Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he's committed to making workplaces safe, but Commissioner Jenkins's earlier report, Respect@Work, made it clear that a positive duty on employers is critical to achieving that. Your party voted against that. Then we were told at last estimates that consultation on the positive duty would start in December, with a view to implementation by late March. We're now in the second week of February, with only a handful of sitting days before an election, and none of this has happened. How can women in this country have any confidence that this government is committed to making any workplace safe for them?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question. At the commencement, I acknowledge that my colleague Senator Cash and the government have been pursuing action across a range of areas in implementing recommendations from the Respect@Work report—a very valuable and important piece of work, undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, in terms of advancing equality and opportunity across Australian workplaces. The government's comprehensive response has been released.

Senator Waters's question relates specifically to recommendation 17, the positive duty recommendation. The government has been clear: we believe this requires further consultation to assess how such a duty would operate effectively alongside existing duties under various work health and safety laws and, indeed, under the Sex Discrimination Act, including to ensure that additional complexity is not created for those seeking to use such protections. We are working through those consultation processes to make sure that any changes that are put in place operate as intended and do not result in unnecessary duplication, confusion or uncertainty for either employers or employees.

The vicarious liability provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act and model work health and safety laws already place, I'm advised, a positive duty on employers to protect workers from health and safety risks, including psychosocial risks such as sexual harassment, so far as that is reasonably practicable. Employers must therefore already take reasonable and preventative steps such as implementing appropriate policies and providing—

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have a point of order, Senator Waters?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, reluctantly. I did go to the question of timing. I'm aware of everything else you've said, Minister, but you said consultation would be done and that it would be implemented by March. Where is it?

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, you've brought the minister's attention back to part of the question. The minister was being directly relevant to other parts of the question. Minister, you have the call.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated, my understanding is the consultation is underway. I'm not advised of any variations in time lines or the like on that matter, but we are certainly working through that process as the other recommendations of Respect@Work continue to be pursued. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning's statement committed to listening to survivors and staff, but the Prime Minister is reportedly not going to listen to Grace Tame or Brittany Higgins at the Press Club tomorrow. He's not even going to watch it on the telly. How can women in this country have any confidence that this government will actually listen to survivors? Do you think Australian women even believe a word the Prime Minister says anymore?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are important matters that I would hope could exist and be discussed above cheap political pot shots or pointscoring such as occurred in the question there from Senator Waters. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will indeed be seeking to ensure he understands the messages and views that are conveyed in tomorrow's Press Club address, as he does other statements of importance that are made across the country. He recognises the important work around Respect@Work, which is why, under Prime Minister Morrison, the government has been pursuing the vast majority of those recommendations. Some 42 of the 55 recommendations under Respect@Work have been either fully implemented or fully funded, and work is underway on all remaining recommendations. As we discussed this morning, it is now in relation to— (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a second supplementary question?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite government commitments that survivors would be invited to today's statement of acknowledgement address, we've heard from a number of survivors who participated in the review that they didn't know about the statement until they heard about it in the media. This is not acceptable. What went wrong? What message do you think that sends survivors?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, I thanked you earlier today, as I did everybody else across the chamber, for the constructive way in which you've engaged on these matters. I'm disappointed that you have raised that question in that way. As I have said publicly today, my office asked the Australian Human Rights Commission last week to contact all those for whom they had contact details who had participated in Commissioner Jenkins's review. My understanding is that they did that. That is my understanding. I can't speak for contacting those individuals because, as you well know, we put in place legal protections for all those who participated and so the government has no way of contacting all those who participated in the review. We did, as you knew we had said we would do and as I had said publicly we would do, ask the AHRC to do that. My advice is that that's what they did.