Exercising restraint: Workplace Protection Orders take shape across Australia

Occupational violence has been an escalating concern in Australian workplaces for several years.

The ACT Government pioneered the first workplace protection order regime to provide workplace-specific personal safety orders in 2017. The Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders (CWPO) Act 2025 expands on the ACT legislation to empower courts to ban aggressive individuals from government workplaces and stop them from contacting specific staff.

Flowing from growing community concern about occupational violence following the COVID-19 pandemic, other States and Territories are progressively looking at instituting schemes to allow courts to issue orders prohibiting particular individuals who present a safety risk from entering a workplace.

The most recent response is Victoria's Workplace Protection Orders Act 2026 (Victorian WPO Act), which received Royal Assent in September and will commence operation on 26 July 2027 (if not proclaimed to commence earlier). This new regime enables retail and transport operators to apply to the Court to ban individuals who engage in unacceptable conduct by way of a workplace protection order (WPO).

The New South Wales Government has announced that it is also set to introduce WPO legislation in October 2026.

The objects of the Victorian WPO Act are to promote the safety and security of persons who perform work at those workplaces and to prevent the occurrence of unacceptable conduct towards them.

The Victorian WPO Act empowers the Magistrates' Court and the Children's Court to make orders of up to 12 months imposing conditions on persons aged 14 or older who have engaged in "unacceptable conduct" connected to certain workplaces. Unlike WPO legislation in other jurisdictions, under the Victorian WPO Act, the respondent (that is, the person restrained) cannot be a worker of the employer who makes the application for the WPO.

Applications for a WPO can be made by an applicable business operator in retail and transport workplaces, or a union. Notably, consent is not required from the worker. This means, for example, a supermarket operator can seek an order on behalf of its staff without needing the affected worker's agreement.

Relevant workplaces are defined as follows:

• A retail operator's workplace is a place from which the operator carries on its business that is accessible to customers during business hours, and can encompass buildings, stalls, structures, tents, vehicles, yards and areas within them.
• A transport operator's workplace includes passenger trains, trams and buses, ticket-selling locations, and designated ticketed areas such as train station platforms.

The scope is narrower than might have been expected and notably does not extend to all public-facing workplaces.

The Act defines unacceptable conduct as:

•physical violence or abuse;

•sexual violence or abuse;

•conduct constituting stalking under s 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); or

•other conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of harm.

The last limb is intentionally broad, capturing coercion, intimidation and threats. However, the definition is not intended to capture conduct that is merely a nuisance, offensive, or an expression of dissatisfaction with a business.

If the Court is satisfied that the respondent has engaged in unacceptable conduct and is likely to engage in further unacceptable conduct at the same workplace, and that making the order is appropriate in all the circumstances, it may impose conditions such as prohibiting the individual from:

• entering, or coming within a specified distance of, a specified workplace or passenger train, tram or bus route;
• engaging in unacceptable conduct at a specified workplace;
• communicating with protected workers; and
• causing another person to do something that the respondent is prohibited from doing.

Conditions may apply absolutely or only in specified circumstances or in a specified manner, such as a prohibition could be limited to particular days of the week. Contravening a condition of a WPO is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment (and under the Sentencing Act 1991, a fine of up to 240 penalty units may also be imposed).

When making conditions, the Court will be required to balance worker safety with the rights and liberties of respondents so as to not limit a respondent’s ability to access necessary goods or services and not limit a respondent's rights and liberties more than is necessary to prevent further unacceptable conduct.

However, the paramount consideration is to the safety and protection of protected workers when determining conditions.

The NSW Government proposes that WPOs will initially protect workers in retail workplaces, with scope to extend the scheme by regulation to other public-facing workplaces.

Orders could be made against people aged 14 or older who stalk, intimidate or engage in conduct amounting to a personal violence offence at a workplace, where there are reasonable grounds to fear the conduct will continue.

A person conducting a business or undertaking could apply on behalf of one or more workers, while business groups, unions and health and safety representatives could apply with the authorisation of those they represent.

Courts could impose conditions for the period considered necessary, including prohibiting a person from entering premises, contacting staff or possessing weapons. Breach would attract up to two years’ imprisonment, a $5,500 fine, or both.

While the proposed NSW scheme broadly mirrors Victoria’s model, there are differences. In NSW, there has been no suggestion that the scheme will initially extend to transport workplaces. Additionally, the scope of unacceptable conduct in Victoria appears to be broader and able to capture a wider range of inappropriate interactions.

That all said, the details of the NSW laws are yet to be seen. Recent media commentary by NSW Government officials suggests legislation is imminent.

The emergence of WPO regimes across multiple jurisdictions represents as escalation in the types of measures that are available to provide safe workplaces. While WPOs will be an increasingly important mechanism to stop threatening individuals from entering workplaces, they should be viewed as a measure of last resort.

The WPO regimes sit alongside, not instead of, existing work health and safety duties, anti-discrimination laws and the general protections framework. Employers should consider how WPO applications fit within their broader safety and compliance strategies. Applications must be supported by affidavit evidence and set out the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon. Robust incident reporting and record-keeping will accordingly continue to be critical.

References

[1] Ministerial media release 1 September 2026 - stronger protections for workers, bringing in Workplace Protection Orders (WPOs) to protect staff from abuse and violence.

--

This article was co-authored by Lucinda Floyd, Associate, in our Melbourne office.

The views expressed in this article are general in nature only and do not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you require specific advice tailored to the needs of your organisation.

Photo by Eduardo Soares on Unsplash