Bill to ban NDAs ‘marks a shift’ in sexual harassment cases

The Victorian government is set to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in workplace sexual harassment cases, as it moves to prioritise the voices of victim-survivors.

In August 2024, the state government in Victoria opened consultation on new laws to restrict the use of NDAs, with Premier Jacinta Allan saying such agreements were “being misused to hide serial offending, protect perpetrators and employers’ reputations”.

There have been multiple calls for law reform in this space, with advocates arguing that NDAs protect abusers and have been used as a silencing tool.

The bill and its protections

Now, Premier Allan and Minister for Industrial Relations Jaclyn Symes are introducing the Restricting Non-Disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Bill 2025, which the government said will address power imbalances in the NDA negotiation process and let victim-survivors decide whether they want to enter an NDA.

The bill will prohibit NDAs unless requested by the complainant, allow workers under NDAs to talk to Victoria Police and medical and legal professionals, and end NDAs after 12 months of notice to the other party. It will also mandate requirements for information statements and a review period before a worker signs an NDA.

NDAs, the state government said, were meant to protect trade secrets, but they have become an entrenched practice in settling sexual harassment complaints out of court – often used to keep details of the complaint and the alleged harassment confidential.

This, the government said, “creates a culture of secrecy – enabling perpetrators to reoffend, letting employers avoid action to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces, and preventing victims from openly speaking about their experiences”.

The proposed bill is the first of its kind in Australia and among the first in the world.

Premier Allan said: “We heard from victims who have been silenced in the workplace, and this legislation will make sure they have a voice. How can we have a hope of stopping sexual harassment in the workplace when the conduct gets hidden, the victim gets silenced and the powerful stay protected?”

Minister Symes added: “We know that NDAs are too often misused, and these laws are about putting the voices of victim-survivors first.”

The legal take

In conversation with HR Leader, partner at national law firm Kingston Reid, Katie Sweatman (pictured), said the bill “marks a shift” in workplace culture in cases involving sexual harassment.

“This reform responds to growing concerns that settlement agreements have been misused to silence victims and conceal systemic issues. For employers, this signals a clear expectation: transparency and accountability must take precedence over reputation management,” she said.

“Organisations should review existing settlement practices and ensure HR and legal teams understand the law. Beyond legal obligations, these changes represent an opportunity to foster trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to safe, respectful workplaces.”

This reform, Sweatman continued, “resets the default position, in that secrecy will no longer trump overarching safety considerations”.

“At its core, employers must build trauma-informed processes and treat transparency as integral to compliance and culture,” she said.

“It’s important to recognise that many organisations have already adopted less restrictive terms of settlement, enabling complainants to speak about their experiences while maintaining confidentiality over financial settlement terms.”

“This supports cultural change and respects commercial sensitivities – principles that remain relevant as the law evolves. The Victorian legislation goes further than this by giving the complainant full control over whether any terms will remain confidential.”

Victim-survivor testimony

The state government detailed certain victim-survivor accounts in unveiling its new bill – one anonymised account, from Jennifer, read: “There was no negotiation. If I wanted to leave with the money, I had to sign. Signing was a condition for the money. It added enormously to my mental health issues. It makes serial offenders untouchable. The guy in my case was well known for his behaviour.”

Another, from Samantha, read: “Dangerous conditions need to be addressed, not brushed under the carpet. People subject to victimisation need to be able to demonstrate their agency in order to reassert their sense of safety. An institution’s public relations concerns should never trump the wellbeing of people.”

Elsewhere, Claire’s account read: “The stress made me sick. I felt like my rights had been taken away ... I think you should have the right to tell the truth about what happened. If they have broken workplace laws, you should be able to say that’s what happened.”