The federal government had been copping heat for having a landmark report into the cultural problems plaguing Australian workplaces for more than a year and doing little about it.
Perhaps in response, one of the Coalition’s newly released measures goes further than what Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and author of the report, had originally proposed.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said they intended to make it crystal clear that the Sex Discrimination Act applied to Members of Parliament and the judiciary – addressing what many had described as a legal grey area.
However, at a time when the toxic culture is at the forefront of public debate, it does not mean we will see any politicians and judges immediately sacked for proven harassment.
Why are MPs and judges different?
It all comes down to how Members of Parliament and the judiciary are appointed to their roles.
When it comes to MPs, the ultimate decision maker on whether a politician deserves to be in Parliament are voters.
A politician can be kicked out of their party, but they cannot be kicked out of Parliament.
Parliament has not had the power to expel Members or Senators since the late 1980s.
One of the fundamental elements of Australia’s democratic system is the separation of powers – the judiciary is entirely independent of the government.
Even though judges and magistrates are appointed to their roles by the government of the day, no one can show them the door until they hit the mandatory retirement age of 70.
Using federal judges as an example — the only way a judge can be removed from office is if there is been proven misconduct, followed by a majority vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What consequences do they face for misconduct?
We have not seen the exact wording of the federal government’s proposed changes – because they haven’t been drafted yet.
But the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Amanda Stoker, explained what the changes might mean.
“If somebody brings a complaint of sexual harassment against a politician or a judge, they'll be able to do so to the Australian Human Rights Commission the same way that anybody else can,” Senator Stoker told the ABC.
“That means it will go through a process of examination and conciliation by the Human Rights Commission, and if the outcomes of that aren't sufficient to resolve the problem, then they'll go to court in the way anybody else does.”
Senator Stoker argued that, in the case of a politician, the court of public opinion would play a role in deciding their fate – potentially forcing a politician to resign if a finding is made against them, before voters next head to the ballot box.
ABC News: Matt Roberts
)“I do believe that the Australian people judge harshly people who engage in this kind of behaviour, that the fourth estate makes sure people are held accountable for this behaviour, and of course there are those legal and court channels that arise from the Human Rights Commission processes that will apply to everybody,” Senator Stoker said.
Government sources also noted a finding by the Human Rights Commission could also open a politician or judge up to other legal actions – such as civil claims for financial damages.
Money is always a powerful motivator.
So what’s the point?
The government is framing the argument that no workplace, regardless of how unique or novel it is, should have different rules for workplace behaviour.
But it is important to point out that the true test for how effective this change will be is how the draft legislation is received.
“We'll be looking very carefully at what is proposed for judicial officers, where there has to be judicial independence maintained,” Law Council of Australia President Jacoba Brasch said.
“But equally, everybody working within the courts, and the judges themselves, have a right to feel safe and be safe and secure at their work.”
Dr Brasch said in principle the proposal was welcome, and argued it could serve as a significant deterrent.
“That will be the ‘Rolls Royce’.”
The ACTU is not sure the change goes far enough, noting the government has not adopted a recommendation that would allow the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to launch investigations without a formal complaint.
“If you think about Parliament House, for example, [the Commissioner] would not have had to have been invited to investigate what was going on there,” ACTU President Michele O’Neil said.
“In workplaces where there is clearly a problem or industries or sectors, she should have the power to do that.
“They haven't agreed to that and haven't agreed to changes in the Act which would require employers to take steps to address the underlying causes of sexual harassment.”
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiaWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIxLTA0LTA5L2ltcGFjdHMtb2Ytc2V4LWRpc2NyaW1pbmF0aW9uLWFjdC1jaGFuZ2VzLW9uLXBvbGl0aWNpYW5zLzEwMDA1Njk0NNIBKGh0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvYXJ0aWNsZS8xMDAwNTY5NDQ?oc=5
2021-04-08 18:54:15Z
52781497886324
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How much of an impact could applying the Sex Discrimination Act to politicians and the judiciary actually have? - ABC News"
Post a Comment