Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. This is the second piece of legislation to come before this parliament in the wake of the horrific attack on a Services Australia employee who was just doing her job. A public servant going about her day—doing her job like public servants in every part of this country—was punched in the face and stabbed in the back, leaving her with life-changing injuries. This is appalling. No Australian should be attacked at work.

So, when former Victoria Police chief commissioner Graham Ashton made recommendations, following a review of security arrangements at Services Australia and indeed in all Commonwealth workplaces, we took them very seriously. One of those recommendations led to the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024. This was a bill to expand the criminal offences for assaulting a frontline worker employed by the Commonwealth. The coalition supported the bill and it passed the parliament on a bipartisan basis.

Another one of those recommendations in the Ashton review has led to this bill that we're considering today. As the member for Watson said when reintroducing this bill—and we acknowledge his comments on the need for this and the constructive approach that all sides of politics have taken to this legislation—there have been more than 1,700 serious incidents at Services Australia between July 2023 and July last year.

But all of us in this place know that Services Australia employees are not the only ones to face these threats. It's also the employees in our embassies, the contractors and subcontractors on our defence bases, private security guards routinely found on Commonwealth premises, officers of the Australian Federal Police and, indeed, the staff in our electorate offices. As recently as May 2025, two Australian Border Force contractors were assaulted and stabbed whilst at work.

This legislation came before parliament last term, and we indicated at the time that we would support the bill after a quick committee inquiry. That committee inquiry was handed down on a bipartisan basis, with a recommendation for minor changes but otherwise supporting the legislation. So the coalition is pleased to reiterate its support for this bill today.

In essence, what the bill does is to create a scheme for Commonwealth workplace protection orders. These orders are similar to apprehended and personal violence order schemes that are commonplace in the states and territories. These orders will apply in Commonwealth workplaces or to protect Commonwealth workers. This means the orders can apply to an entire workplace, such as an electorate office or Services Australia centre. It also means that the orders can specifically protect individual Commonwealth workers who have been targeted—whether in the car park, on the way home or outside working hours.

As I mentioned previously, the potential risks faced by Commonwealth workers are not just limited to Services Australia employees but are very broad. So the very broad definition of the term 'Commonwealth worker' is appropriate. The broad definition means that the orders will be able to protect Services Australia employees, Australian Federal Police, contractors, security guards, volunteers and electorate office staff. This approach is sensible and warrants the support of the chamber.

In terms of the substance of the protection orders, the bill would also allow a court to direct a person not to attend a particular Commonwealth workplace, not to go near an affected worker and to comply with other appropriate conditions. Only a court can make such an order, and it must be cancelled if the grounds for the order cease to exist. To make this type of order, a court must be satisfied that a person has engaged in personal violence or made threats of personal violence and there is a real risk that the person will engage in further violence if the order is not made.

Like other schemes, a person does not commit an offence simply because an order is made against them. However, contravening an order is punishable by up to two years jail, or 120 penalty units—currently just under $40,000—or both. These penalties are in line with the penalties for similar schemes.

The scheme does not require a worker to apply for an order themselves; applications can also be made by the relevant agency through an authorised person. This means that a worker who has been targeted does not necessarily need to be the one attending a court and applying for a protection order in their own name. We understand that the burden on the state and territory court system is expected to be minimal.

As I mentioned, this bill has been subjected to the usual scrutiny processes through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and was endorsed by the committee. It has also been examined by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and clarifying information from the former responsible minister was provided through that scrutiny process. That being the case, the coalition is pleased to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context