Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to support the intent and measures within the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. Everyone is entitled to work in a workplace that is as safe as possible, and Commonwealth public servants can be in situations where their safety can be compromised. This bill provides additional legal protections for Commonwealth workers and workplaces, including a residence, and will deter acts of threatening or harmful behaviours, or violence by members of the public, by establishing a Commonwealth workplace protection orders scheme. The Commonwealth workplace protection orders are modelled on state and territory apprehended and personal violence orders.

The bill implements recommendation 17 of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, which considered the adequacy of security measures at Services Australia service centres and related matters, though the issue is much broader. Staff in embassies, contractors on defence bases, private security guards, Australian Federal Police officers and electorate office staff all face risks in the course of their duties. We must, in this place, acknowledge the sense of duty of the members of the Public Service, the employees of all those Commonwealth departments and agencies and their contractors. I've worked with many over my career and, while we did not always agree, I know they were, and are, most earnest in their endeavours and attempts to work in the national interest.

According to the government, as of October 2023, there were more than 170,000 Commonwealth public servants, and 100,000 of those were operational staff working in places like Services Australia, the Australian tax office, passport offices, airports and the Australian Electoral Commission. I am very grateful for the hard work and diligence of the Services Australia staff in my own electorate of Lyne. I want to acknowledge their hard work and continued service to the community during and after the May flood in difficult circumstances. I am pleased that this bill provides them with greater protections and recognition of the important work they do.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the local Australian Electoral Commission officials under the leadership of the Lyne district returning officer. The catastrophic flood struck only a couple of weeks after polling day. It had a big impact on staff. They were unable to complete the ballot count locally, to the extent that ballots were shipped to Sydney for the count to be completed. This was a stressful period for all concerned, but it was executed with the utmost professionalism, for which our democracy is so grateful.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the bill responds to significant workplace health and safety risks to Commonwealth workers and workplaces, noting that between July 2023 and June 2024 there were 1,694 serious incidents across Services Australia face-to-face service channels, and there are reports that this unsavoury, unfair and un-Australian trend is unfortunately on the rise.

Services Australia staff say that frontline workers are regularly subjected to incidents of customer aggression. The Australian Electoral Commission says the security environment for electoral workers had deteriorated in recent times. The Community and Public Sector Union says that Commonwealth workers across several agencies have reported unacceptable instances of aggression from the public in the course of their work. Safe Work Australia reports a 56 per cent increase in the number of serious workers compensation claims for assault and exposure to workplace violence in the five years to 2022. And the Australian Federal Police reports threats to Australian federal parliamentarians had increased by 42 per cent in 2023-24, and it anticipates that the number for this financial year will increase again.

The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill will help public servants do their job and perform their duties to serve the public to the best of their ability. The orders will allow courts to impose conditions to protect workers. Courts will be able to direct a person to not attend a particular Commonwealth workplace, to not approach an affected worker and to comply with other protective conditions. The orders can apply to an entire workplace, such as a Services Australia centre or an electorate office, or they can be tailored to protect an individual worker, including outside working hours or on their way home.

To make an order, a court must be satisfied that there have been threats or violence and that there is a risk of further issues. Orders automatically cease when the grounds for them no longer exist, and breaching an order is an offence, punishable by up to two years in prison or 120 penalty units or both. These penalties are consistent with those that apply to similar schemes in the states and territories, reinforcing the seriousness of compliance.

The bill provides for applications to be made not only by the worker but also by authorised persons within agencies. This ensures that workers who have been targeted are not forced to shoulder the burden of attending court themselves. The government has indicated that the burden on state and territory courts is expected to be minimal, as the scheme mirrors existing frameworks with which courts are familiar.

The task of balancing the protection of employees at the workplace with ensuring that those entitled to benefits and services can access them is a potentially challenging one. While the bill touches on this matter, much will rest on how administrators and courts negotiate this in practice.

This bill is personal for me. I understand what it is like to be threatened in your workplace. As the CEO of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, I was stalked, sent threatening and explicit material and abused by phone, email and online. The CEO prior to me had received death threats. Members of the public may not have agreed or even liked our industry, but neither I nor my colleague deserved to be treated disrespectfully and harassed in our own workplace. Earlier in my career, as an adviser to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I myself received a death threat. At the time, I was the minister's fisheries adviser, and we were going through some difficult effort reduction changes in a particular Commonwealth fishery. The threat received by phone call one day was very direct. Even if the person making it may have been doing so in jest, it was nonetheless, for me, a frightening experience and one that has lived with me to this day. The feeling of vulnerability, of not feeling safe to go about your duty and your responsibility, is not a feeling that I want any person, any public servant, to feel. This bill may not prevent this type of abusive behaviour, but it will at least give people recourse for action and protection beyond what currently exists—where the person is, of course, identifiable. So much of this abuse these days comes from keyboard warriors hiding behind their screens.

I wish to take this opportunity to make some more general comments about community attitudes to the work of the public service. These comments in no way condone poor behaviour or acts of violence or abuse. They are feelings that are expressed to me by a frustrated public, who often are left bewildered by their interactions with bureaucracy. There is a level of frustration in the community about the slowness of processing applications, the revolving door of referring constituents to senior staff or other agencies, the delays in decision-making, the requests for more documents and more detailed information, and the adherence to following a process rather than delivering an outcome. Electorate offices get to hear about such things on a pretty much daily basis.

I'm not sure if this reflects inadequate government resourcing, a cultural norm in the public service or something else. For instance, following the floods in May 2025, on the Mid North Coast, which is now 3½ months ago, there are some 738 farmers still waiting for their disaster relief and recovery payments to be made. There are concerns that New South Wales Treasury is going slow on the proposal for category D funding for small business and that, if this is so, this places budgetary particulars above ethical responsibilities. In this vein of the public service actually serving and servicing the public, when the Prime Minister, Premier and other ministers came to Taree in the aftermath of the May floods, I said to them that our area needed two things from government: information and presence. It needed information in the form of government and the public service listening to what the community was saying about its needs so good and quick decisions could be made. It needed presence in the form of boots, not suits; generous, easy-to-access support; and the presence of mind to break the cycle of red tape that haunts the traumatised seeking help after disaster.

My greatest frustration is that this call has largely gone unheeded. The anger that has been felt amongst the community has come from the silence, the slowness and the mountain of bureaucracy. Too many people and businesses have been denied support. They've not had enough or the right paperwork. There has not been enough for the primary producer or small-business operator, or they're living in an area bureaucrats say isn't affected enough. Then there are the farmers desperate to stabilise river and creek banks but wading through multiple state government agencies for approval, with no start or end point. Beyond the floods, there are the concerns amongst industry and the public that left-wing ideologues and activists inside and outside the bureaucracy have a disproportionate influence on determining national policy and coming up with radical ideas and imposts on issues, like the push to end the harvesting of native timber by changing the tenure of New South Wales state forest land to national park to create the so-called 'Great Koala National Park'.

There is the banning of the live sheep export trade rather than more simply, equitably, fairly and responsibly properly managing just three licensed live sheep exporters to ensure best practice animal welfare outcomes and meet the food security needs of our international partners, and there are restrictions on how farmers can use their land. I sense there is going to be some forthright debate in this place when the government brings on its new-look Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act amendments, with new environmental laws shaping the way the nation protects, repairs and manages Australia's natural environment and how people can use our natural resources for the national interest. I acknowledge that I am digressing a little from the intent of the bill, but please recognise my point and its relevancy. We need governments and bureaucracies to be at their best and remembering that their job is for the public and for the national interest.

Within my own workplaces—my offices in Taree and Wauchope, my mobile offices and the much larger field office that is the electorate of Lyne in its entirety whose length and breadth my team and I travel to meet constituents, attend events and stand up for its interests—we need and will appreciate these additional safety measures. I am very conscious of my obligations to my staff—to Jordan, John, Dave, Ellie, Cherryl and Rob. These people come to work with earnestness to help me serve the people of the Lyne electorate. Their work is so incredibly important and so very personal. They deal with people on a daily basis in person and over the phone on, at times, gut wrenchingly difficult issues. They deal with people who can often be at their lowest, frustrated by bureaucracy and needing their help—my help—to unscramble it and to get justice and fairness. They want a fair go and a fair hearing. I am astounded by the generosity of spirit and the respect shown by my constituents to my staff, even by those in very difficult situations, but we must be prepared for the eventuality of it all being too much for someone.

I care about my staff safety and their wellbeing and that they can work free from harassment and threat and have the resources they need to get to safety and get the response they need from the police or other emergency personnel. I am frustrated that satellite offices of MPs do not get the same level of security resourcing as Commonwealth funded offices. It is a matter that I will continue to raise with the Special Minister of State.

The coalition supports this bill. It is a sensible proposal that has been carefully scrutinised and will deliver upon the intent. But, again, while this place will do its best for the public service, it in turn must always service the public to the best of its ability.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. I think that one of the best campaigns I have seen in relation to industrial relations in the last decade was the campaign done by the SDA, the Shoppies union, which was called No One Deserves A Serve. In fact, this bill could be called the 'No-one Deserves a Serve Bill' because it relates not to food and retail, which the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has coverage of, but to public servants and those who interact with the public service. That campaign I referred to found that 87 per cent of people who worked in that industry had suffered verbal abuse, while 76 per cent received verbal abuse on a regular basis, monthly, weekly or daily. In other results, 12.5 per cent were victims of personal violence, nine per cent were spat on, 10 per cent had suffered online abuse, 17 per cent had suffered abuse of a sexual nature and 24 per cent had suffered abuse, harassment or violence referencing their race, ethnicity or cultural background. There were 6,000 people who were surveyed. That is an extraordinary degree of abuse that people who work in food and retail suffer from every day.

This particular legislation doesn't deal with them, but it does deal with those who serve our public and are known as public servants. Every Australian, whether working in retail, hospitality or the food industry, deserves to be safe at work. In recent years, Commonwealth workers have increasingly been subject to the kind of violence and abuse that I referred to that the SDA ran campaigns against for their members. They are subject to acts of violence and aggression from the public. This is simply unacceptable, and that's why the Albanese Labor government is introducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. We want to make sure that Commonwealth workplaces are safer for workers and the Australian community. Now, we can do this by building arrangements and structural design. I saw that just last week during a visit to the Services Australia Ipswich office—one of the busiest in Queensland. Changes had been made to entrances and exits, there were protective screens and walls, safety procedures had been put in place and there were two full-time security guards every day. But that's not enough, sadly. This legislation will strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees, protecting those on the frontline, through the creation of an enforceable workplace protection order. This is similar to the kind of legislation that operates at a state level.

Violence and aggression have a devastating impact on frontline workers and their families, so it's not just about the individuals who work for our public but their families as well. In response to the horrific stabbing of an Airport West Services Australia officer, Joeanne Cassar, in May 2023—a devastating reminder of what we need to do to protect more workers—the former minister for government services and the NDIS, the former member for Maribyrnong, commissioned a review into the safety of frontline Public Service workers, the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, conducted by the former chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Mr Graham Ashton. Forty-four recommendations were made, and we committed to implementing every recommendation of the Ashton review.

The frontline workers who will be covered are those who help the community with essential government services, like Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, passport offices, airports and the Australian Electoral Commission. These people staff service centres and call centres across Australia. Unfortunately, they continue to face the increasing risk of violence from members of the public. It's been said before that Services Australia staff experienced 1,692 serious incidents between 2023 and 2024. The bill responds to the unacceptable situation and implements recommendation No. 17 of the Ashton review. That recommendation states:

The current ACT Workplace Protection Order provisions should be adopted for use by the Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide.

It establishes a framework that authorises a person within the Commonwealth entity—that's not necessarily an individual—to apply for a state or territory magistrate court or local court, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court to issue what will be known as a 'Commonwealth WPO' in order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm. It means that we establish a new act of parliament, the Commonwealth Workplace Protections Orders Act, and a new scheme. The bill's crucial to mitigating some of the serious risk of harm. Ultimately, a WPO aims to prevent future violence from happening.

The bill is about making workplaces safer for the public who visit them to gain access to critical government benefits and services. It provides legal protections for workplaces and workers. It will be available to most Commonwealth workplaces and extend to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. Commonwealth workplaces include those pop-up offices we see at service centres and shopping centres, Commonwealth service-delivery vehicles and a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home, which is so critical because so many people work from home. This is very important in an electorate like mine because we have pop-up services in country towns in the Somerset region from time to time. This bill will cover those workers who do that kind of work.

The bill enables an authorised person to apply to the court, as I said. The definition of 'personal violence' is designed to include acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical violence such as abuse that is verbal, over the phone or via email. This definition is akin to the definition of 'domestic and family violence' in the Peace and Good Behaviour Act at the state and territory level, so there's a history of jurisprudence. I would hope and expect courts will take note of precedence and prior cases in this area in terms of making a decision.

On application, a Commonwealth state or territory court could make an interim or a final WPO. Under urgent circumstances, an urgent protection order can be made. In order to issue a WPO, a court would need to be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to Commonwealth workers or individuals in their Commonwealth workplace, there's a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if an order is not made, and the order is necessary or desirable.

It's so similar to the kinds of things that I used to do when I was practising as a family lawyer many years ago. I've seen many of these types of cases, so I'm very pleased to see this type of legislation applying to Commonwealth workplaces and Commonwealth workers. In this context, 'Commonwealth worker' covers employees of Commonwealth entities—which is critical, because not everyone works for a Commonwealth department—under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, including Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, Australia Post and ministerial and electorate offices.

It is absolutely vital that we protect our staff who work in electorate offices and who go out with us each and every day. They serve the public, just as people in Medicare offices and Services Australia do. No person in this chamber could do their work without the wonderful staff working for them. I thank them each and every day for what they do, what they have to put up with—the number of phone calls they get where people are angry and disappointed or frustrated, and the number of times that people ring up and have got suicidal ideation or thoughts and challenges. The breadth of the legislation and ministerial responsibility that our staff deal with each and every day—and they themselves are captured and covered by this legislation. I'm so very pleased that's the case.

Any court will have to consider the personal circumstances of a respondent when determining the conditions attached to the order, but they do conditions to protect, and there is a great deal of breadth in those conditions. I saw that personally when I was practising as a lawyer for nearly a quarter of a century, before coming here. I saw the kinds of orders and the breadth of the orders that courts make. It will allow either party, for example, when that term or period of time is over or, indeed, when the risk is not there, to make an application to vary or revoke that order, if it's needed in the circumstances. There can be additional conditions in terms of the length of the time. We don't expect that a final WPO will exceed two years, and it can't be made against a person under 14 years of age.

This bill addresses a legislative gap in most state and territory protection schemes which doesn't cover public service. It will enhance the personal privacy of Commonwealth workers, and it's important in terms of strengthening their workplace health and safety protections.

Last week, I had an opportunity to visit the newly transformed Ipswich service centre for Services Australia. We learnt much more about the enhanced security arrangements they put in place in response to the Ashton review. It was an opportunity to hear how they have sought to modernise their services by introducing new and better ways to service customers and make it easier for customers to access support and, therefore, reduce the frustration. Some of the innovations at the centre include updated self-service facilities and kiosks; increased support and training for customers to access digital services, including digital coaching appointments and bring-your-own-device options; and referrals to specialists and other government services.

I want to thank services centre manager Jenny and her staff, and all the Services Australia workers for their fantastic work, particularly for their efforts to slash the backlog of Centrelink and Medicare claims in recent years. It was a great opportunity to meet with some of the new recruits who are part of the government's staffing boost of 3,000 frontline service workers across the country, hired to process critical claims and get the waiting times down. This is such important work, and it will help people with more financial services and support to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that they're under. These workers deserve a safe and secure environment free from threats of harm. They do not deserve a serve at work.

I support this legislation; it's absolutely vital. I want to thank the Minister for Home Affairs for bringing forward this bill. I spoke on this bill previously, in the previous parliament. It lapsed with the proroguing of parliament, but I am pleased that the Minister for Home Affairs has brought forward this bill and pleased for the support last term from the former minister for government services and former attorney-general for the original legislation reforms. I thank everyone who has contributed to its development through the consultation process. I thank the CPSU, the union covering Commonwealth public servants, for their support, and all the other stakeholders who were consulted in the development of this legislation.

I call on the parliament to do the right thing and support these critical measures. They will improve workplace safety for frontline Commonwealth workers and make our Commonwealth workplaces safe for all Australians who use them. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for his eminently sensible comments in this regard, and this parliament will do the right thing as far as this legislation is concerned, whilst I appreciate there is a lot going on outside of this building. There are cost-of-living issues. Many farmers in my electorate are quite understandably concerned about the foreign take-up of land, with the Foreign Investment Review Board not having total scrutiny over, particularly, land that could end up in American hands via our free trade arrangements; there's no trigger point for that. There's the rollout of renewables. There are so many issues. But this is an important issue too. The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 is vital because we do need to protect at all costs our public servants, those Commonwealth officers, and the people who work for us parliamentarians.

When the member for Blair describes the issues that they confront on a daily basis, he is totally right. I've been a member of parliament since 2010, and increasingly, sadly, I have seen the rise of hostility, of hatred, of objectionable protests outside and indeed inside my office, particularly my main electorate office at Wagga Wagga. There are a couple of people I've actually banned from my office—one for making totally misogynous comments and one for sparking what I would almost call a riot inside my office.

Now, my staff don't have to put up with that. My staff work very hard for and on behalf of the constituents of the Riverina, and I have to say probably three-quarters of the work they do is for people who will never vote for me, who will never put a 1 beside the box for the Nationals at election time, and that is fine. Whether you are a member of a party or you're an Independent, that's all well and good as you lead up to the election. But after the election, when you get elected to this place, you are and should be a member for all people, irrespective of the way they voted. It doesn't matter. I know my staff are so loyal to the people of the Riverina and so loyal, indeed, to me. Many of my staff have worked with me for decades. I must be doing something right—or they just like to work in a salt mine! But they love the work. They love the people for whom they work. And I'm not referring to me in this instance; I'm referring to the constituents.

My electorate has vastly changed from 2010. My electorate used to take in west of Narrandera, the Coleambally and Murrumbidgee irrigation areas, Wagga Wagga and a few other towns around to get to the 100,000 voters or thereabouts. These days, the electorate has moved vastly east. It wraps around Canberra and goes right up into Whitlam. It borders Whitlam. It borders the Illawarra. It's basically Matong to Illawarra. It's vastly different—Riverina by name, not necessarily Riverina by nature. But, whilst the boundaries changed in a major realignment just at the last election, the people still have the same aspirations and the same ideals. They're good country folk and they deserve good representation.

But, by the same token, there are some people in the electorate—and it's only a very minuscule number—who push the envelope a bit too far, often during election time. I found the last election to be the worst as far as conduct is concerned, particularly by some of the other candidates but also by some of their supporters—nasty, awful, horrible comments directed not just at me but at my staff. There was one particular female candidate who dressed down one of my staff members for the attire she was wearing. This is not the way we should be conducting ourselves in regional Australia.

Our staff do need proper protections. I can remember when I took over from Kay Hull in 2010. We did not have plastic petitions or grills or anything of that sort. Whilst they were just coming in, my staff preferred that open arrangement with the constituents who came in. They didn't want to make it look as though it was a bank with the big iron bars or the big hard heavy plastic petitions separating the customers from themselves. But these days they're not just mandatory; they're necessary. I've had to put a sign up saying 'No unauthorised videoing or photography in my office' because of the number of people who come in and hold up the phone and want to video the staff. They don't deserve to be identified or exposed on some sort of stupid sovereign citizen's Facebook page.

We live in a very volatile world. We only have to think about what's going on in north-east Victoria at the moment. I mourn for the families of the slain officers—police officers who bravely go out and do their jobs each and every day, and run towards danger when most normal people would run away from danger. But, in the course of their everyday job, they've been gunned down. This is a national tragedy. Their families will never recover from this. The communities probably won't. And the rise of these mongrel sovereign citizens—that's what they are—is getting higher and higher. The incidence of these people who are antigovernment, anti-establishment, anticouncil, antipolice, anti flaming everything, is on the rise. We live in troubled times, and that is why we should, at all times, be protecting our staff.

Our staff are some of our best assets, trust me. We couldn't do our jobs without the duty, the support, the care that our staff take. We can't be in our electorate offices all the time, and they shoulder a big burden of responsibility to do the right thing by our people. And by and large they do. Not everybody who comes into my office, or any MP's office, is going to get the answers and the results they want. That's impossible. Many of the requests are far beyond the pale; they wouldn't be able to be resolved at any rate. But they try. They do the right thing. Irrespective of whether it's an NDIS issue or a Centrelink matter, our staff do a mighty job, and we should say thank you to them each and every day.

I know this particular bill responds directly to the horrific stabbing of a Services Australia employee last year. It implements a key recommendation of the Ashton review, which was led by former Victoria Police chief Graham Ashton. He and the rest of the Victoria Police family—and I do say 'family'—would be very much in mourning at the moment. That particular review examined security arrangements in Commonwealth workplaces following that particular attack. This bill follows the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill of 2024, which expanded criminal offences for assaults against Commonwealth frontline workers. Together these two pieces of legislation form a stronger framework for protecting those who serve the public.

Our public servants do a mighty job. They do. Irrespective of whether they are here in the ACT, in Canberra, where there are many, many public servants, whether they are Australian Federal Police—and aren't we lucky we've got such fine people who work in that particular organisation?—or whether they are in all the Commonwealth public offices that dot this nation, they do an incredible job. They do, and we should be very thankful. I know public servants often get criticised. It's all well and good to bag a public servant, but we are very blessed in this country to have outstanding people filling the roles that they do. The bill establishes a scheme for Commonwealth workplace protection orders modelled on state and territory apprehended and personal violence orders to provide targeted protection for Commonwealth workers and workplaces.

It's good to see that we are getting some uniformity across the nation. I know that making sure that we have things in lock step with states and territories is so difficult. It doesn't matter whether it's transport or child protection checks. Irrespective of what it is, it's so hard to get states, territories and the Commonwealth all on the one page. I don't know why, but it is. I've been a minister in many portfolios, and, sometimes, getting states and territories on board, even with policy that you would think would be a no-brainer, is so hard because they might agree at a particular forum where they all come together to discuss such things, and then one state or territory minister goes home, their cabinet decides, 'That's not for us,' and the whole thing falls down. It's a bit like a house of cards.

No Australian employee should ever fear for their safety simply for turning up to do their job. Between July 2023 and July 2024, there were—wait for this; this is an alarming statistic—1,700 serious incidents at Services Australia centres. I know a lot of people come into those particular offices stressed, not knowing which way to turn, suicidal and, in many instances, feeling as though their cause for complaint has been spurned. But, rest assured, those Commonwealth service people, those public servants, aren't there and aren't paid to be abused or assaulted. They are there to be protected, and they should be. This legislation does that. I know that the problem is much broader than Services Australia. It includes staff in embassies, and thankfully the government was able to get our brave embassy officials out from Tehran with the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador earlier this week.

The legislation also covers contractors on defence bases, and I have three military installations in Wagga Wagga. I've got the 'Home of the Soldier', Blamey Barracks, in Kapooka. I've got RAAF Base Wagga. If you spend any given time in the Royal Australian Air Force, you may well end up at Forest Hill. As the big sign emblazoned on the hangar says, 'Air power starts here,' and, indeed, it does at Forest Hill in Wagga Wagga. Even though we're a long way from the nearest drop of sea water, we have an important and strategic naval presence in my hometown. Those contractors on defence bases need protection too. I think the military personnel in those defence bases also need protection, but they can probably take care of themselves better than most because they're trained to do so. They're the best in the world at protection. Make no mistake. Our army, air force and navy people—there are no finer people at taking care of themselves, in our nation, than them.

I also mentioned the AFP earlier. I know, having been the acting Prime Minister for 101 days—I'll just add that in—and having had the benefit of AFP protection, that they are so good. Electorate office staff all face risks in the course of their duties. They shouldn't, but they do. We live in a volatile world, and we live in a world where people think these days that they can write, say and do whatever they like. The social media phenomenon has caused a lot of people to be a lot more bold and a lot more aggressive than they otherwise would've been. We know that, just in May this year, two Australian Border Force contractors were assaulted and stabbed whilst on duty. This should not be happening in the Australia that we live in. Fortunately, the number of incidents involving guns has drastically reduced since John Howard and Tim Fischer brought in, rightfully, very good restrictions on guns, and that is a good thing. That appalling incident in May 2025 underlines the urgency of providing additional safeguards across Commonwealth workplaces. I'm pleased that this particular legislation does just that, and I commend it to the House.

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. This bill will establish a new act, the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Act, which will introduce the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders scheme.

You might wonder why this bill is necessary. It's needed because everyone has the right to feel safe at work, and that right must extend to federal government workers. Sadly, this has not always been the case. Between July 2023 and June 2024, as we've heard multiple times, there were 1,694 serious incidents across Services Australia's face-to-face service channel. Recently, in May this year, two Australian Border Force contractors were assaulted with a bladed weapon whilst on the job. Any violence towards a Commonwealth worker, or anybody, is completely unacceptable. Any violence against Public Service workers is unacceptable. Violence against anybody, especially if they just happen to be at work, should be completely eradicated from our society.

Clearly, many people who deal with frontline government workers are in very stressful or distressing situations. You're not in there because things have gone well. Those dealing with Centrelink might be facing severe financial hardship. Those dealing with Medicare, or their loved ones, might be in the middle of exhausting medical treatment. Those dealing with Home Affairs are wanting to bring loved ones to this country. I empathise with the stress and frustration that can occur during these times, but the person on the other side of the desk does not deserve to be treated poorly or in an abusive or violent manner. Those on the other side of the desk at places like Services Australia are people. They have families and friends, and they're just trying to make their way in the world. They are people from our communities. They run the local footy club and volunteer at the P&C. They are people who are trying to help.

Importantly, these people are just following the rules of the laws passed here, in this place. They're not the ones who make the rules around access to the age pension or disability support or JobSeeker. That is done here, by the members of this place and the other place. If you want someone to change the rules about how the government operates, come and talk to one of the 150 members from here or one of the 76 from the other place. Come and talk to us calmly, respectfully and with an open mind, because, at the end of the day, we are here to represent you.

My point is that yelling at poor Sue or Robbo at Centrelink won't change the rules they have to follow. Sue and Robbo, and other Commonwealth employees like them, do not deserve danger or anger. And, quite frankly, they don't have the time; they're busy. They're in Centrelink helping people access social security payments. They're in Medicare helping people get affordable health care. They're in Border Force keeping our country safe. They're in the department of agriculture keeping biosecurity threats out of our country, and they're in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade keeping our country connected with our global partners and allies.

As someone whose electorate is home to many Commonwealth employees, I want them to know I value their work and their safety because, ultimately, they really want to help. Every public servant I know gets up and works with great pride delivering services. They love the communities they work in, and the key is in the title—'public servant'. They wear that tag with pride. They know that every day they can make someone's life that little bit better and easier. I promise you that that is what they are trying to do. That's why this bill is so important.

This bill will provide legal protection for Commonwealth workplaces and workers and will deter acts of violence and other harmful behaviours from some members of the public—a very small minority, as the member for Riverina pointed out. It came about as a response to the 44 recommendations of the 2023 Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, the Ashton review, conducted by Mr Graham Ashton. This review itself was sparked after a serious assault with a bladed weapon on a Services Australia member. This bill implements recommendation 17 of the review, which called for current ACT workplace protection order provisions to be adapted for use by the entire Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide.

The bill will enable an authorised person from the Commonwealth entity to apply to select courts for a workplace protection order on behalf of the Commonwealth worker or a workplace where personal violence against a worker or a workplace has arisen out of or in direct connection with their official functions or duties and there is a real risk it will occur again if an order is not made. It gives them protection. It gives them an avenue to find safety and legal recourse should things go wrong. The bill would only allow the court to make a workplace protection order where they are satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to a Commonwealth worker or Commonwealth workplace and there is a real risk the respondent will further engage in personal violence if the order is not made. It gives people a chance to respond. It is a fair and just position to ensure the safety of our workforce.

The bill's definition of 'personal violence' is designed to include acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical violence, such as verbal abuse or abuse by phone or email. We know that you can harm somebody with more than just violence. Email abuse can really have a long and psychological harming effect on people.

On application, a Commonwealth, state or territory court could be able to make an interim consent or final order. In time-critical circumstances, an urgent order can be applied for by telephone or electronic means. It works fast. It gets it done. In making the workplace protection order the court could be empowered to impose a range of conditions on a respondent they consider necessary or desirable to protect the safety of the Commonwealth worker or workplace. It gives the people involved and the court direct responsibility and the ability to keep that individual person or workforce safe.

Keeping in mind that services like Centrelink can deal with many of the most vulnerable in the community, this bill considers how best to approach circumstances where a respondent might have impaired decision-making for one reason or another. It takes into account people's personal circumstances. It is not a catch-all brush. When considering whether to make a consent order, if the court considers a party to have impaired decision-making ability, it must not make a consent order unless it is satisfied that the person has appropriate representation. The court may adjourn proceedings until the respondent is represented.

The principles of natural justice still apply. Workplace protection orders can also be made against anyone under the age of 14. People under the age of 14 do not have criminal responsibility is what they're saying there.

The proposed workplace protection order 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 services and pop-up shops in shopping centres, Commonwealth vehicles or Commonwealth workers' residences when working from home. It extends further than just the office. It allows people to be safe wherever they happen to be working on that day.

To balance out the rights of everyone involved, fundamentally the imposition of a workplace protection order will not prevent a person from accessing necessary Commonwealth services as required or exercising their right to political communication. Your right to free speech exists. Your right to protest exists. The services will still be available to you. If proposing conditions that would limit the respondent's ability to access or obtain Commonwealth benefits or services or engage in political communication, the applicant is required to provide the court with information about alternative procedures or arrangements for how a respondent may access or obtain these benefits or engage in political communication while subject to a workplace protection order. There's always going to be a workaround. We're going to make sure that people get the help and services they need.

Either party can apply to the court to vary or revoke a workplace protection order. Additionally, either party may appeal a decision of the court relating to the final order. The ability to appeal still exists. It's not necessarily final. Contravention of a workplace protection order may constitute an offence that carries a penalty of 120 penalty unit or two years imprisonment or both. There are consequences to threatening, harassing or injuring Public Service workers.

To ensure the scheme is working, the bill also includes a statutory review of the operation of the scheme three years after commencement. It gives us the opportunity to go back to make sure it's working as intended and there are no unintended consequences. I commend the ministers and the departments involved in the drafting of this bill. I also commend the many advocates for workplace safety in our Commonwealth workplaces, especially the Community and Public Sector Union. 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 those workers is always unacceptable. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.