Right: Sympathy; Barnaby Joyce is comforted by a colleague's hand on his shoulder after his leader's announcement of the ban.
Arguments against banning ministers from having affairs with their staffers
1. Consensual sexual relationships are not harassment or exploitation Opponents of the ban imposed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on sexual relations between ministers and staffers claim that such a ban confuses consensual relationships with harassment. Commentators have noted that the critical distinguishing feature of any sexual interaction is whether it involves consent. Any sexual interaction that does not rely on the consent of both parties is regarded as harassment at best and as assault or rape at worst. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on February 16, 2018, Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology, outlined those types of sexual relationship that were already prohibited by law irrespective of the context within which they occurred. The professor stated, 'Unlawful sexual conduct includes sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour that makes someone feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. It is not interaction, flirtation or friendship that is mutual or consensual.'  During an episode of the ABC's current affairs program Q & A, televised on February 15, 2018, Josh Bornstein, a lawyer, writer and board member of the Australia Institute, stated, 'The line is very big and bright and loud and it's the line called "consent". And so, the law essentially says it's illegal to harass someone sexually, and that means the conduct is unwelcome.' What provokes critics of the new ban imposed by the Prime Minister is that it treats all relationships, including the consensual, as improper if they occur between a Parliamentary minister or staffer. These critics of Turnbull's recent ban on sexual relationships between ministers and staffers have noted that the precipitating event, the affair between then Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, and his media adviser, Vikki Campion, did not appear to involve sexual harassment or coercion. Josh Bornstein noted in regard to the Joyce-Campion relationship, 'Consensual relationships are perfectly OK at work. I don't have a difficulty - despite some of the issues with Barnaby Joyce - he's had a consensual relationship with a 33-year-old woman who is perfectly able to decide.' Rules effectively discounting the significance of consent and which treat all women as victims irrespective of the nature of the relationships in which they are involved have been criticised as belittling women. Critics view the ban imposed by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in this light. They maintain that not all relationships between ministers and staff involve coercion or exploitation and that to assume they do is demeaning to those involved. Janet Albrechtsen's comment published in The Australian on February 21, 2018, states, 'Turnbull's ministerial sex ban isn't a godsend for junior female staffers in the workplace. It's patronising to imagine that women need protecting from power imbalances and the "boys' club" of Canberra. Plenty of women have the upper hand in private relationships.' 2. Prohibiting consensual sexual relationships between ministers and staffers is an infringement of their human rights It has been claimed that banning consensual sexual relationships between ministers and their staffers runs counter to common sense and accepted human behaviour. A large proportion of people meet sexual partners in the workplace. It is one of the area where adults most commonly congregate, and, it is argued, it is inevitable that people will find others whom they are sexually attracted to in this setting. This point has been made by Josh Bornstein, a lawyer, writer and board member of the Australia Institute. Mr Bornstein has stated, 'People spend more time at work than they do at home. Relationships of every conceivable kind are forged in the workplace. Friendships are made. Friendships are broken. Whether sex is involved or not, sometimes it gets messy. Affairs of all descriptions occur. Sometimes they evolve into marriage and babies. Sometimes they end badly.' Bornstein concludes that attempts to prohibit such behaviour are an infringement of human rights. He states, 'When employees sign an employment contract, they should not be asked to relinquish their humanity.' University of Canberra School of Law and Justice assistant professor Bruce Baer Arnold has argued in the same vein. Professor Arnold has stated, 'I think it's fairly fundamental in Australia that consenting adults are free to do what they want to do as long as there is no harm to anyone else. If we're concerned about the rights, the freedoms and the dignity of all Australians, adults should be free to do what adults want to do.' Similarly, Ronnie Fox, a British employment law specialist from Fox and Partners has stated, 'It's a basic principle of human rights that people can have relationships with whom they like... In the UK you can probably say that the senior person mustn't have a relationship with a junior person without informing somebody, or perhaps rearranging the reporting line. You could say they mustn't be seen kissing and hugging and touching each other in the office. Nobody can defend sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation, stuff like that, people abusing a senior position to have sex with a junior member of staff. But we're not talking about that, what we're talking about is a right to have a relationship with somebody at work and if it doesn't harm anybody, why should it be prohibited?' Other commentators have noted that the ban denies the autonomy of the individuals concerned in matters that are essentially private. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on February 16, 2018, Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology, stated, 'Outright bans on consensual sexual relationships at work are likely to be seen by many employees as over-reaching into their private lives. They may also perceive that it undermines their autonomy and dignity.' While, Tom Switzer, the executive director of the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies, has argued, 'It implies young staffers can't be trusted to make decisions about their own sex lives.' Mr Switzer has further stated, 'And it licenses the press to investigate politicians' private lives. It's an invasion of privacy.' 3. Banning sexual relationships between ministers and staffers will be extremely difficult to enforce and will lead to media intrusion Opponents of the ban on sexual relationships between Ministers and staffers argue that the ban will be very difficult to police. The difficulty of enforcing such a regulation has been stressed by both commentators and letter writers. In a letter published in The Age on February 17, 2018, Ross Kroger wrote, ' How will he determine when, and if, consenting adults have had sex? If someone falls pregnant, will a paternity test be applied, or will the "video" of events be the conclusive proof? What level proof will LGBTIQ ministers and staffers be subjected to? And what exactly will the punishment be? Sacking or merely a demotion?' Other letter writers published in the same edition of The Age were openly scornful of the new ruling for its intrusiveness and impracticality. Norman Huon wrote, 'If Malcolm is fair dinkum about the "bonking ban" between ministers and staffers, he will have his work cut out for him. It will not be much fun running around the ministerial dormitories with Lucy and a flashlight on cold Canberra nights, making sure everyone is properly tucked in.' The Opposition's Deputy Leader, Tanya Plibersek, has similarly criticised the new standard for its impracticality and inappropriateness. Ms Plibersek stated, 'Does anybody genuinely believe that writing a clause into the Prime Minister's code of conduct - which the Prime Minister has shown he's completely unable to enforce already - is going to make a difference to people's behaviour in private? Honestly, are we really the country that starts sticking long lens cameras in people's bedrooms?' In a report published in the Financial Review, Aaron Patrick noted there was concern that the pursuit of ministers in breach of the new regulations would encourage the media to intrude into aspects of politicians' lives that had previously been treated as private. Patrick states, ' Others are deeply concerned that journalists have been given a green light to report on politicians' affairs, which have long been protected by an informal convention guarding them from parliamentary scrutiny and media coverage.' Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for The Australian has similar apprehensions about media intrusion which she expressed in the same way. Albrechtsen states, '[Turnbull's] sex ban is a green light to the media to delve into the sex lives of ministers, to check if they're having "sexual relations" with a staff member. Get set for a proliferation of gossip and alleged gotcha moments from a media co-opted by Turnbull to be Canberra's moral police.' 4. Regulating sexual relationships is more effective than attempting to ban them Those who agree that some action needs to be taken regarding the sexual relations of ministers and their staff tend to argue that regulation is more effective than bans. It is claimed that sexual relations between ministers and staff causes two potential problems. One is the scope for various forms of harassment and abuse where a minister uses the power of his/her position sexually to coerce or intimidate a subordinate. Critics note that this behaviour is already illegal and that all that is required is proper complaints processes. The other potential problem is the scope for favouritism and similar misuses of power. This occurs particularly where there is the suspicion that a minister has used his/her position to advance a subordinate with whom s/he is in a sexual relationship. It is in this last area that commentators claim there is need for regulation. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on February 17, 2017, Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology, stated, 'A common requirement in codes of employee conduct is for the person with the greater power to notify their supervisor of the relationship and immediately cease any decision-making role in respect of the subordinate.' In any workplace relationship involving a superior and a subordinate, colleagues are likely to suspect favouritism. Critics claim that the one means of dealing with this is full disclosure. Workplace author and psychologist, Meredith Fuller, has stated, 'The most important thing people need is transparency of communications .' Protocols generally require that couples must announces their relationships and, in most cases, one or the other should be transferred or reassigned. Australia's Fair Work Commission advises companies to consider the following key steps: Invoking a Conflict of Interest Policy that covers managers and subordinates, and outlines possible solutions; for example, reassigning one of the employees should a relationship form Implementing a Disclosure Policy that obliges those involved in an office romance to declare their relationship to human resources personnel Ensuring that policies on office relationships are clear to all staff Training supervisors to effectively manage any work relationships Critics of Turnbull's ban have suggested that a regulatory approach, guarding against inequality rather than sexual affairs, would have provided greater assurance for the ministers, their staff and the electorate. This point was made by columnist for The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen, who states, 'It's not sex between consenting adults, even between a minister and staffer, that matters. It's a boss's preferment of a staffer, arranging new highly paid jobs that matters. Had Turnbull stepped up earlier, telling voters that such preferment and conflicts will not be tolerated, he would have done a fine and measured job.' 5. Bans will force relationships underground with adverse consequences It has been suggested that the ban is unlikely to be effective because many ministers and staffers who become involved in sexual relationships will simply hide their association. It has been claimed that the threat of transfers, penalties and general public exposure is likely to make couples in these prohibited relationships more determined to hide them. In a letter published in The Courier Mail of February 17, 2018, Lurie Parker wrote, ' Malcolm Turnbull's reactionary measure banning ministers from engaging in sexual relations with their staffers is reminiscent of the Prohibition era in the 1920s and 30s in the US. All that did was drive the liquor trade underground and create gangsters such as Al Capone. I think a similar scenario could be played out at Parliament House.' Similar claims have been made by Peter Wilmot, the chairperson of the Australian Human Resources Institute, who has stated, 'The parties (will) work very hard to cover their footsteps. Frankly it's unlikely to cause that conduct to stop.' Wilmot suggests that where the consequences of exposure are potential dismissal, transfer or demotion then there is very little incentive for the parties involved to reveal their situation. Indicating what being exposed could cost, Wilmot states, ' Ministers now risk losing their jobs if they dare to engage in sex with staff, including public servants, whether they are married or not.' It has further been suggested that not only is the ban likely to be futile because people will merely hide their behaviour, the intensified need for secrecy will have adverse effects on those involved. Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology, has explained some of the negative consequences that could result from forcing couples to hide their relationships. McDonald states, 'Bans may drive relationships underground. Employees who fear punitive consequences from ignoring a codified directive will likely conduct the relationship in secret. This may obfuscate loyalties and threaten the development of trust among co-workers. Engaging in a secretive relationship when those involved would prefer it was open may also prove stressful.' It has been claimed that the cost of this secrecy will be great for both the individuals involved and for the Parliament. Clear protocols around sexual relationships in the workplace, including disclosure, are regarded as best practice. The ban, in acting against disclosure, will mean that measures cannot be put in place to ensure that no favouritism or conflicts of interest arise. An institution cannot be protected against an unknown relationship. Cara Waters, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald has noted that disclosure, not a ban, would have spared the government political pain regarding the Joyce-Campion affair. She writes, 'At the very least, disclosure when the relationship began would mean the government wouldn't be in the sticky situation of dealing with concerns about Joyce's use of public money to facilitate his affair.' |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.