HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce the government's Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025. Community safety is a top priority of this government, and we have demonstrated this commitment by a strong history of reforms that ensure workers and customers have strong protections in the face of workplace violence and harassment. Today, we are introducing yet another protection that sends a clear message that every person has a right to feel safe when they are at work and that abuse towards workers simply will not be tolerated.

Following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including business representative groups, employee representative bodies, industrial organisations, unions and the legal profession, the government is pleased to introduce this bill that will implement a workplace protection order scheme in South Australia.

Under the bill the Magistrates Court or Youth Court may, on application, make a workplace protection order against a defendant if satisfied that the defendant has engaged in personal violence in relation to a workplace and that they may engage in personal violence in relation to a workplace during the time the order is proposed to operate.

For the purposes of the bill, personal violence includes a range of behaviours by a person in relation to another person at a workplace, namely, physical violence or abuse; sexual violence or abuse; threatening behaviour; stalking; harassing, intimidating or offensive behaviour; and the damaging of property that causes reasonable fear to a person.

Under the bill 'workplace' means a place where the work carried out requires direct interaction with members of the public, irrespective of whether that interaction is in person or not, and any other work of a prescribed kind, but does not include work or a workplace that is prescribed by regulation. An application for a workplace protection order can be made by an employer, an owner or occupier of the premises in which the workplace is situated, the representative of an employer association of which an employer is a member, a health and safety representative for the workplace, or a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of workers at that workplace. The court must consider a range of factors in deciding whether to make a workplace protection order. They include:

the objects of the act;

any hardship that may be caused by the defendant or anyone else by making the order;

any previous personal violence by the defendant in relation to an affected person or anyone else;

any previous protection or intervention orders made in relation to the defendant, as well as any previous contraventions of those orders by the defendant; and

the need to ensure the property is protected from damage.

The court may also consider anything else it considers relevant. A workplace protection order must be subject to a condition that, where relevant, any firearm, ammunition and part of a firearm in the defendant's possession and any licence or permit authorising possession of a firearm held by the defendant must be surrendered to the Registrar of Firearms.

Other conditions that may be included in a workplace protection order are that the defendant be prohibited from entering the workplace, being within a particular distance from the workplace, engaging in personal violence in relation to the workplace, and causing someone else to engage in personal violence in relation to the workplace.

A workplace protection order may also state the conditions under which the defendant may be in the workplace or interact with a particular person. In determining the conditions of a workplace protection order, the court must give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of affected persons and must ensure that the conditions are the least restrictive of the personal rights and liberties of the defendant as possible that still achieve the objects of the act.

The court may make an interim workplace protection order before the application for an order is determined if it is satisfied that it is necessary to ensure the safety of an affected person from personal violence or to prevent substantial damage to property at a workplace. A final workplace protection order can only be made for a period of 12 months or less unless the court is satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances that justify a longer period. Under the bill, a workplace protection order may also be varied or revoked on application by the applicant, a protected person or by the defendant.

However, a defendant may only apply to vary or revoke a workplace protection order without the court's permission the first time, with any subsequent application to vary or revoke a workplace protection order requiring the permission of the court. The court may only vary or revoke a workplace protection order if it is satisfied that doing so will not adversely affect the safety of a protected person and, in the case of a variation to an order (including to extend an order beyond 12 months), the order as varied is one that could be made on the application of a workplace protection order.

It will be an offence under the bill to contravene a workplace protection order, which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment if the commission of the offence does not involve personal violence, and five years' imprisonment if the commission of the offence involves personal violence.

As amended by the government in the Legislative Council, the bill now includes a statutory review provision requiring that this legislation be reviewed after three years of operation to ensure it is operating as intended. This government is proud to back workers and to act to ensure they feel protected in doing their jobs.

I would like to thank the stakeholders who have provided valuable feedback on the government's consultation bill, which has informed this bill. In particular, I acknowledge the Shopping Centre Council of Australia; SA Independent Retailers; SA Business Chamber; Australian Hotels Association; National Retail Association; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association; and Woolworths for their collaborative engagement in getting this bill into parliament.

A workplace protection order scheme would bolster the protection of workers and deter the perpetration of antisocial behaviours that unacceptably put employees' safety at risk. I commend the bill to members of this place and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Objects of Act

This clause provides for the objects of the Act to include—

to prevent and reduce personal violence in workplaces; and

to facilitate the safety and protection of people who fear or experience personal violence at work by providing a legally enforceable mechanism to prevent personal violence; and

to encourage perpetrators of personal violence to be accountable for their conduct; and

to allow for the resolution of conflict without the need for adjudication.

4—Interpretation

This clause provides definitions for the purposes of the measure. Of note is the definition of personal violence, which when occurring in relation to a person at a workplace may form the basis of a protection order under the measure. Personal violence is defined to be any of the following in relation to another person:

physical violence or abuse;

sexual violence or abuse;

threatening behaviour;

stalking;

harassing, intimidating or offensive behaviour;

damaging property.

5—Meaning of workplace

This clause provides, subject to subclause (2) that a workplace is a place where prescribed work is carried out for a business or undertaking and includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while undertaking prescribed work. In this definition of workplace—

prescribed work means work that requires direct interaction with members of the public (irrespective of whether the interaction is in person or not) or any other work of a prescribed kind, but does not include work of a kind excluded from the definition by the regulations; and

place includes a vehicle, vessel, aircraft or other mobile structure, and any waters and any installation on land, on the bed of any waters or floating on any waters.

Subclause (2) provides that a reference to a workplace will be taken to not include a prescribed workplace or a prescribed class of workplace.

Part 2—Workplace Protection Orders

6—Application for workplace protection order

This clause provides for applications for a workplace protection order to be made to the Magistrates Court. The persons entitled to apply are:

an employer at the workplace;

the owner or occupier of the premises in which the workplace is situated; or

a representative of an employer association of which an employer at the workplace is a member;

a health and safety representative for the workplace; or

a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of workers at the workplace.

On an application the Court must fix a date for a preliminary conference unless—

an interim order is sought; or

the Court is satisfied, on application or its own initiative, that—

holding a preliminary conference would create an unacceptable risk to a person's safety; or

a preliminary conference would be unlikely to achieve its objects,

in which case the Court must fix a date for the hearing of the application which, if an interim workplace protection order is sought, must be returned before the Court as a matter of priority, as far as is practicable.

The Court must, on fixing a date for a preliminary conference or for the hearing of an application, issue a summons for the appearance of the defendant on the date fixed.

7—Preliminary conferences

This clause provides for preliminary conferences the purpose of which is to—

determine whether the proceedings for the order may be settled by consent without the need for a full hearing; and

ensure the application is ready to be heard as soon as practicable.

The Court must not hold a preliminary conference if the Court considers, on application or on its own initiative, that—

holding a preliminary conference would create an unacceptable risk to a person's safety; or

a preliminary conference would be unlikely to achieve its objects.

The Court may refer the parties to mediation if the Court is satisfied that the application is likely to be more effectively resolved by mediation than by a hearing.

8—Interim workplace protection order

This clause provides that the Magistrates Court may, at any time during proceedings on an application for a workplace protection order, make an interim workplace protection order before the application for the workplace protection order is determined.

An interim workplace protection order may be made if the Court is satisfied that the order is necessary to do either or both of the following before the application for the workplace protection order is determined:

ensure the safety of an affected person from personal violence;

prevent substantial damage to property at a workplace.

9—Workplace protection order

This clause provides for the Court to make a workplace protection order against a defendant in proceedings if satisfied that the defendant—

has engaged in personal violence in relation to a workplace; and

may engage in personal violence in relation to a workplace during the time the order is proposed to operate if the order is not made.

In deciding whether to make a workplace protection order the Court must consider the following (in addition to anything else the Court considers relevant):

the objects of the measure;

any hardship that may be caused to the defendant or anyone else by the making of the order;

any previous personal violence by the defendant in relation to an affected person or anyone else;

any previous protection order or intervention order made in relation to the defendant;

any previous contravention of a protection order or intervention order by the defendant;

the need to ensure that property is protected from damage.

A workplace protection order may be made in the absence of the defendant if the defendant was required by summons to appear at the hearing of the application and failed to appear in obedience to the summons.

10—Protection orders by consent

This clause provides that the Magistrates Court may, if a defendant consents to the making of a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order, make the relevant order against the defendant—

without receiving any further submissions or evidence as to the grounds; and

whether or not any ground for making the order has been made out; and

whether or not the court has considered any matters required to be taken into account under the measure before the making of the order.

11—Conditions of protection orders

This clause provides that a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order will be subject to the following conditions:

a condition that any firearm, ammunition or part of a firearm in the possession of the defendant and any licence or permit held by the defendant authorising possession of a firearm must be surrendered to the Registrar of Firearms; and

any other conditions the Court considers necessary.

In determining the conditions to be included in a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order, the Court must—

give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of affected persons; and

ensure the conditions included in a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order are the least restrictive of the personal rights and liberties of the defendant as possible (while ensuring the safety and protection of affected persons and achieving the objects of the measure).

The Court may omit, vary or revoke a condition of a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order relating to a firearm or ammunition if satisfied that—

there are cogent reasons to do so; and

the possession of the firearm, ammunition or part of a firearm by the defendant does not represent an undue risk to the safety and protection of an affected person.

12—Commencement of protection order

A workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order comes into force against a defendant when served on the defendant, which occurs when—

the defendant is present in the Court when the order is made; or

the order is served on the defendant personally; or

the order is served on the defendant in some other manner authorised by the Court.

13—Explaining order to parties present in court

This clause provides that the Magistrates Court must, on making a workplace protection order or interim workplace protection order, explain the order to the defendant and any protection person who is present in court when the Court makes the order.

14—Duration of workplace protection order

This clause provides that, on the making of workplace protection order, the order will remain in force for—

12 months; or

if a shorter period is stated in the order—the period stated; or

if the Court is satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances that justify a longer period—the stated longer period.

15—Variation and revocation of protection orders

This clause provides that the Magistrates Court may vary or revoke a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order. An order may be varied by—

varying the conditions of the order; or

reducing the period for which the order is in force; or

extending the period for which the order is in force.

The Court may only vary or revoke an order if satisfied that—

varying or revoking the order will not adversely affect the safety of a protected person; and

in the case of a variation of the order, the order as varied could be made on application for a workplace protection order.

An application for the variation or revocation of an order may be made by—

the person who applied for the workplace protection order;

a protected person;

the defendant (except for the first application, a defendant may only make an application for the variation or revocation of a protection order with the permission of the Court).

16—Offence to contravene protection order

This clause provides that a person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct that contravenes a protection order (including a condition of a protection order) applying in relation to the person.

The maximum penalty for an offence will be—

if the offence is not committed in aggravated circumstances (where the offence involves personal violence)—imprisonment for 2 years;

if the offence is committed in aggravated circumstances—imprisonment for 5 years.

17—Principal Registrar to give notice of protection order

This clause provides that the Principal Registrar of the Magistrates Court must, on the making of a workplace protection order or an interim protection order, give a copy of the order to—

each party to the proceedings on the application for the order; and

each of the following persons who was not a party to the proceedings:

a person who is a protected person under the order;

an employer at the workplace; and

the Commissioner of Police; and

the Registrar of Firearms; and

any other person the specified by the Court to receive a copy of the order.

Part 3—Miscellaneous

18—Provision of information by police

This clause provides for the provision of the information by the Commissioner of Police to the Court and to a person who is entitled to apply for a workplace protection order in relation to the workplace. Information may only be provided to a person entitled to apply for an order relating to a workplace if reasonable grounds exist to suspect that a person has engaged in personal violence in relation to the workplace .

Information that may be provided under the clause is a person's name and address and the person's relevant history. The provision of information is subject to a provision of the Young Offenders Act 1993 that prohibits or limits the publication of the information. Personal information relating to a person other than the person who is the subject of the application must not be provided to a person entitled to apply for an order unless the provision of the information is required or authorised by the Court or by or under another Act or law.

The clause provides that it will be an offence for a person who is provided with information under subclause (2) (being a person entitled to apply for an order) must not use the information for a purpose other than making an application under the measure or proceedings under the measure. A maximum penalty of $10,000 will apply.

19—Costs

This clause provides that each party to a proceeding for a workplace protection order is responsible for the party's own costs of the proceedings. The Court may make an order about costs—

against the applicant for a workplace protection order if the court is satisfied the application was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith; or

against the defendant if the court considers it appropriate to do so.

20—Power to arrest and detain for contravention of protection order

This clause provides that if a police officer has reason to suspect that a person has contravened a protection order, the officer may, without warrant, arrest and detain the person.

21—Burden of proof

This clause provides that, in proceedings under the measure, the Court is to decide questions of fact on the balance of probabilities.

22—Consequential and ancillary orders

This clause provides that the Court may, on making or varying a protection order, make any consequential or ancillary order it thinks fit, including, in a case where the protection order prohibits the possession of an article or weapon (including a firearm) or an article or weapon of a specified class, an order—

providing for the surrender or confiscation of the article or weapon or such an article or weapon; and

if the circumstances of the case so require, authorising a police officer—

to enter and search and, if necessary, use reasonable force to break into or open—

premises or a vehicle in which the article or weapon, or such an article or weapon is suspected to be; or

part of, or anything in or on, premises or a vehicle in which the article or weapon, or such an article or weapon is suspected to be; and

to take possession of the article or weapon, or such an article or weapon.

23—Regulations

This clause provides that the Governor may make such regulations as are contemplated by, or necessary or expedient for the purposes of, the measure which may—

(a) be of general or limited application; and

(b) make different provision according to the matters or circumstances to which they are expressed to apply; and

(c) impose fines, not exceeding $5,000 for offences against the regulations; and

(d) fix expiation fees, not exceeding $315 for alleged offences against the regulations; and

(e) provide that a matter or thing in respect of which regulations may be made is to be determined according to the discretion of the Minister or any other specified person or body.

The Minister may prescribe fees for the purposes of the measure by fee notice under the Legislation (Fees) Act 2019. A fee notice may provide for the waiver, reduction or remission of fees.

24—Review of Act

This clause provides that the Minister must cause a review of the operation of the Act to be conducted and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister. The review and the report must be completed after the third, but before the fourth, anniversary of the commencement of the Act and the Minister must cause the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

Schedule 1—Related amendments

Part 1—Amendment of Youth Court Act 1993

1—Amendment of section 7—Jurisdiction

This clause amends section 7 of the Youth Court Act 1993 to provide that the Youth Court has the same jurisdiction as the Magistrates Court to make a workplace protection order or an interim workplace protection order under the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Act 2025 where the person who is to be subject to the order is a child or youth, and has power under that Act to vary or revoke such an order previously made by the Court.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for the bill—we will not oppose it, anyway—and I indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I will make a relatively brief contribution at this stage, with the bill coming as it does from another place where the debate has already aired some of the key concerns about the process by which these orders, subject to the bill, might be obtained.

I think the aspect that I emphasise for the purposes of my contribution is that the results of a process of being able to seek orders of this kind, where they have been applied in jurisdictions elsewhere, have yielded some positive statistics in terms of outcomes reducing recidivist criminal behaviour. The concern really comes to the practicality of it, and that may be able to be addressed once we have seen this in practice, the key point being that police are not going to be seeking these orders on the current bill and so it will be up to those affected to go ahead and seek the orders.

They will need to prove two steps: they will need to satisfy the court of the fact of the violence in the first place and, secondly, the likelihood that further violence will be engaged with if an order is not made. Interestingly, the burden of proof will be on the balance of probabilities, but it is nonetheless a matter of advancing evidence. That means coming to the court, bearing the costs of doing so, and all that goes with having to negotiate that process. In the circumstances of the realities of business, those representing small business in the state have rightly spoken up about how that is not necessarily going to be practical. You might see a situation where there is violent conduct being perpetrated on employees and, yet, that sounds in a fresh burden on businesses to take necessary steps to obtain the order.

We see that clause 6 provides for five categories of persons who may apply and that rather illustrates the point. First, we have an employer—so, there is no doubt about the eligibility—second, there is the owner or occupier of the premises where the workplace is situated, and then we get on to the categories of representatives, (c), (d) and (e) respectively: (c) the representative of an employer association, (d) a health and safety representative, and (e) a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of the workers at the workplace. We will see how that goes in terms of those three categories of representative working together with the employer and/or owner of the premises so that it actually does do the work without becoming a fresh burden.

A two-stage process needs to satisfy a court on the balance of probabilities and it is expected then, in light of what we have seen particularly in the ACT, to be steps that can have the effect of improving the safety of those workers. It is a shocking and intolerable thing for anyone employed in a workplace to be at risk of personal violence. Let's look to see that the processes necessary to secure the orders are practical and, if necessary, I hope we will have the capacity to be agile in this place to respond to any practical gaps in the process. With those words, as I have indicated, the opposition does not oppose the passage of the bill at this time.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (12:12): I rise today in support of the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill which seeks to make public-facing workplaces safer for thousands of South Australians: violence, abuse, intimidation and harassment are not just part of the job for frontline workers. Everyone deserves to feel safe at work. On the rare occasion that someone is threatened, abused or assaulted at work, the law should be firmly on their side and empower employers with the tools to act quickly and protect their staff, which is exactly what this bill provides.

Not just in our own state but right across the country, we have seen escalating and deeply concerning behaviour directed at people just trying to do their job, particularly since the pandemic. South Australians have been appalled and disgusted by the reports of retail workers, healthcare workers and customer service employees, who are often younger workers, being subjected to shocking incidents of rage, intimidation and violence. These incidents can create ongoing trauma, making workplaces a place where people no longer feel safe. Passage of this bill will put an end to this by creating a simple, direct mechanism to prevent an offender from returning to a workplace and causing further harm.

This bill allows for an employer, premises owner, employee association representative, health and safety representative or a union representative to apply to the Magistrates Court or Youth Court for a workplace protection order. To make the order, the court must be satisfied of two things: first, that the defendant has engaged in personal violence at a workplace and, second, that they may engage in personal violence again, if the order is not made.

Personal violence is defined by the bill to include physical and sexual violence, threatening behaviour, stalking, harassment, intimidation, offensive conduct or property damage that reasonably causes fear. Importantly, this bill also recognises such behaviour in any workplace where the work requires direct interaction with members of the public, irrespective of whether the interaction is in person or not, and includes any place where a worker goes or is likely to be while undertaking their work. Whether you are serving customers in a shop, caring for someone in their home, staffing a call centre, delivering a service on the road or interacting online, this reform can protect you.

If the court is satisfied that a workplace protection order is necessary, it can impose a range of conditions, including barring the defendant from entering the workplace, requiring them to keep a certain distance, prohibiting them from approaching or contacting specific workers or preventing them from encouraging others to engage in violence. A workplace protection order must also include a condition requiring the surrender of any firearms in the defendant's possession and the surrender of any firearm licence or permit.

Should a defendant breach any condition of their workplace protection order, they face a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment if the breach does not involve personal violence or five years' imprisonment if it does. This bill also establishes a clear framework for interim workplace protection orders so they can be made quickly before the full hearing of an application when it is necessary to ensure a worker's safety or prevent substantial damage to property in a workplace. These interim orders can remain in effect until a final order is made, declined or its application revoked.

The reform before us today is based closely on laws successfully operating in the Australian Capital Territory, which have been effective in giving employers the tools they need to protect their staff. However, this bill is stronger, giving more representatives the ability to apply for a workplace protection order to reinforce the fact that workplace safety is a shared responsibility.

The bill before us today does not exist in isolation. It forms part of an extensive suite of reforms the Malinauskas Labor government has led to promote community safety and ensure that every South Australian is safe at work. We have already increased penalties for assaulting retail workers and empowered police through Operation Measure to crack down on retail theft. We have introduced nation-leading knife crime reforms and authorised declared public precincts, which give police greater powers to prevent violence.

In closing, I would again like to thank our Attorney-General, his team and all of the key stakeholders who helped shape this bill through consultation in late 2024. I understand the SDA, the Master Builders Association, the AHA, the National Retail Association, SA Independent Retailers, the Business Chamber and the Shopping Centre Council all provided practical insights and advice on this bill to ensure it strikes the right balance between protecting workers and maintaining a fair, workable legal framework.

I would particularly like to acknowledge Josh Peak, President of the SDA, for his advocacy and support for his union's members. It was great to see a number of members celebrated on Saturday night through the Lyn Rivers awards, named after an incredible woman, who I was very lucky to have living in my electorate and who is very missed. The recipient of the Delegate of the Year award was my constituent Kirsty Lithgow, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her again.

I am really proud to stand here again today speaking in support of another piece of reform that directly speaks to the values of the Malinauskas Labor government and the larger trade union movement. It speaks directly to our values, to the dignity that work can provide and to the belief that everyone, from the high school student stacking shelves at the Cumberland Park Woolies, the bus drivers leaving the Morphettville depot and the baristas at the far too many brilliant coffee shops in my community—every single worker—deserves respect and protection. I commend the bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (12:19): I rise today to speak in support of the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025. This bill is about nurses, retail staff, hospitality workers, and every South Australian who serves our public every day and who deserves to do their job without fear of violence or harassment. Too many workers have had their safety compromised simply for showing up for work, and we believe that no-one should have to risk their wellbeing to earn a living.

This government's workplace protection order scheme, the most extensive of its kind in the nation, will give businesses, employers, industry groups and unions the ability to apply to the Magistrates Court or Youth Court to bar individuals from entering or being within a particular distance of a workplace if there are concerns they will continue to engage in violent or intimidating behaviour in that workplace. This bill delivers real protection, giving courts the power to bar individuals for up to 12 months for serious penalties when breaching the bill, including up to five years in prison.

The bill builds on our record: tougher penalties for assaults on retail staff, Operation Measure tackling shop theft, nation-leading knife crime reforms, and stronger police powers in public spaces. We stand with workers: we do not just talk about safety, we deliver on it. This bill is fair, practical and inclusive. It protects workers in any public-facing workplace, whether in person or online.

Orders can be sought, as well, by health and safety reps and property owners. This can prevent dangerous individuals from entering workplaces, contacting staff, or even requiring the surrender of firearms or associated licences when safety demands it. Interim orders give immediate protection, and courts retain the discretion to vary or evoke orders where appropriate. We have consulted widely with unions, employers and industry groups to ensure it all works in practice.

This bill is about more than law and order: it is about standing up for working people, protecting them from harm, and sending a clear message that violence against workers will not be tolerated in South Australia. When workers are safe communities are stronger, families are safer, and our economy thrives. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr DIGHTON (Black) (12:22): I rise to speak about the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill, which creates a workplace protection order scheme in South Australia to better protect our frontline and public-facing workers from violence.

The bill would allow interested parties to make an application to the Magistrates Court to bar people who exhibit violent or harassing behaviour from a workplace for up to 12 months, and offenders who breach such orders could then face up to five years in jail. This legislation reflects or adds to the significant action the Malinauskas government has taken to improve the rights and the protections for workers. Some of the others include lifting penalties for those who assault workers, a police crackdown on shop theft through Operation Measure, nation-leading knife crime reforms, authorising declared precincts to allow greater police searches, and move-on powers where they are required.

A workplace protection order can be made to a particular workplace if a defendant has engaged in personal violence in relation to a workplace or may engage in personal violence. It is important that we talk about what constitutes personal violence. It can include behaviours such as physical violence or abuse; sexual violence or abuse; threatening behaviour; stalking; harassing, intimidating or offensive behaviour; or damage of property that causes fear to a person within a workplace.

I also want to highlight who could make an application for a workplace protection order. That can be the owner or occupier, an employer, a representative of an employer association of which the employer is a member, a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of workers at a workplace, or a health and safety representative for the workplace.

I do want to highlight the work of our health and safety representatives in our workplace. These are representatives who represent the interests of employees within a workplace. They do such an important role in identifying hazards that may exist within particular workplaces, and they do so with that lens of making sure that a worksite is safe for all workers. It is a critical part of our industrial system that we have a Work Health and Safety Act that protects workplace safety, but health and safety reps provide that advocacy to make sure that all potential harm or hazards are pointed out.

In a former role, I was a trainer of health and safety representatives. In fact, I spent two years training representatives. There has been some adjustment since the very long time ago that I did that, but it involved five days of training, significant discussion around how the relevant legislation works and it also included a site inspection where health and safety reps were able to practise identifying hazards within a particular workplace. It is very important for them to gather or have a sense of how to do that job themselves and how they can go about working with SafeWork SA to support the needs of workers. I could probably talk about a few different stories about that, but I will not do that.

Suffice to say I did health and safety rep training in Whyalla and went to a part of the steelworks. That was a rude awakening for a retail worker in that particular space—a very different context—but it is important that they are able to do it. So I think it is important that health and safety reps have that ability to also bring about workplace protection orders as set out in this legislation, and I am sure that the training of health and safety representatives will incorporate this important legislation and provide guidance to health and safety reps about how they do it.

I also want acknowledge the significant consultation that occurred and the various different representatives who were involved in the drafting of this legislation or involved in the consultation on the draft bill. That included the SDA—a former employer of mine—Master Builders Association, the AHA, the National Retail Association, Independent Retailers, SA Business Chamber and the Shopping Centre Council.

I do want to particularly talk about retail and fast-food workers, because I think they are absolutely frontline workers, and they deserve our protection. We saw, in particular during COVID, how important our retail workers are, and perhaps underestimated their importance. They faced significant workplace hazards and were victims of inappropriate and antisocial behaviour by customers, particularly during that time. That has continued, and I want to highlight some statistics about the impact on retail and fast-food workers in particular.

A survey in 2023 found that, in the last 12 months, 87 per cent of workers said they had experienced verbal abuse from a customer. What an incredibly high statistic—87 per cent. Workers also experienced an increase in the frequency of verbal abuse over a sustained period of time rather than just isolated events. Of those who experienced verbal abuse, 76 per cent experienced it on a more regular basis. A figure of 12.5 per cent of respondents said that they had been the victim of physical violence from a customer, and 9 per cent said they had been spat on. Repeat offending is still a significant issue for workers, with 52 per cent of workers reporting the same customer was abusive or violent towards them on more than one occasion—hence, the need for this legislation to ensure that repeat offenders can receive a workplace protection order.

Seventeen per cent of respondents reported that incidents of customer abuse and violence they experienced were of a sexual nature, and that prevalence is higher among female workers compared to male workers, with female workers at particular risk. It is important we remember that in these industries, in retail and fast food, they employ a large number of young workers and women who are disproportionately impacted by workplace violence. Younger workers often lack experience and confidence to manage aggressive situations, including psychological harm. They need protection, and this legislation goes about doing that.

The statistics show a clear pattern of violence and aggression in retail and fast-food settings, with young and vulnerable workers most at risk. The current systems are clearly failing to stop repeat abuse, which is why we need to introduce these orders, to reduce harm and physical stress and give our employers, our employees and our courts the tools to deter repeat offenders and restore safety in our public-facing workplaces.

As a former retail worker at Foodland and former union official at the SDA, I welcome the bill. I want to pay tribute in particular to the advocacy of the SDA union, led by secretary Josh Peak, for their work in advocating to the parliament and to the government for these important reforms. I also want to acknowledge a number of other association and industry groups that I mentioned previously, who were significantly consulted on this legislation. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:31): I would like to preface my contribution to the debate on this bill, which I support, with a quick story. I was recently visiting a country town, as I do at the moment, and I got to know where all the best coffee is, the best bakeries—and I think it is starting to show—and also a whole range of other key places where, when you are driving long distances, you like to stop to get a coffee or something to eat, etc. This particular country town is quite small, with probably less than a thousand people. I was surprised when I went into a shop and saw a sign on the bench which says, 'Please do not be abusive to our staff.' That really surprised me. I was aware, of course, of abusive behaviour. Often, in larger settings, metropolitan settings, it has unfortunately become more common, particularly around health services and a whole range of other services, including in big supermarkets, etc.

I was still shocked that a small business in a small country town would have to put up a sign, so I asked the staff how often this happens. A young staff member said, 'It happens more than we would like.' It was not a case of some people just getting a bit annoyed or that somebody is not happy with a product; it is full-on abuse, and it is appalling. To some extent, it reminds me of some of the worst things we import from America, some of the worst behaviours we import from America, because it is too common there. In America, it is appropriate to attack people's dignity, to make abusive remarks. When the leader of the nation exhibits those behaviours on a daily basis, it gives permission to other people in society to do the same. It is not acceptable.

We can disagree in a civil way. We can be unhappy with the service, but we will still show that in a civil way, in the sense that it focuses on the issue rather than the individual. When people hurl personal abuse against a person, it is not the issue that gets affected, it is the person who is affected. In the example I provided, in the small bakery and cafe in one of the country towns, the fact that they remember these cases indicates the impact it has on individuals.

We now see these signs increasingly in more places of work and retail and other places and it is a sad reflection on where we are going as a society. I understand that people generally are under pressure from cost-of-living pressures. People are under pressure from a whole range of things. But that does not give us the right to attack somebody else, attack somebody else's dignity. As I said, we should be able to have quite different views about a whole range of things but talk about what we are trying to convey, rather than through the person in front of us.

I was attacked at an event on the weekend. I will not go into the details because it might be seen as a political comment. I was attacked by a person, which I thought was quite rude and quite harsh. It saddened me, not because that person was rude to me or anything like that—I have copped a lot of that in public life—but because the person went right across the stadium to pick me out to hurl abuse at me and then take a photograph of me. I am not sure where that photograph is going to end up, but that is public life. It did not concern me a lot, but I thought that, if somebody had to put up with that sort of thing in a retail setting and they were not used to it or they were a young person, it could be quite confronting and quite traumatic. I think sometimes it can be quite damaging to the individual.

The good thing about this bill, which I support, is that it not only supports employees but it supports the whole workplace. That is really important. In a lot of country towns, workplaces are run by owners/operators but they are technically an employee because they are probably run by a small company, etc. This proposal is designed not only to make it safer for workers, which is important, but it makes the whole workplace safer and I think that is really important whether you are a worker or the owner/manager or the operator, etc. I think it is really important that we provide that. I note this bill does provide an opportunity for an employer to also apply for a workplace protection order.

This scheme, which is a little bit different but basically modelled on the ACT scheme, is designed to better protect public-facing workplaces from violence, which I think is laudable. Everybody should be able to go to work knowing that, if they do a good day's work, they get a good day's pay, and they get certain benefits from that, not only in terms of money but a whole range of the well known social and psychological benefits that one gets from working.

Under the bill, interested parties make an application to the Magistrates Court or the Youth Court as appropriate to bar people who exhibit violent or harassing behaviour at a workplace for a period of up to 12 months. In extreme cases, offenders who breach an order can face up to five years' jail. I would hope that a person who has been barred would actually understand the gravity of their behaviour, but I think that some people who behave in that way often do not understand what they are doing.

This move significantly improves the safety of workers and we have done that through a whole range of other things in terms of lifting penalties for those who assault retail workers, a police crackdown on theft through Operation Measure, nation-leading knife crime reforms, and authorised declared public precincts to allow greater police search and move on powers when required.

When you read it you think it does reflect on our society. While introducing these laws and applying them to provide safety, which is important, I think there is a greater role as a society that we need to think about which is where we are going as a society and why we have behaviours like this. I am not suggesting that people were never rude to retail workers in the good old days, as people would say, but certainly the prevalence is greater and also the impact is greater.

A person can actually apply to the Youth Court or Magistrates Court for the court to make a workplace protection order in relation to a particular workplace if satisfied that the defendant has engaged in personal violence in relation to a workplace and that they may engage in personal violence in relation to a workplace.

It is important to note that there are two criteria to be met. It is also important to isolate the one-off person who actually redeems themselves in some way. This is for the people who are repeat offenders or 'frequent flyers', as we may call them, in terms of their behaviour.

The bill defines what personal violence is. I will not go into those details. They have already been covered by the minister in his speech and also by the member for Heysen in his contribution. Interestingly enough, a person of any age can be subject to a workplace protection order. While I see the need for that, I also share my concerns as to why young people would think it is appropriate to behave in such a way. I suppose they do because they see adults doing it.

As I said before, we see people in important offices and positions of power in our society in the world at large who behave that way. I do not use the example of President Trump lightly but the way he refers to reporters at media conferences is appalling. One should not talk to anybody like that—it is appalling behaviour. A leader of a nation should be setting the standard and, unfortunately, he does set the standard and that is why there is so much violence in America. I am hoping that we do not import that sort of behaviour here. It would be disastrous for our society if we were to import that.

For people who think President Trump is wonderful, I think they need to reflect very closely on the message he gives to other people about how you treat each other in a society. It is very important. Underlining this law are the values we need to live in a society. We need to learn how to coexist and we need to learn how to behave with each other and treat each other with dignity.

Who can make a workplace protection order? An employer can, as I mentioned earlier, which is really important. Particularly in those smaller businesses that might be owner-operated plus one or two employees, the employer themselves can often be attacked as well. A workplace protection order can also be made by an owner or occupier of the premises where the workplace is situated or a representative of an employer association, which is really good. An employer association can support their membership, particularly if they are smaller businesses that do not have the resources. A health and safety representative for the workplace and a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of workers at the workplace can also make an application for a workplace protection order.

What this shows is that the person who has been the victim of the offence does not have to do the heavy lifting to get redress. I think that is really important because a person can be traumatised by the event and this act empowers others to act on their behalf to make sure that the offence does not occur again. Workplaces are defined as:

work that requires direct interaction with members of the public (irrespective of whether the interaction is in person or not)…

There is also a range of quite severe penalties for people who breach the orders, somewhere between two to five years' imprisonment. A final workplace protection order can be made for up to 12 months or longer if a court is satisfied of special or exceptional circumstances.

What can a workplace protection order include? It can prohibit somebody from entering the workplace, being within a particular distance from the workplace, engaging in personal violence in the workplace and causing someone else to engage in personal violence in relation to the workplace, which I think is an important addition. A person who may be barred may decide to seek retribution and send somebody else in to do that for them, so I think that is an important addition.

A workplace protection order must state the conditions on which the defendant may be in the workplace or approach or contact a particular person. I think that is an important thing. There may be a case where a protection order says, 'You can only deal with this person in this workplace,' and that person might be happy to deal with the defendant because even though their behaviour might be inappropriate, they might be more experienced or perhaps an older person, etc. There is a whole range of different reasons why they might be able to deal with that behaviour.

A workplace protection order must also include a condition requiring the surrender of any firearms in the defendant's possession. That, I think, speaks for itself. Again, you just have to look at the examples in America in terms of the firearm violence people experience there. An interim workplace protection order can also be made if the court is satisfied it is necessary to ensure the safety of an affected person from personal violence and to prevent substantial damage to property at a workplace. So, while the legal process is being undertaken, an interim order can be made, and in some cases it may be required as a holding measure to make sure that a person does not return to the workplace and create more problems there.

A workplace protection order can be varied or revoked on application to the court. In deciding on the appropriate order to make, the court is required to consider the objects of the act, any hardship that may be caused to the defendant or anyone else by the making of the order, any previous violence by the defendant, any previous protection order made in relation to the defendant and any previous contravention of such order. It also needs to ensure that property is protected from damage and may also consider anything else the court considers relevant in deciding to make that order. I think these things are an appropriate balance. They also distinguish between people who may say something inappropriate in the heat of the moment and a pattern of behaviour towards individuals that is threatening and offensive.

Before the bill was introduced, there was extensive consultation that occurred late last year. Some of the various organisations that were consulted, and which I think are key, include the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (the SDA), the Master Builders Association, the AHA, the National Retail Association, South Australian Independent Retailers, the South Australian Business Chamber and the Shopping Centre Council. These are all organisations with employees at the forefront of the retail industry, and it is appropriate that they be consulted.

Again, I return to my opening remarks on this bill: it is sad that we have to see signs put up in businesses saying, 'Please do not be abusive towards our staff.' As I said, there may be reasons to complain about a service or a product, but the way you do it is really important, and it should not be done in a way that demeans a worker in that workplace.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:48): I rise today to talk about the workplace protection order scheme. These laws are aimed at better protecting workers in a range of at-risk professions. It saddens me that we need to put forward this bill today because, at the end of the day, people should be able to get the dignity of work and go to work knowing that they are safe, they are respected and the interactions they will have with customers or clients are done in a positive way. It does not mean you cannot raise issues that you have, but, unfortunately, we have got to the point where this bill is necessary.

We know that people have had to face abuse. We know that can be of a physical or sexual nature, it can be threatening behaviour, stalking or being harassed and we need to make it clear to South Australians that that is not okay. Not only is it not okay but we see you, we hear you and the laws will protect you. This violence and aggression towards workers is unacceptable and we have had conversations in many different fields and across many different industries where people have experienced this when they are just trying to do their job.

This bill is a significant step to ensuring that staff can go about their business free from violence and harassment and, as we have heard from many of the other speakers, this continues the work of the Malinauskas Labor government in what we are doing to keep the community safe. It is a top priority for this government and we will continue to do the work, whether it be the union movement or industry associations when they come and talk to us about the concerns they have for people going about their work and doing their business. We are here to listen and we are here to support.

We have also increased penalties for assaulting retail workers. We have introduced the toughest crime laws in the country and now we are bringing in a law to ban abusive customers. We really saw an increase of this behaviour over COVID with people not wearing their masks, people blaming workers—particularly retail workers who were at the brunt of it when stocks were low. I remember pharmacy assistants saying people were very frustrated with them and demanded that they could deliver things that they wanted when they simply could not do that. I remember all the restrictions we had at the time—the distancing. It seems from that time we have seen this increased disconnect away from the respect we should provide to each other. Previously only abusive and violent customers could not be banned for more than 24 hours—we know they go away and just come back again—but this bill fixes that.

For many years I was a senior organiser with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and I would talk to people working in retail who knew the people who were repeat offenders. They would say, 'We make sure that there is more than one of us at the desk when that person comes through.' This new bill would be able to stop people coming back and it is a vital support in keeping people safe and reducing these incidents. There is a real consequence now to this behaviour and that is what this bill does.

I particularly want to talk about the fact that young people often work in retail and hospitality as their first jobs. When I go to Parabanks Shopping Centre, to Woolies or Coles, or I am heading off to Saints Foodland in my electorate, I often see young people in their first job working there—maybe they are at Big W. They have said to their parents, 'I want to start to earn some money. I want to get some skills and experience.' But what I have also heard from those young people is, 'What I am most concerned about is getting abused.'

When a young person says, 'I want to work and I want to build the experience that I have in life,' the last thing we want for them to be worried about is the negativity or abuse that might come their way, recognising this is one of the reasons we have put this bill forward.

When we look at workplace protection we look at what has happened here and in other jurisdictions. We have seen in the ACT that these workplace protection orders have helped lower crime, which is down 23 per cent for this year compared to last year. So we do know that these workplace protections work.

I would like to take the time to thank Josh Peak, who is secretary of the SDA. He has been very vocal since those dark days during COVID when we had to speak out and say, 'Do not take your frustration out on retail workers.' Once again, it saddens me to say that we had to do this. I also want to recognise the work of the Attorney-General: he is listening, he is out there and working to get the legislation right. This government has been very clear about where our focus is, and I am very proud to be part of the team that has increased these protections for workers. We want you to be leaving your home at the beginning of the day and going to your workplace knowing that there can be a real difference if people are behaving like this, not just a 24-hour ban but to actually have these protection orders that say to them, 'You can't do this. We have rights now to make sure that we are not subject to your behaviour again.'

We are seeing increasing commentary from people who believe they can say anything whenever they want, whether they be a keyboard warrior or they are shouting abuse at someone when they receive a service. We see increasing antagonism between people providing services and those people who are receiving them. It is a difficult thing to acknowledge that we are seeing this increase, but we have to be clear in order to say, 'Stop. How you are speaking to me is not okay.' Now there is a real consequence to that repeated behaviour, and I am really pleased to support this bill to enable that to happen.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (12:56): I rise very briefly to speak in support of this bill. I feel it is something that I must say something about, particularly on behalf of my 14-year-old self. As a 14 year old I would have wanted my local MP to speak on a matter like this.

This goes back to a time when I was a very young boy and I got my first job working at Foodland—indeed, it was in the member for Heysen's electorate. It was a wonderful time, a time of a lot of excitement for me. Within a few years the Foodland was taken over by Woolworths. I enjoyed seven years there and made the best friends, but unfortunately I do have indifferent stories to recall. I will not go into any detail about them, but needless to say—even in a place like Stirling in the Adelaide Hills, which you would not necessarily consider to be a place that is ripe for this kind of behaviour that some of the members have so eloquently described—it does happen.

We are now talking about a supermarket that was savagely burnt down, and so a lot of things that would not necessarily be associated with that part of the world do happen, and I have seen it all. I was not necessarily the victim of any physical abuse, but my friends at the time and my colleagues were on occasion threatened with violence, and I do recall seeing it on a number of occasions. We are talking of seven years. I think the point to make about all of this is that, while we are talking about some indifferent sets of behaviour, it is worth pointing out that 99 per cent of people are wonderful and do a wonderful thing in treating people in retail with the utmost respect. It is just that when we unfortunately do encounter this kind of behaviour it leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths, and its impact can long be felt.

Not just to speak of personal experience, I also want to talk about the fact that I have an electorate where there is quite a number of large supermarkets. I see young people going out there, and I strongly believe that we should have laws in place to ensure they are given the utmost protection.

As I said, this is going to be a short contribution, but I do want to commend the SDA for their advocacy in this particular space. When I was in the Northern Territory I first started to see the No One Deserves A Serve campaign, and I must say that I was deeply impressed. I think it was long overdue. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT