Friday, 14 November 2025

 Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (10:47): I rise to make my contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. The principal purpose of the bill is to restrict the circumstances in which non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, can be used to resolve disputes that involve allegations of workplace sexual harassment. NDAs are commonly relied on to prevent either party from disclosing the details of the allegations that gave rise to the dispute after the parties have reached some kind of agreed settlement or resolution. NDAs have become commonly used in workplace disputes, including allegations of sexual harassment.

May I begin by saying that sexual harassment in all forms has absolutely no place in our workplaces or in society. Sexual harassment is simply disgusting. It is vile, and no-one should be subjected to it. We in the Victorian Liberals and Nationals will support any measure that will assist in eradicating sexual harassment to ensure we all work in respectful and harmonious workplaces. Sexual harassment should be deplored in all its forms, whether it is a suggestive remark, a lewd comment, a crude innuendo, inappropriate teasing or, worse, physical touching. Sexual harassment is a scourge that we as community leaders should call out and work together to eradicate. In terms of the legal definition, sexual harassment is considered to be any unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility of that reaction in all the circumstances.

I, like many women, have been subjected to sexual harassment in my life and in my working career.

It is awful and deeply upsetting. To be treated as an object rather than a fellow human is sick and demeaning. It hurts, and it keeps hurting long after it has stopped. Women should not feel that they need to put up with it, laugh it off or be told these things just happen; they should never be put in that position in the first place. Thankfully, we have come a long way from the awful behaviours that so many women have been forced to endure over decades. Not only have so many women called out this behaviour, many men have also stood up in support, and we are grateful for their leadership. However, like with many issues, unless we remain vigilant and strong, these behaviours will continue. So we support measures that give women a voice and do not oppose the passage of this bill, but we do note there are many improvements that can be made to ensure this bill is made even stronger. We are concerned that many of the measures contained in this bill, regrettably, will not do a great deal to actually prevent sexual harassment in the workplace; rather, many of the measures will only apply after someone has suffered sexual harassment, and in our view, like most things, prevention is much better than cure.

In some respects it is a missed opportunity by the government, who should be focusing more on measures to prevent sexual harassment at work in the first place rather than imposing measures that only apply after it has occurred, and we are concerned about some of the unintended consequences this bill may have, which I will come to shortly. In total, like so many other pieces of legislation introduced by this government, it does seem this bill has been rushed at the last minute so that the government can perhaps try and distract the public from so many other of its failings, such as Victoria’s soaring crime rates or failures in child protection.

In March 2021, more than four years ago, the Acting Premier and Minister for Workplace Safety announced the establishment of a ministerial taskforce on workplace sexual harassment. It appears the taskforce was set up in response to the Australian Human Rights Commission Respect@Work report, which was delivered a year earlier. That report found, quite sadly, that one in three workers had been sexually harassed at work in the previous five years. The taskforce was requested to develop potential reforms that would help prevent and better respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. The taskforce then went about undertaking a period of consultation between May and October 2021, receiving many submissions from interested stakeholders. We do not exactly know when the taskforce submitted its report, because that has never been revealed, but we do know the recommendations of the taskforce and the government’s response were both released to the public on 11 July 2022. In total, the taskforce made 26 recommendations of which 12 were accepted by the government, two were accepted in part, seven were accepted in principle, one was noted and four were recommended for further consideration. In the three years since these recommendations were made we have heard absolutely nothing from this Labor government about how it was going to action these recommendations until literally two weeks ago when the government sprung a media release that said it was introducing this bill. By the way, it should be noted that this bill only seeks to action one of the 26 recommendations made by the taskforce, specifically recommendation 10. The government has done nothing in the last three years to action any of the other recommendations. This government has a consistent pattern. It loves the big announcements, but it goes missing in action when it comes to implementing these important reforms.

Recommendation 10 of the taskforce review recommends the government should introduce legislative amendments to restrict the use of NDAs in relation to workplace sexual harassment cases in Victoria. In the media release announcing the introduction of the bill we were told by the government:

The proposed Bill is the first of its kind in Australia, and among the first in the world.

Seriously, I do not think this Labor government can tell the difference between truth and spin anymore, because the government neglected to say in its media release that a number of jurisdictions across the world have already introduced similar legislation to the bill before us today. Countries that have imposed restrictions on NDAs include Ireland, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, and in fact back in 2021 the taskforce recommended the government use the Irish employment equality bill to give effect to its recommendations to restrict NDAs.

This government goes nowhere near being amongst the first in the world to introduce legislation like this. In fact the bill before us today is heavily influenced by the legislation that was introduced in Ireland. It also seems very strange that today we are only debating one recommendation of 26 that were made more than three years ago, and it does seem that the other 25 appear to be on the backburner. It should be noted from the start that the bill does not impose a blanket ban on the use of NDAs as a way of resolving workplace disputes. NDAs will still be able to be used without restriction to resolve a whole range of other workplace-related disputes, including unfair dismissal, bullying allegations, pay disputes and soliciting clients. Nothing in this bill will affect how NDAs are used in those circumstances. Rather, the bill only seeks to limit and restrict the way in which NDAs can be used in disputes that involve sexual harassment allegations. The bill will also allow NDAs to be used in disputes involving sexual harassment, provided that specific preconditions set out in part 3 of the bill are satisfied before an NDA is entered into. If the preconditions are not satisfied, then the NDA entered into will be unenforceable and a complainant may disclose whatever information they choose. Importantly, the bill has no retrospective effect. As a consequence, any NDA previously entered into by parties in good faith will not be captured by the provisions of this bill and remain enforceable.

The bill is also not expected to commence operation until six months after it has passed, and this will provide some time for employers and their professional advisers to become cognisant of these changes and adapt their practices accordingly. Notably, there are also some important protections built into the bill to ensure preconditions are not abused or undermined. The first protection is that the complainant’s employer or the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment are made cannot exert undue influence or undue pressure on the complainant to agree to enter into an NDA. However, somewhat surprisingly, this bill does not include any penalty for a breach of this protection, nor does it appear the NDA is automatically invalidated if it is found an employer or respondent has engaged in conduct to pressure the complainant to sign the NDA. I would think that this protection becomes very weak if there is no penalty attached to a breach of the protection. Surely the exertion of undue pressure or influence on a complainant should invalidate the NDA immediately. As a matter of contract law, if one party is found to have been forced or put under pressure or been deceived into agreeing to contract by the other party, the contract is automatically void. I think this is an area that the government should give further consideration to, which perhaps may have been missed when this bill was being hastily drafted.

The second protection is that the NDA must be written in terms that are easy to read and understand by the complainant. I think this is a positive measure, and whilst it may raise the eyebrows of some lawyers, I think it is a positive step towards ensuring complainants have a strong understanding of the terms they are agreeing to. This measure will assist both parties to ensure each party understands the obligations they are required to comply with, which will hopefully help avoid potential breaches, even inadvertent ones, from occurring. However, even if the parties have validly entered into an NDA, the bill includes specific exceptions that will allow the parties to make permitted disclosures in certain circumstances.

Under the bill, a complainant will still be able to disclose information about alleged sexual harassment to an extensive list of people and government bodies, which can be found in schedule 1 to this bill. Whilst we understand why it would be necessary to disclose the information to a number of these bodies and persons, the list is very extensive and could result in the information being further disclosed outside of this prescribed group. For instance, if the disclosure is made to a friend or a family member, the disclosure can only be made if the friend or family member has agreed to keep the information confidential for the purposes of obtaining personal support. We fear this may be difficult to enforce as a matter of conventional practice. A friend may feel compelled to confide in another friend or family member, which then has the resultant risk of further people becoming aware of the information before it is disclosed in other forums, such as social media. Whilst we fully appreciate that a complainant, a sufferer of alleged sexual harassment, may need to seek the support of a family member or friend in such circumstances, providing such an extensive list of people who may be able to receive this information tends to increase the risk of the information being further disclosed and then entering into that public space.

We have seen too many examples in recent times where people’s reputations have been significantly tarnished and damaged as a result of false and unfounded allegations being made against them. People are still entitled to the presumption of innocence when serious accusations are made against them, and reputations are difficult to create but very easy to destroy. I note in the statement of compatibility with the charter of human rights tabled by the minister in respect to this bill that significant reference was made to the fact that section 13(b) of the charter prohibits unlawful attacks on a person’s reputation. As the charter itself notes, by requiring a respondent’s identity to be disclosable together with the details of sexual harassment, the respondent’s privacy and reputation will be interfered with.

We consider there is a difficult balance of competing interests here. On the one hand, the complainant is being given the ability to share their experience, while on the other hand, sharing that could have detrimental consequences, with a person’s reputation being irrevocably damaged. It is because of this fine balance that we consider the government should give serious consideration to whether some of the permitted exceptions may expose too much risk of the information being disclosed more broadly into the public sphere and potentially causing serious reputational damage. For instance, the list allows a union delegate to be told the information, but nurses or teachers are not included in the list. We think the government should give further consideration to the extensive list of persons to whom permitted disclosures can be made and consider whether certain occupations should be removed or added or further protections included to safeguard the information from being disclosed outside this permitted group of persons.

If a complainant considers that another party to the NDA has not complied with the preconditions, as I have just discussed, the bill provides the complainant with a remedy to terminate the NDA, and there are provisions in the bill for a complainant to issue a breach notice to another party in certain circumstances. Once a respondent receives a breach notice, they will have 30 days to make an application to the industrial division of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to seek an order that the preconditions were satisfied and the NDA remains valid. If no application is made, the breach notice will self-execute, meaning it will be taken that preconditions were not satisfied, and the NDA will no longer be binding on the complainant. As such, the breach notice in effect reverses the onus onto the respondent to prove the preconditions were complied with, but one would imagine it would be difficult for a breach notice to succeed if the responding party had the required paperwork demonstrating the complainant agreed the preconditions had been complied with previously. The procedure outlined for breach notices will undoubtedly result in significant financial costs to both the complainant and the respondent. Lawyers will likely be engaged to prepare the necessary documentation, which may potentially result in contested hearings before a magistrate. The costs of litigating these issues will not assist anyone, especially the complainant – the sufferer of alleged sexual harassment – who is unlikely to have significant resources to spend on such action. I sincerely hope these breach notices are rarely used; otherwise they are likely to become a significant financial burden for both parties.

One of the more contentious aspects of this bill is the ability of a complainant to terminate the NDA. Clause 19 of the bill provides a complainant with the ability to terminate an NDA at any time after 12 months of signing the NDA. All the complainant is required to do is provide seven days written notice to each party to the NDA of their intention to terminate the NDA. It should also be noted at this point that while a complainant can terminate the restrictions contained in an NDA that would prevent him or her from disclosing the details of the alleged sexual harassment, the termination would not affect the enforceability of any settlement agreement or any financial compensation that has been paid. The termination would only apply to the restrictions on disclosures concerning the sexual harassment. Clause 23 of the bill specifically states that any unenforceability or termination of an NDA does not affect the validity or enforceability of any settlement arrangement. The termination provision is quite a radical departure from common-law principles that have underpinned the enforceability of agreements entered into willingly by parties. At common law, once parties execute an agreement, they become bound by the terms of that agreement. Such an agreement will only release a party from their obligations if they have satisfied their end of the bargain or if they can demonstrate the agreement is void for some other reason, and very few contracts are ever entered into that allow one party to unilaterally terminate it at will and release it from its obligations.

There are two reasons for this: the first reason is certainty. One of the attractions of entering into such an agreement is that it provides both parties with certainty. Both parties understand the terms they are required to abide by and the obligations they are expected to perform. Both parties can then conduct their affairs and manage their future life decisions accordingly, knowing that the other party is required to do the same. Section 20 removes that certainty. That means that NDAs are likely to become an unattractive option for employers and respondents to enter into.

We are particularly concerned that this may also have a detrimental impact for complainants who have suffered unacceptable sexual harassment. If an NDA becomes a far less attractive option for an employer or respondent, they may be more inclined to contest the sexual harassment allegations and engage in a contested and costly legal battle. Like any commercial decision, an employer or respondent might consider that the risk of the NDA being terminated in 12 months time is too high and might therefore elect to take their chances and contest and fight the allegations in court. As I mentioned earlier, litigation costs regularly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Complainants are less likely to have the financial resources necessary to fight a contested legal case. History has shown that not many sexual harassment cases are decided by the courts, and in those cases which have been the subject of court decision, the awards of compensation have been disappointingly low. This has served as a huge disincentive for many complainants to go through a fully contested trial. Not only does it have the potential to cause new trauma, but they also have to relive the trauma of the sexual harassment they have been subjected to. This is not an outcome we want for the complainants – those who have suffered sexual harassment. Removing this certainty may mean that employers and respondents become more reticent to try to resolve the dispute and reach an amicable resolution, therefore potentially depriving a complainant from receiving an offer of compensation for their pain and suffering. As I said earlier, this is potentially one of the unintended consequences of this bill: that potential resolutions will be more difficult to reach because there is no longer the certainty that parties can rely on.

The other reason why this provision is quite a radical step is because it undermines the legal principle of finality. The principle is based on the notion that a person should not have to deal with the same matter twice. Once a matter has been dealt with, the law recognises it would be unfair for the person to have to defend the same allegation again. This principle is based on significant public policy considerations. Disputes are usually costly in both time and money. It is in the public interest for these disputes to be resolved from both a healing and a cost perspective. If disputes are potentially allowed to be reagitated in the future, it will potentially result in increased trauma and cost at both a human and financial level. As I have said, the 12-month rule does mark a significant departure from the accepted understandings and principles that have underpinned agreements of this kind for decades, and I again fear that this will have unintended consequences for complainants being forced into expensive contested legal proceedings rather than their claims being resolved fairly through negotiation between the parties and being provided with appropriate compensation. We suggest the government should reconsider whether 12 months is an appropriate period by which an NDA can be unilaterally terminated by a complainant, and whether it would be more appropriate for a longer period perhaps to be imposed instead.

Given this is such a dramatic departure from conventional legal principles, we consider the government should move cautiously to ensure that complainants do not suffer unintended detriment because of this change. Section 21 of the bill also seeks to impose restrictions on employment contracts relating to instances of sexual harassment. Under the bill, a term of employment contract will be unenforceable if the term has the effect of preventing the worker from disclosing material about workplace sexual harassment. This is quite a broad change but a positive change at the same time. We agree that sexual harassment is not something that should be hidden. On the contrary, it should be exposed and called out. It is not clear if this provision will apply retrospectively to all contracts of employment that are currently in operation; however, I doubt many modern contracts would have terms that restrict such disclosure. As a matter of public policy they are most likely to be void in any event.

Section 24 also makes it clear that any contract or agreement that includes a term that requires a complainant to pay an amount of compensation to another party because either the NDA is invalid or the NDA was terminated is unenforceable. This ensures a complainant is not subject to any financial penalties for exercising their rights under the bill.

We consider this to be an appropriate and proportionate protection for complainants who are doing no more than exercising their legal rights.

We note that clause 28 also provides that a review of the act must be undertaken, which we support. However, the review is not required to commence until three years after the act has commenced, and we think there is merit in the review being undertaken at an earlier time to assess how the act is operating and whether parties are being treated fairly, and we will seek to make this amendment through the Shadow Minister for Jobs, Industry and Industrial Relations in the Council.

One of the key rationales that both the government and the minister relied on for the introduction of this bill was that NDAs create a disincentive for employers to prevent harassment in their workplaces. In my view, I consider this to be a false premise for a number of reasons. Sexual harassment is completely destructive to productive and efficient working cultures. Any employer or business that allows sexual harassment to become an accepted norm in their workplace is likely to see itself out of business pretty quickly. Not only do you alienate a proportion of your workforce, you are likely to alienate a proportion of your customer base as well. It makes no rational sense from a commercial perspective to allow practices or attitudes associated with vile sexual harassment to permeate your business or workplace. If an employer were to allow this, they would be unlikely to be able to recruit and retain hardworking, dedicated employees, both men and women, and they would see their profits dry up as a consequence. It is for this essential fact and commercial reality that employers have every reason to both eradicate and prevent sexual harassment from taking root in their workplace.

The second reason why I think the premise relied on by the government is false is because the employers are already under positive legal duty to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. Under section 15 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010, employers are under a statutory duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment. The same positive duty also applies under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984. If an employer is found not to have complied with this statutory duty, then they open themselves up to considerable liability to sexual harassment compensation claims. If an employer complies with this duty and can demonstrate that they have taken active measures, such as workplace training, and have robust complaint and investigative processes in place to reduce the risk of sexual harassment occurring, they will have a defence against being held vicariously liable for the unlawful actions of their staff. However, if the employer has failed to implement appropriate measures to eliminate the risk of sexual harassment, they will be held liable for the actions of their employees and be subject to considerable compensation claims.

Employers will also be unable to rely on insurance policies to bail them out, because many insurance policies now provide that they will not indemnify their clients against claims unless they can show they have been compliant with their legal obligations. Again, in order to avoid the potential for significant compensation claims being made from their employees, which could also turn into WorkCover claims, employers have every reason to work hard to prevent sexual harassment from occurring in their workplaces.

There is also a more recent development as to why employers would be vigilant. As a consequence of the Respect@Work report delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission, amendments were made to the Fair Work Act 2009, which now prohibits sexual harassment from occurring in the workplace. If sexual harassment is found to have occurred, the Fair Work Ombudsman or a union can commence legal proceedings against an employer for failing to prevent the sexual harassment, which could then face penalties of up to $99,000 per contravention. This is now a massive commercial risk to employers. Not only do they face potential compensation claims from complainants who have been subjected to sexual harassment, they can also be imposed with significant financial penalties that insurers will refuse to indemnify. These reasons demonstrate unequivocally that employers would be negligent in the extreme if they were not putting measures in place to eliminate and eradicate sexual harassment from their workplaces.

In more recent years compensation payouts have begun to meet community expectations in relation to the disdain in which sexual harassment is regarded in our society. In one of the biggest compensation payouts for sexual harassment in Australia an employer was ordered to pay the complainant $466,000 for the harassment and pain the complainant suffered.

The complainant was subjected to sexual advances and sexual propositions, sent lewd photos by male colleagues and even asked if she would enter into an intimate relationship with a client to help secure a contract. This is nothing short of disgusting. This decision was made back in 2009. It served as a massive wake-up call to employers that unless they took active steps to prevent sexual harassment, they faced harsh consequences. That is why we think this government should be focusing more on measures that prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place than on measures that only take effect after the event of the sexual harassment.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, it is a missed opportunity by this government. I repeat: it is why we think this government should be focusing more on measures that will prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place than on measures that will only take effect after the event.

Given the concerns that I have outlined, the shadow minister for industrial relations in the other place will seek to move amendments to ensure that this bill gets the balance right and is strengthened – and strengthened for the complainant, the person who has unacceptably suffered sexual harassment. At the end of the day we all want workplaces that are free of sexual harassment and show care and respect to one another. The Victorian Liberals and Nationals will always do whatever we can to ensure that workers are free from discrimination and sexual harassment and that they receive the dignity and respect that they deserve at work and in society.

I will conclude where I started. Sexual harassment is vile. It is hurtful. It is traumatic. It has no place in workplaces or in society, and we should work together as a Parliament and as a society to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that this vile, disgusting behaviour of sexual harassment – this scourge – is eradicated from workplaces and right across our society.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:17): It is indeed a really important occasion to rise and speak on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Can I firstly acknowledge the member for Evelyn, as shadow minister and lead speaker, for sharing her lived experience early on. We acknowledge people who were impacted over the course of their lives and have come to this chamber to share their lived experience and around communities. I appreciate the member for Evelyn’s leadership in that space and her platforming of these issues. It is truly a Parliament-wide thing that we all need to work on. Thank you, Bridget, for your contribution and your leadership in this space. This is at its core about humanity, at its core about how we support people in their workplaces so that they have the entitlement and right in every single moment to be safe and free from any forms of harassment.

But we know harassment and sexual harassment are inherently gendered, and the impact that they have on women in our community is horrific; 50 per cent of women report sexual harassment and that impact. Let us be really clear here: it is overwhelmingly men that perpetrate harassment and sexual harassment in workplaces. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change, working closely with the Minister for Women and Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, it is men that need to drive that accountability and be upstanders in that behaviour in all forms and in all its fashions. It is on workplaces and employment settings, but fundamentally it is that upstander behaviour, calling it out and making sure that we do not have an environment of compliance but that we have a cultural change that makes sure that this is never, ever condoned, that it is never silenced and that we support people, women and gender-diverse people into the future. This is what this bill does.

On 12 August 2024 we joined some legends from the Victorian Trades Hall Council. You know what – the union movement put this on the agenda. They did not let us off the hook, and they wanted it done yesterday. They are an incredible bunch who make sure that policy and reform in this space are always forward thinking and at the front of everything we do. I stood there in that press conference and just observed their incredible contribution to get this on the agenda and our Premier’s leadership in making sure that we are the first Australian jurisdiction to make sure we are restricting the use of NDAs, because those non-disclosure agreements have been weaponised.

They have restricted accountability for people in workplaces for too long. This bill makes sure that there is the person-centred approach that we need and that we put the power in the hands of those that have been impacted in their workplaces and that we support them to make those decisions into the future. By passing these reforms Victoria becomes the first jurisdiction to restrict the use of NDAs in sexual harassment matters. It would, however, also be joining a small number of jurisdictions internationally, and I am proud that it is on the back of all the reforms that this government has led in supporting women in workplaces. Just think of the gender targets that we have had: women on boards – 50 per cent now is a government commitment that is leading the way and has been taken up in other jurisdictions as well. A huge amount of leadership work has been done by the Minister for Women in really honouring some of the champions in women’s leadership and roles across our communities. How many statues do we have that are blokes from yesteryear, half of them colonial identities, when we have got hundreds of thousands of incredible, courageous women who have led the way for so long. So it is the symbols, it is the policy and it is the outcomes that are driving this agenda.

It comes on the back of those recommendations that were talked about before from the Victorian ministerial taskforce on workplace sexual harassment. It is worth noting the work that was done to get to that point by Liberty Sanger, who would be well known to a number of people in this place, but also the magnificent member for Thomastown as co-chair. The member for Thomastown is an absolute superstar, and leading that work would have been really tough in connecting with people with a lived experience – and living experience – on how we support them as well.

On the back of that critical work, the government published a discussion paper and a survey for victim-survivors, and it had 81 responses. I acknowledge that a lot of this is anonymous as well and that people have given their accounts sometimes with the fear of exposure and the impact that might have on their mental health and wellbeing or their circumstances. It always has to be complainant and victim-survivor centred. These reforms are not about doing away with NDAs completely, but we need to acknowledge that it is always complainant centred. Even the discussion around the 12-month process as well – and I note some of the commentary from the from the shadow minister – in that setting we want that to be complainant focused, victim-survivor focused, to make sure it is always in their hands, that support and wellbeing into the future, and that a decision made in a moment, from incident to reflection some 12 months later, does not then bind and restrict that person’s choices and their approach as well.

The conditions are really critical as well, and I am really proud of the work that we have done in this space. These reforms, as I said, do not prohibit, but there are safeguards set out in this bill that are really powerful, and any NDA clause must come from the complainant and must be their express wish. So there cannot be that grey implication that we see, that implied victimisation again. Twenty-six per cent is the survey number of women that experience impact on their career progression by speaking out or have been impacted by NDAs. We need to make sure that we have a community- and ecosystem-centred approach that says the complainant has it in their hands and that if they decide that is in their best interest, then we take that on. The complainant must be free of any undue influence and pressure, and this means zero tolerance on respondents seeking to include an NDA by way of intimidation, threats – either direct or implied – or by tactics used as proposed for a lower settlement amount, and we know how that has been weaponised. Women who have been impacted by sexual harassment have seen their earning capacity hit and their super hit in the future. We want to make sure that is absolutely not the case in any of these engagements.

I think the most important thing comes from the voices of those that contributed. I want to share some of those. They are anonymised, and I will use the names that have been provided. Jennifer said:

There was no negotiation. If I wanted to leave with the money I had to sign. Signing was a condition for the money. It added enormously to my mental health issues. It makes serial offenders untouchable. The guy in my case was well known for his behaviour.

So how many people? How great a trail of trauma and destruction has that one guy created who has never had accountability for their behaviour, who has never had anyone be an upstander or has never been taken out of an employment setting, who goes on to continually perpetuate that misery over and over and over? That is what we are dealing with here. It is not just about the compliance, it is about men being accountable for their actions and all men having an accountability to be upstanders and create safe environments for the women and gender-diverse peoples that they share workplace settings with.

I think that encapsulates the challenge that we have. We need to have that conversation about male role models and leaders in our community, and as the Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change, I cannot think of a more important setting. If we are going to end gendered violence in our community – and the federal government has this as a target over the next generation. We are already into four years of their term. It is a significant reform agenda led by the Minister for Women at the table and led by Tanya Plibersek in the federal Parliament. If we have that aspiration, workplaces are a critical setting where we spend a third of our lives connecting with people each and every day – sometimes more than we see our families on those occasions. That needs to be the scene setter for leading reforms in the prevention of violence against women and girls. Our workplaces need to be the safest settings in everything that we do. If we are to have a multilayered approach to lowering sexual violence in our community and ending gendered violence and family violence, workplaces are critical. Any sort of scale to this behaviour, any condoning of that behaviour – even in the complicity of an NDA that silences victim-survivors and people who have been impacted – that does not have accountability is a sliding scale, and Respect Victoria and Trades Hall could narrate time and time again what that impact might be.

This is a key pillar in ending gendered violence in our community, in having accountability for men that are perpetrators of sexual violence or harassment and in making sure that we create a safer and more inclusive future. A last shout-out to the member for Evelyn. Thank you for your contribution. It was great to follow you. I commend the bill to the house.

 Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (11:27): I rise to make a contribution to the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. This is a bill for an act to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of persons at work by regulating non-disclosure agreements relating to sexual harassment at work and for other purposes. In doing so, the bill seeks to restrict the circumstances in which non-disclosure agreements can be entered into, limits the terms that may be included and sets out the conditions under which non-disclosure agreements can be enforced. The bill seeks to address significant power imbalances in the NDA process, which often leave victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment feeling intimidated and forcibly silenced.

Before we talk about laws and policies we must remember the human reality that lies behind this bill. Sexual harassment is not a moment of misunderstanding or discomfort; it is a profound violation of a person’s dignity and safety, one that leaves lasting scars long after the incident itself – or incidents – which are ongoing. Victims describe the experience as isolating, humiliating and disempowering. Many develop anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress. Some cannot sleep, and others withdraw from their colleagues or lose confidence in their own abilities. It affects their health, their careers and their sense of belonging in the workplace. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s Respect@Work report finds that around 70 per cent of those who have experienced workplace sexual harassment suffered significant emotional distress, and nearly one in three have left their job as a result. In Victoria alone over a thousand formal complaints were made last year, and we know many more incidents go unreported. Yet for too long non-disclosure agreements have deepened this harm. They have silenced victims, forcing them to carry trauma in private while protecting the reputations of perpetrators and organisations. That silence compounds the pain. It tells survivors that their experience must be hidden and that justice must be quiet.

As you may be aware, I ran a business in the service and training industry for almost 30 years. I had a salon that had 12 staff. My clients were 99 per cent women, and my staff were all women. When you are with clients one on one and over a period of time, you build friendship and you build trust. As you can imagine, I heard lots of things – I heard lots of private things – and in particular I heard too much of women that were facing or going through sexual harassment at work.

I had women raise exactly what we are talking about today: sexual harassment that they were experiencing in the workplace.

I recall one incident quite significantly where the woman was quite young. She was climbing the career ladder, and she felt that if she spoke up, she would put her job at risk. She was also concerned about others not believing her. This went on for months, and as you can imagine, I tried to mentor her. I was not a lawyer and I was not a counsellor. I was very careful and I was always very mindful when I spoke with women in such a personal and profound way. But what I did recommend to her was that she perhaps get a counsellor to give her some guidance, because I felt at the time that she was suffering mentally. I also had a friend in the police force who I suggested she could mention this to, who maybe could assist her in addressing it. She did that. She actually took up both of those options because she cared very deeply about her future. She also cared very deeply about the other workers around her and what their perception of her perhaps would be if she did come forward. Eventually she did go to her boss, and do you know what she was told? To stop being so friendly and that perhaps she was sending out the wrong vibes. She did end up leaving, which was wrong, because she had done nothing wrong. I think this story is one of the reasons why we are here today, and it is one of the many stories where people are so profoundly impacted. As I said, this woman actually left her job. It should have been taken seriously. She had the right to have a safe workplace, and the business had a duty of care. That perpetrator, who was at a senior level in the organisation, got away with it.

I do want to point out schedule 1 sets out a very prescribed list of permitted disclosure entities, which may lead to exclusion simply because the list is not exhaustive. Sexual Assault Services Victoria, which we know are an organisation that many people will go to for help and assistance, are concerned that organisations such as themselves are not listed and therefore are excluded. Also, I want to raise the point that this bill does not address prevention of sexual assault. This raises a significant missed opportunity. We need to make sure that if there are issues in workplaces, there should be almost a mandatory type of inclusion, I think. In workplace safety maybe there needs to be something included in there that can actually address this – not accusations – and also have an environment where people feel comfortable to actually come forward, speak their piece and raise issues. At the moment I think we are not focusing on prevention. We are not doing enough to make change through this bill that will make a significant difference and have a significant impact. The bill does not place a blanket ban on non-disclosure agreements. Rather, the bill seeks to ensure that non-disclosure agreements are used appropriately only in the circumstances in which they genuinely serve the interests of the complainant.

The bill before the house seeks to implement and act on recommendation 10 of the Victorian ministerial taskforce on workplace harassment. The taskforce itself was established in 2021 by the then Andrews government to develop reforms that will better prevent and respond to sexual harassment in workplaces. In doing so the taskforce made a total of 26 recommendations to the government across four main areas, those being preventing sexual harassment from occurring, supporting workers to report sexual harassment, enforcing compliance when there is a breach of health and safety duties, and raising awareness and promoting accountability in workplaces across Victoria. To date, following the taskforce’s final report to the government, the government has accepted 12 recommendations, accepted in part two recommendations, accepted in principle seven recommendations, noted one recommendation and considered that four recommendations require further consideration, yet we are only addressing one of the 26 recommendations in this bill. Recommendation 10 of the taskforce inquiry recommended that the Victorian government introduce legislative amendments to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in relation to workplace sexual harassment cases in Victoria using the Irish Employment Equality (Amendment) (Non-Disclosure Agreements) Bill 2021 and lessons from other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States as the model for reform. The question stands as to why it has taken more than three years for this piece of legislation to come before the Parliament, given that the ministerial taskforce delivered its final report to the government back in 2022. The report itself had identified that non-disclosure agreements are often misunderstood and misused to silence victims, protect employer reputations and shield serial offenders from accountability.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has also called for similar legislative reforms, noting that unrestricted non-disclosure agreements can perpetuate harm.

The reality today is that non-disclosure agreements have become common in the settlement of workplace sexual harassment complaints, yet they remain largely unregulated, not only across the country but particularly in this context. We have also seen other jurisdictions across the world act in this space, such as Ireland and Canada, both states which have introduced models centred on complainant choice, recognising profound power imbalances exist when a victim-survivor faces an employer in such negotiations. Power imbalances often leave victim-survivors feeling pressured, intimidated and ultimately silenced. This is an incredibly distressing and emotional time for any individual to go through, let alone experience – something no-one should have to go through. But what we have before us is a bill that seeks to change this, a bill that seeks to establish key preconditions that must be met before a workplace non-disclosure agreement can be entered into.

Importantly, though, a non-disclosure agreement may only be proposed if it is requested by the complainant and only if it is their express wish to do so. In practice this means an employer or respondent cannot require a complainant to keep confidential any material information about a sexual harassment incident unless it is at the complainant’s request. This is all about choice, and this is incredibly important. These are deeply distressing circumstances, and we must have legislation in place that does protect the rights and dignity of those affected by these matters. Also, it should be noted that this bill does not prevent employers from settling a workplace sexual harassment claim through a legal release or confidentiality over settlement amounts, where appropriate and lawful. If a complainant does not choose to request a non-disclosure agreement, the bill does require that they be provided with a workplace non-disclosure agreement information statement and a review period of at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seek legal advice. A complainant can choose a shorter period or waive it altogether if they wish.

We must restore choice and ensure that survivors of workplace and sexual harassment are not silenced and that they are heard. We must make sure that there are better processes in place. I think we also need to really stop and think about preventative measures so that we do not have people going through these incidents and we do not have organisations having to deal with these circumstances. I do not think it will ever, ever disappear. I think unfortunately there is always going to be more work to be done, and we have a duty of care to make sure that happens in the right way.

 Natalie HUTCHINS (Sydenham – Minister for Government Services, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women) (11:37): I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. While I know that this reform will improve industrial relations for all complainants of sexual harassment, there is a really important element of cultural change that is still a challenge for us across all of society when it comes to our workplaces and certainly the role of employers.

I want to focus specifically on the benefits to women that this bill will deliver. We know that now, even in 2025, women are still subject to sexual harassment at work. In fact four in five victims of sexual harassment at work are women. This happens through the continued gender inequality and power imbalances of colleagues, managers and bosses – mainly men – continuing to sexualise women in the workplace and refusing to understand that anything other than an enthusiastic yes should be interpreted as a no, whether that is through comments from a colleague that started with being a little off which then escalated to a sustained campaign of harassment or reminding women that no matter their professional contributions they are still denied the ability to work on equal terms with men in their workplaces when sexual harassment exists or subjecting women to questions and interrogations about their sex lives or romantic partners, making their lives at work miserable.

As the Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I have seen the damage and the pain that sexual harassment at work causes. I have seen it as an MP. I very, very sadly had a woman come to see me earlier this year in my electorate office, who was a cleaner of homes, who had been raped many years before by someone whose home she was cleaning. She had never disclosed and had never been to the police because they threatened her with saying that she was a bad cleaner if she reported it. But she felt that she needed to come and tell somebody so that it was recognised and asked me to work on stopping it from happening to anybody else.

I know firsthand from my own experience in the workforce and my very first job at the age of about 15½ or 16, as a waitress in an Italian restaurant, where I was made to wear a very short skirt as part of my uniform – compulsory. When I carried big trays of food or drinks, I would constantly have some of the customers, particularly on a Thursday night – I dreaded Thursday nights because there were actually AFL players at my restaurant that had been to training and would come in every Thursday night and they would run their hands up my legs while I was carrying the trays. It was actually about two weeks into my job that I dropped a tray of food when this happened, to which my boss at the time suggested that I might need to pay for what I had dropped, despite the fact that I had complained about the situation before. I took matters into my own hands, and not every woman has the power to do that – I understand that. I had a table arranged the following Thursday night of my brothers and cousins, who decided to take some matters into their own hands when this action happened again. It did stop it from happening to me ever again in that job. The point of me raising this is the fact that the employer did nothing about it at the time. But I could not afford to quit; I could not afford to lose that income at the time.

I know there would be so many women out there that would have experienced or would be in that situation where quitting is not an option and they need to stay, and unfortunately we have seen the widespread use of non-disclosure agreements mean that sort of behaviour is never tackled and there are no consequences for those who perpetrate it. There are cases where men who were at fault still get a sizeable bonus after an incident has happened. Despite their behaviour, they continue to be promoted in their workplace, because the harassment itself has been kept a secret. And given that perpetrators are mainly men, this feeds into the inexcusable inequity that we see in our workplaces. Men’s careers continue unimpeded and uninterrupted thanks to the long-term use of NDAs in many workplaces. And women – they quit, or they take time out, or they move sideways, or they actually face demotion after experiencing and reporting sexual harassment. What we say is: no more. That should not be happening in our Victorian workplaces.

Women are often forced to burn bridges with their employers, lose their connections and their networks and then exhaust themselves rebuilding their careers. Harassment keeps women out of senior leadership roles and allows Australian women to continue to face stubborn pay gaps. That is why I am really proud to support this reform. The bill means that NDAs have to be expressly requested by the complainant without pressure from an employer. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Industrial Relations for driving this work both when she was Attorney-General and now in her role as Treasurer and industrial relations minister.

The bill means that we can put pressure on the employer to do the right thing and give relief to women in the workplace. Employers cannot intimidate, threaten or financially incentivise with an NDA, and the bill establishes that employers cannot offer a settlement figure that is lower when an NDA is not included. We know that many victims of harassment, when everything is very successful and they are in the middle of the trauma, can sometimes choose to take up an NDA, seeing it as a way of moving on, and that is totally legitimate. I want to say to every woman who chooses that: that is your choice and it should be respected. If, as the years pass, she cannot speak about her experience – she cannot go to a partner or a family member or a doctor or someone that she needs to reach out to, like a religious leader – then she may begin to feel the weight of the NDA and the harassment on her shoulders.

So I am pleased that this bill makes it clear, firstly, that complainants can disclose the information to a friend or family member who has agreed to keep the information confidential, to a mental health professional or to an employer or prospective employer for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining work. Secondly, the bill will also mean that any complainant who enters into an NDA can opt to end it after 12 months. These are fantastic steps forward, and I want to thank the unions and the women’s organisations who have lobbied for this change for many years, and particularly Trades Hall, where I spent a few years of my career working before I was a politician. I know their tireless advocacy on systemic injustice that women face in the workplace has never fallen off the agenda. It has been at the forefront of their agenda.

The legislation also shows that Victoria is leading the nation and the world in what we are doing. We are the only Australian state or territory to be doing this, ending the injustice for women workers, and I think that is something to celebrate. We know that reforming NDAs is only part of the puzzle and that dismantling women’s inequality and sexual harassment will take real change and some time. It will also take all levels of government, employers, civil society and activists to make sure that we do not go backward and we keep moving forward. We are doing that as a government by investing in our Safe Workplaces for Women initiative, which is a $5.5 million commitment to work with our partners like VCCI, Victorian Trades Hall Council and the Working Women’s Centre to train workers and employers to know the law and how it should be engaged respectfully in the workplace to stop gendered violence at work. This is all through our leading Gender Equality Act 2020, which is being governed by the leadership of our commissioner Dr Niki Vincent, who is working so hard to close that gender pay gap but also to drill down into workplaces on sexual harassment. I commend the bill to the house.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:47): I too rise to make a contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Everyone should be safe at work, and that is not the case. That is why we are here with this particular bill at the moment. I do want to acknowledge those who have spoken before me and outlined some of their lived experience. The minister’s contribution made me shudder, actually, and it gave me goosebumps to think about what happened to her as a waitress. That should not happen to anyone. To think that some of these things still do. We do very much need to tackle gendered violence at work. I do not have lived experience to share with the house, and I count myself exceptionally lucky in the blessed work life that I have had.

At the heart of this bill are NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, and we have probably heard of them for years as confidentiality agreements. They have been means to settle cases either between individuals or between workplaces and individuals. It means pretty well that: a confidential agreement. Parties agree on the outcome and then they agree to keep quiet about it. That is what it is. That sounds fine on one level, but there is misuse of these agreements and they have silenced people. Too many times stories need to be told, and often it is only the brave people – and it is typically the women – that have to relive their story to let people know what has happened. It is easy to say to people, ‘Move on’, but people do not move on very easily, and we have got to make sure that we get this right.

We have seen too many instances where matters are pushed under the carpet – I think we have all probably seen those sorts of examples – and to the point where multiple claims against one person are not addressed. Sometimes you will see that the manager might be different, or the person might get moved and repeat the same behaviour. That repeated behaviour is allowed to continue, and the trail of victims is left in their wake to deal with their own trauma. This has been going on for too long.

Other times victims will be the ones who move on and the perpetrators stay put. I think the second-reading speech mentions that this bill will address the significant power imbalances in the non-disclosure agreement process, which often leave victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment feeling intimidated and forcibly silenced.

When people sign a confidentiality agreement, they expect some degree of silence, but at the same time it is so important that stories are told so the broader culture is changed, because if things are swept under the carpet continually, the culture does not change. Unless people hear these sorts of stories and know what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, things may not change. Sexual harassment at work: what can that look like? Touching inappropriately, groping, suggestion – lots of suggestions – unwelcome sexual advances, particularly jokes, emails, things left on people’s desks, photos being sent. At its inception I was at the WorkCover conciliation service, and we saw claims coming in, which had been disputed, about stress because people had been subject to behaviour in the workplace that some people thought was funny but for the particular people that they targeted, for whatever reasons, it was not funny and it caused a huge level of stress and anxiety.

The government know this has been a problem, and despite what has been said they have actually dragged their heels. In 2021 – which was not last week, was not last year; it was 2021 – they had the ministerial taskforce on workplace sexual harassment to develop reforms that will better prevent and respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. That was four years ago, and now we are only looking at one of 26 recommendations. As we have heard, other countries, such as Ireland and Canada, have moved forward in this space.

The bill before us is about restricting non-disclosure agreements. It will do this by restricting the circumstances in which non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment can be entered into, restricting the terms that may be included in non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment and restricting the enforceability of non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace factors as well.

The complainant may choose to terminate the agreement after 12 months if they change their mind. This is an interesting one, because you would think perhaps that once it is signed, it is signed, but when you are in those early stages of trauma, you are not thinking clearly. Your stress and anxiety levels are high, and you are not always in the best place to make a decision. It does not matter what sort of trauma that you have. I recall Black Saturday – quite a different example. But people made decisions at the time, and then 12 months later they looked back and thought, ‘Who made that decision? How did that happen? That’s not what we want at all.’ It is just another example that when you have got huge trauma and you enter into an agreement, you might not have made the right decision. I worry, though, because that gives people time to actually think, but the longer things draw out, the harder it is for people to make progress on their journey of recovery, and I do worry that there may be unintended consequences here, that agreements are not entered into.

What are the other options? Well, there are no winners when things go to court, because that drags it out for donkey’s and people relive and relive and they tell their stories again and again to the courts, to their barristers and to family and friends. It goes on, and we need to make sure that people are supported through these situations. It is not just ‘Okay, you’ll get a sum of money’ and that is it. We need to make sure that people are supported so that they can unpack that trauma and they can work through it, because we have heard examples here of when these sorts of situations live on with people for a very long time.

As I have said, there is concern that this may make it less likely that employers and alleged perpetrators want to settle disputes given that it can come back in 12 months and they might say, ‘Well, what’s the point of doing this?’ This is something that I do worry about, because it is so important that those who have been subject to sexual harassment in the workplace are heard and justice is done, because we do not want perpetrators who think things are funny and who continue to act unacceptably in the workplace – and sometimes not in the workplace. They might take these things to functions where they bump into people in community. Sometimes that happens in workplaces. People may see one of their work colleagues in the community and they can still be harassed there.

One of the changes is that employers cannot initiate conversations around an NDA, and that comes back to the complainant. They are already in a really pressured spot, and it can increase the pressure on this person in an already difficult situation. It is so important that people who have experienced this find those that they can confide in and find people to talk to. We actually heard the member for Shepparton saying that in her role people do speak to them about that. My hairdresser tells me all the time: ‘You can’t believe some of the stories that people tell.’ But you need to have people that you can talk to about what has happened, to help share that load and to work out what you need to do, because the worst thing that can happen is these things drag on for years and years and years without being resolved. We need to help people resolve things expeditiously, but we also need to make sure that the balance is right and that the victims of harassment are not the ones who are disadvantaged time after time, which is what we have seen happen, which is exactly the reason we are here today debating this. We should all be safe. Women particularly should not be subjected to sexual harassment at work, and this needs to change.

 Vicki WARD (Eltham – Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Natural Disaster Recovery, Minister for Equality) (11:57): I want to acknowledge the lived experience of those who have been harassed and abused at work, those who have spoken of their experience already and those who no doubt will speak of their experience throughout this debate. I think it would be hard to find a woman in this place who has not experienced sexual harassment at some point in their working life, whether that is at a part-time job, like the member for Sydenham, or even out on the hustings, as we always are, where we are at an event and some bloke who we barely know will grab us and bring us in for that really big squeezy hug and kiss. It can make you feel pretty uncomfortable, and that is just at the very light end of the sexual harassment scale. And of course this is something that these people would never do to another man. They do not grab an MP and bring him in for the big hug.

Non-disclosure agreements were set up to protect the intellectual and corporate knowledge, skills and plans of an organisation. They were not set up to protect predators, but that is exactly what their misuse does. The CEO of the Working Women’s Centre Australia Abbey Kendall said at a conference last year:

There is growing evidence internationally that NDAs compound a person’s distress and pain, makes them feel that their own needs are being trampled on or betrayed, and creates feelings of debilitating shame and burden including around not warning others.

Through non-disclosure agreements that are used in this context, predators have been enabled to continue their dangerous, ugly, aggressive and violent behaviour because a workplace non-disclosure agreement has been signed which hides their crime.

I am going to talk about quite a well-known example. Its infamy is what makes it a very good example of why NDAs that protect predators are indeed dangerous.

In 1998 Rowena Chiu was successful in getting what she thought was her big break when she went to work as Harvey Weinstein’s private assistant. She said:

When you’re 24 years old, you’re going into an entire industry of people desperate to come and work in Harvey’s office.

She was forced to sign an NDA, meaning she was compelled to be silent about her experience for 20 years – her experience of almost being raped, of having to work with somebody who had his hotel room set up like an office. It was essentially a workplace, but it was a workplace in which her boss chose to walk around in his bathrobe or even at times, as she says, utterly naked. Miramax lawyers coerced her into signing a non-disclosure agreement. Her experience meant that she struggled to find work in an industry that she loved, an industry that she was so glad to be a part of. Her whole career path changed. She attempted suicide twice. What she experienced had a lasting effect on her.

Miramax’s refusal to address this horrendous problem of Weinstein’s predatory behaviour, to cover it up with an NDA, meant not only did Ms Chiu not receive the support she needed but also so many more women were abused, attacked and raped by this man. His predatory behaviour was enabled and allowed to continue. Over 80 women have come forward to tell their truth of Weinstein’s abuse of them, and I would imagine that there are many more who are not able to come forward. There are a whole bunch of reasons why that would be the case, so it will always be unknown how many women he abused. The extent of this abuse would never have happened had Miramax confronted the harm of Weinstein’s behaviour instead of insisting on NDAs which cloaked his crimes. The misuse of NDAs, where the organisation and the perpetrator have the power, has the consequence of hiding criminal behaviour – a consequence I doubt was intended when NDAs first came into place to protect organisations.

In the study Let’s Talk About Confidentiality Regina Featherstone from the Human Rights Law Centre and Sharmilla Bargon from the Redfern Legal Centre found that:

NDAs can be a mutually agreed and legitimate solution, including in incidents of harassment. But the systematic overuse of NDAs, together with unchecked power imbalances in workplaces, has also enabled employers to cover up patterns of misconduct and protect repeat abusers. This abuse of NDAs is just one of the ways in which the law disadvantages and discriminates against women, particularly women of colour and indigenous women.

In the report they also found that 75 per cent of legal professionals have never reached a sexual harassment settlement without strict NDA terms, which is insane. It shows what a thoughtless default position it is. Fifty per cent of solicitors who responded to the survey had never advised their clients that sexual harassment matters can be resolved without strict NDA confidentiality terms. This shows the extent to which these NDAs are misused. NDAs that silence victim-survivors also mean that the majority, if not all, of the victim-survivor tax is paid by the victim-survivor, not the predator. What I mean by this is that the financial costs of changing jobs, of going to therapy and of supporting recovery are overwhelmingly borne by the one who can least afford it, the victim-survivor. Instead the predator is able to move on to the next person – the next person they can hurt, the next person they can damage.

The Speak Out survey, conducted by UK organisation Speak Out Revolution, found that 95 per cent of victim-survivors who signed an NDA experienced harm to their mental health, as they were prevented from speaking about their experience. The survey quotes a victim-survivor who spoke about experiencing mental health challenges, including PTSD, for a considerable length of time. When we know that one in three people have been sexually harassed in our country over the last few years, we know we need to ensure that this is not covered up, that perpetrators are held to account and that workplaces are safer. If there is no cloak of secrecy available, such as a non-disclosure agreement, it can lead these opportunistic predators to make different choices – that is, choose to not do harm, as they may well be held to account, rather than hide behind a side agreement which time and time again lets them get away with their abhorrent behaviour.

But of course this figure is not the whole story. NDAs, as they currently stand, mean we cannot know about the full extent of this hideous behaviour. It is not always easy to disclose that you have been a victim to this harmful behaviour, and many never complain, they just leave the workplace. Through these reforms we are putting the voice of the victim-survivor first, not protecting the reputation of the predatory perpetrator. They also address the recommendation from the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment. There has also been considerable committee work done, and I thank the chair, the member for Thomastown, and all ministers, their staff and departments who have worked so hard on this legislation. I also thank the union movement, who have campaigned and worked on bringing these changes into reality. This is a really good example of the importance of unions and the transformations that they can bring to the rights of workers at work.

This legislation means our state joins a small number of jurisdictions internationally who have also recognised the harm that is created by allowing the misuse of NDAs to cover up workplace harassment, abuse and bad behaviour, and we are the only jurisdiction in our country that has also got this legislation at the table. Again, our state is showing how we are at the forefront when it comes to workers rights, when it comes to protecting workers, when it comes to ensuring the rights of women and when it comes to protecting women. This state is always at the front. This state is always the one leading the way when it comes to social justice, and it is through the leadership of our party and of our government that we see this coming about.

It is important to note these reforms do not prohibit the use of NDAs in their entirety in workplace sexual harassment matters, but what they do is transfer power to the victim-survivor, not to the perpetrator and not to the organisation. It means that the victim-survivor has control and power over their narrative and how they want their narrative to be disclosed if they do wish that to happen. It creates strong safeguards around how they are used and better balances the rights of victims as to how they engage with these agreements. We are putting the victim-survivor front and centre, where they should be, and giving control and power back to them when the perpetrator has tried to take it away from them. This is important work by our government, and I absolutely commend this bill.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:07): I too rise to talk about the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. The bill is for an act to promote the health, safety and welfare of persons at work by regulating non-disclosure agreements relating to sexual harassment at work and for other purposes. From the outset, as other members have done, I would like to thank all the members that have been on their feet for sharing their stories and the members to follow. The member for Evelyn led off for us on this side of the house. We heard her story and how it still affects her today. These things have been kept silent for so long. We need to talk about them. We need to put mechanisms in place so that this is called out and we look after the victims that it does happen to, even though it should not happen to them.

As the member for Mordialloc articulated very well, it is predominantly a male issue – male bosses that are overstepping, I think, in their own thoughts of their importance and think that they can actually dominate and harass people into doing things and coerce them into situations. That needs to be called out first and foremost. To anybody that gets up after me and the ones that have been before me: I am extremely sorry that you have had to go through this stuff. I am hoping that with what we are doing today in this chamber – and it is work that we are in agreeance about on both sides of the house – we can get this through, because we know this needs to happen to keep people, and predominantly women, safe in our workforce.

As I said, the main purposes of the bill are restricting the circumstances in which non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment can be entered into, restricting the terms that may be included in non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment and restricting the enforceability of non-disclosure agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment. First and foremost, there is no place at all for sexual harassment in any workplace. We do not accept it in this place. I am sure every member that is in here does not accept it. It should not be accepted on union worksites, and we have heard stories about how that has happened. It should not be accepted on any job sites in Victoria.

I know in our previous professions we were on these worksites working, and when we first started going out, learning our trade at trade school, it was predominantly a male-based environment. I am sure over the journey we have probably had conversations amongst the boys as we have sat around the brew house or having a chat and have spoken in the wrong context about women. There were no advances or anything like that, but I think it just shows that your voice can be a tool to actually make other people, and particularly women in a work environment, feel unsafe and vulnerable. It has moved on from that now with the invention of mobile phones, how people can actually coerce others. We see it all the time. We even hear about it in schools and about how it can be done. It is just not good enough. It is a standard that we have walked past for too long and it must stop. I suppose as you go through your journey and you have children yourself, you want to set the right parameters and the right environment and make sure that your daughter is not harassed and, on the flip side, that your son knows what the rules are.

We have spoken about consequences a lot this week in other bills. Well, what we are doing here is putting consequences in place – ‘Here are the ground rules; this can no longer go ahead’ – because I think individuals in organisations have got away with it for too long. We have all heard stories, and we have all heard people talk about things that should not have happened but that they got away with because it was covered up. That is the bottom line – these non-disclosure agreements in their current form get to cover it up. The boss gets to move on and continue to be a boss and eventually a new lot of workers come through, but maybe that boss is thinking, ‘Here comes a new lot of victims that I can coerce,’ and that needs to stop. I think what we are putting up here in the chamber is a first step to stamping that out.

As I moved on through my journey as a tradie, Acting Speaker Farnham – and I am sure you were the same – we started to get more and more women come into our trades, whether it be plumbing, building or electrical. We needed to make sure that there is a pathway for these young girls – and they were starting off as apprentices; they were vulnerable 16, 17-year-old women coming through – and that there is something tangible that they can engage in if this does happen to them and that it is not ‘If you don’t be quiet and say nothing, you’re going to lose your job’. That is furthest from the point of where we need to be as a society, and it is a society issue. We need to have firm standards so that people know that it is just not accepted anymore.

As we have moved on in the trades, we have now got entire companies that are actually made up of female tradies. It just shows you how far that we have come in that aspect. If we are moving along the timeline and allowing women – not allowing women but wanting women – to come into that environment, whether it be at a tradie level, on a worksite or on a Big Build in Melbourne, and welcoming them coming in, well, there need to be those protections from people that are doing the wrong thing and, as I said before, waiting for that next lot of victims, unfortunately, to come through because they have never, ever been pulled up on it. There are times where they have done the wrong thing and there is no-one to say, ‘Hey, enough’s enough.’ There is always a clause or an avenue for them to be able to wriggle their way out of it, so it is all covered up.

People talk about it behind closed doors – I am sure they talk about it behind closed doors. And it is a problem of society that we need to make sure that we do stamp out. We are coming up to the season of Christmas, and it is probably unfortunately heightened sometimes around this time of year. As the Minister for Emergency Services said before, it is even at the very outer limit, that unwanted advance of someone getting right up close and personal with you. There needs to be that mechanism of ‘That’s not good enough either.’ If it is an unwanted advance, ‘Well, take a step back, champ. It’s not warranted.’ And that is on both sides now, both male and female. But I think that we really need to make sure these are in place for our victims, because that is who we are talking about today, victims that have carried this for 20, 30, 40 years. It is not a new thing that has happened. But it is excellent today that we can be passing some legislation and amendments up here in this bill to make sure that it is stamped out, because at the end of the day – and I congratulate this bill going through – we need to make sure that all workers are safe here in Victoria.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (12:17): I too would like to commence my contribution to this bill by just reflecting on the contributions already made in the chamber today and, as the member for Morwell stated, those that will follow as well. Many personal stories have already been shared and I am sure many more are to come, because the sobering fact is that sexual harassment, including in the workplace, is all too prevalent.

I would like to just call out and in particular make mention of the Minister for Women for her very personal contribution and the member for Evelyn and her courage in talking about her experience as well, which has clearly deeply affected her. I think there are many of us in here who have had their own experiences. I will be sharing mine shortly too, but I did just want to make some opening remarks about non-disclosure agreements.

It is believed that they originated roughly in the 1940s in maritime law, and they were designed to protect trade secrets and shipping routes. Then in the 1980s they really sort of flourished again with the tech industry to, again, protect trade secrets. They were there to make sure that the company’s interests were protected, so that employees who worked for them could not just pick up that information and run off somewhere else and steal it, in effect. So they have a place. That is where they have a place. Where they do not have a place is when victim-survivors of sexual harassment in the workplace are compelled to sign a non-disclosure agreement to effectively gag them. As I said before, it really is a sobering fact that sexual harassment is all too prevalent in our workplaces.

For the purposes of those listening and for Hansard, I wanted to just talk about the actual definition of sexual harassment. It is:

… unwelcome sexual behaviour that causes a person to feel offended, humiliated or intimidated, where a reasonable person could have anticipated that reaction in the circumstances.

It includes:

•   an unwelcome sexual advance

•   an unwelcome request for sexual favours

•   any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

Ask pretty much any woman – and in some cases men too – if they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, and, disturbingly, they will likely respond yes, they have. One in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years alone – that is a staggering number in 2025. This is not the Mad Men era of the 1960s, this is a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and it is still happening at this frequent and even growing rate.

Compounding the trauma of experiencing sexual harassment is the staggering use of NDAs. The Speak Out survey by the UK organisation Speak Out Revolution says that of people who had signed an NDA in sexual harassment cases, 95 per cent of them had experienced negative impacts on their mental health, and that was stemming from their inability to speak about those experiences, including sometimes with mental health professionals, who are the ones who should be able to assist you to go through that and to actually heal from the experience that you have had.

I have experienced sexual harassment so many times in my lifetime in the workplace, and prior to and outside of it, it is staggering. My first experience of sexual harassment that I recall was as a 16-year-old girl being locked on the school bus by the bus driver, who decided to talk to me about his sex life. I was 16 years old. I was the last kid on the bus. I managed to lie my way off that bus and I got out of there safely, but I felt sick. It then happened when there was another person in a position of authority over me who propositioned me when I was 16. He was in his mid-20s. He was in a position of authority. I was terrified. I felt like a trapped animal. It was horrifying. I have been sexually molested on a tram; I did get the guy arrested a fortnight later. I have been sexually molested on a train. So that is three forms of transport there. I have experienced it in the workplace. I was working at a pub in Manchester, carrying pint glasses, collecting them, stacked up in both arms, when I was frontally groped by a guy attending. It might not be the way that you should deal with it, but the way it was dealt with then was by security basically helping him on his way down the stairs – but he did not walk down those stairs. It was horrendous. You are vulnerable. You are trying to earn a living. I was listening to the Minister for Women talking about the fact that you have to show up for work again the next day or you cannot pay your rent or you do not eat if you do not get that meal, and you are seen as a commodity by some when you work in hospitality or retail.

Later on, as a union official for the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, I had the privilege of actually conducting sexual harassment training for all union officials around the country. We took it out as an annual roadshow, and the stories that came back, the things that we heard from members and the sexual harassment that they had experienced – women who were raped and still had to go to work, who had experienced the worst, most egregious forms of sexual harassment and those who had experienced it on the other end of the scale who were also affected terribly. The thought that an NDA can stop you from seeking the help you need and being able to talk about it is horrendous, because the way I have managed to work through the multiple experiences I have had is through the capacity to talk about it with trusted people and talk through it. For those who cannot, because of this, I am so pleased. I am so proud that we are leading the nation on ensuring that NDAs will only exist when it is the victim-survivor who wants them genuinely for themselves and not because a company or an organisation is out there trying to protect itself. There is no reason that they would compel a victim-survivor to undertake a non-disclosure agreement other than the fact that they want to protect their reputation and the perpetrator, who is often – not always, but often – in a position of power over the person who has been subject to that sexual harassment.

It has also happened in times gone past – and many of us will know this too – that sometimes those perpetrators manage to fail upwards and get promoted, or it is the victim-survivor who gets told, ‘We’re moving you out of that area.’

And they may be thriving in their job. They may be doing a great job at what they are doing – skilled, knowledgeable, feeling wonderful – but because they then are sexually harassed by someone else, they get moved out like they have been the problem. It is egregious and it has happened all too often. I saw it in my union days, and I still hear those stories coming to me now. I am beyond thrilled that we have introduced this, which puts the victim-survivor at the centre of the decision-making when it comes to a non-disclosure agreement, which is precisely the way it should be and precisely the way it should be around the rest of the country and across every jurisdiction. I do hope that those around our states and territories are watching this carefully. I hope that they follow suit as well, because no woman in this country and no woman in the world – no person in the world; it is not just women, but by and large the majority are women, unfortunately – should have to be subject to sexual harassment in the first instance. But the second compounding effect on them and the further damage that is done by being told, ‘You can’t ever discuss this with anyone ever again, because we have compelled you to do this. If you want to see any kind of justice, that’s what you need to sign up to,’ is abhorrent. I could not be prouder of our government for bringing this legislation in. I am really pleased that going forward, once this becomes legislation and is in effect, this will be consigned to the annals of history where it absolutely belongs. I commend the bill to the house.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:26): I rise to speak today on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, a matter that touches the lives of many in our community, particularly women and children who have experienced the trauma of sexual harassment and family violence. This legislation before us seeks to reform the use of non-disclosure agreements – NDAs – in the resolution of sexual harassment complaints. Whilst I welcome any genuine effort to improve outcomes for those affected, I do have some concerns about the unintended consequences of the bill – such is the role of scrutinising any piece of legislation. It is essential that we get this right – that is undeniable – not just for the complainants but for the integrity of our legal system and the confidence of all the parties involved.

Let me begin by acknowledging the importance of addressing the misuse of NDAs. There have been cases where NDAs were used inappropriately, where they have served to conceal misconduct or silence individuals, and that is unacceptable. Reform is needed, but reform must be balanced, practical and grounded in procedural fairness. Bills like this need to be reviewed to ensure any unintended consequences are picked up, reviewed and addressed. Under the proposed legislation, NDAs can be unilaterally repudiated by the complainant after 12 months without cause. This fundamentally alters the nature of a legal agreement. It removes certainty and finality from the settlement process, and alleged perpetrators may be far less willing to enter these settlements if the terms can be broken at any time. This risks increasing the number of contested complaints and prolonging legal disputes, ultimately disadvantaging the very individuals the bill aims to protect.

We must also consider the pressure this places on complainants. By placing the entire decision about initiating an NDA onto the complainant, we risk adding complexity and emotional strain in an already very difficult situation. Settlement negotiations are challenging enough. Introducing uncertainty about whether confidentiality can be maintained even when the complainant wants it may deter resolution and increase distress. It is important to recognise that NDAs can protect complainants too. For some, confidentiality is a source of safety, closure and empowerment. If a complainant wishes to resolve a matter privately and permanently, they should be able to do so. This legislation removes that option. It takes away the ability of a complainant to offer permanent confidentiality, even if they choose to. In doing so, it restricts their autonomy and agency.

The bill’s provisions around permitted disclosures are vague and inconsistent. Allowing complainants to share information with a friend or family member who has agreed to keep the information confidential is unenforceable and opens the door to unintended breaches. At the same time, the list of permitted disclosure entities is overly prescriptive and yet simultaneously loose. For example, Sexual Assault Services Victoria have raised concerns that organisations like theirs are not explicitly listed, potentially excluding them from the process. Meanwhile, other sections of the bill allow disclosures to undefined classes of people prescribed by future regulations, regulations that may not even exist at the time the NDA is signed. This creates legal uncertainty and undermines the integrity of the agreement. Perhaps most troubling is the principle embedded in the legislation that no matter is ever closed. This is a dangerous precedent because NDAs have long provided a way for both parties to resolve matters privately and move on. This legislation removes that option. It assumes good faith from all complainants but provides no safeguards against misuse. One party can cancel the agreement while the other party remains bound to their obligations. That does not feel like justice.

Let us also ask: why has it taken four years for the government to act on this issue? The Victorian ministerial council on sexual harassment was established in 2021. Since then we have seen a wave of federal reforms. The Australian Human Rights Commission published guidelines in 2022 on the use of confidentiality clauses in workplace sexual harassment settlements. The federal discrimination act was amended to introduce a new positive duty on employers. The Australian Human Rights Commission, again, assumed new enforcement powers from December 2023. The Victorian Legal Services Board and commissioner issued its own advice to lawyers on NDAs in 2023. And a new federal work health and safety sexual harassment code of practice came into effect in March 2025. Employers are still digesting some of these changes, and they are updating policies, training staff and working to comply with new obligations. So this bill adds another layer, one that conflicts with existing frameworks and could create further uncertainty. Employers, especially small businesses, will be caught up in the middle, unsure of which rules to follow and how to comply.

In my own electorate we have seen the closure of Emma House, a legal assistance service – a vital lifeline for women and children escaping family violence. I have called on the Minister for Women and Minister for Prevention of Family Violence to intervene and help reopen this service. While we wait for action on that front, we are now being asked to support legislation that will make it even harder for vulnerable women to access justice. I think that is unacceptable.

We must protect victims of sexual harassment, but we must also ensure that our legal frameworks are fair, clear and workable. That means listening to the concerns of employers, employees, legal experts and community organisations. It means aligning with national reforms, not diverging from them. It means ensuring that our laws support – not hinder – and actually deliver justice.

This bill concerns me, and I think a review will be crucial so that any unintended consequences are captured. While the principle is we want to protect women from being sexually harassed in the workplace, we also do not want to create a situation that does not actually address that or enhance that. So I see an opportunity here for us to address this in the upper house, to just perhaps ask the government to consider the timeframe around this bill’s review. I look forward to seeing that debated further in the upper house.

 Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (12:34): I rise today to speak in strong support of the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, a bill that restores dignity, agency and choice to victim-survivors and begins to dismantle a culture of silence that has enabled workplace sexual harassment for far too long. This bill is about power and who has historically been denied it. Today, with these reforms, we affirm that the voices of women matter, their experiences matter and their right to speak and to heal matters.

Before I go into the bill itself, there are some people I would like to acknowledge: of course all of those that worked on the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment and all of the people that engaged with both that taskforce and also through the Engage Victoria website. I do want to give a special nod to the We Are Union Women group. I had the absolute pleasure of meeting with Wil Stracke, the assistant secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall, and also Carolyn Dunbar, the women’s lead at Trades Hall, a month or so ago. They came to talk about this important piece of legislation and what it means to workers across the trade union movement. They had advocated for quite some time on this policy, and I am really glad that they can see that the government has listened and that we are moving forward with this incredibly important bill. But as I said, hats off to them for their strong advocacy on this matter.

As we heard before, non-disclosure agreements were originally designed to protect trade secrets, but in workplace sexual harassment matters they have become something entirely different. They have become, in the words of one contributor to the consultations, a secret weapon to commit, cover and suppress workplace sexual violence. Of course the numbers speak for themselves: one in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the last five years – the overwhelming majority of course are women – more than 50 per cent reported harm to their work and 26 per cent said that it damaged their career progression. Far too often these women were then pressured to sign NDAs, preventing them from speaking to their friends, their families, their union, their doctors or their psychologists. This is not justice. This is not safety. This is silence, and silence protects perpetrators, not victims.

I do want to make the point as a regional MP that, sadly, this is not restricted to the major cities. Indeed workers in the regions face the same issues, to some degree possibly even heightened. When you live in a small community and you are very well known, that pressure for silence can often be even greater on women.

This bill of course does not ban NDAs outright; it is more sophisticated, but most importantly, it is victim-centred. The approach has been to shift that power back to the worker who has been aggrieved. An NDA can only be used if requested by the complainant, not offered, not hinted at and not tied to financial incentives. The idea must come from the worker themselves. The bill prohibits employers from threatening reputational harm or loss of future work, offering higher payouts only if an NDA is signed or using any form of intimidation or undue influence.

I am keeping my speech short today, because I know that so many people on this side of the house want to speak to this bill. It is something that is deeply embedded in all of our values, which is the protection of people in their workplace. So I will keep my contribution short. Suffice it to say that for working women in health, education, hospitality, care work, retail and agriculture across my electorate, this reform matters. This bill is thoughtful, balanced and profoundly important. It restores power to victim-survivors, it prioritises safety and transparency over secrecy and shame and it honours the courage of those who have fought for that change. Again I thank the mighty union movement but in particular the mighty We Are Union Women for all that they have done to see this bill come to the house.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (12:39): I rise to speak to the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. It is a stark reality that one in three workers report having been sexually harassed in the workplace in the last five years, and there is an increasing culture of workplaces requiring workers to sign non-disclosure agreements during the settlement of sexual harassment cases, impacting victim-survivors, protecting perpetrators and putting more people at risk. That is why the Greens will support this bill, which restricts NDAs being used by employers to silence victim-survivors of sexual harassment at work. The bill delivers protections for workers subject or allegedly subject to sexual harassment, including prohibiting non-disclosure agreements unless they have been requested by the complainant; mandatory requirements for information statements and a review period before a worker signs a non-disclosure agreement; prohibiting an employer from pressuring or influencing a worker to enter a non-disclosure agreement; allowing a worker who has entered into a non-disclosure agreement to talk to certain people and bodies like Victoria Police and medical and legal professionals; and allowing a worker to end a non-disclosure agreement after 12 months of notice to the other party.

In a survey last year by Let’s Talk about Confidentiality, 75 per cent of lawyers surveyed said that they had never resolved a sexual harassment complaint without a strict non-disclosure agreement attached. Requiring victim-survivors to sign an NDA not only impacts their ability to share their experiences, it can cause deep harm, and many victim-survivors often regret signing these agreements as they process their experience and as time progresses. These NDAs can allow perpetrators to continue to work without consequences and allow bosses to evade their responsibility for providing a safe workplace. NDAs have almost always been requested by the employer and not the employee, and that is why these changes are so important.

Union women have been advocating strongly for years to have these laws introduced, and it is a testament to their efforts that these NDAs will now be restricted in these cases. So I want to thank Trades Hall and all the incredible advocates who have been pushing for this legislation for many years. With this bill NDAs in such cases will now only be permitted if they are explicitly requested by victim-survivors and this request is initiated by the victim-survivor without any coercion. The Greens support this bill. We hope it helps to put an end to the insidious practice of non-disclosure agreements being used to cover up abuse, because everyone should have a workplace that is free of sexual harassment, gendered violence and cultures of silence, and all workers should be protected and empowered.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (12:42): I rise today in passionate support of the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. As the member for Mulgrave, a community built on the strength of its diverse families and hardworking people, and as a psychologist, I have heard countless stories of resilience. Although not personally impacted by workplace sexual harassment, I have supported many people experiencing the trauma of it. I understand the profound and lingering damage that workplace sexual harassment inflicts on women in particular, and today we have heard so many countless personal stories of those impacted here in this place. The conversation we are having today is not merely about contract law or setting a legal dispute, it is about trauma, it is about healing, and above all, it is about the right to tell your own truth.

Sexual harassment is not a misunderstanding. It is not because a woman acted a certain way. It is a profound violation of safety and dignity. It leaves survivors wrestling with complex psychological injuries, chronic anxiety, depression, hypervigilance and in many cases post-traumatic stress disorder. A person’s workplace is supposed to be a place of economic stability and professional purpose. When that environment is corrupted by harassment, it shatters fundamental assumptions about safety. The victim is left with a gaping, often invisible wound. This primary trauma is devastating enough. It not only impacts the survivor but their entire network – their family, their friends, their way of life. But for too long a secondary systemic injury has been inflicted upon survivors through the insidious misuse of non-disclosure agreements. NDAs in this context are not tools of business confidentiality, they are instruments of psychological confinement. They weaponise silence against the victim’s healing process.

Psychological recovery from trauma requires integration. It requires making sense of what happened, validating their experience and sharing their story with trusted support networks. When an NDA forbids a survivor from speaking, it forces them back into a state of cognitive dissonance and isolation, subjecting them to risk of PTSD and other harms. That silence ensures the trauma remains unintegrated, a live wire constantly ready to retraumatise them over and over again. The NDA protects the reputation of the perpetrator and the employer, but it guarantees the long-term psychological suffering of the victim-survivor. It is not justice, it is the institutionalisation of denial and cover-ups. It sets a workplace culture that does not support victim-survivors; instead, it gags them.

This bill is also a crucial step in addressing intersectionality – the reality that harassment does not happen in a vacuum. The impact of the NDA is magnified tenfold for our most vulnerable workers. I think of women in my electorate, particularly those who are migrant women, often working in casual, unstable and low-wage sectors like cleaning, farmhand, hospitality or aged care. For these women the intersection of gender, race, language barriers and economic insecurity makes the NDA a non-negotiable tool of oppression. In a seat where many women have come to our nation as refugees, this oppression conjures up and exacerbates past traumas. Imagine a woman, perhaps a single mum, who has experienced harassment, who is trying to support her family and whose visa status is perhaps tied to this employment. When a settlement offer is presented with a non-negotiable gag clause, she is not negotiating from a position of power, she is negotiating from a position of desperation. That NDA is not a choice; it is extortion. The employer knows that her need for money to survive and for a reference to stay employed outweighs her capacity to fight for her voice. The NDA becomes a mechanism to conceal serial offending not just from the public but from regulators and, critically, from other workers who might be at risk. It creates a revolving door of abuse, with the silence of the last victim enabling the harm of the next.

This bill directly addresses this power imbalance by mandating that an NDA must be the choice of the survivor. By requiring mandatory legal review and information and by ensuring they can speak to their doctor, their union or Victoria Police, we give agency back to those who have had it systematically stripped away. We turn the act of signing a legal document from an instrument of coercion into an exercise of empowerment.

This government is delivering on our commitment to putting victim-survivors first. This nation-leading reform is not radical, it is fundamentally decent. It is about transparency, accountability and the moral imperative to foster safe workplaces. We cannot hope to solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment if we continue to bury the evidence under layers of mandated silence. By passing this bill we do more than just change a few lines of legislation. We send a clear message from this Parliament, and we tell our communities: your voice matters, your story is valid and your healing will not be sacrificed to protect the reputations of the powerful.

I want to thank the Minister for Industrial Relations for putting this bill to Parliament and Trades Hall and the voice of the unions for their strong advocacy on this. I commend this vital bill to the house.

 Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:49): The coalition does not oppose this bill. I think there is a good case to be made that non-disclosure agreements have been overused on many occasions and have been used to cover up unacceptable and in some cases illegal workplace conduct, so this is a problem which does need to be tackled. The government seeks to tackle it by effectively restricting the ability for NDAs to be entered into, and the government seeks to place a number of conditions on the use of NDAs through this bill.

First of all – and I think this is an important one – it must be the complainant’s initiative to want to have a non-disclosure agreement. This means that it is not going to be possible for an employer, for example, to suggest an NDA to somebody who is complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace. The initiative, the power, the agency must lie entirely with the person who has made the complaint, and I think that is appropriate, because obviously there can be power imbalances in employment relationships and it is important that we seek to address those. So the first precondition for an NDA to be able to used under this bill is that it must be at the complainant’s request to enter into it. This is in the legislation – not just that the complainant must request it but that it must be the complainant’s express wish and preference to enter into the agreement. Obviously, the complainant must be given a copy of the workplace non-disclosure agreement information statement. This is information that will be provided by the government to ensure that people are aware of their rights and responsibilities should they wish to go down this path of entering into an NDA. The complainant must be given a period of at least 21 days to review the agreement before entering into it, and before the complainant enters into the agreement the complainant must acknowledge, in a form approved by the secretary, that the preconditions referred to above have been met.

There are a couple of interesting things in this bill. Clause 9 provides that a workplace non-disclosure agreement must be written in plain language. I understand that in an ideal world we probably would not have lawyers at all, which might have put me out of a job a few years ago. In an ideal world we would have everything written in plain language. I think this is a very commendable provision. I just ask: when is the government going to apply this to legislation that, for example, small business has to deal with every day? When is the government going to apply this to regulations that ordinary workers, ordinary Victorians, have to deal with every day? This government is the master of complex, hard-to-understand, hard-to-read legislation and regulation, and it imposes a huge burden on a lot of ordinary Victorians and a lot of Victorian small businesses. I remember once in here as Shadow Treasurer debating some changes to the Payroll Tax Act 2007, and it used a formula that would not have been out of place in a Nobel Prize–winning mathematical essay – and small business people are expected to wind their way through this technical gobbledegook that the government imposes on them. So I commend the government for saying that a workplace non-disclosure agreement must be written in plain language. I just hope the government starts applying that obligation to itself when it comes to legislation and regulation it brings into this place. But I do think it is a commendable principle, because we want these matters to be understandable as much as possible.

The government, through this legislation, also provides that 12 months after an NDA is entered into the complainant effectively has the ability to repudiate it, and they can do so by providing simple notice to the company concerned. This is an interesting provision because generally we accept that when people are adults and when people have agency they can enter into agreements that they regard as being in their best interests. The government is saying here that 12 months after an agreement has been not just voluntarily entered into but sought by the complainant, the complainant can also choose to repudiate it. There might be times when, if somebody does not have the right advice at the time they enter into it, that would be justified. But there might also be times when this actually reduces the value of the NDA to a complainant. So I will be very interested to see how this provision works out, because I understand what the government is trying to do. I think their concern is that there might be complainants who think it is in their interest to enter into an NDA and then 12 months later they might think, ‘Well, no, that wasn’t the right thing to do, and I wanted to be able to talk about this publicly or in some other way’. Therefore there is, effectively, an out clause. I understand that is the government’s intent, and so far as that goes, it is an understandable one and it is a commendable one. I do, though, wonder whether a number of businesses may not be willing to enter into an NDA, even one that the complainant wants, because they will say, ‘What’s the point if it can be just simply repudiated 12 months later?’

For a complainant who wants an NDA, is this going to mean that the party on the other side will be less willing to enter into one? That could be an unintended consequence. I hope that is not the case, because this is important legislation; it is tackling a serious problem. But I do hope that we do not have any unintended consequences which could actually lead to less power in the hands of complainants when it comes to these sorts of matters.

Obviously, we do not want to see sexual harassment, particularly when sexual harassment can also rise to the level of crime, being covered up, we do not want to see this being hidden and we do not want see it being swept under the carpet, and I think it is very important that we do respect the rights of people who have been subject to workplace sexual harassment to be able to report that to authorities. It is extremely important. Effectively, businesses should not be able to buy the silence of people who they have let down by having an environment in which workplace sexual harassment can occur.

I should briefly mention the reason behind this legislation. It came from some recommendations from the Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment, which was chaired by the member for Broadmeadows and the then Equal Workplaces Advisory Council chair Liberty Sanger. Liberty Sanger, I think a former Maurice Blackburn partner, has now been appointed to the County Court of Victoria – Judge Sanger and now the State Coroner. I knew Her Honour back in university days, from student politics, but out of great respect for the judiciary I will not go into any stories from those days. I will leave my remarks at that, other than to say that I think this is a bill seeking to tackle a very important workplace issue, and on that basis we do wish it success.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:57): In the couple of minutes before lunch I hope to make a brief contribution on this bill. The legislation before us is about one simple principle, and that is that Victorians should never have to choose between their own safety and their livelihood. For too long non-disclosure agreements, which were originally designed to legitimately protect commercial information, have been used – or misused, I should say – to silence victims. I notice up in the gallery we have got some of our great colleagues from Trades Hall, and I just want to acknowledge Wil Stracke, Danae and some of the people that came into this Parliament and educated people like me on our responsibility to make sure that workers are safe by legislating against the misuse of these NDAs. We have had people in this Parliament who are reliving trauma and pulling bandaids off very old incidents to reflect on their lived experience about why we need to do this. For someone like me, a middle-aged white male who does not want to stand here and mansplain things, I found it shocking.

This bill is about making sure that we do not continue to conceal patterns of behaviour within workplaces. We have all heard this afternoon some pretty traumatic and harrowing stories that should never have happened. We have also heard I think some misnomers, like that the commercial reality is that a workplace will go out of business if they allow sexual harassment to go unchecked. If only that was the case, but it is not, and that is an error. That is wrong, and that is why we are here today. We have also heard a claim that one party can waive and the other is still bound by an NDA, which is not correct. Both parties are released if the complainant waives unless parties agree otherwise as well. There is I think a sense of pride that we are here in this chamber in a bipartisan manner making sure we are supporting workers, but I think there is a level of intellect and education that needs to go into the process of reading this bill and understanding what it actually achieves as well. With that, Acting Speaker Farnham, I know you are hungry – I can hear your tummy from here – so I will pick back up after lunch and I will let you do your job.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.