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.