Key points
- The purpose of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 (the Bill) is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Act) to strengthen protections for Commonwealth frontline workers by amending existing offences in the Act.
- The Bill introduces a definition of a Commonwealth frontline worker and increases the maximum penalty for offences against Commonwealth public officials in circumstances where the offence is committed against a Commonwealth frontline worker.
- The Bill implements Recommendation 18 of the Security Risk Management Review for Services Australia (Ashton Review) which was announced on 24 May 2023 and was initiated in response to the assault of a Services Australia staff member at a Service Centre in Melbourne.
- The Terms of Reference for the Ashton Review required consideration of the adequacy of existing security measures, whether improvements need to be made to Managed Service Plans (MSPs) and the adequacy and operations of state criminal laws to maximise protection of staff, customers and the public including, but not limited to, the use of penalties and restraining orders or alike.
- There were limited indications of the position of relevant stakeholders, although the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) was supportive of the Bill. However, the CPSU noted that the Bill only addresses 1 of 44 recommendations put forward by the Ashton Review and called on Services Australia and the Government to work with them to implement recommendations that will prevent acts of violence and aggression from occurring in the first place.
Introductory Info
Date introduced: 27 March 2024
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: The day after the Act receives Royal Assent.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Criminal
Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024
(the Bill) is to amend the Criminal Code
Act 1995 (Criminal Code) to strengthen protections for Commonwealth
frontline workers by amending existing offences in the Criminal Code.
Background
Services Australia Security Risk Management Review
On 24 May 2023 the Minister for Government Services Bill
Shorten announced
a Security Risk Management Review for Services Australia which was to be led by
Graham Ashton (former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police) (Ashton
Review). The Review was initiated in response to the assault of a Services
Australia staff member at a Service Centre in Melbourne.
The terms of reference for the Review listed the following
matters to be considered:
- Adequacy of the physical security
measures.
- Whether improvements need to be
made to Managed Service Plans (MSPs).
- The adequacy and operations of the
state criminal laws to maximise protections of staff, customers and the public,
including but not limited to the use of penalties and restraining orders or
alike.[1]
Additional, specific terms of reference related to face-to-face
service centres were also specified, which included a requirement
to ‘consult with staff and union representatives about the adequacy of
arrangements to provide a safe and secure work environment’.
The Ashton Review found that Services Australia has a
strong service ethos which results in a strong service culture. However, the
Review noted that it is important to ensure that the service culture ‘does not
impede on security and safety practices’.[2]
As such, the Ashton Review made 44 recommendations which related to
various areas including (but not limited to) leadership, capabilities of the
agency’s security branch, managed service plans, legislation and the physical
layout of service centres.
Specifically, Recommendation 18 of the Ashton Review
recommended:
Consideration should be given to the creation of a national
penalty provision and associated state and territory supportive amendments for
the assault of a Commonwealth frontline worker.[3]
At the time of writing, the full report of the Ashton
Review was not publicly available and therefore the reasoning for each recommendation
cannot be determined.
Minister Shorten informed the Parliament that the Albanese
Government would act on all 44 recommendations.[4]
The Government committed more than $40 million to strengthening security at the
service centres in the agency.[5]
Additionally, Minister Shorten stated that the Government would also prioritise
stronger legislation to combat violence and aggression against Public Sector
workers who deliver services to Australians and that such changes would extend
to all public servants who deliver services in Commonwealth agencies, not just Services
Australia.[6]
Committee consideration
The Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills has
deferred
consideration of the Bill until its next meeting.[7]
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of writing the Senate Standing Committee for
the Scrutiny of Bills is yet to consider the Bill.
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing non-government parties and
independents are yet to comment on the Bill.
Position of major interest groups
Community and Public Sector Union
The CPSU has long advocated for improved protections for
Commonwealth frontline workers, particularly those working in Services
Australia service centres. For instance, in 2008 the CPSU published a report
into Centrelink workplace aggression.[8]
The report was based on 2 surveys which sought information from CPSU members
who worked in Centrelink service centres on the incidence and type of customer
aggression they had experienced at work, during home visits, while travelling
to and from work and outside work. The report made several recommendations with
some mirroring recommendations of the Ashton Review, such as the need for
security officers, a review of the open plan office design and improved staff
training on how to deal with aggressive customers.
As noted earlier, the terms of reference for the Ashton
Review specified a requirement
to ‘consult with staff and union representatives about the adequacy of
arrangements to provide a safe and secure work environment’. Consistent with
that requirement, the CPSU provided 3 submissions to the Ashton Review and has
also publicly
commented on the Bill.
At the time of writing this Digest the CPSU’s submissions
to the Ashton Review are not publicly available, however, in a statement
following the introduction of the Bill to Parliament, the CPSU stated:
The union is pleased to see the Government acting on one of
the Ashton Report recommendations. However, they remain concerned that real
safety and responses to all 44 recommendations cannot be achieved without safe
staffing levels across all workplaces.
The CPSU is calling on the agency [Services Australia] and
the Government to work with them to implement recommendations that will prevent
acts of violence and aggression from occurring in the first place.[9]
Financial implications
The Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill states there will be no financial implications (p. 2).
Statement of Compatibility
with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government has stated that the Bill engages directly or indirectly with the
following human rights:
- the
rights to freedom of opinion and expression contained in Articles 19(1) and
19(2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- the
right to protection against violence and abuse contained in Article 20(2) of
the ICCPR and
- the
right to safe and healthy working conditions contained in Article 7(b) of the
ICCPR.
The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[10]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had no
comment on the Bill.[11]
Key issues and provisions
The Bill proposes to amend Divisions 146 and 147 of the Criminal
Code, which concern causing harm to Commonwealth public officials. Notably,
the offences under Divisions 146 and 147 already apply to Commonwealth
frontline workers (as Commonwealth public officials).[12]
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalty that applies if the offence
is committed against a Commonwealth frontline employee.
Definition of a
Commonwealth frontline worker
Item 3 of the Bill inserts the definition of a Commonwealth
frontline worker into section 146.1 of the Criminal Code. Proposed
subsection 146.1(2) states that:
(2) A Commonwealth frontline
worker is a person:
(a) who is a Commonwealth public
official; and
(b) who performs work requiring the
person to deal directly (whether or not in person) with the public, or a class
of the public, as a primary function of their role; and
(c) who is not
a Commonwealth judicial officer or a Commonwealth law enforcement officer.
The definition is intended to be limited to Commonwealth
public officials who are required to deal directly with the public, or a class
of the public as a primary function of their role. As such, the Government has
stated that the provision is intended to capture a variety of Commonwealth public
officials, including (but not limited to) the following:
- service centre staff and team leaders
(both in person and virtual service centres)
- security guards
- call centre operators
- inspectors or compliance officers
- interpreters
- public-facing staff in electorate
offices, and
- service staff at
relief and emergency centres.[13]
Proposed subsection 146.1(3) allows the regulations
to prescribe further specific categories of persons as being Commonwealth
frontline workers for the purposes of the Criminal Code.
Causing harm to a Commonwealth public official
Subsection 147.1 of the Criminal Code creates the
offence of causing harm to a Commonwealth public official.
The standard maximum penalty for
this offence is imprisonment for 10 years, however, paragraph 147.1(1)(f)
prescribes a higher maximum penalty in circumstances where the Commonwealth
public official is a Commonwealth judicial officer or a Commonwealth law
enforcement officer. The increased maximum penalty is imprisonment for 13 years.
Item 4 of the Bill expands the application of the
higher maximum penalty under paragraph 141.1(1)(f) to include Commonwealth
frontline workers.
Item 5 amends paragraph 147.1(1B)(b) to provide
that an offence of causing harm to a Commonwealth frontline worker may be tried
summarily where the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so and the
defendant and prosecutor consent. The amendment is to reflect the alignment of Commonwealth
frontline workers with Commonwealth judicial officers and Commonwealth
law enforcement officers under this provision.
Threatening
to cause harm a Commonwealth public official
Subsection 147.2(1) of the Criminal Code creates
the offence of threatening to cause serious harm to a Commonwealth public
official.
The standard maximum penalty for this offence is
imprisonment for 7 years, however, paragraph 147.2(1)(e) prescribes a
higher maximum penalty in circumstances where the Commonwealth public official
is a Commonwealth judicial officer or a Commonwealth law enforcement officer.
The increased maximum penalty is imprisonment for 9 years.
Item 6 of the Bill expands the application of the
higher maximum penalty under paragraph 147.2(1)(e) to include Commonwealth
frontline workers.
No
retrospective operation
Item 7 provides that the amendments to the Criminal
Code discussed above only apply to conduct engaged in after the amendments
commence, and therefore will not apply retrospectively.