This bill became law on Oct 1st, 2024.
Law, justice & rights
Federal unlawful discrimination court cases across all protected attributes will use a new costs rule aimed at giving both sides more certainty about who pays legal costs.
Unclear and risky legal costs in federal discrimination cases left people exposed to paying the other side’s costs and discouraged people from bringing claims. The bill creates a clearer costs rule that usually protects applicants from paying respondents’ costs and requires respondents to pay when an applicantThe person or group bringing the discrimination case to the commission or court. wins part of a case.
The 2020 Respect@Work reportThe 2020 inquiry report that said legal costs were stopping people from bringing sexual harassment and discrimination claims. found workplace sexual harassment was prevalent and pervasive, and its recommendation 25 identified legal costs in federal discrimination cases as a barrier that could deter people from pursuing claims. After most Respect@Work reforms were enacted separately, this bill was introduced in November 2023 as the final legislative step on that agenda, and it passed in September 2024 before receiving Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. on 1 October 2024 to set a clearer costs regime for unlawful discrimination cases.
The main criticism was that the bill creates an overly broad, one-sided costs regime across all federal discrimination cases, which critics said could skew litigation, weaken incentives to settle, and go beyond the narrower Respect@Work recommendation. That case was led by Coalition speakers, while Senator David Pocock raised narrower implementation concerns about reviewing the scheme and shielding small businesses.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 01 Oct 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
321 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Federal unlawful discrimination court cases across all protected attributes will use a new costs rule aimed at giving both sides more certainty about who pays legal costs.
If a person wins any part of an unlawful discrimination court case, the court must order the respondentThe person or organisation accused of discrimination and defending the case. to pay that person's costs, except for costs caused by the applicantThe person or group bringing the discrimination case to the commission or court.'s own unreasonable conduct.
People who bring unlawful discrimination cases will usually not have to pay the other side's costs unless the case was baseless or abusive, they caused unnecessary costs, or they lost to a respondentThe person or organisation accused of discrimination and defending the case. who was not much more powerful or better resourced.
In group unlawful discrimination cases, people represented by the case cannot be ordered to pay costs unless they were the person who actually filed the application.
The new costs rules do not change court applications already filed before the law starts, so existing matters keep the old costs position.
The Bill would insert a modified ‘equal access’ cost protection provision in the AHRC Act to provide greater certainty to parties during court proceedings in relation to costs, which would achieve the objective of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work Report. The costs protection reform would apply to all complaints of discrimination under federal anti-discrimination law, across all protected attributes and all areas of public life covered by those laws.Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) explanatory memorandum
If the applicant is successful in proceedings on one or more grounds, the court must order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs. However, where the court is satisfied that the applicant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the applicant to incur costs, the court is not required to order the respondent to pay the costs incurred as a result of that act or omission.Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) explanatory memorandum
The Bill would provide an applicant cannot be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs except in certain circumstances. An applicant may be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs if the court is satisfied the applicant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or the court is satisfied the applicant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs. In addition, an applicant may be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs if the respondent has been successful on all grounds in the proceedings, the respondent does not have a significant power advantage over the applicant and the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources, relative to the applicant.Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) explanatory memorandum
(7) In the case of a representative application, subsection (6) does not authorise the court concerned to award costs against a person on whose behalf the application is made other than the person who made the application.Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024 final Act text
(2) Despite the repeal and substitution of section 46PSA of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 made by this Schedule, that section continues to apply, in relation to any application made under subsection 46PO(1) of that Act before the commencement of this item, as if that repeal and substitution had not been made.Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024 final Act text
Context
The 2020 Respect@Work reportThe 2020 inquiry report that said legal costs were stopping people from bringing sexual harassment and discrimination claims. found workplace sexual harassment was prevalent and pervasive, and its recommendation 25 identified legal costs in federal discrimination cases as a barrier that could deter people from pursuing claims. After most Respect@Work reforms were enacted separately, this bill was introduced in November 2023 as the final legislative step on that agenda, and it passed in September 2024 before receiving Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. on 1 October 2024 to set a clearer costs regime for unlawful discrimination cases.
Respect@Work reportThe 2020 inquiry report that said legal costs were stopping people from bringing sexual harassment and discrimination claims. identifies legal costs as a barrier
The landmark Respect@Work reportThe 2020 inquiry report that said legal costs were stopping people from bringing sexual harassment and discrimination claims. said workplace sexual harassment was prevalent and pervasive and recommended changing federal costs rules because the risk of adverse costs could deter people from bringing claims.
Hansard ↗Earlier Respect at Work reforms leave the costs issue unresolved
Parliament enacted most Respect@Work recommendations through separate reforms, but speakers on this bill said recommendation 25 on costs protection still required a further legislative fix.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the final Respect@Work bill
The Attorney-General introduced the bill and said it was the final legislative reform needed to fulfil the Albanese government's commitment to implement the Respect@Work reportThe 2020 inquiry report that said legal costs were stopping people from bringing sexual harassment and discrimination claims..
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House of Representatives completed its consideration of the bill, sending the proposed costs protection changes to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing its parliamentary passage as the final outstanding Respect@Work legislative measure.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. makes the changes law
Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. turned the bill into an Act, allowing the new federal costs rules for unlawful discrimination proceedings to take legal effect under the commencement provisions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Committee (30/11/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/02/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 88 to 54.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 35 to 29.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 32 to 25.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill creates an overly broad, one-sided costs regime across all federal discrimination cases, which critics said could skew litigation, weaken incentives to settle, and go beyond the narrower Respect@Work recommendation. That case was led by Coalition speakers, while Senator David Pocock raised narrower implementation concerns about reviewing the scheme and shielding small businesses.
Criticism was concentrated in the Coalition, with narrower safeguard concerns from Senator Pocock.
Costs rules seen as too one-sided
Coalition critics argued the bill tilts court costs too far towards applicants, creating an unequal regime that could distort litigation behaviour rather than just protecting genuine complainants from crushing adverse costs.
Bill goes beyond Respect@Work
Opponents said the bill does not simply implement the Respect@Work recommendation on sexual-harassment costs protection, but expands it into a much wider discrimination-costs model that was not what the original reform process proposed.
Risky incentives around settlement and weak claims
Critics warned the model could discourage reasonable settlement and make it harder for respondents to recover costs even where an applicantThe person or group bringing the discrimination case to the commission or court. pressed on after a sensible offer or brought a weak case that fell short of being formally baseless or abusive.
Not enough safeguards for rollout
Senator Pocock sought extra guardrails, arguing the new regime should be independently reviewed within two years and that small businesses should be excluded, reflecting concern about how the model would work in practice for less well-resourced respondents.
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 32 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 88 to 54. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 35 to 29. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Defeated 27 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and One Nation.
Keeping the bill unchanged meant the new costs rules would start without a built-in statutory review trigger.
Defeated 28 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill kept its broader costs protection model instead of a much tighter costs exception for respondentThe person or organisation accused of discrimination and defending the case. or applicantThe person or group bringing the discrimination case to the commission or court. conduct.
Defeated 26 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill continued to apply the new costs regime to small-business respondents instead of creating a separate exemption.
Defeated 27 to 29. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill did not add a settlement-offer costs trigger, so the new costs protection stayed broader than the opposition wanted.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is the final reform needed to deliver the Respect@Work recommendations on costs protection.
Read in Hansard ↗Matthew Canavan opposes the bill, arguing it goes far beyond the Jenkins review and would subsidise litigation by tilting costs rules heavily in favour of complainants and lawyers.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall supports the bill and says it will better protect people bringing discrimination and sexual harassment claims from the risk of crushing cost orders.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan supports the bill because she says costs protection will improve access to justice for people bringing discrimination and sexual harassment claims, and help stop adverse costs from deterring victims-survivors.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 8 support
“This bill is a big step forward in our government delivering on those recommendations from the Respect@Work report. It is part of us fulfilling our commitment to making sure we implement those recommendations in full. When our government says we will do something, we do follow through and we make it happen. We are ensuring that all workplaces in Australia can become model environments to support people to work safely and free from harassment. With the changes in this bill, we are ensuring that, if sexual harassment does still occur, there is a pathway through that is clear and does not obstruct people from trying to seek redress. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Discrimination of any kind is an affront to our moral values as a people committed to a democratic way of life. When the Albanese government identifies issues it acts to rectify them. We will not sit on our hands. Governing is about doing what's right, and we'll always support victim-survivors in any way we can. This bill makes pursuing justice in discrimination proceedings fairer for applicants and respondents alike, while providing certainty to victim-survivors and encouraging them to report discrimination where it occurs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nita Green on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Green strongly supports the bill, saying it will reduce the risk of adverse costs in federal discrimination cases so more women and other applicants can come forward and seek justice. She presents it as overdue Respect@Work reform that makes workplaces safer.
“I will have a chance to talk further on this bill, I understand, but I wanted to first of all reiterate that this is about alleviating the risk of adverse costs for applicants in federal unlawful discrimination proceedings. We know from the evidence that was put forward that that is integral to making sure that more people, particularly women, come forward in the first place. We don't want women to think twice about raising a complaint and seeking justice, because of the cost that might be imposed later on through the court process. That is something that this bill seeks to rectify. It is unfinished work that makes our workplaces safer. I'm very pleased that our government is finishing the work of Kate Jenkins and the respect at work bill. I'm thinking tonight about all of the women who have come forward to raise issues of sexual harassment. This bill is for them.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Green strongly supports the bill, saying it will remove cost barriers so victims of sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination can pursue justice without risking financial ruin. She rejects claims that it will flood the system with weak cases and says it is a necessary next step from the Respect@Work reforms.
“By supporting this bill, we're making a significant step towards a more just and equitable society that supports survivors, and it gives them a pathway to ensure that they can seek justice if they are harassed at work.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This Bill would strengthen Australia's anti-discrimination framework and help achieve its core objective of eliminating all forms of discrimination.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Castle was a great movie. Justice was done and Darryl got to keep his castle. But the law of sexual discrimination is not The Castle and it's not entertainment. It is a scourge, and it needs to be eliminated. It also needs its day in court. It is vital we empower applicants to bring forward matters to our courts. I'm pleased to speak on the bill and commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I conclude by thanking the many individuals and organisations, including unions, business groups and legal experts that have engaged with the Attorney-General's Department in the development of this important reform.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I also welcome the Senate committee's recommendation that, subject to this change, the bill be passed. The government considers that the modified equal access cost protection provision in this bill reflects a considered and balanced approach which best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. On that basis, I commend the bill to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill is the result of significant consultation on the appropriate cost protection model for unlawful discrimination proceedings. The government considers that the modified equal access cost protection provision of the bill reflects a considered and balanced approach that best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 1 support · 8 oppose
“My concern is that this is not the right answer. From the contributions of Senator Green and Senator Waters, those listening to this debate would be unaware that the costs model which is being introduced in this bill did not have the support of the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in her Respect@Work report. She actually proposed a different costs model.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is why I do not support this legislation as drafted. That is why the coalition has put forward an amendment which faithfully, comprehensively but not expansively seeks to implement recommendation 25 in the Jenkins review. I urge all in this chamber to study this legislation closely because it could well be the thin end of the wedge.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, what should the bill have done? It should have implemented recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. It should have had support across this chamber. It should have created a simple cost-neutral jurisdiction in our federal courts to remove barriers to women to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. It should have meant that the same rules apply whether you pursue a sexual harassment claim in the Fair Work Commission or in the Federal Court. Instead, we have a model that goes further than any comparable jurisdiction and applies to any type of claim under discrimination law or that relates to such a claim. The overreach is inexplicable, and we should find a better way forward.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But we can in this place reflect on what this bill should have been. It should have been a bill that implemented recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. It should have been a bill that had support across the chamber. It should have been a bill creating a simple cost-neutral jurisdiction in our federal courts to remove barriers to people, primarily women, wishing to pursue complaints about harassment and discrimination. Instead, we have a model which goes further than that of any comparable jurisdiction. The overreach is inexplicable. The bill needs to be carefully scrutinised. A better way forward should be found. This is not a bill and set of provisions that the coalition could support in its current form. I thank the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are unintended consequence in this bill that the government have not adequately addressed. Therefore, the coalition stands in opposition to this bill because it does not advance protection from discrimination in the way that it should and in fact will increase the number of vexatious claims that are made against people. You can use the processes of the Human Rights Commission to frustrate, to add costs, to add burden to organisations that maybe you've got an ideological opposition to. It is reprehensible, and it is something that should not proceed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think this bill is overreach. I think it goes too far. I believe we should oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Again, if we're talking about claims of sexual harassment, that was a recommendation of the Respect@Work report and we understand why the government would want to do it, but what they propose here today goes so far beyond that that it's not even funny. This bill takes a different approach to what was recommended. It does not implement recommendation 25 of the Jenkins report and it does not implement a provision modelled on section 570 of the Fair Work Act. It's not aimed at sexual harassment in the workplace. Instead, it applies to all federal discrimination matters and it would become a catch-all provision extending into matters far beyond the recommended scope and intent. The government is not being up-front today about why it has done this and why it didn't want to bring in a bill that actually would have dealt with the scourge of sexual harassment in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Unfortunately, what I'm seeing at the moment, and where this piece of legislation is critical for the parliament, is more often at local government. We have situations where litigious acts are being brought against members of the public or co-members with absolutely no cost of recourse.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“Equal-access cost provisions, where workers can take action without fear of paying the other side's costs if they lose, already exist for whistleblowers to remove barriers for people calling out misconduct. They should exist for whistleblowers. They should also exist here, and that's why we're pleased to be supporting this bill. The same rules should apply for calling out workplace harassment, and, hence, our support. The modified equal-access cost modelling in the bill will help protect young women in those industries, and it will help set the standard for workplace behaviour. The bill represents a generational opportunity to change workplace culture.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens are happy to support changes that will see these same protections applied to workplace harassment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“I thank the government and I welcome this bill with these amendments and the implementation of the Respect@Work recommendations. It's incredibly important that we continue to progress healthy, respectful and safe workplaces. The most important thing is that, as members in this place, we have a duty to keep emphasising this. As a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce tasked to implement the Set the standard report recommendations in relation to the Commonwealth and parliamentary workplaces, I certainly welcome these provisions and urge all members to continue engaging with PWSS and the resources available to us as employers to ensure safe workplaces.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to support the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to include costs protection provisions that will apply to unlawful discrimination proceedings commenced in federal courts.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 88 to 54.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 35 to 29.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 25.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/02/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (30 Nov 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (9 Feb 2024)
APH bill page notes
