HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Gendered Violence Prevention

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges the thousands of people who attended the March 4 Justice in South Australia on 15 March 2021;

2. Condemns all forms of gendered violence;

3. Calls for an end to gendered violence in all workplaces, including in our parliaments;

4. Calls for the full implementation of all 16 recommendations made in the Equal Opportunity Commission’s Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace;

5. Calls for a review of the way that sexual assault crimes are reported, investigated and prosecuted in South Australia;

6. Calls for fully independent investigations into all cases of gendered violence and timely referrals to appropriate authorities with full public accountability for findings;

7. Calls for the full implementation of the 55 recommendations in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Respect@Work report of the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces 2020;

8. Calls upon the state government to increase funding for gendered violence prevention to world’s best practice; and

9. Calls upon the state government to enact gender equality legislation to promote gender equality.

(Continued from 17 March 2021.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:47): I rise to briefly speak in support of this motion. I have spoken on a few similar motions and also moved ones myself in this place in recent times, and of course I have introduced a bill to impose a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination. The Greens always have and always will condemn all forms of gendered violence, discrimination and harassment, and we stand by the calls of this motion for an end to gendered violence in all workplaces, especially this one.

I want to take this moment to commend all those who marched in the March 4 Justice rally in March this year, who stood against sexual harassment and assault, and who stood together regardless of political affiliation or walk of life. They stood against that harassment not just in politics but in all areas of our lives. I am, and so many others are too, absolutely sick and tired of having to have this fight. How many more will be hurt and have that hurt publicly picked apart before we change?

Our collective anger runs deep—not just present in our lives now but back through generations, through the halls of this place and through other unsafe workplaces, back through our homes and our community spaces. We are done being silent on this issue. We are sick of it getting swept under the rug. We have had report after report outlining in excruciating detail the harassment and abuse that women are being subjected to, and the lack of meaningful action continues to stoke our collective rage.

So, in particular, I wish to highlight paragraph 5 of this motion, calling for a review of the way that sexual harassment crimes are reported, investigated and prosecuted in our nation. This is of utmost importance. We know that so many sexual assaults are never reported, and fewer still even prosecuted. We have heard time and again how hard it is to get justice following a sexual assault. It is well past time we fixed our laws to ensure justice and compassion for survivors.

I note as well the call for the implementation of all the recommendations, both from the Equal Opportunity Commission's Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace and from the Australian Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work report of the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. I think we have had a few such calls already in this place and certainly in other parliaments.

However, given the delays in even getting together a meeting of the committee that we have entrusted in this workplace with implementing those recommendations and reporting on our workplace, it seems clear to me that those commitments are not necessarily ones that will be heeded without reminders, such as, yet again, this motion.

It is time for all in this parliament and for the Marshall government to get on with it. I note that there are several of us in this council who will keep reminding all leaders of all parties in this parliament of their obligations, of their promises and of their duty to ensure that we have eradicated gendered violence in our community and in our workplaces.

The Greens will keep reminding them and committing this parliament to ending harassment and discrimination in this and every workplace, because these issues are not going away until we take serious action. And, by the way, the Greens are not going away any time soon, so we will be here to remind you until we get this job done.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:51): I rise today in support of the motion. I begin by thanking the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing the motion to this place and for her continued advocacy on gender equality, as well as her courage for speaking out on the issue of harassment within the workplace. The growing women's movement and the Enough is Enough protests have pushed both the state and federal government to address the issues. However, both continue to fail.

Since the start of 2020, we have seen an influx of motions put to this chamber and the other place regarding harassment and gendered violence. As this motion indicates, there is no one way to solve the issue of gender inequality, and governments need to act now. The responsibility weighs heavily on this parliament to create legislation that breaks barriers for women economically, socially and politically. We as a parliament also must take responsibility in the sense of changing social attitudes with the leadership we have, as individuals and as a parliament.

It is unacceptable to stand on a moral high ground and frown upon other workplaces that have issues of harassment when we cannot even address this issue within our own workplace. If we cannot address the issue within our own workplace, how can we expect the public to end harassment and gender-based violence? The responsibility falls on everyone in this place to address the issue of harassment within parliament. However, it is just the few who time and again stand to raise these issues.

No real change has come from the Equal Opportunity Commission's Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace. For instance, the Joint Committee on Recommendations arising from the Equal Opportunity Commissioner's Report into Harassment in the Parliament Workplace has still not met—nearly two months on from its establishment in mid-March.

Through my years dealing with workplace issues through union work and on the Employment Tribunal, I have never seen a workplace so complicit in dealing with issues of this severity. Members may think that they are higher than the law and that they are immune from the repercussions of their actions, but they forget that the public's eye is on them and that women vote too.

There is no doubt that the political environment that we each work in is unusual. It is one that encourages competitive and egocentric behaviour. Somehow this is translated into members and staff seeking to undermine others through inappropriate behaviour. This behaviour has become normalised throughout our society and systemic issues within our workplace, which has left survivors hurt with little or no hope of remedying the situation. Women are continually oppressed by the social, political and economic systems within this state.

I understand the government is seeking to substantially amend the motion. The opposition will not be supporting the amendments. It is discouraging that the government is seeking to water down the motion by amendment, when the motion calls on the government to act. The supporters of this motion as it stands are tired of waiting for real action. It is time this government made some real effort to change this toxic workplace culture.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:55): I rise on behalf of the government to speak to the motion. Firstly, the government strongly supports paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; that is, acknowledges the people who marched, condemns all forms of gendered violence and calls for an end to gendered violence in all workplaces, including in our parliaments.

I note on behalf of the government the government's unequivocal public condemnation of gendered violence: the Attorney-General's ministerial statement of 4 May, which comprehensively outlined what this government has done, what the government continues to do and options for future reform. The Attorney-General has made clear the government's position in relation to those particular issues.

In relation to paragraph 5 of the member's motion, the Attorney-General has indicated that she will review how sexual assault crimes are investigated and prosecuted, noting that consent laws were last reformed in 2008, and that she has written to both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police on the same.

The Attorney-General has also sought the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police on the policy in the Australian Capital Territory to proceed with a prosecution even when a victim has asked to withdraw the victim statement to police, and the Safe at Home Tasmanian scheme, which includes a pro-arrest, pro-prosecution policy to address domestic and family violence.

In relation to paragraph 6 of the motion, the government does not support this part of the motion. This is the advice of the Attorney-General: whilst the government understands the importance of and supports timely investigations with appropriate referrals, the way in which this has been drafted is too broad and does not cover situations in which survivors may require privacy or different supports. Members should be sensitive to victim-led responses.

In relation to paragraph 9 of the motion, again, the Attorney-General advises—and is supported by the government—that the government does not support this part of the motion. The government notes that the Hon. Ms Bonaros has now introduced her Gender Equality Bill, to which she has just concluded her second reading. The government reserves its position on the bill and notes legislative recognition of gender equality is already found within the Equal Opportunity Act in addition to significant public sector initiatives to promote gender equality in its ranks.

In relation to funding issues, the government notes and the Attorney-General indicates that the government is also proud of its record funding for domestic and family violence prevention. Since March 2018, the government has committed more than $21 million in new funding towards a suite of new DV measures supporting South Australians.

An additional $4.8 million federal government funding boost last year enabled the government to fast-track new measures during COVID-19, bringing total new DV funding to $25.8 million. I think there have also been recent federal government announcements in the most recent budget. On behalf of the government, I formally move the amendments that are standing in my name:

Leave out paragraph 4 and insert new paragraph as follows:

4. Supports in principle the implementation of the 16 recommendations made in the Equal Opportunity Commission's Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace;

Leave out paragraph 6.

Leave out paragraph 7 and insert new paragraph as follows:

7. Supports in principle the implementation of the 55 recommendations in the Australian Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work report of the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces 2020;

Leave out paragraph 9.

Paragraph 7 calls for the full implementation of all the 55 recommendations in the Australian Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work national inquiry report. With great respect, I am not sure how many members in this chamber have actually read all 55 recommendations of that particular national report, but in looking at the federal government's response to a number of those recommendations, it is quite clear that with some of them the federal government has indicated it merely notes the recommendations and does not indicate support or otherwise, in particular Recommendation 27, which recommends:

A disclosure process be established that enables victims of historical workplace sexual harassment matters to have their experience heard and documented with a view to promoting recovery. The Australian Government should fund the Commission to facilitate this process.

For example, the federal government indicates they merely note that particular recommendation. They will:

…evaluate the effectiveness of existing counselling based services for victims, including those provided by state and territory governments, for allowing matters to be confidentially and anonymously disclosed and heard for the purpose of promoting recovery.

The Government will also ensure that employers have access to guidance materials to assist in supporting victims of historical workplace sexual harassment.

The federal government's response is listed under 'A Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces'. Given the time, I do not intend to go through (a) all of the 55 recommendations and (b) all of the responses from the federal government. I am just noting that there are some, like recommendation 27 and others, that the federal government merely notes their response. For example, in recommendation 15 it is recommended that the Australian Government ratify ILO Convention 190. The federal government just says that is noted and:

…the government will consider this recommendation as part of usual treaty processes.

Given that a number of these issues are responsibilities of the federal government and that some of these are potentially shared responsibilities between federal, state and territory governments and will require discussion at national forums, whether it be at the national cabinet or with responsible ministers, some of them will be discussed by attorneys-general and some will be discussed by ministers with direct responsibility for support policies in terms of agencies, such as, I would imagine, in our case, the Department of Human Services and their equivalent agencies in other jurisdictions, and work health and safety ministers as well will all be party to various discussions.

But there are a number of recommendations, as I said, that are noted. There are a number where the federal government says that they agree in principle or agree in part, but when one reads the individual recommendations or the summation of the government's response it is not entirely clear. The federal government's position is very much up in the air. For example, for recommendation 16, which was to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure a whole variety of changes, the federal government response was:

Agreed-in-Principle: The Government supports equality of opportunity and the express prohibition of sex-based harassment. Further, the Government will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure greater alignment with model WHS laws and to make the system for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace easier for employers and workers to understand and navigate.

In conclusion, in relation to that particular report, the federal government, which has lead responsibility in a number of those areas, is either just noting or says it agrees in principle or in part but certainly is not endorsing all 55 recommendations of that particular report and certainly not going ahead with the full implementation of all 55 recommendations of that particular report.

Finally, in relation to the Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace report, received earlier this year, the first thing I do want to note and place on the public record again is one of the commission's conclusions, and that is:

That said, in the Commission's view, the primary data does indicate that harassment in the parliamentary workplace is too prevalent. It appears to occur at a rate similar to workplaces across Australia and to international parliamentary workplaces, and the risk factors associated with the workplace’s culture and systems also point to a problem that needs to be addressed.

It acknowledges that there is a problem within the parliamentary workplace, but it is quite clear in saying that it is at a rate similar to workplaces across Australia; that is, yes, there is a problem within the parliamentary workplace, but it is at a similar rate to workplaces in the nation, whether they be, I imagine, private or public sector workplaces, together with the parliament.

I think too often in this particular debate, the parliamentary workplace is being made out to be much more toxic, much worse than what exists in many other workplaces, and that is not a view, certainly, that I subscribe to. I acknowledge the problems, as I acknowledge the problems exist both in public and private sector worksites.

In the public sector, we were the first government to commission the survey and then public reveal of the views of workers in the public sector. We are conducting a similar survey as we speak—I think it concludes in the next three or four days—seeking out information in terms of concerns within the public sector about bullying, harassment and other concerns that individual workers have within the public sector. So this government does not shy away from trying to address the problem: we seek to shine a light on it in the public sector and are prepared to work to do something about it.

In relation to the particular recommendations, I have spoken briefly before about the fact that, in my humble view, the reviewer in relation to this does not understand all of the practical realities of the parliamentary workplace. The parliamentary workplace, as defined by the commissioner in her report, is:

For the purposes of the Review...includes the people working (in whatever capacity) in or for Parliament House, electorate offices and Ministers’ offices, and includes work related travel and events.

The commissioner goes on to make recommendations that we have one single oversight unit, stating:

That the South Australian Government form a centralised human resources function (the People and Culture Section) to provide services across the parliamentary workplace including:

Then there is a whole range of things, including:

the development of a workplace training program

a performance management framework

the development of human resource policies and practices

induction and exit practices

a wellbeing framework that includes supporting staff in electorate offices

other functions as recommended by the Review.

Mr President, as you would know as the Presiding Member and as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Services Committee, it is impossible in our circumstance—or it does not make any sense, let me put it that way—to implement this particular recommendation; that is, to have one centralised function which is actually going to control the staff within ministerial offices, the staff within electorate offices, the staff within the Legislative Council chamber, the staff within the House of Assembly chamber, the staff who are responsible for the joint parliamentary services, the protective security staff who report to the South Australian police commissioner, the parliamentary counsel who are public servants who come down here and work in Parliament House and are here on a regular basis, together with a whole range of other people who work here occasionally, in particular when parliament is sitting.

The reality is, to address this particular issue, the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee has already addressed in part the responsibility that it has; that is, a centralised functional unit which is going to be available to the joint parliamentary services staff, but is also on some sort of an arrangement with the presiding members in both houses to be made available to the Legislative Council staff.

The staff who work for members of the Legislative Council in Parliament House on a daily basis and the staff who work within electorate offices of the House of Assembly staff on a daily basis but also spend some time here when parliament sits, Mr President, are not the responsibility of you or the Speaker, or indeed the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee. They are the responsibility, through electorate services, of Treasury, and that responsibility will rest with myself and the Department of Treasury and Finance in terms of providing a centralised resource for them, and we will undertake that to try to better manage the concerns that electorate office staff might have.

In relation to ministerial staff, who are here generally when parliament is sitting, it is a completely different set of arrangements. They are section 71 or 72 staff employed under contract to the Premier, so a centralised staffing resource in Parliament House has no authority over ministerial staff. They are responsible, through their ministers, to the Premier, and that is where the focus of responsibility lies. The protective security staff in Parliament House, I assume, have direct responsibility through to the police commissioner in terms of any concerns they might have whilst they are working at Parliament House.

I provide some detail in relation to that to say whilst everyone says this should be implemented immediately, with great respect people have not thought through what that actually means and, if you were to do so, what the issues would be that would be created or how you would even achieve that legally in terms of the different responsibilities.

Electorate staff, for example, have a certain set of rules and public servants have codes of conduct that they are required to abide by. Parliamentary counsel, for example, who are public servants, have the public sector code of conduct, which they are required to adhere to. Ministers have a code of conduct. Members of parliament, under this recommendation, will be looking to see the adoption of a code of conduct that would relate to the members.

There will be varying codes of conduct or requirements that apply to different members of the parliamentary workplace that the commissioner has recommended. As I said, with great respect to the commissioner, she does not have the corporate knowledge or understanding of how the complexity of the parliament actually operates and how some of the recommendations will clearly be impossible to implement along the lines that are recommended.

In one of the recommendations, she recommends that this group of people within the parliament, I assume answerable to either the presiding members or to the JPSC if it is going to be located centrally, make recommendations in relation to resolving issues and provide guidance on parliamentary privilege. Good luck with that, as we have wrestled over decades, or indeed hundreds of years in other jurisdictions, about parliamentary privilege. We are going to appoint two, three or four people into an HR section on people and culture, and they are going to provide guidance to us all on parliamentary privilege and how that is going to be implemented. Good luck with that.

There are also other issues that, as I said, establish a process for the disclosure. One of the recommendations that I certainly support—I do not have any problems with it, but it will be interesting to see how it is actually implemented—is that the commissioner recommends on a number of occasions to provide that relationships between members of parliament and staff in the parliamentary workplace must be disclosed.

The commissioner returns to this, so I am assuming some concerns must have been raised to the commissioner in relation to relationships between members of parliament and parliamentary staff, because on page 89 the commissioner refers to it, and again on page 124 the commissioner recommends that people in this new people and culture section will establish a process for the disclosure of relationships between members of parliament and staff in the parliamentary workplace.

Given that the commissioner defines the parliamentary workplace as both parliament and electorate offices, clearly someone is going to have to have oversight of the personal relationships of members of parliament—people not just in parliament but also within electorate offices and also within ministerial offices as well, because the recommendation is there should be a disclosure of relationships between members of parliament and staff members in the parliamentary workplace, which is broadly defined.

The issue is going to be: where is this disclosure going to be, and how is that disclosure going to be maintained? Who will have access to the disclosure regime where the member of parliament who happens to have a relationship with a staff member—where that is going to be disclosed and how it is going to be disclosed and the rules that relate to it? That is one of the recommendations of this particular report.

Again, I am not going to go through all the other recommendations where I think there is a challenge in terms of the parliamentary committee, which is going to be charged with responsibility at least within the areas it has responsibility for, considering the response to some of these particular recommendations.

With that, as I indicate, the government's position is, as outlined by the Attorney-General, to oppose a number of aspects of this particular motion and to seek to amend a couple of the others. I note from discussions I have had that the government does not have the support to have its amendments passed in this particular house, so I do not propose to divide, but it will be a challenge for all in terms of seeking to implement the terms and the nature of the recommendations that are outlined in this particular motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:16): Can I start by acknowledging the contributions of the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the Treasurer. Thank you for the contributions you have made. I think it goes without saying that the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos have probably outlined factors that I do not need to address, because I agree with them, but I would like to take the opportunity to address a few points made by the Treasurer in his remarks.

I am going to start by saying this: this is not my motion. It is a motion based on a petition that was put together by the March 4 Justice group. We know that back in March some 8,000 people marched here in South Australia and nationally some 110,000 people marched. There was a petition that was prepared and provided to the Prime Minister, and it detailed the expectations of what is being asked for.

That is what this is based on. I did not come up with a list of things and say, 'You know what? This is my wish list. This is what I think we should do.' I based it on what all those individuals who pounded the concrete out there said they wanted us to be doing. So I think it is important to acknowledge that we have not plucked these out of thin air. We have based them on what members of the public have said they would like to be seeing us doing, and we are merely a mouthpiece for them. I support them in everything they have called for, as do other honourable members who have spoken in here today.

I do want to address a couple of other points the Treasurer made in relation to this workplace and the call for an end to gendered violence in all workplaces, including our parliaments, and the recommendations made in relation to the review of this workplace. Perhaps if the Treasurer himself had been subjected to some of the sorts of behaviours that other people in this building had been subjected to over years, his view would be a little bit different, but I can tell you there are plenty of people in here who do not agree with the Treasurer's view, because he has been fortunate not to be subjected to inappropriate behaviours in this workplace—perhaps. I do not know; I am speculating, but I can only speculate, based on what he said, that that is the case.

To make that assumption and to take that view, in my view, is to miss the point entirely of why the legal profession and why the parliament have had the spotlight shone on them. Nobody is suggesting that other workplaces are not equal to or perhaps even worse than parliament or indeed the legal profession or indeed the judiciary. That is far from what we are suggesting. The reason the focus has been on our parliaments, on this parliament, on our federal parliament, on other parliaments, the reason the focus has been on our judiciary, the reason the focus has been on our legal profession is because of the work that they do. It is by virtue of their obligations that they ought to be doing better.

We are talking about our lawmakers, our legislators, people who make the laws, people who interpret the laws, people who apply the laws. I do not know how many times we have to say this, but if those individuals who work in those professions cannot get it right, then why on earth would any other workplace in South Australia or elsewhere feel compelled to sign up to measures that our parliaments, our judiciary and our legal profession do not bother to meet. That is why the focus is on the parliaments of Australia. That is why the focus is on our legal profession. That is why the focus is on the judiciary.

As much as we would like to sweep it under the carpet or downplay its significance, the fact is that across the board, here and elsewhere, we have heard very alarming cases of extraordinary behaviour against members and against staff who work in those workplaces. There have been reports and reviews on this. I do not need to name them all. We all know what it is.

To try to make excuses for parliament in terms of, 'Well, we are not the worst offender in all this,' completely misses the point of why the spotlight is on parliament, why it is on the judiciary and why it is on the legal profession. The bar is higher and ought to be higher for those professions. They have a higher degree of responsibility by virtue of the work that they do every day. It is that plain and simple. I am hoping that has addressed that point appropriately for the Treasurer and others.

I think the Treasurer has made some points that we all acknowledge will take time to address in this place. We are not suggesting it is going to be an overnight fix. What we are asking is to give us a little bit more, give us more than, 'Well, we won't agree because the federal government has only taken note of that recommendation and they're not going to support it in principle. We won't agree because it's too difficult and good luck with that one because perhaps we don't have the answers of how we are going to fix this.' Give us a little bit more, show us that there is a little bit of an appetite to fix these things and you will get a better response across the board. It is that plain and simple.

I will not be accepting the Treasurer's suggested amendments. I will not be because, as I said at the outset, I did not draft these terms of reference based on what I think needs to be done. I based these terms of reference on what the tens of thousands of people—in South Australia some 8,000 people marched—thought needed to be done. It is their petition, their banners, their calls that we are trying to respond to here and I do not intend to water those down because this government does not think that we can set the bar a bit higher in terms of what we are actually aspiring towards.

There is obviously going to be give and take across the board, but we could at least start by setting that bar really high and if we need to make concessions, then by all means we will consider them when we get to them, but we do not need to lower the bar now, so there is no need to support those amendments. With those words and noting the time, I indicate again for the record that I will not be supporting the amendments by the Treasurer.

The PRESIDENT: The first question I am going to put is that paragraph 4, as proposed to be struck out by the Treasurer, stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question I now put is that paragraph 6, as proposed to be struck out by the Treasurer, stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now move to the question that paragraph 7, as proposed to be struck out by the Treasurer, stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now go to the question that paragraph 9, as proposed to be struck out by the Treasurer, stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to; motion carried.


At 18:28 the council adjourned until Thursday 27 May 2021 at 14:15.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT