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……
