I know that the workers in those industries – in retail and transport – will welcome that announcement by the Carroll Labor government.

We know that workplace protection orders will target unacceptable conduct, including violence, sexual abuse, stalking and threats in retail and specific transport workplaces. Breaching conditions will carry penalties of up to two years imprisonment and fines exceeding $50,000. This measure is about protecting the workplace by limiting the access of people deemed to be engaging in repeated acts of unacceptable conduct. The worker protection scheme will enable unions, retail and transport operators to apply for an order. We have consulted widely, and I will repeat, as I started: the stakeholder engagement has been second to none in the development of this bill, because we want to get it right, and we have made sure that those powers will be with the unions and with retail and transport operators, who are best placed to apply for a workplace protection order. As part of this work, I can confirm that the Attorney General’s office has consulted with Victoria Police, who are very comfortable with these arrangements and agree that operators and unions have the resources, information and expertise in the workplace to assess and prepare an application. I will stress that it is important that this work is led by employers and employee groups, and it is important we respect that.

As a government, protecting workers is fundamental to our being, especially as a Labor government, and we have already taken strong action in terms of criminal penalties for a new offence in the Crimes Act 1958: the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Act 2025, which delivered a new indictable offence with up to five years imprisonment. We sent a clear message: we will always stand with retail workers, and we will always stand with frontline transport workers. This bill will complement that work. It provides another tool in the toolkit to protect these workers who are working on the front line and who are unfortunately facing a lot of abuse.

Our goal is to ensure that the workplace protection order is proportionate. I know some of the concerns that have been raised have been about the proportionality of the settings in this legislation, and we have been careful to make sure that we do not take away the ability to obtain goods or services more than necessary when there are no alternative options. We have given a lot of discretion to courts, because I think courts are well placed to assess every individual circumstance. No one incident will be the same, and I think our approach and the definitions used in this legislation mirror similar parts of the law in the ACT. We have taken some of the best examples from around the nation, knowing that South Australia and the ACT have led a lot of this work in relation to workplace protection orders. I want to thank my ministerial colleagues in those jurisdictions that have done that work, similarly to the way Victoria did. They engaged the appropriate unions – the SDA and the relevant transport workers unions – and they have also engaged with employer groups; I have talked about the advocacy of the retail association on this issue in making sure that we have the right settings.

That being said, courts must give paramount consideration to the safety of workers in the workplace when determining the conditions of a WPO, and we do not apologise for that. There are some people that are going to be affected by this, and rightfully they should be. If their conduct is of a level that is unacceptable, then there should be action; there should be consequences for their behaviour. Customer-facing workers in retail and transport provide essential services that we all rely on. They deserve our protection. They should not feel unsafe in their workplace. The retail sector alone contributes over $73 billion to our state’s economy per annum. There are hundreds of thousands of Victorian workers in these jobs.

I know one member asked what we are doing here. Well, I can tell you what we are doing: we are protecting workers. That is what we are doing. It is what this bill does. It is about worker protection. If you believe in protecting workers, now is the time to remember that, and actions will speak louder than words. I will remind everyone in the chamber of that. I am not singling out anybody, but I think it is an important message that we all do put on record. On this side of the chamber we believe that every Victorian worker deserves to feel safe at work, and we are committed to protecting customer-facing workers. The introduction of the workplace protection orders, alongside other reforms, will deliver safer workplaces for retail and transport workers.

I might leave my contribution there, because I understand we are going to enter into committee, where some of these issues will be teased out. I want to thank everyone. I understand that the opposition is broadly supporting the bill. I am pleased to hear that. The government is supporting this bill, and I look to the crossbench to also demonstrate their support for stronger worker protections. It is important that this chamber unites and supports our retail workers, young and old, male and female. This is a very diverse workforce. Protect our transport workers that are on the front line transporting us across our city and state; I think this will be a real test of where people stand on worker protection and worker safety. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (10:54)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to start off, can the minister confirm whether unacceptable conduct with respect to this bill is intended for or capable of capturing peaceful protest activity? For example, where a protest involves entering or remaining on premises or conduct that might be characterised as trespass at a retailer, shopping centre, transport hub or workplace connected to the subject of a protest.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the unacceptable conduct test that has been applied obviously mirrors what is in place in the ACT, which already has workplace protection orders. It is always difficult to comment on hypotheticals, because each circumstance is different in relation to the workplace settings and where the protest is taking place. Could you just clarify your example? But I am wary about getting into examples and hypotheticals because the judges and the judiciary are best placed to analyse each circumstance. Like I said, it is hard to say where the protest is exactly in relation to the workplace, as defined in the act.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I am happy to clarify. There are two prongs to it. There is whether it is intended to capture these types of activities and whether it is capable. An answer to either of those would be useful. We are talking about, for example, a protest, as I said, where protesters have entered or have remained on a premises – conduct that might be characterised by others as trespass. In that example, would this be intended or capable of capturing that activity as unacceptable conduct?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm for the purpose of the bill ‘unacceptable conduct’ does mean physical violence, abuse, sexual violence or abuse, stalking or conduct that causes a person to experience reasonable fear of harm. Clearly, then, for any activity to be captured in the bill, it needs to involve at least one of these types of conduct. It would be inappropriate to hypothecate, but if someone conducts stalking behaviour and the court is convinced that it is going to happen again and it is in a workplace setting or close to workplace setting, then I guess that could be captured. But then it would be captured because they have obviously done something wrong, such as physical violence, sexual violence, abuse or stalking in relation to someone’s workplace. So not the protest part, but the wrongdoing in terms of stalking conduct, sexual violence or physical violence. The mere protest itself would not be captured, but if it is linked to additional unacceptable conduct, as the test for it is in the legislation, then it could be captured.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to confirm from what you have just said, though: trespass is not considered unacceptable conduct with respect to the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Trespass alone, no, because the definition is quite clear about that fear of harm. Trespass alone would not be enough.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Under clause 21 a court can make a workplace protection order on the basis of a single instance of unacceptable conduct. There is no requirement that the person has engaged in a pattern of behaviour or done anything more than once. Can the minister confirm that one incident is enough to found an order?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is a really good question, because obviously the goal here is to more broadly protect the workplace. But we know that there is a pattern of repeat offenders, and that is why a lot of our judicial centres tackle those. This legislation, particularly clause 21, provides that a workplace protection order may be made when the court is satisfied, one, that the respondent engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to a person who performs work at the relevant workplace and it is within 12 months of the application being made. I think the relevant test – you asked about it being only once – is that the respondent is likely to engage in such conduct again. And then thirdly, the making of the order must be appropriate. Technically after a single incident, yes, but the court would need to be satisfied that they are likely to engage again. Again, it is up to the court to distinguish, and each circumstance is different. Usually you could say if someone has already done it multiple times, they are more likely to be placed on this order because they are probably more likely to engage again. But if they have only done it once, I guess the court would need to be convinced that they are likely to engage in such conduct again. We have deliberately kept it broad for the court to interpret, because the courts know that each circumstance is different. But for the test of whether they are likely to engage in such conduct again, it is only required that there be a minimum of one incident. They could potentially find that they are likely to engage in this behaviour again, but more likely than not they will probably look at a pattern of behaviour. It is at the discretion of the court. I am reluctant to lean into the court too much, because ultimately they know the circumstances. Every individual’s case will be different.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: To expand upon the answer you have just given – I appreciate the information you provided – is there an example of the type of information a court might rely upon to verify whether it is likely that the person will reoffend?

Enver ERDOGAN: Just to confirm, one incident may be sufficient, you are right. But the fact is that the court will need to make an assessment. We have not provided that kind of strict guidance because we think the court is best placed to make that assessment on the circumstance. Like I said, it is obvious that if someone has done it repeatedly they are probably more likely to do it again. After one incident, I think that it would be up to the court to be satisfied.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to move on, can you confirm whether a workplace protection order can be made in the respondent’s absence – that is, on an ex parte basis – noting clause 21(3)(b) allows the court to make an order whether or not the respondent is before it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, an order could be made. However, the application itself must be first served on the respondent, and if they do not attend the court, the court has the ability to hear and determine an application and make an order in their absence.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The scheme will apply to children as young as 14. Minister, can you explain how subjecting a 14-year-old to a quasi-criminal order that restricts their movement and access to essential services is consistent with the evidence on child development and the principle that children should be diverted from punitive legal responses?

Enver ERDOGAN: I appreciate the point that Mr Puglielli is trying to make here, because as a former justice minister I am sympathetic and know that in young people’s development it is quite important that we have appropriate responses. But again, similar to my answer to your previous questions, courts are well placed to assess individual circumstances and the appropriateness. I think over 14 is a relatively developed age, and I note it is not lower. We know the age of criminal responsibility is 12 in Victoria; we have set it at 14 in relation to these orders. But as to whether the orders are appropriate in the circumstances especially, the court will have consideration of the young person’s circumstances, and we are giving that discretion to the courts. We know courts do respond differently to offenders of a younger age, especially under the legal age of 18, but that will be a matter for the court to determine in light of the circumstances of the young person or child.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Given that a workplace protection order restricts a person’s liberty and access to essential services, in the bill’s current form, and that breach is a criminal offence, why does the government consider the reasonable fear of harm limb sufficiently certain and precise in founding an order of this kind?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Puglielli, could you just repeat that question?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Given that a workplace protection order restricts a person’s liberty and access to essential services like public transport and this breach is a criminal offence, why does the government consider the term ‘reasonable fear of harm’ sufficiently certain and precise in founding an order of this kind?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the reasonable fear of harm test we have put does have great consequences. We know the foundation for this legislation is about people being safe at work and feeling safe at work – not just being safe at work but feeling safe at work as well. We are especially talking about frontline workers that do really necessary work to keep our city going and our state going. I think it is appropriate to have that test. We know that there are some grave consequences, because it will potentially mean for some people they will have to change their mode of transport. We felt this order was appropriate because people need to be safe at work, and that is why we are here.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I am just going to go back to one of my other questions from before, before I go on to other questions prepared. Just on what is or is not captured or intended to be captured as unacceptable conduct, is there a scenario where a picket line of industrial action could be captured as a setting of unacceptable conduct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Going back to the basis for unacceptable conduct, if there is conduct that involves physical violence, abuse, sexual violence or stalking, then there is a potential for it to be captured – whatever the actions involve. Obviously, the intention is not to stop lawful industrial action. The intention is to target these behaviours we have seen, especially in the retail space and on public transport, of violence, sexual violence, stalking and conduct that causes a person to experience reasonable fear of harm.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just moving on, clause 50 requires copies of orders to be given to the Chief Commissioner of Police, and clause 35 makes a breach a criminal offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment. Minister, can you explain what record is kept of an order and of any breach and whether either can be disclosed to a prospective employer or appear on a police check or working with children check? Given that orders can be made against children as young as 14, what will the long-term consequences be for a young person’s employment and future prospects?

Enver ERDOGAN: Victoria Police, you are right, will be provided copies of the orders. They will record that information in accordance with the requirements that generally apply to their use of information, just as would happen under any other legislation that gives a role to Victoria Police. Whether the information can be disclosed is a matter for Victoria Police to assess in accordance with the requirements that apply to it. Victoria Police will be provided copies. How they record it will be under the usual requirements for the way they collect information in existing matters, and how it is disclosed will be a matter for Victoria Police.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Moving on, looking particularly at the public transport settings in the current bill before us, can you explain how ‘workplace’ is to be defined across a transport network? Is an order attached to a vehicle? Is it attached to a stop, a line, a whole network? How will it work in practice?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a really good question, and it is the crux of the issue. The goal is that a transport workplace is one of the following: a passenger train, tram or bus operated by or on behalf of the operator for the carrying of members of the public as passengers – so we are talking about public passengers; a place at which the operator or its worker sells tickets that entitle the purchaser to be carried as a passenger on a passenger train, tram or bus operated by or on behalf of the operator; or an area of land that is owned or occupied by the operator that requires a valid ticket for entry.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to build on that particular question, how is an order that excludes a person from trains, trams or buses on a route to be enforced in practice?

Enver ERDOGAN: Similar to other orders, where there are contraventions, Victoria Police will be responsible for investigating and enforcement. Currently, as we know, when people are doing the wrong thing or breaching orders on the transport network, police will often be alerted, and they will obviously take action as appropriate. It will be up to police to do the enforcement for a breach of orders.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just building on that, who does the government expect will be the person that identifies an individual in order for police to then be present and act? Is it the driver, is it the transport staff, is it authorised officers or is it police already at the stations themselves? And what are they expected to do when a person subject to an order boards a service?

Enver ERDOGAN: With workplace protection orders as set out in our legislation, the power is with the operator in most instances to apply for these orders. It will be on the transport operator. When we say the transport operator, that could be a public transport staff member – he has noticed a commuter from the past who has an order because of their unacceptable conduct. As a result, it would be up to the operator how they feel it is best to notify police, but in most instances it is like any other workplace. A lot of people use the same travel routes. In a practical sense the way I imagine this is that the staff or the person who was previously either physically harmed or stalked – or some of the definitions we have got there – will alert Victoria Police to the person breaching the order in effect. It would be on the operator how they want that to play out in their workplace, whether there is one person responsible – some workplaces have an occupational health and safety rep – or whether it is the manager. It depends on the workplace setting, but on a lot of public transport routes you can see that a lot of the same staff are on the route, and they usually, to be honest, recognise a lot of the passengers, especially the passengers that are dangerous or have in the past conducted themselves so as to put staff in danger.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to expand a little bit further, you mentioned there might be a scenario where the staff recognise the individual by face. Is there any other information the government expects staff on these transport networks to be using to make this identification, particularly if we are talking about an example, as is permissible under this bill, where it is not a pattern of behaviour but the person has done something one time and has then become subject to one of these orders?

Enver ERDOGAN: Like I said, just going back to my last answer, it is going to be up to each operator, whether it be a retail operator or a transport operator. I know the focus is on transport operators. It is going to be up to them how they want to enforce this scheme, because ultimately it will probably be them that will apply for the order. It is going to be up to them as to how they are intending to notify police if there is a breach, but we will leave that to each operator. I am sure everyone will have their own practice with how to handle these matters.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will move on to another question. What safeguard does the bill provide for a person who breaches an order only because they are fleeing family violence or they are in immediate danger on public transport, and where is that protection found in the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is really good question. It is always important to allow defences. This legislation does not include specific defences or exceptions because ordinary common law and statutory criminal defences will be available for breaches, so existing defences will be available, including if someone is under duress or having a sudden or extraordinary emergency or mental impairment. That will all be available. I think the judiciary is well trained and practiced in being able to make that assessment in applying these orders.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Staying on the public transport network, given Victoria’s public transport network carries hundreds of thousands of passengers a day across thousands of services, does the government expect an exclusion from a route or from the network as a whole to actually be enforceable?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, we are getting into really operational detail, but like any orders – and there are many orders that courts make – where there are contraventions, it will be up to the police to take the enforcement action once it has been reported to them. But I do not want to get into every specific scenario, because they will be different. Even in giving the order, access to alternative routes of travel will be a consideration of the courts. Each circumstance will be different depending on the risk, but the courts are best placed to make those decisions, and the enforcement will be sitting with Victoria Police.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, as you would be aware, a person’s transport needs can change over time with a new job or if they move, have a change in caring responsibilities, have a medical condition or lose their licence or their car. An order that is proportionate when made may become a serious barrier just weeks later for the individual. Can you set out a process by which a respondent can apply to vary or revoke an order? Is that process free, is it accessible and does it require legal representation? How quickly would we expect an application of this kind to be heard? Is the court required to take into account a person’s changed circumstances when it does?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a really good question. It was at the front of my mind in the drafting, and I know it was at the front of the Attorney-General’s mind. She has always been looking at: what if people’s circumstances change? We do know that these orders will have a significant effect on people. Even though it is their wrong behaviour that has put them in that situation, regardless, it needs to be proportionate. There are provisions where parties to a workplace protection order can apply to the court to vary or revoke an order, such as where there is a change in circumstances in relation to the workplace protection order. The conditions in which the order was issued in the first place may have completely changed for the individual. They can apply to court – I guess the way they could do it is in writing – for a variation to or a revocation of an order stating the reasons for the application. They must also provide an affidavit setting out the facts upon which the application is being made to vary or revoke the order. Courts must have regard to a number of matters as to whether they decide to accept, in light of the reasons given, a change to the order. That will be up to the court. But writing to the court, applying to the court directly, will be the way to do it.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I just have a few more questions. For many young people, particularly looking at people aged 14 to 17 – perhaps those in rural and regional areas, in out-of-home care or in low-income families – public transport is their only means of getting to school, to work, to health care, to where they need to be, including potentially court or corrections appointments. Minister, can you explain how a transport-based order against a child who has no alternative means of transport can be justified, and does the government accept this may risk entrenching further disadvantage and drawing young people into the justice system through breach?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal here is to provide safety for workers. That is the primary, paramount goal of this legislation. But I think on the issues you are touching upon – again, the circumstantial evidence – a court will need to consider the appropriateness, and I am sure age is a factor. Our magistrates are well trained in looking at the development of a young person in issuing orders, and I know that they get quite a bit of public interest as a result of that, to put it lightly. But yes, I think the courts will consider those factors in making these orders. Again, I am not going to delve into the operation of the courts, but they are well trained to deal with those issues because they deal with them each and every day in different settings and under different legislation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Given the coroner’s findings in the inquest into the death of Tanya Day, which I mentioned in the second-reading debate, about the treatment of Aboriginal people on public transport, what assessment has the government made of the risk of Aboriginal people, people experiencing homelessness, people living with disability or people experiencing family violence being barred from an essential service in public transport?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think in the drafting of this legislation that was a strong consideration of the Attorney-General in making sure that there were the safeguards for the courts in relation to the application of these orders and that they were tailored with the ultimate goal of protecting workers but also with consideration of the potential impact of any conditions on the individual. Everyone’s circumstances are different, and that is why the court will need to make sure that the conditions are appropriate and also are proportionate to the level of harm that has been caused, or allegedly been caused, going forward. I think in determining what conditions to impose the court must also have regard to hardship to be caused by a condition and whether a condition might limit a person’s ability to obtain necessary goods or access necessary services. Earlier you gave an example of regional settings, where there might not be any other options. In urban areas there might be different options, but in more isolated parts of our state there might not be. I think these are all factors for the courts to consider. Again I want to acknowledge the family of Tanya Day for the tragedy. In relation to this legislation, we will leave it to the courts to make those determinations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (11:24)

Renee HEATH: I move:

1.   Clause 2, lines 9 and 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“This Act comes into operation on the day after the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.”.

2.   Clause 2, page 2, lines 1 to 3, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

These amendments talk about the commencement date. The coalition brought amendments to this house in November last year, and if they had been accepted and passed then, workers in Victoria would already have these protections. We believe that it is just far too far away. I know the government has changed the date from 1 July to 1 March, and we welcome that and we will support that amendment. However, there have been 5000 incidents in the past year, and we think that these need to come into force sooner in order to protect Victorian workers.

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to thank Dr Heath for her amendments and for raising this issue, because I know that many in the sector – the retailers, the employee groups, the unions and I know the SDA – have been strongly advocating for a sooner start date. I am pleased to announce an earlier commencement date, instead of July, of 1 March 2027. I know that the Attorney-General has been weighing this in the drafting of the legislation, but these are complex changes to the system. They are new to our Victorian system, and we felt more time was needed to give agencies the time to prepare for implementation. That is why we have set 1 March, especially since the legislation will only be, hopefully, passed today.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens are not supporting the bill overall, and so bringing the commencement forward would not make sense for us to support. We will not be supporting this one.

David LIMBRICK: Similar to Mr Puglielli, the Libertarian Party do not support this bill; therefore I do not think it is desirable or even possible, as the government has pointed out, to bring this forward.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 4 (11:33)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli, I invite you to move your amendments 1 to 5, which test your remaining amendments.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

1.   Clause 4, lines 13 to 15, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“applicable business operator means an entity that carries out a business the predominant purpose of which is the provision of goods for sale or hire (including by auction) on a retail basis;”.

2.   Clause 4, lines 19 to 21, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

3.   Clause 4, page 3, lines 5 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

4.   Clause 4, page 4, lines 7 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

5.   Clause 4, page 4, lines 16 to 18, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

As mentioned in the second-reading debate, these amendments will remove the public transport component from this bill, meaning that workplace protection orders cannot be issued to ban people from public transport locations and services. While, as I have stated numerous times through the second-reading debate, I think we all here want transport workers to be safe at work, it is also important that we are not seeing people banned from an essential public transport service. Many people experiencing marginalisation right across the community do not have other options for getting around our state, whether it is to get to work, to school or to connect with friends, family and the broader community. Extending these bans to public transport is a step too far. To my understanding there is nowhere else in this country where similar workplace bans extend to public transport, and so the Greens do not support them being introduced in this manner in Victoria.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. Although I may not agree with Mr Puglielli’s rationale for it, essentially it is a reduction in scope of the bill. The Libertarian Party is opposing the bill. Therefore it is logical to support a reduction in scope of the bill, and therefore we will support it.

Renee HEATH: The coalition will not be supporting this amendment because it seeks to put the rights of perpetrators above the rights and the safety of victims, and that is something that we certainly do not agree with. So we will be opposing this.

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to thank Mr Puglielli for this amendment, but the government will not be supporting it. The government’s grounds are that the legislation has been carefully thought through and there are safeguards in place. Whether a person would be prohibited from an entire mode of transport is a matter for the judiciary, who will be able to assess that based on each circumstance. The real purpose of this legislation is putting the safety of workers first, and that is the goal. In the end, if an order was to be put prohibiting someone’s use of transport, the appropriateness of that in the circumstances of each case would be a matter for the judiciary to assess.

Council divided on amendments:

Renee HEATH: I move:

3.   Clause 4, page 3, after line 2 insert –

“final workplace protection order means an order under section 21(1);

interim workplace protection order means an order under section 20A(1);”.

5.   Clause 4, page 5, lines 3 and 4, omit “an order under section 21” and insert “an interim workplace protection order or a final workplace protection order”.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow for an interim workplace protection order, similar to what you would be able to access with an intervention order. That is just to bring it in line with the other intervention orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that the government did consider whether we should be providing for the making of interim WPOs. However, ultimately, we determined that doing so would result in courts needing to hear applications twice therefore delaying the making of a final order to protect the retail and public transport workers in their place. On that ground we decided to not proceed, and therefore we cannot support this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Mulholland’s amendments 3 and 5, which test amendments 6 to 9, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33 to 35, 36, 40 to 46, 49 and 62 to 64, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

Renee HEATH: I move:

4.   Clause 4, page 4, lines 7 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“retail operator means an entity (other than a transport operator) that carries out a business the predominant purpose of which is either or both of the following –

(a)   the sale or hire of goods by retail (including by auction);

(b)   the retail provision of services;”.

This amendment addresses the government’s unnecessarily narrow definition of the workers that can access these protections. The bill covers certain retail workers and transport workers, but the definition applying to retail could create a distinction between those that are selling a good and those that are providing a service, so we want to make sure that, for instance, if they are working at a cinema, which is the example that was used in both the other house and in here yesterday, all of those workers receive the same protection.

Enver ERDOGAN: This is a new scheme, and although I understand the coalition’s perspective on this, I do not necessarily agree with it. I think it is about targeting the serious nature of unacceptable conduct against workers. We have had to limit it to an extent where we believe there is the highest volume we have seen of where a lot of these instances are taking place. Nonetheless there is a statutory review to the scheme, and I think, like all good legislation, we have got a statutory review within three years, but that could go further if we get feedback and it is working well. It might be something that the Attorney-General could look at at a date sooner than the three years, but at this point we feel like we have struck a balance here to target these settings and deliberately make sure that the definition is defined the way it is.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment. Conversely to the previous amendment by Mr Puglielli, this amendment increases the scope of the bill. Considering that we are opposing the bill, it therefore does not make sense for us to support increasing the scope of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Mulholland’s amendment 4, which tests his amendment 10, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 17 (11:55)

Renee HEATH: I move:

11.   Clause 17, line 4, omit “Each” and insert –

“(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), each”.

14.   Clause 17, before line 8 insert –

“(2) An applicable business operator must not apply for a workplace protection order unless –

(a)   the applicable business operator consists of only one natural person, and that person is the victim of the unacceptable conduct in respect of which the application is to be made; or

(b)   the victim of the unacceptable conduct in respect of which the application is to be made has given consent in writing to the making of the application.

(3) An employee union must not apply for a workplace protection order unless the victim of the unacceptable conduct in respect of which the application is to be made has given consent in writing to the making of the application.”.

These amendments relate to victim consent. Consent is a fundamental underpinning principle of our legal system, and our criminal justice system is based around victim consent. We want to make sure that if somebody discloses something, maybe about an issue that they are having, they have autonomy over whether or not this is reported and an intervention is sought. That is why we are moving these amendments, because we want to make sure that victims have control over their own situation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: While the intent that is underpinning what has been brought forward is one which I can absolutely appreciate, my understanding is, in practice, when one would look to amend an order after one is already existing, in order to reduce the scope of the order into the future, this could mean that employees within the workplace who would previously have to give consent would be sought to give consent, and perhaps they have moved on from those positions and would have to be tracked down. I think in practice it could make amending an order to improve it to someone’s changed circumstances more difficult. On that basis the Greens are not able to support the amendment.

Michael GALEA: I do have a few questions for Dr Heath. Workplace protection orders are applied on the basis of protecting entire cohorts or entire sections of workplaces, not on the basis of protecting individual workers. Section 21 of the bill does not make reference to victims specifically. I am wondering if you can advise how a victim is defined. But also does the worker who is the subject of unacceptable conduct need to be the one to provide consent, or would it apply to someone who, for example, witnessed unacceptable conduct or another worker or manager altogether?

Renee HEATH: The way we see it, it is the person that is at the core of the offensive behaviour. For instance, if employee A is the one that is being abused by somebody and employee B witnesses it, employee A would be the one that would have to provide the consent.

Michael GALEA: In that scenario, if an offender commits an unacceptable conduct against multiple workers – say, for example, 10, and nine of those workers provide consent but one does not – where does that stand? Does the application proceed or is it void?

Renee HEATH: If consent was given in your hypothetical situation, yes, the order would go ahead. But in saying that, it is difficult to respond to hypothetical situations, because anything can happen. But, yes, if there are people there –

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: What was that, Mr Batchelor?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we just let Dr Heath answer the question, and then we will go to question time.

Renee HEATH: I was answering it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I am asking the others not to.

Renee HEATH: I am not saying, for instance, like you guys do in question time, ‘That’s a hypothetical; I won’t answer.’ I have provided that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Heath, please speak through the Chair and do not respond to interruptions to the question that was put.

Renee HEATH: I am happy with the answer I have given. I was trying to be helpful.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.