Stay home. Protect our health services. Save lives.

This is the public health message used by many governments around the world during the COVID-19 crisis in an effort to stop the spread, flatten the curve, and to prevent a wave of critically ill patients overwhelming the health care system.

But compliance with government restrictions is, perhaps, easier said than done for many Australian women, men, and children experiencing family violence. For these members of the community, staying at home has come at the cost of personal safety.

On average one woman is killed per week in Australia by her current or former partner. According to Impact for Women, nine women have been killed so far this year due to relationship violence.

In a matter of weeks following the implementation of government social distancing restrictions in March this year, Google reported a 75% increase in searches for family violence help. This is the highest number of searches in the past five years. 

Similarly, Women’s Safety NSW reported an increase in clients, the complexity of client needs, escalation in violence, and violence specifically related to COVID-19. Western Australia Police reported an increase of 5% in family violence callouts since mid-March. These trends match an increase in reported incidents around the world – most significantly in China where family violence tripled during the COVID-19 lockdown. 

Lower reported incidents concealing a bigger issue

Not all states and territories have experienced a spike in domestic violence reports since March this year. South Australia, for example, has not seen a significant increase, and Queensland has actually seen a decrease in both family violence order breaches, and applications for protection orders. Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll says, however, that she is concerned by this trend as lower reported figures may not necessarily be reflective of an overall decrease in domestic violence incidents. COVID-19 has meant that victims of domestic abuse are at home more and likely not to be in a position to take out a protection order or to report a potential breach.

Chrissy Leontios, Principal Lawyer at CLEON Legal based in Queensland, says her firm has not seen an increase in women reaching out, but that:

“This should not mean that COVID-19 is not causing higher rates of domestic violence or that legal assistance is not in higher demand.”

The United Nations has urged all governments to “make the prevention and redress of violence against women a key part of their national response plans for COVID-19.” The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, made a number of recommendations on how governments can do this, including by increasing investment in online services, making sure the courts continue to prosecute abusers, setting up emergency warning systems in pharmacies and grocery stores, and to declare shelters as essential services. 

Extra funding for domestic violence services

The Australian government has pledged an initial $150 million dedicated to domestic violence support and another $32.5 million for states and territories to bolster frontline services.

“This funding is certainly welcome, but the government needs to acknowledge that resources were extremely over-stretched before COVID-19, and this funding will only scratch the surface in filling the gaps, says Ms Leontios” 

The risk factors for those isolating with controlling partners go beyond just being made to stay home. The consequences of staying at home can exacerbate an already volatile situation says Ms Leontios:

“Recent research from the Foundation of Alcohol Research and Education shows 70 percent of Australians are drinking more alcohol than normal during COVID-19. While we know that alcohol consumption is not a direct cause or excuse for domestic violence, evidence suggests that alcohol consumption increases the occurrence and severity of domestic violence.” 

Family violence is not limited to physical violence and includes financial abuse and deprivation of liberty. Since many Australians now face unemployment, Ms Leontios warns “there is an increased capacity for financial control if a person has lost their own income and has to rely on a perpetrator for an allowance to survive.”

Help is still accessible for victims of domestic abuse

Every state and territory permits leaving the house for an emergency, including instances of family violence. Family violence centres and legal services are now operating virtually, allowing victims of domestic abuse to continue to obtain help. Virtual representation through duty lawyers is also available.

“We want victims to know that COVID-19 does not stop them from getting Protection Orders … we want victims to be aware that help is still available, says Ms Leontios.”

Where to get help

If you suspect that someone you know is experiencing family violence, there are a number of ways you can help. The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria sets out a number of things you can do to help someone at risk. 

These include: 

• Checking in regularly via phone, text or social media
• Agreeing on a safe word, sign or signal that the person experiencing family violence can use to alert you that they need help 
• Calling the police 
• Keeping copies of important documents for the person experiencing family violence, and/or storing an ‘escape’ bag for them.

Ms Leontios says that we all have a role to play:

“The most important message here is to take notice and take action. We need to challenge the old notion and debunk it that ‘what happens in the home is private’ – this is wrong. Domestic violence is everybody’s business.”

Further Information

• If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. A live chat option is also available.
• Download ‘Daisy,’ an app that connects you with domestic violence services in your local area.
• Visit CLEON Legal, phone (07) 4725 3462 or 0409 741 025 or email info@cleonlegal.com.au

More on BucketOrange

• ‘Domestic Violence Incidents Expected to Spike Along with COVID-19.’

The TV series, “13 Reasons Why” was released on Netflix in March 2017 to a storm of criticism and backlash from experts, parents, and teachers. Everyone seemed to have an opinion on the series … and that is significant.

It got people talking about suicide, suicide prevention, suicide rates, and suicide strategies. The series held up a mirror to society and, through its graphic depictions of suicide, sexual assault and bullying, it brought subjects that many still consider taboo, into mainstream dialogue. Whether you like the show or not, it has generated a strong reaction and this is precisely what it was created to do.

The show centres around the character, Hannah Baker, a teenager who we learn has committed suicide and left 13 audio tapes that recount her story – the “13 reasons why” she has taken her life. We follow the journey of protagonist, Clay Jensen, as he listens to the tapes and learns more and more about Hannah, one of his so-called closest friends. The show covers very heavy, but very important topics that affect teenagers today.

It is easy to see why the show has sparked such widespread controversy and criticism. Towards the end of the first season, we see the moment Hannah Baker takes her own life. It is graphic, brutal and harrowing. Initially, Mental health groups and child psychologists slammed the show’s portrayal of suicide on the basis that it romanticises the act and could inspire teenagers to commit suicide.

Creators of the show defended the decision to show Hannah committing suicide. Writer Brian Yorkey said:

We worked very hard not to be gratuitous, but we did want it to be painful to watch, because we wanted it to be very clear that there is nothing, in any way, worthwhile about suicide.”

The effect of the series was tangible. Google searches relating to suicide – both prevention and ideation – spiked by 19% for the 19 days following the release of the series compared to the days immediately prior to its release. Headspace experienced an increase in calls where the impact of the show on the mental health of callers was specifically mentioned.

Thematically, the “13 Reasons Why” is not breaking new ground

Teenage suicide is not a new concept in television, film or literature.

In the 80s, “Degrassi Junior High” explored the gamut of controversial themes from domestic violence, drug use and teen pregnancy to alcohol abuse, safe sex, and the suicide of classmate, Claude Tanner.

In the 90s, Heartbreak High and Beverly Hills 90210 filled similar roles in exploring very real and important teen themes such as bullying, harassment, addiction, depression, and suicide.

More recently, “The Virgin Suicides” movie was released in 1999. The film follows the lives of five high school-aged sisters who plan and carry out a suicide pact.

Similar to “13 Reasons Why”, the story of “The Virgin Suicides” is told from the perspective of those left behind as they struggle to understand why.

The 80s and 90s are, however, a far cry from the social media-fuelled world that teenagers now live in.

While many adults have argued that “13 Reasons Why’s” graphic depictions of violence, assault, sexual assault, and bullying is grossly irresponsible, teenagers have continued to watch the show in droves. This is because many young viewers can relate to the show’s themes, having experienced similarly horrific acts of bullying or harassment themselves.

As parents, teachers, and counsellors have not grown up surrounded by social media and its impact, arguably, the show’s content is confronting to adults in a way dissimilar to that of high schoolers.

Tracy Kirk, an Interdisciplinary Researcher into Child and Adolescent Rights, watched the series after being urged by a 16-year-old student. She said in an article to The Conversation:

“The issues highlighted will horrify parents … but these are issues many young people are experiencing. And some parents may simply not be aware of it”

For the last few years, youth suicide rates have been stable in Australia. Up until 2016, according to the ABS, 2.3 suicides per 100,000 persons aged between 5-17 years have been recorded. In 2012, there were 2.1 per 100,000.

Statistics from 2017, the year “13 Reasons Why” was released, has not yet been published.

13 Reasons Why is not the problem

The problem of youth suicide is not born out of the release of the series “13 Reasons Why”. Youth suicide has been a growing problem both in Australia and internationally for many years.

In 2012, I spoke with Windermere Child and Family Services, a community group based in the electorate of Casey in the south-east suburbs of Melbourne. The area had experienced a high number of youth suicides, many as a result of suicide “pacts.”

The suicide program ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training), was developed and implemented in schools. Bronwyn Owen, a Project Manager at the time said suicide is:

“So frightening to talk about, so people don’t talk about it and hope it goes away, but as we’ve seen, it’s not going away.”

The ASIST program is still listed on the Windermere website and has trained over 5,000 parents, carers, teachers, medical professionals, students and friends since its inception in 2011.

A mechanism to raise awareness 

In May 2018, the second season of “13 Reasons Why” was released and it has become a tool for awareness.

In Australia, Netflix collaborated with Headspace to develop resources and warnings before the show aired. The site 13reasonswhy.info provides crisis numbers and resources in 62 countries. The Australian content is extensive given the collaboration with Headspace. Resources include discussion guides and videos featuring the cast, speaking as themselves, on the issues they depict.

Interviews with everyday Australians about their mental health stories are also featured.

Controversy continues

The second season continues to be graphic and controversial.

Challenging yet another issue in its characteristic unrestrained fashion, one scene involving student photographer, Tyler, has sparked outrage yet again.

Tyler, who is the victim of bullying in both seasons, experiences his head shoved in a toilet by three students who go on to sodomise him with a mop handle. It is shocking and horrific to watch, but Yorkey has again defended the graphic nature of the scene in an interview with Vulture:

As intense as that scene is, and as strong as reactions to it may be, it doesn’t even come close to the pain experienced by the people who actually go through these things.”

It may be easy to accuse shows like “13 Reasons Why” for an increase in suicide, self-harm and risky behaviour by teenagers, however, suicide rates have been steadily growing for years, particularly in the 20-24-year-old age bracket.

Statistics as far back as 2010 highlight that 24% of male deaths (between the ages of 15-24 years of age) are due to suicide.

Many still consider the topic of youth suicide to be taboo. The value of “13 Reasons Why” is that it has changed this by challenging our preconceived ideas and forcing the community to confront the issue and talk about it.

While the number of google searches went up 19% after the series launched, it is significant that many of those searches were about suicide prevention.

The show was designed to be a mouthpiece for issues which have been ignored, and the graphic content and harsh delivery have been successful in promoting discussion.

Season one broke records being the most discussed TV Program on social media in its opening week. In its first week, the show clocked up 3,585,110 tweets. This means that 3,585,110 people were starting conversations, opening up, and discussing a difficult and painful topic. It also encouraged many people to reach out and seek help.

A platform for change

“13 Reasons Why” is an opportunity for schools, parents, and friends to start a dialogue with the young people they know. The show provides the impetus to start talking and to find help in the right places.

When you stop to think about it, one of the most famous pieces of literature, often taught at high school, centres around youth suicide. It is talked about as one of the greatest love stories ever. The names of this couple move in popular culture with a reverence for their passion and devotion to one another. The term “star-crossed lovers” was born from their tragedy, and their story is echoed as a literary masterpiece.

“13 Reasons Why’s” character, Hannah Baker, cuts her wrists in a bathtub and viewers watch as she bleeds to death. Romeo & Juliet drink from a poisonous vial while they speak of their love for one another.

Only one of these stories romanticises teen suicide.

Further Information

If you, or someone you know, has been the victim of sexual assault:

Local police assistance line: 131 444

• New South Wales
• Queensland
• Western Australia
• Australian Capital Territory
• Victoria
• Tasmania
• South Australia
• Northern Territory

Get in touch with a counselling service:

• National Counselling Helpline: 1800 737 732 (1800 RESPECT) (National)
• Beyondblue – 1300 22 4636 for free counselling and support
• Headspace
• MensLine Australia — 1300 789 978 for support and advice for men
• National Sexual Assault & Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service
• Sexual Assault Services Throughout Australia
• Reach Out
• Centre Against Sexual Assault

Bouncers and security guards are a common sight in every city in Australia, particularly if you are out on busy Friday and Saturday nights.

While bouncers and security guards are employed by pubs and clubs to ensure the safety of patrons, do they have powers to remove you from a venue and, if so, how far do these powers extend?

Police and security guards are two very different things

While you are out and about this long weekend, bear in mind that bouncers and security guards at nightclubs, pubs, festivals and supermarkets are not police and they do not have the same powers of arrest, search or detainment as the police do.

Security guards or bouncers working in private premises are employed by owners to protect customers, staff and property and to ensure that conditions of entry are met. The presence of bouncers is to promote an environment of safety for all persons enjoying the venue.

Bouncers and security guards cannot request your personal information, such as your name, phone number or address. They also may not search you without your permission. 

They can, however, request your ID to determine your age if, for example, a condition of entry is that you are over 18 years of age.

Can they kick me out of a venue?

Much like your own home, privately-owned venues have a legal right to remove you if you fail to follow conditions of entry. If you do not leave, you may be trespassing.

Security guards and bouncers may use reasonable force to eject you from a venue and to control a situation that is escalating. Their use of force, however, must be reasonable in the circumstances and must stop once you are removed from the premises. They may, for example, place their hands on your shoulders to guide you out a venue, but they may not assault, shove, or punch you.

A bouncer also cannot use reasonable force to remove you if they are not within, or immediately outside, the venue or if they are off duty.

Can they detain or arrest me?

Security guards have the same powers of arrest and detainment as an ordinary person.

If you have assaulted someone or caused damage to property, bouncers or security guards may make a ‘citizen’s arrest’ and detain you until police arrive.

The powers that bouncers have to detain you under a ‘citizen’s arrest’ are the same that every Australian has to detain someone they believe on reasonable grounds to be committing or to have just committed an offence.

In Victoria, a citizen’s arrest is defined under the Crimes Act 1958 and provides that a person can arrest someone to ensure they appear before court, to preserve public order, to prevent another offence or for the safety of others.

Reasonable force may be used so long as that force is not disproportionate to the crime. The offender must be taken straight to police or a court of law. Similar laws exist in other states and federally.

What if they just don’t like the “look” of me?

Bouncers have the right to refuse you entry according to the venue’s conditions of entry. If you appear too intoxicated, this is one situation in which you may rightly be refused entry.

Anti-discrimination legislation also applies to clubs, pubs, restaurants and other such premises in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

State and territory anti-discrimination laws, as well as national legislation, provide that you cannot be discriminated against or refused entry on the basis of your race, gender, age, sexual orientation or disability.

The Australian Human Rights Commission can hear and investigate complaints regarding discrimination, harassment and bullying.

What if I am assaulted or verbally abused by a bouncer?

If a security guard or bouncer has physically, verbally or sexually assaulted you, there are steps you can take to report it or to make a complaint.

• Record the bouncer’s name and ID number
• Record the names and contact details of any witnesses.
• Go to the hospital to get your injuries assessed, and to have the injuries recorded by a medical professional for evidence. If you are able, take photos of your injuries.
• Report the assault to police.
• If you were intimidated or experienced verbal abuse or threats, you can complain to the venue and to the relevant Licensing Authority.
• If you, or someone you know, has been sexually harassed or assaulted by a bouncer or security guard, record that bouncer’s name and ID number. You can use this information to make a complaint to their employer and to the relevant Licensing Authority.

You may also wish to seek legal advice from a Community Legal Centre or Legal Aid in your state or territory.

*this article is based on Victorian legislation. 

The world is still reeling from the shocking Harvey Weinstein revelations, together with the string of accusations levelled at prominent Hollywood celebrities, not to mention the vile allegations that have emerged about Don Burke and his pathological harassment of women. These horrific accounts have brought dialogue around sexual assault and harassment to the covers of newspapers, social media and workplaces around the world.

The overwhelming reaction from women and men who have responded with their own stories of assault and harassment with the hashtag #metoo on social media has brought the pervasive and far-reaching nature of this problem in our society, our workplaces and our homes, to the fore.

All of this comes mere months after the Australian Human Rights Commission handed down its report into sexual assault and harassment at Australian universities.

What did the report find?

The report found that 51% of students were sexually harassed in 2016, and 6.9% of students were sexually assaulted. Prior to the #metoo movement, this may have been surprising but now the statistics perhaps merely prove what many already knew.

This is the first report that has surveyed incidents of assault and harassment in a university setting. The survey of 30,000 individuals found that 21% students were sexually harassed and 94% did not report it. 1.6% of students were sexually assaulted and, perhaps most shocking, 87% of those victims did not make a report. The reasons for not reporting are disheartening to read. 40% did not believe that the assault was serious enough, while 62% did not know where to go for help.

The results may be shocking for some but, for others, it merely reinforces the problem of “rape culture” that exists on many university campuses across the country.

Sexual violence culture on campuses

Aired on the ABC earlier this year, the documentary, “The Hunting Ground,” deals with sexual assault at American universities. At the time, the documentary shocked audiences by shining a light on the widespread problem of sexual assault on campuses. However, given that Australian universities do not have fraternities it was easy for Australians to regard the problem as uniquely American. 

There has, however, been evidence of a similar culture of sexual violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities for some time. St Paul’s College, an all-male residential hall at the University of Sydney has been plagued by reports of “slut-shaming” and last year refused to participate in an university-wide cultural review led by the Elizabeth Broderick, former Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

The University of Melbourne has also been in the spotlight last year for a Facebook page that ranked “hot” students and encouraged the non-consensual sharing of images taken of students on campus.

Universities Australia, a group representing 39 universities, approached the Australian Human Rights Commission last year and asked them to conduct the survey. It is part of the “Respect Now Always” campaign that aims to raise awareness and gather statistics around sexual assault and harassment at universities.

What is ‘rape culture?’

What is often described as “rape culture” is the attitudes and behaviours of society that normalise sexual assault and harassment. In 2013, the National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women Survey (NCAS), supported by the Australian government, surveyed young people aged 16-24 – the age bracket most likely to be attending university.

The survey found that 39% of participants believed that women who say they were raped led the man on and then had regrets, while 20% of survey participants believed that women often say ‘no’ when they mean ‘yes.’

In 2016, research conducted by OurWatch, an organisation that advocates for ending violence against women found similar attitudes prevalent among young people. 25% of those aged between 12-20 years of age considered that a boy putting pressure on a girl to engage in sexual acts was ‘normal.’

Numerous other reports over the last 10 years have reached comparable conclusions. Similar attitudes were reported in the Change the Course survey. Among these attitudes are that sexual assault and harassment are ‘normal’ at university, that men are entitled to expect sex from women, and that women make false reports of sexual assault and harassment.

Such destructive and ill-informed ideas have arguably contributed to the prevalence of victims being demonised, blamed or held equally responsible for ‘asking for it’ or allowing themselves to be in a situation where sexual assault or sexual violence have occurred.

This perhaps goes some way towards explaining the statistics coming out of the Change the Course report; severe underreporting and a perception from victims that the assault or harassment was not ‘serious enough’ to report.

How can we fix this?

Following the results of Change the Course survey, Universities Australia released a 10 Point Action Plan as an initial response to initiatives already in place, and to address the recommendations into the future.

A number of solid recommendations for Australian universities came out of the Change the Course report including that:

• Vice-Chancellors take direct responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations
• Universities develop a plan for addressing the drivers of sexual assault and sexual harassment that provides students and staff with education programs and identifies existing resources and communications that can reinforce the message of education programs
• Universities ensure students and staff know about support services and reporting processes for sexual assault or sexual harassment
• Within a year of the report, universities engage an independent, expert-led review of existing university policies and response pathways
• Universities conduct an assessment to identify staff and student representatives that are most likely to receive disclosures of sexual assault and sexual harassment and ensure these people are trained in responding to disclosures, delivered by an organisation with specialist expertise in this area
• Universities ensure information about individual disclosures is collected and stored confidentially
• Within 6 months of the report, universities conduct an audit of counselling services
• Universities engage an independent body to conduct the survey every three years
• Residential colleges and university residences commission an independent, expert-led review of the factors that contribute to sexual assault and sexual harassment in their settings.

The majority of recommendations are, however, largely reactive and focused on strengthening counselling services and providing training to frontline staff about responding to disclosures of incidents appropriately.

The recommendations are echoed in the “On Safe Ground” good practice guide for Australian Universities released by the AHRC shortly after the Change the Course report.

The report recommends “universities develop a plan for addressing the drivers of sexual assault and harassment” by providing education to students and staff and identifying existing resources that can be strengthened. In developing educational programs and resources, universities should engage experts to develop programs that achieve attitudinal, behavioural and cultural change.

While these services are critical in addressing and improving the current woeful underreporting statistics, disappointingly, only one recommendation deals with the need for preventative measures to address the high rates of sexual assault at Australian universities.

Given the broader social context driving the attitudes of young people towards sexual assault and harassment, it is discouraging to see only one recommendation deals with the need to proactively address high rates of sexual assault and harassment on campuses by working towards changing the culture.

While reactive measures and services are essential in providing assistance to those who have experienced assault and harassment, toxic attitudes and behaviours that often lead to such incidents need to change if statistics are to decrease.

A continuation of current social attitudes towards sexual assault and harassment may mean that a victim remains quiet, or a person who witnesses an incident may not think to intervene. Of 25% of students who witnessed another student being sexually harassed, 37% chose to do nothing as the behaviour was not considered serious enough to warrant intervention.

An urgent need for primary intervention

Preventative measures go beyond telling students not to sexually assault and harass other students.

When BucketOrange Magazine spoke with Empowered Together, an organisation that provides workshops on consent and respectful relationships to high school students, Ryan Ward, Chief Operating Officer, expressed disappointment at the lack of focus on prevention coming out of the report:

What we do at Empower Together, is we focus on high school students and delivering workshops on consent and sexual assault in years 9 and 10, so to see only one fairly minor mention of primary prevention as a recommendation was a little bit disappointing as it came out as a recommendation under leadership and wasn’t mentioned too much in the other parts of the report,” Ryan said.

Empowered Together run workshops on sexual assault and respectful relationships as well as issues around technology and social media platforms such as Instagram.

We start off with a narrative structure, breaking down what consent is, what sexual assault is … the practicalities around asking and giving consent and the consequences in not giving or receiving consent and we finish with practical scenarios,” Ryan said.

The focus, here, is education on respectful relationships and consent. In the past, public information around sexual assault has emphasised a “don’t get raped” narrative, placing the onus on victims to ensure their safety rather than an environment where men and women respect each other’s personal rights.

This approach is evident in personal safety tips released by some major universities.

In February this year, the ABC reported that the University of Melbourne advised students to:

Offer to pay half the bill [on dates] so that you won’t feel under any obligation to return the favour.”

Although this tip has since been removed from the university’s Safer Community Program website.

Griffith University advises students that when socialising they should avoid drinking too much as:

Keeping a clear head makes it easier to make wise decisions when it comes to personal safety.”

The focus is on what proactive steps potential victims may take to minimise their risk of being attacked and resources for reporting an incident after it has already occurred which fails to proactively educate and prevent sexual assault and harassment at first instance.

The immense benefits of preventative education can be seen in Kenya where young people are receiving practical training and education on respectful relationships, consent and intervening to prevent an assault. Sessions focus on practical tools and keep lecture-style learning to a minimum. The “No Means No Campaign” adopts a dual gender approach to learning and establishes an environment of mutual respect rather than placing the onus on a victim to proactively prevent an assault.

The success of the program has been overwhelming with incidents of rape decreasing by 51%.  The program has also seen a marked increase in the number of boys intervening in incidents of harassment, rising from 26% to 74%.

What will universities do?

The initiatives outlined in the 10 point action plan are a good start but ultimately keep the onus of personal safety on victims to proactively protect themselves against would-be predators. 

Campus security enhancements such as:

• increased lighting and security patrols
• smartphone safety apps that allow students to have a friend ‘virtually’ watch over them as they walk between destinations

are some of the most common measures implemented by universities.

Online educational modules on consent have also been introduced at most major Australian universities. However, the course is only compulsory at Bond University (for all undergraduate students), The University of Newcastle (for all students living on campus) and La Trobe University (for residential students). For other universities, students are automatically enrolled in the unit but are under no obligation to view the content.

Empowered Together’s, Ryan Ward, attended Monash University’s optional online module on consent.

I don’t know the statistics around who completed the Moodle module, I can’t imagine it is high and I can’t imagine that those who completed it understand their rights in a sexual interaction,” Ward said.

If they [the universities] were more transparent in how the initiatives they are implementing were working then that would be terrific.”

Macquarie University provides a face-to-face education program which has reached “more than 300 students” since 2016. Ward believes this type of training has the potential to be most effective.

I think you really need more of a facilitated integration of training to really change these cultures, to change attitudes and cultures of not reporting … I don’t think the security things are the best approach” Ward said.

Charles Sturt University will introduce compulsory modules for students who hold leadership roles as well as those that volunteer at the university and this acknowledges the role clubs and societies can play in preventing assaults.

Given “university or residence social events” are the number one setting in which sexual assaults reportedly occurred, it is important that universities look to residences, clubs and societies for implementation and training. 

Of the universities that listed training first responders as an initiative, only five out the 39 universities (University of New South Wales Sydney, James Cook University, the University of New England, University of the Sunshine Coast, Charles Sturt University) will deliver training to student leaders.

Recommendation five of the report suggests universities conduct an assessment of staff and students to identify those most likely to receive disclosures of sexual assault and harassment. Clubs and societies run weekend camps, pub crawls, trivia nights and annual Balls. Most of these events occur off campus.

The initiatives are a good start but:

I’d like to see what is in the pipeline rather than them [the universities] pointing to the small things they have done,” says Ward.

What now?

Changing university culture does not happen overnight. Perhaps it’s time that universities began approaching education initiatives from the bottom-up. This means providing education on consent and respectful relationships to student leaders in a format that will resonate and actually reach the students it needs to.

The survey has provided statistics in a way that has never existed before. It’s time for universities to deal with these statistics head-on by focusing on getting policies right and taking proactive measures in preventing future incidents. 

Further Information

If you, or someone you know, has been the victim of sexual assault contact:

Local police assistance line: 131 444

• New South Wales
• Queensland
• Western Australia
• Australian Capital Territory
• Victoria
• Tasmania
• South Australia
• Northern Territory

Get in touch with a counselling service:

• National Counselling Helpline: 1800 737 732 (1800 RESPECT) (National)
• National Sexual Assault & Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service
• Sexual Assault Services Throughout Australia
• Reach Out
• Centre Against Sexual Assault

Australia could have Commonwealth legislation regarding image-based abuse, or “revenge porn,” by the end of this year, but it will not be criminal offences.

Distributing intimate images of your ex-partner is a vile act. But it is continuing to happen at an alarming rate in Australia. The latest high profile case is that of Rob Kardashian posting images of his wife Blac Chyna. Even after his Instagram account was taken down, he carried the abuse to Twitter.

The University of Sydney has also found itself embroiled in a Facebook scandal with images being shared in a closed group for men to view, rate and harass victims.

It is widely accepted among state and territory governments that this behaviour is wrong and needs to be prevented but an agreement on how cannot be reached.

Federal Government’s Civil Penalties Scheme

The Government released a discussion paper in June 2017 on a proposed civil penalties scheme which would provide remedies such as fines, enforceable undertakings, take down notices and injunctions. The scheme could also give the current Children’s eSafety Commissioner more power to remove or limit the distribution of images flagged through the online complaints portal due to launch later this year. The Commissioner’s role was expanded in November last year to include combatting image-based abuse.

The discussion paper comes over a year after the Senate Inquiry released its report and recommended the Government establish offences to criminalise image-based abuse that are consistent with those already in existence at a state level. The Senate also recommended empowering a Government agency to issue take down notices and implement an awareness campaign to complement the offences.

Despite these recommendations, private members’ bills introduced in October 2015 and October 2016 proposing criminal sanctions were never debated and are no longer before the house.

The federal Government has been adamant in its opposition to imposing criminal sanctions on revenge porn. This is despite recommendations for offences to be implemented from women’s legal services across the country, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions,’ and academic experts. The Council of Australian Governments Advisory Panel on Family Violence against Women and their Children also recommended federal legislation in their final report, stating perpetrators should be made accountable for their actions.

State approach

Victoria and South Australia

Currently, Victoria and South Australia have laws against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, also known as “up-skirting”, “down-blousing”, “sextortion” or “revenge porn”.

New South Wales

On 27 June 2017, New South Wales Parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Bill 2017 which creates a new offence for a person to intentionally record or distribute, or threaten to record or distribute, an intimate image of another person without that person’s consent.

People who record or share intimate images without consent could be jailed for up to three years and fined as much as $11,000 under tough new laws.

NSW Attorney General, Mark Speakham said:

This activity is a form of abuse that can cause significant distress to victims. This Bill will empower victims and provide them with the legal right to ensure that perpetrators can no longer get away with such disgraceful behaviour. Behaviour between consenting parties will not be criminalised. Instead, victims will be enabled to take a stand against privacy abuse.”

The new legislation makes it an offence to threaten to record or distribute intimate images, providing victims with additional protection against controlling or coercive behaviour which can occur in abusive relationships. If an offender fails to take reasonable action to ‘take down’ the material, they could face an additional two-year jail sentence and a $5,500 fine. The legislation also gives the courts the power to issue ‘take down’ notices.

One of Australia’s leading experts in sexual violence, Dr Nicola Henry of RMIT University, said:

The NSW legislation is an excellent model that can serve as an inspiration for other jurisdictions both in Australia and internationally.”

Australian Capital Territory

Last week, the ACT passed legislation modelled on Victorian legislation criminalising the sharing of intimate images without consent, but including an exception for persons under the age of 18 years.

Western Australia

Western Australia has opted for a civil approach and made changes to allow victims of image-based abuse to seek a family violence restraining order.

Widespread image-based abuse in Australia

All this comes as new research by RMIT and Monash University indicates that one in five Australians has suffered image-based abuse. Researchers surveyed 4200 Australians and found that the abuse covered more behaviours than expected.

This isn’t just about ‘revenge porn’ – images are being used to control, abuse and humiliate people in ways that go well beyond the ‘relationship gone sour’ scenario,” Chief Investigator, Dr Nicola Henry said.

In the RMIT report, the following statistics highlight the full extent of the problem: one in three people aged 16 to 19 years, and one in four aged 20 to 29 years, reported at least one form of image victimisation. 22 per cent of women and 23 per cent of men, were equally likely to be victimised. 56 per cent of people with a disability and 50 per cent of Indigenous Australians have been victims of image-based abuse. People who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual were more likely to be victims (36 per cent) than heterosexual people (21 per cent).

Eighty per cent of people who had experienced “sextortion” reported high levels of psychological distress, consistent with moderate to severe depression and/or anxiety disorder. 46 per cent also felt highly fearful for their safety. Moderate to severe depression and/or anxiety affected 75 per cent of victims whose images were distributed and 67 per cent of those whose images were taken without consent. Thirty-nine per cent of people whose images were distributed and 28 per cent of those whose images were taken without consent felt highly fearful for their safety.

The research proposed the need for law reform to address inconsistent legislation across Australia, suggesting a crime be created under federal telecommunications law.

Such federal criminal legislation would also bring Australian law in line with international standards, with the UK, Canada, New Zealand and most US states criminalising image-based abuse.

The UK has also put in place a helpline for victims.

So why only a civil penalties scheme?

The federal Government has said that the proposed civil scheme is a result of feedback from victims and the organisations that assist them. Criminal proceedings are thought to be too slow to provide victims with remedies. Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, said in November when announcing consideration of a civil penalties scheme:

Many of them say to you, ‘All I wanted was the image removed, I just wanted the image removed’”

A civil scheme would allow the eSafety Commissioner to investigate sites that are displaying intimate images obtained without a victim’s consent rather than just punishing the offender.

However, a civil penalty scheme would fail to address inconsistent revenge porn legislation across Australia. Many submissions to the Senate inquiry have suggested that federal legislation is needed to address different jurisdictional approaches. 

At a meeting of Attorney Generals in May this year, a national statement of principles was agreed to assist in creating a consistent criminal and civil legislative framework. The principles provide guidance on the scope of any criminal offences as well as addressing the issues of consent and harm to the victim.

Impact on victims

In most cases, image-based abuse causes serious and ongoing psychological trauma to victims and their immediate family and friends.

After ending a relationship, a Western Australian woman’s ex-partner posted a number of intimate images and videos to his Facebook account that had been taken over the course of their relationship. The intention was to inflict mental harm, distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem and embarrassment as a result of her decision to end the relationship. He went on to taunt her through text messages about his uploads and eventually removed the post 7 hours after first publishing it.

The incident occurred in August 2013 but the final hearing did not take place until January 2015.

The victim, in this case, sued for breach of confidence, an equitable doctrine. Due to the psychological trauma suffered, she was not able to return to work for 10 weeks and lost $13,000 in wages. The court, in this case, awarded $13,000 in lost wages and an additional $35,000 in damages for pain and suffering.

The victim also obtained an injunction preventing the potential future distribution of intimate images.

Almost 2 years after the incident, the perpetrator was required to pay $48,000. While this example is a good civil outcome, it certainly hasn’t slowed the explosion of revenge porn in Australia or acted as a deterrent to other perpetrators who maliciously post intimate images of others online without their consent.

This is why consistent federal criminal legislation that imposes serious penalties on perpetrators of revenge porn is urgently required in Australia.

Criminal v civil offences

When it comes to the dissemination of intimate images of another person without their permission, there are benefits and drawbacks associated with civil or criminal penalties.

Some argue that given the far-reaching, destructive and deeply personal impact revenge porn has on victims, that many do not make police reports. This makes criminal prosecutions difficult for law enforcement to pursue. On the other hand, civil litigation can be a drawn out, costly and traumatic exercise for victims. At best, the only remedies a victim can expect from a civil suit are damages and perhaps an injunction preventing further distribution of their intimate pictures.

Conclusion

Our current approach to revenge porn sees state laws working at a different pace to federal legislation. Regardless of what scheme achieves the best outcome for victims of this disgusting and spiteful behaviour, the inconsistency of Australia’s revenge porn legislation is the first issue that needs to be addressed to curb this widespread problem.

Further Information

If you, or someone you know, is a victim of revenge porn contact:

• eSafety Commissioner
• Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN)
• Local police assistance line: 131444
• National Counselling Helpline: 1800 737 732 (for assistance and practical strategies on how to cope with the ongoing effects of revenge porn)

More on BucketOrange Magazine

• Should It Be Considered A Sex Crime If It Happened Online? The Pathology Of Revenge Porn
• Google Removes Revenge Porn From Search Results
• Time For Reform: A Growing Need For Proper Regulation Of Online Sexual Harassment

The unbelievable story of a flight attendant who saved a victim of human trafficking blew up on social media in February this year. After observing the suspected victim’s erratic behaviour, Sheila Fedrick felt something was wrong, confirmed the girl was in danger by leaving her a note in the aeroplane bathroom and had police waiting on the ground on arrival at the destination airport.

It was a sensational victory not only in the fight against human trafficking but also in raising awareness around the importance of everyday people being informed, conscious of their surroundings and proactive in helping to identify and report victims of modern slavery.

As incredible as the story is, it also raises some serious questions about what steps, if any, are currently being taken in Australia to combat human trafficking through common transport routes such as aeroplanes.

Importantly, it also raises the issue of whether flight crew should be considered ‘frontline officials’ for the purposes of high-level human trafficking training.

Human trafficking training for flight attendants

In the United States, flight attendants play an important role in combatting human trafficking. The actions of flight crew often prevent victims ever arriving at their intended destination.

After seeing an 18-year-old carry a newborn baby (with the umbilical cord still attached) onto a flight, attendant, Sandra Fiorini, realised that there was a real need for flight crew to be trained in detecting and responding to suspected cases of human trafficking. She wanted to report the incident but did not know how. So she joined forces with the organisation Innocents at Risk to develop the ‘Flight Attendant Initiative,’ a program designed to educate flight attendants in identifying and reporting suspected victims of trafficking or slavery.

Since then, organisations such as Airline Ambassadors have educated flight crew in detecting and responding appropriately to trafficking not only in the United States but also in Europe and countries such as Colombia and Hungary. Airline Ambassadors also created an app called Tip Line which supplements this training by allowing users to record audio and video, take photographs and send evidence to relevant authorities. They work with the Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection to develop programs for airline personnel.

The Blue Lightning Initiative, which is led by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Control, and the Department of Transportation, is an element of the DHS Blue Campaign, which is a key U.S. human trafficking training program. The Blue Lightning Initiative trains airline personnel to identify potential traffickers and human trafficking victims and to report their suspicions to federal law enforcement.

In 2013, Delta Airlines became the first airline to begin training all staff about human trafficking.

In the U.S. in July 2016, new laws were made. The FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 was signed by President Obama which requires air carriers to provide initial and annual training for flight attendants in recognising and responding to potential human trafficking victims. Becoming a Blue Lightning Initiative partner and using the virtual training is a simple and effective way for airlines to adhere to the new requirement.

Elsewhere, Europe is also moving toward the implementation of training for flight crew. An amendment to the Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) recommended the training of:

personnel employed by various commercial carriers, in particular, airline attendants and staff working on other means of transportation by land and sea, aimed at the identification of trafficked persons, as well as the introduction of measures designed to prevent [human trafficking], including co-ordination between commercial carriers and the State law
enforcement agencies or through other appropriate mechanisms.”

Implementation of recommendations made by the OSCE is, however, made on a political and not legally binding basis. There are currently 57 participating states across Europe, Central Asia and North America.

How Australia deals with human trafficking

Human trafficking is a serious problem that affects every country in the world. Given the far-reaching and damaging repercussions human trafficking has on a global scale, Australia’s current anti-trafficking measures are, in many respects, seriously underdeveloped and lacking focus.

In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur visited Australia and produced a report which analysed Australia’s approach to combatting human trafficking. Concerns were raised about Australia’s method of detection which is primarily through immigration raids that occur in brothels. The Special Rapporteur noted that this approach not only limits the detection of trafficked victims to only one sector but also questioned whether interviewing suspected victims about their immigration status, without the presence of social workers, was effective given their fear of deportation.

In 2013, following the release of the report, changes to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery‑like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 were made and the government implemented a National Action Plan. A spokesperson from the Attorney-General’s Department says:

A key measure of Australia’s National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19 is training of frontline officials, including police, prosecutors, labour inspectors, and immigration compliance and visa processing officers, to recognise and respond appropriately to human trafficking and slavery.”

However, an important deficiency in the National Action Plan is that high-level training in identifying and responding to victims of human trafficking is still something that is limited to ‘frontline officers’ in law enforcement and immigration positions.

The Australian Federal Police is responsible for investigating and assessing human trafficking and slavery matters, both proactively and through referrals from other Australian Government or state and territory government agencies, civil society, business and industry, unions or the general public” says a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Department.

While the Fair Work Ombudsman and marriage celebrants (who may come across suspected victims in employment or forced marriage situations) receive some training why aren’t airline staff given similar training by the government or their employers?

Current absence of government anti-trafficking awareness training for Australian flight crew and ground staff is unacceptable

More than 70,000 personnel in the U.S. aviation industry have been trained through the Blue Lightning Initiative, and flight crews continue to report actionable tips to law enforcement.

Unlike the U.S., Australia currently has no law which prescribes anti-trafficking training for flight attendants. The Attorney General’s Department made no comment about whether similar legislation to the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 in the U.S. is proposed for Australia.

While the government currently provides ‘information, guidance and awareness-raising materials’ to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Border Force frontline officials, including those officials working at airports and ports, it does not deliver or require specific training for or by organisations that have exposure to victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. Any training that deals with aviation safety must comply with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations. When contacted for comment, the Authority’s response was that they do not regulate security on flights.

Staggeringly, as far as reporting suspected victims of human trafficking is concerned, the government does not require any accountability from airlines which are extremely well placed to observe potential victims.

The Australian Government is committed to monitoring and refining the existing tools and guidance used by frontline officers for the identification of suspected victims of trafficking and slavery but does not currently deliver or require specific training for airline staff on this issue. The Government delivers regular training on human trafficking to police and other frontline officials, and has developed a range of guidelines, fact sheets and other publicly available materials aimed at raising awareness” a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Department said. 

It’s a position that is disappointingly limited and at odds with the National Action Plan which aims to proactively ensure that all cases of suspected human trafficking are identified and reported.

Considering the proven success of U.S. human trafficking training programs for air crew; the positive response from U.S. airline staff who are now able to take an active role in stemming the flow of trafficked victims using air transport routes; as well as the clear benefit to victims who are identified in flight and rescued prior to reaching their intended destination, it is both surprising and disappointing that the government is doing nothing to educate and train Australian flight attendants in proven anti-trafficking measures.

One of the reasons the government has given for not taking a more active role in the management of human trafficking to date is that:

Compared to other jurisdictions such as the United States and Europe, Australia has a comparatively low number of victims of human trafficking and slavery” a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Department said.

However, the Special Rapporteur expressed concerns with this approach in her report as the figures of identified victims ‘may under-represent the true number of trafficked persons in Australia’ due to reliance on compliance raids to identify victims.

The eyes are useless when the mind is blind 

While the report noted that no victims had been identified in airports in Australia, it goes without saying that a low level of identified victims does not establish that Australia experiences low levels of human trafficking or modern slavery.

On the contrary, low levels of ‘identified’ victims prove only that – that there has been a small number of ‘identified’ victims in Australia. Where airline staff, who are in a position to make a difference, are not given training there is huge potential for traffickers to move faceless unidentified victims past key ports with relative impunity.

The current see nothing, do nothing approach runs the very real risk that a large number of victims will continue to fall through the cracks on primary trafficking routes and key checkpoints.

As proven by the U.S., airline staff – both ground and air crew – have a critical role to play in combating human trafficking as they have direct face-to-face contact with victims and, in the case of flight crew, have many observation opportunities.

Given their client-facing role and unique position to detect potential traffickers and victims (particularly on long haul flights), Australian flight attendants need to be considered similarly to ‘frontline officials’ for the purposes of targeted and robust anti-trafficking awareness training introduced by the Australian government.

In the absence of mandatory government training programs, it is also time for airlines to step up and train their staff in anti-trafficking measures. As there is no legislative requirement to undergo training, nor active education of carriers in their responsibilities to assist in the combat of such crime, any programs spearheaded by an airline would be the sole responsibility of that airline and provided on a voluntary basis.

The government says that everyone has a role to play in identifying trafficked victims and ensuring that those who are most likely to come in contact with suspected victims have the skills to identify and respond appropriately. Anti-trafficking training for flight crew is not only an obvious but also a critical element in the detection and prevention process. 

In many ways, Australia’s current state of willful blindness is worse than ignorance because it is a refusal to face the truth rather than just a lack of knowledge.

Conclusion

Human trafficking is an issue involving people movement.

Victims are transported across borders and often moved across the world. It is an international problem that requires a unified and coordinated response among nation states. To be responsible members of the global community, to ensure the continued safety of persons entering or leaving Australia, or crossing borders on international flight paths, we need to face the growing international problem of human trafficking head on.

Flight crews are in a unique and powerful position to make a positive impact in combating human trafficking. It is essential that they are considered as complementary to the work of ‘frontline officials’ and given appropriate training.

With the International Labour Organisation predicting that globally there are 20-million people living in circumstances of forced labour, 9.1 million of whom have been trafficked, there is a very real chance that you may be sitting next to a victim of human trafficking on your next flight. Will your flight crew notice or, if you do, would you know what to do?

*Qantas and Virgin Australia did not respond to a request for comment about what action they are taking to train their staff in human trafficking awareness.

Further Information

Anti-Slavery Australia has developed an online training course to raise awareness around human trafficking. It was launched in 2014 and is funded by the Australian Government through the Proceeds of Crime program. The training course has been ‘developed for frontline workers from community organisations, government, teachers, health care professionals and law enforcement.’

What do you think? Should Australian airlines be doing more to proactively manage human trafficking? Let us know below!

It is tough out there for job seekers, particularly young job seekers.

The current market is flooded with graduates with only 68.8% of young Australians able to secure full-time work within four months of completing formal study. Youth unemployment currently stands at 12.9%, three times higher than the national average.

In this climate, being offered an interview is an exciting prospect. But when selection panels are overloaded with hundreds of carbon copy applicants all with similar skills and experience, unconscious bias can sometimes creep into hiring decisions by influencing the judgement of decision-makers. In some instances, this can lead to unfair or discriminatory questions posed to job seekers at interview.

Contrary to what you might think, the power balance at interview does not rest solely with your potential employer. You are not required to answer every question an interview panel asks you simply because you seek the ultimate goal of employment with that company or firm.

Some interview questions – particularly ones that canvass your personal circumstances, age or cultural background – are inappropriate and irrelevant and may even be unlawful under Australian employment and anti-discrimination laws.

Questions your potential employer should not be asking you 

Australian employment law (section 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009) prohibits employers from discriminating against both employees and prospective employees on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

It is also against the law for an employer to treat you unfairly or harass you because of your age, disability, homosexuality, marital or domestic status, race, sex or transgender status of any relative, friend or colleague of yours, whether you are an applicant or an employee.

Some States and Territories also have anti-discrimination legislation in place which protects applicants against discrimination based on trade union activity, political opinion and criminal records. Employers must adhere to both Federal and State laws.

Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discriminatory behaviour by employers towards current or prospective job applicants based on age, race, disability and sex, which includes sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital status, pregnancy or family responsibilities.

Certain jobs may require an employer to inquire at interview about your personal circumstances or opinions, current conduct, or past action or behaviour which can be very intrusive. A government national security position, for example, requires very high levels of security clearance. The majority of jobs in the private or public sectors, however, would not require such knowledge.

Below are some examples of questions that are inappropriate, irrelevant, offensive or unlawful. For most positions, you should never be asked these questions at interview:

1. “Do you have a partner?”
2. “What is your marital status?”
3. “Do you intend to start a family or are you currently pregnant?”
4. “What is your cultural background?”
5. “How old are you?”
6. “Are you religious?”
7. “How many religious holidays do you observe each year?”
8. “Have you ever been arrested?”
9. “Are you heterosexual or homosexual?”
10. “Do you have friends or family who are homosexual?”
11. “Do you have any health conditions?”
12. “Can you provide us with your social media usernames and passwords?”

But what does this mean?

It is unlawful for an employer to ask you these questions since your response may unfairly prejudice their decision to hire you.

Be wary of employers who begin a line of indirect questioning designed to extract this information from you without directly posing the question. This also contravenes anti-discrimination legislation.

Put simply, employers cannot ask you questions about the above issues and use your answers to disadvantage you or negatively inform their decision regarding your employment with their company or firm. They also cannot ask questions designed to obtain information about the above issues.

Employers are limited to asking questions which relate to the “inherent requirements” of the position, such as your skills and experience.

Some common practical scenarios:

• In most circumstances, an employer cannot ask your age. If you are applying for a job in a bar, however, your employer is entitled to ask whether you are over 18 years of age as this goes to the inherent requirements of the role.
• An employer is prohibited from asking “Have have ever been arrested?” but is free to ask “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” For certain roles, this information will be critical in making an assessment regarding your suitability for the position. If you have previously been convicted of money laundering and are applying for an accounting position at a financial services firm, this information is relevant and not considered to be unlawful.
• An employer is prohibited from asking “Are you are married?” because it not only reveals how much time you are willing to dedicate to the job (which may detrimentally impact a decision to hire you) but also indirectly discloses your sexual orientation.

• An employer may not ask “Is English your second language” but they may ask whether you are able to speak any other languages.
• Equally, an employer may not ask “Do you have children?” but they may ask “What hours are you available to work?” or “Do you have any commitments that would prevent you from travelling with work?” In a situation where you apply for a retail position and your employer asks whether you have children and then relies on the information you provide when deciding not to offer you the job, you can make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission for discrimination based on family responsibilities.
• An employer may only ask you about certain health conditions if this will impact your ability to do the job.

What about requests for my social media passwords?

While the practice of requesting social media passwords from job applicants is widespread in the United States, some U.S States have now developed social media privacy laws which prevent employers from requesting this information from current and prospective employees. In Australia, there are currently no protections in place to prevent employers from requesting your social media usernames and passwords at interview.

In March 2012, Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim said:

I’m not aware of this practice occurring in Australia. However, I am very concerned by overseas reports of employers demanding social networking passwords. Requests of this kind are extremely privacy invasive, and I would suggest, very difficult to justify. At this stage, we have not received any complaints about this issue but I would strongly advise employers against making such demands. Social media profiles have privacy controls for a reason and generally, if a person wishes to keep their online interactions private they should be able to do so. Again, I remind people to be thoughtful about what they are posting online and limit the amount of personal information they are sharing.”

Although Australian social media law is underdeveloped, anti-discrimination legislation does offer some useful protections where your refusal to provide a password negatively impacts a hiring manager’s decision to employ you.

Discrimination in practice

Katie* has felt the effects of discrimination directly. In an interview for an internship, her interviewer asked for examples of leadership experience outside of the Jewish organisations she participated in.

He was very frank and spoke about him knowing a Jewish partner at the law firm I used to work at and so claimed to know a lot about ‘how the Jewish community work.’ He also said the point of the interview was for them to try and find people who were ‘the right fit’ for their firm and how their firm was all about finding people who value diversity and global mindsets (basically insinuating that because I was Jewish I didn’t value these things).” Katie said.

Katie answered the question by detailing the parts of her life which were not connected to the Jewish community, to which the interviewer responded, “Wow that’s impressive.”

[It] made me feel sick because it felt like he was happy I wasn’t really in the Jewish community, I then followed up by saying that I was actually really proud of my Jewish background and … didn’t think that it was relevant to me doing a clerkship at the firm” Katie said. 

A few days following the interview Katie called the company’s human resources representative, who was also present at her interview, to explain how uncomfortable the question regarding her cultural background had made her feel. Her comments were met with defensiveness from human resources and the comment “What do you want me to do about it?”

After receiving an offer for a second interview, Katie decided to withdraw her application from the selection process.

What can you do when faced with a discriminatory interview question?

Employers are under an obligation to avoid discriminating against current or prospective employees.

Job interviews are a platform to impress and to show off your skills and experience so declining to answer a question can seem very difficult and overwhelming, particularly if you believe it will jeopardise your employment prospects. It is critical to remember, however, that you are entitled to do so.

Importantly, if your refusal to answer a discriminatory question influences an employer’s decision not to employ you, this is also considered to be discriminatory behaviour by an employer.

When faced with inappropriate questions, you may wish to politely decline to answer by saying:

I am not comfortable with that question and would prefer not to answer it.”

You may also wish to go on the front foot by saying:

How is this question relevant?” 

This response will force a hiring manager to either justify the reason for their question or realise the error and quickly move on to the next question.

If you believe that you have not been offered a position due to an answer you did provide at an interview, which was discriminatory in nature, you have several options such as:

• First speaking calmly with the person or organisation that treated you unfairly. Explain why you believe that you have been treated unfairly and that you believe this is unlawful. The company or firm may have a grievance process that you can follow.

• Making a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW

• Making a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission – they will help you to resolve the issue. The complaint must be referred to the President, who must inquire and conciliate the complaint. If the President decides that the conduct was not unlawful discrimination, you have the option of pursuing your complaint through the Federal Court of Australia. The court can order that you are employed or awarded damages.

• Making a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman, who may commence litigation against an employer under the Fair Work Act 2009. Employers can face fines of up to $10,800 for discriminatory behaviour towards prospective employees.

• Seeking legal advice and commencing a civil action under State or Territory legislation.

Generally, you have 12-months from the time you experienced the discriminatory behaviour in which to make a complaint. Despite the above options, however, it is rare for such cases to go to court due to a lack of evidence. Discrimination is often “invisible” as many employers do not provide a reason for failing to employ a specific candidate who may be the subject of discriminatory behaviour.

While it pays to know your personal rights, proactively protecting these rights when seeking employment in the current market can often seem unrealistic. Most of us need that job, and therefore believe that the costs of objecting to discriminatory behaviour by a potential employer are outweighed by the need to secure a regular income.

Making a complaint may seem like an extreme response, but many companies will continue to engage in discriminatory practices until candidates take a stand.

*Names have been changed as source wishes to remain anonymous.

Further Information

Resources for employees:

If you, or someone you know, has experienced discrimination at interview contact:

• Fair Work Infoline on 13 13 94; or visit
• Fair Work Australia website
• Australian Human Rights Commission (online complaint form)

To make a complaint in your State or Territory visit:

• Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW: Process for making a complaint and tips for writing a complaint letter
• ACT Human Rights Commission
• Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission
• Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland
• Equal Opportunity Commission of South Australia
• Equal Opportunity Tasmania
• Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
• Victoria Legal Aid Guide to making a discrimination complaint
• Western Australia Equal Opportunity Commission

For more information on discrimination visit:

• Quick guide to anti-discrimination laws
• ACT Human Rights Commission Education and Publications
• Fair Work Australia Protection from Discrimination at Work factsheet

Resources for employers:

• Australian Human Rights Commission Guide to Preventing Discrimination in Recruitment
• Diversity and discrimination online course (free) – learn how to promote diversity, prevent discrimination and handle complaints.
• Guide to managing employees on religious holidays
• Managing underperformance best practice guide – information about how to take reasonable management action to make sure employees are doing their job properly. Disciplinary action carried out by a manager in a reasonable, lawful way is not discrimination.
• Workshop: Practical guide to pay equity
• Workplace discrimination fact sheet
• Gender pay equity best practice guide
• Protections at work
• Bullying and harassment

Have you, or anyone you know, ever been faced with discriminatory interview questions? How did you handle it? Let us know in the comments! 

Couples in Victoria are now able to adopt children regardless of the couple’s sex or gender identity. Victoria has become the fifth Australian state or territory to provide for same-sex adoption, joining the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania in making important law reforms. 

Martin Foley, Victorian Minister for Equality, said in a recent statement:

this law brings much needed certainty for many children and their parents who currently live in a legal haze in terms of their relationships with the people they love.”

The new legislation was passed in the Victorian Parliament last year, and took effect from 1 September 2016.

As a result of these changes, much of the terminology describing same-sex families in government issued forms has been rendered out-of-date and inaccurate.

A recent example can be seen in the ABS census forms which have faced significant criticism due to the exclusive use of the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father‘ to describe Australian families.

Rainbow Families, an organisation which supports and empowers LGBTQI families, has raised concerns that the census is not inclusive. That is, as a result of this narrowly-worded question (which contradicts legislative changes that enable same-sex couples to adopt children), families with same-sex parents will not be accurately counted in this year’s census data.

On the census form, questions are asked regarding the place of birth of the child’s ‘mother’ and ‘father.’ No alternatives are provided and there is no option to change the gender of such questions, which assume that every child has a mother and father.

Vanessa Gonzalez, from Rainbow Families, contacted the ABS to enquire about how same-sex parents may record their information on the census form. The information she received from the ABS provided that:

the most straightforward way [for same-sex parents to fill in their census data] is to have either one of the mothers [or fathers] use the father [or mother] response in the form.”

Same-sex families can either follow the above recommendation, or ask for a paper form which allows either the ‘mother’ or ‘father’ option to be crossed out, and for the true gender of a same sex parent to be correctly entered.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In 2016 we should not be expected to still be crossing out government forms,” Vanessa Gonzalez says.[/pullquote]

Even where same-sex parents accurately record their census data, the ABS has not guaranteed that the gender of each parent will be collated in those instances.

Census Director, Duncan Young, has said that the questions regarding a child’s parents were aimed at the birth parents:

The reason why the question is structured the way that it is, is because of the interest in birth parents, however, if people feel that they should be reporting their own country of birth that’s okay as well”.

The question does not specifically ask for information about birth parents, it merely provides either ‘mother’ or ‘father’ as options to be selected. In view of the criticisms, Duncan Young has said the ABS would consider changes to the census form in future.

With changes in adoption laws across Australia, which provide for the adoption of children by same-sex parents, it is more prudent than ever that appropriate recognition is given to same-sex couples and that this is reflected and implemented across documents and forms in the Commonwealth government and other jurisdictions.

Since the 2016 online census form does not provide an option for same-sex parents, disappointingly, this year’s census data will not give an accurate representation of same-sex families in Australia.

Gender other than male and female

For the first time, Australians have been offered another option to the gender question.

This question cannot, however, be answered on the standard online form and requires either a special login, or completion of the paper form. To do so using the paper form, two available ‘male’ or ‘female’ boxes must be left blank, and a third option may be provided in a blank space below. The special online login, on the other hand, gives users the choice to tick a third option, “other.”

The changes are being hailed as a breakthrough.

Rowena Allen, Victoria’s Gender and Sexuality Commissioner has commended the ‘other’ option.

I think it’s fantastic because it is a free box. So if we had to tick something we would never get enough boxes.”

The inadequacy of the census form itself is, however, remains as information about how Australians may go about identifying as a gender other than ‘male’ or ‘female’ is not readily available. To obtain any information on how to go about completing the census form in this way, it is necessary to make a phone call to the ABS for further information.

Given that ABS phone lines were completely overwhelmed in the weeks leading up to the census, (to the point where many callers were disconnected), accessibility issues are a serious concern and must be seriously improved for the next census.

Gender fluidity

Gender fluidity is becoming increasingly recognised by state legislatures.

On 18 August 2016, Victoria introduced a proposed bill, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2016 which allows individuals to change the gender on their birth certificate, without needing to undergo sex affirmation surgery. The proposed changes would remove barriers for transgender, gender diverse and intersex Victorians who seek new birth certificates. The bill has not yet been passed.

To change the sex recorded on birth certificates under current legislation, corrective surgery is required and must be proven to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Victorians would also be able to choose a gender diverse or non-binary descriptor, should they not identify as male or female.

The proposed legislation would also allow parents to apply to alter the sex recorded on their child’s birth registration. To do so, the child must have capacity to consent, as assessed by a doctor or psychologist, and the change must be in the best interests of the child. 

Other states and territories have passed similar legislation, including the ACT. Proposed changes have also been introduced in South Australia.  While Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has recommended law reform, no legislative changes have yet been proposed.

Australians have until Friday 23 September 2016 to complete the census without the risk of incurring a fine.

Have something to add to this story? Let us know in the comments!

A Senior Law Lecturer from Monash University says that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) may have no legal power to ask for names and addresses.

Dr Caroline Henckels, who teaches Constitutional and Public Law, says that the legislation allows the ABS to collect ‘statistical information,’ without defining what that is.

For the first time, the ABS will be retaining the names and addresses collected in the 2016 Census and will destroy them after four years.

Previously, the ABS destroyed names and addresses after 18 months. Those who wished for their name and address to be retained were able to voluntarily opt in. However, this will no longer be a voluntary option.

The Census and Statistics Act 1905 (the Act) states that “the Statistician shall compile and analyse statistical information collected under this Act and shall publish and disseminate the results of any such compilation and analysis.” Dr Henckels argues that names may not be considered statistical data within this description, as that data will not be analysed for the purpose of publication.

It is the Regulations to the Act which state that names and addresses are to be considered statistical data. However, considering that this is at odds with the powers in the Act, there is an argument that the Regulations are outside the power of the lawmaker, and therefore invalid.

Former ABS head, Bill McLennan, has slammed the changes and its effects on privacy, saying that Australians will not know how their information is being used. As a result, McLennan says that a backlash is likely, “with people either boycotting the Census or providing incorrect information.” This, McLennan argues, could severely reduce the accuracy of the data.

The ABS has stated that the purpose of retaining names and addresses is for “richer and more dynamic statistics.” A Privacy Impact Assessment was released, which provided that risk to personal privacy was low due to the protections in place.

Supporters of the move suggest that the benefits should outweigh privacy concerns, particularly as names and addresses will not be stored with the remaining data. Duncan Young, ABS Director of Census, has said that Census data will be used with other data, such as death records, and the ABS will be able to gain further data on areas such as life expectancy.

While relevant legislation provides that the ABS cannot release any Census data that is identifiable, privacy risks extend to those from hackers and leaks. Since 2013, the ABS has declared 14 data breaches, although Young has said that none of these breaches concerned Census data.

Those wishing to boycott the Census, will face fines of up to $180 per day. In a media release, the ABS has come out saying that Australians will have some weeks to complete the form and fines will not be issued straight away.

The offence listed in the Act relates to failing to comply with a direction from an authorised officer. Dr Henckels has said that simply failing to fill in the form will not satisfy this. Rather, you would need to refuse a direction served on you personally by post, or in person, from an authorised officer, and charges would need to be pressed.

Should the courts find that names are not statistical data, refusing to fill in this information on your Census form would not be an offence.

The Census will take place on Tuesday 9 August.