Inquiry into Workplace
Bullying
House Standing Committee on
Education and Employment
Submission by
The Alannah and Madeline
Foundation
July 2012
Submission Number: 125
Date Received: 6/7/2012
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Preamble
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation welcomes the opportunity to respond to the issues and questions
raised by the Australian Government’s Inquiry into workplace bullying.
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation is a national charity, keeping children safe from violence. The
Foundation was established in memory of Alannah and Madeline Mikac, aged six and three, who, with
their mother and 32 others were killed at Port Arthur, Tasmania on 28 April 1996. It cares for children
who have experienced or witnessed serious violence and run programs that prevent violence in the lives
of children. Many years ago, the Foundation realised the most common form of violence experienced by
children and young people was bullying. The Foundation works to prevent school-based bullying and is
the auspice organisation for the National Centre Against Bullying.
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation plays an advocacy role and is a voice against childhood violence.
The Foundation’s National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB) is a peak body made up of experts (See
Appendix A) in the fields of childhood wellbeing and bullying, chaired by Alastair Nicholson (AO, RFD,
QC, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia). NCAB works with school communities,
government, media and industry to reduce bullying and minimise its harm to young people.
The Foundation has a number of programs that help children and young people.
• The Foundation’s Children Ahead Program helps children by focusing on what they need to
recover from traumatic events or violent circumstances. We work collaboratively with relevant
agencies to make sure children who are suffering the effects of violence, and their families, have
the community connections needed for immediate and long term support.
• A Refuge Therapeutic Support Program funds group therapy including art, pet and music
therapy to help children who are residing in refuges and are distressed or traumatised by their
experience of serious violence.
• In Australia, thousands of children are placed in emergency foster care or domestic violence
refuges each year, often with nothing but the clothes they are wearing. The Buddy Bags
Program provides these children with a back pack full of essential items including toiletries,
pyjamas, socks, underwear, a teddy bear, photo frame and pillow slip. Buddy Bags provide
personal belongings and help restore a sense of security in these children’s lives.
• Children 365: celebrate them every day was developed in memory of 4-year-old Darcey, who
was killed on 29 January 2009. This initiative encourages adults to take the time to think about
why children in their lives are important and how they can spend time together. Through an
annual calendar and a range of activities, Children 365 gives people practical suggestions for
ways they can engage positively with children. Children 365 begins each year on the last day of
children’s week.
In addition, the Foundation develops programs designed to help prevent violence in the lives of
children.
• The Better Buddies Framework is a peer support initiative designed to create friendly and
caring primary school communities where bullying is reduced. Older children buddy up with
younger children and learn the values of caring for others, friendliness, respect, valuing
difference, including others and responsibility. This occurs through formal and informal activities
in the classroom and beyond. Better Buddies enables younger students to feel safe and cared
for while older students feel valued and respected in their role of mentor and befriender.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
• As bullying and other forms of personal attack started to move to cyberspace, our prevention
efforts have also moved to address cyberbullying and broader issues of cybersafety and
wellbeing. eSmart’s overarching aim is to equip people with the knowledge and skills to get the
best out of technology while avoiding the pitfalls and taking on a range of ethically informed
behaviours. Our eSmartschools initiative is a whole-school change program that helps schools
enhance wellbeing, manage cybersafety and reduce cyberbullying and bullying. We have
developed and are ready to pilot eSmart libraries, which aims to spread the message of ‘smart,
safe responsible’ into community hubs and organisations. An eSmart Library operates under a
framework for embedding cybersafety into its policies, procedures and teaching/support of library
users. eSmart is focused on educating individuals about the smart, safe and responsible use of
digital technologies, but within a setting where organisational operations support a culture of
appropriate behaviour.
While we are a children’s charity, we are concerned that many young people are in workplaces across
Australia with little protection from bullying and its effects. Our responses to the Government’s issues
and questions raised in the public discussion paper will therefore focus principally on how they relate to
children and young people, particularly as they relate to reducing their online risks. We will include some
degree of generalisation to the broader workplace. We will not distinguish between bullying and
cyberbullying, as we view both forms as pernicious and responsive to similar sets of solutions. Both are
relationship problems needing relationship solutions.
Our submission will draw upon learnings we have gained through research, program development and
evaluation that can inform this discussion of workplaces.
For many years, bullying in schools was not addressed or ineffectively so, because of the silence that
surrounded it. Not until bullying was discussed, defined and researched was a range of effective
responses developed. We suggest that the same effect will apply to workplace bullying and applaud the
Federal Government for its decision to institute this inquiry.
Contributors’ contact details:
• Dr Judith Slocombe, CEO, The Alannah and Madeline Foundation,
• Dr Fiona McIntosh, General Manager Programs, The Alannah and Madeline Foundation,
• Ms Sandra Craig, Manager, The National Centre Against Bullying, The Alannah and Madeline
Foundation,
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation
Level 1, 256 Clarendon Street
PO Box 5192
South Melbourne 3205
Phone: 03 9697 0666
www.amf.org.au
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Recommendations
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation, in partnership with the Young and Well Cooperative Research
Centre, has developed a comprehensive and integrated plan for a National Bullying and Cyberbullying
Prevention Strategy. While the major focus of this strategy is to reduce bullying amongst children and
young people, it is important that bullying be understood and dealt with in a consistent way across the
whole Australian community.
The main objectives of our National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy are to create a
shared vision for reducing bullying, including workplace bullying, and agree a common approach to
solving bullying that is understood and accepted across the country.
The specific goals of the National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy are to:
a. Develop a common approach to measuring bullying and cyberbullying and its impact,
through the establishment of a National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy
Research Council. Part of the work of this Council would be to develop a national survey on
bullying and cyberbullying,
b. Agree a common approach to solving bullying and cyberbullying through agreed upon
actions developed by a National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy
Implementation Advisory Group,
c. Coordinate and maintain mutually reinforcing activities amongst stakeholders through
consistent and continuous communication, managed through the National Centre Against
Bullying,
d. Create a cultural change in the workplace and other settings through social and behavioural
change campaigns and interventions delivered via the eSmart system, and
e. Develop and adopt a national legislative and policy framework that is age and context
specific, and which includes workplace bullying.
We recognise that workplace bullying is important because:
• It is a serious OH&S issue in the workplace,
• Bullying and cyberbullying has a major impact on workplace productivity, and
• As young people enter the workforce it must be a safe and supportive environment for them.
The Foundation therefore recommends that the Federal Government develop a National Workplace
Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy (with the goals outlined above) as a key component of
the overarching National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy.
Of particular importance in more effectively safeguarding employees across the country, we recommend
that a national legislative and policy framework about workplace bullying be adopted as a responsibility
of the Federal Government in the interests of definitional, policy, regulatory and legislative uniformity.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Responses to Terms of Reference
1. The prevalence of workplace bullying in Australia and the experience of
victims of workplace bullying
A number of large-scale studies and research papers, including our own (Cross, et al, 2009, Solberg &
Olweus, 2003, Rigby, 1996, McGrath & Craig, 2005) have looked at the prevalence of bullying in
schools. Consequently, we know a considerable amount about its prevalence and how, broadly
speaking, we can respond to it in terms of policy and practice.
By comparison, little is known about workplace bullying in Australia and we have yet to produce national
definitions or responses in the form of policy or frameworks. Nevertheless, a variety of sources (Dunphy
and Kirk, 2003, Gregor, 2004, Keuskamp et al, 2012, Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2012), reaching back more
than two decades depict it as a significant issue which has gained a high degree of recognition in
academic and other literature. Its ‘potential damage and cost is undisputed’.
However, there are ‘no definitive statistics on the prevalence of workplace bullying’ (Caponecchia &
Wyatt, 2011) and measurement and definition differs from study to study. Differences in methodologies
between studies include self-reporting and indices of behaviours with different scoring methods (Salin,
2001). Other factors also affect the way bullying prevalence is reported, e.g. cultural differences in how it
is viewed, and reported. All the same, existing studies reveal a disturbing picture: ‘In a national survey of
1518 people by Australian job search website CareerOne in 2007, 74 per cent of respondents said they
had been bullied in the workplace at some time and 22 per cent of the survey respondents had ‘just quit’
their job rather than doing anything else about it (CareerOne 2007). A survey by recruitment firm Drake
International of 850 Australian workers indicated that 25 per cent had been bullied in the previous six
months (Drake International 2009), while more than 50 per cent said they had witnessed bullying’
(Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2011.33).
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation believes there is a significant need to develop a common
approach to measuring bullying and cyberbullying and its impact. As part of a National Bullying and
Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy, the Foundation, in partnership with the Young and Well CRC, is
establishing a National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy Research Council.
Part of the work of the Research Council will be to:
• Develop a consistently understood and applied definition of bullying will be part of the work of
this Council. This definition should be extended to workplace bullying, and should be conducted
in a consultative manner, potentially in collaboration with researchers from a range of
international settings.
• Develop a national survey on bullying and cyberbullying. While the Foundation aims to survey
the incidence and impact of bullying on children and young people, a similar survey should be
undertaken in the workplace.
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation’s definition of bullying
In our view, workplace bullying involves the abuse of an imbalance of power to coerce, exclude, demean
or humiliate. Adverse behaviours are directed repeatedly towards one or more people, causing ‘pain,
discomfort and anger’ (Kieseker and Marchant, 1999). The question of intent is problematic in that the
formation of intent is difficult to prove and easy to deny. What does not seem to be in debate is the
inability of the target to defend him or herself or, in many circumstances, to walk away.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
It is also worthwhile to mention two additional forms of bullying - ‘relational bullying,’ where the
perpetrator of the bullying damages the target’s friendship networks (in talking about those who are
bullied, we prefer to use term target rather than victim as a more positive positioning) and also ‘indirect
bullying,’ such as rumour spreading. These have in common ‘the expression of social manipulation and
can often go unnoticed by others’ (Cowie, et al, 2002, 35).
Bullying behaviours might be overt, including intimidation and threats, or covert for instance a stony look
the effect of which is to ‘isolat[e] individuals without bringing attention to the perpetrator’ (Hutchinson,
2010, 2321).
The following descriptors of workplace bullying behaviours are from Cowie et al (2002):
• Threat to professional status (e.g., belittling opinion, public professional humiliation, and
accusation regarding lack of effort),
• Threat to personal standing (e.g., name-calling, insults, intimidation, and devaluing with
reference to age),
• Isolation (e.g., preventing access to opportunities, physical or social isolation, and withholding of
information),
• Overwork (e.g., undue pressure, impossible deadlines, and unnecessary disruptions), and
• Destabilization (e.g., failure to give credit when due, meaningless tasks, removal of
responsibility, repeated reminders of blunders, and setting up to fail).
‘Bullying’ does not refer to a single event, but rather to a relational pattern considered over time in which
some gain social dominance over others through the use of anti-social power (Crothers & Levinson,
2004; Smith, 2004; Smorti, Menesini & Smith, 2003). A pattern of victimisation, once developed, can
quickly become entrenched because workers continue to be in contact with each other over time and it is
not easy for the recipient to walk away or leave the situation (McGrath & Noble, 2006). Sanders et al
(2012, 12) refer to ‘an abusive work environment’ or toxic workplace which can result from the failure to
address bullying and other negative behaviours systematically, quickly and consistently. Workplaces
characterised in this way typically have high staff turnover, low staff morale, high levels of informal
grievance and complaint, inconsistent application of policies and rules, poor performance and
victimisation of those who protest (adapted from Jetson, S, 2005).
School and workplace difference – how different are they?
What makes workplace bullying different from school bullying? Initially, we posited that power is more
fluid in school situations and can depend on a variety of situational and personal factors and that
workplace bullying would be consequently more dependent on hierarchical structures and positional
authority of organisations. Indeed, the most generally examined form of workplace bullying is
‘downwards bullying’ the exercise of power over subordinate workers in inappropriate ways by those with
greater positional authority.
However, power can derive from sources other than organisational position and, as in schools, can
include control of information (Raven 1993), expertise (Bacharach & Lawler 1980) and referent power
(French & Raven 1959). A more thorough examination of the uses and abuses of power should be
undertaken - until members of organisations understand real and perceived uses of power and how prior
experiences and conditioning dispose individuals to a) bully, and b) to perceive certain behaviours as
bullying that might be perceived as legitimate by others, it may be difficult to address bullying in
workplaces.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Other forms of workplace bullying exist: ‘sideways’ and ‘upwards bullying,’ lesser known phenomenons,
where peers are bullied or managers are bullied by their staff (Branch, et al, 2007). Power in workplaces
does not always relate to formal authority. We know that teachers in schools experience bullying not only
from colleagues, but also from students (either directly or via digital technologies). Schools that do not
address the problem of bullying can become breeding grounds whereby the more powerful dominate the
less powerful, a process that underpins domestic violence, child abuse, workplace violence, hate crimes
and road rage (Weinhold, 2000).
Some research has suggested that school bullying continues in other settings, such as university
(Garner, 1995) and the defence forces (Garan, 1998, McKenzie, 2008, Nicholson, 2012). Indeed, the
defence forces have attracted intense recent media attention because of a range of negative behaviours
perpetrated by their personnel.
For example, figures recently provided to The Age newspaper (June, 2012) show that 1250 of 4200
survey respondents from Victoria Police had seen bullying behaviour and of these almost 900 reported
that they had been bullied.
Nurses, similarly, report experiences including ‘harassment, bullying, intimidation and assault, with
bullying being reported as ‘the most concerning form of aggression’ (Hutchinson, et al, 2010)
experienced and linked tentatively with the loss of nurses from the workplace.
Keuskamp et al have researched bullying in Australian workplaces in order to test the hypothesis that
bullying was experienced more frequently by those in casual or short-term employment. Contrary to their
expectation, workplace bullying was experienced more frequently by those in permanent employment,
representing a unsuspected disadvantage to this ‘more idealised’ environment (Keuskamp, et al, 2012).
In this study, 15.2 per cent of respondents reported being bullied in their place of employment, with a
greater percentage (19.6) experienced by the permanent workers, compared to 7.7 per cent by casual
workers. While the study did not show significant correlation with gender, prevalence did vary ‘among
occupational skill levels (highest for clerical/administrative and professional levels), educational levels
(highest for those with university education) and marital status (highest for those separated, divorced or
widowed) (Keuskamp et al, 2012, 118). An online study conducted (Duncan et al, 2011) found that 99.6
per cent of respondents had experienced some form of bullying during their employment. These results
were consistent with findings from an earlier survey by Duncan & Riley (2005), conducted in Catholic
schools, which found 97.5 per cent of teachers reported bullying during their careers. The bullying
problem was more intense in large secondary schools, pointing to difficulties with culture in those larger
settings and schools per se. However, there was some imprecision in in the study about the time period
over which the abuse occurred – a key question in terms of comparability of data.
Recent discussion from the Unites States (Sanders et al 2012) reveals that the problem is actually
‘increasing in U.S. organisations’ and highlights how little has been done to address it (Sanders et al,
2012, 3). The authors attribute this to a number of societal and global factors that can be broadly applied
to Australian workplaces and which any efforts to address workplace bullying should take into account.
These factors include:
• Cultural values that accentuate ‘individuality, assertiveness, masculinity, achievement and a
relatively high power disparity,’
• Economic pressures due to the growth of the service sector, where higher rates of personal
interaction make these workplaces susceptible to personality clashes and afford bullies greater
opportunities,
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
• Downsizing in many organisations, due to external financial pressures, has meant doing more
with less with the result that some managers ‘believe they must clamp down on subordinates to
stay on top of things’ and ‘bullying is a natural result (Sanders et al,2012, 3)
• A decline in union membership with resultant decline in collective bargaining power, support and
dispute resolution,
• Diversification of workplaces, where people from different educational and cultural backgrounds
are brought together, with a heightened possibility of aggression if the diversity is not well-
managed, and
• Reliance on part-time workers and short-term contracts which means that interpersonal bonds
and company loyalties do not develop as strongly, the result being ‘a leaner but meaner
organisation with an atmosphere in which bullying is more likely to happen’ (Sanders et al, 2012,
4).
Overall, there are therefore more commonalities than differences between school and workplace
bullying. Indeed, we know that those who bully and are bullied at school often go on to replicate these
patterns later.
Effects of bullying
We know that effects of being bullied can be both serious and long lasting. Schoolyard bullying can lead
to poor outcomes for many of those involved - both those who are victimised and those who take part in
bullying others (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Ruin & Patton, 2001; Rigby, 2004; Rigby & Slee, 1999).
Young people who bully over time are more likely to engage in ongoing anti-social behaviour and
criminality, have issues with substance abuse, demonstrate low academic achievement and be involved
in future child and spouse abuse (Moffitt, 1993, Pepler & Craig, 1997; Rigby, Whish & Black; 1994).
Those who bully frequently in childhood often go on to bully as adults, to commit spousal and child
abuse, have more drink driving offences and more court appearances (Marano 1995; Smith & Madsen
1996).
Young people who are victimised have a higher likelihood than other young people of experiencing
mental health problems, impaired relationships, depression and suicidal thinking (Crick & Grotpeter,
1995; Rigby, 2004). Both victimised young people, and those who take part in bullying across time, may
demonstrate lower levels of academic achievement than expected (Glew, Fan, Katon et al., 2005;
Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla et al., 2001).
Workplace bullying is associated with a similar range of consequences: ‘lowered self-esteem,
depression, anxiety and physical illness’ which produce ‘fear, anger and depression’ (Hutchinson et al
2010; Sanders et al, 2012 29), increasing levels of sick leave, reduced hours of work, attrition from the
workplace, with resultant ‘lowered morale, increased turnover, higher sick-leave levels and increased
costs associated with recruitment as a result of staff turnover’ (Hutchinson, 2010, 2320).. Sanders et al
(2012, 29) cite evidence that organisations effectively managing workplace bullying outperforming those
that do not by thirty to forty per cent (Sanders et al, 2012, 30).
Bullying is thus costly for individuals, organisations and the society as a whole. It will rarely show up in
workers’ compensation claims, where it is more likely to be hidden behind stress and other psychological
injury claims (Jetson, S, 2005).
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
2. The role of workplace cultures in preventing and responding to
bullying and the capacity for workplace-based policies and
procedures to influence the incidence and seriousness of
workplace bullying.
What do we mean when we talk about workplace ‘culture’? Culture (and ‘ethos’) is often used to refer to
the way people behave and work together through an organisation’s structures (McBrien & Brandt, 1997;
Stolp & Smith, 1994). The values and norms of the workplace influence how bullying is defined in that
context, how employees interpret situations (for example, as ‘bullying’ or ‘firm management’), and
whether bullying is recognized as a problem (Cowie et al, 2002).
While the Foundation has gained much learning from its work in schools, these are also workplaces in
which many changes have been imposed externally. Consequently organisational change in schools is
very relevant to this discussion.
A school’s culture is revealed in a number of ways and it pervades and influences everyone within the
organisation. It is an unobservable force behind school activities and a unifying theme that provides
meaning, direction, and mobilisation for school members (Prosser, 1999). School culture influences the
actions and the spirit of school life and the school’s motivation, commitment, effort, and focus (Peterson,
1999). In particular, beliefs about what is worth striving for are a critical feature of any school culture
(Maehr & Fyans, 1989). School culture also provides support, direction and identity for members; it can
be seen as the sum of the values, practices, traditions, behavioural expectations, relationships and
organisational structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular ways (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998). It evolves over time as people work together, solve problems and confront challenges.
We know that positive and supportive school cultures tend to prevent or reduce the incidence of
harassment, aggression and bullying behaviours (Olweus, 1993; Galloway & Roland 2004; Schaps &
Lewis, 1999) and student wellbeing is more likely to develop in such settings (McGrath & Noble, 2003) .
The opposite is also true - there is a danger that bullying that is unaddressed may become an accepted,
or even encouraged, aspect of the culture of an organisation. According to two studies (Duncan & Riley,
2005, Duncan et al 2011) schools are organisations where bullying is common. This may be a product
of a form of ‘institutionalised bullying’ where the culture of the school expects all staff to contribute a
disproportionate amount of time to school activities. Cowie et al (1999) have identified these risks and
note that some organisations have come to recognise the need to change the culture of the workplace
and have developed clear company policies to offer protection from bullying to their employees.
Safe, supportive school environments where bullying is reduced usually develop within positive school
cultures and are characterised by:
• Members of the school caring about, and supporting, one another,
• Prevailing values of mutual respect, cooperation, inclusion and acceptance of difference,
• Everyone having a sense of belonging and safety, and
• The promotion, through policies and protocols of positive relationships and pro-social
behaviours. Pro-social behaviours are those leading to harmonious co-existence and wellbeing.
It is not unrealistic to apply these expectations to workplaces. They can be summarised as ‘the way we
do things around here’, and are expressed in vision and mission statements, values, policies, structures,
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
processes, expenditure of time and money, levels of expectation expectations and the behaviour of
management and staff toward each other.
The role of the leader
It is now broadly recognised that culture is also an important driver of performance within organisations
(Dunphy and Kirk, 2003). Culture is, to a large extent, set by the leaders of an organisation. Therefore
the work of leaders is vital for any program that aims to change/improve culture. Sustaining a new
approach or program always requires changing aspects of the culture - this is usually a slow and
complex process (Patterson, Purkey & Parker (1986). Fullan (1992) has argued that the most important
thing that school leaders do is to create and manage the school’s culture whilst also facing the challenge
of being part of that culture through their attitudes and relationships with others within the school.
Peterson (1999) advocates that the first step in changing a school’s culture is for leaders to take the time
to fully ‘read’ the current culture and examine its history. Leaders can work towards the development of
a supportive, collaborative, professional culture that promotes continuous improvement within an
atmosphere of collegiality, trust and shared goals (Peterson, 1994). The leader and her/his team will
ensure that the organisation’s vision is, aside from organisational goals, one that has at its centre clarity
about a respectful and supportive workplace. Plans will be in place to ensure this vision is sustained over
a longer term and there is clear understanding about the responsibility of different roles within the
organisation to sustain and enhance the vision and both time and material resources will be set aside to
effect it.
In a collaborative school culture, teachers regularly discuss ideas, issues and problems with their
colleagues, share information, skills and resources and participate in collaborative problem-solving
(Peterson, 1994; Rosenholtz, 1989). Success is more likely when teachers work collaboratively on
school improvement (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Failure, mistakes, and uncertainty are openly shared,
discussed, and collaborative problem solving occurs. In these types of schools, staff broadly agree on
what’s important but disagreement is accepted as a way to foster improvement (Fullan & Hargreaves,
1991; Fullan, 2001). Leadership is shared and many teachers are leaders in different ways, a process
that is supported by the principal (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Collaborative schools are exciting and
professionally rewarding workplaces for teachers (Peterson, 1994) and they contribute to a sense of
teacher efficacy about their capacity to affect student learning (Rosenholtz, 1989).
Conversely, if a managerial style is based on hierarchy and dominance, this will be reproduced in
interactions throughout the organisation - it would be naïve to expect behaviour modelled by senior
management not to be replicated by more junior employees. Workplaces where decisions emanate from
the top, where ‘collaboration’ is bogus and failure, or the taking of risks, are frowned upon or punished
are more likely to develop attitudes that produce, even endorse bullying and a range of other negative
behaviours. Sanders et al (2012, 29) claim that workplace bullying is a ‘logical adaptation to a stressed
workplace’ together with other ‘[mal]adaptive’ behaviours (such as stealing) in response to coldly
unresponsive managements.
It is a leader’s responsibility to ensure that organisational structures support the overall wellbeing of the
staff. This will include:
• Organisational values, vision and mission to guide a range of process including policy
development, behaviour protocols, staff meeting, use of technology and other protocols,
• Policies that include staff wellbeing, bullying, OHS processes, technology use, conflict/grievance
resolution, behaviour protocols and a range of clear procedures and role descriptions,
• Effective organisational structures and features,
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
• A range of processes to ensure staff work collaboratively and that ‘silos’ do not develop,
• A range of effective work practices that are collaborative, respectful and effective and supported
by targeted professional learning, and
• Strong relationships with external stakeholders.
Workplace bullying is an issue that needs to be dealt with through an organizational change approach
aimed at improving the overall workplace culture or climate. To do this, we need a framework that
provides a ‘roadmap’ for systemic workplace change in relating to bullying. eSmart already provides this
framework to reduce bullying and cyberbullying within schools and libraries. eSmart is aimed at the
employees within these settings (eg Teachers and Librarians) and identifies six domains where action is
required to achieve meaningful cultural change. eSmart could be extended and customised to suit
workplaces more broadly and provide every workplace in Australia with a similar roadmap to reduce
bullying. For more detail on eSmart, please refer to Section 7.
In addition, a key goal of the National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy is to develop
agreed upon actions to reduce bullying, via the National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy
Implementation Advisory Group. We recommend that this Implementation Advisory Group include a
sub-committee of representatives relevant to workplaces to inform actions and interventions most
appropriate to workplaces of different types, and potentially the eSmart Workplace framework.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
3. The adequacy of existing education and support services to
prevent and respond to workplace bullying and whether there are
further opportunities to raise awareness of workplace bullying,
such as community forums
A number of research projects on workplace bullying have been undertaken over the last two decades
and longer. Many of these commence with statements highlighting the seriousness of concerns
occasioning the research. Each also examines the high costs – to individuals, co-workers, and
organisations - in human and material terms, which may be exponentially increased if lawsuits for unjust
dismissal, worker’s compensation and/or disability are added.
A wide variety of resources to address workplace bullying are available. These include resources which
provide information, educative and/or support services. Examples include: Safe Work Australia,
ReachOut, The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Legal Aid Victoria, Stop
Bullying in SA, Safe Work SA, The Australian Government’s Comcare and Occupational Health and
Safety Legislation, just to name a few.
One of the challenges in addressing workplace bullying is the myriad of information available. Our
experience in the school and library sectors tells us that people don’t know where to start and how to
access information to address bullying.
The Foundation’s eSmart Schools system helps schools (which are organizations) to access the best
and most current resources relating to bullying and cyber-bullying, all in one place via a website. Whilst
eSmart is discussed in detail later, it is worthwhile noting that the eSmart system organises resources via
a framework for cultural change. This framework was developed with, and for, schools, so that the
information makes sense to the staff within schools. This concept of organizing information in one place
can, and should be extended to the workplace. As noted in the previous section, eSmart is one vehicle
that could readily be adapted to do this. For more detail on eSmart Workplaces, refer to Section 7.
Why campaigns are not effective
It is often the first response of organisations to create a campaign to disseminate views. But our media-
driven society has created a viewing audience suspicious of messages (Postman, N., 2006) and views
news or other forms of information as a ‘stylized dramatic performance’ or as a form of entertainment,
the veracity of which depends on ‘the impression of sincerity, authenticity, vulnerability or attractiveness
of the [news] reporter [or anchor]’ (Postman, 2005, 102).
However serious the message, it will quickly be punctuated by a series of commercials which will can
neutralise the information or render it immaterial. Although Postman writes about predominantly about
television, his views can equally apply to digital media. It is worth expanding:
‘[T]he idea … is to keep everything brief, not to strain the attention of anyone but
instead to provide constant stimulation through variety, novelty, action and
movement. You are required … to pay attention to no concept, no character and no
problem for more than a few seconds at a time’. (Robert MacNeil, executive editor
and co-anchor of the “MacNeil-Lehrer News-hour” (Postman, 2004, 105).
Thus, we believe that ‘Campaigns’ on their own have little long-term effect on behavioural change. They
do play a role as part of a whole of community cultural change strategy. A multi-faceted approach
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
consisting of awareness-raising, education, support services and interventions (amongst other things),
which will need to be delivered by different stakeholders at many different levels to address the issue of
bullying, including workplace bullying across our society.
Policy responses
Policy responses need to address the issue of workplace bullying in whole-of-community ways, including
education, regulation and, as a last resort, legal changes to address the needs of different members in
ways that are appropriately targeted specifically to reduce risks associated with bullying for people of all
ages and in all settings.
Research and work in schools has shown very clearly that approaches, such as eSmart, that include the
whole of the organisation (parents, teachers, leadership, students, wider community) provide the most
effective way to implement changes aimed at increasing wellbeing, safety and preventing anti-social
behaviour including bullying and cyberbullying.
These approaches have some common features:
• There is a focus on organisational values. For example, an understanding about bullying is not
an ‘add-on’ to policy frameworks but stems from a central set of ethical values/principles which
also inform other policies, procedures and processes within the organisation,
• There is a focus on positive input from all organisation members to the policy – rather than a
tokenistic ‘sign-off,’
• There is a set of definitions guide what people understand about how bullying might manifest in
the organisation,
• There is an acceptance by all staff of responsibility for preventing and reporting bullying,
• There is consistency of understanding (definitions) response (policy) and reporting
(responsibility) management/disciplinary action (management) at all levels and across the
organisation,
• Recognition exists that change is a process, not an event, and
• Senior managers ‘make an effort to adopt the … attitudes and skills that they have demanded of
others’ (Beer, et al, 1990, 166) – i.e. ‘walk the talk’.
Community Forums – a word of warning
‘Magic bullet programs’ describe ‘quick fix’ programs that are isolated from the rest of the organisation
and are usually ineffective. The term ‘magic bullet programs’ was coined by Beer, Eisenstat & Spector
(1990) to describe ‘quick fix’ programs that are isolated from the rest of the organisation and that are
usually ineffective. Organisations that adopt such programs or strategies run the risk of promoting staff
scepticism and cynicism that may inhibit future possibilities and limit commitment.
Community forums might be viewed in the same light as ‘magic bullet programs’ to the extent that if they
are isolated from the mainstream of workplaces and community concerns about workplace bullying, they
will be ineffective. Were they to be held, organisations from across the spectrum of workplaces would
need to be involved, including workers themselves, not merely senior management, together with
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
academics in the field, members of the legal community and policy makers. If such forums are held, they
should be prepared to implement recommendations that result from them.
In summary, on their own and without context, any education, support service, campaign or community
forum cannot reduce workplace bullying in an ongoing and holistic way. Rather, these activities must be
part of a broader approach to address the issue, involving the co-ordination of a range of different
activities and interventions at different levels. We believe that workplace bullying can most effectively be
addressed through a National Workplace Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy, to be
developed as part of a broader National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy (please refer to
next section for more detail on this strategy).
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
4. Whether there is scope to improve coordination between governments,
regulators, health service providers and other stakeholders to address and
prevent workplace bullying
We believe that addressing the issue of workplace bullying will necessarily rely on a multi-faceted
approach consisting of awareness-raising, education, support services and interventions (amongst other
things), which will need to be delivered by different stakeholders at many different levels. These
activities need to be actively coordinated to avoid duplication and maximise impact.
From our experience in developing eSmart, and in social change more broadly, we know that the power
of these activities is harnessed (and collective impact is achieved) when five conditions are met
(Hanleybrown et al, 2012). This includes when:
• There is a common agenda for change, with stakeholders having a shared understanding of this
issue and a joint-approach for addressing this issue,
• There is consistent measurement of the issue, conducted on an ongoing basis,
• There are mutually reinforcing activities, meaning that all the different activities undertaken must
be complementary, coordinated and focused on the shared vision for change,
• There is an ongoing, and open dialogue, between key stakeholder to build trust, affirm objectives
and maintain focus, and
• Resources are invested to coordinate activities across stakeholders (usually through a separate
organization whose main focus is the change agenda).
Our National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy is based on these five principles. It has
been deliberately conceived to ensure the coordination and cooperation from all relevant stakeholders at
multiple levels. This includes:
1. Developing a common definition of bullying and its causes (including measurement) through the
Strategy Research Council, consisting of key researchers and academics within the field,
2. Ensuring a common approach, and shared change agenda, to solve the issues of bullying and
cyberbullying by convening an Implementation Advisory Group, which will develop agreed-upon
change goals and actions, which are then cascaded. This group will consist of stakeholders
from key government agencies at federal and state levels and other relevant stakeholders, and
3. Coordination and communication of activities via the National Centre Against Bullying, a peak
non-partisan body consisting of key thinkers and practitioners in the bullying field.
We proposed that this strategy be applied to workplaces and that a similar approach be adopted to
reduce bullying in the workplace in a holistic and ongoing way.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
5. Whether there are regulatory, administrative or cross jurisdictional and
international legal and policy gaps that should be addressed in the interests
of enhancing protection against and providing an early response to
workplace bullying, including through appropriate complaint mechanisms
and
6. Whether the existing regulatory frameworks provide a sufficient deterrent
against workplace bullying
The Chair of the Foundation’s National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB), The Hon Alastair Nicholson,
former Chief Justice of the Family Court provides advice to the Foundation on matters relating to
bullying, cybersafety and the law. He has provided an overview of the issues, relating to bullying in
general. With his permission we have attached this as an appendix to our submission (refer to Appendix
B).
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation recommends, as part of a National Workplace Bullying and
Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy, that a national legislative and policy framework about workplace
bullying is adopted as a responsibility of the Federal Government in the interests of definitional, policy,
regulatory and legislative uniformity, thus more effectively safeguarding workers across the country.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
7. The most appropriate ways of ensuring bullying culture or
behaviours are not transferred from one workplace to another
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation is involved in whole-of-society cultural change. While our
understanding, based on research, is that the most effective way to achieve change in attitudes and
behaviour is with children and young people, we are interested in achieving change across educational
levels, systems and jurisdictions and, through our eSmart Libraries system, reaching a much broader
section of the population.
eSmart is a world-first, holistic approach to reducing bullying and cyberbullying within the Australian
community and is informed by other successful behaviour change campaigns such as SunSmart and
Quit which have an integrated, multi-layered, sustainable and systemic approach to social change.
These interventions create the environments in which it is easy and normal for individuals to make
smart/healthy/self-protective choices.
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation chose schools as the first setting for eSmart. Theory, together
with evidence around Health Promoting Schools, supports the role of schools in affecting individual
behaviour and influencing broader social change.
eSmart connects bullying, cyberbullying and cybersafety with overall wellbeing, and focuses on creating
cultures of respect and personal responsibility in addition to providing users with the practical knowledge
to ensure their security.
However, as demonstrated by the SunSmart, a successful behaviour change campaign must extend into
other community settings. For eSmart these include libraries, community centres, homes and
workplaces.
A logical next step for this behaviour change initiative is to follow young people from the school setting
into the training setting and workplace. Targeting apprentices and trainees with the same behavioural
change messages they have already experienced provides a link between schools and the workplace
and reinforces the desired positive behaviours.
Bullying and cyberbullying are serious issues for young people entering the workplace and can have
serious adverse effects on the apprentice or trainee as well as their colleagues, employers and families.
In addition, this initiative will show positive economic returns and could demonstrate potentially huge
savings that would be realized to the Government, community and employers through increased
completion rates of apprentices and trainees.
Young people progress into the wider workplace setting and take the cultural norms of bullying and
cyberbullying being unacceptable with them. However, targeting young people in workplace training and
apprentice settings is only the first step to introducing eSmart into the wider workplace. The goal is to
have every work place become an eSmart workplace where bullying and cyberbullying are reduced.
eSmart as a means of information dissemination
eSmart is a web-based system. Each of the six ‘pieces of the pie’ or domains has within it a series of
‘attributes’ containing key questions and activities that a school must complete in order to achieve
eSmart ‘status’, in the same way as SunSmart status is achieved and maintained.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Part of eSmart’s power lies in its ability to lead the user to a range of relevant, evidence-based and
evaluated resources via hyperlinks. Currency of the resources is ensured by constant scoping and
updating by Alannah and Madeline staff.
The system has implications for ways government and other organisations disseminate information. The
searcher can gain access to exactly the information she needs without having to wade through a
plethora of other pdfs, links or web pages.
Information dissemination alone, however, is not a sufficiently effective means of changing cultures and
practices. eSmart is informed by values (relationships, respect, responsibility and resourcefulness) and
informed by characteristics (the outside of the wheel).
The eSmart system for organisational change
eSmart has the goal of changing and enhancing school and broader cultures by improving organisational
policies, structures, practices relating to work content and delivery and focus on working with other
stakeholders to enhance outcomes.
Bullying will be reduced, and therefore individuals’ need for ‘ontological security’ (Boucaut, 2001) is more
apt to be satisfied. Consequent ability to focus more effectively on their work rather than being
concerned for their own personal wellbeing (mental and physical) will lead to enhanced productivity in
the workplace.
The eSmart schools model (below) illustrates the above discussion.
Figure 1. The eSmart Schools Framework Model
eSmart’s ambitious and comprehensive approach has the goals of promoting wellbeing, reducing
bullying on and offline and enhancing people’s uptake of digital technologies.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
eSmart Schools
Developed in conjunction with RMIT University, the eSmart Schools Framework and system designed to
help schools change their culture and behaviours in relation to the use of digital technologies and
enhance wellbeing. It is a whole-school approach that embraces technology’s benefits, reduces
students’ and teachers’ exposure to risk, improves wellbeing and enhances relationships.
eSmart is not a system, framework or philosophy that works or interacts directly with children and young
people. It is a model of school/organisational change and continuous improvement that works principally
with school leadership and staff through the development of appropriate organisational structures,
policies, relationships, pedagogy and curricula to improve the wellbeing and digital know-how of all
members of its community. It is flexible and able to be adapted by settings as diverse as large southern
state private schools to schools in remote indigenous locations.
eSmart encourages and supports the development of technology-rich learning environments where
student voice and student-led activities are central. It reaches out to the parents and other family
members, as well as the wider community through a dedicated domain of activity.
eSmart has the best chance of bringing a greater level of awareness about [cyber] bullying and wellbeing
to young people, their parents and the wider community. Like SunSmart, eSmart initially is anchored in
schools, with a system to guide schools to introduce the right policies and practices that ensure their
teachers, students, and families are equipped to be ‘eSmart’, a concept that encourages people to be
smart, safe and responsible online and develops digital literacy and citizenship.
eSmart relies on a shared workload and involvement of all key groups in decision making and
implementation. It is considered essential that students, parents and other community members
participate and that their ideas are respected.
eSmart Libraries
Recently, work has commenced on eSmart Libraries. Public libraries are by far the most heavily used
community agencies in Australia. More than half of the population are public library members, and make
over 110 million visits per year to 1,500 public libraries across Australia (ALIA 2009). Public libraries
provide an excellent opportunity for reaching a broad spectrum of children’s parents and grandparents
and promulgating eSmart messages. eSmart Libraries will support the safe and responsible internet use
of the whole spectrum of library users, as many users, including senior Australians are vulnerable to a
range of risks in the online environment.
Public libraries provide a range of services across the age spectrum, from homework support to one-to-
one help for seniors and other new users, including migrant groups. For those without computer or
internet access in the home they are an important free or low-cost option.
eSmart Libraries is a community capacity building strategy, equally applicable to all communities,
including remote and indigenous ones. It will deliver: a framework for implementing a whole-of-
organisation approach a dedicated website providing a central point for all the best information and case
studies available evidence-informed strategies and approaches that have been evaluated foe
effectiveness a system for libraries to track report and share their own progress and activities
acknowledgment of good practice through signage and other promotional materials when libraries reach
set milestone.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Introduction of this framework will increase the capacity of library staff to support their community to
become more skilled in the positive use of digital technologies and to reinforce respectful and
responsible behaviours online.
A key attribute of the eSmart library strategy is the ability for each library community to adapt the
framework to suit its own needs. The initiative avoids individual settings having to ‘reinvent the wheel’. It
provides a system/framework and immediately accessible set of tools to enable libraries (or schools) to
become cyber-safe. An eSmart library, whether it is a library in a remote indigenous community or an
inner city library within a multicultural community is well-equipped to help its community particulate in the
world of digital technologies in smart, safe and responsible ways.
eSmart Workplaces
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation believes that the eSmart system can be applied successfully to
workplaces. It provides a method for creating a cultural change in the workplace through social and
behavioural change campaigns and provides a mechanism to deliver interventions. Because an eSmart
workplace is required to record and monitor its progress in implementing bullying policies and best
practice strategies to reduce the incidence and harms caused by workplace bullying, eSmart offers a
method for tracking and reporting the effects of interventions within the workplace.
The customisation and implementation of the eSmart system to workplaces would include:
• A framework to help workplaces navigate the myriad of information that is currently available on
cybersafety and the positive use of digital technology,
• A website where workplaces access strategies for implementing the eSmart framework,
including sign-posted links to the best-available resources and tools,
• An online tool where workplaces can track and report on their progress in implementing eSmart,
• An eSmart help desk, available to all workplaces during business hours, which will support
workplaces in implementing eSmart strategies,
• A training session (virtual or otherwise) for every workplace on eSmart, supported by online
forums and webinars,
• An eSmart starter kit – a comprehensive set of information and resources inducting workplaces
into the eSmart system, and Regular eSmart newsletters and tips.
Social Marketing Campaign
As discussed another component of a comprehensive social change strategy like eSmart is a social
marketing campaign to promote the desired cybersafety behaviours. The SunSmart campaign promoted
“Slip Slop Slip” and the eSmart campaign aims to promote “smart, safe and responsible” use of
technology. eSmart has been already implemented in over 1000 schools across Australia with more
enrolling every week, and plans are well progressed to roll eSmart Libraries out to all Australian Public
libraries. The consistent behavioural change messages being heard in all eSmart settings will be
reinforced through the social marketing campaign.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
8. Possible improvements to the national evidence base on workplace bullying.
As noted in Section 1, there are differing and inconsistent definitions of the terms bullying and
cyberbullying (including workplace bullying) and different approaches to measuring it. This creates
significant difficulty in understanding the real prevalence of workplace bullying, its underlying causes,
whether the incidence is changing over time and what can be done about it.
A primary goal of the National Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy is to develop a common
approach to measuring bullying and cyberbullying and its impact, through the establishment of a National
Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention Strategy Research Council. This Research Council would
comprise key researchers and academics in the field, whose primary goal is to agree a ‘standard’
definition of terms, which are then used in a consistent way in research, practice and measurement.
Part of the work of this Council would be to disseminate research findings to ensure that we all have an
accurate understanding of the issue.
We further recommend that a longitudinal national survey on bullying and cyberbullying within workplaces
be conducted. This would complement the planned youth focussed national survey. This will ensure
consistent measurement, based on the agreed definition of bullying, and will reduce both overlap and
gaps in the gathering of data around the issue. Such a survey will enable an accurate, ongoing, and
cross-sector understanding of the prevalence of workplace bullying and its causes, thus informing
appropriate intervention strategies in the short and longer-term.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Resources
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D. & Lewis, C. (2001). ‘Effects of the child development
project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors’, Journal of Primary Prevention, 21,
75–99.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, F.A., & Spector, B., (1990), Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard
Business Review, 68(6), pp. 158-166.
Bond L, Carlin, J.B., Thomas, L, Ruin, K, Patton, G. (2001), Does bullying cause emotional problems? A
prospective study of young teenagers. BMJ 323,480–4.
Briggs, F. & Hawkins, R.M.F (n.d.) Keeping ourselves safe: who benefits?
<http://www.police.govt.nz/service/yes/resources/violence/kos5.html>
Caponecchia, C., & Wyatt A., (2011).Preventing Workplace Bullying: an evidence-based guide for
managers and employees, Allen and Unwin, Australia,
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P., Pereira, B., (2002) Measuring workplace bullying, Aggression
and Violent Behavior 7 33–51
Crick, N.R. & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). ‘Relational aggression, gender and social psychological
adjustment’, Child Development, 66, 710–722.
Crikey.com.au ‘2020 summit’ at www.crikey.com.au
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009) Australian Covert
Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan
University, Perth.
Crothers, L.M. & Levinson, E.M. (2004), ‘Assessment of bullying: a review of methods and instruments’,
Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 496–503.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998), Professional learning communities at work: best practices for enhancing
student achievement. 1st ed. Alexandria, VA: National Educational Service.
Duncan D., & Riley, D., Staff Bullying In Catholic Schools 1327-7634 Vol. 10, No 1, (2005), pp. 47-58,
Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education
Elias, M.J. (2003). ‘Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic
innovations in public schools’, School Psychology Review, 22Snapshot on Organisational Culture
Dunphy Dexter, University of Technology, Sydney, and Christina Kirk, IBM Global Consulting, (2003),
Snapshot on Organisational Culture, paper presented at Ideaction (2003, the 14th national
conference of the Facility Management Association of Australia, Ltd. May 7-9, Sydney, Australia.
French, J. R. P., Raven, B. (1959).The bases of social power, In D. Cartwright and A. Zander. Group
dynamics. New York: Harper & Row,
Fullan, M. (1992), The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1991), What's worth fighting for?: working together for your school,
Hawthorn, Australian Council for Educational Administration Inc.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Galloway, D.M. & Roland, E. (2004), ‘Is the direct approach to bullying always best?’, in P.K. Smith, D.
Pepler & K. Rigby (eds), Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? (pp. 37–53).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glow, G.M, Fan, M.Y, Kato, W, Rivara, F.P, Kernic, M.A. (2005), ‘Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and
academic performance in elementary school’, Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 159 (11),
1026–1031.
Garan, R. (1998), ‘Sexism rife in Cadet Corps Culture!’, The Australian, 11th June, p. 3.
Garner, H. (1995), The First Stone — Some Questions About Sex and Power, Picador, Sydney.
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J. and Kramer, M. Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work,
Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 2012.
Hawkins, J.D., Guo, J., Hill, K.G., Battin-Pearson, S. & Abbott, R.D. (2001). ‘Long-term effects of the
Seattle Social Development Project on school bonding trajectories’, Applied Developmental
Sciences, 5, 225–236.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Wilkes, L., and Jackson, D., (2010), A typology of bullying behaviours: the
experience of Australian nurses, Journal of clinical nursing, 19.
Jetson , Sally & Associates The Toxic Workplace
“From Shop Floor To Boardroom” www.jetson.net.au
Kandersteg Declaration Against Bullying in Children and Youth. (2007). Joint Efforts Against
Victimization Conference inKandersteg, Switzerland, from
http://www.kanderstegdeclaration.org/pdf/KanderstegDeclarationEN.pdf
Keuskamp, D., Ziersch, A.M., Baum, F., Montagne, A., (2012), Workplace bullying a risk for permanent
employees, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Voc 36 No 2.
Kieseker, R., and Marchant, T., (1999). Workplace bullying in Australia: a review of current
Conceptualisations and existing research, Australian Journal of Management & Organisational
Behaviour, 2(5), 61-75,
McGrath, H., & Craig, S. (2005). Review of anti-bullying policy and practice, Department of Education
and Training, Victoria (June).
Maehr, M. & Fyans, L. (1989), ‘School culture, motivation, and achievement’, in Advances in Motivation
and Achievement, Vol 6: Motivation Enhancing Environments, ed. by M.L. Maehr & C. Ames.
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Marano, H.E. (1995), ‘Big, Bad Bully’, Psychology Today, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 50-52
McBrien, J.L. & Brandt, R.S. (1997). The language of learning: a guide to education terms. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McKenzie, N., (2008), Mentally ill troops tell of bullying and neglect, The Age, April 21,
Moffitt, T.E. (1993). ‘Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: a developmental
taxonomy’, Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. (2001). ‘Bullying
behaviors among U.S. youth, prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment’, The
Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Nicholson, B., (2012). Push for top-level probe on defence sex abuse, bullying, The Australian, June 16,
Oakes, D., and Sexton, R., (2012). A fifth of police bullied at work The Age Newspaper, June 21,
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in schools: what we know and what we can do. London: Blackwell.
Patterson, J.L., Purkey, S.C. & Parker, J.V. (1986), Productive school systems for a nonrational world.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pepler, D.J. & Craig, W.M. (1997), ‘Bullying: research and interventions: youth update’, Publication of the
Institute for the Study of Antisocial Youth.
Peterson, K.D. (1999). ‘River of values and traditions can nurture or poison staff development hours’,
Journal of Staff Development, 20, 2 (spring).
Postman, N., (2005), Amusing Ourselves to Death, public discourse in the age of show business,
Penguin,
Prosser, J. (ed.) (1999). School culture (British Educational Management Series). London: Sage
Publications.
Rigby, K. (1996) Bullying in schools - and what to do about it. Melbourne: ACER.
Rigby, K., and Slee, P.T. (1999) Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in
bully/victim problems and perceived low social support Suicide and Life-threatening Behavior, 29,
119-130.
Riley, D., Duncan D., & Edwards J., (2011),"Staff bullying in Australian schools", Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 49 Issue: 1 pp. 7 – 30
Rosenholtz, S. (1989), Teachers' workplace: the social organization of schools. New York: Longmans.
Salin, D (2001), ‘Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two
different strategies for measuring bullying’, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10 (4), 425-441.
Sanders, D., Pattison, P., Bible, J., (2012), Legislating ‘Nice’: analysis and assessment of proposed
workplace bullying prohibitions, Southern Law Journal, Vol. XXII Spring,
Safe Work Australia Preventing And Responding To Workplace Bullying Draft Code of Practice,
September (2011).
Schaps, E. & Lewis, C. (1999), ‘Perils on an essential journey: building school community’, Phi Delta
Kappan, 81 (3), 215. <www.devstu.org/about/articles/perils_essential.html>
Scheckner, S., Rollin, S.A., Kaiser-Ulrey, C. & Wagner, R. (2002). ‘School violence in children and
adolescents: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of current interventions’, Journal of School
Violence, 1 (2), 5–32.
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Skiba, R. & Fontanini, A. (2000). ‘Fast facts: bullying prevention, Bloomington’, in: Phi Delta Kappa
International. <http://www.pdkintl.org/whatis/ff12bully.htm>
Smith, P.K., & Madsen, K.C., (1996), Action Against Bullying; Biennial Meeting of the International
Society on the Study of Behavioural Development, 12-16 August.
Smith, P. (2004). ‘Bullying: recent developments’, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 3, 98–103.
Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. & Rigby, K. (2004), ‘Working to prevent bullying: key issues’, in P.K Smith, D.
Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds), Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? (pp. 1–12).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smorti, A., Menesini, E. & Smith, P.K. (2003). ‘Parents’ definition of children’s bullying in a five-country
comparison’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 417–432.
Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim
questionnaire, Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
Stop Bullying in South Australia, Manual Dealing with Workplace Bullying – A Practical Guide for
Employees http://www.stopbullyingsa.com.au/documents/bullying_employees.pdf
Stolp, S. & Smith, S.C. (1994). School culture and climate: the role of the leader. OSSC Bulletin.
Eugene: Oregon School Study Council.
Rigby, K. (2004). What can be done to make anti-bullying programs more effective? Paper presented at
the National Coalition Against Bullying Seminar, Melbourne, November, 2005.
Rigby, K., Whish, A. & Black, G. (1994). ‘Implications of school children's peer relations for wife abuse in
Australia’, Criminology Australia, August, 8–12.
Smith, P.K., Singer, M., Hoel, H. & Cooper, C.L., (2003), ‘Victimization in the school and the workplace:
are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 175–188.
Victoria Legal Aid http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/428.htm
Weinhold, B.K. (2000). ‘Bullying and school violence: the tip of the iceberg’, The Teacher Educator, 35
(3), 28–33.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 103-126). London: Taylor Francis
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Appendix A - National Centre Against Bullying Members
Chair
The Hon. Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Members
Marg Armstrong, Education Consultant, Just Practices
Dr Pamela Bartholomaeus, Lecturer, Flinders University
Elida Brereton, Former Principal, Camberwell High School
Professor Marilyn Campbell, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of
Technology
Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, Adolescent psychologist and author
Sandra Craig, Manager, National Centre Against Bullying
Professor Donna Cross, Professor, Child and Adolescent Health, Child Health Promotion Research
Centre, School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University
Maree Davidson, Manager, Davidson Consulting
Dr Julian Dooley, Associate Director, Sellenger Centre for Research on Law, Justice and Social Change,
Edith Cowan University
Evelyn Field, Psychologist, Author and Speaker, specialises in school and workplace bullying
Stephen Franzi-Ford, CEO, Association of School Councils In Victoria
Andrew Fuller, Fellow of the Department of Psychiatry and the Department of Learning and Educational
Development, University of Melbourne
Coosje Griffiths, Manager, State-wide Student Services, Department of Education, Western Australia
Gabrielle Leigh, President, Victorian Principals' Association
Professor Helen McGrath, Adjunct Professor, School of Education, RMIT University
Robert Masters, Director, Robert Masters & Associates
Professor Toni Noble, Adjunct Professor, School of Educational Leadership. Faculty of Education
Australian Catholic University
Professor Ken Rigby, Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia
Professor Phillip Slee, Professor Human Development School of Education, Flinders University South
Australia
Dr Barbara Spears, Co-Director of the Citizenship and Wellbeing Research Group of the Centre for
Research in Education, School of Education, University of South Australia
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Maree Stanley, Manager, Better Buddies, The Alannah and Madeline Foundation
Dr Judith Slocombe, CEO, The Alannah and Madeline Foundation
Irene Verins Senior Project Officer, Mental Health and Wellbeing; VicHealth
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
Appendix B - Issues re. Bullying, Harassment and the Law
1. Commonwealth constitutional power is limited to dealing with offences relating to the electronic
transmission of material. This covers behaviour using computers including E-mail and mobile
phones and the usual forms of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and the like.
2. However, the Commonwealth lacks power over antisocial behaviour including bullying and
harassment not involving electronic means. Therefore in approaching legal issues it is highly
desirable to develop a co-ordinated approach with States and Territories.
3. The area of Commonwealth power is nevertheless extremely wide and specific legislation should
be designed to deal with it. Hitherto we have largely sought to adapt existing legislation to
provide a legal basis for addressing these problems.
4. It is time that we ceased this ad hoc approach and designed legislation specifically addressing
the issues arising from the various types of anti-social behaviour that we seek to control and/or
prevent.
5. First, we must determine what the type of behaviour that we wish to address. Presumably, this
ranges from child pornography, sexual grooming’ stalking and harassment through to workplace
and school bullying, harassment and victimisation.
6. It is also necessary to remember that the target group that the laws will affect is a very wide one
ranging from quite young children to the elderly, both as victims and perpetrators. In the case of
children, perpetrators under 10 will be unaffected and those between 10 and 14 remain protected
to some extent from the operation of the criminal law.
7. Child pornography presents particular problems. Those adults who exploit children sexually for
sexual satisfaction or gain are guilty of reprehensible behaviour and should be severely punished
by the law. For them it is quite appropriate to record their names on a sexual register.
8. However, the laws that are presently used to control this behaviour are also used against
children and young people, whose behaviour is much more understandable and less worthy of
punishment. Young people make wide use of electronic communication and some of it will
inevitably have sexual connotations. The same behaviour on the part of adults would not
normally be a criminal offence but because the subject matter relates to a child it falls within the
definition of child pornography which carries with it severe criminal sanctions.
9. What are the answers? The issue is that the offences are defined too broadly and cover too wide
a range of conduct. It is insufficient to suggest, as some have including the Victorian Law Reform
Commission, to merely give the courts the power to not include children like this on a register of
sex offenders, although courts should clearly have such a power.
10. An answer is to change the definition of the relevant offences and provide different penalties
depending on the nature of the offences. This could be done by more tightly defining the conduct
to be proscribed and the intent involved and providing for a range of offences ranging from the
serious to the more trivial with penalties graded appropriately. This gradation is common in other
areas of the criminal law such as assault, with offences and penalties depending on the gravity of
the conduct. Another additional measure would be to differentiate between offenders on the basis
of age. One thing that would have to be decided is whether the milder kinds of juvenile type
conduct involved with ‘sexting’ should be an offence at all – there are differing opinions on this,
although we are inclined to believe it should not be an offence
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
11. Turning to bullying and harassment, we must be careful in considering legislation in this area to
avoid creating the same problem. Arguably, the Victorian Government have done this with
Brodie’s law. While the conduct that brought about this girl’s tragic death should be severely
punished, the law passed is in such wide terms as to create much milder forms of conduct as a
serious criminal offence as well.
12. The terms bullying and harassment are used here because of the generally understood
distinction between the two types of conduct. This is that an essential element of bullying is its
repetitive nature, whereas a single act can amount to harassment. It is distinction worth providing
because it is the repetitive nature of bullying that is it’s real vice and takes it beyond single acts,
however serious they may be.
13. The first issue to be determined is whether bullying should be a crime at all and if so how should
it be defined? Bullying is usually characterised as involving:
• Repetition (occurs regularly)
• Duration (is enduring)
• Escalation (increasing aggression)
• Power disparity (the target lacks the power to successfully defend themself).
• Attributed intent
14. Points in favour of bullying being a crime are:
• Bullying is a form of aggression, involving the abuse of power in relationships. It is
recognized globally as a complex and serious problem. It has many faces, including the
use of emerging technologies, and varies by age, gender, and culture. (Kandersteg
Declaration);
• It is serious anti-social conduct and as such should be proscribed by the law;
• It’s effects have the potential to produce serious injury or death and yet because it is not
a crime, the nature of the conduct involved may not be chargeable as a crime a crime
either and yet produce these effects;
• It’s effects are potentially long lasting and has the capacity to blight lives of persons
involved in it, whether as the subject of it or as perpetrators;
• It’s characterisation as a crime would have an educative effect, making it clear to those
involved and others, such as bystanders, that it is against the law
15. Points against it being a crime are:
• That it may widen the net of persons being prosecuted to include many people, including
children whose actions are not presently regarded as criminal and will be unnecessarily
criminalised by making bullying an offence;
• It is asserted by some that present criminal sanctions of conduct involving bullying are
sufficient to control it;
• That it would be ineffective to control children’s behaviour having regard to the immunity
of children from prosecution under the age of 10 and limited immunity under 14;
• That the law could be manipulated by unscrupulous persons in order to harass others by
making false allegations of bullying;
7+($/$11$+$1'0$'(/,1()281'$7,21_,148,5<,172:25.3/$&(%8//<,1*
• That the real answer to bullying does not lie in the law but in other means such as
education etc.
16. These are difficult issues and need careful consideration. On balance, we favour definition of
bullying and criminal sanctions, at least from the Commonwealth point of view. We say this
because the use of electronic technology means that distribution of material is to go to a much
wider audience and the effect is therefore more profound. However, we believe there is a strong
argument for criminalising the offence of bullying in any event.
17. As with child pornography and sexting, the offences should be graded depending on intent and
seriousness and penalties should be more severe for adults. Similar considerations should apply
in relation to harassment.
18. We agree that the law is not going to provide all, or even many, of the answers to the problem
presented by bullying. However, it does perform an essential function of setting boundaries to
conduct and indicating that conduct going beyond those boundaries will not be tolerated by
society.
