Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. This bill will provide legal protections for Commonwealth workplaces and workers and deter acts of violence and other harmful behaviours by members of the public. The workplace protection orders, or WPO, scheme responds to the increasing risk of harm faced by Commonwealth workers, particularly those in frontline service-delivery roles. It is an unfortunate reality that those government workers who do essential work supporting the most vulnerable members of our community are more likely to be confronted with violence and other unacceptable behaviour than those in many other professions are.

Between July 2023 and June 2024, there were 1,694 serious incidents across Services Australia's face-to-face services. As recently as May this year, two Australian Border Force contractors were seriously assaulted with a bladed weapon whilst at work. We simply cannot accept this. We cannot accept Commonwealth workers—the people charged with looking after our most vulnerable and keeping our country safe—being threatened and assaulted on the job. This is for many reasons. Of course, fundamentally, no-one should have to deal with this sort of behaviour at work, but it is particularly important for us, as the federal government, to be protecting our workers, because we really want to be an employer of choice. We will run into serious problems as a country if people no longer want to do the jobs our community relies on, and we have a duty to our country and to our workers to protect the people who protect us. That is what this bill is about.

On 13 October 2023, the government committed to implementing all 44 recommendations of the 2023 Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, conducted by Mr Graham Ashton AM, APM—the Ashton review—which was commissioned after a Services Australia staff member was seriously assaulted with a bladed weapon in May 2023. This bill implements our response to recommendation 17 of the Ashton review and complements the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act 2024, which implemented recommendation 18 of the review by increasing the penalties for harming a Commonwealth frontline worker.

The bill enables an authorised person from a Commonwealth entity to apply to a court for a WPO on behalf of a Commonwealth worker or workplace where personal violence, including threats of violence, against a worker or workplace has arisen out of, or in direct connection with, their official functions and duties. This definition is designed to include acts of violence, harassment and intimidation; threats of harm; and other harmful, non-physical violence such as verbal abuse and conduct engaged in over the phone. Contravention of a WPO would constitute a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of up to two years. This is about sending a strong message that violence and aggressive behaviour are unacceptable and about deterring this behaviour from occurring in the first place.

The scheme will be available to most Commonwealth workplaces, extending to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. This includes workplaces such as mobile service pop-ups in shops and shopping centres, Commonwealth vehicles or a Commonwealth worker's residence, when working from home. Again, this is about providing a safe workplace for the workers we, as Australians, depend on. Whether it is through implementing our social safety net or keeping dangerous criminals and products out of Australia, Commonwealth workers are essential. Even if you do not often find yourself meeting with a Commonwealth worker, they are out there every day working for the public good. While it's a shame that the protections in this bill are necessary, we must do everything we can do protect our workers and ensure our departments and agencies remain attractive places to work. Any violence towards a Commonwealth worker is unacceptable, and this bill aims to deter this disgraceful behaviour.

This bill addresses a legislative gap in most state and territory protection order schemes, because, under this scheme, affected workers do not need to bring an application forward in their own name. If a Commonwealth worker needs a protection order to be safe at work, we should be doing everything we can as a government to make that order accessible, including barriers like privacy concerns. This bill is an important step towards creating safer Commonwealth workplaces and sends a strong message that the Albanese government values workers who provide critical government services and that violence and aggression towards these workers is unacceptable.

This behaviour is not accepted in any other industry. As my friend the member for Moreton went to in her remarks, you see signs everywhere stating that disrespectful behaviour towards staff will not be tolerated. That could be in your local bank branch, in the drive-through or at a shopping centre. Members of the public—patrons, customers, passengers—are rightly expected to be respectful to the people who are there to help them. Of course, we see disgraceful behaviour—and I know in retail the SDA has been running the No One Deserves a Serve campaign for many years, calling on customers to conduct themselves appropriately and for employers to put in appropriate protections for their workers, and, really, this is what this bill is about on a Commonwealth level. As an employer, the Commonwealth is putting in place appropriate protections for its workers. Besides the fundamental responsibility we have as an employer to provide a safe workplace, we also need to make sure that our departments and agencies remain attractive places to work. We cannot let Commonwealth workers get left behind as other sectors tackle abuse and violence. We need to take action, and that is exactly what this bill does.

We also need to be mindful of the rights of other service users. Their rights deserve consideration in this respect as well. We've seen workplaces shut down because of unacceptable and violent behaviours, leaving others in the room without the services they need in that given moment. In the context of the Commonwealth government, we're not talking about nice-to-haves. We are talking about essential services—money to put food on the table, the addressing of the immediate needs of the vulnerable and the protection of physical safety. Therefore, there is a public interest in taking action to ensure that those disruptions do not happen and that Commonwealth workers are able to work at their best and do their job for the public good without disruption.

This bill also considers the rights of the individuals subject to orders. It's why the bill puts guardrails in place. We're not talking about a criminal penalty or a finding of guilt. This is, by and large, a protective measure. When applying for a WPO, the proposed conditions may, in effect, limit a person's access to Commonwealth services; however, this has guardrails to ensure that individuals subject to those orders are able to receive the services they need. Orders can be made flexibly to ensure that adaptations are made to ensure that those subject to the order are still receiving the services they need at the same time as fulfilling that important need to ensure that Commonwealth workers are protected. There is that flexibility in the way the orders are drafted and in the way this legislation is designed to ensure the delivery of necessary services at the same time as protecting the legitimate rights of workers, the legitimate rights of others in their workplace and the legitimate rights of our fellow citizens to utilise those services.

Fundamentally, the imposition of a WPO will not prevent a person accessing necessary Commonwealth services—though it may alter the way they can access those services for a period—nor will it remove their right to political communication. People are entitled to have their political views, but no Commonwealth worker should be subject to abuse, intimidation, harassment, threats or the conduct of physical violence, and there are lines that really must be drawn in the sand in this respect. While concerns about access to services are reasonable to raise and consider, the guardrails put into this legislation are reasonably and appropriately adapted to balancing the rights of all concerned. We cannot be distracted from the fundamental principle that no-one should be threatened or assaulted at work, especially not when they're doing such important work for the Australian community.

One of the early meetings I took after the election was with Richard, our local manager at Services Australia in Ringwood—it's not far from my electoral office in Mitcham. Like others in this place, my office receives a lot of emails and phone calls from people seeking assistance from Services Australia, and it was great to meet Richard and hear about what he and his team do for our community. I reflect on the important work they do and how difficult disruptive behaviours can make it. It's for workers like that that we really need to ensure that we are doing right by our Commonwealth workers. We need to make sure that teams like Richard's never have to confront violence or aggression.

But, with 1,694 serious incidents occurring across Services Australia's face-to-face service channel in a single year, the sad reality is that we need stronger protections for Commonwealth workers. These jobs are important. Our people deserve to feel safe and to be safe, and, when we think about the harms, it's simply not only the danger of physical intimidation and physical assaults but also the psychosocial risk is becoming increasingly prevalent challenge faced in many workplaces. We need to make sure that abuse is no longer tolerated or considered part of the job and that people should never be told that they just have to cop it because it's part of the gig. No, we are entitled to expect that our fellow citizens engage with Commonwealth workers with respect for them as individuals and with respect for their safety. No-one deserves a serve, including Commonwealth workers.

We see from the number of workers compensation claims and the number of days of absenteeism that threats and intimidation can have a profound impact on a worker's ability to do their job. Given the importance of the work being done by our Commonwealth workers, we need to make sure that we are enabling our people to perform at their best. That also means ensuring that we're protecting their safety, both physical and psychosocial, to ensure that we have the best possible Public Service that we are able to deliver for the Australian people. It is our responsibility to the Australian people as well our employees to make sure that appropriate measures are in place. We need to ensure that we, as employers, take the initiative to put in place these protective measures where necessary to ensure that interventions can be put in place in circumstances where workers have been the subject of intolerable behaviour—that we draw a line in the sand and make sure measures are in place to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.

It is sad that there is an increasing minority of people who have become antigovernment and are engaging in irrational, violent, intimidating behaviour towards government employees across the government sector, be they Services Australia staff or, as my colleagues have pointed out, staff in our electorate offices. That has made working in this sector a little bit harder than it used to be. I know the vast majority of Australians respect our public servants. They respect the work that they do and they treat them with dignity and respect, as you'd expect. But, sadly, we have to create these regimes to deal with a small minority of people who engage in disrespectful or violent behaviour. This is a sensible, proportionate and reasonable measure to ensure that we can keep our workplaces safe, that we can serve the Australian people and that we make sure that everyone's right to feel safe and respected at work is preserved. That is why I am proud to support this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context