Friday, 14 November 2025

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (14:58): As I was saying before the break, Victorians have been very clear: the culture of secrecy has no place in a modern, safe workplace, and our government is responding. We are acquitting our obligation to fix the system that did allow this to happen. This bill ensures that NDAs cannot be used to silence victims, conceal predatory behaviour or bury systemic failures. This bill does not ban NDAs entirely; it is not intended to. What it is intended to ensure is that NDAs cannot be used to cover up sexual harassment, and any confidentiality agreement must be initiated by the victim themselves, not imposed on them. It is a nonsense to suggest that one side can waive an NDA whilst the other is bonded to it.

Employers cannot pressure, incentivise or coerce a worker into silence. Workers retain the right to speak to family, medical professionals, police and support services, which just makes common sense, and we provide transparency and accountability as the norm, not the exception. These reforms shift the power back to where it should be: with the person that has been harmed, not with the person or organisation that caused the harm. I think this legislation says to every Victorian in our community that our Parliament believes well and truly that their safety is not negotiable, their dignity is not negotiable and their right to speak is not negotiable. This bill aligns with the strongest international reforms, and we have heard mentions of the UK, several Canadian provinces and parts of the United States as well, all recognising that secrecy has in the past protected predators, not workers.

In summing up, this bill is about fairness, transparency and restoring trust in our workplaces. It is about ensuring that nobody’s voice is stolen. In their most desperate moment, they need that voice to be heard. Frankly, this is saying we will not hide systemic sexual harassment by men in workplaces and we will listen to women. By passing this bill, we honour the bravery of those who came forward and said this must change. We honour the workers who were silenced and the workers we will protect in the future. And we send a clear message: Victorian workplaces must be safe, and silence can no longer be bought. I commend this bill to the house.

 Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (15:00): I also rise today to speak on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. As so many people have said today, this is a really important and sensitive area of law. It goes to the safety of our workplaces – of all Victorians’ workplaces – the dignity of those who have been harmed and the responsibility every employer carries to create environments where people are safe to do their job. As someone who has worked in agriculture, in a newsroom and now in politics, quite male-dominated industries, I have seen the very best of workplaces: tight-knit teams – we are not called the Nationals for no reason; we are a family – mentors who back you in and people who look after one another. But I have also met far too many women across regional Victoria who have experienced the other side of that story – people who had to stay silent because they feared retaliation, young women who were told that their career was dependent on keeping a secret, workers who simply did not feel safe enough to speak up – and no Victorian should ever feel that way.

This is why this bill demands careful and respectful consideration. The bill sets out to address the real and lasting impact caused when non-disclosure agreements are used to silence people who have experienced sexual harassment. We all know these stories. We have heard many personal anecdotes as well today, which have been heartbreaking, but I think that this is a step in the right direction. We know those stories where agreements are signed under pressure and individuals carry the trauma alone while the behaviour continues unchecked and communities never know the scale of the problem because it is hidden behind layers of confidentiality. None of that keeps people safe. At the heart of this bill is the simple idea that if someone has experienced sexual harassment, they should have the choice about whether confidentiality is part of that resolution – not the employer and certainly not the perpetrator but the person who has been harmed. That intent is something that I certainly support.

But it has taken the government four years to get to this point. It has been four years since its own taskforce recommended action and four years since victims, unions, employers and legal experts all called for change. During that time workplaces have struggled with a patchwork of federal and state reforms – new duties, new codes – and some of these have made a genuine difference, but others have added confusion. Regional employers tell me that they are drowning in overlapping obligations, and most of them simply want to get it right. They genuinely want to get this right. But despite this long lead-up, the government’s response still has gaps. There are consequences that we really need to draw your attention to. We do not oppose the bill, but we certainly cannot pretend it is perfect.

One of the key concerns raised repeatedly through consultation is that under this model, the NDAs may become effectively useless for employers. A complainant can void the confidentiality after 12 months, and that is an enormous shift. For some victims this might be empowering, but for others it may remove the option they genuinely want. A private resolution is sometimes the closure that they need, and this bill restricts that ability. For businesses, especially small employers who operate without large HR teams or legal departments, the change makes it harder to settle matters in a way that is fair for everyone involved. If employers believe confidentiality cannot be assured, they will be more hesitant to settle.

I think we also need to recognise that allegations are sometimes contested. When the government refers to all the complainants as victim-survivors it risks blurring the central principles of procedural fairness. A system must work for everyone, and it must protect people from harassment. It also must ensure that claims are handled with fairness and balance.

Another concern is the wide range of permitted disclosures. A person will be able to share details with a friend or family member for the purpose of seeking some support. I totally understand the intention – none of us can get through trauma alone – but this provision is incredibly broad. It leaves employers exposed and creates real uncertainty about the boundaries of confidentiality. A casual conversation in a social setting could meet the test of seeking support, and if that friend shares it on, there is no recourse. As a former journalist, I know the power of information, and I also know the damage that can be done when information is shared widely without context or process. Laws must reflect the importance of protecting people’s stories without creating unnecessary risk.

Regional businesses have also asked about the lack of consistency between state and federal laws, and I think that they deserve some answers. Employers are navigating positive duties under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, new federal guidelines and a national code of practice, Victoria’s equal opportunity obligations and now this layer of requirements. It is a lot, and for large organisations it is manageable. But for family-run agricultural businesses, for instance, or local service providers – small operators who really only employ a handful of people – it can be overwhelming. What is needed is some clarity and a bit of simplicity. We also need some consistency.

This is why the opposition will not oppose the bill. But we do have concerns about the length of the review, and we want to see it far sooner than the proposed three years. I think that is a legitimate concern. Victorians should not wait too long to see whether this law is working or whether it is creating harm through unintended consequences, so a review after 12 months or 18 months at most I think is quite essential. We know that the government does have some good intentions here – I think many have spoken about it and the potential benefits – but we are also allowed to debate some of the concerns and the grey area. We cannot support a system that potentially risks leaving victims with fewer options, employers with less ability to settle disputes and communities with a law that may not deliver what has been promised.

Every worker deserves to feel valued and safe, no matter their workplace; every employer deserves laws that are clear and workable; and every person who has been harmed deserves a process that respects their voice and their choice. I think about the young women that I met during my years as an agricultural journalist and editor – the ones who pulled me aside quietly to share stories they have never felt brave enough to share publicly, because they were fearful of the repercussions as individuals and to their careers. But their courage has left a mark on me. They deserve a system that backs them fully and confidently. So many women who have reached out to us regarding this bill deserve the safeguards – a system that allows them to speak if they wish to and stay private if they want to, a system designed around their needs and not the convenience of institutions. The bill moves us in that direction, but there is more work to do. We owe it to every Victorian worker to get this right, we owe it to employers to provide clarity and we owe it to those who have already suffered to ensure their voices are never again pushed into silence. On that basis the opposition will not oppose this bill, but we will continue to push for improvements, for greater clarity, for greater balance and for a quicker review so that unintended consequences can be addressed swiftly and responsibly.

 Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (15:09): It is a pleasure to rise on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Her name was Emily. Emily was 26. It was her first job after university – a marketing coordinator at a large firm. She was bright, ambitious and eager to learn. But when her manager began making unwanted advances, comments about her appearance, invitations to outside-work events, she felt trapped. How could she say something without risking her job? Her workplace had become a place of fear instead of opportunity. When she finally spoke up, the company acted but not to protect her. They offered a settlement. The terms seemed fair on paper: a modest payout, a reference and confidentiality. She signed an agreement she barely understood, a non-disclosure agreement. It was not until months later that Emily realised what she had really lost – her voice. She could not tell future employees why she had left. She could not warn other young women. Her mental health suffered. She could not even talk freely to a counsellor about what had happened for fear of breaching the agreement, fear of being sued. The man who harassed her kept his job, and he was unscathed.

Emily is not her real name, but we know lots of Emilys and have heard from lots of Emilys across our state. That is the quiet, though, that we hear, the ongoing harm of NDAs. They do not just silence victims, they protect perpetrators and conceal a toxic workplace culture. That is why this bill is so important. It is about giving people like Emily their voice back and giving choice. It is about putting the rights of victim-survivors ahead of the reputations of those who caused the harm. And it is about ensuring that confidentiality is never a weapon used to bury the truth.

These reforms that we have seen have stemmed directly from the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment, which found that NDAs have been misused as a fortified gag order, silencing victims. We have listened and we have worked to make these reforms, and the message was clear: NDAs can lead to that lasting trauma and isolation and fear.

I would like to just take this opportunity to thank those women who have spoken out about this, and I would like to also thank Victorian Trades Hall Council and particularly Wil Stracke, who spent their time coming to this place and particularly shared their time and educated me more about NDAs. I appreciate them championing this cause.

Some of the reforms that this bill will make – I will not go into all of them today. But it does not ban NDAs entirely, because we want to have that choice. Some victim-survivors may choose that confidentiality as part of their healing process. But this reform that we have made today does create strong safeguards, restricts preconditions and ensures that NDAs are used only when they genuinely serve the wishes of the victim, not the interests of the perpetrator.

Harassment and sexual harassment are among the most pervasive and devastating forms of harm in our society. They are not misunderstandings, they are not minor incidents; they are violations of a person’s dignity, safety and humanity, and they leave wounds that can last a lifetime. In workplaces these behaviours create cultures of fear and silence. They drive talented people out of jobs, out of industry and, in some cases, out of economic security. They rob people, overwhelmingly women but also men, of their right to feel safe where they are trying to earn a living.

The horror of harassment and sexual harassment is not just in the act itself but in the way it multiplies through a system of dismissed complaints and leaders who look the other way, through cultures that prioritise reputation over the wellbeing of real people. Every time someone is told to move on, not make a fuss or think about the consequences, we entrench a cycle of silence that protects perpetrators and punishes victims. Our responsibility as leaders in the community but also here in this place is to confront these realities with honesty and to dismantle the excuses that have been allowed to thrive and build a system where people are safe, respected and believed.

This reform is about choice. It ensures that survivors are the ones who decide on whether their story remains private or not and not employees, not lawyers and not perpetrators. This bill does draw a line in the sand. It says: no more weaponising of confidentiality, no more silencing of the voices that deserve to be heard. Turning around an entrenched culture of secrecy is not easy, but it is a critical step towards workplaces built on safety, respect and accountability. To every worker in Victoria this reform sends a clear message: your voice matters, your safety matters and never again will you be asked to trade your silence for justice. We need to make sure that no-one else has to live Emily’s story. I commend this bill to the house.

 John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (15:14): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. This is a very important bill, and it goes to a subject matter that I think in one way or another we have all known about in terms of people in our own families and networks who have had experience with sexual harassment at work. It can be very traumatising for complainants indeed. I say this as somebody who worked as a lawyer in the field of industrial relations, workplace relations, sexual harassment and occupational health and safety. I have seen the lasting harm and damage that sexual harassment can do to complainants, so this bill is one that we are not opposing and one I actually do support, because it is important to continue to work at promoting a culture of openness and candour when it comes to addressing these types of issues. In my experience I have seen many employers, for whom I used to act – I was a defence lawyer – misunderstand the purpose of confidentiality and fail to see the benefits of openness and candour, particularly when complaints are being resolved and settled in many cases, as few matters, as you know, reach final determination at court or a tribunal. In my experience it has always been far better for employers to resolve matters where they can in an amicable way that produces a settlement and brings the matter to a prompt end but to do it in ways where they are not obsessing about confidentiality.

It is a fair question to ask: what is the purpose of a confidentiality clause? It might sound like an obvious question, but human nature being what it is, we often have to delve into what it is we are really seeking in a confidentiality clause or a non-disclosure agreement, particularly where it relates to something as serious as sexual harassment. Often it is said: ‘We do not want to create a precedent,’ and employers will often say that. I know that because I used to act for employers in my practising career, and I often thought and still do think that that is so often misplaced. I think it is far better for an employer to have a culture where, when matters are resolved, there is no hesitation and no reluctance to stand by the outcome and what an employer is going to do in response to the resolution of a matter, even if the competing claims or merits of a particular matter are not resolved. I think an employer, in my experience, is better off when it is prepared to stand by the outcome and actually say to its own workforce, ‘We’ve resolved the matter. We won’t disclose all of the terms, but it’s been resolved,’ maybe with or without a denial of liability, and to say that there will be support and there will be changes to workplace culture to address any concerns. That is a far better step in the journey of workplace culture than obsessing over a confidentiality clause, which I think offers very little benefit for either party – certainly not complainants. For me a bill like this is actually saying that employers should do better and can do better when they are resolving matters and should use the occasion of these complaints to actually review their own culture and workplace policies and procedures. That has certainly been my experience as somebody who has worked with many employers and tried to support them to improve their practices and their culture.

On this bill and the steps it sets out, first of all, the requirement that the inclusion of a confidentiality clause or an NDA must come at the expense of a complainant is one that I do not think employers should be concerned about. For the reasons I have stated, if the terms of a settlement agreement which contains an NDA or a confidentiality clause are revealed at some point, the employer should be able to stand by that clause. If it is not able to do that, then you have to ask questions about what it is doing to address the culture in its workplace, if it has produced such a claim. The next thing in the bill that is important to point out is that there cannot be any undue influence or overbearing of the will of a complainant. I think that stands to reason. I do not think it would be reasonable or justifiable to require that such a clause be initiated at the move of a complainant but then say you are not going to do anything to address circuitous other means of producing such a request from an employee. I think it follows. The information statement that is to be provided under the bill I do not imagine will impose too much of a burden on anyone, let alone the employer in a particular matter or a respondent. If a complainant does wish to include a non-disclosure clause, I do not think it is that much of an imposition for an employer to include that information statement.

They are usually template documents, in which case I do not think the cause for concern is that great.

I think you then go to the ability of an employee or complainant to make permitted disclosures. Again, this is part of the reason why I was saying earlier that employers should not be concerned about what these changes require, because in most cases – in fact in all the cases that I have ever been concerned about – it has been accepted as part of a settlement agreement that a complainant be able to consult with key advisers, support people and others. So the idea that a complainant in a given matter will be able to make permitted disclosures, save for a few that the bill protects, I think is a matter that people can be comfortable with. And again, it goes back to my overarching concern around best practice for employers. When these complaints are happening it is usually because there has been some breakdown somewhere – the employer has not overseen its policies and processes as well as it should have, and there is always a question about whether it could have done more to ensure that the culture was such that you reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the incidence of sexual harassment in workplace settings. That question often arises. So the idea of permitted disclosures is or ought to be a fairly non-contentious part of this bill.

Going to the point, which I think has been raised frequently earlier in the debate, about a complainant being able to terminate an NDA or a confidentiality clause from operation, again, for the reasons I said earlier, in my experience employers and organisations have been better off when they have not insisted on a confidentiality clause and have approached a matter as serious as sexual harassment on the basis that, even if the complaint has occurred, there is a problem with what is happening in our workplaces. Putting aside the question of whichever way that might have been resolved had it gone to court or had it gone to a tribunal, in my experience there has almost always been some kind of shortcoming in the culture or the application of policy. More often than not, when you sit down with the workers and employees of an employer in a case of this kind, you will find that apart from being given policies and procedures at the start of their employment, no-one has actually ever spoken to the staff about what these policies mean and how you actually comply with them to build learning and understanding in the workplace. In every case I ever acted in there was some shortcoming that you could point to where you could have said, ‘Look, maybe more steps could have been taken here.’

The idea that an employee can terminate a confidentiality clause, given what I have said – that I think employers are better off when they do not have it in – I do not think should be a cause for concern. I think if an employer is settling a matter, it can protect itself and should protect itself in other ways if it is concerned about what message it sends. It can always include in the settlement terms a clear and explicit statement if it wishes to deny liability, whether it is accessorial deniability or vicarious liability being denied. Either way, it can do that in the terms. But if it is going to obsess about and invest a whole lot of resources into confidentiality, I think what it will actually do is make the problem worse overall and in the long run, because we have got to remember that staff will talk to each other and employers and staff will talk to each other. I have always wondered about the effectiveness of confidentiality clauses in any event, because people are talking; they are well aware in most cases of a dispute or a claim, particularly where it is a serious matter of sexual harassment. I cannot think of a case that I acted in where all of the staff and people associated with the entity did not know what was going on. That is part of the reason why I have had little faith in what these confidentiality clauses provide overall. I think best corporate practice, good corporate practice – bearing in mind that today many people see their workplaces as part of their family life, and it has been for me in many ways – is openness with your employees in any event to stamp out this scourge of workplace sexual harassment.

 Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (15:25): I rise in strong support of restricting non- disclosure agreements, and I thank all of the speakers that have spoken today, particularly for the personal contributions that have been made on this bill. It is in many cases a difficult topic to talk about, but I appreciate the candour with which the debate has taken place today.

This bill is about addressing a power imbalance and putting the voices of victim-survivors first. It is about giving people back agency and choice after experiences that took both away. It is about breaking down a culture that has for too long silenced those who have been harmed in order to protect those that caused harm. Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, were never designed for this purpose. They were created to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, but over time they have been distorted into something much darker: a mechanism to protect reputations, conceal misconduct and uphold power.

For too many people, overwhelmingly women, NDAs have become part of the trauma of workplace sexual harassment. They are told that signing an NDA is the only way to move on, the only way to close the chapter, the only way to keep their job or their reputation. But what is really happening is they are being locked into silence, and that silence can be all-consuming. Victim-survivors have spoken about being unable to talk, even to their family, their friends or their doctor. They cannot seek counselling without fear of breaching a clause, they cannot warn others and they cannot tell the truth about what happened to them. That silence is significant. It isolates people, it breeds shame where there should be accountability, it hides serial offending and it protects perpetrators and institutions rather than people. As one brave woman shared with the government’s consultation:

It’s affected me long term because now I can’t talk about it. I can’t warn people. I can’t share my experience with those who would understand most … The most severe negative long-term impact of it all was how I just signed it because I couldn’t fight anymore.

These are not isolated experiences, they are the lived reality for too many Victorians. We know that sexual harassment in the workplace is far too common. A major survey by the Australian Human Rights Commission found one in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the last five years. We also know it is an inherently gendered issue. The overwhelming majority of victim-survivors are women. More than half of those women say the harassment damaged their work life, and one in four say it harmed their career progression.

While NDAs may serve a legitimate business function in some contexts, they have been distorted into gag orders, preventing transparency, perpetuating abuse and making workplaces less safe. Not just that, they have become the default rather than the exception, and the consequences are devastating. International research has found that 95 per cent of people who signed NDAs in sexual harassment cases reported negative mental health impacts tied to their inability to speak about their experience. This harm is immense and it extends beyond individuals. When NDAs are used to bury misconduct, they deprive workplaces of the chance to learn, to improve and to hold offenders accountable. They create a culture of secrecy and consequence avoidance, a toxic environment where harassment can perpetuate. That culture has no place in Victoria. This bill seeks to end it. It will make Victoria a leader, joining a small number of international jurisdictions that have already taken this step, including Ireland, Prince Edward Island in Canada, several American states and the United Kingdom.

These reforms put the complainant in control of any NDA. They empower them with choice, with freedom, with dignity. They offer them the opportunity to enter into an NDA if it serves them without undue pressure and influence. Even when an NDA exists, the complainant retains the right to make permitted disclosures, such as to police officers, health or legal professionals or a trusted friend or family member. Critically, it also allows the complainant to end an NDA after 12 months, acknowledging that many survivors sign these agreements while they are in distress.

This is a balanced and fair model. It ensures that employers can still resolve claims out of court, avoiding lengthy or public litigation while protecting workers from coercion or permanent silence. It acknowledges that genuine confidentiality, when it is chosen freely, can still serve a purpose. This is a critical step forward, and one that builds on the Allan Labor government’s strong record of leadership and gender equality, workplace rights and mental health and wellbeing. We have legislated the Gender Equality Act 2020, we have reformed our mental health system, we have supported flexible work and transformed the way women receive health care, because when Victorians are safe, supported and heard, they can thrive. Indeed, on Sunday I joined the Premier and the Minister for Health to release the Bridging the Gender Pain Gap report, the result of Victoria’s landmark inquiry into women’s pain. The inquiry shone a light on the impact of suffering in silence, the isolation it creates, the disbelief women face and the urgent need for a culture shift so women’s pain is recognised, understood and treated. That same culture of silence – of minimising women’s experiences and protecting reputations instead of people – is exactly what this bill seeks to end. Whether it is in our health system or in our workplaces, women being told to stay quiet, to put up with it and to move on is not okay. This bill is about breaking that silence, ensuring women’s voices and stories are heard, their experiences believed and their rights protected. As another woman told us:

The NDA was the organisations way of not accepting liability … another form of power and control they have over employees. It should never be contingent on settling a claim.

She is right. This bill restores fairness, balance and humanity to a system that has long failed too many. It gives survivors the right to decide what is best for them, and it protects their ability to seek support, to be heard and to heal. Above all, it sends a clear message: the days of silence are over. Workplaces must be places of respect, dignity and safety. Employers must be accountable and survivors must have the right to speak their truth without fear. I commend the bill to the house.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:32): I am pleased to rise today on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Sitting in the chair today and listening to everyone in this debate, I would say this debate has been one of agreeance more than a debate itself. I think the government has got this right – I will say that from the start. It is obviously long overdue, and we know that –

A member: Can you repeat that?

Wayne FARNHAM: I am not going to repeat it. We know, and it has been well-quoted before I stood up, that NDAs originated for the commercial protection of a business or of a product or anything. That was their intent and purpose at the start. But then, as always when things progress through time, people took advantage of NDAs. They definitely have in this case when it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace. There is a power imbalance when it comes to this type of thing, and everyone in this chamber will be in agreement that sexual harassment in the workplace just should not happen, full stop. No-one here is going to disagree with that, or you would be a moron to try and argue against it. I am not going to speak for too long on this, because I know there are a lot of government members that want to get up today and I would like to give them the opportunity as well. But when we see the behaviour of that fat turd Harvey Weinstein from Miramax, who put I think 80 people on NDAs, or he sexually assaulted over 80 people, this is where these NDAs get exploited and this is where it is really unfair. I am really pleased that this bill is giving the power back to the victim. I think it is a really good head start – well, not a head start, I think it is a great step forward. That is the best way to say it.

If I have a concern – I am not being critical of the bill, but it is just a concern I have personally, and maybe sometimes I think a little bit too pragmatically – it is where the complainant can choose to terminate the agreement after 12 months if they change their mind. Termination after 12 months will not affect the validity or enforceability of the settlement agreement or financial compensation. I really hope – I truly hope – that employers do not see this as a reason to drag things out. I hope this is not an unintended consequence. I think just those two things we should review sooner rather than later, just to make sure it is working the way it is intended. I am not critical of the bill. It is just that unintended consequence where an employer might sit back and think, ‘Well, jeez, in 12 months time, they can disclose it. Will I drag this out and punish them further?’

It is that type of scenario that I just have a concern about.

As I said, I am not critical of the bill. I actually think it is a good bill; I think the government has done a good job. I think it is actually very, very important. We all know I have got five sisters, and I am damn sure probably all five of them have been sexually harassed at some point in time, being from an earlier generation and growing up in a relatively misogynistic society back when they were getting work. I have no doubt that all of my sisters have probably been sexually harassed at some point in time. I just really hope that employers do not use this to punish the person – to drag it out legally – because sometimes employers have bigger wallets than employees, and there is that imbalance there. But I am so glad this has given the power back to the victims. It is their choice whether they want an NDA or not; it is totally up to them. I think it should rip employers into line that have been a little bit nefarious in the way they do business – I hope it does.

As I said, I am not going to speak for too long because I know there are a lot of members that want to speak on this bill today. They are my only concerns, as I said – there could be an unintended consequence, and we could possibly look at a review just on those two things – but other than that, good job.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:36): It gives me pleasure to rise this afternoon to make a contribution in favour of this legislation, the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I would actually at the outset like to acknowledge the opposition for the bipartisan nature in which they have approached this and just acknowledge several of the contributions made throughout this debate, particularly that of the member for Evelyn.

Following the contribution from the member for Narracan, I think he actually put it really succinctly. It is a piece of legislation which puts the power back into the hands of victims, and it is a piece of legislation that builds on the legacy of this government in supporting Victorian workers. We have had several pieces of legislation in this term alone that have been aimed at supporting Victorian workers, and this is absolutely no different. As a young union official, I came across situations like this on several occasions, where members or workers had been sexually harassed in the workplace. On every account, in my experience at least, it was female workers, often in vulnerable positions, that had been sexually harassed by somebody that held a significant power imbalance against them. The use of non-disclosure agreements in those situations significantly restricted the capacity for those victims and the capacity for their unions and for different authorities to seek justice, both in a financial and in a litigation sense. I think the use of these agreements has been an absolute scourge, and I am absolutely thrilled that this government is doing something about it so that that situation can no longer happen in Victoria into the future. The bill provides victims with greater agency and choice, as I said, by restricting non-disclosure agreements in workplace sexual harassment matters, and passing these reforms would see Victoria become the first jurisdiction in Australia to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements.

This has been an issue and a campaign led by the Victorian union movement for some time. It has been led out of several unions in Victoria but also the Victorian Trades Hall, and they have done a power of work on this. I would like to acknowledge the secretary Luke Hilakari but also Danae Bosler, who is a fantastic comrade of all of us on this side of the house and who has done an absolute power of work on this. I saw her just as I was leaving the building for lunch at about 1 o’clock and just said congratulations, because to be able to do that power of work and now see legislation introduced on the floor of the Parliament to restrict these horrible NDAs is a credit to her, a credit to Trades Hall and a credit to the ACTU as well, who have also done a fair bit of work on this.

I have said in this place many times before: protecting Victorian workers is the number one priority – dare I say it, the one wood – of this Labor government, and it has been since we were elected 12 years ago, and this piece of legislation is just building on that significant legacy that this government has in supporting and protecting Victorian workers and in supporting the organisations and the unions that protect and represent Victorian workers and all workers in this state. We published a discussion paper and a survey for victim-survivors on the Engage Victoria website on 12 August last year. In total, 81 responses were received, which highlighted the harm and trauma that NDAs can cause and the need for this reform. One de-identified contributor to the government’s consultation on these reforms described the use of NDAs as a secret weapon for many companies to commit, cover, suppress and manipulate workplace-related sexual violences. That is never okay, has never been okay, should never be okay, and it was many things, but part of it was the responses to these surveys that made it so urgent – so urgent – that we made this reform here in Victoria. Like I said, the number one priority for this Allan Labor government is protecting and supporting Victorian workers. This is a fantastic piece of legislation. Once again, I acknowledge the bipartisan nature in which the opposition have approached this, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:42): I will have to say the sheer prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace, just even in the last five years – one in three workers experiencing sexual harassment, as reported – is truly stark; it is horrific. So you can see the absolute impetus behind having this very significant reform that is restricting non-disclosure agreements brought before the chamber – and, I am glad to say, in a largely bipartisan way. It is really empowering for all Victorian workers to know that we are truly backing them in. I will thank all the victim-survivors who have come forward and been part of the significant advocacy that has assisted in these reforms coming about, as well as the unions who have led the cause – Trades Hall has been referred to with their extraordinary work, and the ACTU as well. We commend them for their courage and conviction, because *these are not easy reforms to bring about, and I say this because of the inherently secretive and destructive and underhanded way that they have largely fostered a really unhealthy and toxic workplace culture where such matters have been allowed, for want of a better word, to thrive as a result of the law not delivering in the way that we would all hope it will and then ultimately creating some pretty debilitating situations for victims who had to literally sit and feel suppressed with some extraordinarily difficult situations that they absolutely did not deserve, because everyone deserves to be able to turn up to their workplace every day and to have normal and healthy boundaries respected so that they can shine and they can achieve the outcomes that they richly deserve.

It does have, I have to say, with this particular area of the law, a gendered bias in the sense that sexual harassment inherently does impact women in the main, with more than 50 per cent of women who have experienced sexual harassment reporting that they have suffered damage to their work and 26 per cent saying it negatively impacted their career progression.

I think the other element here that is important is the proposition of the NDAs themselves, because they were initially intended to protect trade secrets. A trade secret of course is completely different to protecting a person’s physical and emotional body, so therefore it largely has been inappropriately used – for want of a better word. I know it would have been legal, in the strict sense of the word, but not actually delivering the requisite outcome that certainly the community expects now, as we are here today, in terms of making healthy and productive workplaces but also ensuring appropriate rectification where somebody has been the victim of sexual harassment and left with, in many cases, some pretty horrific long-term impacts.

I think that certainly we can also say that with this reform coming through it will see Victoria become the first jurisdiction in Australia to restrict the use of NDAs in sexual harassment matters, but we also would be joining a small number of jurisdictions around the globe who have taken this important step forward. The premise of that is not necessarily only the innovation of it, but it suggests that it is leading an important way forward. We hope others will follow as well so that more Australians more broadly can benefit from the greater protection and perhaps just fairer and more just outcomes in the long run in terms of the way that they are being treated at work, because fundamentally it is about respect.

I think what is also really important with this legislation, the nuance of it, is that these reforms do not prohibit the use of NDAs in their entirety in the workplace regarding sexual harassment matters but they do create strong safeguards around how they are used and better balance the rights of victims in how they engage with these agreements. Having said that, the purpose here is to restrict NDAs because the goal is not to foster this kind of arrangement, noting that there are more contemporary and appropriate mechanisms that encourage actually a more up-front and transparent arrangement in a workplace which not only permits the victim – and certainly this legislation does also through permitted disclosures – the mechanisms they need and deserve to be able to heal from whatever situation has occurred but also so that companies and organisations and any workplace where it can happen, and I am not meaning to define the kind of workplace where it may occur, can actually set up the proper workplace culture that embeds that true equality between males and females and ensure that people understand what is appropriate and what actually makes a healthy and happy working life and one where we can hopefully aggressively stamp out this scourge of sexual harassment and create a much healthier and safer working life for all Victorians into the future.

 Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:49): I rise today to speak to the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, and I am pleased to follow many, many great contributions today. In particular I want to acknowledge the member for Narracan’s contribution, where he said that the government has got this bill right. The member for Narracan is absolutely right on that one. This bill is so important, especially with the occasion this week of National Survivors’ Day, which occurred on Wednesday 12 November. I wish to firstly acknowledge the lived experience of victim-survivors. It takes a lot of bravery and strength to decide to speak out about these experiences, and victim-survivors should be able to make that decision on their own terms, and they should not be restricted by non-disclosure agreements. We need to shift the burden away from the shame and stigma of abuse from victim-survivors to perpetrators.

I want to give – and it has been done in many of the contributions – a shout-out to the mighty Victorian Trades Hall Council for driving this issue but also the many, many unions that have been involved. Without those unions’ involvement and them protecting their members, we would not even be at this position today, so congratulations to the Trades Hall Council and the trade unions that have driven this issue.

Certainly during my time as the secretary of the ambulance union I knew of many, many instances of non-disclosure agreements being used in settlement cases with the ambulance service and also some of the private operators of the non-emergency patient transport system. A lot of those non-disclosure agreements meant that neither party could discuss with anyone the details of the settlement or speak disparagingly about each other. It was so restrictive to the victims and so damaging to the victims that they could not talk about the circumstances, and it was always a way of the employers hiding the facts and the details of what was going on within their workplace and the perpetrators technically still getting away with it. It was a regular occurrence in the ambulance service, unfortunately, and we know it is a regular occurrence in many, many workplaces. Of course in some cases there are no settlements to these issues and the complaints made by the complainants and the victims unless there is an NDA that is agreed to. We see some of these issues ended up in the Fair Work Commission, and again there are confidential settlements – effectively NDAs – out of the Fair Work Commission when you take a dispute to the commission over these matters. I am pleased to say that hopefully that will change.

Of course in 2022 the Australian Human Rights Commission found that around one in three workers had experienced workplace sexual harassment in the preceding five years. We know that workplace sexual harassment disproportionately affects young people, LGBTIQA+ people, First Nations people and people with disabilities. We also know that sexual harassment in all contexts is a heavily gendered issue. In the workplace more than 50 per cent of women who have experienced sexual harassment have reported that they have suffered damage to their work, and 26 per cent said it has had a negative impact on their career progression. People have referred to it as definitely a power imbalance, let alone the effect on their mental health and the mental injuries that this causes.

Up until now the use of NDAs was relatively unregulated. But that is changing because of this bill and changing for the better. These changes protect the agency of claimants. It gives them power to take action in the way that they decide. It ensures that no-one is rushing into a decision that they will be stuck with for the rest of their life. These reforms will work towards – we hope they will – reducing sexual harassment in the workplace, but more so it will force employers to do something about it and to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The reputation of perpetrators should never be more important than the health, safety and welfare of victim-survivors. The repeated use of NDAs does not allow for the prevention of further incidents at the same workplace. It is a betrayal of all workers, who have the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment.

All workers have the right to be safe at work. That is why we are restricting the circumstances in which NDAs relating to workplace sexual harassment can be entered into and, if there must be an NDA, restricting the terms and enforceability of those NDAs relating to workplace sexual harassment. There are many international examples of the regulation or banning of NDAs, such as in Ireland, where NDAs are regulated based on a model centred on the choice of victim-survivors; in the UK; and in various states in the US, where there are a range of approaches from limitations to complete bans of NDAs in work-related situations. It is the victim-survivor, the complainant, who expresses their wish and experience to have an NDA, rather having one imposed upon them and being intimidated and forced into it. It is a critical step in working to break the old culture of NDAs being proposed as a default clause in a settlement – it is driven by the victim, the claimant, rather than the other way. There is a shift in the power balance back to the affected person, which is a great thing.

This is a really important bill that the Allan Labor government brings forward as another example of supporting workers and supporting their representatives, the trade union movement. There is a waiver provision after 12 months, and I know some employers may have concerns about the waiver and how this could impact them after 12 months if a claimant wants to change their mind about the NDA. But I say to employers they should not have a concern about a waiver if they are proactive on making sure that sexual harassment does not occur in the workplace. I would love to see employers be far more stringent and stronger and make their workplace sexual harassment–free, rather than worrying about the potential of a 12-month waiver. This is an important bill, and I commend this bill to the house.

 Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (15:56): I am really very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this incredibly important piece of legislation that we are considering today, the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute on this bill because it does give us another lever to prevent workplace sexual harassment and to prevent NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, from being misused to silence workers and to conceal circumstances related to workplace sexual harassment. We know that through the regulation of NDAs and empowering workers who are subject to workplace sexual harassment this bill is going to add to the toolkit we have to advance the health and safety of workers at a workplace.

A key objective of this bill is to acquit recommendation 10 of the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment. We have the member for Thomastown here, and I am very grateful to the member for Thomastown for the heavy lifting that she did in chairing that taskforce, ably supported and co-chaired by Liberty Sanger. As others have done, I thank our sisters and brothers in the union movement for their contribution, as part of this taskforce but also over a long time, to ensure that we have the right legislation here to consider. We are very grateful always to take advice and to consider their aspirations for workers. In this context, particularly as it relates to the taskforce, I am grateful to Trades Hall, the CPSU, the AEU, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, the Municipal Association of Victoria, Women with Disabilities Victoria and Transgender Victoria. I am always grateful to the Young Workers Centre for making sure that we are focused in a laser-like way on ensuring that the youngest Victorian workers are considered as relates to their need to be safe at work.

I am pleased those opposite are speaking so fulsomely in support of or are not opposing this legislation. Some of the contributions I have heard have indeed supported the legislation, and they have been heartfelt from both sides of the chamber. I acknowledge particularly the member for Evelyn for her heartfelt and courageous contribution.

It is always a privilege to represent Cranbourne. As I think everybody knows now, because I suppose I have been labouring the point, it is a hardworking and fast-growing community, and of course it is a diverse community. This was also articulated beautifully by the member for Mulgrave in a similar way as it relates to the community that the member for Mulgrave serves. People come from every corner of the globe: Sri Lanka, India of course, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Africa, the Pasifika, including New Zealanders and Samoans, and beyond. People bring skills, hope and determination. They seek to build a better life here in Victoria, and they do. But for too many workers, especially young women, especially migrant workers and especially those on temporary visas, there is an additional element to this – the danger that is faced due to harassment, underpayment and exploitation – and many feel unable to speak out. This bill is a breakthrough for fairness, and it connects deeply with the experience of workers in Cranbourne, where language barriers, cultural expectations and visa fears have been used to keep people silent.

For years NDAs have been used in Australia not only to protect trade secrets but, as has been well ventilated today, to buy silence. Countless workers, especially, as I said, young workers and migrant workers, have been pressured into signing NDAs after experiencing sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination. Imagine being 19, working a casual shift at a cafe, cleaning offices at night while studying on a student visa. Your boss makes unwanted comments, or maybe even worse. You complain and you are told to sign a settlement agreement or an NDA, and there is a clause that you can never speak about it. You do it because you are scared. You need the money, you need the job and maybe you even need your visa. That is not consent, it is coercion, and it is disguised as confidentiality. Unions and worker advocates have told us that NDAs are being used not to protect privacy but to protect power. That is why the Allan Labor government’s new restricting non-disclosure agreements bill, fought for by the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the Young Workers Centre and many others, is such a landmark reform of which I am incredibly proud.

NDAs ought not to be forced. A worker should only sign one if they choose to. Employers cannot pressure, threaten or manipulate someone into silence if this legislation is passed and is able to be enforced. Workers must receive plain language information. This is a really important piece of the work that we are doing. This law is designed to stop NDAs being used to hide misconduct and to make sure survivors of workplace harassment keep the right to their own story. But it does something more powerful: it creates space for workers to be heard in every language and from every culture.

Let us be clear: NDAs do not exist in isolation. They sit within a broader system that can silence workers, and especially with international students, with refugees, with migrants and with temporary protection visa holders, the barriers go further. Visa dependency is a massive issue. If your ability to stay in the country depends on your employer, then you are less likely to complain about mistreatment, and we have heard stories about workers in this exact situation: ‘If you report me, I’ll contact immigration. If you talk to the union, I’ll cancel your shifts.’ Language barriers deepen that fear. Workers cannot read complex legal English, especially when contracts or NDAs are full of jargon, and we know that is the case. And then there are cultural norms where speaking up against authority or a manager is considered disrespectful or shameful, and in some communities, discussing harassment or challenging a male supervisor carries stigma that silences women. When you combine these three – visa insecurity, language barriers and cultural pressure – you create the perfect storm for exploitation. That is why unions have fought so hard for this lever to become embedded in our toolkit.

The Victorian Trades Hall Council’s NDAs campaign was built around stories from young migrant women who have been silenced. It is their courage that I credit today with having forced this change. It is the collaboration between unions and migrant support organisations and those who do not see themselves as workers with rights. As unions say, if you work, you have rights, no matter your visa, no matter your language.

This matters to Cranbourne. This matters to our community. It turns silence into solidarity, because the people in Cranbourne and the people across Victoria – every worker, every union member, every employer – are entitled to be heard. We are going to create a place where workers’ voices are not lost in translation and a woman’s dignity is not going to be silenced by a clause. I commend the bill to the house.

 Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (16:04): Sexual harassment is unacceptable. These reforms respond directly to a key recommendation of the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment. The bill will provide victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment with greater agency and choice by restricting the use of non-disclosure agreements in workplace sexual harassment matters. These reforms are about putting the voices of victim-survivors first and taking critical steps to break down a culture that entrenches silencing victims for the sake of protecting the reputation of the perpetrator. We know that sexual harassment in the workplace can be deeply damaging and is far too common, with one in three workers experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years.

Unfortunately NDAs have been referred to as a secret weapon for many companies to commit, to cover, to suppress or to manipulate workplace-related sexual violence. This is, as I said at the start, incredibly, incredibly wrong and totally unacceptable.

I do not want to speak about other people’s incidents, but as a former secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, I know that too often there were incidents around sexual harassment. The railways have traditionally been male dominated, and when I became the secretary in 2014, the industry was 88 per cent male dominated. Women were rare and, wrongly, the culture was not great. Over time, through the work of the union and the employers working together, the culture has changed. But it did still occur, and that is the sad reality of it. Even I, as the branch secretary, was once referred to as ‘girly’ in a management meeting. On another occasion I was asked to make a cup of tea at the start of an EBA negotiation by one of the CEOs. I was 28 years old at the time and in a room filled with men. It was an enterprise agreement meeting, and it was all pretty intense. I am sure that they used this as an intimidation tactic, but it was still completely wrong and unacceptable. Thankfully, I can hold my own, but many others cannot. I use these very light examples because they are low levels of harassment and they are unacceptable. It can happen to anybody, and it simply should not. We know that too often it happens to women, not men, but on occasion it does happen to men as well, and again, that is wrong.

There have been several research projects conducted to examine what the long-term impacts on victim-survivors who sign NDAs might be. The Speak Out survey conducted by the UK organisation Speak Out Revolution found that 95 per cent of people who had signed an NDA in cases of sexual harassment experienced negative impacts on their mental health related to the NDA and the inability to speak out about their experiences. Research also found that an NDA can result in long-term issues for the complainant who has signed it, including difficulty with moving on and progressing their career, fear of repercussions or breaching of the agreement and barriers to accessing professional or emotional support for harassment that they have suffered.

While the impact can be horrific, the perpetual use of NDAs is also a disservice to the broader workforce, who have a right to work safely in an environment free of sexual harassment. These confidentiality clauses create a sense of protection, and often it gives people a sense of false hope in the workplace. It is clear that the misuse of NDAs has become part of the fostering of toxic workplace culture, secrecy and consequence avoidance, and it can no longer be tolerated.

By passing these reforms today we would see Victoria become the first jurisdiction in Australia to restrict the use of NDAs in sexual harassment matters. We would, however, also be joining a small number of other jurisdictions internationally who have taken this important step forward. Such jurisdictions include Ireland and Canada’s Prince Edward Island, who have regulated the use of NDAs by creating a model centred on choice. A number of American states also regulate NDAs, with approaches ranging from complete bans to a range of limitations regulating aspects of NDA use. The United Kingdom has also recently introduced legislative amendments to NDAs related to certain forms of work-related harassment and discrimination.

These reforms are important. They need to occur, and I am really proud that the Allan Labor government have brought these reforms forward. I too want to take a moment to thank the unions who fight on a daily basis to ensure that employees all over the country are safe. I want to thank the Victorian Trades Hall, who ran the campaign to make sure that this was front and centre and present in everyone’s mind so that we do not continue to just turn a blind eye to sexual harassment in the workplace; it is completely unacceptable. I commend the bill to the house.

 Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (16:09): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I do want to start by thanking the minister for their work on this really important bill. This is just another way the Allan Labor government is addressing violence against women, and in this case in the workplace, which is really important. I also do want to acknowledge and thank the unions who have advocated for these changes for a very, very long time.

The member for Cranbourne not so long ago mentioned a list of unions that were involved, and I do want to pass on my thanks to them as well and to all the speakers today, because everybody has shared their views on the bill but also many have talked about their own personal experiences. I do want to acknowledge that, because it is important for members to have a good understanding of this bill and to represent their communities on these views. We know that many women and girls have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is not unusual to hear of these experiences, although there appears to be a greater awareness of sexual harassment and what needs to happen to stamp it out, which is a great thing. But of course we do know that it continues, and it needs to be stamped out as much as possible.

While initially intended to protect trade secrets, the use of NDAs has since become a fortified gag order in resolving sexual harassment matters within the workplace. Over the many years that I have been an MP now, I have heard from women and of their experiences. In fact when the submissions were called for from women across Victoria, there were some women that were just simply too afraid to even put a submission together because of the NDA that they had been forced to sign. I think this bill goes to the very heart of trying to address those issues. As for the consequences for those women that I have spoken to – and I am sure many others in this place have heard the horrific stories attached to being forced to sign an NDA due to sexual harassment in the workplace and the trauma that causes – a lot of those women have said to me the decision is: do you sign the NDA and then feel guilty because you are walking away and allowing that person to continue to do what they are doing? Or do you walk back in the next day and have to live with what is going on, particularly in an office environment or wherever it might be – in a retail space or a cafe – or do you simply walk away and lose your pay? For a lot of those women the decisions they have made have not been decisions they wanted to make. They have been forced into making those decisions, often losing their careers and losing a reasonably good income, for some of them.

There is one I want to particularly focus on – a woman who told me her story, who had been sexually harassed for quite a period of time in her workplace, a very strong woman who knew how to stand her ground. But it eventually got too much for her to deal with on a daily basis. She made the complaint, and then it was all turned back on her. It was a horrific experience. I will not go into all the detail, because I do not want to identify who she is, but the end result was being forced to sign an NDA. She actually then challenged that through the courts, and she won. But she sacrificed her job. The impact on her family was extreme, and they ended up moving to a different state. They made really significant changes in their life because of what happened. She had a really great career and was loving what she was doing, but she was forced to give all that up and then stood up for herself and decided that she would challenge that NDA. As I said, she won that case, but many of the other women I have spoken to would not see that as being an option for them. The woman I am referring to had to deal with media around her as well, because once it hit the court it became public.

For a lot of women, that is not something they want to subject themselves to, and they should not have to.

This bill starts to address a lot of those issues, and as I said, they do not want to be walking into an environment where they have got to make a decision that they do not agree with. We know that these things happen in the workplace. We know that it is not just about keeping trade secrets; it is actually about stopping these women from telling their story, laying charges or whatever they might want to do. But I will say that this bill also allows them to make that decision, which they cannot do right now. For some women, signing an NDA may be something they want to do. It may be more an agreement about being paid off. I know that the women that I have spoken to did not want to stay in that workplace unless that person was removed, and often, obviously, that did not happen.

I think this is a really important bill. Again, as I said earlier, it is about addressing violence against women, and in this case in the workplace. The Allan government has been working on improving our laws to ensure that we do protect women. I commend the bill to the house.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (16:16): I am really pleased to make a contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, and in doing so I would like to commence by commending the hard work of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, in particular the women’s team there, all of the victim-survivors they have represented and advocated for, the predominantly women who have been so brave and committed to reform that they were willing to come into Parliament and speak with us as members of Parliament and indeed the women in my community who have spoken to me in my electorate office.

I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing this bill to provide victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment with greater agency and choice in how sexual harassment in the workplace is dealt with by restricting the use of non-disclosure agreements in workplace sexual harassment matters. These reforms are about putting the needs of victim-survivors above the interests of perpetrators and the organisations that protect them. These are critical steps to breaking down a culture that all too often silences victims for the sake of protecting the reputation of a perpetrator. Alarmingly, one in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years. We also know that this is an inherently gendered issue where the vast majority of victim-survivors of sexual harassment are women. More than 50 per cent of women who have experienced sexual harassment report that they have suffered damage to their work, and 26 per cent have said it has negatively impacted their career progression.

Of course the intended purpose of non-disclosure agreements was to protect trade secrets, not perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment. NDAs have become a fortified gag order in dealing with sexual harassment matters within workplaces. One contributor to the government’s consultation on these reforms described the use of NDAs as a secret weapon for many companies to commit, cover, suppress and manipulate workplace-related sexual violence.

The overwhelming majority of sexual harassment legal practitioners around the country have admitted to never resolving a workplace sexual harassment matter without implementing strict NDAs, and the use of NDAs in this matter has become standard across corporate Australia.

Research conducted here and overseas has consistently found that NDAs cause further harm to victim-survivors, including causing difficulty in moving on from the event, progressing their careers and even in accessing appropriate supports. The use of NDAs to cover up crimes is a perversion of what these clauses were intended for. Their use in this way fosters a toxic workplace culture of secrecy. This is consequence avoidance, and it can no longer and should not be tolerated.

Changing this culture does not happen with a single act, but putting the rights of victim-survivors over the reputations of perpetrators is as good a start as any. These reforms do not prohibit the use of NDAs in their entirety in workplace sexual harassment matters, but what they do do is create strong safeguards around how they are used and better balance the rights of victims in how they engage with these agreements. These safeguards work by setting out certain preconditions, which must be met if a worker requests an NDA, to ensure that they are fully informed of their rights and obligations in agreeing to an NDA, and I can absolutely understand why a victim might want that. Maybe they might want that initially, but maybe with the progression of time they change their mind, and they should be able to do so. For example, one of the requirements in the legislation is that the idea of using an NDA clause must come from the complainant and it must be their express wish and preference and not that of the perpetrator. This means zero tolerance of respondents seeking to include an NDA by way of intimidation, threats – either directly or implied – or by tactics such as proposing a lower settlement amount without an NDA or a higher settlement amount with one. Again, this is about ensuring that NDAs are not misused and that the choice rests with the complainant as to whether confidentiality is something they are freely willing to agree to, not something they must agree to.

The legislation also makes it clear that when an NDA is agreed to it will not be able to prevent disclosure of information to certain specified persons and organisations for specific purposes. For example, even where a complainant has signed an NDA, they will still be able to disclose the information to a mental health and wellbeing professional, a friend or family member who has agreed to keep the information confidential for the purposes of obtaining support, or an employer or prospective employer for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining work. This is important for ensuring that victim-survivors are not isolated or deprived of avenues of support or treatment for dealing with the impact of the harassment that they have been exposed to. At the same time, these disclosures are still limited to specific sets of people for specific purposes who are themselves bound by confidentiality requirements.

I want to just reflect briefly and acknowledge one woman who came to my office a couple of years ago with an issue of sexual harassment in the workplace that she never recovered from, and certainly her career never recovered from, because she could not stay in that workplace. It was the most profound thing to sit down and speak with this woman, who had quite anxiously come to my office to talk about this issue. She was scared – she was still scared 20 years after the fact that people in power would come after her. It is such a prevalent thing in our community. I feel like this reform is really something that is for all women and for all women who are yet to enter the workforce. In this day and age, in this age of Me Too, we cannot and should not ever tolerate these sorts of cover-ups ever again. For these reasons and for the reasons that all of the contributions here today have raised, I commend the bill to the house.

 Ella GEORGE (Lara) (16:25): I too rise today to speak on the Restricting Non-disclosure agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Can I begin my contribution by reflecting on the many contributions that have been made across the course of today on this bill. What is apparent is that so many people have their own personal experiences of sexual harassment in the workplace, and can I acknowledge my colleagues who have shared those experiences with us all today and the member for Footscray’s contribution before me, sharing the experiences of a constituent of hers who came to her office to talk about this incredibly important issue, and acknowledge the bravery and the courage that that takes to put yourself out there, to say, ‘This is something that happened to me. This is something that had a huge and lasting impact on my life.’ This is something that does not go away easily but still impacts people, in some cases, many, many, many years after the incident occurred. I do want to acknowledge everyone who shared their own experiences in their contributions today and acknowledge every Victorian woman who has experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. You are not alone, and it is something that I think all women in Victoria have an experience of or certainly at least a deep understanding of.

For far too long, victim-survivors have been silenced, and powerful perpetrators have stayed protected because of the use of non-disclosure agreements. Victim-survivors have felt pressured to sign NDAs, often feeling like they have no real choice – either sign it and shut up or walk away without a settlement – while the perpetrator walks away unscathed, leaving victim-survivors feeling like the NDA is just another power abuse that they are subjected to. One woman, Katie, has summed up the impact beautifully. She said:

It’s affected me long term because now I can’t talk about it. I can’t warn people. I can’t share my experience with those who would understand most. I can’t explain why I’ve been the way I have. The most severe negative long-term impact of it all was how I just signed it because I couldn’t fight anymore. I thought it was done. I thought I could move on. Instead, I have to live with it and it’s constant chokehold on my recovery from that.

This quote really stayed with me, as I think Katie has highlighted the way these NDAs affect victim-survivors from moving forward and why it is so important that this legislation is introduced to the house.

We know that one in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the past five years, and predominantly these workers are women. As I mentioned earlier, there have been many women in this place who have shared their own experiences, and I am sure there are many women as well who have not shared their experiences today. It is alarming that over half the women who have reported such experiences of sexual harassment noted that they faced harm at work, and 26 per cent indicated it negatively impacted their career advancement. That is unacceptable; no woman should ever face more harm for reporting sexual harassment. This state Labor government is committed to changing that, and this bill will make sure that victims are no longer silenced or held back from their recovery because of an NDA.

This bill is an incredibly significant piece of legislation, and I note that it is the first of its kind in Australia. Once again in Victoria we are leading the way when it comes to workers rights and when it comes to women’s rights. With this bill we will legislate to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace, where we have seen them used as a tool to silence victims. This was a key recommendation of the Victorian ministerial taskforce on workplace sexual harassment, and the bill delivers protections for workers subjected or allegedly subjected to sexual harassment, including prohibiting NDAs unless requested by the complainant; mandatory requirements for information statements and a review period before a worker signs an NDA; prohibiting an employer from pressuring or influencing a worker to enter an NDA; allowing a worker who has entered an NDA to talk with certain people and bodies, such as Victoria Police and medical and legal professionals; and allowing a worker to end an NDA after 12 months notice to the other party. These are incredibly important reforms, and this legislation is at the core of what Labor governments are about.

Labor governments prioritise the rights and preferences of victims, aligning with Labor’s commitment to promoting social justice and equality. Labor governments prioritise the rights of workers, and we will always stand up for workers and we will always stand up for workplace safety, because everyone deserves a safe workplace.

This bill will ensure that the use of NDAs is initiated by the complainant and that they are not pressured into agreeing, so that individuals who have experienced harassment can feel empowered and have real choice. It will safeguard vulnerable individuals and ensure that they have access to appropriate support and legal advice – support that is desperately needed in times like this when they experience sexual harassment at work. It will create strict accountability and transparency, requiring the use of NDAs and making them unenforceable if these conditions are not met. It will allow complainants to disclose information for the purpose of seeking mental health support. It acknowledges the significance of mental wellbeing, and importantly, it aims to shift the prevailing culture around NDAs being used as default clauses in settlements. This bill reflects our government’s desire to foster a culture that genuinely addresses and confronts workplace harassment so that every Victorian can feel safe at work and return home from work safely.

In closing, I would like to thank and acknowledge the minister, who has worked so hard on bringing this legislation before the house; the ministerial and department staff, who I know worked incredibly hard in drafting and supporting these important reforms; and every single person who provided feedback, particularly those people who have a lived experience of sexual harassment in the workplace and provided important submissions to the Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment. And I thank and acknowledge the trade union movement and our strong female unionists, who have been fighting so hard for reforms like this for so long. I know that they will continue in that fight every single day. I commend this bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:32): I also rise to make a contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I want to start in the same way that the member for Lara started and just acknowledge some of the wonderful contributions that we have heard today. I want to particularly reflect on the lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Evelyn, but also of course the Minister for Women and the member for Kororoit just in terms of their own personal experiences and how many of their future experiences have been shaped by some of their early experiences in the workforce – experiences that really no-one should be forced to have to deal with.

We talk a lot, particularly on this side of the house, about the importance of workplace safety and workplace conditions. It has been a core part of the Labor Party and Labor Party values for so many years, as it should be. But to me, this is a fundamental part of workplace safety as well. There is no place for sexual harassment of any sort in the workplace. As we know, this disproportionately impacts women in the workplace, and it is disproportionately conducted by men towards women and I dare say also disproportionately conducted by men in more powerful positions towards women who are in less powerful positions. By that very nature it creates an imbalance of power, which I think in the past has lent itself to non-disclosure agreements in the interest of protecting the corporation and the name of the business and the individual, who may be a fairly well known member of the community, the business community or that business and not want to damage either their personal reputation or that of the business. It is seen as saying, ‘Okay, we’ll cover up the harassment that went through by providing some money,’ often not even conditioned with an acceptance of guilt but with some money, and then no further discussion can be had about any of that matter.

I think given the enormity of the conduct, the impact – as has been pointed out by other speakers – that this has on a victim’s life is not just in the immediacy but can continue for many years after that, where the impacts of this behaviour live on. Just to reflect on the Minister for Women’s statement, her recollection of what was happening to her when she was 15, in her first job, all these years later is still something that obviously is very raw and emotional. I think it just goes to show that these incidents cannot be covered over by saying ‘Well, let’s just not talk about it, and here’s some money’ and letting the problem go away. From a psychological point of view and from a mental health point of view, we have to be thinking of the victims and how they are going to respond in certain situations.

In this context I am really proud that we are one of the very first jurisdictions – certainly the first jurisdiction in Australia but one of the few jurisdictions now in the world – to put these restrictions on non-disclosure agreements for sexual harassment cases. It is a really important step. We should be thinking about the victims in these circumstances and what is going to be the best outcome and the best scenario for them. As other speakers have said, this is not about banning and restricting non-disclosure agreements in their entirety. There is still the option to have those non-disclosure agreements for those matters. But the decision should be led by the victim rather than the perpetrator in the interest of trying to protect their name or protect the company’s name. We would not think that is appropriate in any other circumstance if there had been an offence like that perpetrated. We would always want to see what is actually the best outcome for the victim. I think this is a law which tries to frame non-disclosure agreements in that form.

Some of the preconditions are around the complainant specifically requesting to enter the non-disclosure agreement, and that has to be made out of their own free will, obviously, and not coerced and where there is no pressure into making that agreement from any other side or from any influence, particularly from, say, within the company. After requesting the agreement and before entering into the agreement the complainant is given a copy of the workplace non-disclosure agreement information statement. Then there is also an opportunity to review the non-disclosure agreement after 12 months. If that is something where the victim elects to change their mind and they have had some further time to actually think about it and realise that it is actually impacting them more than they would like and they actually feel a need to speak more broadly about it, particularly more broadly than the schedule of parties in which they are allowed to talk to it, I think that is a really important step.

In summary, I think that this is a really important change. I think it does change the focus from the protection of the perpetrator to the protection of the victim, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (16:39): I too rise to make a contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I do note that it is one of the bills in this place that we are debating where there seems to be furious agreement on all sides of the chamber.

In reflecting upon the contributions that have been made by this side of the chamber, amongst the chatter I have also just come to note that there has been somewhat of an acknowledgement of the honour and power that go with being in this place and also the honour and power that actually go with being a part of the labour movement. So many of us here, and rightly so, have acknowledged the incredible contributions that various officials have made in moving this bill, but ultimately on this side of the chamber we are a part of a movement which is grassroots driven. Think about it: you have got members out there, people of our society, all living in our electorates, who see something that is just terribly, terribly wrong, and they drive that experience through their unions, through their workplaces and through the various officials that represent them. Then through that movement, which created the Australian Labor Party for that very purpose, to come to this place and to advocate strongly for those rights gives me a real sense of pride to be here. I note what the member for Box Hill just said before, that everyone’s reason for doing what they are doing is based on experience, and lived experience is the best and only form of experience, just as hindsight is the best form of sight. In coming here and advocating as strongly as we all have, I really want to acknowledge that.

But you need people to drive what comes through this place. As has been noted, Victorian Trades Hall have done an extraordinary job through their women’s team, and I especially call out Carolyn Dunbar – I know that many of us had delegates from various unions at various worksites that she brought through this place, explaining to us all why we needed this legislation; Danae Bosler, assistant secretary of Trades Hall; and Wil Stracke, assistant secretary of Trades Hall as well. They played a really important role in coalescing all the unions, private and public sector unions, in Victoria to advocate strongly so that the government would bring this as a bill to this place. These things do take time. I know there are many in here who have represented employees, whether in private practice or as industrial officers or industrial lawyers through the movement, who have actually seen the horrible non-disclosure agreements that had to be signed that facilitated some terrible things, including exit from the workplace and ultimately continuing trauma for that person. But ultimately, that person – that woman in all cases, at least in my experience – would always take that option no matter what they would have to face later on with their mental wellbeing. It just was not right. As was noted by the Minister for Women this morning, it has been happening for decades. I was quite buoyed in fact by hearing that the member for Hawthorn, in his capacity as a lawyer representing employers, was one of those types of lawyers that you would negotiate with who would actually put it to their clients that, you know what, it is not such a big deal.

They were few and far between, but there was decency in there. But having these clauses in these types of agreements is extraordinarily damaging for the complainant, and having this bill to give the voice back to victim-survivors is so important. They should not be silenced, and I am really proud of the impact that I know that this bill will have in reforming the practice of using NDAs to silence those workers, to conceal the harassment that had occurred and to protect the power of those continuing, quite often, to work in that workplace. That sexual harassment in the workplace is deeply damaging and way too common. We know through the government consultation and were able to see that one in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, and that has happened at least in the last five years.

These types of clauses should never have been used for this. They continued to morph, these types of clauses, initially from restraint of trade through to actually protecting trade secrets and eventually becoming this kind of gag order in resolving sexual harassment matters in the workplace. It just is not on, and I am very happy that this government is taking this step to remove it.

Legislating to restrict the use of NDAs was a key recommendation of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment. It was last year that our government announced the start of formal consultation for this legislation to end the misuse of NDAs in cases of workplace sexual harassment, which informs this legislation which is before us today. In total there were some 81 responses which were received as part of that consultation, and it highlighted the harm misused NDAs have caused for those who have experienced sexual assault at work.

It cannot always be easy to share your experience, particularly given the subject matter and the nature of what we are discussing, and I acknowledge and thank all the women who shared their stories as a part of this consultation and indeed thank all members in this place who have shared their lived experience. There is powerlessness and pain in being a victim-survivor and those who have experience of those misused non-disclosure agreements, but it encapsulates why this government continues to advocate for the people that we represent, and we are committed to ensuring that this becomes law.

I again acknowledge the vital role of the union sector, who are so often at the forefront of advocating for those worker-based issues in their workplace, whether it is underpayment, surveillance, unfair dismissal or indeed sexual harassment. This legislation will make workplaces safer for people across my community of Narre Warren South but for all Victorians as well. It is an important issue in the workplace, and we must give victim-survivors their voice back to warn others and to share their experiences for the good of their own mental wellbeing and for the wellbeing of our society as well. To that end I commend this bill to the house.

 Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (16:49): I rise also to speak in strong support of the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025 and join with colleagues on our side to commend at the outset the work of Trades Hall and the union officials; the unions themselves for their advocacy; the Minister for Industrial Relations, the department and team; community members of course with lived experience, importantly, whose voices are being heard; and the contributions of members who have outlined their lived experience and also the experiences of others in their electorates, which have been quite harrowing to listen to over the course of the day.

For too long workplace non-disclosure agreements have been used to silence victim-survivors of sexual harassment, and these agreements, often signed under enormous pressure, stop people from speaking about what happened to them. They can even prevent naming the perpetrator. Meanwhile, the person who caused harm moves on to other workplaces, free to repeat their behaviour. That is not justice, that is not safety, and it is not the workplace culture we should accept here in Victoria. This bill is grounded in a simple principle: that workers deserve a safe workplace. They deserve the right to speak and to heal and to be protected, not silenced.

There have been a number of contributions outlining the definition, which is an agreement that prevents a complainant who has been subject to or allegedly subject to workplace sexual harassment from disclosing information about the conduct constituting the sexual harassment, including the identity of the respondent, the perpetrator. As part of the settlement of a sexual harassment matter an employer may ask the complainant to agree to a confidentiality clause or clauses as part of a broader deed of release.

NDAs are too often being misused to silence victims-survivors of workplace sexual harassment. We have also heard about the history of non-disclosure agreements being used for trade and trade secrets and all that and how it has morphed into something very other. So NDAs have become almost routine in sexual harassment settlements. What were once tools to protect sensitive information, as I have just said, are now too often used to conceal misconduct itself. They hide complaints from colleagues, prospective employers, even authorities, and some employers have even used NDAs with perpetrators, preventing disclosure of substantiated misconduct to future workplaces. That means a known offender can walk straight into a new job, with no warning to those who will work alongside them. This culture of silence makes workplaces less safe and obscures the true scale of sexual harassment, preventing government and community from confronting the problem openly. Because NDAs are almost entirely unregulated in Australia, the power imbalance falls squarely on the shoulders of the worker.

Listening to victim-survivors: the bill is shaped by the voices of those who have lived through this system. Through public consultation we heard from workers, unions, legal experts, employers and critically from victim-survivors who had signed non-disclosure agreements. We received 81 responses, and the message was very clear: they cause real harm. And 93 per cent of victim-survivors said they later wished they could end the non-disclosure agreement they had signed. We heard stories of people unable to speak to their families, therapists or closest friends, people trying to rebuild their lives while carrying trauma they could not talk about.

One woman told us the non-disclosure agreement made a serial harasser ‘untouchable’. Another said signing it worsened her mental health and drove her out of her job altogether. Another said she was too traumatised to continue at her workplace. Maurice Blackburn senior associate Jessica Dawson-Field publicly stated that a victim-survivor is left with the choice, ‘Do I proceed to a court hearing, which has its own stresses, for example, giving evidence in a public hearing, or do I settle on the basis of a financial settlement, which helps me move on? But ultimately I am being paid for my silence.’ Often the victim is keen to resolve the matter and move on, and maybe it is six or 12 months down the track when they realise they want to talk to their family about it and get support, but the ways the non-disclosure agreements are drafted prevent that.

People need to have options and make informed choices. Expert legal voices echoed this. Victim-survivors are too often forced to choose between a public hearing – traumatic in itself – or a settlement that comes with a price: their silence. People deserve real choice, real information and real control over their own story. This bill restores the balance and puts the rights and wellbeing of workers at the centre. It prohibits employers or respondents from pressuring a complainant into a non-disclosure agreement. It prevents non-disclosure agreements with alleged or confirmed harassers from being used to block investigations or to stop employers from disclosing substantiated misconduct to a prospective employer. It establishes strict preconditions before any non-disclosure agreement can be entered into. The complainant must request the non-disclosure agreement – it cannot be employer-driven – they must receive an information statement and they must have time to seek legal advice.

A non-disclosure agreement under this bill cannot prevent a worker from speaking to police, doctors, lawyers or trusted family and friends. Support must never be off-limits. Importantly, a complainant may choose to terminate the non-disclosure agreement after 12 months. This recognises that people often sign them in distress and only later understand the impact on their recovery and autonomy. If the preconditions are not met, the non-disclosure agreement is non-binding, and complainants may issue a brief notice if the legislation is not followed. These matters ensure non-disclosure agreements do not silence victims or shield perpetrators. They restore agency to workers and strengthen workplace safety. An option for a worker, as I just referenced, to end a non-disclosure agreement after 12 months recognises that workers often sign a non-disclosure agreement in a state of distress, and it is only after a period of time they have had time to process their experience. They realise the importance of being able to speak out.

This bill shifts power back to where it belongs: with workers, with victim-survivors, with those silenced for too long. It asks a simple but profound question: does the non-disclosure agreement support a person’s healing, or is it protecting an institution’s reputation? We are choosing healing, we are choosing safety and we are choosing justice. This bill is about dignity and transparency. It says ‘no more’ to secrecy that protects offenders. It says ‘yes’ to empowering victim-survivors and creating safer workplaces for all.

I wish to go back and just acknowledge again the trade union movement, our labour movement, the victim-survivors, those with lived experience, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the department and team who have done an immense body of work. There has been so much advocacy around this, and as has been stated, it is something that has been happening for decades. We have got this bill here before us, and it is one of those ones that will make a difference; it is very important. Again, it is choosing healing. We are choosing safety. We are choosing justice. And I have to speak –

A member interjected.

Jordan CRUGNALE: Choose life. I think I have to speak for another 12 seconds.

A member interjected.

Jordan CRUGNALE: Do I not? I commend the bill to the house.

 Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (16:59): It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreement (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, and with the very brief time that I have left to talk in support of this bill I want to thank everyone who has been involved in drafting this legislation, who worked on the ministerial taskforce, to everyone at Trades Hall, to all of the victims-survivors for having your voices heard. Of course it has been wonderful to hear the very brave contributions in this place talking in support of this bill, and I commend it to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The question is:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.