Portfolio — 31 July 2026

The dominant discourse from Brighton in this window is retail workplace safety — specifically, the Member for Brighton's push to establish workplace protection orders through an amendment to the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 [TA-260729-vichns-1853e76e6e82:s001]. Mr Newbury moved to introduce the bill in the Assembly, framing it as a response to what he described as a serious and unaddressed pattern of violence and theft in Victorian retail environments [TA-260729-vichns-1853e76e6e82:s001].

He cited 30,000 theft incidents and 5,000 assaults across Victorian retail workplaces in the past year — averaging 13 assaults each day — to establish the scale of the problem [TA-260729-vichns-1853e76e6e82:s001].

The Member for Brighton positioned this bill explicitly as a Coalition initiative with prior history in the chamber, arguing the Coalition had proposed identical legislation 250 days earlier and that Labor members voted it down at that time. He directed particular criticism at the Premier's subsequently announced workplace protection scheme, characterising it as performative on the basis that it would not take effect for approximately 350 days, and stating that the Premier had voted against the Coalition's earlier proposal while serving as a backbencher.

The through-line of Mr Newbury's contribution was legislative priority — the argument that the government had both the model and the opportunity to act sooner, and chose not to.