Equal Opportunity (Parliament and Courts) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 April 2020.)

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (17:21): I rise to support the Equal Opportunity (Parliament) Amendment Bill 2020 and to indicate that I am the lead speaker for Labor on this bill. Labor will in principle support these improvements to the process by which members of parliament are dealt with if they engage in sexual harassment and by which members of parliament who are subject to sexual harassment can seek redress. We support these improvements in principle; however, I indicate that we will further consider them and may expand on them via amendment in the other place.

Whilst in principle we support this bill, we do note that this bill has come about following the terrible conduct of a member of this house, the deep distress for others that this conduct caused and the government's lack of quick action to effectively deal with that conduct. Sexual harassment is experienced by way too many women in workplaces and in other arenas right across our state. It is very worrying that the Equal Opportunity Commission's 2019 annual report reported a rise in sexual harassment complaints compared with 2018.

At work, it is illegal and in some cases it can constitute a criminal offence. Sadly, sexual harassment persists in many different types of workplaces and in other settings and it is absolutely time that that changes. Sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, an unwelcome sexual advance, an unwelcome request for sexual favours or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated.

Sexual harassment is awful. It is absolutely gross and utterly disrespectful. Having spent many years supporting and representing women who have had to deal with it, who have bravely spoken up about it and sometimes made complaints and confronted those who have perpetrated it, and having experienced it many years ago and having sadly seen way too many friends and colleagues deal with it, I know that the impact on those sexually harassed is terrible. Amongst other impacts, it can feel embarrassing, frightening and sickening and be debilitating, and in this place and everywhere else we should do all that we can to prevent and end it.

Sexual harassment can take away from one's sense of self-worth and sense of feeling safe. It can diminish financial and job security, impact people's relationships, make people feel ashamed and confused and lead to serious mental, emotional and physical health issues. It is something that no-one should ever have to deal with at work or indeed anywhere else. It is something that no-one in this place should ever have to deal with. Instead, those who have the power to deal with it, to help eradicate it and to appropriately hold to account those who engage in it must use that power to do so.

Whenever and wherever it happens, engaging in sexual harassment speaks to a perpetrator's lack of respect and regard for women—disrespect that can sometimes lead to even more harassment and violence. It also potentially speaks to a culture that permits such behaviour and can also speak to a lack of gender equality in a particular environment.

In environments where there is a lack of representation of women—and I acknowledge there is certainly a lack of women on the other side of this house—culture is often not inclusive. This can result in an inequality in the treatment of women and a lack of respect for them. Women in any workplace in South Australia and beyond have the right to be treated equally and respectfully, to attend their place of work in the knowledge that they will not be sexually harassed, assaulted or abused, and that they are safe.

Workplaces being safe and free from sexual harassment and disrespect must include ours. We should set the standard for other workplaces to be free from sexual harassment and abuse. We should help lead the way, and if any one of us, as members of parliament, are subject to the horror of sexual harassment perpetrated by another member of parliament, we should ensure that we can be heard, and that a complaint can be made, deeply heard and dealt with seriously and expeditiously. We should ensure that a member who sexually harasses another is absolutely held to account.

We know that violence, harassment and abuse of women starts with disrespect. I have heard many, many speeches in this place about the need to do all we can and whatever is in our power to take steps to prevent and end that disrespect. This bill does represent a step forward; again, we support it in principle and look forward to further deliberations on its content.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:27): I take this opportunity to rise and make some brief remarks to commend this bill to the house. It continues the fine record that was established in the early days of this Marshall Liberal government towards reforming areas in which we can promote equal opportunity in the workplace and throughout our community. I commend the work of the Attorney-General in adding to the considerable body of work that she has undertaken over the course of this and the previous session of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament.

The Marshall Liberal government (and the Attorney-General in particular) are leading the way. This government has demonstrated that by reforming the system of justice and introducing core pieces of legislation to ensure, as much as possible, we are advancing the rights of all people to be free and to be the best they can be in all aspects of life. It is truly a great credit to this government and to the Attorney-General. I applaud it and I am proud to be a part of a government that is bringing this legislation to the parliament.

I will briefly address section 87. As it presently stands, this already section deals with the appropriate response to the conduct of members of parliament. It does so at some considerable length in section 87(6c), and the amendment that is the subject of this bill simply makes explicit that relevant conduct that may properly be the subject of a complaint within the jurisdiction of the commissioner includes expressly, in what will be a new subsection (ab), conduct of a member of parliament towards another member of parliament.

I note just in that regard that it is not as though we are coming at this against a background of a barren landscape. There are already provisions dealing with the consideration of conduct vis-a-vis a member and members of staff, those working in the parliament and so forth. What we see now is a very explicit reference to conduct of a particular kind and so, from my point of view, it is a 'for avoidance of doubt belts and braces' provision. It makes clear the commitment of the government to ensuring that wherever there is an opportunity to make these things clear we take it and we go forward.

The other important aspect that really the amendment of section 87 brings to bear is that the machinery that presently provides for the consideration of a complaint is put to work here, and that remains the subject of section 93AA, which itself, as the section would imply, is the result of reforms that occurred some years ago.

So the manner of dealing with complaints, the means by which the commissioner appropriately and necessarily will go about referring a complaint for consideration to the relevant presiding officer—whether that is of this place or the other place—with reference to matters that may be affected by privilege, and bearing in mind that is the privilege of the electors of all of us to this place, then those steps in the consideration are preserved, and both the question of matters of privilege and the complaints procedure are intact with the addition of the necessary, as I say, 'for avoidance of doubt' amendment to section 87.

With those words, I commend the bill, as I said at the outset of my remarks, advancing, as it does, the reforming agenda of this new Marshall Liberal government, and in particular the very substantial demonstrated commitment to that cause of the Attorney-General. I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:34): I would like to thank the honourable members for their contributions. I acknowledge and appreciate the opposition's indication of support. I note that there are anticipated discussions and contributions in the other place, and that they may be part of a debate on some amendments. We look forward to seeing those when received.

I particularly want to thank the member for Heysen for acknowledging the reformist nature of this legislation within the government's envelope of ensuring that we do deal with issues of reform, we do make things contemporary and we do take up the hard issues. We are prepared to do that. This is a bill that seeks to make amendments to reflect the community standards of today around sexual harassment and the expected conduct of members of parliament.

Although the opposition suggests that it is precipitated by a particular piece of behaviour, I do not ignore that. I am proud to be a member of a government that is prepared to take up this issue and to remedy what has probably needed to be remedied for some time. Although I will not traverse, for obvious reasons, the particular incident in December last year that has often been referred to, I make this point: during other governments, including the Rann and Weatherill governments—while I have been here as a member in the parliament, but I have been visiting this house since 1970—I saw a lot of events, and I have seen a lot of behaviour that in 2020 would not be acceptable in the precincts of this parliament.

All sorts of excuses can be made about the contemporary circumstances of those times, but even in the time I have been here in the last 20 years—which I consider to be a contemporary period—there has been unacceptable conduct, and it falls within this. It is a very unusual situation perhaps to traverse across party lines. It is not the only time. I think of a very famous federal foreign minister who ended up having a very long-term relationship with the head of the Democrat party at the time, Ms Kernot. It then became a very public event. But it is not common, probably for obvious reasons.

The fact is that behaviour has occurred and it has not been dealt with. It might have been kept quieter than this later incident, but the reality is that it is still unacceptable. The difficulty in being able to support people you know are victims in that situation—sometimes they have even come to me or others, my colleagues—is that they have not wanted to speak up. That is something that we have to respect, but nothing is done about it. I am very proud to be standing here as part of a government that is prepared to say, 'If it's right, we will deal with it.' We are not going to be deterred by something that is just too hard.

I want to explain also that the amendment to section 87(6c), which extends the categories of persons to include other members of parliament, is not retrospective. Comment has been made about this publicly as well. The government identified the deficiency in the legislation, and this is a bill that will address the matter going forward. The government is of the view in line with the general proposition that criminal laws, even with a civil penalty such as for unlawful conduct of sexual harassment, cannot seek to sanction a person for conduct that was not contrary to a law at the time the conduct was undertaken. That is the basic principle, and we do not take any differing view in relation to this.

To those who advocate that we should, I pose this question: how far should we go back? Should we go back over the last 10 years, or the last 36 years back to the establishment of the act, or to the time we introduced sexual harassment into the act? Let me say that, if we did that, there would be a lot of people who have passed through this parliament who would become the subject of an inquiry. I do not think that serves anybody, nor do I think it is acceptable, given that it offends the principle that we would be introducing it to make it retrospective.

The amendment at clause 4 of the bill, I just want to explain, will support the current practice of the equal opportunity commissioner by making it mandatory for the commissioner to postpone any investigation, conciliation or other work where there is a criminal investigation or a person has been or is to be charged with a criminal offence in relation to a matter that is the subject of a complaint.

I am advised that the current practice of the commissioner is to postpone investigations, conciliations and any other work on a complaint if informed that there is a criminal investigation or criminal charge relating to the matter. I am advised that the process is postponed until confirmation is received from the complainant that the criminal process is finalised and that they wish to continue with their complaint under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. I place that on the record. That is direct advice from the commissioner herself as to how she operates these matters, and I just wanted to make sure that was abundantly clear on the record.

I look forward to the passage of the bill to address the limitations of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 in respect of its protections against sexual harassment for members of parliament by other members of parliament, and I conclude by again thanking members for their contribution. I would like to especially acknowledge the advice given by the equal opportunity commissioner during this exercise in relation to the development of the reforms in this regard.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.