Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

It's important to note that the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 is the result of significant public consultation on an appropriate cost protection model for unlawful discrimination proceedings. Firstly, there was the extensive consultation undertaken by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to the Respect@Work report. That report recommended a model based on the Fair Work Act, which we have since heard is not supported by stakeholders nor by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which has updated its position in subsequent reports—nor is that model supported by the opposition.

The government undertook further public consultation earlier this year to determine which cost model was most appropriate. The consultation we conducted found significant support for an equal access cost model; however, the government has been conscious of the very legitimate considerations raised by employer representatives and by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Having regard to those considerations, this bill would introduce a modified equal access cost model. Crucially, this bill would implement the objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report, which found that applicants are deterred from pursuing complaints of unlawful discrimination in court because of their potential exposure to an adverse cost order. This reform would help overcome the deterrent effect that the risk of such orders currently poses and, in doing so, alleviate a significant barrier to justice. It'd also provide certainty for all parties as to how costs would be awarded in discrimination cases.

The bill is a vast improvement on the status quo. The bill will ensure that, when an applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the respondent would pay the applicant's costs. In respect to some of the comments made by the member for Bradfield—he raised concerns that the bill differed from the hard cost neutrality model as recommended, but, as referred to earlier, further consultation has recommended against the original recommendation. But we are still implementing the objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report.

The bill is the result of significant consultation on the appropriate cost protection model for unlawful discrimination proceedings. The government considers that the modified equal access cost protection provision of the bill reflects a considered and balanced approach that best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context