Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. I almost admire the commitment of the Human Rights Commission, which is on a crusade to engineer Australia into its own warped image of a progressive society, poised to punish any dissent from the orthodoxy of the woke—an orthodoxy which I'm sure the commission believes it should have the power to determine itself. The commission has a remarkable tendency for overreach and a love affair with cost and red tape and massive bureaucracy, and it is very selective about which rights it promotes and defends. It certainly doesn't promote or defend freedom of speech—a fundamental right in democracies like Australia.

It's with dismay that I've listened to senators demand that every recommendation of the commission's Respect@Work report be implemented immediately. I can at least appreciate the contribution of the Greens senators, because, with their own passion for the subject, they have revealed the real agenda behind this nonsense. They want to engineer gender equality outcomes. How far would it go? Do they want equal gender representation in our prisons? Do they want equal gender representation in homelessness? Do they want gender equality in life expectancy?

Experience in other countries demonstrates that where there is strong support for equality of opportunity and maximising choice in education and employment you don't get equal outcomes in pay and/or occupations. If anything, the differences in pay and occupations between men and women increase with more choice and opportunity. That's simply because there are important biologically based differences in preferences between men and women, something the Greens and the Human Rights Commission refuse to acknowledge.

One Nation has always supported equality before the law for all Australians as well as equality of opportunity for all Australians. What happens after that should be up to Australians themselves, not up to unelected would-be social engineers like the Human Rights Commission. It has made some very disturbing recommendations in the Respect@Work report that One Nation will never support. It is recommending the indoctrination of schoolchildren into work gender equality ideology. It is recommending that the Australian media be forcibly indoctrinated in the same ideology and wants guidelines in place to prevent the media from reporting on sexual harassment in any way other than what the commission deems acceptable.

The commission wants to indoctrinate workers compensation bodies and tell businesses what to do with respect to non-disclosure agreements. The commission wants to indoctrinate judges and magistrates, too—as if adherence to the law and presumption of innocence are not sufficient for them to do their job fairly and effectively. The commission wants to hide sexual harassment civil proceedings in our courts from the public. The pressure on our universities, which are already badly compromised by gender work ideology, is increased under these recommendations, with the commission demanding more taxpayer money to help smaller universities implement its agenda. The government has already established the recommended Workplace Sexual Harassment Council, the vehicle by which the commission seeks to put effect to its agenda. One Nation has opposed the establishment of this body. We need less red tape, not more.

The commission wants to force a duty on employers to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation and wants the power to assess compliance and enforce it. It's as if the commission wants to take the place of the courts and the police and doesn't understand that we already have numerous laws making such conduct illegal. The commission wants more power to inquire into systemic discrimination, which is already unlawful, and to penalise those who do not take part in these virtue-signalling witch-hunts. The commission wants to extend the time in which it does not have to terminate a sexual complaint and ensure that anyone who is bringing a complaint has taxpayer support to do so. The commission's ambition to effectively rule over Australian business and education systems and the judiciary should alarm every member and senator in this parliament. The commission wants to be a law unto itself, and it is secure in this arrogant presumption because successive Australian governments have repeatedly failed to rein in this naked ambition.

On this issue we can safely dismiss Labor, hopelessly compromised by its abysmal record in dealing with sexual harassment. Let's never forget the hypocrisy of Julia Gillard, Australia's first woman Labor Prime Minister, passionately defending the integrity of former Speaker Peter Slipper while funding his defence against sexual harassment charges. The victim was left to fund his own enormous legal costs and years later is still seeking to recover them. Labor knew all about Slipper's reputation for sexual harassment, with other victims paid off by the Department of Defence, before they elevated him to the Speaker's role. Labor enabled his harassment of young men by giving him the third-highest office in the nation, a wardrobe of wigs and robes and a never-ending supply of liquor to stay drunk as a lord after midday. The master plan to elevate this cringe-worthy man to Speaker was developed by none other than Labor's current leader, Anthony Albanese, despite everything. The now Labor leader knew of Mr Slipper's actions in this parliament. Mr Albanese knew that Mr Slipper had slipped through the bedroom window of a former male staff member to play more than footsies under the doona while a secret video camera rolled in the corner of the room. But that still didn't deter the member for Grayndler from giving Mr Slipper the third most powerful job in our parliament.

The woeful hypocrisy on display today by Labor is blood-curdling. Senator O'Neill was in the lower house at the time. What did Senator O'Neill do to help protect the victim? She did nothing. Senator Kitching also needs to be reminded that it was her husband, Andrew Landeryou, who wrote on his website Vexnews the appalling, hateful, false stories that almost drove the victim to suicide. The victim recalled the moment he considered pulling out in front of a B-double truck and ending his life on the Bruce Highway, following the torment her husband put him through for simply speaking out against a perpetrator. Christopher Pyne shouldn't be let off the hook either. I'll have another 15-minute speech lined up on the former member for Sturt before this parliament is out. Let's just say that the South Australian golden-haired child of the Liberal Party has far too many skeletons in his own closet that many members of this Senate know all too well are a strain on their party and not on this place. The whole lot of you are sanctimonious pretenders. Labor has zero credibility on the matter.

As for the government, it, too, has been compromised by its surrender to the politics of the woke and the spectacle of Brittany Higgins. The government collapsed like a house of cards before Ms Higgins's allegations, which were shamelessly used by political opponents to attack the Prime Minister and, essentially, blame him for the alleged attack. It doesn't matter who in the Prime Minister's office knew about the allegations. The inquiry into this is a politically motivated waste of time and resources. It is strictly a matter for the courts. Earlier this month it was confirmed that a man had been charged in relation to the alleged attack and will face court next month. I can only assume that the presumption of innocence will apply and that the evidentiary burden will rest solely with the prosecution and accuser.

I raise these issues because so much of the gender-equality narrative around sexual harassment, including the Me Too movement—conspicuously referenced in the Respect@Work report—denies the very concept of personal responsibility and the presumption of innocence, essentially denying that victims of sexual harassment or assault have personal agency or sovereignty. Make no mistake about this: sexual harassment and sexual assault are wrong and can have lasting negative impacts on everyone involved, especially victims. That's why we have strong laws and penalties against them. But now we're being told that all victims' allegations must be believed, regardless of the specifics and the decisions and choices that lead to them. So much for the presumption of innocence.

It is not blaming the victim to point out that Ms Higgins, when she reported the allegations to Minister Reynolds, chose not to proceed with charges against her alleged attacker. The fact is that she could have proceeded with the matter much earlier and would have been supported in doing so. But, according to the orthodoxy of the woke, she never had a choice and wasn't responsible for the long delay between the alleged attack and charges being laid. I don't accept that, and neither do a lot of other people. We are all responsible for our own actions, and we are all answerable to the law. Let's make sure we don't become answerable to the unelected Human Rights Commission by indulging its woke crusade.

This legislation seeks to implement six recommendations from the Respect@Work report. They include recommendation 16 which seeks to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. One Nation notes and rejects the push to make this law 'achieve substantive equality between women and men'—as I pointed out earlier, we support equality of all opportunity—which has been demonstrated to lead to unequal outcomes between women and men. Recommendation 20 seeks to amend section 105 of the SDA to ensure it applies to sexual harassment. Recommendation 21 seeks to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to make it explicit that any conduct which is an offence under section 94 of the SDA can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination. One Nation rejects this recommendation on the basis that such matters should be the subject of criminal proceedings.

Recommendation 22 seeks to amend the AHRC Act so that the president's discretion to terminate a complaint under the SDA on the grounds of time does not arise until it has been 24 months since the alleged unlawful discrimination took place. One Nation rejects this recommendation and supports the time frame remaining at the current six months. Recommendation 29 seeks to introduce a 'stop sexual harassment order' equivalent to the 'stop bullying order' in the Fair Work Act 2009, and recommendation 30 seeks to amend section 387 of the Fair Work Act to clarify that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal. We can only hope the government is far more careful in examining other recommendations in the report to ensure the Human Rights Commission cannot dictate how we must all behave.

For goodness sake, it's time we stopped seeing virtue in victimhood. Everyone's a victim these days. It's like we're raising a nation of sooks. There is no virtue in being a victim, and yet it seems many of today's female role models have no credibility unless they claim they're a victim of some injustice or other, usually at the hands of a man, of men or of the so-called patriarchy. It's now a recommended entry on our ambitious women's resumes—contact details, education credentials, relevant work experience, personal interest and, now, victim status.

How far have we fallen? One Nation stands against the indoctrination of Australia and the Human Rights Commission's dystopian vision of a society of compliant, woke sycophants too frightened to say what they really think. One Nation continues to stand for personal responsibility and integrity, for the objective rule of law, for the presumption of innocence, for equality of opportunity and for equality before the law. We will continue to provide a voice to Australians disenfranchised by this government and this parliament, who, we are confident, roundly reject this attempt to engineer our society.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the debate on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 and I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. The Australian government is pleased to be taking action to strengthen and streamline the national legal frameworks that deal with sexual harassment as part of its long-term strategy for preventing and addressing sexual harassment, outlined in the Roadmap for respect:preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Australian workplaces.

The bill makes important changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure Australia's legal frameworks are effective in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. The changes made by the bill give effect to recommendations 16, 20, 21, 22, 29 and 30 of the Respect@Work report by clarifying that the Sex Discrimination Act covers judges, members of parliament and ministerial staff; ensuring that state and territory public servants are covered by the Sex Discrimination Act, by removing the existing exemption; and expanding the coverage of the protection from workplace sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act by picking up the broader concepts of 'worker' and 'persons conducting a business or undertaking' as defined under the Work Health and Safety Act to ensure all paid and unpaid workers, including volunteers and interns, are protected from sexual harassment under the act.

The changes also include introducing an express provision to clarify that sex based harassment is prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act; inserting a new object clause in the Sex Discrimination Act to make it clear for decision-makers that the act aims to achieve, so far as is practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women in addition to the elimination of sex discrimination and harassment; and expanding the coverage of the ancillary liability provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act to include sexual harassment and the new sex based harassment provision.

The changes also include amending the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to extend the time period for making a complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act, meaning that a complaint cannot be terminated on the grounds of time unless it has been 24 months since the alleged incident, rather than six months; clarifying that victimising conduct can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act, in addition to a criminal complaint; clarifying that the Fair Work Commission can, under the existing antibullying jurisdiction, make orders to stop sexual harassment; and clarifying that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Whilst this was not recommended in the Respect@Work report, the bill also enables an employee to take up to two days of compassionate leave if the employee or the employee's current spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage. The government has also made changes to the Fair Work Regulations 2009 to give effect to recommendation 31.

The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee has reviewed the bill and recommended, after feedback, to defer commencement of the extended antibullying jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission until no earlier than two months after royal assent. The government has circulated amendments to the bill in line with this recommendation. The committee report also contains a number of dissenting recommendations and comments, many of which refer to implementing new changes which would necessitate substantial policy consideration and consultation beyond that undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in developing the Respect@Work report. In respect of a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, sex based harassment and discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act, further policy consideration and consultation is required to ensure such a duty would operate effectively without increasing complexity for those seeking to use the protections. This includes an assessment against the model work health and safety laws, which already impose a positive duty on employers to protect workers from health and safety risks, including psychosocial risks such as sexual harassment, so far as reasonably practicable. Work health and safety laws also provide for compliance, enforcement and inquiry functions to be exercised by work health and safety regulators. Employers that fail to meet obligations under work health and safety laws can be subject to prosecution and severe penalties.

In respect of providing the Australian Human Rights Commission with new powers and functions regarding sexual harassment, the government notes that it would not be appropriate to provide the Australian Human Rights Commission with a discrete function in respect of sexual harassment without first considering the Australian Human Rights Commission's broader function and roles with respect to other forms of discrimination and harassment, as well as the roles of other regulators that can already inquire into such conduct. More work is therefore required to consider the practical requirements of implementation, including funding requirements, evidence gathering, procedural fairness, privacy and penalties for noncompliance.

In respect of amending the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to allow representative groups to bring representative claims to court, I note that there is already an existing mechanism to enable representative proceedings in the Federal Court under part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. In respect of amending the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to insert a cost-protection provision consistent with the Fair Work Act, further consideration is required in light of the broad discretion already available with respect to costs in section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and section 79 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, which could include, for example, ordering parties to bear their own costs or pay another party's costs. I have also written to the Federal Court to commend the report for their consideration, particularly the impact different cost orders may have on victims of sexual harassment.

In respect of including gender identity and sex characteristics as protected attributes under the Fair Work Act, I note that this was not recommended in the Respect@Work report and would require further consideration. I note that the Fair Work Act already provides protections against unlawful termination and adverse action on certain discriminatory grounds, and the Sex Discrimination Act already provides protections against discrimination on other grounds of gender identity and intersex status. In respect of including a clear prohibition on sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act and a new complaints process in the Fair Work Commission for workers with current or historical experience of sexual harassment, I note the government outlined in the road map that it would review the Fair Work system once the amendments in the bill have been implemented and their impact assessed.

In respect of providing 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards under the Fair Work Act, this bill is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to consider broader reforms to family and domestic violence leave. The Fair Work Commission is currently reviewing the family and domestic violence leave clause in modern awards. Further consideration of the issues of paid leave by the government will be appropriately informed by the commission's consideration of the issue. Employers of course remain free to provide entitlements that suit their workplaces.

In respect of implementing ILO convention 190, the government supports the underlying principles of the convention and is considering implementation as part of the usual treaty processes, including by assessing the extent to which Australia's existing frameworks already give effect to the convention. In respect of implementing any further recommendations, the government will continue to act in line with its commitments in the Roadmap for Respect.

The committee report also contains a number of dissenting recommendations and comments which relate to amendments to the bill. In respect of the requirement that conduct that is seriously demeaning, among other things, to meet the new definition of sex based harassment that would be inserted into the Sex Discrimination Act by the bill, I note that this requirement was chosen to reflect the case law on sex based harassment and, following stakeholder consultation, to ensure the provision only captures conduct that is more serious or repetitive. The government's view is that there is a need for clarity about the level of conduct that should be prohibited and made unlawful in federal antidiscrimination law.

In respect of the language of the new objects clause for the Sex Discrimination Act that would be implemented by the bill, this draft reflects the government's commitment in the Roadmap for Respect that equality of opportunity between men and women in addition to the elimination of discrimination underpins the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act. This language acknowledges that more affirmative actions in addition to the elimination of discrimination and harassment are required to achieve substantive equality.

In respect of broadening stop-sexual-harassment orders to cover sex based harassment, I note under the Fair Work Commission's antibullying jurisdictions the definitions of 'bullying' and 'sexual harassment' are canvassed broadly enough to capture sex based harassment. Where sex based harassment constitutes sex discrimination and is not otherwise captured as bullying or sexual harassment, there are existing antidiscrimination mechanisms in Australia that provide a right of recourse to individuals who have been subject to discriminatory behaviour. In clarifying that sex based harassment can amount to a valid reason for dismissal under the Fair Work Act, the bill implements recommendation 30 of the report. It clarifies that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal.

In summary, the bill will ensure all Australians are protected from workplace sexual harassment by expanding the scope of existing sexual harassment prohibition, promoting clarity for employers and workers and reducing procedural barriers for sexual harassment complaints. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there is not support for this amendment across the chamber and Labor won't be calling a division, but I do wish to record our support for the second reading amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate the Greens support for this amendment. On behalf of Centre Alliance, I move the Centre Alliance amendment on sheet 1360:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to work with the states and territories to ensure mandatory working with children checks are introduced for any employer or manager who hires children under the age of 18, such as employers or managers in the retail and fast food sector.

Question negatived.

Could Hansard please record the Greens support for this amendment.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to register that Labor supports the amendment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I also want to have my support recorded for that second reading amendment.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.