On 23 March 2022 the Australian Journal of Social Issues published the study “The cost of doing politics: A critical discursive analysis of Australian liberal politicians’ responses to accusations by female politicians of bullying and intimidation”, authored by Jasmin Sorrentino (Uni of Adelaide), Martha Augoustinos (Professor, School of Psychology, Uni of Adelaide) and Amanda Le Couteur (Associate Professor, School of Psychology, Uni of Adelaide).
This study focussed on a six week period in August to September 2018 and analysed data comprised of transcripts extracted from the electronic parliamentary database, ParlInfo, as well as television and radio interviews, media announcements, speeches and doorstop interviews. This period coincided with the weeks following Scott Morrison's Liberal partyroom election to the prime ministership
A total of 601 transcripts were found and reduced by selecting transcripts that included direct speech from Liberal Party members, featured the search terms as a topic within the content of the transcript (and not simply the title) and by removing duplicates. Thus the final number of transcripts was reduced to 46, included 19 television, 19 radio and 8 doorstop interviews.
Analysis of the data found two repertoires that were routinely mobilised by Liberal Party (LP) members to deny and mitigate accusations by female Liberal MPs of bullying and intimidation in their party: (1) a gender-neutral repertoire (13 instances) whereby reported incidents of bullying were argued to apply equally to men and women and (2) a ‘politics is tough’ repertoire (16 instances) that involved the normalisation of intimidation as part of political culture. Although there is some overlap between the two repertoires (i.e., the ‘politics is tough’ repertoire was commonly deployed alongside the gender-neutral repertoire), the repertoires were recognisable and distinct ways in which party members routinely made sense of gender discrimination.
The study Introduction states of the the background of research:
Recent conversations prompted by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have put issues of workplace sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault into the global spotlight. Women from various sectors, including film and television, technology, business and politics have spoken out on social media and other public spaces about their experiences of harassment or assault, and the problematic culture of their respective workplaces (Collier & Raney, 2018). In early 2021, new and historic sexual assault and rape allegations emerged in the Australian Parliament reigniting discussion about the political culture, including long-held debates about sexism and misogyny. Allegations included a young staffer's claims of rape by a senior colleague in 2019, and a 33-year-old claim of rape against Attorney-General, Christian Porter, from a woman who has since taken her own life (Nine News, 2021). In March 2021, PM Scott Morrison addressed the allegations, which he had previously dismissed as not requiring his immediate attention (Crowe, 2021). Commenting that the government would work towards addressing cultural issues around the treatment of women within parliament, he stated “blokes don't get it right all the time, we all know that, and … what matters is that we're desperately trying to and that's what I’m trying to do. And we will get this right. And we need to focus on that.” (Lowrey & Snape, 2021).
Despite the growing literature on violence against women in politics (VAWIP), little is known about how politicians understand and respond to acts of VAWIP. This study contributes to the emerging literature by analysing the public discourse of Australian Liberal Party (LP) members as they made sense of, and responded to, accusations by female Liberal MPs of bullying and intimidation in their party. The role of such discourse in legitimating and reproducing the status quo in terms of gender inequality will be examined…..
In 1.4 Background to the current study it further states:
In 2018, four female Liberal MPs in Australia made accusations of bullying and intimidation against their male colleagues and members of other parties. These accusations were made days after the swearing-in of Scott Morrison as Australia's 30th Prime Minister (PM) following a turbulent four-day leadership spill. Backbencher Julia Banks announced her resignation from the Liberal Party in August 2018, describing behaviour displayed during the leadership spill as “the scourge of cultural and gender bias, bullying and intimidation [that] continues against women in politics, the media, and across business” (Banks, 2018). In September 2018, former Liberal Deputy Leader and Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop5 spoke about the underrepresentation of women in parliament, stating that the behaviour towards women “would not be tolerated in any other workplace across Australia” (Branley, 2018). In February 2019, Bishop announced that she would not contest the next election. Liberal Senators Linda Reynolds and Lucy Gichuhi also called out bullying and intimidation of women within the party in August and September 2018, respectively, threatening to go public with details (Grattan, 2018; Karvelas, 2018a). They later chose not to ‘name names’ in parliament and instead agreed to follow an internal complaints process (Karp, 2018). Although media attention largely focussed on the Liberal Party's ‘woman problem’ (Maley, 2018), it was a period in which women across party lines began denouncing sexism and harassment in the Australian Parliament.
In 3.1 Redefining bullying: gender-neutral formulations the study observed:
LP members’ responses to questions posed by interviewers about accusations of bullying and intimidation in their party made by female MPs. LP members routinely produced responses that rejected categorising what had occurred as ‘bullying’, followed by a redefinition of the behaviour as something else. Specifically, reported incidents of bullying were minimised by providing alternative descriptions such as ‘pressure’ (n = 7) and ‘robust discussion’ (n = 6). Accounts typically involved the use of gender-neutral pronouns or gender-equivalent descriptions, that served to make the gendered nature of the bullying and intimidation irrelevant within the political context. The extracts presented below illustrate how gender-neutral accounts were used to discount the validity of claims of bullying by denying the relevance of gender. Such positioning fosters the conclusion that claims of bullying by female MPs are unfounded because men and women are equal in their experiences.
Extract 1 illustrates the way questions posed by interviewers about bullying and intimidation were routinely redefined as matters involving ‘pressure’ and as having been experienced by both men and women. The extract comes from an Australian news and current affairs talk show, The Project (2018). Panel members, Gorgi Coghlan and Hamish Macdonald ask PM, Scott Morrison, about accusations made by female Liberal MPs that bullying occurred during the leadership spill. The ‘politics is tough’ and gender-neutral repertoires simultaneously deny and minimise accusations of bullying towards female MPs.
EXTRACT 1. Scott Morrison 6 September 2018….
In this extract, PM Morrison's account in response to a question from the interviewer (Coghlan) is a denial that bullying of female MPs occurred. His description of the nature of politics as “ferocious” (l.5), and the “last decade” (l.6) as being exceptional in this regard (“the most ferocious period” l.5–6) serves not only to dismiss Coghlan's question about women being bullied during the specific time of the leadership spill (l.2–4) but also to normalise politics as a uniquely difficult environment. On line 9, Morrison downgrades his initial specification of the “ferocious” (l.5, 8) nature of politics by describing the period of voting during a leadership spill (“these ballots” l.18) as involving “a lot of pressure”. This term is recycled at lines 17 and 19, where Morrison responds to the interviewer's question (“Were women bullied in the Liberal Party to vote a certain way?” l.4). Morrison does not pick-up the gender category introduced by Coghlan (“women” l.4), but turns a gendered account into a gender-neutral one by redefining the proposed bullying as something that affects both “men and women” (l.9). This gender-neutralising account invalidates claims that female MPs were bullied by representing both men and women as equal in their experience of “pressure” in politics. Morrison further undermines claims of bullying by constructing a version of the context of the behaviours’ occurrence as distinct from the normal business of politics: “these difficult periods” (l.25).
Extract 2 illustrates another way LP members made sense of bullying claims: redefining bullying as a matter of people speaking strongly. Across the data corpus, variants of this pattern included descriptions of “robust discussions”, “vigorous debates”, “robust argument”, “intense lobbying” and people trying to “persuade each other”. The extract below comes from an interview segment on Sky News Australia, between Victorian Liberal Party State President, Michael Kroger, and host, Laura Jayes (Jayes, 2018). Prior to this segment, Jayes had asked Kroger whether he believes the LP is facing some problems, given that Julia Banks resigned from politics citing bullying as a key reason. Kroger responded by stating that he had spoken to a female MP who said she had not observed any evidence of bullying. The extract below continues this discussion.
EXTRACT 2. Michael Kroger 29 August 2018…..
Kroger's response involves a combination of denial that bullying occurred, the redefinition of intimidation as a matter of (gender-neutral) “people” “speaking strongly to one another”, and the normalisation of such behaviour in politics. His account is built using consensus and corroboration (“I’ve spoken to a number of people” l.2), and extreme case formulation (“none of them” l.2), with both devices functioning to present his argument as widely shared and valid. Notably, Kroger's denial of bullying is not limited to women as targets; he claims that both men and women (l.3) have denied experiencing bullying and intimidation, which also builds the credibility of his account. On line 4–5, Kroger redefines the behaviour in question as being “people speak[ing] strongly to one another”, with a variation at line 10 (“people raise their voice”) which is treated as normal, expected, and appropriate in a political context (“seriously this is politics “l.4, “That's what happens” l.7). These constructions function to do three things. First, and consistent with Extract 1, the gender-neutral account undermines and negates the veracity of bullying accusations by making the salience of social group memberships irrelevant. As Riley (2002) noted, the use of category-neutral terms over social categories (e.g., age, sex or ethnicity) works to mask the potential common experience that members might share. Such gender-neutral terminology also undermines an alternative version—that female members of the LP experience gender-based discrimination—and the seriousness of the behaviour in question. Second, Kroger's redefinition positions such behaviour (e.g., people speaking strongly) as hegemonic, rather than controversial and requiring explanation. Third, Kroger tries to deflect and distract from the issue at hand by referencing the opposition party's widely acknowledged bitter leadership changes (l.7–8), building a case for the normality of “strong feelings” at such times, and thus undermining the need for change.
The study also addressed the nature of violence against women in politics (VAWIP) and broadly accepted internal political party VAWIP as “behaviour that specifically targets women as women to leave politics by pressuring them to step down as candidates or resign a particular political office”.
Going on to state:
VAWIP can have profound effects on women. Those who have been the targets of gender-based violence have reported feelings of loneliness and work dissatisfaction, frustration due to the barriers impeding their political contributions, as well as a desire to leave politics (Krook, 2020). VAWIP also has broader societal impacts in terms of electoral integrity (i.e., procedural fairness and equality of opportunity) and democracy. In other words, VAWIP violates principles of equality because women—by virtue of their gender—are the targets of violence.
See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajs4.209
Morrison quoted and critiqued in Crikey, 31 March 2022 concerning an incident which occurred in the Senate on the evening of Friday 29 March:
There’s an ever-growing list of women claiming bullying is rife in the Liberal Party, and in a blistering post-budget take-down, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells joined the ranks. It didn’t take long for Scott Morrison to deflect the claims with his reliable and oft-used spin of a woman scorned.
“I know Connie is disappointed,” the prime minister said.
Those five words are all it takes to tell a story of a bitter, rejected woman, as if losing her Senate ticket alone would inspire Fierravanti-Wells to stand up in Parliament and tear Morrison and others to shreds. Her detailed account of toxic factional dealings reduced to an emotional outburst with just one short retort.
It’s no surprise that Morrison wasn’t going to cop the accusations on the chin and instead direct any “specific complaints” of bullying to internal party mechanisms.
His handling of the matter is reminiscent of the treatment of former MP Julia Banks. While Banks and Fierravanti-Wells don’t have much in common politically, the dismissal of their serious and scathing accusations of bullying carry plenty of similarities.
When Banks announced she was not contesting the 2019 election, Morrison quickly took up the line that Banks was struggling personally. “I’m supporting Julia and I’m reaching out to Julia and giving her every comfort and support for what has been a pretty torrid ordeal for her,” he said.
His “concern” framed Banks as a woman unable to cope with the fallout of Malcolm Turnbull’s losing the prime ministership. But in fact — as Banks made abundantly clear in her book Power Play — it was her three months under Morrison’s leadership that led her to call it a day. She described him as “menacing, controlling wallpaper” in her book.
Banks has reflected on how Morrison controlled the narrative to try to get ahead of the bullying accusations, with the story that Banks was “this weak petal that hadn’t coped with coup week”.
Fierravanti-Wells on the other hand was able to get her shots in before she could be framed as mentally unstable, so instead she’s received the straight-up scorned woman framing. Either way the dismissal is the same. Whether before or after the fact, Morrison resorts to the narrative of the emotional woman, too fragile to deal with politics, lashing out without reason……
