This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Health, care & disability
Governments, businesses and community groups would be barred from treating people differently over COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination status in jobs, services, housing, education and sport across Australia.
COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination requirements and proof checks left some people treated worse because they were unvaccinated in work, services, housing, education, sport and travel. The bill makes that unlawful across Australia, including by governments and businesses, and overrides conflicting laws except for frontline health and care workers.
As vaccine certificates and mandates spread during the COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. pandemic, airlines, governments and businesses moved to link travel, entry, work and other everyday activities to vaccination status, and by late 2021 business groups were warning this could lock unvaccinated people out of parts of the economy. The bill, introduced in November 2022, responded by trying to make COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination status a protected ground against discrimination across Australia and to override conflicting laws, but the Senate defeated it at the second reading stageThe main vote on whether Parliament accepts a bill in principle and lets it keep moving; this bill was defeated there. in August 2024.
The main case against the bill was that it could block governments, employers and venues from using vaccination rules that opponents saw as legitimate public health protections during COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand.. Labor opposed it on that basis, while the Greens' objection was narrower and focused on the bill treating one part of the pandemic response in isolation rather than through a broader review.
Senator Pauline Hanson introduced this bill. It was supported by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, UAP, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Greens, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
3 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
624 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Governments, businesses and community groups would be barred from treating people differently over COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination status in jobs, services, housing, education and sport across Australia.
Asking someone to show proof of a COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination, or treating them worse because they are unvaccinated, would count as unlawful discrimination under the bill.
State governments and state agencies could not discriminate over vaccination status, but the introduced bill did not apply that rule to discrimination against the State's own officers, employees or prospective employees.
Other federal, state and territory laws that allow or require vaccine-status discrimination would be overridden, so this bill would take priority if there was a conflict.
The new law would have to be reviewed after its first year, and the review report would need to be tabled in Parliament within six months after the review starts.
The COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 (the bill) prohibits the Commonwealth, States and Territories and other government and non-government entities from discriminating on the basis of whether a person has had a COVID-19 vaccination, in the provision of goods, services and facilities and also in employment, education, accommodation and sport.COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
This clause defines what may constitutes discrimination, which includes requesting or requiring a person to provide proof of having received a COVID-19 vaccination or unfavourable treatment on the basis of whether a person has not received a COVID-19 vaccination. Discrimination may occur on multiple bases.COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
8 States must not discriminate on basis of COVID-19 vaccination ... (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to discrimination against an officer or employee (including a prospective officer or employee) of the State concerned.COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) introduced bill text
13. This clause clarifies that the Act overrides any other law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory which requires or permits discrimination on the basis that a person is COVID-19 vaccinated.COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
16. This clause requires that a review of the operation and consequences of this Act is to be undertaken as soon as possible after 12 months from the commencement of the Act, with a report to be presented and tabled in the Parliament within six months of the review commencing.COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
Context
As vaccine certificates and mandates spread during the COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. pandemic, airlines, governments and businesses moved to link travel, entry, work and other everyday activities to vaccination status, and by late 2021 business groups were warning this could lock unvaccinated people out of parts of the economy. The bill, introduced in November 2022, responded by trying to make COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination status a protected ground against discrimination across Australia and to override conflicting laws, but the Senate defeated it at the second reading stageThe main vote on whether Parliament accepts a bill in principle and lets it keep moving; this bill was defeated there. in August 2024.
Qantas says international passengers will need proof of COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination
The airline's December 2020 announcement became an early example of vaccination status being tied to access to travel and private services.
Australian Financial Review ↗National cabinet considers vaccine passports for restaurants, bars, sport and travel
The proposal would have given vaccinated Australians greater freedoms by using digital vaccination certificates for access to venues and movement.
Australian Financial Review ↗Retailers warn vaccine rules could create an 'underclass of the unvaccinated'
As Victoria prepared to ease rules for vaccinated people, businesses sought a national approach amid concern that unvaccinated people would be excluded from parts of the economy.
Australian Financial Review ↗Senator Hanson introduces the COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022
The bill proposed making it unlawful for governments and non-government bodies to discriminate over COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination status in areas such as work, services, accommodation, education and sport.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate rejects the bill at the second reading stageThe main vote on whether Parliament accepts a bill in principle and lets it keep moving; this bill was defeated there.
The bill did not proceed after the second reading was negatived, leaving existing laws and policies on vaccination requirements unchanged.
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
Referred to Committee (09/02/2023): Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Committee report (25/08/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it could block governments, employers and venues from using vaccination rules that opponents saw as legitimate public health protections during COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand.. Labor opposed it on that basis, while the Greens' objection was narrower and focused on the bill treating one part of the pandemic response in isolation rather than through a broader review.
Criticism was real but limited, and mostly centred on public health and policy-design concerns.
Could weaken public health protections
Opponents argued the bill would make it harder to use vaccination requirements to reduce severe illness and protect the wider community, because treating people differently by vaccination status would become unlawful across many settings.
Too narrow and isolated from wider COVID policy
The Greens argued this bill should not be dealt with on its own because COVIDThe virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. policy needs a broader review across governments, rather than a single law focused only on vaccination-status discrimination.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 28 to 32. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Passed 35 to 23. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Liberal Party. One cross-floor vote was recorded: The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals) voted aye. Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural closure vote, not a decision on the bill itself, and it forced the chamber toward an immediate vote on the remaining question.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Pauline Hanson supports the bill, arguing that COVID-19The virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccine mandates were discriminatory and breached basic rights, and that Australians still need protection from that coercion.
Read in Hansard ↗Steele-John says the Greens will not support the bill because they want a broader review of COVIDThe virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. policy across all levels of government, and argue this measure should not be implemented in isolation.
Read in Hansard ↗Rennick supports the bill as part of pushing back against the way Australians were treated over COVIDThe virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccination and restrictions, saying people were gaslit, mocked, and caused unnecessary suffering.
Read in Hansard ↗Babet says he wholeheartedly supports the bill because he wants COVIDThe virus illness this bill is about; the page uses COVID-19 as the shorthand. vaccine mandates ended and believes the mandates are unjustified, hypocritical and still being kept in place out of stubbornness rather than evidence.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The government does not support the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill. This bill is yet another stunt by Senator Hanson and One Nation, and our nation's public health is too important for that. It should be rejected by all parties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I'm sick and tired of these people being mocked by people in this chamber, the other chamber, the media, the health authorities. They are mocking people who followed government's advice in good faith and then have been trampled on and gaslit, because it does not suit their political agenda.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“In closing, the Australian Greens believe that we need a comprehensive review of policy settings of state, territory and federal governments. Implementing this bill without taking a panoramic approach, driven by a panoramic view, to adjusting policy settings is not the way to best support our community right now or into future pandemics.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“However, two particular vaccine mandates are no longer in place. In February this year, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled them illegal on the grounds that they breached the human rights of the police and nurses on whom they were imposed. That has been One Nation's position on the vaccine mandates all along. The vaccine mandates' discrimination and coercion were not only a fundamental breach of the basic human right to choose; they were a breach of the Australian Constitution. I draw senators' attention to section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution—which I have done on numerous occasions—which says parliament can make laws with respect to:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I wholeheartedly support Senator Hanson's bill. I urge my fellow senators to do the same. I don't know if they will. They will probably not, because you know what? You don't have a backbone. You can't stand on your own. You can't just say no to the apparatchiks in the background—the bureaucrats that influence your decision making. Stand on your own two feet! Be a man, have some cojones and do what's right for your country. Do what's right for your people. Don't do what the little insects in the bureaucracy want you to do. To all the ministers in this place, I can't stand you guys. You don't make decisions for yourself. You always defer back to the bureaucracy. Am I right? I know you do. Stop referring to the bureaucracy. Make the decisions; take accountability. You were elected to basically run the show. Don't let the bureaucrats tell you what to do, those insects. That's what they are. They are insects. You know what I would do if I were ever in government? The very first thing that I would do is sack half of these bureaucrats. I'd put them out on their butts and I'd say: 'You're never working for the public service again, you bums. Get out of here!'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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 negatived
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Committee report (25/08/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (9 Feb 2023): Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Committee report (25 Aug 2023)
APH bill page notes
