3.1
This chapter examines the extent of support for the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 (the bill) and looks at some of the key concerns raised by stakeholders during the inquiry. The committee's overall views on the bill are included at the end of the chapter.
General views on the bill
3.2
The bill was generally supported by stakeholders, who welcomed the proposed changes to the national anti-discrimination and industrial relations framework. The need for legislative and regulatory amendments to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work: National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (Respect@Work) report was acknowledged by many submitters, including the Business Council of Australia, Community and Public Sector Union (the CPSU), and Law Council of Australia (the LCA).
3.3
The Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group noted that the bill 'constitutes an important step towards aligning general workplace law, work health and safety law and anti-discrimination law protections for workers'. Likewise, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (the ASBFEO) supported 'the efforts made to strengthen, streamline and simplify the regulatory frameworks that protect vulnerable workers and address unlawful workplace conduct'.
3.4
There was also broad support for measures not put forward by the Respect@Work report. This included clarification that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (the SD Act) applies to members of parliament, their staff, and judges at all levels of government; and extending the entitlement to compassionate leave in the event of miscarriage.
3.5
However, many stakeholders – including those referred to above – expressed disappointment that the bill did not fully implement all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission (the AHRC) argued 'that there are additional amendments that can, and should, be made now to further strengthen, simplify and streamline the laws dealt with by the bill'.
3.6
Similarly, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (the ACTU) argued:
The reforms in the bill fall well short of what is recommended by the Respect@Work Report in key aspects. In particular, the government completely fails to accept crucial recommendations that would place a responsibility on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; and to simplify complaints processes.
3.7
The Attorney-General's Department (the department) highlighted that 'there are a number of other legislative amendments recommended in the report that require further consideration and analysis before they can be implemented through legislation'. It also argued that the current bill would 'make a significant and practical impact on the types of workers and situations covered by sex discrimination and sexual harassment protections in the workplace'.
Comments on specific aspects of the bill
3.8
While most stakeholders broadly agreed with the key measures outlined in the bill, they also raised concerns in relation to some of the proposed amendments and provided suggestions for how the bill could be improved to better reflect the recommendations of the Respect@Work report.
Amendments to the SD Act
Making the object of the SD Act clearer
3.9
The bill would amend the SD Act to make it clear that the SD Act aims to achieve, so far as practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women. The Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) and the Governance Institute of Australia, supported the amendment and noted that 'explicitly stating this as an object of the legislation can assist in clarifying that equality should underpin the [SD Act], and would provide guidance to both the community and the courts'.
3.10
However, some stakeholders expressed concern that the amendment did not incorporate the wording recommended by the Respect@Work report.
They called for including the aim of 'achieving substantive equality' rather than the more qualified 'as far as practicable, equality of opportunity' used in the bill. For example, the AHRC argued:
…that this is a more qualified object and only picks up part of Australia's obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which refers to achieving the objective of 'equality of opportunity and treatment' between women and men. Further, unlike the concept of 'substantive equality', the concept of 'equality of opportunity' is not otherwise contained in the [SD Act].
3.11
In response, the department argued that the terms of the SD Act are 'really concerned with the elimination of discrimination; it's not necessarily concerned with the implementation of positive measures that would go to achieving substantive equality'. The department also pointed out:
In order to achieve substantive equality, more affirmative actions are required by workplaces so it would not be appropriate to imply that a decision-maker would need to achieve substantive equality in considering a complaint under the SD Act.
Clarification that sex-based harassment is prohibited
3.12
Many stakeholders supported the insertion of a new provision in the SD Act to provide clarity around the circumstances in which sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex is unlawful in the workplace. For example, the Women's Legal Centre ACT noted:
While harassment based on sex would be covered by current protections against sex discrimination, this change will provide greater clarity to employees and employers that a complaint can be made to the AHRC if a person is harassed at work based on their sex.
3.13
Some stakeholders raised concerns that the threshold for the new sex-based harassment provision – conduct that is 'seriously demeaning' – set a high bar for a finding of harassment to be made. For example, the
National Foundation for Australian Women argued:
We recommend that the committee establish to its own satisfaction whether the bill, as presented, actually has the effect of lowering the protections in the act by setting a separate and higher threshold for sex based harassment cases. If this proves to be the case, we strongly recommend that the amendment be revised.
3.14
Given these concerns, a number of stakeholders recommended that the proposed new provision be amended to change the threshold for sex-based harassment from unwelcome conduct of a 'seriously demeaning' nature to unwelcome conduct of a 'demeaning' nature.
3.15
However, the department pointed out that 'the term "unwelcome conduct" and the reasonable person test are based on existing concepts in the SD Act, which are regarded by the case law as setting an appropriate threshold for the type of conduct that should be unlawful'. It also noted that the 'concept of "seriously demeaning" was developed to reflect the type of conduct that has been found to constitute sex-based harassment in the case law'.
Expanded coverage of workers protected from sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment
3.16
Most stakeholders supported the measures to more closely align protections in the SD Act with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the WHS laws) to ensure all paid and unpaid workers are protected from sexual harassment.
3.17
The department's submission argued that the proposed changes would 'make it clear that a person is protected from sexual harassment that occurs in connection with their work or the harasser's work'. The Australian Industry Group also argued that the proposed changes would 'improve consistency with WHS laws and the FW Act's anti-bullying provisions including the proposed extension to include sexual harassment'.
3.18
Similarly, Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) observed:
This will help address existing gaps; for example, where students undertake internships or placements for educational purposes, which fall outside employment/contractual arrangements. Applying sexual harassment laws (through these amendments) across the broader employment sectors, as proposed by the bill, is vital to preventing and protecting against sexual harassment and bullying.
3.19
While supporting the changes, the AHRC also recommended that the proposed protections be extended to protect the workers specified against sex discrimination and discrimination on each of the grounds set out in the SD Act, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the RD Act), Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the DD Act) and Age Discrimination Act 2004 (the AD Act).
3.20
Some stakeholders argued that the SD Act should be amended to ensure that creating or facilitating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment on the basis of sex is expressly prohibited as recommended in the Respect@Work report. For example, Not In My Workplace argued that while it was 'acknowledged in the Respect@Work report that a sexually hostile work environment could constitute unlawful sex discrimination under the [SD Act], we believe it is important to clarify this in the legislation, particularly where conduct of a sexual nature in a workplace is not expressly directed towards a person'.
3.21
In response, the department observed that 'there is also currently a specific and unqualified obligation under work health and safety laws to provide a safe environment. For example, intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environments would all currently be considered as risks under work health and safety laws'.
Members of parliament, judges and staff of parliamentarians
3.22
The bill would explicitly extend the coverage of the SD Act to members of Parliament, persons employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, a person who holds a Commonwealth judicial office, as well as state parliamentarians and employees and state judicial officers.
3.23
Stakeholders broadly welcomed the inclusion of this measure in the bill. For example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the ACCI) argued that '[e]veryone has a right to a workplace that is respectful, safe, and free from sexual harassment. There is no reason to treat members of parliament, their staff, judges and state public servants any different to the rest of the community'.
3.24
In addition, the department noted that the proposed 'amendment goes beyond the recommendations of the Respect@Work report and complements other work underway in response to reports of serious incidents that occur during parliamentary employment, including the Review of the Parliamentary Workplace: Responding to Serious Incidents'.
Protection for state and territory public servants
3.25
There was broad support for the removal of the current exemption of state and territory public servants from protections for workplace discrimination and sexual harassment in the SD Act. For example, Women's Legal Centre ACT noted that the 'historical reasons for this exemption are no longer relevant. It is important that all state and territory employees are given the protections and complaint avenues afforded by the [SD Act]'. This view was also echoed by other stakeholders, including the AHRC, CPSU, and the LCA.
3.26
The department emphasised that the amendment 'would bring the SD Act in line with other federal anti-discrimination laws, which do not provide exemptions for state public servants'.
Clarification that victimisation can be brought as a civil action
3.27
Most stakeholders supported addressing the judicial uncertainty that has arisen in relation to the prohibition of victimising conduct under the SD Act. For example, Kingsford Legal Centre noted that 'people who experience discrimination and harassment also experience victimisation in the workplace. We support the clarification around the civil complaint of victimisation'.
3.28
However, the AHRC argued that while the proposed amendments would create certainty in relation to the SD Act, without corresponding amendments to the other three federal discrimination acts, the proposed changes would 'have the potential to create further uncertainty in relation to victimisation under those other acts'. The AHRC therefore recommended that 'necessary legislative amendments be made to clarify that victimisation under all four federal discrimination acts can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination'.
3.29
The ACCI indicated that it did not support the addition of the new provision and argued it 'would simply add to the ambiguity, overlap and friction between jurisdictions, law and responsibilities in relation to sexual harassment rather than enhance them any further'.
3.30
The department noted that the 'amendment is not intended to create ambiguity in relation to the other Commonwealth anti-discrimination Acts, which contain similar victimisation provisions'.
Ancillary liability
3.31
There was general support for ensuring that a person, who causes, instructs, induces, aids or permits another person to engage in sexual harassment should also be liable under the SD Act. For example, the AICD and the Governance Institute of Australia argued:
In our view, there is no sound policy basis for excluding sexual harassment from the coverage of section 105. It is critical that there are robust prohibitions against, and accountability for, any behaviour that encourage or facilitate sexual harassment or sex-based harassment in the workplace.
3.32
The department also explained that a person 'can already be found to have ancillary liability for causing, instructing, inducing, aiding or permitting someone else to engage in sex-based discrimination' and the proposed amendment 'would therefore address a gap in coverage by ensuring a person can also be found to have ancillary liability in the same circumstances for sex-based harassment and sexual harassment'.
Amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act)
Expansion of stop-bullying orders to expressly include sexual harassment
3.33
The bill would clarify that a worker who is sexually harassed at work may apply to the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) for an order to stop the harassment. The proposed amendments were generally supported by stakeholders, including Circle Green Community Legal which noted that 'some employees experiencing sexual harassment are likely to value having a quick, low cost and informal avenue where their employer fails to take appropriate action to stop further sexual harassment from occurring, particularly if leaving the workplace is not a practicable option for them'.
3.34
However, some stakeholders argued that the FW Act should also be amended to allow the FWC to also make stop sex-based harassment orders. For example, the AHRC argued that the bill:
…treats sexual harassment and sex-based harassment in the same way throughout the [SD Act], for example in relation to the availability of ancillary liability or vicarious liability. It is appropriate that they are also treated the same way in the [FW Act]. This will improve the coordination, consistency and clarity between the anti-discrimination and work health and safety legislative schemes. It will also ensure, appropriately, that there is a range of graduated alternatives available to respond to sex-based harassment.
3.35
Additionally, Women's Legal Centre ACT noted the limitations of stop orders, including that they don't provide redress and are only available where there is a risk of the harassment occurring again. However, the Australian Industry Group considered it appropriate that the FWC could not make an order requiring payment of a financial penalty or compensation and noted:
The expansion of the anti-bullying provisions in this way make this avenue for relief a genuine alternative for complainants who do not wish to pursue lengthier legal proceedings tied to applications for monetary compensation, where such litigation generally either results in a breakdown of the employment relationship or occurs after employment has ended.
3.36
While supporting the amendments, the FWC requested a two month deferral of the commencement of the amendments. The FWC argued:
Those amendments, like the rest of the bill, are currently scheduled to commence on the day after the act receives royal assent. There is a significant risk that this timing, if retained, will compromise the commission's capacity to successfully implement the new jurisdiction and uphold the interests of vulnerable parties.
3.37
In response, the department noted that it would 'be monitoring closely the impact of the amendments' and pointed to the 'additional funding in the budget for the implementation of A Roadmap for Respect. That also included funding for legal support'.
Termination of employment for sexual harassment
3.38
Stakeholders welcomed the FW Act amendments to legislate that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal in determining whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. SAGE noted:
These reforms also impart confidence to employers to take appropriate action against sexual harassers and bullies. Furthermore, they complement national action on addressing gender inequities in higher education and research, noting the direct correlation between gender inequities and harassing behaviours in the workplace, both direct and ambient, that adversely impact women's careers.
3.39
That said, the AHRC commented that the new protections should also be extended to the new prohibition on sex-based harassment introduced by the bill. The AHRC recommended that the bill 'be amended to clarify that sex-based harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal, in determining whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable'.
3.40
In addition, JobWatch recommended that bullying be included as relevant conduct and that the FWC be allowed to 'review the steps taken by employers to prevent sexual harassment in assessing whether a dismissal is harsh, unjust or unreasonable'. It also argued that the FWC be empowered 'to make an order allowing for a portion of the compensation paid to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed but may have engaged in sexual harassment to be paid to the victim of that harassment'.
3.41
The ASBFEO argued that 'consideration should be given to listing "sexual harassment" also as a form of serious misconduct in the Small Business Dismissal Code'.
Enabling compassionate leave for miscarriage
3.42
There was broad support for the extension of the existing entitlement to compassionate leave in the FW Act to enable an employee to take compassionate leave if they, or their spouse or de facto partner, has a miscarriage. For example, the ACCI supported the proposed new provisions and argued that it was 'a sensible and appropriate extension to the existing compassionate leave provisions'.
3.43
However, while supportive of this measure, the Working Women's Centres recommended that the eligibility to compassionate leave be extended to a former spouse or de facto partner. Similarly, Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union argued that the bill should also consider 'alternate relationships such as a former spouse, former de facto partner or surrogate'.
3.44
Additionally, JobWatch argued that 'allowing for only two days of compassionate leave is insufficient to accommodate the physical, emotional and psychiatric toll of such an event'. It recommended that this be extended to four weeks and that the Australian Government (the government) should also 'allow for a subsidy or payment for compassionate leave where there has been a miscarriage, similar to the paid parental leave scheme that presently exists'.
3.45
The department noted that while the amendment was not recommended by the Respect@Work report, it had 'been identified as an important measure to provide improved support to employees if they or their current spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage. In particular, this amendment would promote women's workforce participation'.
Amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRC Act)
Termination of complaints under the AHRC Act
3.46
There was general support for extending the discretion of the President of the AHRC to terminate a complaint under the SD Act on the grounds of time from six months to 24 months. For example, the AICD and the Governance Institute of Australia agreed that 'the current six-month timeframe is inadequate and fails to recognise the many complex reasons an applicant may have in making a sexual harassment complaint immediately following an alleged incident'.
3.47
The AHRC raised concerns that, if passed in its current form, the provision would 'be the only termination ground in the AHRC Act that has a different effect depending on the Act under which the complaint was made'. The AHRC argued that a 'differential operation of termination provisions has the potential to create confusion and is undesirable'. It therefore recommended that the AHRC Act be amended to provide that the President may terminate any complaint that was lodged more than 24 months after the alleged acts, omissions or practices took place.
3.48
Other stakeholders recommended that the time limit should be extended to six years. For example, WEstjustice argued that clients can often take months or even years to come forward, justifying an extended time limit for lodging complaints. Circle Green Community Legal also supported an extension of time to six years and argued that this would be consistent with the general limitation period that applies to many other civil law actions.
3.49
However, the ACCI argued that, while it did not object in principle to some level of discretion in accepting late lodgements in exceptional circumstances, employers could face significant practical problems responding in cases where complaints are lodged long after the alleged conduct is said to have occurred.
Other concerns raised by stakeholders
3.50
As noted above, many stakeholders expressed concern that the bill failed to implement some of the key recommendations of the Respect@Work report. Much of the commentary from stakeholders was related to prohibiting sexual harassment in the FW Act, the introduction of a positive duty on employers, expanding the functions of the AHRC, as well as allowing public interest actions to be brought by representative organisations and ensuring cost protection for claimants.
Expressly prohibiting sexual harassment in the FW Act
3.51
Several stakeholders recommended that the Fair Work system should be reviewed to expressly prohibit sexual harassment in line with the Respect@Work report. For example, the CPSU argued:
While there are provisions in the [FW Act] that enable sexual harassment to be raised indirectly, such as general protections against adverse action on the basis of a workplace right and on the basis of sex, the lack of a clear prohibition on sexual harassment means there are gaps and ambiguities in how sexual harassment is dealt with under national workplace laws. The prevalence of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces highlights the need for a specific prohibition in workplace laws and options to prevent and remedy sexual harassment.
3.52
Similarly, the United Firefighters Union of Australia noted that whilst 'a prohibition of sexual harassment under the FW Act would replicate the protection under the SD Act (and other state legislation) it would allow employees access to the processes under the Fair Work system and the cost protection offered by s570 of the FW Act'.
3.53
The department indicated that the government intends to review the Fair Work system once the amendments in the bill in relation to recommendation 16 of the Respect@Work report have been implemented and their impact assessed. The department also noted that the review would 'be informed by the results of the next National Sexual Harassment Survey to be undertaken by the AHRC in 2022, which will enable an evidence-based approach to be taken to the review'.
Positive duties
3.54
Many stakeholders argued for the inclusion of a positive duty on all employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate, as far as possible, sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation. For example, Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) argued:
A civil positive duty under the [SD Act], made visible through enforcement by the AHRC, is likely to lead to more employers making greater efforts to prevent gendered violence and harassment. Pursuing sanctions should not be the primary activity of a regulator, however the threat of punishment for non-compliance can help efforts to persuade compliance with the law. As a result, it is important to have a positive duty to eliminate sexual harassment that is actually enforced, and that the AHRC has the full suite of regulatory powers to do so.
3.55
The AHRC also submitted that the SD Act should be amended in the interests of clarity to include a positive duty on all employers, and recommended that this could be introduced over a period of time and that the SD Act should also prescribe the factors that must be considered in determining if an employer's business practices are reasonable and proportionate.
3.56
Similarly, the LCA supported adding a positive duty on employers, arguing that, contrary to the objection that this could create complexity, uncertainty or duplication, that instead 'this mutual reinforcement will likely lead to less confusion and complexity for victims and employers to navigate'.
3.57
In response, the department noted that the model WHS laws already have a duty to prevent exposure to health and safety risks so far as is reasonably practicable, including the risk of being sexually harassed. The government has also advised that the introduction of such a positive duty would require further consideration and assessment as to whether it would create further complexity, uncertainty or duplication in the overarching legal framework.
Expanding the functions of the AHRC
3.58
Stakeholders argued that the AHRC should be given the function of assessing compliance with any positive duty on employers and for enforcement in accordance with recommendations 18 and 19 of the Respect@Work report.
3.59
Additionally, some stakeholders argued that the government should consider providing the AHRC with a broad inquiry function in order to conduct own-motion investigations. For example, the AICD and the Governance Institute of Australia argued:
We consider the ability for the AHRC to conduct own-motion investigations based on, for example, anonymous reports of sexual harassment or where the AHRC believes there has been a breach of the SD Act, could provide a more sensitive and trauma-informed approach to a sexual harassment investigation than one led by a WHS regulator.
3.60
The government noted that the commission has existing functions to conduct investigations and expressed concern that the AHRC adopting the role of an investigator could undermine the effectiveness of the cooperative model. Nevertheless, the government indicated a willingness to consider models for an inquiry function on referral by the government.
Representative claims
3.61
Some stakeholders argued that the AHRC Act should be amended to allow unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims to court, consistent with the existing provisions that allow representative groups to bring a representative complaint to the AHRC. For example, the ACTU argued:
This reform is in the public interest, as it will improve access to justice and assist to resolve cases of systemic disadvantage. The federal courts already have the power to dismiss any action which is frivolous or has no reasonable prospects of success, which will act as a check on any unmeritorious actions.
3.62
VLA also argued that such an amendment would be 'important given the significant social, emotional and financial costs for individuals who pursue a legal claim of sexual harassment, and the chilling effect that these costs have on victim-survivors taking action'.
3.63
In response, the department has noted that, while such an approach may be appropriate for conciliation in the AHRC, different considerations apply in the context of proceedings before a court, and that there is an existing mechanism to enable representative proceedings in the Federal Court.
Costs protection
3.64
Several stakeholders argued that the AHRC Act should also be amended to ensure costs may only be ordered against a party if the proceedings are vexatious or unreasonable. For example, the National Foundation for Australian Women argued:
There is no clear reason why this provision cannot proceed as part of the current package, and (from the victim's perspective) every reason why it should, as costs operate as a significant disincentive to pursuing sexual harassment matters under the [SD Act].
3.65
The Queensland Council of Unions also noted:
The provisions in the FW Act already accommodate for instances of a vexatious complaint, or where one has been made without reasonable cause, or where costs are incurred by a party's unreasonable acts or omissions. For example, where a settlement was reached in conciliation, but a party chose to pursue the matter to the Court and it was reasonable to assume that the same settlement was arrived at and did occur.
3.66
In response, the department pointed to the government's comments in the Roadmap for Respect which 'noted that the courts already have a broad discretion to award costs under their own legislation'. It also indicated that 'consistent with this commitment, the government will consider the adequacy of this broad discretion in light of the issues raised in the Respect@Work Report'.
Committee view
3.67
The committee would like to thank the many stakeholders for their engagement in this inquiry, as well as the significant work that has been put into submissions to assist the committee in its consideration of the bill.
3.68
The committee welcomes the amendments contained in the bill and believes that they will help to strengthen the national anti-discrimination framework and enhance protections and reduce procedural barriers for complainants with respect to sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The bill will also make it easier for people and organisations to understand their obligations in the workplace and catalyse the cultural change required to address sexual harassment in workplaces.
3.69
The committee welcomes the general support for the passage of the bill from stakeholders, including from industry, employer and employee representative groups, and state and territory governments. The committee was also encouraged by the broad support for many of the measures in the bill, including more closely aligning protections in the SD Act with the WHS laws to ensure all paid and unpaid workers are protected from sexual harassment, as well as amending the FW Act to enable an employee to take compassionate leave if they, or their spouse or de facto partner, has a miscarriage.
3.70
The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by stakeholders that some of the recommendations from the Respect@Work report have not been included in the bill. However, the committee is comforted by the department's advice that the current bill does not represent the entirety of the government's response. The committee also appreciates that some of the recommendations require further consideration and analysis before they can be implemented through legislation. The committee is encouraged by the government's commitment that more consideration will be given to a number of these recommendations, including further improvements to the WHS framework.
3.71
That said, the committee recommends that the commencement of the amendments that extend the anti-bullying jurisdiction of the FWC be deferred until no earlier than two months after Royal Assent. This would allow the FWC time to successfully implement the changes required to case manage and determine applications for orders to stop sexual harassment. In addition, the committee recommends that legislative amendments be made to the victimisation provisions in the DD Act, RD Act, and the AD Act, to bring them into line with the proposed changes to the SD Act. This would address any uncertainty in relation to victimisation as a civil action under those other acts.
3.72
The committee would also encourage the department to continue to consult with stakeholders through the Respect@Work Council to progress the recommendations from the Respect@Work report, and to review and monitor the effectiveness of the amendments to be enacted in the current bill.
3.73
Overall, the committee believes that the bill represents a significant first-step in preventing and addressing workplace sexual harassment and looks forward to the government continuing to progress the remaining recommendations of the Respect@Work report in line with its commitments in the Roadmap for Respect. The committee therefore recommends that the bill be passed.
3.74
The committee recommends that the Australian Government defer the commencement of the amendments that extend the anti-bullying jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission until no earlier than two months after Royal Assent.
3.75
The committee recommends that the Australian Government make further legislative amendments to clarify that victimisation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the Age Discrimination Act 2004, can also form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination.
3.76
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Chair