Bill: Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality, and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025

BILL:

‘CRIMES AMENDMENT (RETAIL, FAST FOOD, HOSPITALITY, AND TRANSPORT WORKER HARM) BILL 2025.’

Tuesday, 18 November 2025.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:01):

I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025.

Victorians know that not only do we have a crime crisis, but we have a retail crime crisis in this State – a retail crime crisis that is not new. It is not something that has come out of nowhere. It has been ongoing. It has been deep. It has been shocking, frankly, in the examples, the high-profile examples, that we have seen. But more than that, every single day across this State we are seeing cases where people are dealing with things at work that they should not have to deal with, and that is why the Coalition has been calling for action on retail crime. For some time – and for a long time – we have been calling for action. When the Premier committed in May last year to doing something, the Coalition, though sceptical, took the Government at its word that it would do something and it would do something with haste, because you cannot see the level of offending in this state that we are seeing without taking action – not words, not press releases, but action.

The most recent data shows that in the year to June there were 99,114 offences in a retail store setting, an increase of 20 per cent in one year. So, between the commitment 18 months ago and this bill being put to the Parliament today we have seen a huge increase in retail store–setting crime, retail crime in Victoria, which is why the Coalition has called for action. Retail thefts were up 26 per cent and retail assaults were up 21 per cent according to the recent Crime Statistics Agency data – 21 per cent on retail assault and, as I said, 26 per cent on retail theft. That goes to the broader picture of crime and the increase in the number of offences that are occurring in this State. There have been substantial increases in crime, not just year on year. In addition to retail crime, of which there were basically 100,000 offences in the year to June, there were 638,000 criminal offences in the 2024–25 year, which was 200,000 more than when Labor was first elected – 200,000 more, a third more, roughly, than when Labor was first elected.

Total offences have increased by 47 per cent, crimes against people are up by 63 per cent and property and deception offences are up by 38 per cent.

There is a crime problem in this State, and one of the biggest crime problems in this State is in the retail sector. The Government in no way can suggest that this crime problem was not clear, because in addition to the shocking incidents on our screens, in media reports and, frankly, reports from people we know who tell us about what they go through and have gone through, we have also seen the biggest retailers in the country talk about that retail crime crisis in Victoria. Leah Weckert from Coles said:

… it is definitely the case that in Victoria, retail crime is escalating more than … we are seeing in other states.

The Rebel Sport Chief Executive said:

We’ve seen a disproportionate increase in Victorian stores. No doubt about that.

Reece Chief Executive Peter Wilson was reported as saying that Victoria was:

… ‘the toughest place in the country’ to do business …

The co-founder of Seek, Paul Bassat, said:

Whenever something … is done in this country that’s anti-business, the reality is there’s a good chance of it being done in Victoria.

These very, very senior executives are calling out and have been calling out the retail crime crisis in Victoria. What they have called for is real action that will solve the crime crisis in the retail sector. This Bill will not do that. This Bill will not fix the retail crime crisis in this State, and at its core any bill that comes to this Chamber which seeks to solve a problem should be measured on whether or not it will solve that problem. Though the Coalition will not be opposing this legislation, we do want noted very, very clearly and do want recorded very, very clearly our strong view that the retail crime crisis in Victoria will not be solved by this Bill.

After waiting some 18 months for the promise of a Bill, how disappointed, frankly, people will be to see this Bill and find not only the measures contained therein to be mixed, and, as I will go into later, not actually substantially going to solving the issues it seeks to solve, but that an entire piece of the solution is missing from this Bill, and that is workplace protection orders. It is an entire piece needed to address the retail crime crisis. That is why under Standing Orders I wish to advise the house of Amendments to this Bill and request that they be circulated.

We seek to do two things with this Bill, which I will talk about in more detail. Increasing the penalties contained in the Bill is the first part – increasing the measures – but then also introducing a workplace protection order regime into Victoria. It is no good to simply introduce proposed laws that try to solve a problem which are, frankly, nothing more than a press release realised through a draft Bill, and then announce, as part of that solution, the need for workplace protection orders at the eleventh hour, and then backflip on the need for workplace protection orders so spectacularly that the Government could not even draft the measures for this Bill.

As we know, this Premier has been fighting workplace protection orders every single day. Every single day, this Premier has been fighting against the introduction of workplace protection orders in this State.

I will start by going to what is in this Bill and talking through the measures, because it is quite a simple Bill in terms of the measures therein, and go to a number of sector experts in terms of the Law Institute of Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association, who I would thank for the very, very speedy assessment they have been able to do on the on this particular Bill. It is unusual for a Bill to be introduced and not be considered by this Chamber for 14 days, which gives the broader community time to think it through. Considering the measures in this Bill were promised 18 months ago and, frankly, were rushed into a Bill that has been put to the house only days ago, it is unfortunate that the sector has been unable to look at this Bill, to have legal experts look at this Bill with any real time. Not that introducing a Bill that has increased punitive measures does nothing; it does something, which is why we are not going to oppose it. But we have not given the broader community time to consider the measures in the Bill. And I can understand why, because firstly, the Premier had a promise to acquit, which the Premier was clearly dragged to in the final days of this year. There was a commitment that this Bill would be acquitted this year, so a Bill that was not fully formed has been brought into this Chamber. The Premier has admitted that by way of acknowledging that the retail crime crisis will only be solved with workplace –

Iwan Walters: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, contributions need to be factual, and verballing the Premier and the hard work of the worker protection group, which has led to this bill coming to the Parliament, is not within standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: If I can go to the overview of the Law Institute of Victoria’s assessment of this Bill and highlight their assessment that these measures:

… may unnecessarily overcomplicate the Crimes Act as the proposed offending conduct is already captured through other offences within the act.

It goes further:

A judicial officer is already empowered to consider the specific circumstances of such offending when evaluating an application for bail or handing down a sentence.

More specifically it says:

Certain sections in the proposed act may inadvertently create gaps in the framework by only criminalising abuse directed at those in a customer-facing role, for example, but not exclude bank tellers, accountants, therapists, policy experts et cetera.

What the Law Institute has said is that this Bill gets it wrong, and I will go into detail why. I made this point after seeing the Bill very, very early on: this Bill creates an offence that exists. In terms of an indictable offence, what this Bill does is create an assault offence, in simple terms, where assault offences exist.

Frankly, this Bill, with that particular offence, does very, very little. It does not create something new. There is no new power that cannot be dealt with by common-law assault. To make it even clearer, the common-law assault maximum sentence is five years. Right now, if you commit an indictable offence, if you assault, through an indictable offence, in terms of common-law assault, you would be subject to, or you could be subject to, exactly what this so-called new provision creates. The power exists. When the Premier was producing social media talking about how a new power will exist, how a new law will exist to protect people from assault and how the maximum for that offence will be five years, it exists in law. As the law institute has pointed out, assault exists in law, and so all this does is create a new offence on top of an existing offence. It does not mean that the original law of assault is somehow better or different by nature of this Bill passing. As the Law Institute has said:

The Crimes Act already captures common-law assault with a maximum of five years.

It is absolutely clear.

The second thing the Bill does is it adds ramraiding, in short, into a new definition of aggravated burglary. In shorthand, ramraiding will be classified or could be classified as aggravated burglary. As the Law Institute has said:

The offence of aggravated burglary would likely already capture a ramraid under certain circumstances – for example, where the offender commits a ramraid during business hours, where there are staff or where there is a reason to believe that there are likely staff in the building.

Again, the Institute has pointed out that this new offence is already captured in law. So, we now have two offences created by this Bill which are not new – they exist in law – which is the point that has been made repeatedly over recent days.

When it comes to the summary offences created by this Bill, summary offences in relation to assault and threats, these are, as the Law Institute again points out:

… substantially similar to offences already contained in the Summary Offences Act.

What the Law Institute makes clear – as also will the Criminal Bar Association, and I will go into that as well – is that this Bill will not fix the retail crime crisis, because frankly it is a Bill that is more about acquitting a promise of 18 months ago than creating substantial or meaningful reform that will go to the core of this crime crisis and introducing measures that will actually create change. When you introduce a Bill that rebadges or renames existing offences under the act, yes, you get your social media tile and, yes, you get to put out your press release and make
the claim that you have put out your press release, but what you do not do is go to the core of the problem. That is what is missing from this Bill: solutions to the crime crisis that will actually go to solving the crime crisis, especially when it comes to retail.

In relation to the Criminal Bar Association, I do make the point, as has the Association, that my engagement with them was the first time that anybody had sought to go to them to seek their advice on these proposed measures. The Government did not bother, and in fact that was a consistent piece of feedback, that the Government did not bother to consult with legal experts.

When you understand what is missing in terms of this Bill and how this Bill is simply a rebadging of existing offences, you can see why. I do not think it was by accident that the Government did not consult with legal experts. I think it was by design, because they did not want to be told that this Bill is nothing more than a press release. This Bill is not creating something substantial or something new. In fact, the experts would say it is not, and it is not necessary because these offences currently exist.

The Criminal Bar Association has described the indictable offence created by this bill as being ‘of little utility’ and one ‘which would otherwise be captured by the existing offence of common law assault’. Again, it is of little utility and an offence that is captured by common law assault. I think it is very important for the House to understand what is missing from the Bill and that these offences are already captured. That is what the legal experts are saying; they are saying that these offences exist. When it comes to the assault matter that I spoke about, the Criminal Bar Association has described the new offence as being of little utility. Further:

Were a customer-facing worker to be physically assaulted or even threatened in connection to their employment without the introduction of this new offence, there would be no impediment to the laying of the charge of common law assault. Given this, it is difficult to see what the introduction of this new offence will achieve.

Those are not my words. That is the Criminal Bar Association, who actually, frankly, know more than the Government and deal with this subject matter every single day.

… it is difficult to see what the introduction of this new offence will achieve.

I mean, it will achieve something. It will achieve the acquitting of the Premier’s press release – there is no doubt about that. But what it does not do is create meaningful reform or bring about a new offence that sends a very strong signal. That is why when it comes to the offences proposed by this legislation, the Coalition has moved Amendments, because we would say that the offences in this Bill require a level of toughness that is not contained therein, and that is why we have moved an Amendment.

On the assault provision, we are seeking to insert a new clause where the penalty moves to, if the assault does not cause physical injury, four years; if the assault causes a physical injury that is not a serious assault, six years; and if the assault causes a serious injury, 11 years. That is in line exactly with the New South Wales model. So, when the Government looks at these Amendments and when the other place looks at these Amendments in detail, we make clear that these provisions are modelled off New South Wales, measures where penalties have teeth. There is no point – and we have seen it over the last week – introducing new measures where those penalties do not have real substance. So that is why, through textual Amendment, the Coalition has moved a series of Amendments to increase those penalties.

You can see, I suspect, the Government has been forced in the Bill to draft a two year review into certain offences created in the Bill – purely, I suspect, because the union has required that buy-off because the union is not happy with what is being proposed in this Bill. The union has been calling for a bill and calling for a bill that is tough, and the only reason that that two-year review has been built into this Bill – I think we can all see clearly – is because the unions have required it by way of buy-off, because the union not only wants these measures but wants penalties that are tough –

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Member for Brighton knows only too well to be factual. I would ask him to come back to the Bill, actually be factual and not put the words of a union into his mouth.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: I thank you for your ruling, again. There is frustration when the truth comes out. The big piece, as I have said a number of times, that this Bill is missing, which is contained in our textual Amendments, is the creation of workplace protection orders (WPOs). Workplace protection orders are needed, and it is very, very good that the Premier, finally, after kicking and screaming, has agreed that workplace protection orders are needed. So late, though, was the backflip that it could not be contained in the Bill. So we have helped, and we have drafted the Amendments for the Government – we have by way of Amendment provided them for the Government – and the other place, including the Government Members, will have an opportunity to decide whether they agree with the implementation of a workplace protection order system or whether they will vote against it, because workplace protection orders are needed.

I will give you one example of a lovely young constituent who lives in my electorate who went through hell because of the horrific experiences she faced from a customer of a major retailer who had a fixation on her. Eventually this really hardworking young woman took a personal protection order out, and many, many times the order was breached, not just in the workplace but also at her home. This poor young woman was followed home, and on numerous occasions the order was breached. She obviously sought the help of police, who at every occasion tried to help as best they could with the resources available to them. They could not always help immediately because of resourcing, but they did everything they could to help. There were occasions when I also made representations on her behalf, because she went through hell because this person had a fixation on her. What struck me is that she battled this initially alone. What she needed was the big company that she worked for to have the power to seek a protection order and for that company to help her in enforcing it. When a big retail company manages that process and also enforces that process, through pushing to ensure that the order is kept up with in terms of the safety of the individual, we can be sure that there will be a greater force behind that order in terms of the capacity of that organisation to help that employee, which is why we have been calling for workplace protection orders.

We have not been the only ones calling for workplace protection orders. I know that the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association has said:

If the government is serious about addressing the retail crime epidemic, introducing WPOs is a no brainer.

Well, I guess you do need a brain to have it in this bill. The ACT police on workplace protection orders have said that in the eight months that WPOs have been in use in the ACT:

… police have noticed a “total change in behaviour where [the offenders] have just disappeared off our screens”.

That is a fix for that element of the retail crime crisis. ‘Disappeared off our screens’ – that is systemic change. We need more than press releases. We need solutions that have substance.

The Coalition will not be opposing the Bill, but we have concerns about the substance of what is introduced by way of this Bill. As the legal experts who were not consulted by the Government have said, this Bill does not create substantially new powers that do not currently exist in the Crimes Act or the Summary Offences Act. They exist. That is what the legal experts say. That is not what I am saying; that is what the legal experts say. But what is missing are workplace protection orders, which is why we have sought to move Amendments that increase the penalties so the penalties around the offences have teeth but also introduce workplace protection orders. That regime being proposed will be an opportunity for this Government to show whether they really do support the workplace protection orders, because if they vote against it, it just shows that the last-minute backflip was nothing more than just another press release from the Premier. We will not be opposing this Bill.