Thursday, 20 November 2025

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (09:59): I am pleased to rise and speak on this important bill. Sexual harassment is a major problem in Victorian workplaces. In its wake are untold stories of trauma, scars, ruined dreams, a burning sense of injustice and ultimately bitterness and, in that probably I would say, rightful anger.

It is an obligation of every business to put in place systems and procedures to minimise and address it. Education is important. Any behaviours, positive or negative, can be normalised within a workplace culture. A good culture provides a workplace where hard work, enthusiasm and a sense of role and belonging bring out the best of people’s talents and efforts and the best of people’s character. Other workplaces do not. It is said that culture means behaviours that do not require rules, and one thing I have observed and learned over 25 years of management is how important organisational leadership is in setting tone and culture. We can and should have robust laws to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment, but where those laws meet their limits, nothing can limit the worst of human behaviour as strongly as culture. In the context of the workplace, it is the CEO, the manager, the directors, the department heads and middle management – they all have an essential role in having zero tolerance for sexual harassment, culturally as much as procedurally.

Sadly, even when the right process is in place and the right culture is in place, sexual harassment still occurs. It is a cold, sad conclusion that we can outlaw any criminal behaviour, but that of itself does not prevent crime. That is where society takes back and seeks to apply consequence as the next level of disincentive to criminal behaviour. As a society, we believe that breaking the law, particularly if that act involves harming others, must have consequences. If not, the law is just a piece of paper, and culture is just one person’s sense of right and wrong versus another’s. Consequence is where law and the moral authority of culture crystallise and codify each other and give both authority. The greater the harm, the greater the laws to prevent it and the greater the cultural cost to the individual if they breach that law, because the culture defines the degree of shame, but ultimately both become personified in the consequence. That is why it is very true to say that not only does justice need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done.

That is what makes the discussion of sexual harassment, and especially non-disclosure agreements around it, a complicated matter. Sexual harassment is culturally shameful, yet too often it is the victim, not the perpetrator, who experiences the cultural shame. That is not justice. Non-disclosure agreements operate to facilitate and support satisfying the law, especially if the matter is contested, but they prevent justice from being seen to be done. When you put that up against what I have said previously, it is quite evident how conflicted the use of NDAs can become in the settlement of sexual harassment cases. On the one hand, NDAs have in many, many cases been a valuable legal tool to settle difficult, contested matters relatively amicably – to arrive at terms which may not undo what has been done but provide a sense of personal vindication and redress and, crucially, to do so without public exposure, rancour and cost and without adding to the distress of having to go to court to provide a way to move forward. Faced with a choice between litigation and settlement under an NDA, many victims, for their own benefit and by their own agency and preference, choose the latter. In fact our legal systems are geared to encourage it because the system acknowledges that court is a place of last resort and a negotiated settlement is the preferred resolution. Sometimes an accusation, regardless of truth, cannot meet legal thresholds of evidence. Sometimes even a public accusation itself, regardless of truth, is enough to destroy lives and reputations. In both instances the law falls short, and settlement under an NDA has become a valuable mechanism for a mediated solution to this. Whatever the provisions of this bill and whatever the abuses of NDAs that do occur, it is not the concept of the NDA that is flawed. In fact my single greatest concern with this bill is that it strays too far in that direction – something I will say a bit more about later and perhaps deal with in committee.

But there is clearly and unambiguously a problem with the application of NDAs, especially in sexual harassment matters. It revolves around the weaponisation of NDAs to silence victims, to shame and coerce or even bribe victims into silence, compliance and invisibility. The use of NDAs in this way does not satisfy justice; in fact it hides it. Moreover, it is cruel and damaging to the individual. I pay tribute to a number of people who in the debate in the other place bravely shared their experiences of sexual harassment. I suspect there would not be a person in this chamber who has not either experienced or knows someone close to them who has experienced sexual harassment and the damage it does. It is an enduring trauma that is extremely difficult to move past, and many people carry that with them every single day. It is a courageous thing to talk about.

One of the problems with the fact that NDAs make this matter invisible is that the system then breaks down in another way, because that invisibility is not just a burden for the victim, it also becomes a blind spot for society. We do not know how often this takes place. We do not know the degree, because it is hidden. In that sense the operation of NDAs and sexual harassment matters has been problematic for a long, long time, and I absolutely welcome this bill in the context that this needs to be resolved. It is very good that this bill in a sense brings the issue to a head to be addressed, because we have been living in an ambiguous, unsatisfactory state for many, many years around it. We know that the practice of NDAs, at least anecdotally, is increasing, and therefore the potential for abuse is increasing likewise.

The operation and intent of NDAs in sexual harassment cases has been inconsistent and has led to unsatisfactory outcomes. One of the reasons for that is because we understand that there is a power imbalance. At the point of settlement, at the point in time of signing an NDA, someone who has experienced sexual harassment is almost certainly in a state of considerable distress. It is not the ideal time to be signing contracts or agreements that have will have a profound effect on the rest of your life potentially. That power imbalance in dealing with a company is significant. You are an individual versus in some cases the might of the HR department, the might of the CEO or whoever within that company has done the wrong thing. Therefore looking at the way NDAs are signed and completed at that point in time, and addressing that power imbalance and providing the victim with an opportunity when they are less distressed or have had an opportunity for consultation, have had the opportunity to confide in someone and receive advice in a safe way, is a very sound principle. That is what has led us to have this bill come to the house.

The bill background is that it emanates out of a review of sexual harassment, announced back in March 2021, conducted by a taskforce chaired by Bronwyn Halfpenny MP. It reviewed four pillars: preventing sexual harassment from occurring, supporting workers to report sexual harassment, enforcing compliance when there is a breach of health and safety duties and raising awareness and promoting accountability in workplaces across Victoria.

The taskforce made 26 recommendations over a wide area on the matter. The government accepted quite a number of those and then undertook to put something into legislation.

I think it is also very important to recognise there was wide consultation on how we reform this. We looked around the world to see what other countries are doing, which is always a very sensible thing to do, and we saw solutions, particularly from Ireland. One of the solutions – certainly not the solution but one of the solutions – was to address how NDAs are managed, for all the reasons that I have just explained around how they could be abused. The consultation received a large number of submissions from victim groups, from unions and from support agencies, and they make a very compelling case around much of this. The only observation I would make on that is that in workplace harassment matters there are effectively three parties involved: the victim, the accused and the company. The observation in the consultation is that the consultation with the business part of this, the employer part of this, is arguably a little bit insufficient. It would have been better to have had more specific consultation with those groups, because in seeking solutions, they are going to be absolutely key to the success of it in implementation. In knowing how business generally will react, the practical experience would help ensure the laws not only are just but can survive contact with the real world. There are good and bad actors in business alike, and the problems they face too in dealing with these matters are relevant. Ninety-nine per cent of businesses and business owners and managers have nothing but good intent towards victims and have as much of a vested interest in weeding out those perpetrators from their ranks as anyone does. They do not want those people in their business, people who destroy lives. They do not want them in their businesses any more than anyone else.

In my consultation with them they observed that they do have concerns with some of the aspects of the proposed legislation. That is relative to the lack of consultation or input that they were given opportunity to have. Their concern is primarily around how NDAs now have a diminished value in application, from a business point of view, which I will talk to a little bit now as the main area of concern. The main area of concern is that under the provisions proposed, while it is quite sensible that only the victim can propose an NDA being implemented, the victim has a unilateral right to repudiate the NDA after 12 months. That comes back to the previous point about giving the victim time to have agency in a final decision about the NDA. But the unintended consequences are that it massively ups the risk for the business, because in making the settlement in good faith and putting it under an NDA, they now know that the NDA can be repudiated at any time. So from a practical standpoint, from their perspective, the NDA effectively has no value; it cannot be trusted. They cannot consider it a closed matter, because the right to repudiate the NDA is perpetual. At any time, anywhere into the future, the NDA can be repudiated, but by the victim alone.

The business may have made a settlement, may have made a financial settlement, may have made other accommodations, but for all that, the confidentiality can be removed. What the natural reaction of business will be, as businesses have told us, is there will be no point signing an NDA – in fact there is no point settling. So the unintended consequence here would be the risk – I am not saying it is, I am saying there is the risk of it – that businesses will not settle out of court; they will actually pursue and contest the matter. If it is a matter where it is contested within the company, because a lot of these matters are contested, then the company, with the resources of the company, is much more likely to take it to court and litigate or defend it. The consequence is that that exacerbates the problem for the victim, because the victim actually has less resources and less ability to prosecute their own case and settle their own interests. That is undesirable. I am not saying it is a good thing; it is a very undesirable outcome, but it is a potential unintended consequence of the law. If the NDA has no value, then they will not sign one and they will not settle.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Richard WELCH: Not to the business, to settling.

Ryan Batchelor: I think you’re actually wrong on the interpretation of the law, but I will explain why.

Richard WELCH: And I am happy for you to.

Ryan Batchelor: I think you’re wrong.

Richard WELCH: Well, it is not me saying it, it is business and industries that I am consulting with that are pointing this out.

Ryan Batchelor: The bill on the table – you’re wrong.

Richard WELCH: And in the committee of the whole I think we can acquit a lot of that, for sure.

Amongst these other unintended consequences, there is not clarity within the bill of the recourse once the procedures or the thresholds for repudiation of the NDA occur, which creates some procedural issues, particularly if nothing has been proven or if the perpetrator has moved company or if other things have happened after the expiration of a year – a year has gone by in due process and suddenly the matter is open for public discussion again.

Another minor issue – it is not a major issue; it is a minor issue – is the requirement that NDAs are written in plain language. I have no problem with that directly. I think it is quite understandable why you would want an agreement signed in plain language, but I would just simply point out that legal language has evolved for a reason, because it has evolved so that we have legal precision, so it is a technical language for a technical purpose. Whilst using plain language in an agreement may be good for comprehension, it is innately and inherently an act of weakening the legal robustness of the agreement, and it does open a small window to making these agreements more contestable under law as well. A question that we will perhaps prosecute later as well is the definition of plain language: how plain, is it an absolute standard, or is it relative to the knowledge and experience of the victim as well?

That said, there are many other good elements of what we are hoping to achieve through this, particularly on the notion of being able to consult or seek advice or counselling even while under an NDA. Another problem with NDAs has been that it also means the victim is in many ways constrained from seeking help from experts or practitioners or even from receiving counsel of a close friend. What this law does, very helpfully, is expand the range of people that a victim can confide in without breaching the NDA. I think that is a very welcome addition.

The only concern in this area is that in the crafting of it it is a little bit on one hand too prescriptive and on the other hand a little bit loose. The prescription is that it provides a list of practitioners that you can confide in, which is good – that gives clarity – but the risk is that there is someone accidentally left off that specific list. Are they then excluded because they were not specifically listed? The other thing is that in confiding with someone else, is that other person themselves bound by any requirement for confidentiality? It seems in some circumstances it is unclear if they are. That has, again, the net effect of undermining the robustness of the NDA to any other party that is signing up to it and therefore acts as a further disincentive to actually agree to an NDA in the first place. I point those out really in an absolutely constructive sense, because we intend to support the bill. We think it is a very necessary and very helpful bill to have brought forward. I think it would be helpful to get some further clarity around how this law will operate in practice – that would be a very good thing.

That is all I really want to say for now, because it is more the devil in the detail. There are a couple of bits of devil in the detail that will I think just be helpful in understanding the application of the law – helpful for businesses. Businesses have had a number of other laws from federal level come in the intervening years on similar – not identical, but similar – and overlapping areas of responsibility and obligation, and they are dealing with a number of changes from different directions. A little bit of clarity in the application here will be helpful for their ability to faithfully implement these laws as well. That is my contribution. I commend the bill.

I have got one amendment. It is a very simple amendment. My chief concern, as I have said in the speech, is the unintended consequences – that is all, and that is really what it amounts to. Therefore in the context of unintended consequences, it reduces the review period from three years to two. We can discuss that a little bit more later. I would like to table this now. I will conclude my speech there.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:23): I am very pleased to rise on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I think it is important in the context of the debate today to understand what the real or original intent of non-disclosure agreements was. When they were first introduced and became common practice they were meant to protect trade secrets. They were used as a legal tool by businesses to protect the secrets they had in trade and commerce, largely related to their commercial dealings. But today, overwhelmingly, the concern about these agreements has moved from them being a tool to protect businesses’ commercial and trade secrets to one where complainants against sexual harassment, overwhelmingly women, are being asked – that is one word; probably forced is better – to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of a settlement process. These are complainants who are the victims of sexual assault, and this is not protecting trade secrets. The businesses are not protecting their trade secrets, they are seeking to ensure silence from complainants and silence from victims, legally compelling them under the terms of these binding non-disclosure agreements from telling anyone – including friends, including family, sometimes even their doctor or their psychologist – about the conduct that has occurred.

By silencing victim-survivors, NDAs are being misused to hide serial offending, to protect perpetrators and to protect the reputations of employers, who have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted in its 2020 Respect@Work report that NDAs are frequently used in settlements for workplace sexual harassment cases in Australia and they are contributing to ‘a culture of silence’ by protecting the reputation of the business or the harasser.

That is the exact reason why the Allan Labor government is bringing these nation-leading reforms to restrict the use of NDAs in workplace sexual harassment cases, because NDAs have been weaponised. They have restricted accountability for people in workplaces for far too long, and this government is doing something about it. This bill ensures these laws are people centred and put power back in the hands of those who have been impacted in their workplaces by sexual harassment and other predatory behaviour, and it ensures that we support them to make the decisions into their future. In passing these reforms and by passing this bill today, Victoria will become the first jurisdiction to restrict the use of NDAs in workplace sexual harassment matters. The reforms respond directly to a key recommendation of the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment, a report that sought to develop reforms that could ensure better prevention of and response to the scourge of sexual harassment in the workplace. Following this recommendation the government published a discussion paper and a survey for victim-survivors in 2024. Responses to that survey highlighted the harm and trauma that NDAs can cause and identified the need for 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. We know because we have talked to them on many occasions that the Victorian Trades Hall Council has also done a lot of work campaigning for these reforms for many years. One of the activities they undertook was a survey. They conducted a survey and collected more than 250 responses from people who had been silenced by confidentiality agreements: 95 per cent of the respondents to that Trades Hall survey said that being silenced through an NDA created additional harm to them, and 96 per cent of respondents believed that NDAs should never be used to silence victims in workplace disputes. That is what the victim-survivors are telling us.

We know, however, that turning around entrenched toxic workplace culture is often complicated. It takes time and it takes hard work, and it also takes governments willing to pass laws to keep that reform going and to keep improving the lives of people who are the victims of workplace sexual harassment. This is just another in those steps that we are taking. It on its own will not solve all the problems, but it is an important and critical step forward. These reforms would also see Victoria become the first jurisdiction in Australia to restrict the use of NDAs in sexual harassment matters. We can point to some other jurisdictions around the world who have taken this important step forward. There are jurisdictions, including Ireland and one of the Canadian provinces, who have regulated the use of NDAs by creating a model centred on complainant choice. The United Kingdom has also recently introduced legislative amendments to ban NDAs in certain forms of work-related harassment and discrimination cases. This is seeing Victoria join world-leading jurisdictions in taking action here.

I think it is important, because there appears to be a little bit of confusion about how this bill works, to clarify some of the matters. These reforms obviously do not prohibit the use of NDAs in their entirety in workplace relations matters. But they create strong safeguards about how they are used and provide more agency to complainants in a process that hitherto has been earmarked by an incredible power imbalance, and these laws seek to redress that.

They give victim-survivors, complainants, more agency about how they engage with proposed settlement agreements. The safeguards work by setting out certain preconditions which must be met if a worker requests an NDA as part of a settlement agreement for these cases, ensuring that they are fully informed of their rights and obligations in agreeing to a non-disclosure component of a broader settlement agreement. For one example, one of the requirements in the legislation is that the suggestion of using an NDA clause must come from the complainant and must be their express wish and preference. That is a critical step to break the culture of using NDAs by default – which has become part of the system – and it ensures that they are being initiated by the complainant. In doing so, the complainant must not be unduly pressured or influenced by an employer in relation to their decision to enter into an NDA: zero tolerance on pressure, zero tolerance on respondents seeking to include an NDA by way of intimidation or threats – whether they are direct or implied – and zero tolerance on approaches by respondents seeking to propose lower settlement amounts for agreements that do not have an NDA and higher settlement amounts for agreements that do. The central feature of these issues is the settlement agreement, and this is about ensuring that NDAs are not misused and giving power back to the complainant as to whether confidentiality is a necessary requirement for them in an agreement to settle any further legal action with respect to the behaviours that have been engaged in.

Another requirement is that the worker must be provided with a mandatory information statement and a review period during which they can obtain advice prior to signing an NDA. This helps to ensure that workers have sufficient time and information available to fully consider the implications of entering into an NDA and gives them the time to seek legal advice if they wish. These preconditions are not guidance or recommendations; they are requirements that must be met. If they are not met, the NDA is unenforceable against a complainant to the extent that it prevents a complainant from disclosing any details about the conduct constituting sexual harassment.

I just want to go to the point that Mr Welch identified as being a concern for him and/or the business community about the termination of confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement. Clause 19 of the bill makes it pretty clear that a complainant may terminate a workplace non-disclosure agreement to the extent that the agreement has the purpose or effect of preventing a party to the agreement from disclosing material information. I think what is at issue here and what might be the source of the confusion for Mr Welch is that the provisions of the bill do not waive the terms of the entire settlement agreement. They waive the confidentiality requirements that are a part of it. They give individual complainants agency in deciding whether the confidentiality provisions that they had previously agreed to continue. What Mr Welch identified as a concern for business was that this ups the risk for business because there is no protection against further action. That is not the case. The settlement agreement, which might include settlement of future liabilities – a bar on further claims – would continue to exist, even if the confidentiality requirements that had existed were chosen to be waived by the complainant. This undermines the argument that there is no point in settling, because the point of a settlement agreement is to settle future liability claims. All we are doing here is saying that the future post-settlement bar on further claims would remain even if the victim-survivor, the complainant, decides after the 12-month period that they wish to remove the confidentiality – that is, the non-disclosure – elements of the agreement. Fundamentally, doing so, exercising this new right to remove the confidentiality requirements, does not repudiate the settlement in its entirety. That is important for businesses who are seeking to understand what their future liability might be.

Hopefully it means that businesses change behaviour in their workplaces. I think that is a more important thing to think about here. What we want to see is some pressure on businesses to make sure that they have safe workplaces, that they have workplaces that are safe and free from sexual harassment and inappropriate workplace conduct. They have that obligation in law, and they should have it as part of their normal practice. To the extent to which any of this legislation helps to increase the pressure on businesses to do the right thing, I think it should be supported. Hopefully that helps to clarify some of the issues that Mr Welch has raised.

Just briefly in conclusion, we do know that even in 2025 women are still being subject to sexual harassment at work. Four out of five victims of sexual harassment at work are women. This happens through the continued gender inequality and power imbalances between colleagues, managers and bosses, mainly men continuing to sexualise women in the workplace. There is growing evidence internationally that NDAs compound a person’s distress and pain, make them feel that their own needs are being trampled on or betrayed, and create a feeling of debilitating shame and burden, including around not warning others that there are predators in the workplace. The bill means we can put pressure on the employer to do the right thing and give relief, particularly to women in the workplace. The bill means that employers cannot intimidate, threaten or financially incentivise an NDA, and it shows that Victoria is leading the nation and the world in what we are doing.

I want to give particular credit to the campaigning by the Victorian Trades Hall Council, particularly the Union Women group, who have been working hard for years to get this issue put on the agenda, the review work done and now legislation before the Parliament. We have met with them several times. We have listened to the stories that have been told. We have read the reports and surveys. The evidence is very clear from the union movement about why this issue is important and why this bill is important. It will help create safer workplaces here in the state of Victoria. It will not achieve everything, but it is an important next step in our ongoing reform efforts to ensure that we have a gender-equal Victoria, gender-equal workplaces and workplaces free from sexual harassment. I commend the bill to the house.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:37): It is time we got excited in this place. It is time we celebrated the fact that it has been a sensational week for women, full stop. As many in this place will know, or I hope do know, and will appreciate, this is a campaign that has been very many years in the making; in fact I would say way too many years. It should have happened a long time ago, but I congratulate the fact that it is happening today. I remember back in July of this year standing out on the steps with Wil Stracke, the assistant secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, and talking with her about the hope that in this very place here this legislation passes this chamber and the other and becomes law. It is absolutely critical that it does so.

Today is unquestionably a day about making workplaces safer. That is what it is, full stop. What a sensational day: we should have balloons, we should have streamers – we should have all those things out. No-one should underestimate the importance of today for that very reason. No-one should forget for one second that predominantly this affects women. It affects men too. We should not exclude them, because they will also be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to take up the protections that are now offered. As we know, all too frequently in the past these have been largely invisible crimes that have been perpetrated and then covered up. That is what we are talking about today.

This is why this is incredibly important, particularly for women, because for way too long – in fact for as long as I have been alive – it has silenced victims. That is the truth here, and that is why we are passing this legislation today. It left the victims voiceless and it stripped them entirely of their agency, and it did so for their entire lifetime. This claws back that terrible position. It promotes a culture of transparency as opposed to the culture of secrecy and non-accountability which flourished. There is still a great deal to go. We are not there yet in its totality, but this is an excellent starting point. It also means that we have workplaces that are less harmful to employees. Rather than creating a bad workplace, we are now, thank goodness, on the job of helping create healthy workplaces.

It should not escape anyone in this place that one in three – that is, one in three – people have been victims of sexual harassment in the last five years. That is an unbelievably high figure. It is scary. It is outrageous actually. I mean, it is 2025. What are these people doing? How are they behaving in the workplace? This goes, as I said, some distance – not totally, but it is a step in the right direction – to restoring the balance back in favour of the victims, and that is absolutely critical. We cannot also forget that this is largely, if not wholly, the consequence of victims having to advocate on their own behalf, victims approaching organisations right across our community – volunteer organisations and unions – and seeking their support and then, in turn, them investing in and understanding the importance of this issue – investing time and effort, certainly in respect to the Victorian Trades Hall Council, for over three long years. We have got there too late, but nonetheless we have arrived at the point that we should have arrived at. So it is, as I say, a time and occasion to mark. It is a time to celebrate. I do not think for one second the work in this space is done. Personally I find NDAs, and it is a personal view only, repugnant in the main. They usually serve to hide things. And as I have said from the first day I entered this place, and I hope I to say it to the end, I am a fan of transparency. Let the light shine in. It is the greatest disinfectant any government has. It is the greatest disinfectant a democracy has to ensure that bad behaviour and bad decisions are not covered up and that those responsible for those decisions are held accountable. And that is absolutely critical.

My thanks go not only to all of those brave men and women who over very many years have suffered, and who over very many years have campaigned for change in this space, but also, of course, as I have said already, to both Wil Stracke and to Carolyn Dunbar, who is the Victorian Trades Hall Council women’s lead.

I do not want to make a long speech today. I think I have said what I needed to say. I think if the public were to understand what we are doing here today, they too would celebrate the fact. We will continue to watch this space very carefully and very closely. I do wish to finish on a somewhat lighter note, if that would be permissible; I am sure it is permissible. This will appeal to Wil, I hope, but we will see. It goes a little bit like this:

Isn’t it ironic? It’s like rain on your wedding day,

A free ride when you have already paid,

Being a bad employer when all you want to do is cover up sexual harassment.

It is like committing a crime, but you do not have to pay.

When you duck for cover, NDAs will keep the police at bay.

Who would have thought?

It figures. There is no more NDA cover after today.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:43): I thank the previous contributors on this topic. This is the kind of legislation that you get when you have got women in the trade union movement leading on an issue important to them. It is also a piece of legislation that you get when you have got a government predominantly run by women – for once. I am very, very proud to be speaking on this issue. I do so as, of course, one of the majority of women who have experienced sexual harassment at work. It was my very first job. I guess many women have experienced sexual harassment in multiple locations and multiple workplaces, but I will just give you one example, and that was my very first job as a professional. The CEO would hold my right upper arm whilst we were interacting, whilst were talking about workplace issues. It was never my choice as to when that conversation had concluded. It was embarrassing, it was intimidating, and it was giving me a message that I did not have any personal rights in my physical space, but also in my professional status.

That impacted on my professional confidence, it impacted on my development as a young graduate and it impacted on my perception of myself and my legitimacy as a professional. That is just one very small and minor example, and I am sure this chamber could imagine some of the horrific scenarios that have also occurred in workplaces.

I do want to go on by describing some of what has happened even just recently. It was a conversation, not an incident. I was planning a Christmas catch-up with friends and colleagues, and that led to a discussion about past Christmas functions that we had variously attended. From that group, of mostly women of course, this inevitably led to a conversation about sexual harassment we had experienced or witnessed. One friend talked of a middle executive having to patrol her work Christmas party to rescue junior employees from the advances of their senior colleagues. She was abused and threatened by one colleague, who was half-carrying a very drunk junior colleague out to his waiting taxi. Another had a drunk client proposition her; when she refused him she was told he knew she was a lezzo. Her manager thought it was hilarious and advised her to never mention it again. ‘He was so drunk, he would probably have forgotten it,’ was the comment. But she never worked on that client’s account again. Yet another spoke about being attacked by her manager, who had followed her into the lift when she was leaving their end-of-year function. She told HR and was told to sign an NDA if she wanted the matter resolved. The manager was quietly let go. She was shunted into a secure but boring job with no prospects of promotion and left the firm a couple of years later. Every one of the women who recounted these events had their careers, their self-confidence and their mental health impacted.

That brief chat reflects the state of our workplaces more broadly. Sexual harassment is endemic, as has been acknowledged in the speeches so far. It is also inherently gendered, and the vast majority of victims are women. The Australian Human Rights Commission in the 2022 national survey on sexual harassment in workplaces found that one in three workers had experienced sexual harassment at work in the five years prior to the survey, so this is still an issue today. Horrifyingly, 3 per cent of respondents had experienced actual attempted rape or sexual assault. Given the historic under-reporting of rape, this figure is likely to be in reality much higher. In fact the statistics on sexual harassment in general are likely to be lower than the actual incidents.

From my own experience working with victims of sexual assault as a Centre Against Sexual Assault counsellor and in the domestic violence space, continued ongoing contact with a perpetrator is the primary risk to their safety. So there is a gap that I would like to pose for all of us to think about in the future. When sexual assault and family violence sector workers are assessing a brand new client, the very first task of the therapist and of the emergency response worker is to ascertain the level of safety of that victim-survivor right now, right there in that agency. Will they be going back home to an abuser? Are they still in contact with that abuser? The first action is to ensure the safety of the victim-survivor. In workplaces there is no acknowledgement of that. Many women who report harassment or bullying or sexual harassment are left to work on a daily basis, collaborating with their abuser right in the same team, in the same office space, within that organisation.

There is no acknowledgement that that principle of ensuring the safety of the victim-survivor is the first task of the employer. This is a really fantastic step forward, but I just pose that there are many women who still have to tolerate confronting their abuser, which is abusive during a judicial process or an investigation into whatever has happened in that workspace. I guess I say that from the perspective of a therapist who understands that safety is the first step to recovery, and it certainly is in family violence and sexual assault.

The impacts on victims do not stop when the harassment ceases or the complaint is resolved. 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 say it negatively impacted their career progression. Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, exacerbate this problem. They act to perpetuate sexual harassment by preventing accountability and creating a culture of shame and secrecy not only for the victims but for their colleagues. NDAs are and have been used as a protection racket for abusive workplaces and abusive employers or work colleagues. 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, manipulate workplace related sexual violences.

The impact of NDAs on workers can be profound and long-lasting. A 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 about their experiences. One victim-survivor said:

I wasn’t able to negotiate. The terms were the terms, everything I raised was ignored. My mental health declined significantly … Most businesses settle out of court to keep their wrongdoings quiet. There is an unfair power imbalance that leaves employees helpless. Either you shut up or you are left with nothing.

Research also found that NDAs can result in long-term issues for complainants who have signed them, including difficulty in moving on and progressing with their career and fear of repercussions if they breach the agreement. So their being used, or the impact of them, really has stopped the therapeutic process – stopped the recovery process for many women who experience this situation. The changes that we are making in this bill are absolutely sensational. I think they are fantastic, and they address the power dynamic that exists between the employer and the employee, the power dynamic between an abusive colleague and their victim.

NDAs are ubiquitous in sexual harassment cases. A survey of 145 sexual harassment legal practitioners across Australia found that approximately 75 per cent of the profession have never resolved a sexual harassment complaint without a strict NDA, and the subsequent report noted that the use of an NDA in sexual harassment cases is considered by many as standard. It is clear that NDAs help and perpetuate toxic workplace cultures and secrecy, and the consequent avoidance of this can no longer be tolerated. The reforms in this bill are a significant step forward in tackling these toxic cultures. They will restrict the use of NDAs in settlement of workplace sexual harassment cases by addressing power imbalances. For an NDA to be used it must be requested by the worker who made the complaint as their express wish and preference and not involve the worker being subjected to undue pressure or influence.

The worker must receive a mandatory information statement and be allowed a review period during which time they can obtain legal advice if they wish. If the preconditions are not met, the NDA will be unenforceable and cannot prevent the worker from disclosing any details of the sexual harassment, including the identity of the alleged harasser. The bill also provides that even when an NDA is entered into, it cannot prevent disclosure to police, doctors, lawyers, family members or friends, with certain conditions – for example, a worker could talk to their partner about it as long as they agreed to keep the information confidential. This is healthy, this is about recovery, and it is also about accountability for organisations who harbour abusive workers. 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 harassment. The bill also allows the worker to opt to end an NDA at the 12-month mark. This would not affect the settlement payment or agreement made. This is key: sexual harassment matters often involve the worker being in a state of distress or shock; it is entirely reasonable to enable a complainant to reassess whether being bound by an NDA is still appropriate for them after they have had time and space to heal. While some may have concerns that employers would be unwilling to enter into a settlement, there are other incentives than covering up the claim, such as avoiding a costly public trial. Employers are increasingly recognising that it is important to acknowledge and address workplace sexual harassment – rather than being perceived as covering it up, to actually address it properly. Close to a third of cases are already resolved with less restrictive NDAs, meaning maintaining strict confidentiality is not necessarily the primary factor of resolving all matters.

This bill aims to stop the practice of NDAs being proposed as a default in the settlement of workplace sexual harassment. It provides a safer workplace for women. It provides a mechanism that actually requires and demands accountability from employers and workplaces for the behaviour of their managers and colleagues towards women. I absolutely endorse this bill, and I am very proud to say that it is the Allan Labor government that has brought this bill forward.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:58): I too would like to congratulate the Allan government for bringing this bill forward. I do think it is only the first step in this conversation, and I do think there are some shortcomings with this bill, but this issue of bullying and sexual harassment – sexual harassment, in particular – in workplaces covered up by NDAs is a massive issue.

We know that bullying is often the environment in which the sexual harassment takes root, that it involves intimidation and exclusion and reputational manipulation. We know that victims are destabilised long before the harassment becomes visible on purpose so that they look like the troublemakers and the unreliable ones. The sexual element adds another layer of shock, shame, fear, emotional injury and trauma. It destroys trust in colleagues. Victims experience hypervigilance, anxiety and very real fear, not just of retaliation but escalation from sexual harassment to rape.

Then while they are going through this trauma, they are mocked by others. We know this happens mostly to women. I have even heard a shock jock on the radio describe women who were being treated in this way as ‘weeping women’. ‘Why don’t these weeping women get out of the kitchen if they can’t handle it? A bit of rough and tumble.’ Often we know that these predators begin by presenting themselves as protectors or mentors. They rarely start with the misconduct. They position themselves as wise guides and allies and trusted advisers, but then they build dependence and they isolate their target. The extra attention is framed as innocent support. If there is any flattery or anything like that, that is just being friendly. Then there is the gradual isolation from others, creating emotional and professional reliance. Then there is that moment that the mask slips, a sudden breach of boundaries, shocking and disorientating. Predators often pretend that there was a special understanding, but it really only existed in their own minds. The victim realises that actually their protector was a predator the whole entire time.

It is true that for victims, at that lowest point in their life, if they actually pull themselves together enough to complain, that is the moment where they are taken advantage of again. While they are traumatised, ashamed, confused and sleep deprived, their capacity for informed decision making is totally impaired. They feel like they will do anything to make it stop and go away. They do not have all the information they need. They are often invited into meetings with someone else who says that they are going to protect them and is yet another protector, but this time a predator for the business. Often they do not know that this person has done it before, and very often the people in the meetings with them know.

The fact that organisations have got to protect their favourite little boys and put innocent girls and innocent people in the bin is a disgrace. NDAs have absolutely been misused. They are used to protect abusers and protect institutional abuse, and I am really happy that this bill is shining a light on that disgraceful behaviour, which should render businesses unworthy of having a licence to operate, in my opinion. NDAs suppress critical warning signs and they allow perpetrators to move between workplaces undetected and to different departments undetected. In fact they just inflict these disgusting predators on new victims. Then we all know about the second wave of trauma after they complain: the post-complaint retaliation. As was said by my colleague, the victims then bear the shame that actually belongs to the abuser. In almost every workplace harassment case, the victim ends up carrying the stigma, not the predator. Instead of receiving support, victims are met with suspicion, whispers and judgement. ‘What a troublemaker. She’s not a team player. What a weakling. She’s so sensitive.’ And if she complains again: ‘Oh, you’re just going to hurt everybody who supported you last time. How could you do that to everybody who stood by you?’

Victim blaming is absolutely supercharged and embedded by these NDAs, and they contribute massively to these toxic workplace cultures. Of course these victims are demoralised, they are gaslit and they are broken down until they leave themselves. Then nobody knows what really happened. They just look like an unstable, unreliable, emotional, incapable, unintelligent person. ‘Good riddance to her.’ But good on them, they have still got their boys, haven’t they? They have got those abusers, and they are so capable. They are so polished. They are not emotional.

This cultural inversion harms everyone. My oldest daughter got her first job this week at the same organisation where I was first sexually harassed. I was so traumatised and afraid to tell my mum that instead of telling my mum – because he was the manager, I did not know there was anyone else I could tell above the manager – I told her that I wanted to go and live with my dad, so I literally moved 2 hours away so that I would not have to work at my first job. I have told my daughter about this experience, and I will not be allowing that to happen to her.

I love that this bill acknowledges the misuse of NDAs, but there is more work to do, as I said, around the cultural shame and about the systemic accountability that must be brought to bear upon these disgusting predators and bullies that always get away with it and get protected. They seem to cluster in nests and protect each other, in my opinion. So I thank the Allan government for acknowledging the scale of sexual harassment and the harm of NDAs.

I will be supporting this bill, but I really do consider it only the first step. I do think there are going to be some unintended consequences that will harm victims. I hope it does not happen. I hope the review is moved forward so that we can quickly deal with it if it is the case, because good intentions alone are not going to guarantee better outcomes. And I just want to say thank you on behalf of myself and my daughter for everyone supporting this bill.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:07): I also would like to say a few words on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. However, I am cautious about this, and I also have some concerns about unintended consequences of this bill which may harm its effectiveness. Regardless of that, I do think that it is addressing a real problem that we have, in that there are many cases of NDAs being used inappropriately to effectively cover up and manipulate instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. This is a real problem. I do not think that anyone is disputing that.

As to my caution around the bill, I am always cautious around the government interfering in contractual relationships, especially when they are of such a serious nature. However, in this particular case I feel that the government has taken a good approach in that they have made the scope of what they are targeting very, very narrow. Also, because of the power imbalance in these situations the complainants find themselves in, I think it is justifiable to call into question whether consent is real or not in these situations. Libertarians, when they see contracts, want to know that everyone that signed the contract had full, free and fair consent. I think it is fair to question that in the sorts of scenarios that we are talking about today in this bill. Therefore I think it is justifiable.

On my concern around unintended consequences, firstly, I am glad that the government has put a provision in here so that the complainant can choose to initiate an NDA, if they choose to do that. It is a good thing that they still have that option if they want it. My real concern about the potential unintended consequences is not a concern about any sort of principle. It is a concern about the consequences, and that is around the 12-month period when the complainant can choose to effectively reveal material that was in the NDA.

We do not know what will happen here. I am hoping that the government have got it right, and they need to pay special attention to the review on this legislation to make sure that this does not happen. What I am concerned about is that companies that have NDA agreements at the moment do so because they want to protect their public reputation, but because of this 12-month period they will have no guarantees of that. Therefore my concern is that they will be incentivised to take everything through the legal system rather than through some sort of agreement. I am concerned that this might be more traumatising for the complainant and that they may have a far lower chance of success, because proving these things in court is very different to coming to an agreement. I am concerned that this will have negative consequences for the complainant. I hope that that is not the case, but I would urge the government to pay very careful attention after these laws are implemented. It will be very easy to see if there is a spike in legal cases after this, so the government should be able to monitor it, but I am concerned about that. Regardless of my concerns, I do not see any principled reason to oppose this, and I hope that it works in the manner in which the government intends and is successful in achieving its objectives.

[NAMES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:11): I rise to speak in strong support of the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. This is a bill that asks us to confront what too many people already know through lived experience: that the systems built to protect workers from sexual harassment have not always worked in the way they should. For some, those systems have added to the harm; for others, they allowed workplaces to hide behaviour that should never have been excused, let alone concealed. This has been a long time coming. So many advocates and survivors have been working tirelessly to get this result. When I met with those women their stories of struggle and strength moved me and showed me why policy like this is so important to workers around Victoria. To Laura, April, Ashley, Havinda and Jan I say thank you. Thank you for your strength, your pressure and your unwavering dedication to making this state better. What you all experienced can never be undone, but with this bill we can start a new chapter that protects workers around Victoria and ensures that we will never be silenced again. I would also like to give a very special mention to the women’s team at Trades Hall, who have been leading the charge to make this bill happen. Each and every one of you should be forever proud of what you have achieved here today. This is change – real, tangible change – that will affect the lives of working women all around Victoria. So to Wil, Di, Caro, Clare, Lily and everyone else at the hall that had a hand in making this policy a reality, thank you. For all my attempts to be a fellow soldier in getting this bill before us, I found myself too often racked with wanting to reflect on my own lived experience, and I was not quite ready to be a systemic advocate, so I want to say to you all, thank you. Thanks for keeping me at the heart of this bill and the advocacy. Thanks for being there for me when it got a little bit too much and thank you for championing it so that we can be here today. At the heart of this bill there is one very clear idea: that no-one should be silenced about sexual harassment at work, no-one should have to choose between their safety and their livelihood and no-one should be forced into secrecy so an organisation can preserve its brand, protect a perpetrator or avoid accountability.

Those stories that brought us to this point come from people, mostly women, who were simply trying to do their jobs. Women who were cornered, violated, belittled, threatened or intimidated; women who spoke up and then were pushed out; women who were pressured to sign agreements that kept them quiet while their perpetrator moved on, their behaviour unchallenged and unknown in their next workplace. Some of those stories were very difficult to read and very difficult to hear. One victim-survivor said:

I felt like I didn’t have a choice and had to sign the NDA. The worker then went on to get a promotion in another organisation without the impact of their behaviour being acknowledged.

Another described the experience as:

There is an unfair power imbalance that leaves employees helpless. Either you shut up or you are left with nothing.

It would be remiss of us to debate this bill today without acknowledging the strength and leadership of the Minister for Women Natalie Hutchins. Her contribution during the debate on this bill in the other place was powerful. To stand in this Parliament and speak openly about your own experiences requires a kind of courage and strength that cannot be overstated. Thank you, Natalie. I would also like to thank Minister Ingrid Stitt, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue in this place and also from her time in the union movement. This change comes from so many, and Minister Stitt, you are counted among them, and I thank you for your enormous leadership in your time as the Minister for Workplace Safety.

Behind every one of these accounts is someone who deserved better, someone whose courage has shaped this reform. Whether they shared their story publicly, privately, anonymously or only with a trusted friend, their voice has brought us here. These stories show how NDAs have too often been used not to protect privacy but to protect organisations, not to help healing but to help make a problem disappear. Many survivors describe how they felt like they had no choice. Some signed because they needed their pay, some signed because the process had worn them down. Others signed because all they wanted was to leave. Yet after signing many felt more isolated, not less. This bill lifts that burden. Under this bill an NDA can only be used when a victim-survivor actively requests confidentiality. The choice must be theirs alone. Employers will no longer be allowed to propose one or pressure a person into signing one. An NDA cannot stop a person from reporting to police. It cannot stop a person reporting to regulators or support services, nor can it prevent someone from speaking to their own family, their doctor, their psychologist or a trusted colleague. Privacy should never require isolation from support.

These reforms are backed by extensive consultation with legal experts, workplace regulators, union representatives, employer groups, support services and, most importantly, people with lived experiences. Their voices are woven throughout the words of this bill. They have shaped its framework, its safeguards and its purpose, and through their courage they will shape safer workplaces for others for many, many years to come. There is a fundamental truth that sits underneath this legislation. Secrecy allows patterns of behaviour to continue. When a workplace is allowed to silence a survivor, the perpetrator goes on largely unquestioned. They move to another position, another team, another organisation. Their colleagues remain unaware. The cycle repeats itself. In some cases organisations have used NDAs repeatedly, incident after incident, without anyone outside leadership ever learning about what has happened. It is impossible to build safe workplaces in that environment.

We also know that many of these incidents have not been isolated or misunderstood moments – there had been a wider pattern of behaviour that was known but never properly confronted. Women have spoken about colleagues whose conduct was an open secret and behaviour that continued because each complaint was quietly concluded and no-one outside the immediate process was ever told. That silence meant people could move through a workplace or to the next workplace without consequence. The cost of that has overwhelmingly been carried by women, who changed jobs, altered career paths and stepped back altogether.

These reforms help ensure that responsibility for addressing harm sits where it should: with the employer, not the person who reported it. For years, advocates have been calling for change. These changes respond directly to a key recommendation of the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment, which I understand was chaired by Bronwyn Halfpenny, who brought her life experience in and out of Parliament and has been advocating for greater protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. I had the good fortune of speaking to Bronwyn about this last night, and she is enormously excited that we are here at this point.

The recommendations they sought were to develop reforms that could ensure better prevention and response to sexual harassment in the workplace. The work that followed the taskforce recommendations only strengthened the case for reform. When the government released its discussion paper and survey last August, dozens of victim-survivors came forward to describe the real impact of these agreements. Their responses revealed the same pattern: NDAs added to trauma and shut down avenues for support. One in three workers had experienced sexual harassment in the past five years, and that burden overwhelmingly fell upon women. For many, the consequences have been lasting, affecting their confidence, their employment and, in too many cases, their careers. The view was echoed by legal practitioners right across the country, three-quarters of whom reported that they had never resolved a sexual harassment matter without a strict NDA. Taken together, this evidence paints a really stark picture of why these reforms are both necessary and urgent.

In other jurisdictions – Ireland, parts of Canada and several US states – work has begun to restrict the use of NDAs in these matters. Victoria now continues that work, and it will be the first in the country to do so, bringing a survivor-led model that goes further than many international examples. It is a model grounded in human decency. It does not ban confidentiality – some people want privacy, and that must be respected. This bill sets out strict preconditions that must be met, ensuring that a worker is fully informed of their rights and understands the weight of what they are being asked to agree to. Central to all of this is that the idea must come from the complainant themselves. It makes clear that a worker must not be pressured, that the choice must be genuine. Alongside this sit the requirements for a mandatory information statement and a review period, giving the worker time to seek advice and reflect on whether confidentiality is truly what they want. The government will provide guidance to employers, particularly small businesses, in understanding their obligations. Many small employers have never drafted an NDA and will certainly welcome this clarity. But what this bill does is it removes the risk of inadvertently silencing a survivor, the risk of concealing a wrongdoing and the risk of contributing to harm.

Workplaces that take harassment seriously do not rely on secrecy, they focus on prevention, accountability and cultural change. This bill supports that work by ensuring survivors are not cut out of the conversation, because when survivors speak, patterns come to light. Prevention must sit at the centre of workplace culture. Employers must take reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment, not merely respond once it occurs. Limiting NDAs strengthens that duty by ensuring that organisations cannot hide harm behind paperwork.

This bill will mean something very important to future workers. It will mean that a young woman beginning her first job, a casual employee in hospitality, a trainee in a male-dominated trade or a worker who is simply new and unsure of their rights will have protections that many who came before them did not. They will know that if something happens to them, they cannot be forced into silence. They cannot be pressured to sign away their voice. They cannot be prevented from telling someone they trust. This legislation sends a message about our shared expectation that workplaces must be safe, that harassment will be taken seriously and that employers must confront harm rather than bury it.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

This bill is not just about the past; it is about the kind of working future we want in Victoria, one where dignity is upheld, where survivors are met with respect rather than silenced. And when we consider the effect of these reforms, it is important to remember how silence shapes a workplace. These harms are shaped by culture, by power, by a sense of who is protected and who is not. In too many workplaces a person experiencing harassment has looked around and realised those that came before them had signed confidentiality agreements. This bill gives people something they have not always had: the confidence that their experience will not be locked in an agreement they never wanted. It is a reform built from courage – the courage from survivors who told their stories and the courage of advocates who persisted and those who used their lived experience to drive change. With this bill, Victoria takes a significant step towards workplaces where people can speak, be believed and be protected. I offer this bill to Hayley as a deep apology for not being there when she needed me most. I am hoping that this bill is ample apology to you for the harm caused all those years ago, and I commend it to the house.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:26): I also rise to speak about the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. First of all, I want to thank the people both in the lower house and in this house that have bravely and courageously shared their own experience. It has honestly blown me away, the bravery, from all sides of both houses here – it has been amazing. Secondly, I want to thank Mr Welch, who before there was any bill brief, before there was any Zoom meeting where we all talk about these bills together, called me and said, ‘Because of your interest and your work in the space of victims, I want you to go away and do some research. I really want to make sure that what we are carrying forward here and whatever position we take has the protection of victims at the heart.’ I want to thank Mr Welch for that, because really, he is one of the really good men that is working to stand up and to protect women – and I know this is not strictly gendered – and I think that is just incredible.

I found this one a difficult one to write a speech about, to be quite frank, because when you start to talk about something like this, you carry with you the stories and the testimonials that you have heard from many others but also experiences.

When you are 14 and nine months, you are allowed to go and get a job. My first job and many of my good friends’ first jobs were at fast-food restaurants. I remember going and meeting one of my friends when she was finishing a shift, and she looked so rattled. We were just walking along and I said, ‘Are you okay?’ She said, ‘Yeah, yeah. Great, great.’ We walked along. ‘Are you okay?’ ‘Yeah. Yep. Great.’ And then finally she said, ‘There’s kind of something and I’m a bit embarrassed, but I want to tell you.’ And I said, ‘What is it?’ She said, ‘When I asked if I could finish my shift, the manager said, “Only if I get sexual favours.”’ She was so embarrassed by this, so ashamed, and I was like, ‘You’re kidding me!’ This was the first time – I still remember it so vividly. We ended up sitting down near the lake at Sale, and she was like, ‘What do you think I did wrong?’ And I said, ‘I don’t think you’ve done anything wrong.’ This is the teenage view, the response to sexual harassment in the workplace. In the end we got up the courage to talk to a male friend about it who said, ‘Nah, you certainly didn’t do anything wrong. This guy seems like a jerk.’ Picture young teenagers having this conversation. We went and we put in a complaint, and it was handled very well. But then fast-forward to after university, where now we are 20-something females, and I remember talking to another friend who came in and said to me, ‘Oh, Renee’ – basically the same thing happened – ‘I kind of want to talk to you about something.’ And I said, ‘What is it?’

The same sort of system went on and on, where people get sexually abused or assaulted or even harassed, and at any age it seems that the response is very similar: it is the person that is the victim that often goes searching and tries to think, ‘How was this my responsibility?’ They often feel an incredible sense of shame and guilt. I think then what happens is, if they are asked to then sign a non-disclosure agreement, all of a sudden it solidifies in them the thought, ‘Don’t talk about it. This probably was partly your fault,’ and that does cause harm. There is a classic saying ‘A burden shared is a burden halved’, and that is something we have to remember. When people go through harassment, when people go through any type of abuse, one of the first steps of their healing is talking about it. I think that this is a fantastic move forward. We are taking a leap forward today, and like many of our colleagues have said, there are some potential unintended consequences in this bill. We have all acknowledged that. As uncomfortable as it is, we are going to have to look at that and we are going to have to review that in a few years. But I think that this is a step forward for women and men as well.

There is something that I have been sitting here thinking about, though, and I am just going to say it – it will make some people very uncomfortable, but women particularly deserve honesty – that is, the fact that we have all seen reports and footage about the construction union culture. I want you to hear this in the spirit that I am saying it. We have literally seen video footage and we have read reports about the intimidation, the silencing, the threats and the violence as women were bashed because they spoke out. I think we have also got to acknowledge that while this is an incredible move forward, somebody has to take responsibility for that culture. I know that is uncomfortable to say, and I know that sometimes when we have very emotive bills like this you think, ‘I don’t want to be impolite. I don’t want to aggravate or anything.’ But the reality is that Geoffrey Watson SC, who was appointed by Mr Irving to probe into the wrongdoing of the sector, stated that the Victorian review was hopeless. That is what he said. He said it was hopeless. He accused the state government of a cover-up. I think these are the things – as uncomfortable as they are, we actually have to address. These are not just rumours; these are reality – published, proven facts.

The CFMEU has been disgusting – not everyone in it. There are some fantastic people in it. There are people in union movements – I am not anti union – that stand up and protect the rights of people, but how did this happen? How did it happen? The question becomes, if women within these union-controlled organisations were not able to speak up, how was it that the unions could be key advisers or agency for women’s voices?

Ingrid Stitt interjected.

Renee HEATH: I am being told again here that I just do not understand. I am not trying to debate. I am trying to raise something that is very honest, and if this was an honest debate, we would actually face up to this. Sometimes things like that just do not add up to me. They actually distress me. I am not attacking unions. I am thankful for unions. But there has been some rot in those places that we cannot overlook, and it has been concerning to me, what I have read in those reports and what I have seen on the footage. All I am saying is somebody needs to be held accountable for that, in my strong and honest opinion, because it is horrific.

However, this is a step forward. This is a win for women. Nobody that is harassed, nobody who is abused, should have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, because the first step to their healing is speaking to whoever that is – normally it is friends, family, counsellors or health professionals – to give them the very chance to restore what had been lost. The second reason, I believe, is so businesses and organisations can improve, because if the problem is not known, if the problem is not admitted to, then there can be no restoration in that area. I want to thank everyone for speaking and for sharing, particularly those that shared their experience. I want to thank you again, Mr Welch, and I am going to end my contribution there.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:35): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of my Greens colleagues on this important bill. We are here today because of the hard work and the dedication of victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment; the truths shared by union members, particularly union women; and the work of community advocates. This bill and these changes to how non-disclosure agreements can be used in the workplace are a testament to the strength and the tenacity of women and of workers who have said that they have had enough. The Greens wholeheartedly support this bill. Worryingly, one in three workers report being sexually harassed in the workplace over the last five years. I specifically mention women because they are the ones most significantly affected by this type of harassment, which can be compounded by intersections of race, age, disability status, gender identity and sexual orientation. Around 70 per cent of women report having been the victim of gendered violence in the workplace, and I also want to put on record a specific acknowledgement of LGBTQIA+ people who are victim-survivors: you are seen, and you are heard. Victim-survivors of sexual harassment at work should not be forced to stay silent any longer. For too long these agreements have been imposed on them by bosses to maintain a status quo.

Finally we are fixing these laws. We are evening up the power imbalance between workers and employers. As has been noted already in this debate, workplace NDAs were originally meant to be used to protect so-called trade secrets, and instead they have morphed into a tool that is used in sexual harassment cases to silence victim-survivors and to protect employers and perpetrators. But with these laws, victim-survivors of sexual harassment in the workplace will no longer be coerced into signing NDAs that force them to stay silent just to settle their case. As is intended in these provisions, perpetrators will no longer be able to carry on causing these harms without consequence, and NDAs will no longer allow bosses to dodge responsibility for taking real action in the face of sexual harassment.

This bill will prohibit NDAs in workplace sexual harassment cases except when it is at the explicit request of a complainant, and this must occur without any pressure from the employer. There will be clear information, an opportunity to seek legal advice and a review period before the signing of an NDA, and even once signed, the complainant will still be able to tell certain people, like medical and legal professionals, about their case and their experience. Another key element of these changes is that workers will have the choice to end an NDA after a year. This gives victim-survivors the opportunity to change their mind and to have control over their own story and their own experience. This is important because it has been found that many victim-survivors do change their mind, as is their right. They often sign NDAs at a time of heightened stress. Over the passage of time they are then able to process their thoughts and ultimately decide that they would like to share their story.

Forcing a victim-survivor of sexual harassment to sign a non-disclosure agreement can cause further harm and worsen what is the trauma of the initial harassment. Many brave women have shared their stories and their experiences with We Are Union Women as part of their campaign to end these NDAs, and I thank them for their work and for their tireless advocacy and congratulate them on these reforms. All workers should be able to work in a place that is free from sexual harassment and gendered violence. It is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace, and this bill is welcome reform. I commend it to the house.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:39): I am very proud to rise to speak on this bill, which 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. I do want to acknowledge the contribution of many in the chamber today and also acknowledge that it has not been an easy process for many speakers to go through, and I thank you for your courage in sharing your own lived experience. At the heart of it these reforms are about putting the voices of victim-survivors first and taking critical steps to break down a culture that entrenches silencing victim-survivors for the sake of protecting the reputation of perpetrators.

In my time as a union official I worked alongside countless members who experienced sexual harassment perpetrated by their colleagues – and by their bosses in many cases. For many of these workers, they never felt confident enough to report the issue, too afraid of the consequences of what might happen if they did, and for those who did speak out, those consequences were very real. Too often these workers, overwhelmingly women – in my personal experience of representing workers, always women – would lose their jobs, or they would face other humiliations, career-limiting demotions, relocations or sideways moves. The perpetrators more often than not faced no consequences at all. They were left to continue in their jobs. In fact many went on to thrive in their careers, free to offend again. In almost all instances, whether they lost their job or not, these women were pressured and coerced into signing a non-disclosure agreement, prevented from talking about the harm they experienced ever again. And it is this silence that enabled perpetrators across corporate Australia to never face repercussions for their offending and for the harm that they caused. I have to say the anger that I feel about these injustices is as white-hot today as it was all those years ago representing those women who had no voice.

And let us be honest, sexual harassment is not an isolated experience. One in three workers have experienced sexual harassment in the last five years alone. We know that workers more likely to be at risk are those who have other intersecting attributes – those who are young; LGBTIQA+ workers; workers with a disability; and women in insecure, low-paid or gig economy work. Migrant workers are also at heightened risk of experiencing sexual harassment. But our understanding is also limited because reporting rates remain alarmingly low. It is estimated that just 18 per cent of offences are actually reported, and the fifth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces revealed that over half of people harassed identified the same harasser as having offended against another employee in the workplace.

NDAs contribute directly to a culture of silence around the experience of women at work – a culture that allows unsafe systems of work and unlawful behaviour to go unchecked. And they have ramifications beyond the victim-survivor, directly impacting the health and safety of all workers in a workplace by concealing a risk to their health and safety and releasing an employer from addressing the systems of work that allowed the sexual harassment to occur in the first place.

Our government is proud to stand with workers who have experienced sexual harassment and to bring this change about; it is so desperately needed. As I have said before in this place, sexual harassment in the workplace is an occupational health and safety issue and it should be addressed using those frameworks. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 employers are responsible for providing and maintaining as far as reasonably practicable a workplace that is safe and without risk to health. I reckon I could recite that in my sleep. This duty under the act includes providing a work environment free from sexual harassment, because let us be real, a workplace that is not free from sexual harassment is not a safe workplace. Our current approach of seeking justice and change through individual complaints in our legal system means that we continue to isolate and silo victim-survivors, and it prevents us from reckoning with the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and recognising it as a collective risk to the health and safety of all workers.

It needs to be treated as a collective problem, and this requires dismantling the systems of work and culture that enable it and leveraging our health and safety frameworks to deliver accountability at every level. It is not enough to urge cultural reform and recommend that businesses do the right thing. Changes to our system of work require clear and deliberate intervention. These reforms respond directly to a key recommendation of the report of the Victorian Ministerial Taskforce on Workplace Sexual Harassment, which sought to develop reforms that could ensure better prevention of and response to the scourge of sexual harassment in our workplaces. As the former Minister for Workplace Safety, I was proud to establish this taskforce and, upon receiving recommendations, commit to starting the work to restrict the use of NDAs for workplace sexual harassment cases. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the co-chairs of this taskforce, Liberty Sanger and the member for Thomastown in the other place Bronwyn Halfpenny. They, alongside the members of the taskforce, including Victorian unions, undertook this difficult and important work with intelligence and empathy, making sure to centre the very real experiences of workers and make recommendations to the government about how to respond to instances of sexual harassment and violence but also how to better prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place.

In addition to restricting the use of NDAs, implementation is well progressed on the recommendations of this taskforce. The 2022–23 state budget provided $6.9 million over three years to WorkSafe to respond to recommendation 4 of the ministerial taskforce and expand the WorkWell program to include a dedicated project stream for preventing sexual harassment. Several priority recommendations are being implemented by WorkSafe. They have now completed or are on track to complete 12 of the 13 recommendations. Some of the notable achievements so far include WorkSafe launching the WorkWell Respect Network on 24 July 2024, which responds directly to recommendation 4. A working women’s centre was established in Victoria from 1 August 2024, supported by funding through the Australian government as part of the response to the Respect@Work recommendation. WorkSafe and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission published their parallel enforcement strategy for workplace sexual harassment in November last year, and WorkSafe continued its ‘It comes in many forms’ campaign, which aims to drive awareness and prevention of work-related gendered sexual harassment and violence across the Victorian community, and which in its most recent burst occurred from 3 February to 28 March 2025.

The Department of Education has got a lead role in educating students on sexual harassment and workplace rights through its Respectful Relationships and Safe@work programs. Over 2000 students have now signed on to Respectful Relationships programs, and this work is complemented by the introduction of OH&S programs offered by WorkSafe. In less than two weeks the psychological health regulations will commence, enhancing protection for workers from psychosocial hazards such as gendered violence and sexual harassment and making clear that employers have a responsibility to provide a psychologically safe workplace.

As many in this chamber have identified, while initially intended to protect trade secrets, the use of NDAs has become a weapon to silence workers, suppress details and cover up instances of sexual harassment. By their very nature they are designed to isolate the victim-survivor from their support networks, and in doing so they often exacerbate the trauma that has been experienced, leading to long-term negative impacts on the individual’s mental health. Of course, these reforms do not prohibit the use of NDAs in their entirety in workplace sexual harassment matters. Instead, they create a strong safeguard around how they are used, and they better balance the rights of victims in how they engage with these agreements, rectifying a power imbalance that has existed unchecked for too long.

These reforms will centre the choice and agency of victim-survivors by ensuring that any condition of confidentiality will be led or requested by the complainant, and they will implement a zero-tolerance approach on respondents seeking to include an NDA by way of threats or undue influence, such as through offering an increased settlement figure on condition of confidentiality. Importantly, any condition of confidentiality should not preclude a complainant from seeking support from trusted individuals, and I cannot emphasise how important that is. We have heard that this is absolutely critical to recovery. NDAs 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 friend or family member who has agreed to keep the information confidential for the purposes of obtaining personal support; to a mental health and wellbeing professional for the purposes of obtaining mental health and wellbeing supports and treatment, something so critical when we understand more and more about the impacts of trauma on individuals in the community; and to an employer or prospective employer for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining work.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge that these reforms would not have happened at all without the involvement of victim-survivors, who have been nothing short of incredibly generous but also courageous in sharing their stories and experiences in the hope that what has happened to them will never again happen to somebody else. We see you and we believe you. It is really years of advocacy that have got us here today, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Victorian trade union movement, in particular the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the women’s team and of course the leadership of Wil Stracke. You have been relentless in your advocacy for this change and to keep women workers safe at work, elevating the voices of members at every stage of this process. I also want to acknowledge the leadership and the tireless work of the minister Jaclyn Symes, as both Minister for Industrial Relations but previous to that as Attorney-General. There are some very powerful interests in this state who did not love this reform, and it is a testament to the tenacity and the leadership of Jaclyn Symes that we are here today debating this bill. This legislation provides us with the opportunity to make real, impactful change to the working lives of so many Victorians. I commend this bill to the house.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:53): I also rise to make a contribution on the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025. Just before I commence my remarks I just want to acknowledge and thank the women in this chamber who have contributed to this bill and provided an insight into their personal stories and experiences of experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace. One thing we do know is that often sexual harassment is under-reported for all the reasons which have been spoken about in this chamber today: for fear of reprisals, of recriminations, of losing your job, of losing your economic independence, of reputational damage, of victim blaming, of gaslighting – for all of those things. So I thank the women who have courageously told their stories in the chamber today. I thank them as a former union official, someone who along with Minister Stitt has represented many, many victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. I have also consulted to business about how to address these problems as a consultant. I have been paid to do this work, so I have seen it from both sides.

One of the things that I want to emphasise in this debate is that government needed to implement these reforms, because when there is an imbalance in the market in the power relationship governments can use their power to act and address that imbalance. But one thing that business needs to remember is that where you have these sorts of abuses occurring in the workplace, it costs business. It costs your business in terms of reputation, and it costs business in terms of workers compensation claims, health and safety and also recruitment and retention.

There is always a way of looking at whether a business is healthy or not, just by looking at the turnover of staff, and you only need to scratch the surface to find out some of the reasons why.

I want to talk about facts too and look at some of the facts of this debate. In looking at the most recent ABS statistics – the 2025 release has not been fully released as yet – the most recent trends tell us that from 2023 to 2024 there has been a high prevalence of sexual assault and harassment in workplaces. Key findings indicate that sexual assault and victimisation rates are at a 31-year high, with 84 per cent of victims being female and the majority of incidents occurring in residential settings. But when we look at workplaces, what we know is that 53 per cent of workplace sexual harassment victims are likely to be women and 25 per cent men. Both women and men who experience financial hardship are more likely to experience sexual harassment, and in 2023 the 12-month prevalence of sexual harassment for women was 14.4 per cent and for men it was 11.8 per cent.

What we do know is sexual harassment is always about an abuse of power. It is always about power over others. Young women are more likely to experience sexual harassment because they can often experience a power imbalance. I will just reflect back on my experiences as a trade union official. I heard Mrs Deeming speak. I want to commend you and your remarks about what your experiences were, because I think you eloquently and accurately put the experiences of many women who are in a situation where they are faced with speaking up about their experiences. Often whilst the experience of being sexually harassed is traumatic enough, the added trauma of considering how to report something – whether I might be supported or not and whether I will be victim-blamed or not – adds to that trauma. We also know that sometimes human resources departments are used as a tool to protect reputations of business and to limit reputational damage. We heard Ms Stitt talk about this, and Mrs Deeming, that often the result is that women will leave; they will be victim-blamed, they will be silenced, they will be isolated and they will be forced to leave. So on the one hand this is a very welcome change in legislation to ensure that non-disclosure agreements can be limited, because as I have often said in this chamber before in relation to other matters, often the best disinfectant is sunlight. The more that we silence, the more that we hide and the more that we do not expose the patterns and behaviours of perpetrators, the more poor behaviour will flourish. This is exactly why these reforms are very much needed.

I too want to thank all those many women in the union movement who worked for many, many decades – it is not just the ones that are here now at the forefront of these reforms. I know there are many, many women who have been championing these changes for many years to come through. I want to thank those women who have courageously told their stories. I want to thank the women in the trade union movement who have continued to advocate for these changes, and I also want to thank leaders in the business and community sectors who understand why these changes are necessary and important. It is never easy to make these sorts of changes, but in order to make change and for it to be effective, we have to acknowledge that there is in fact a problem.

I know we are going to crash into question time in a sec, so I might just save the rest of my speech and some of the anecdotes I was going to talk about perhaps until after question time.

The PRESIDENT: Before we start question time I just want to acknowledge in the lower gallery a number of dignitaries from the international Women Economic Forum – from a number of parts of the world. Welcome.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.