Survey finds 1 in 5 Australians admit to perpetrating sexual violence
The inaugural Australian Sexual Offence Statistical (ASOS) collection report reveals the prevalence and nature of sexual offending across Australia for the first time.
The Sexual Offending in Australia 2021-22 report from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) brings together data on sexual offences, alleged offenders and victim survivors from state and territory police sources. It covers a one-year period from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.
One in five Australians admit to perpetrating sexual violence, which has been found in new figures from the AIC. The survey of more than 5,000 anonymous adults revealed that the most common forms of sexual violence involved pressuring or manipulating someone into having sex. ABC’s Rachel Hayter reports.
Dr Christopher Dowling, research manager at the AIC, authored the report after talking to people aged between 18 to 45. Respondents were asked a series of questions about whether they had ever perpetrated different forms of sexual violence, ranging from harassing and threatening someone for sex through to non-consensual sexual intercourse and other forms of physical assault – such as repeated harassment for sex, emotionally and psychologically blackmailing someone into sex and pressuring someone to take alcohol and drugs to have sex with them.
The report’s findings include:
- Sexual offending rate was 40.11 per 100,000 population aged 10 years and over between 2021 and 2022
- More than 9 in 10 sexual offenders were male
- The average age of offenders was 4 years at their first or only police proceeding for a sexual offence
- Around one-third of offenders were a non-family member known to the victim (32%), one-third were either an intimate partner (15%) or other family member of the victim (19%), and one-fifth were a stranger (21%)
The data will be used to inform targeted policy responses that are designed to keep Australians safe from the threat of sexual abuse. This includes the Commonwealth’s National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032, and measures that address the intersecting domains of prevention, early intervention, responses, and supporting recovery and healing.
The Australian Law Reform Commission is to undertake an inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence to improve the experience of victim survivors in the justice system. The inquiry is due to report in January 2025.
If you or someone you know is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, domestic, family or sexual violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, chat online via 1800RESPECT.org.au, or text 0458 737 732.
If you are concerned about your behaviour or use of violence, you can contact the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491 or visit ntv.org.au
Feeling worried or no good? Speak to a 13YARN Crisis Supporter, call 13 92 76 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Mediaweek rocked by sexual harassment allegations
Trent Thomas, publisher and owner of Mediaweek, has “stepped back” from the business after it emerged an investigation had found he sexually harassed and bullied staff.
The Australian Financial Review revealed on Sunday that two people had lodged formal complaints about Mr Thomas’ behaviour, which had been investigated by two external human resources firms.
The first firm was let go before findings were delivered, and staff were told the investigation was “flawed”. The second found on the balance of probabilities he had sexually harassed and bullied one of the complainants.
Mediaweek insiders described an environment in which Mr Thomas had inappropriate conversations about his relationships and sexually explicit content, creating a hostile workplace environment, and revealing deeply personal information about some staff members in the presence of others.
Doctor charged with sexual assault of patients during consultations
A doctor has been charged after two patients reported experiencing sexual assaults during medical consultations. The 45-year-old doctor, working at a clinic in Sydney’s south, was arrested at his office on July 12. Police allege the Monterey man sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman during a consultation at the clinic on June 26. He has been charged with sexual intercourse without consent over the alleged offence. He also allegedly indecently assaulted a 28-year-old woman during a consultation at the clinic on June 4. He has been charged with sexually touching another person without consent for this alleged offence.
The women reported the assaults to police and officers launched an investigation into the doctor’s conduct, NSW Police said. The doctor has been refused bail.
Former Seven News crime reporter lodges unfair dismissal case
Robert Ovadia, former Seven News reporter, has lodged an unfair dismissal claim against the network and its news boss Anthony De Ceglie. Ovadia was sacked by the network last month following allegations of “inappropriate conduct”.
The crime reporter then hired high-profile lawyer John Laxon, who confirmed over the weekend: “A general protections application against the Seven Network and Anthony De Ceglie has been filed.”
Ovadia was first put on leave in June while the network conducted an internal investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour involving emails with a former Seven female employee. Ovadia is seeking compensation, and reinstatement to his job, which he held for 23 years.
The court case marks the latest controversy for the Seven Network, which recently faced allegations it paid for drugs, sex workers, and a year’s rent to secure an interview with Bruce Lehrmann, with Spotlight’s executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, leaving after in-court claims he “gave verbal approval” for the expenses.
Circumstantial evidence not sufficient for dismissal
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving allegations of threatening behaviour in the workplace and subsequent dismissal. In this case, a long-serving employee was dismissed after allegedly making threats to a colleague.
The worker was employed by a large steel manufacturing company for over 30 years as an electrician. He received a first and final warning in September 2023 following an anonymous complaint through a reporting hotline. The substantiated allegations included using offensive language towards colleagues, yelling at co-workers, and acting in an intimidating manner during a morning meeting. As part of the disciplinary action, the worker was moved to a different department and directed to undergo refresher training on the company’s policies regarding bullying, harassment, and code of conduct.
However, a few months later another situation allegedly occurred where a colleague claimed that the worker yelled at him at an intersection while in his car, “you’re a dead mother****er. I’m gonna get you”. The electrical services manager interviewed the complainant on the day of the incident and arranged a meeting with the worker the following morning. Despite the worker’s denials, the employer concluded that the threat had been made and the worker’s employment was terminated about five weeks later.
The employer relied largely on circumstantial evidence to support its decision. This included the complainant’s prompt reporting of the incident, his apparent distress, and the employer’s belief that the worker had a motive to threaten the complainant due to the earlier complaints.
Crucially, the complainant did not give evidence at the FWC hearing. The employer chose not to call him as a witness, citing concerns for his wellbeing. The electrical services manager stated, “I felt we had all of the information we needed,” when explaining why the complainant wasn’t formally interviewed after the worker denied the allegations.
The FWC found there was no valid reason for the dismissal. It accepted the worker’s evidence as “consistent, considered and compelling” in his denial of the allegations. The Commissioner rejected the employer’s circumstantial evidence, finding it did not prove the alleged threat occurred. The decision emphasised that a complaint being made promptly does not necessarily make it true.
The FWC also identified potential procedural fairness issues with the dismissal process. It noted that the employer failed to put the worker’s explanations to the complainant or to conduct a more thorough investigation. The worker was reinstated given the Commissioner held that the worker did not do the behaviour alleged.