Background

Recent legislative developments have introduced new regimes in South Australia and at Commonwealth level, enabling court‑ordered protections for workers against violence, aggression and other harmful conduct in the workplace by members of the public.

A workplace protection order (WPO) is a court‑made order that imposes enforceable restrictions on an individual to prevent violent, threatening or abusive conduct in connection with a workplace.

WPOs may be sought by prescribed workplace representatives, such as employers, unions and health and safety representatives, on behalf of a worker or workplace, rather than requiring the affected individual to bring proceedings personally.

WPO regimes have emerged as a deliberate legal response to a persistent issue in Australian workplaces, namely, violence, aggression and intimidation by members of the public.

First introduced in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) back in 2016 under the Personal Violence Act 2016 (Cth), similar regimes have now been introduced:

• in South Australia under the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Act 2025 (SA) (SA Act); and
• for Commonwealth entities (such as Services Australia or the Australian Taxation Office) under the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Act 2025 (Cth) (Federal Act).

While there are differences, the schemes are conceptually aligned. Each provides a court‑based mechanism allowing a workplace, rather than an individual worker, to obtain enforceable protections against individuals who have engaged in, or are likely to engage in, harmful conduct.

This article explores these legislative changes, the workplaces that they apply to, how WPOs can be made, and what employers should be doing now in light of these new laws.

South Australian regime

The SA Act represents the most significant recent development at State level. Having commenced on 4 May 2026, it establishes a standalone statutory framework for WPOs, with the express aim of preventing “personal violence” in South Australian workplaces and facilitating the safety of those who work in or attend them.

The concept of “personal violence” is deliberately broad. It extends well beyond physical and sexual abuse to include threats, harassment, intimidation, stalking, offensive behaviour and even property damage where that conduct causes fear. This reflects a legislative intention to capture the full spectrum of behaviours that may undermine both psychological and physical safety in public‑facing workplaces.

The SA Act is directed primarily at workplaces involving interaction with the public, whether in person, by telephone or electronically. The definition of “workplace” is correspondingly broad, extending to any place that requires direct interaction with members of the public (irrespective of whether the interaction is in person or not) and including any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, whilst undertaking that work. The protections extend not only to employees, but also to employers and other persons present at the workplace.

A notable feature of the regime is that applications for a WPO are not limited to the individual worker affected. Employers, occupiers of premises, unions, employer organisations and health and safety representatives may apply for orders on behalf of a worker or the workplace. This shifts the burden away from individuals (who may be reluctant to pursue orders personally) and towards authorised workplace representatives.

The process is designed to be both practical and responsive. Proceedings are commenced in the Magistrates Court and interim orders may be made to provide immediate protection. The Court may also convene a preliminary conference to resolve the matter without a contested hearing, although this will not occur where doing so is inappropriate from a safety perspective.

If the matter proceeds to determination, the Court may make a WPO where it is satisfied that personal violence has occurred and that there is a risk of further conduct in the absence of an order. The terms of an order may include prohibitions on entering a workplace, being within a particular distance from the workplace and / or restrictions on contacting particular workers.

From an employer perspective, the regime provides a new, targeted tool for managing external sources of risk. It does not displace existing work health and safety obligations, but operates alongside them.

Employers continue to have a duty of care to identify and control risks associated with workplace violence and public aggression, and WPOs should be understood as one component of a broader risk management framework.

Commonwealth regime

At the Federal level, a parallel scheme has been introduced through the Federal Act, which commenced on 5 May 2026. The regime provides protections for Commonwealth workplaces and workers, particularly aimed at those engaged in frontline delivery services.

The policy impetus for the legislation lies in documented increases in violence and aggression toward public sector workers, including those operating in service centres and contact environments.

The scheme is modelled on the ACT framework, reflecting a broader trend towards nationally consistent approaches to workplace violence.

Under the Federal Act, an authorised person within a Commonwealth entity may apply for a WPO on behalf of a worker or workplace where personal violence has occurred in connection with official duties.

“Personal violence” is defined broadly and captures conduct, or threats of conduct, that cause (or give rise to a reasonable fear of) harm to a Commonwealth worker or a person at a Commonwealth workplace, where that conduct occurs because of the worker’s status and interferes with the functioning of the Commonwealth Government.

Courts are empowered to impose conditions necessary to prevent further harm, including restrictions on attendance at Commonwealth workplaces and limitations on communication with staff.

A notable feature of the Commonwealth scheme is its recognition that, in many cases, individuals subject to orders will still require access to government services. The legislation therefore contemplates arrangements that allow continued access in a controlled manner, balancing safety considerations with the public nature of Commonwealth service delivery.

What employers can do going forward

The expansion of WPO regimes reflects a broader shift in how workplace violence (particularly from third parties) is addressed in certain Australian jurisdictions. These schemes provide employers and workplace representatives with a mechanism to obtain enforceable protections at an organisational level, without requiring individual employees to initiate proceedings.

For employers, particularly those operating in public‑facing industries, the key considerations are practical. Going forward, it will be vital for employers to respond quickly to incidents of personal violence within their workplaces when they occur and assess whether WPOs will need to be made.

WPOs operate with criminal scope, with persons contravening workplace protection orders attracting penalties of up to two years imprisonment, and five years’ imprisonment for aggravated circumstances under the SA Act, and two years’ imprisonment or 120 penalty units (currently $39,600), or both under the Federal Act.

Organisations covered by these new laws should take steps now to consider who is authorised to initiate applications, how incidents are assessed for escalation, and how evidence is collected and preserved. Equally, there is a need to ensure that the availability of WPOs is integrated into existing safety and incident response frameworks.

Ultimately, while these regimes are relatively new, they signal a clear policy direction. WPOs are intended to provide a timely and effective intervention where behaviour poses a risk to workers, and they are likely to become an increasingly significant feature of the workplace safety landscape. However, at present, comparable workplace protection order regimes have not yet been adopted across all Australian jurisdictions, meaning coverage remains uneven nationally.

Please contact us if you would like guidance on these changes and how these orders can be made for your organisation.

This article was written by Jessica Nicholls, Partner, and Christopher Kapetanos, Solicitor.