This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Work & employment
The bill would make COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. a protected groundA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. under federal workplace law, so employers could not discriminate against workers or job applicants for that reason.
Workers and job applicants were left exposed because federal workplace law did not clearly protect them from being refused work, sacked or disadvantaged because of their COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute.. The bill adds vaccination status as a protected groundA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate., bans discriminatory award and agreement terms, and still lets employers require vaccination when it is an inherent job requirementA job requirement that is genuinely necessary for the role, which the bill says can still justify a vaccination rule..
As COVID-19 vaccination requirements spread through Australian workplaces in 2021, employers, workers and lawyers were left arguing over whether bosses could lawfully insist on jabs or exclude unvaccinated staff, and Fair Work CommissionThe federal workplace tribunal that handles parts of the Fair Work system and would need to consider this new protection if the bill passed. cases including the Mount Arthur ruling showed the law was contested rather than settled. The bill introduced in February 2023 responded by trying to make COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. a protected attributeA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. under federal workplace law while still allowing mandates where vaccination was an inherent job requirementA job requirement that is genuinely necessary for the role, which the bill says can still justify a vaccination rule., but it never passed and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
The main case against the bill is that it could make it harder for employers to issue vaccination directions they believe are needed to keep workplaces safe, especially where work health and safety dutiesEmployers' legal obligations to keep workers safe, which the bill's critics say could clash with the new anti-discrimination rule. or public health rules still matter. That concern appears mainly in legal and workplace analysis rather than direct parliamentary opposition, and no party represented in the debate is recorded here as arguing a broad case against the bill.
Senator Matthew Canavan introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from LNP.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
894 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would make COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. a protected groundA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. under federal workplace law, so employers could not discriminate against workers or job applicants for that reason.
The bill would stop employers from refusing to hire someone, sacking them, or hurting their job conditions because of their COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute..
The bill would still let an employer require COVID-19 vaccination when being vaccinated is a genuine and necessary part of the job.
The bill would ban modern awards and new enterprise agreements from including terms that discriminate against employees because of their COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute..
The bill would extend these protections to some workers outside the usual federal coverage, including State public sector employersState government employers and their workers, who the bill says should also be covered even if they are outside the usual federal system. and employees, and would apply to adverse actionA harmful workplace step such as not hiring someone, dismissing them, or changing their job to their disadvantage. taken after the law started.
This Bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 by adding COVID-19 vaccination status as an attribute protected from discrimination.Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
This item amends subsection 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide that an employer must not take adverse action against an employee or prospective employee because of the person’s COVID‑19 vaccination status. The concept of “adverse action” is set out in section 342 of the Act and covers a broad range of matters, for example not hiring a prospective employee, dismissing an employee or altering the position of the employee to the employee’s prejudice.Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
The protection offered by this Bill generally remains subject to the limits imposed on other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act 2009. An employer, for example, will not be in breach of the anti-discrimination grounds where the employer can prove that COVID-19 vaccination is an inherent requirement of the position.Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
This item amends subsection 195(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide that a term of an enterprise agreement is a discriminatory term (and therefore an unlawful term) to the extent that it discriminates against an employee because of, or for reasons including, the employee’s COVID‑19 vaccination status. This provision relates to national system employees and national system employers (see section 170).Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
Subsections 789HC(4) to (7) extend the protection against discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination status under section 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to employers and employees that otherwise would not be covered, and in particular would extend the protection to State public sector employers and employees even where there is no referral by a State in relation to this. The protection in section 351 applies to a broader range of adverse actions than just termination (including dismissal, altering an employee’s position to their prejudice, or discriminating against an employee).Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) explanatory memorandum
Context
As COVID-19 vaccination requirements spread through Australian workplaces in 2021, employers, workers and lawyers were left arguing over whether bosses could lawfully insist on jabs or exclude unvaccinated staff, and Fair Work CommissionThe federal workplace tribunal that handles parts of the Fair Work system and would need to consider this new protection if the bill passed. cases including the Mount Arthur ruling showed the law was contested rather than settled. The bill introduced in February 2023 responded by trying to make COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. a protected attributeA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. under federal workplace law while still allowing mandates where vaccination was an inherent job requirementA job requirement that is genuinely necessary for the role, which the bill says can still justify a vaccination rule., but it never passed and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Aged care dismissal challenge highlights case-by-case approach to vaccine directions
An aged care worker's challenge to her dismissal underscored that workplace vaccination directions were being tested through existing law rather than a clear national rule.
Australian Financial Review ↗Lawyers warn specific Commonwealth legislation may be needed
Employment lawyers said the lack of clear legislation could trigger a wave of disputes over employers telling workers to get vaccinated or lose their jobs.
Australian Financial Review ↗Fair Work CommissionThe federal workplace tribunal that handles parts of the Fair Work system and would need to consider this new protection if the bill passed. rules BHP's Mount Arthur vaccine mandate was unlawful
The full bench found BHP had not lawfully introduced its mine-site mandate because it failed to consult workers properly, sharpening national debate about how far employer vaccine rules could go.
Australian Financial Review ↗Bill introduced to ban workplace discrimination over COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute.
The bill was introduced to add COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. as a protected attributeA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. in the Fair Work ActThe main federal workplace law this bill would amend to add protection against discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status. while preserving mandates where vaccination was an inherent requirement of the job.
Australian Parliament House ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
Because the bill did not complete its parliamentary passage, the proposed federal protection against discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute. never took effect.
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.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill is that it could make it harder for employers to issue vaccination directions they believe are needed to keep workplaces safe, especially where work health and safety dutiesEmployers' legal obligations to keep workers safe, which the bill's critics say could clash with the new anti-discrimination rule. or public health rules still matter. That concern appears mainly in legal and workplace analysis rather than direct parliamentary opposition, and no party represented in the debate is recorded here as arguing a broad case against the bill.
Criticism was limited and focused more on safety, legal conflict and implementation than on the bill's overall aim.
Could limit lawful safety directions
Workplace lawyers argued employers can in some circumstances lawfully require COVID-19 vaccination as a reasonable workplace direction, so making vaccination status a protected attributeA personal characteristic that workplace law says employers must not use as a reason to discriminate. could cut across employers' ability to manage health and safety risks.
Risk of conflict with public health orders and workplace safety duties
Legal commentary said businesses could be entitled or even expected to refuse entry to unvaccinated people where public health ordersGovernment directions made during a health emergency that can require or limit workplace access and may conflict with employer vaccination rules. applied, suggesting the bill might create tension with existing legal duties to provide a safe workplace.
May create more legal disputes rather than certainty
A practical concern is that the bill could shift arguments into new discrimination and adverse-action claims about when vaccination is a genuine job requirement, adding litigation rather than resolving uncertainty.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Canavan supports the bill and says it is needed to stop employers sacking or refusing to hire workers over COVID-19 vaccination statusWhether a person is vaccinated against COVID-19, which this bill proposes to treat as a protected workplace attribute..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
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 · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
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