David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024. This is the second bill to come before this parliament in the wake of the horrific attack on a Services Australia employee who was just doing her job. No Australian should be attacked at work. So, when former Victoria police chief Graham Ashton made recommendations following a review of security arrangements at Services Australia and indeed in all Commonwealth agencies, we took them very seriously. That is why we backed the amendments to the Criminal Code, which expanded the criminal offences for assaulting a Commonwealth frontline worker, and is why we are supporting this bill today, which implements a recommendation from the Ashton review.

In essence, what this bill does is create a scheme for Commonwealth workplace protection orders. These orders are similar to the apprehended and personal violence order schemes that are commonplace in states and territories. These orders will apply in Commonwealth workplaces or to protect Commonwealth workers. This means the orders can apply to a workplace such as an electorate office or a Services Australia centre. It also means that the orders can cover Commonwealth workers so that they are protected in the car park, on the way home and at other times out of normal working hours. The term 'Commonwealth worker' is very broad and includes contractors, security guards, volunteers and persons employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. This means the bill would apply to protect Services Australia employees, electorate office staff and Australian Federal Police among others. The scheme allows a court to direct a person not to attend a particular Commonwealth workplace, not to go near an affected workplace and to comply with other conditions as appropriate. Only a court can make such an order, and it must be cancelled if the grounds for the order cease to exist. Broadly, a court is able to make such an order if satisfied that a person has engaged in personal violence or made threats of personal violence and there is a real risk the person will engage in further violence if the order is not made.

The scheme does not require a worker to apply for an order themselves. Applications are made by the relevant agency through an authorised person. This addresses a known gap in the law whereby, under current arrangements, Commonwealth workers who needed to apply for a protection order may need to do so in their own name. Like other schemes, a person does not commit an offence simply because an order is made against them. However, contravening an order is punishable by up to two years jail or 120 penalty units, which is currently just under $40,000 or both. These penalties are appropriate.

We understand from the government that the burden on the state and territory court system is expected to be minimal. The Attorney-General's Department has noted:

Although the existing financial impact of violence and aggression toward Commonwealth workers has not been quantified, some impact on service delivery and resourcing is evident.

They go on to note:

Costs associated with administering the Bill may be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in more serious workplace-related violent offending and the costs for law enforcement agencies and courts of dealing with that more serious offending.

The court focus, however, is on the safety of the Australian men and women whose work benefits the Australian public.

The coalition will of course adopt its normal practice of subjecting the bill to ordinary scrutiny to ensure there are no unintended consequences. It is a practice we cannot afford to depart from lightly. Far too often under this Attorney-General we have discovered errors or mistakes which have real adverse consequences for Australia. So we will subject this bill to appropriate scrutiny. But we understand the intent of the legislation and, subject to the results of that inquiry, we will cautiously support it.

Debate adjourned.