Respect@Work - Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins
Senator VAN: Welcome, Commissioner. It's great to have you here. I'm a big fan of the piece of work you did with Respect@Work. I am probably one of the few parliamentarians that has read the entire report. I certainly recommend that every parliamentarian, but probably more broadly every employer, read at least the executive summary. The full report takes a bit of reading, but it's a great piece of work. So thank you for that.
Ms Jenkins: Thanks.
Senator VAN: Have any of the recommendations in your report been implemented either by the Commonwealth or by other bodies or groups?
Ms Jenkins: Yes. There has been action. As we know from the last 12 months, the need for that report and the need for focus on sexual harassment has not lessened, even with COVID. In terms of the recommendations they are broad ranging. They cover federal, state and territory governments and some agencies and employers. In the last 12 months we've had a lot of interaction with employers and organisations that have wanted to start bringing to life the workplace recommendations in particular. In the October Women's Economic Security Statement, there was funding announced for a number of the recommendations. Our first Respect@Work Council meeting happened last Friday, which was a great step forward in terms of bringing to life the recommendations and, particularly, how the different regulatory regimes work together better. The other recommendations that have been funded are in progress.
Senator VAN: Is it right to say that the changes recommended in your report to deal with sexual harassment would relate not just to discrimination laws but also to work, health and safety laws and employment laws?
Ms Jenkins: That's right. In particular that was the conclusion of our inquiry. We looked at how the laws were working. They were pioneering at the time they were introduced in 1984, under the Sex Discrimination Act, but the way work is done now, the way people are operating now and the prevalence rates show that the laws are not fit for purpose anymore. Our conclusion was: rather than expanding one particular law, it was strengthening those three regimes and getting them to work more consistently together. That is why there is a suite of what I would say are quite reasonable practical legislative amendments across those three regimes: the Sex Discrimination Act, or the human rights legislation, regime; the fair work regime; and the work, health and safety regime. The council will bring us all together and just make sure that we all understand what each other are doing.
Senator VAN: Is it fair to say that the complexity of those recommendations and the interplay of those laws across jurisdictions would undoubtedly take time to consider and implement?
Ms Jenkins: I would say they could be implemented pretty quickly if there was a desire to legislate, but it's not my role to do that. I would be open to hearing about that. As a practitioner in practice, the suite was to fill gaps across the system. I know legislative change can take time, but I think the time is now.
Senator VAN: I agree. Will the Respect@Work Council that has been set up assist in responding to the report more generally?
Ms Jenkins: Yes. There are numerous recommendations that in fact ask for pieces of work to be done in consultation with that collective group. There's a really strong will in that group. Almost all of the members were in fact quite engaged during the Respect@Work inquiry—including Michelle Baxter at Safe Work Australia, who was on the reference group.
Senator VAN: Would it be fair to say that the council should provide advice on how to best implement a number of the recommendations?
Ms Jenkins: Yes. If you look at the suite of recommendations there are a number of them that we've, in our first meeting, with the support of the Attorney-General's Department, identified as ones that we will lead on, ones that we can give advice on and ones that will probably be referred to us to keep us informed.
Senator VAN: One of the things I noted in your report, where you talk about looking at gender equality strategies that address sexual harassment, is that you talk about how sexual harassment is in fact a form of gender based violence. Am I summarising your report, or one of your key points, correctly?
Ms Jenkins: Yes.
Senator VAN: Do you think it would be helpful if we talked about that more often such that the connection between harassment and violence was seen? Do you think that would be a lightbulb moment for more people and that that might stop them from harassing more?
Ms Jenkins: I do. It would for some. I guess I come from two sides. We absolutely recognised and articulated sexual harassment as a systemic issue that reflected other types of gender based violence, like online violence and sexual violence. We also recognised it as a real impediment to women's economic security. To some degree my view is 'whatever works for people to understand the issue', because it is a huge cost to our economy as well as a huge harm to individuals. I think all of those ways, and I think however we can engage people to understand that everyone's got a role to make a difference—I think if that language was used it would change a whole lot of things that are currently in our conversations and dinner party conversations as well as in a lot of the frustrations that we're hearing in our community.
Senator VAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for this piece of work that you did, for the work you're doing here and for the work that you'll do into the future. Ms Jenkins: Thank you.
Full Transcript here.
