Last week former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick released her report into bullying, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the NSW parliament.
The headline statistics are alarming.
Almost a quarter of women and 14% of men said they had experienced sexual harassment in a parliamentary workplace in the past five years. Even those with power are not safe, with almost half of women MPs stating they had been harassed. More than half of bullying incidents were perpetrated by an MP.
Parliamentary workplaces are sexualised environments and young women are particularly targeted. Almost one in four women agreed with a survey statement that there are negative views about women in parliamentary workplaces; less than a quarter of men believed this.
While concerning, this situation is not a surprise, coming in the wake of the Jenkins review. Last year the sex discrimination commissioner reviewed commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. She also found widespread harassment and bullying, with 40% of women and 26% of men stating they had been sexually harassed.
The causes of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are clear. They include gender inequality, a lack of human resource policies and avenues to report harassment and misconduct, a lack of accountability, long hours, and an alcohol-fuelled environment. Power imbalances between parliamentarians, their staff and public servants is also a key enabler of workplace violence.
Like the Jenkins review, the Broderick report contains comprehensive recommendations to reform the workplace culture in NSW parliamentary workplaces. Some of the main reforms include:
- expanding reporting pathways, including creating an independent body to investigate complaints,
- updating codes of conduct to strengthen protection against retribution against complainants,
- reviewing and improving working hours,
- reducing alcohol-related harms,
- providing training to prevent bullying and harassment, and
- reducing power imbalances between parliamentarians and staffers, including through improved accountability mechanisms.
The Broderick report is important because it takes an intersectional approach (where people’s multiple identities are recognised). The review found that people of diverse sexualities experienced higher rates of sexual harassment – and sexual assault – than did heterosexual respondents (38% compared with 17%). As the report notes, the impact of this violence is compounded for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
One of the key ways to overcome this toxic environment is to increase the diversity in parliamentary workplaces. The Broderick report suggests targets be set to increase the numbers of people from diverse backgrounds in leadership roles. This suggestion reiterates a similar recommendation made by commissioner Jenkins.
Further, the report recommends training be conducted to increase awareness about obstacles faced by those in marginalised groups. This is also significant. Increasing such awareness is really about trying to make those with power see their privilege – whether it be white privilege, male privilege, or heterosexual privilege. Workplaces are starting to have conversations about privilege.
The Broderick report also recommends awareness be increased so that targets and merit are not mutually exclusive. Recruiting for diversity – or to meet targets or quotas – does not necessarily undermine the merit principle. This is also largely not understood, as our research shows. The ‘best person for the job’ can still be recruited when targets are in place.
Targets are a proven way to increase workplace diversity. Adopted with other recommendations in the Broderick report, culture change is possible. However, addressing power imbalances, entitlement and privilege, is an enormous task.
:
Review puts parliamentary bullying, sexual harassment and assault on the table
