Scrutiny and unintended consequences
David Coleman said the Coalition understood the intent and would cautiously support the earlier version, but would subject it to ordinary scrutiny to check for unintended consequences.
This bill became law on Nov 4th, 2025.
Work & employment
The Act creates a Commonwealth workplace protection orderA court order made under the Act to prevent further personal violence and protect a Commonwealth worker or Commonwealth workplace. It can be an interim, urgent interim, final or consent order. scheme for courts to prevent personal violenceConduct or threats that cause harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, linked to Commonwealth work and interfering with Commonwealth executive government functions. against Commonwealth workers or in Commonwealth workplaces.
The bill was introduced to give Commonwealth employers a national, court-based protection-order tool after the Ashton review found stronger protections were needed for frontline Commonwealth workers. Parliamentary speeches repeatedly linked the measure to the May 2023 attack on Services Australia worker Joeanne Cassar, the review’s 44 recommendations, and nearly 1,700 serious incidents across Services Australia face-to-face services in 2023-24.
The bill sits in a broader worker-safety response after the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review. Debate described it as the preventive counterpart to the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act 2024, which increased penalties for harming Commonwealth frontline workers, while this Act lets Commonwealth entities seek protective orders before further violence occurs.
The collected debate shows broad support rather than direct opposition. The main cautions were about ordinary scrutiny, avoiding unintended consequences, keeping any burden on state and territory courts manageable, and ensuring orders do not cut people off from essential Commonwealth services.
Tony Burke MP, Minister for Home Affairs introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 04 Nov 2025
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
96 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Act creates a Commonwealth workplace protection orderA court order made under the Act to prevent further personal violence and protect a Commonwealth worker or Commonwealth workplace. It can be an interim, urgent interim, final or consent order. scheme for courts to prevent personal violenceConduct or threats that cause harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, linked to Commonwealth work and interfering with Commonwealth executive government functions. against Commonwealth workers or in Commonwealth workplaces.
The scheme was introduced as the government response to recommendation 17 of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, after an assault on Services Australia worker Joeanne Cassar and reports of almost 1,700 serious Services Australia incidents in a year.
A court can make an interim, urgent interim or final order only if it is satisfied the respondent engaged in personal violenceConduct or threats that cause harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, linked to Commonwealth work and interfering with Commonwealth executive government functions., there is a real risk of further personal violenceConduct or threats that cause harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, linked to Commonwealth work and interfering with Commonwealth executive government functions., and the order is necessary or desirable to prevent it.
Authorised Commonwealth officials, including the High Court Chief Executive and Principal Registrar and accountable authorities or chief executives of Commonwealth entities, can apply for orders, so affected workers do not have to bring applications in their own names.
Orders can restrict attendance at Commonwealth workplaces, communication with specified workers or classes of workers, further personal violenceConduct or threats that cause harm or reasonable fear of harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, linked to Commonwealth work and interfering with Commonwealth executive government functions., and damage to property in a Commonwealth workplace.
If an order would limit access to Commonwealth benefits or services, or contact with an electoral representative or other political communication, the application and order must address alternative arrangements.
Final and consent orders can last up to two years, interim and urgent interim orders up to 12 months, and an urgent interim orderA short-notice order that can be sought by telephone, fax, email or other electronic means in urgent circumstances before a final-order application can be made and determined. falls away after seven days unless a final-order application is made.
Contravening a condition of a Commonwealth workplace protection orderA court order made under the Act to prevent further personal violence and protect a Commonwealth worker or Commonwealth workplace. It can be an interim, urgent interim, final or consent order. is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, 120 penalty units, or both.
This Act establishes a scheme for courts to make Commonwealth workplace protection orders to prevent personal violence against Commonwealth workers or in Commonwealth workplaces.Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
The government has committed to implementing all 44 of those recommendations, and this bill implements recommendation No. 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth workplace protection order scheme.Minister's second reading speech
the respondent has engaged in personal violence; and there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if the order is not made; and the order is necessary or desirable to prevent the respondent from engaging in further personal violence.Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
An application for a Commonwealth workplace protection order may be made by the following persons (called authorised persons) or their delegates: (a) the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court; (b) the accountable authority or chief executive officer (however described) of a Commonwealth entity.Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
the conditions may relate to any of the following: (a) that the respondent not be present at, or within a specified distance of, a specified Commonwealth workplace; ... (c) that the respondent not communicate or associate with ... a specified Commonwealth worker; or ... a specified class of Commonwealth workers;Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
if a condition imposed on the respondent by the order would prevent the respondent from accessing or obtaining benefits or services provided by the Commonwealth—specify alternative procedures or arrangements for how the respondent may access or obtain those benefits or services;Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
if an application for a final order against the respondent is not made within the period of 7 days after the urgent interim order is made—the end of that periodCommonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 introduced bill text
Context
The bill sits in a broader worker-safety response after the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review. Debate described it as the preventive counterpart to the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act 2024, which increased penalties for harming Commonwealth frontline workers, while this Act lets Commonwealth entities seek protective orders before further violence occurs.
Attack at Services Australia Airport West
Parliamentary speeches describe the attack on Joeanne Cassar as a trigger for the later security review and protection-order reform.
Minister's second reading speech ↗Ashton review recommendations
The Services Australia Security Risk Management Review made 44 recommendations; the bill implements recommendation 17 by adapting a workplace protection orderA court order made under the Act to prevent further personal violence and protect a Commonwealth worker or Commonwealth workplace. It can be an interim, urgent interim, final or consent order. model for Commonwealth workers.
Minister's second reading speech ↗Earlier bill lapsed and was reintroduced
The same reform was introduced in the previous parliament, passed the House in February 2025 according to Senate debate, then lapsed at the 2025 dissolution before being reintroduced in the 48th Parliament.
Senate summing-up speech ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The collected debate shows broad support rather than direct opposition. The main cautions were about ordinary scrutiny, avoiding unintended consequences, keeping any burden on state and territory courts manageable, and ensuring orders do not cut people off from essential Commonwealth services.
These points are drawn from parliamentary debate in the supplied run. The source bundle did not include independent submissions or full committee report text, so this section should not be read as a complete map of stakeholder criticism.
Scrutiny and unintended consequences
David Coleman said the Coalition understood the intent and would cautiously support the earlier version, but would subject it to ordinary scrutiny to check for unintended consequences.
Access to services
Alison Penfold supported the bill but said balancing workplace protection with continued access to benefits and services would depend on how administrators and courts handled it in practice.
Rights guardrails
Matt Gregg supported the bill and pointed to its guardrails for access to Commonwealth services and political communication as the reason concerns about service access could be managed.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Tony Burke introduced the 2025 bill for the government, saying it reintroduced a lapsed 2024 reform and implemented recommendation 17 of the Ashton review.
Read in Hansard ↗Alison Penfold supported the bill’s intent and measures, especially for Services Australia, AEC and other public-facing workers.
Read in Hansard ↗Malarndirri McCarthy incorporated the government’s second reading speech for the earlier Senate bill.
Read in Hansard ↗Matt Gregg supported the bill as a response to 1,694 Services Australia incidents and the Ashton review.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
15 speakers · 16 contributions · 15 support
“This Bill will strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees—particularly those on the frontline—through the creation of enforceable workplace protection orders.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Fundamentally, the imposition of a WPO will not prevent a person accessing necessary Commonwealth services—though it may alter the way they can access those services for a period—nor will it remove their right to political communication.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Shayne Neumann on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Shayne Neumann supported the earlier bill as a response to the Ashton review and compared it with existing state protection-order laws. He emphasised agency applications, urgent orders, safeguards for access to services, two-year final orders and breach penalties.
“I think this bill completes a legislative gap.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Shayne Neumann again supported the 2025 bill, focusing on worker safety, the Ashton review, the gap in existing state and territory schemes, and the ability for Commonwealth entities to apply on behalf of workers while preserving service access.
“I think this bill completes a legislative gap.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill implements recommendation 17—that the current ACT workplace protection order provisions should be adopted for use by the Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The purpose of the legislation is simple. It is to ensure that those who serve the public can do so safely.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today in strong support of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is long overdue, and it addresses a clear legislative gap in most state and territory protection order schemes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill implements recommendation 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order scheme.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to speak in strong support of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This workplace protection orders bill builds upon the Ashton review's recommendation 17, which called for the adoption of an ACT-style protection order scheme for Commonwealth workers nationwide.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“the workplace protection order can be taken out so that the worker doesn't have to look at individual restraining orders or individual orders.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill implements recommendation 17 of that Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth workplace protection orders scheme”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill responds to this unacceptable situation and implements recommendation 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order scheme.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“this bill implements recommendation No. 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth workplace protection order scheme.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 4 support · 1 mixed
“I wish to support the intent and measures within the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025 is vital because we do need to protect at all costs our public servants”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So the coalition is pleased to reiterate its support for this bill today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“the coalition is pleased to facilitate the swift passage of this bill through the Senate today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.