Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

As I have said in the summing up on the bill, addressing this question of cost: the cost model in this bill does seek to strike a balance when it comes to discrimination matters generally, not merely sexual harassment matters. I'm pleased that the member for Kooyong is prepared to agree that reasonable minds may differ on whether or not the bill strikes the appropriate balance for costs for all discrimination matters.

It is really important to note that the model in the bill, which follows the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, includes a discretion for courts to award costs in the interests of justice. Without wishing to predict the development of jurisprudence in this area, I think that the interests of justice in a particular case, when considered by a court in a sexual harassment matter in an employment context—where, as the member for Kooyong said, it is very likely that in most cases there will be a vast asymmetry of power and economic advantage—and in circumstances where we have a bill which is going to create legislation that directs the court to consider the financial circumstances of each of the parties, whether the subject matter of the proceedings involves an issue of public importance and some other relevant considerations, are where we are likely to see cost orders. I do think that's a very key point.

As honourable members have noted in speaking on this amendment, I have said that this is just the start, in the earliest months of this government, a new government, of a conversation about human rights and antidiscrimination in this country. It's a conversation I look forward to continuing to have with all members of this parliament and, indeed, with the whole Australian community. But at this time the government will not be supporting this amendment.

See this speech in context