Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by my good friend the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Isaacs. At the last election, Australians voted for change. Australians voted to get wages moving again as opposed to the deliberately low wages that were a design principle orchestrated by those opposite—not all of those opposite but metaphorically opposite, I say to my electorate neighbour the member for Ryan. Australians voted for cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, energy bill relief and more good paying jobs for hardworking families. Most of all, Australians voted for a government that will make things fairer.

We are here today again living up to that ideal and acting on our government's commitment to implementing all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. In fact, as the Attorney-General has noted, the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 represents the final legislative reform required to fulfil the Albanese government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. The Albanese government is taking this matter seriously and is committed to enacting real reform in this space. We're not here for performative politics. We are dedicated to good governing and looking after all Australians. When those opposite are faced with tough choices, all they offer are empty words and hollow promises. We take action because that is what good governments do.

That landmark Respect@Work report made 55 recommendations to federal, state and territory governments, to the private sector and to the community more broadly. All of the recommendations are driven by the same impetus: to put an end to sexual harassment and to make Australian workplaces safe for all. We know that sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue which demands a fundamental rethink of how our laws are shaped to prevent, protect and support individuals who experience sexual harassment.

As we've seen in the Sydney Morning Herald article today, powerful people like Alan Jones can 'go the grope'—that's the quote from the article—with young men and then hide behind their power, their privilege and their lawyers, and then threaten victims speaking out by attacking their wallets. So particularly well done to all of the victims that had the courage to come forward, and to the legendary forensic journalist Kate McClymont. Of course, Mr Jones is entitled to the presumption of innocence—he's innocent until proven guilty—which is, I'm sure, the attitude he took to everyone that he spoke about in his radio show over the years.

Recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report suggests that the risk of adverse cost orders poses a significant deterrent for applicants in court proceedings, especially when there is a power disparity between the applicant and the respondent. When people feel wronged, it's important that they have the opportunity to take the matter further, without the large barriers to entry that our judicial system currently has. This recommendation suggests that a cost protection provision be enacted to guide a court in awarding costs in discrimination proceedings, and that's exactly what the legislation before us does. It amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to insert such a provision that applies consistently across all federal antidiscrimination laws, making it fairer for all Australians to pursue justice in the federal courts.

Without this legislation, victims of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination will continue to feel marginalised by the very system that is actually designed to protect them. This disproportionately affects the more vulnerable people in our communities, such as people from the GLBTIQ community, First Nations communities and poorer-paid people, and it presents issues around equal access to justice—something that is a fundamental right of a healthy democracy. In many instances, applicants may be pursuing justice against a large corporation or a well-resourced individual, which already places the applicant at a power disparity in any court proceeding, let alone bearing the burden of potentially having to foot the legal bill for that corporation or individual, should they not be successful. That is not fair nor is it defensible in a country so dedicated to egalitarianism, especially at this time in our long history when we've dedicated ourselves to ending violence against women, tackling racism and rejecting the rise of anti-LGBTIQ+ sentiments—particularly the importation of those attacks from the United States.

According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety survey, 92 per cent of women who experience sexual assault do not report it. How horrific is that statistic—92 per cent of women don't report sexual assault. Moreover, more than a quarter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 15 and older have experienced racial discrimination, and almost 50 per cent of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission last year were made under the Disability Discrimination Act. We've got a long way to go when it comes to improving outcomes for victims of discrimination, and it starts at the kitchen counters and dinner tables of Australian households, and here in this building, the people's building.

On Tuesday last week, I heard the member for Bradfield suggest that this bill has been brought forward to help trade unions and class action law firms make money. That's a shameful stance on a very serious issue that the member for Bradfield clearly doesn't quite comprehend. So let me spell it out for the member for Bradfield and shadow minister for industrial relations.

According to the most recent National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women survey, back in 2021, 34 per cent of people think that sexual assault allegations are used as a way to 'get back at men'. Seven per cent of people believe that only genuine victims report crimes immediately after they happen, and 21 per cent believe that if a woman sends an explicit image to her partner she is partially responsible if he then shares it without her permission. Most disturbingly, though, the survey found that 10 per cent of people think that when a woman says no she really means yes, and 10 per cent of people think that nonconsensual touching is acceptable because 'women are so sexual in public'. One in 10 people on the train think that. Seven per cent of people think that if a woman meets up with a man she has met on an online dating app she's partially responsible if he forces himself on her. This is horrific data. This is why we brought this bill to the floor.

Statistics like these paint a tragic image of the realities that victims of sexual assault and other forms of discrimination experience, and we want to help them. That is who we are advocating for in this bill. Quite frankly, the void of empathy and compassion says we need to do more. We need to do more, and I'd ask the member for Bradfield to reconsider his framing of this legislation. I believe that as a country we can do better. We must do better, and I'm proud to be part of a government that not only takes the issue seriously but then brings legislation forward that takes real action to address it.

A robust judicial system is critical to maintaining a healthy democracy. Ensuring that all people have equal access to the courts, regardless of their financial circumstances, is a fundamental pillar of the court's legitimacy. As an aside, I note that last week in this House we hosted a community legal centres forum—myself and the late great Peta Murphy—where we were making sure that as many communities as possible have access to justice, something that the member for Dunkley, even though she was sick, was still committed to. The top end of town should not be able to muscle victims out of the courtroom, and this government is making sure that that is no longer a possibility. This legislation makes it easier and fairer for people to seek justice in the federal courts and provides certainty for applicants that the court could not order them to pay for the respondent's legal costs except in certain circumstances.

The Respect@Work report recommends a hard cost neutrality model that differs from a soft cost neutrality model supported by the Australian Human Rights Commission in the 2021 Free and equal: a reform agenda for federal discrimination laws position paper. As we saw in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald today—and I know from looking at redress in response to the royal commission into survivors of institutional abuse—a moment of assault can stay with someone for another 80 years. The assailant moves on with their life, but the ripples and the horror can stay with someone all of their life. For victim-survivors the risk of an adverse order for costs is a significant barrier to them accessing justice in federal unlawful discrimination court proceedings. Victim-survivors should not be deterred from commencing or running legal proceedings by the risk of an adverse cost order. Even washed-up media has-beens and serial gropers like Alan Jones know how to send a tough lawyer's letter, as we saw in the Sydney Morning Herald article today.

The equal access model in this bill goes one step further in recognising that not all respondents are well resourced. This equal access model reduces the burden on successful respondents while also ensuring that victims of discrimination feel confident pursuing justice in the courts and not impacting applicants' access to legal representation. The particular circumstances in which a court may order the applicant to pay another party's fees are when the court is satisfied that the applicant deliberately filed for proceedings without reasonable cause or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission cause the respondent to incur a cost. So it still leaves that discretion to the judicial officer. Additionally, the court may order the applicant to pay another party's fees if the other party is a respondent in the proceedings and the respondent does not have significant power and financial advantage over the applicant. Put simply, this bill means that, if an applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the court must order that the respondent pay the applicant's cost. However, if the court is satisfied that the applicant has initiated proceedings vexatiously then the court is not required to order such a payment. So there's always that out under certain circumstances.

Discrimination of any kind is an affront to our moral values as a people committed to a democratic way of life. When the Albanese government identifies issues it acts to rectify them. We will not sit on our hands. Governing is about doing what's right, and we'll always support victim-survivors in any way we can. This bill makes pursuing justice in discrimination proceedings fairer for applicants and respondents alike, while providing certainty to victim-survivors and encouraging them to report discrimination where it occurs.

I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context