Respect@Work law must be enforced transparently to address sexual harassment

Many Australian -based Australians have worked hard to offer us working law reforms. The change of the law requires a lot of work, most unpaid and thanked. The Australians wrote to the MPs, worked in campaigns in their spare time, and gathered on the streets and parliamentary Building “4 March Justice”. The personal stories of the increasing anger in cases of high-profile sexual harassment and violence against women have disappointed with the law-a law that makes no difference in the abuse rates or seriousness.

Loading

All this energy and effort should not be wasted. We needed reforms because the system we had did not work. Sexual harassment worsened over time. People who have been sexually harassed or discriminated at work, by resisting the risk of financial destruction against strong and better -based organizations to address even the most systemic and brutal cases, they pit themselves against strong and better -based organizations.

Complaint or lack of legal lawsuits (Only 17 percent of sexual harassment incidents have been reportedAHRC found) showing how ineffective this system was.

At the same time, employers did not have a clear legal obligation to prevent sexual harassment, and instead led to policies and compulsory education for employees – the prevention approach showing that academic research was largely ineffective.

The new positive task law was one of the many important changes in the Gender Discrimination Law, which led Australia to have the most sophisticated sexual harassment prevention laws in the world. Instead of waiting for a person to be harassed or hurt, the law requires employers to do what is reasonable to stop the damage in the first place. How logical is this?

However, the system fails in multiple facade. First, AHRC was given a monopoly to perform a positive task. If you combine an endemic problem with a bad -welded and equipped regulator, compatibility usually fails. The appropriate arrangement requests that organizations such as individuals, trade unions and a well -resulting regulator.

AHRC is not properly caused by a regulator. Inadequate financing means that it has very few personnel dedicated to task. When the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Competition and the Consumer Commission and the Fair Working Ombudsman, they are confident that they introduce their activities. Knowing that only the rhythm is an active police encourages compatibility.

Strangely, AHRC investigations are covered in secrecy. Nobody is allowed to know if they use these forces. We asked the Commission to approve of whether or not to make a single investigation using regulatory powers. Answer: This is secret information. With this lack of transparency, it is not surprising that many Australian employers appear unaware that there is a positive task.

#Metoo movement taught us that confidentiality maintained sexual harassment. In this context, it is surprising that AHRC’s compatibility studies are kept in the dark. We both care about@working laws because innovative and unprecedented laws to address a real, stubborn problem. However, AHRC will not take place due to the declining borders on their powers.

Loading

The Australians built a strong vehicle for change together. We don’t want to stand on the edge by watching rust.

Karen O’Connell is a professor at the Faculty of Law in UTS and an expert in sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Josh Bornstein is a lawyer representing many women who are subject to sexual harassment.

Wrap a weekly view that will challenge, championship and inform you. Sign up for Opinion Bulletin.