Chapter 1Introduction and key issues

1.1On 6 February 2025, the Senate referred the provisions of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 (the bill) to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 14March 2025.[1]

1.2The referral of the bill followed a recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills.[2]

Conduct of the inquiry and acknowledgement

1.3The committee advertised the inquiry on its website and invited organisations and individuals to make submissions by 24 February 2025. The committee received nine submissions, which are listed at Appendix 1. The committee thanks those organisations that made submissions.

Structure of the report

1.4The report comprises one chapter that outlines the background to the inquiry, provides an overview of the bill, discusses the key issues raised by submitters, and sets out the committee’s views and recommendations.

Purpose of the bill

1.5The bill would establish a Commonwealth workplace protection order (CWPO) scheme. That scheme would provide legal protections for Commonwealth workplaces and workers and deter acts of violence and other harmful behaviours by members of the public. The bill would implement recommendation 17 of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review (theAshton Review).

Background

1.6On 24 May 2023, following a serious security incident at a Services Australia centre, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, the then Minister for Government Services, announced the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review. Thereview was led by Mr Graham Ashton AM APM, a former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police.[3]

1.7The Ashton Review made 44 recommendations, all of which were agreed by the government.[4] The review argued that the introduction of protection orders in Commonwealth workplaces 'would remove the need for staff to take out orders individually'.[5] The bill would implement recommendation 17, which stated that '[t]hecurrent [Australian Capital Territory] Workplace Protection Orderprovisions should be adopted for use by the Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide'.[6]

1.8Commonwealth workers are able to pursue an apprehended violence order against a perpetrator of aggression or violence in their own name. MinisterShorten explained that there could be personal costs in taking that course of action. He argued that applying for an apprehended violence order 'is obviously a retraumatising experience for the victim, not to mention the unfair administrative burden it places on them'.[7]

1.9The introduction of a CWPO scheme would provide a means for that burden to be shifted away from individual workers as it:

…would allow the agency to take out the intervention order in relation to the workplace. It means that individual workers should not need to seek an order and the whole workplace is protected from further violence. It means that if someone has felt threatened personally they do not personally need to take the intervention order against the perpetrator, who might be hanging around in the car park or displaying provocative behaviour. This would mean the agency, the employer, will have the power to represent the worker who is essentially only under threat because of the job they do.[8]

1.10While reflecting on the aggression experienced by Services Australia workers, Minister Shorten reported that in 'the financial year 2022–2023, Services Australia had 10 million face-‍to-face interactions at their service centres. In the same period, there were almost 9,000 face-to-face customer aggression incidents'.[9]

1.11Services Australia reported that its frontline workers 'are regularly subject to incidents of customer aggression'. Those incidents are often reported by frontline workers and include, but are not limited to:

experiences of physical assault, including with a weapon and spitting;

arson;

objects being thrown at frontline workers;

repeated exposure to obscene and offensive material;

verbal abuse including serious threats of harm; and

property damage.[10]

1.12The number of customer aggression incidents reported by Services Australia frontline workers in 2023–24 and 2024–25 is outlined in Table 1.1.

Source: Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 4.

1.13Services Australia informed the committee that these incidents negatively affect its operations:

Customer aggression has business impacts, reducing the operational capacity and capability of the Agency and partner agencies in delivering services to Australians. Customer aggression also impacts the health and wellbeing of Agency staff, contributing to physical and psychological injury claims, absenteeism and reduced productivity.[11]

1.14The Community and Public Sector Union (PSU Group) (CPSU) reported that there has been an increase in customer aggression towards Services Australia workers:

Our recent 2024–25 What Women Want survey, conducted in late 2024…found that customer aggression towards Services Australia respondents had increased in the last 12 months from just over half (54.5%) of respondents to three in five (61.5%).[12]

1.15The CPSU also indicated that there have been reports of unacceptable aggression from members of the public towards other Commonwealth workers in the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs).[13]

1.16The NDIA reported that in the 12 months to December 2024 it experienced a 55per cent increase in reported workplace health and safety (WHS) incidents. At the same time, its workforce increased by 27 per cent. Most of the increase in WHS incidents was attributed to a 121 per cent increase in incidents of aggression by members of the public and a 23 per cent increase in mental stress.[14]

1.17Comcare reported that in the period:

Between 1 July 2021 and 31 December 2024, Comcare received 98 incident notifications that were categorised as involving 'being assaulted by a person (or persons)' or 'exposure to workplace or occupational violence'. Theprimary difference between these categories is that the latter is used where the harm caused by mental stress is more significant than any physical injury that may have been sustained. Approximately 50 percent of the notified assaults involved detainees in immigration detention (the majority of which involved altercations between detainees)­—with a small number involving detainees assaulting workers (approximately 10 percent).[15]

1.18Comcare provided further analysis of those incident notifications stating:

Incidents involving workplace violence and aggression represent 1.5percent of all the incident notifications made to Comcare in the same period. Of the 98 notifications, 67 were classified as 'not notifiable'. Of the total notifications made of this kind, Comcare commenced 19 compliance monitoring inspections—19 percent of the total number of incident notifications of that type.[16]

1.19In introducing the bill, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, the Attorney-General, highlighted the increase in violence and aggression perpetrated against Commonwealth workers. He stated that those actions 'have devastating impacts on workers and their families—as well as on the experience of Australians trying to access government services'.[17]

1.20The Attorney-General explained that the bill is part of a suite of measures the government has taken to protect Commonwealth workers:

This bill builds on the layers of protection the Government has created for Commonwealth workers, including the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act 2024. The act increased penalties for assaults against Commonwealth frontline workers, and implemented recommendation 18 of the Ashton review.[18]

Structure of the bill

1.21The bill consists of the following four parts:

Part 1 provides definitions of terms used in the bill.

Part 2 outlines how CWPOs would be made and how they would operate.

Part 3 consists of matters related to the jurisdiction of the courts and how information contained in CWPOs would be managed.[19]

Part 4 would allow authorised persons to delegate their powers under the bill to other senior executive level officers and require a review of the operation of the proposed legislation.

1.22As submissions received by the committee related to the provisions contained in part 2 of the bill, this report focusses on the CWPO scheme that would be introduced by the bill.

Commonwealth workplace protection orders

1.23The CWPO scheme would be designed to:

(a)protect Commonwealth workers and persons in Commonwealth workplaces from harm and threats of harm;[20]

(b)ensure that services delivered by the Commonwealth can be accessed by the public in a safe environment; and

(c)deter violence and aggression against Commonwealth workers.[21]

1.24The bill would create four types of protection orders:

final CWPOs;

interim orders;

urgent interim orders; and

consent orders.

Final Commonwealth workplace protection order

1.25The bill would enable an authorised person to make an application for a final CWPO if they are satisfied that:

the respondent has engaged in personal violence; and

there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in personal violence again if the order is not made.[22]

1.26To issue a CWPO, a court would need to be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence and that there is a 'real risk' that they will do so again if the order is not made.[23]

1.27The bill would define 'personal violence' as any conduct by a person that causes, or threatens to cause, harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace. The conduct would only constitute personal violence against Commonwealth workers if it 'directly or indirectly interferes with the functioning of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth'.[24]

1.28After applying for a final CWPO, and while the court considers the application, the authorised person would also be able to apply for an interim order or an urgent interim order.

Terms and conditions of a Commonwealth workplace protection order

1.29A CWPO would be required to contain the:

name of the respondent;

conditions imposed on the respondent;

alternative procedures or arrangements available to the respondent to access or obtain the benefits or services provided by the Commonwealth if the conditions prevent them from accessing or obtaining them;

alternative procedures or arrangements available to the respondent to contact their electoral representative or engage in political communication if the conditions prevent them from doing those things;

period for which the order is in force; and

grounds on which the order is made.[25]

1.30When making a CWPO, a court would be able to impose any conditions on the respondent that it:

…considers necessary or desirable to:

(a)prevent the respondent from engaging in further personal violence; and

(b)ensure the safety of a Commonwealth worker or of individuals present at a Commonwealth workplace.[26]

1.31The conditions that a court may impose on the respondent could include and not be limited to:

restricting the respondent from being at, or within a specified distance of, a specified Commonwealth workplace;

the circumstances under which the respondent may be at, or within a specified distance of, a specified Commonwealth workplace;

disallowing the respondent from communicating or associating with, or causing another person to communicate or associate with, a specified Commonwealth worker or class of Commonwealth workers;

the circumstances under which the respondent would be able to communicate or associate with a specified Commonwealth worker or class of Commonwealth workers;

requiring the respondent to not engage in, or cause another person to engage in, further personal violence; or

requiring the respondent to not damage, or cause another person to damage, property in a specified Commonwealth workplace.[27]

1.32In determining the conditions to impose on the respondent, the court would be required to consider:

the objective of the bill (outlined in paragraph 1.23);

any hardship that is likely to be caused to anyone by the imposition of the condition on the respondent;

any harm that is likely to be caused to anyone by not imposing the condition on the respondent;

previous instances of personal violence engaged in by the respondent;

other CWPOs made against the respondent;

any protective orders in force against the respondent;

any contravention by the respondent of a CWPO or protective order made against them;

whether the condition achieves the objects of the bill while minimising restrictions on the rights and liberties of the respondent; and

any other matters considered relevant by the court.[28]

When a final Commonwealth workplace protection order is in force

1.33If the respondent is present when the final CWPO is made, it would come into force at that time. If the respondent is not present when the final CWPO is made, it would come into force when it 'is served personally on the respondent'.[29]

1.34The final CWPO would cease to be in force at the:

end of the period specified in the order, which would not be longer than two years;

end of the period specified in any variation to the order; or

time a court revokes the order.[30]

Interim order

1.35If an authorised person has applied for a final CWPO that has not yet been determined by the court, they would be able to apply for an interim order.[31]

1.36The court would be able to make an interim order if it receives an application from an authorised person and it is satisfied that:

the respondent has engaged in personal violence;

the respondent is likely to engage in further personal violence if an interim order is not made; and

the interim 'order is necessary or desirable to prevent the respondent from engaging in further personal violence before the related application is finally determined'.[32]

1.37If the court receives an application for an interim order, it would be able to make such an order at any time if it is satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence and that the order would assist in preventing them from doing so again.

1.38If the respondent is present when the interim order is made, it would come into force at that time. If the respondent is not present when the interim order is made, it would come into force when it 'is served personally on the respondent'.[33]

1.39An interim order would cease to be in force:

at the end of the period specified in the order, which would not be longer than 12 months;

if the period specified in the order is varied, the end of that period;

if the order is revoked, the time that the revocation takes effect;

if the application for a final order is withdrawn or dismissed, the time at which that occurs;

if the court decides not to make the final order related to the interim order, the time at which that decision is made; or

if the court decides to make the final order related to the interim order, the time at which that order comes into force.[34]

1.40The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to the bill states that an authorised person could apply for an interim order in circumstances where 'more immediate protection is required prior to the determination of an application for a final order'. The interim order would differ from a final CWPO in that it does not require the application to have been served on the respondent personally. That would allow 'the court to make an interim order whether or not the respondent has been served with the application and whether or not the respondent is present'.[35]

Urgent interim order

1.41An authorised person would be able to apply for an urgent interim order by telephone, fax, email or other electronic means.[36]

1.42An urgent interim order application would not need to include all of the information contained in a final CWPO or an interim order. The court would be required to have regard to the urgency of making the order and decide on the appropriateness of making the order without any of that information.[37] Thecourt would also be able to order the applicant to produce specific information prior to making the urgent interim order.[38]

1.43Once the urgent interim order is made, the court would be required to use electronic means to inform the applicant:

of the terms of the order;

the day and time that the order was made; and

that unless they apply for a final CWPO within seven days of the urgent interim order being made, that order would cease to be in force.[39]

1.44The authorised person would not be required to apply for a final CWPO prior to making an urgent interim order. They would be required to make an application for a final CWPO within seven days of the urgent interim order being made. If they fail to do so, the urgent interim order would cease to be in force at the end of those seven days.[40]

1.45According to the EM:

The practical difference between an urgent interim and an interim order is that an urgent interim order may be made via phone or other electronic means without the accompaniment of a final order application.[41]

1.46The final order application would then need to be provided to the court within seven days or otherwise the urgent interim order will cease to be in force.[42]

Consent order

1.47A court would be able to make a consent order if the authorised person applies for a final order and that person and the respondent consent to the terms of the order.[43]

1.48In deciding to make a consent order, the court would not:

require proof or admission that the respondent engaged in personal violence;[44] and

need to be satisfied that:

the respondent engaged in personal violence;

there is a risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence; and

the order is necessary or desirable to prevent the respondent from engaging in further personal violence.[45]

1.49According to the EM, the consent order provisions would provide the court with the flexibility to grant a CWPO in circumstances where the applicant and respondent agree on the making of the order and its conditions. It would 'reduce the impact on resources of the applicant, respondent and the courts'.[46]

Varying or revoking a Commonwealth workplace protection order

1.50The respondent or the authorised person would be able to apply to a court to have a CWPO varied or revoked.[47]

1.51The application to vary the order would need to include information about alternative procedures or arrangements available to the respondent if the variation would prevent them from:

accessing or obtaining benefits or services provided by the Commonwealth; or

contacting their electoral representative or otherwise engaging in political communication.[48]

1.52After an application to vary the order has been made and served to the relevant party,[49] the court would be able to:

vary the conditions of the order;

reduce the period of time that the order is in force; or

extend the period of time that the order is in force by up to no more than two years from the time that it came into force.[50]

1.53The court would be required to specify alternative procedures and arrangements available to the respondent if the variation would prevent them from:

accessing or obtaining benefits or services provided by the Commonwealth; or

contacting their electoral representative or otherwise engaging in political communication.[51]

1.54If the court decides to vary a CWPO, the variation would take effect at the time the decision is made if the respondent is present. If the respondent is not present, the variation would take effect from the time that the respondent is personally served with the varied order.[52]

1.55If the authorised person is satisfied that the grounds for the CWPO no longer exist, that person would be required to apply to a court for the order to be revoked. The application would be required to explain why those grounds no longer exist.[53]

1.56If an application to revoke the CWPO is made and the court is satisfied that the grounds for that order no longer exist, the court would be required to revoke it.[54]

1.57The revocation of the CWPO would take effect at the time that decision is made.[55]

Offence clause

1.58A person would commit an offence if a CWPO is in force against that person and they engage in conduct that contravenes a condition of that order. Thepenalty for committing the offence would be imprisonment for two years, 120 penalty units (currently $39 600), or both.[56]

1.59The AGD advised:

The maximum penalty is in line with the maximum penalties for the breach of protection orders in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania, and reflects the guidance contained in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers that penalties should be formulated in a manner that takes account of penalties applying to offences of the same nature in other legislation.[57]

Consideration by other parliamentary committees

1.60When examining a bill, the committee takes into account any relevant comments published by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (the Scrutiny Committee) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR).

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

1.61The Scrutiny Committee sought advice from the Attorney-General in relation to the ex parte and legislative review provisions of the bill.[58]

1.62The Scrutiny Committee raised issues regarding the making of an interim order or urgent interim order 'ex parte – that is in the absence of, and without representation of or notification to, the other party'.[59]

1.63The bill would allow an interim order or an urgent interim order to be in force for up to 12 months. The Scrutiny Committee considered that if:

…the respondent was not able to be represented when the order was made, [these provisions] may not be consistent with the principle that an ex parte order should be limited to the shortest possible period.[60]

1.64The bill would also require a review into the operation and effectiveness of the Act within three years of its commencement. There is no requirement for the resulting report to be tabled in the Parliament, as the bill would enable the minister to:

…publish the report in such manner as the minister considers appropriate. If the minister 'decides to publish' the report the minister must omit personal information and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in both House of the Parliament.[61]

1.65The Scrutiny Committee did not receive a response from the Attorney-General prior to the tabling of this report. However, the AGD discussed the ex parte provisions in its submission.[62]

1.66The AGD submitted:

The 12-month maximum duration reduces the risk that an urgent interim order could lapse before a final order application is finally determined, and provides the Court with the flexibility to adjourn proceedings, for example, if required to ensure a respondent has appropriate representation or if a respondent fails to attend a hearing.[63]

1.67Additionally, the bill contains safeguards that ensure natural justice and procedural fairness as:

A court cannot determine a final order application unless it is satisfied that the respondent has been served with the application. This safeguard ensures that the respondent is notified of the application against them and provided with the opportunity to attend a hearing and contest the application. If the Court is satisfied of urgent circumstances or the need for an order to be made immediately, a court has the ability to make a decision relating to interim or urgent interim order ex parte.

1.68The AGD clarified that natural justice and procedural fairness is further defended as:

In all instances, a CWPO does not take effect, and a respondent is not liable for the criminal offence associated with breaching the order, until the order has been served.[64]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

1.69The PJCHR indicated that the bill would allow a CWPO to be made against a child aged 14 and above. The statement of compatibility argues that this would promote the rights of the child by limiting applications to children over the age of 14.

1.70The PJCHR observed that the bill would also limit the rights of the child, which the statement of compatibility fails to recognise. The statement does not indicate what measures could be taken to ensure that processes are tailored in accordance with:

…the special rights that children have under international human rights law, and to give effect to Australia's obligation to ensure that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child are a primary consideration.[65]

1.71The PJCHR also suggested 'the bill may engage and limit the right to a fair hearing, which the statement of compatibility does not identify'.[66]

1.72The PJCHR 'has authorised its secretariat to notify departments where statements of compatibility appear to be inadequate'. The secretariat has written to the AGD on this occasion.[67]

1.73The EM indicates that a CWPO cannot be made against someone under the age of14, which algins with the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Commonwealth legislation.[68]

1.74The AGD advised that a CWPO would not be able:

…to be issued in relation to a person under the age of 14. This is a higher minimum age than is provided for in the ACT scheme, which enables orders to be issued in respect of persons aged over 12 years, reflecting the advice of Commonwealth agencies that CWPOs are not required for children between the ages of 12 to 14 as children of this age typically do not receive Commonwealth government services in their own right. For example, the minimum age for a Medicare card in your own name is 15 years and eligibility for Youth Allowance commences at 16 years.

This appropriately protects the rights of children by ensuring they cannot be subjected to CWPOs, or criminal liability arising from a breach of a CWPO, which they may not have the capacity to understand.[69]

Key issues

1.75All submitters supported the establishment of a CWPO scheme. In their submissions, Commonwealth departments and agencies argued that the bill would help to protect their frontline workers and workplaces.

1.76For example, the AEC suggested that while there have not been any instances of physical violence against its workers, the 'deteriorating security environment has given rise to threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour'. There have been:

…incidents [that] have involved the targeting of Temporary Election Workers who have been filmed, yelled at and harassed in the course of their duties. Some workers have also been identified and harassed online as a direct result of their work for an electoral management body.[70]

1.77While amendments to the Criminal Code and the Commonwealth Electoral Act1918 will reduce the threat to AEC workers 'the Bill would provide a legal mechanism for the AEC to actively seek to protect its workers, whether frontline or not, who are subjected to violence or aggression'.[71]

1.78The AEC also recognised the important role that it plays in upholding the democratic rights and duties of Australian citizens and that there may be circumstances that limit the utility of CWPOs for its workforce:

The right to vote is a fundamental right and compulsory duty for all eligible Australian citizens and cannot easily be restricted without disenfranchising a person. Depending on the timing of a CWPO that requires a person to avoid an AEC worker or workplace, there may be limited alternate arrangements for the person to vote. For example, if a CWPO is obtained late in the election period close to polling day, it may not be possible for the person to travel to a nearby polling place to vote or apply for a postal vote.[72]

1.79Similarly, the Department of Home Affairs informed the committee that the activities its workforce engage in 'may result in an adverse or hostile reaction' from members of the public.[73]

1.80Recognising that risk, and its responsibility to provide a safe and healthy working environment, Home Affairs:

…welcome[d] the proposed Commonwealth Worker Protection Order scheme as an additional safety mechanism that could be used to increase the safety of our workers. This includes those in client facing roles, at the border or in the community. It also includes workers focused on keeping Australia safe through national security and cyber security activities. The potential deterrence effect supports risk reduction generally whilst the ability to seek an order may reduce actual threat.[74]

1.81The AGD advised that Commonwealth workers have been subjected to 'increasing levels of violence and aggression'. The bill is a response to that situation and is designed:

…to strengthen protections for Commonwealth workers and other persons in Commonwealth workplaces. Violence and aggression can have significant, and in some cases devastating, impacts on workers and their families, as well as on the safe operation of Commonwealth workplaces and the delivery of Commonwealth services to the Australian community.[75]

1.82Submitters also considered the:

definition of personal violence;

limitations of existing protection order schemes;

identification of Commonwealth workers for the purposes of the bill; and

interaction of the bill with work health and safety (WHS) laws.

Definition of personal violence

1.83Basic Rights Queensland (BRQ) argued that the bill should recognise the gendered nature of personal violence particularly as:

Women are more likely than men to be psychologically injured at work, with over 57% of compensation claims for psychological injuries made by women, because of harmful behaviours such as harassment including sexual harassment, bullying and work-related violence and aggression.[76]

1.84In BRQ's view, the bill should clearly make '[t]he connection of gender inequality and workplace violence'. The definition of personal violence:

…should explicitly include gendered based violence to make overt the intention of the CWPO to address violence that is gendered in nature. This is especially important given the senior personnel who hold the responsibility and authority for CWPO applications in Commonwealth workplaces re more likely to be male.[77]

1.85The AGD submitted that the term 'personal violence' is defined in the Criminal Code Act 1995. The definition:

…is intended to capture acts of physical violence, harassment, stalking and intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical violence. Examples of harm that could constitute personal violence would include brandishing a weapon, sending violent or degrading material via email, threatening phone calls or harassing a Commonwealth worker over social media.[78]

1.86Harmful non-physical violence is not intended to include any personal 'conduct that is merely a nuisance, or express[es] dissatisfaction with the Commonwealth, or its services or benefits'. The provisions of the bill are not intended to be used in response to any conduct 'that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or life in the community'. The AGD suggested that:

…if a member of the public presented repeatedly to a Commonwealth workplace and expressed negative comments, or held a placard expressing negative comments, relating to the delivery of government services, that conduct would not constitute personal violence. Similarly, if a member of the public left negative reviews about government services in online forums, this would not constitute personal violence and the scheme would not apply.[79]

Limitations of existing protection order schemes

1.87Some submitters discussed the limitations of existing protection order schemes.

1.88For example, Comcare highlighted the gaps in the existing legislative framework that often frustrates efforts to protect workers:

Comcare has experience as a service delivery agency and employer which deals with customer aggression and workplace violence from clients and members of the public. Comcare has experienced difficulties managing this conduct through existing protection order frameworks, particularly where the conduct occurs in a jurisdiction where it cannot apply for protection orders on behalf of the affected worker. In Comcare's experience, workers are hesitant to apply for protection orders in their personal capacity as they can be concerned about reprisals from the respondent and disclosure of their personal information as evidence to support the application. Workers may also require financial support so that they can obtain independent legal advice in relation to their application.[80]

1.89The NDIA raised a similar point about the security of individual's personal information. Individual workers that apply for personal protection orders are usually required to disclose their personal and private information, which places the risk burden on them personally. The NDIA submitted that as the bill would allow Commonwealth workplaces to apply for a protection order on behalf of their entire workforce, it would reduce 'the risk of personal information disclosure and any flow on risks to the individual'.[81]

1.90Services Australia raised similar concerns about the existing legislative framework and explained that while Australian states and territories have protection order schemes, they 'are not designed to protect Commonwealth workplaces'. Except for the Australian Capital Territory, no other state or territory 'has a specific workplace protection order scheme'.[82]

1.91Services Australia identified several limitations with most state and territory protection order schemes. Those limitations include:

protection orders that usually only protect an individual, and not workplaces, from an aggressive individual;

application processes that must be made in an individual's name, which may dissuade some people from applying for a protection order;

state and territory courts only have the power to protect locations within their particular jurisdiction, which 'makes it especially difficult to protect offices in cross-‍border towns or in circumstances where the aggressive individual may travel interstate'; and

a workplace protection order (WPO) made in one state or territory may not be recognised in another jurisdiction.[83]

1.92Services Australia reported that it has used the WPO scheme in the ACT on 12 individuals since 2012. For most of those individuals, the existence of a WPO has prevented further violent and aggressive conduct. Services Australia recounted one aggressive customer who had been served with a WPO in the ACT. In that customer's case:

…there was a serious incident involving the customer damaging the outside of the service centre, and then further incidents involving threats, verbal abuse and approaching employees near the service centre. The WPO prohibited the customer from coming within 50m of an Agency workplace. The customer has attended once since the WPO was served; this was reported to ACT Policing. Since this time, the customer has been broadly compliant with the terms of the WPO.[84]

1.93Services Australia referred to another customer who was served with an ACT WPO after they 'made threats to harm workers, including workers located in Federal Parliament'. As the customer resided outside of the ACT, Services Australia was unable to register the WPO in that state.

1.94Services Australia argued that if enacted:

The Bill will provide a necessary response to customer aggression and will send a strong message to our frontline workers that their safety is valued by the Commonwealth, and the risk associated with their work is recognised in law.[85]

1.95Services Australia submitted that the bill includes safeguards which would ensure customers will be able to continue to access or obtain government benefits or services. If a CWPO is made, it would need to specify the 'alternative procedures or arrangements for how the respondent may do those things'. In Services Australia's view, this requirement:

…promotes the right to payments and services by ensuring that it can be accessed in a safe way allowing the Agency to continue to keep our staff healthy and safe while delivering for Australians at their time of need.[86]

1.96The AGD explained how the CWPO scheme would differ from existing frameworks:

Workplace protection orders differ from most personal protection, apprehended violence and domestic violence frameworks available in states and territories as they are directed at protecting workers and other persons at workplaces, and may be sought and obtained by agencies on behalf of their staff, rather than being directed at protecting specified individuals.[87]

1.97The AGD submitted that the bill would 'not exclude or limit the operation of a state or territory law, where they are capable of operating concurrently with one another'. For that reason, an individual could have a Commonwealth WPO served against them at the same time that they are subject to a state or territory protective order:

For example, if a CWPO prevented a person from being within 50 metres of a Commonwealth workplace, and a Victorian Apprehended Violence Order prevented the same person from being within 100 metres of a Commonwealth worker employed at that workplace, the respondent would be obliged to not be within 100 metres of the workplace when the worker is at the Commonwealth workplace and the orders would not contradict one another.[88]

Identification of Commonwealth workers

1.98The CPSU raised a concern about whether an agency would be able to effectively apply for a Commonwealth WPO if the affected Commonwealth worker was not easily recognisable as such a worker to the person who engaged in the conduct or made the threat. It suggested that '[w]hile some Commonwealth workers wear identifiable uniforms, many do not and do not wish to be recognisable outside their workplace'. In its view, Commonwealth WPOs should be equally available to all Commonwealth workers, regardless of whether they wear a uniform. To better ensure clarity, the CPSU suggested that the EM be amended to indicate a person's 'status as a Commonwealth worker does not depend on an identifiable uniform'.[89]

1.99Home Affairs similarly remarked that some of its workers are not 'easily identifiable as Commonwealth employees'. It also sought '[c]larification as to whether a Commonwealth employee needs to be clearly designated as such'.[90]

1.100The AGD indicated that the bill would protect all Commonwealth workers and all Commonwealth workplaces 'regardless of their role or location'. It would cover Commonwealth workplaces 'includ[ing] Commonwealth offices, 'pop-up' service centres in shopping centres, Commonwealth service-delivery vehicles and a Commonwealth worker's residence when that worker is working from home'.[91]

Interaction with work health and safety laws

1.101Some submitters commented on how the bill would interact with existing WHS laws.

1.102Home Affairs sought clarity on how the CWPO 'scheme interacts with WHS laws to support Commonwealth employers to navigate circumstances where it may be reasonably practicable to apply for an order'. It also queried how the CWPO scheme would operate when one Commonwealth worker seeks a protection order against another Commonwealth worker. Home Affairs sought further clarity on how that would intersect with existing WHS laws and the Public Service Act 1999.[92]

1.103The NDIA explained that it has obligations towards its workforce under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.It argued the bill would enable it to better acquit its obligations under that legislation by taking action on behalf of its workers to better protect their privacy and provide them with a safe work environment.[93]

1.104Safe Work Australia assessed the provisions of the bill against the model WHS laws. In its assessment, Safe Work Australia found that the bill is consistent with:

…the rights and obligations set out in the model WHS laws. The object set out in the Bill is considered complementary to the objectives of the model WHS laws as it seeks to protect Commonwealth workers and persons in Commonwealth workplaces from harm.[94]

1.105Safe Work Australia concluded that the establishment of a CWPO scheme would provide 'an additional tool to Commonwealth workplaces when managing risks from harmful behaviours, to ensure the health and safety of workers and others'.[95]

1.106Comcare agreed with that assessment by submitting:

On balance, Comcare notes that the Bill appears capable of complementing and supporting the work health and safety duties provided for in the [Work Health and Safety Act 2011]. Comcare supports the provision of measures for the deterrence of acts of violence and harmful behaviours by members of the public that will promote securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.[96]

1.107BRQ recognised that while aspects of the bill would align with 'the intent of Safe Work Australia's model WHS legislative frameworks…[it] does not reference the import role of unions in workplaces, especially as a representative of vulnerable cohorts of employees'.[97]

1.108The CPSU suggested the bill be amended to ensure that it would:

contain a mechanism to allow Commonwealth workers and unions to make a request to an authorised person to apply for a CWPO; and

guarantee that affected Commonwealth workers 'have access to trade union support and advice on all matters related to the CWPO'.[98]

1.109The AGD submitted that '[a]n authorised person may make an application on their own volition or following a request from the affected worker or any other person'.[99]

Committee view

1.110The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 would establish a Commonwealth workplace protection order scheme. That scheme would provide legal protections for Commonwealth workers and workplaces and deter acts of violence and other harmful behaviours by members of the public. In doing so, it would implement recommendation 17 of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review.

1.111Evidence to the committee highlighted the important role that frontline workers play in delivering Commonwealth government services. Unfortunately, too many of those workers do not always feel safe in their workplaces, which adversely affects their physical and mental health. It also undermines their ability to serve the Australian community.

1.112Evidence suggested that there are limitations to existing protective order legislation. The Australian Capital Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that offers protection orders over entire workplaces rather than individual persons. The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 would emulate that jurisdiction's workplace protection order scheme and overcome the limitations of existing protection order schemes.

1.113Evidence presented to the committee suggested that there could be uncertainty about the status of Commonwealth workers depending on whether those workers wore a uniform at work. The Community Public Sector Union and Department of Home Affairs raised a concern that ambiguity could prejudice some Commonwealth workers when seeking a Commonwealth workplace protection order. To better ensure equality among all Commonwealth workers, the committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that a person's status as a Commonwealth worker is not dependent on whether they are easily identified as such a worker.

1.114The committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum be amended to clarify that a person's status as a Commonwealth worker does not depend on whether that person is easily identified as a Commonwealth worker.

1.115Commonwealth departments and agencies are obliged to provide their workers with a healthy and safe working environment. In the committee's view, the proposed legislation would improve the ability of authorised persons within those entities to uphold their obligation by providing them with the means to provide protections for their workers and workplaces. The bill would also safeguard access to government benefits and services as well as access to political representation to ensure that fundamental rights are not undermined, regardless of whether someone has been served with a workplace protection order.

1.116Subject to the preceding recommendation, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.

Senator Nita Green

Chair

Footnotes

[1]Journals of the Senate, No. 149, 6 February 2025, pp. 4722–4726.

[2]Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills, Report 1 of 2025, [pp. 5–6].

[3]The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Government Services, ‘Review to protect front line staff’, Media Release, 24 May 2023.

[4]The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Government Services, House of Representatives Hansard, 19October 2023, p. 7719.

[5]Services Australia, Services Australia Security Risk Management Review: Key Findings and Recommendations (the Ashton Review), July 2023, p. 4.

[6]Services Australia, the Ashton Review, July 2023, p. 7. Note: the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 [Provisions] 'is modelled on the workplace protection order scheme in the Personal Violence Act 2016 (ACT)', see: Dr Edward Fellows, Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024, Bills Digest No. 43, 2024–25, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 20December 2024, p. 4.

[7]The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Government Services, House of Representatives Hansard, 19October 2023, p. 7720.

[8]The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Government Services, House of Representatives Hansard, 19October 2023, p. 7720.

[9]The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Government Services, House of Representatives Hansard, 19October 2023, p. 7719.

[10]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 4.

[11]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 4.

[12]Community Public Sector Union (PSU Group) (CPSU), Submission 1, [p. 1].

[13]CPSU, Submission 1, [p.1].

[14]National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), Submission 9, [p. 2].

[15]Comcare, Submission 7, p. 3.

[16]Comcare, Submission 7, p. 3.

[17]The Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 27November2024, p. 8737.

[18]The Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 27November2024, p. 8738. Note: the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquired into the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024, see: Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 [Provisions], June 2024.

[19]Note: the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and all state and territory courts would have jurisdiction in relation to matters related to Commonwealth workplace protection orders, see: Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 [Provisions] (the bill), cl. 38.

[20]Note: the bill would define a Commonwealth worker as 'a person that carries out work in any capacity for a Commonwealth entity or the High Court'. For example, it would include contractors, students gaining work experience, volunteers, and anyone employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. A Commonwealth workplace would be defined as 'a place where work as a Commonwealth worker is carried out', see: the bill, cl. 5.

[21]The bill, cl. 3.

[22]The bill, subcl. 19(1). Note: an authorised person would be either the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court or the accountable authority or chief executive officer of a Commonwealth entity, see: the bill, cl. 7.

[23]The bill, cl. 20.

[24]The bill, subcl. 6(1).

[25]The bill, subcl. 24(1).

[26]The bill, subcl. 25(1).

[27]The bill, subcl. 25(2). Note: this list is not exhaustive, and the court may determine to impose other conditions on the respondent.

[28]The bill, subcl. 25(3).

[29]The bill, subcl. 21(1).

[30]The bill, subcl. 21(2).

[31]The bill, cl. 13.

[32]The bill, subcl. 14(1).

[33]The bill, subcl. 15(1).

[34]The bill, subcl. 15(2). Note: the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) indicated '[t]he 12-month maximum duration for an interim order is consistent with the ACT Scheme, which the Bill was modelled on', see: Submission 4, [p. 5].

[35]Explanatory Memorandum (EM), pp. 24–25.

[36]The bill, subcl. 16(1). Note: the EM indicates that there would be a range of options for the lodgement of an application as the 'abilities and facilities' of each court may differ, see: EM, p. 26.

[37]The bill, subpara. 17(1)(b)(iv).

[38]The bill, subcl. 17(3).

[39]The bill, subcl. 17(4).

[40]The bill, para. 17(4)(c).

[41]EM, p. 26.

[42]EM, p. 26.

[43]The bill, subcl. 22(1).

[44]The bill, para. 22(2)(a).

[45]The bill, para. 22(2)(b).

[46]EM, p. 30.

[47]The bill, subcl. 26(1).

[48]The bill, subcl. 26(2).

[49]The bill, subcl. 28(1).

[50]The bill, subcl. 28(2).

[51]The bill, subcl. 28(3).

[52]The bill, subcl. 30(1).

[53]The bill, cl. 27.

[54]The bill, cl. 29.

[55]The bill, subcl. 30(2).

[56]The bill, subcl. 31(1).

[57]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 6].

[58]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (the Scrutiny Committee), Scrutiny Digest 1/25, 5 February 2025, pp. 7–8.

[59]The Scrutiny Committee, Scrutiny Digest 1/25, 5 February 2025, p. 6.

[60]The Scrutiny Committee, Scrutiny Digest 1/25, 5 February 2025, p. 7.

[61]The Scrutiny Committee, Scrutiny Digest 1/25, 5 February 2025, p. 7.

[62]Note: the Scrutiny Committee received a response from the Attorney-General on 11 March 2025. The committee understands that the response will be published in the next Scrutiny Digest.

[63]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 5].

[64]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 7].

[65]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Report 1/2025, 5 February 2025, p. 2.

[66]PJCHR, Report 1/2025, 5 February 2025, p. 2.

[67]PJCHR, Report 1/2025, 5 February 2025, p. 2.

[68]EM, p. 36.

[69]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 8].

[70]Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), Submission 6, p. 1.

[71]AEC, Submission 6, p. 1.

[72]AEC, Submission 6, p. 2.

[73]Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs), Submission 5, p. 2.

[74]Home Affairs, Submission 5, p. 2.

[75]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 2].

[76]Basic Rights Queensland (BRQ), Submission 8, p. 2.

[77]BRQ, Submission 8, p. 3. Note: BRQ indicated this gender balance is demonstrated by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) Gender Equality Scorecard 2023–24, see: WGEA, WGEA Gender Equality Scorecard 2023–24, 20 November 2024, www.wgea.gov.au/publications/australias-gender-equality-scorecard (accessed 28 February 2025).

[78]AGD, Submission 4, [pp. 3–4].

[79]AGD, Submission 4, p. 4.

[80]Comcare, Submission 7, p. 4.

[81]NDIA, Submission 9, [p. 3].

[82]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 5.

[83]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 5.

[84]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 5.

[85]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 3.

[86]Services Australia, Submission 3, p. 4.

[87]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 2].

[88]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 8].

[89]CPSU, Submission 1, [p. 2].

[90]Home Affairs, Submission 5, p. 2.

[91]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 3].

[92]Home Affairs, Submission 5, p. 2.

[93]NDIA, Submission 9, [p. 3].

[94]Safe Work Australia, Submission 2, [p. 2]. Note: the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws include: the model WHS Act, the model WHS Regulations, and the model Codes of Practice. The model WHS laws were developed by Work Safe Australia in 2011 and have been implemented in all Australian jurisdictions except Victoria. Safe Work Australia maintains the model WHS laws, but does not regulate or enforce them, see: Safe Work Australia, Model WHS laws, no date, www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/law-and-regulation/model-whs-laws (accessed 20 February 2025).

[95]Safe Work Australia, Submission 2, [p. 2].

[96]Comcare, Submission 7, p. 5.

[97]BRQ, Submission 8, p. 2.

[98]CPSU, Submission 1, [p. 2].

[99]AGD, Submission 4, [p. 4].