Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

(1) That the House notes:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia have identified that the Sex Discrimination Act does not prohibit sexual harassment in all circumstance and workplaces;

(b) the events exposed in Parliament House over the past month have highlighted the urgent need to amend the Act to ensure that Members of Parliament are liable for and protected from sexual harassment;

(c) in 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended amending the Act to include a broad prohibition on sexual harassment in any area of public life;

(d) following the Dyson Heydon inquiry, the Law Council of Australia launched its National Action Plan to Address Sexual Harassment in the Legal Profession which recommends that the Sex Discrimination Act be amended to include the language that "a person must not sexually harass another person"; and

(e) the Sex Discrimination Act (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 seeks to make that amendment; and

(2) that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business order of the day No. 29, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion immediately—

(1) That the House notes:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia have identified that the Sex Discrimination Act does not prohibit sexual harassment in all circumstance and workplaces;

(b) the events exposed in Parliament House over the past month have highlighted the urgent need to amend the Act to ensure that Members of Parliament are liable for and protected from sexual harassment;

(c) in 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended amending the Act to include a broad prohibition on sexual harassment in any area of public life;

(d) following the Dyson Heydon inquiry, the Law Council of Australia launched its National Action Plan to Address Sexual Harassment in the Legal Profession which recommends that the Sex Discrimination Act be amended to include the language that "a person must not sexually harass another person"; and

(e) the Sex Discrimination Act (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 seeks to make that amendment; and

(2) that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business order of the day No. 29, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

The reason this is so important should be clear to all. The events of the last month—the allegations of conduct occurring in this place—have so profoundly shocked many, many Australians, and every person in this place should also be shocked and moved to action. The time for words has passed. We do not need a new inquiry. We need some action, and that should occur today. The events highlighted in the media yesterday indicate a profound issue: that this very workplace is not safe from sexual harassment, from conduct—for example, the events occurring in an MPs office—that could very certainly be seen as sexual harassment. This loophole in the law should be addressed without delay.

The motion addresses that the Sex Discrimination Act does not adequately capture the full range of employment circumstances in which sexual harassment may occur, and, alarmingly, some circumstances in parliament are not covered. Members of parliament and statutory appointees are not adequately protected from or liable for sexual harassment. The events that we have seen play out in the media—even so soon as yesterday, with reports of coalition staffers performing lewd acts on MPs' desks—highlight the urgent need to address this gap. Sexual harassment is not currently adequately addressed in this very workplace. We must do something about it.

We have heard examples of members of parliament being both the targets and the alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment. We must act on this, and the amendment bill that is the subject of this motion seeks to do that. Women and men in this place should not go a day longer than necessary without appropriate standards and laws being in place. I urge the government to, rather than spend the day debating appropriations bills, debate this bill. This an urgent motion, because the people of Australia want to see action on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. The Prime Minister himself this morning called a press conference to address this issue, but we still don't see any actual action being brought to this place that will change the laws, that will change conduct.

We need to close these loopholes. So many women around Australia—men and women—came down to this place and marched last Monday to say, 'Enough is enough', to say that it is time to take action. The firm action that we can take in this place is to address it through legislation. That can start with this sex discrimination amendment bill. We saw the law profession rocked by the allegations in respect of former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon in 2019. Their investigation revealed the need for statutory appointees to be personally liable for their actions. Now these very serious allegations are occurring in this place, and there is no doubt in my mind—and I would hope no doubt in the minds of the members in this place—that it really is well past time to change the culture, to change the attitude. We cannot have another day of a laissez faire approach to sexual harassment and misconduct in this place.

The nature of work has changed. We need to ensure that new realities of working from home, gig economies and self-employed workers are all adequately protected. That's what the amendment bill that is the subject of this motion seeks to do. We need a broad prohibition of sexual harassment in all areas of public life. That is what the bill seeks to do. It is so crucial, now more than ever, that we move on this. It's baffling that amendments have not already been implemented, and even more so that the government did not take up the many invitations to present such a motion themselves.

Sexual harassment in public life is not illegal in all circumstances. This is something that has come as quite a shock to many, many people. It's been raised, ironically, since 2008 with the Australian Human Rights Commission, who'd already made that submission. So, when we hear more evidence of lewd acts being done and shocking behaviour occurring in this parliament, it must surely be the case that it is urgent that we address these loopholes, that we address sexual harassment in all areas of public life. There cannot be any more delay on addressing this.

The Respect@Work report delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the government in March 2020, over a year ago, held 55 recommendations. Only three have been partially implemented. It's not good enough. The forward of that report indicated that Australia was once a leader in prohibiting sexual harassment. However, over 35 years on, the rate of change has been disappointingly slow, and we now lag behind other countries in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. The Australian Human Rights Commission survey has found that one in three people experienced sexual harassment in work in the last five years. That is a huge problem. The Human Rights Commission has found that the current legal and regulatory system is simply not fit for purpose and must be addressed.

In the last 12 months, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has found that 1.6 million people were sexually harassed, the majority of which were not formally reported—201,000 people were allegedly sexually assaulted, and police were notified of only 23,000 of these assaults, which is just over 10 per cent of the cases, and only approximately 5,000 people were convicted of sexual assault. These are damning statistics and point to a very big problem that needs more than words; it needs action in this place. This has a dramatic impact on the health and wellbeing of so many within our community. If it's not our responsibility in this place to fix this loophole, to send a very clear message to men and women around Australia that sexual harassment will not be condoned in any circumstance, then I'm really at a loss as to what greater purpose we could have in this place than keeping all Australians safe and ensuring they have an equal opportunity to work and to enjoy participating in their public life, whether it be educational facilities or their work or the gig economy—or MPs in this place. We should not be subject to sexual harassment. We should actually be protected from it. But we also need to make sure all members in this case are liable for it if they, for some reason, think this is, in any way, acceptable conduct.

The people of Australia are tired of words, and I have to say, as a newcomer to this place, I have been profoundly shocked by the continued allegations that have come out of recent weeks, but I've also been shocked by the response. What we've seen is a continuation of pushing off the problem, of saying, 'Well, we may have a problem but the other side also has a problem,' or, 'Today we saw in a press conference the media has a problem as well.' You cannot get this problem fixed if you don't address your own house first. So I say to the Prime Minister: get your own house in order. That should start today with cleaning up and amending the Sex Discrimination Act.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Time really is of the essence. We need to debate urgently the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 that was brought forward by the member for Warringah. We must send a very clear message to the Australian community that we believe we need to change in here. As long as it's just words and it's not action, nothing will change in this place. All that's happening is that the whole of the Australian community has even less respect for us as members of parliament. What this piece of legislation will do is say to the Australian public that we believe that we are all the same before the law. Right now, members of parliament and judicial officers are exempt from the legislation. We could sexually harass our staff or other people in the workplace and we are exempt, and that is outrageous. I can't believe that, when this was first brought to their attention more than a year ago as one of the recommendations in the Respect@Work report, the government did not walk into this place and immediately change the laws. But they didn't, and we still haven't. What we have for today's debate list is the appropriations bill, for the entire day. It's not as if we have a huge legislative agenda to get through. We have time in this place. Our first job in this place is that of legislators. What we need to send to the Australian community is, firstly, that none of us will tolerate any longer the behaviour that's been happening in this place, that we will hold a mirror up to ourselves first and foremost, and that we will address this straight away. We need to show that we all recognise that this is a matter of urgency in this place—not just words but actions.

We need to close this loophole. There were 55 recommendations in the Respect@work report and hardly anything has been addressed. Enough is enough—that's what the women, and good men, said last Monday when they came to the front lawns of the parliament. They said, 'Enough is enough and we need change.' Well, I'm sure that we have plenty of time today to address this in this place. When there were needles in strawberries, my goodness, did we address that quickly in here! It flew through both chambers. Let's do that with this. This is a critical issue; the Australian public wants better of us and are demanding change, and we must be the change.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the motion being raised, although we disagree with the suspension of standing orders. In consultation with the clerks, I understand that the selection committee meets today to decide the order of business for the next sitting of parliament and the timing of debate for private member's bills.

Having been someone who has introduced a private member's bill as a backbencher in this place, I do understand how the system works. I also, by the way, appreciate the presence of the opposition spokesperson for women and her interest in this subject, as well as the other women, including the member for Mayo, who seconded the bill here in the House today. The presence of these women matters, and it matters in a bipartisan sense. And there will be opportunities for other members in this place to speak on the subject matter.

In terms of the suspension and the bringing on of the debate: the government, as managers and business in this place, can't agree to that. But we recognise the importance of the subject, particularly today and particularly after the events of the last few weeks and, indeed, yesterday. I can say that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, who is a person respected across the parliament, addressed my party room and the minister at the table's party room this morning—the combined coalition party room. She gave us a sense of where her review is heading and the opportunities for so many people to speak to that review. I felt a sense of optimism—and 'optimism' is a difficult word to use on a day like this. But I will always say that when circumstances are dreadful and when the whole parliament appears to be tarnished by events, we know, as the Prime Minister said, that it is time to get our house in order. It's time to accept that the experiences of women in this place have been buried for too long; the hurt has been buried and the disrespect and unkindness across the board, but they have found a voice. So that's my message today as I walk around the corridors. We're all so busy, rushing between the chamber, our meetings, our committees and our ministerial business. No-one in this building is any more important than anyone else, by the way, but we're all very busy! It is time to lift our eyes and to look into the eyes of the people who pass us in the corridors and to understand some of the hurt, some of the shame and some of the distress, but to turn that into action.

For many women, this has been a period of time where they have looked into their own circumstances and their own life experiences—things that have happened to them in the past. I haven't been exceptional in that view; I've done the same thing. But it isn't about us. Every second we spend talking in this place across the chamber about us and what it means to us or the body politic more broadly or the political jibe that we just feel we have to say, every time we do that, we discredit the hundreds and thousands of women who haven't got a voice, who are, in some cases, unable to leave their house because they're not allowed to or are in rural and regional corners of Australia, where there are, for example, very few services for them. Because if you step up as a victim of family violence in some of our small communities, everybody knows who you are and you feel you can't do that. So every second that we spend talking about ourselves is time that we waste in talking for the women out in Australia who are counting on us. They're counting us to do better. They're counting on us to take the events that have happened to us and not talk about it anymore in-house than we need to—and, of course, we do need to—but to lift our eyes, raise the profile of issues for women more broadly and talk it up.

I was listening to the minister at the table talk this morning on the media and he spoke very well for the men in this place too. But If I look back over the 20 years I've been in this place, I think we both agree that we are proud of our workplace. We are proud of the work that our staff do for us. We are proud of the extra mile they go in preparing our briefs, in watching Senate estimates, in giving us what we need to appear in front of this dispatch box. I'm very defensive of the workplace and I intend to use my voice and the conversations that I am having and the networks we have as women in this building to do better. We are not an exemplary workplace. We are not shining a light out as a beacon of high standards when it comes to respect in the workplace. I don't just mean respect for women; I mean respect more broadly. We haven't done that well. But we have an opportunity to do better.

I really saw the Prime Minister's remarks this morning as a turning point for that. I want to just reflect again on Kate Jenkins and the words she spoke to us all. Yes, there's been commentary about the 55 Respect@Work recommendations. I have read them carefully—at close to 900 pages, perhaps not every page carefully. But I appreciate, understand and accept the sentiment in those. Some of those things will start to happen. I'm really confident that there is more action coming. There is change coming. Change is in the air. We know that we need to reflect that change here in this place, because today the Prime Minister said what many women are thinking: again, that it's time to get our house in order, to do better for the women of Australia, to care deeply for their circumstances.

In my mother's and grandmother's days, sexism in the workplace was very overt. Maybe I made the mistake in the last few years of thinking that, because you never talk about it, maybe it's not really happening. But, unfortunately, it is. The same dynamic is at play. The same negativity about women, the same sense of shame that women feel in response, it's all there. It's all there. It's just not obvious. It's not spoken about; it's buried. So we actually haven't come as far as we thought we had. That's something I have had to tell myself: we have not come as far as we thought we had and we have not come as far as we need to. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I would like to invite the member for Sydney to conclude my remarks.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. The women of Australia are tired of waiting. The women of Australia are tired of fighting. The women of Australia are tired of being patronised and patted on the head when it comes to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace. Labor supports this suspension of standing orders in order to debate the member's private member's bill because we think it's well past time that members of parliament, members of the judiciary, are treated in the same way as people working in every other workplace around Australia. We believe it is well past time that members of parliament and members of the judiciary face the same scrutiny, face the same rules, as people in every workplace in Australia. It just seems so basic, doesn't it—that you should be safe at work and safe at home and safe walking down the street, in the evening, safe in your community and safe wherever you are? Yet we know the statistics for Australian women. We know that the system is stacked against victims of sexual assault. We know that the system is stacked against victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. We know that our laws don't adequately protect Australian women from domestic violence. It is beyond time that we acted. That's why we support the suspension of the standing orders today.

More than a year ago our sex discrimination commissioner presented to the government a report with 55 recommendations to better protect people in the workplace from sexual harassment. In more than a year no substantial gains have been made on those 55 recommendations. Why does it take so long? What is the point of doing inquiry after inquiry if nothing actually changes? Why would our staff have confidence to come forward to the next Jenkins inquiry when the last Jenkins inquiry hasn't been acted upon? That's why we support the suspension of standing orders today. Until there is action, victims of sexual harassment in our workplace will wonder: 'Why should I put my hand up? Why should I raise my voice? Why should I go through all the excruciating rawness that coming forward and making a complaint entails for too many victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence if nothing changes because of my testimony?'

I'm grateful to the minister for giving me time to make a few remarks. I say to the member for Warringah: we are absolutely supportive of this being debated in this parliament now because the time for words is over. It is time for action. It's no longer time for words.

We want to make sure that our staff in this workplace are protected. Until people who work in the building that is the beating heart of the Australian democracy are safe how can we suggest for a moment that retail assistants, hospitality workers, bus drivers, factory workers, first-year medical interns and young women on their first appointment in the Defence Force are safe? If the people in the beating heart of our democracy are not safe from sexual harassment in the workplace, how can we convince those women—and some men too—in workplaces around Australia that they can be safe and that we have their interests at heart? How can we convince them that we get it if we're not prepared right here to enact the recommendations that the sex discrimination commissioner made to this government more than a year ago?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've reached the end of the time for the debate. There were 25 minutes for the debate, so 12:28:30 closes out the debate. I need to put the question. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Warringah be disagreed to. All of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required? In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is, therefore, adjourned until that time.