Talk:2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two articles about this very subject

I created an article at Parliament House rape allegations, but unbeknownst to me at the time this article (2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals) already existed. I believe mine is more detailed and better sourced, although it neglects to mention the new allegations about the 1986 rape, perhaps we could merge the two/combine the content to crate one page? Ashton 29 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I support the idea that they be merged. There are going to be ongoing consequences but at this stage it is WP:CRYSTAL to guess what they will be and how far-reaching. There is also a report into sexual harassment in SA parliament landed this week, but that needs to stay a separate topic although some outcomes might be similar. I prefer that this title has "2021", but not sure if "scandals", "allegations" or some other noun belongs at the end of the title of a merged article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Given an emergence of accusations of older assaults on women who now feel powerful enough to speak out (for example the one in SA Parliament), the article title probably should reflect that? What about taking example from something similar that happened in the UK: the 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. So perhaps something like "Australian Parliament sexual assault scandals". Given the weight of the crime, the fact that it seems to grow bigger or more detailed daily, as well as the ongoing nature of the investigation/charges, the article is only going to grow more detailed and topical. Also we must consider more victims may speak out leading to new allegations.Ashton 29 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I support, apologies Ashton29 I did not realise this article already existed. I prefer the title 2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals scandal I think is a more apt description than simply allegation which would be an inappropriate title given we know Brittany Higgins was indeed raped in the Parliament, the accused is what is alleged not the rape itself.

EDIT. I think the use of allegation within the title is appropriate since we are dealing with more than one case, perhaps 2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals and allegations? Anyone have a better title?--Caltraser5 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I couldn't find yours either. Wikipedia has a habit of only featuring heavily European or American news on its Main Page, or whatever is making the most buzz in either places, and when I searched for Parliament House rape case, it yielded no results. I had to go into WikiProject Australia to find your article. I think within the next few days this article might be featured on Wiki's Main Page ITN section, given its significance here.Ashton 29 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support as per Scott Davis, merge to article with 2021 in the title, but happy to discuss alternatives. With respect Caltraser5 we don't know she was raped. What we know is that Brittany Higgins says that she was raped and that there are numerous reliable sources that are accepting her account as being credible. I am not aware of any reliable source that is sufficiently confident to even publish the accused's name. In any event WP:BLP applies such that they remain allegations for the time being. --Find bruce (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Two alleged rapes that are thirty years apart, took place in different cities and have no overlap in involved parties. The only real connection is that they went public at the same time. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

They are separate alleged crimes, by different people, none of which would meet the notability requirements for an article about them. They have combined to become a political and workplace issue that is notable enough for one article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly ScottDavis. It is hard to see this 1988 rape becoming public knowledge had it not been for Higgins coming forward. It's a ripple effect, as I said, just like the Weinstein effect in the United States. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily - the 1988 alleged victim had contacted the SA Police early in 2020, and clearly had written this "dossier" before she died in June. Whether the friends who sent it to several members and senators were influenced by the Higgins allegations is unknown. My support for merging these articles is that it is combining into a single "political crisis". --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what I would like to see too: a combining into one crisis. Each case does concern sexual assault in the Australian Parliament, after all, so there's a common thread. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree. The Weinstein effect created a multinational movement and brought forward hundreds of cases. This is one case that may have caused a second to go public. We should have one article for the Higgins allegation (it comfortably meets GNG) and the '88 case should be covered at Christian Porter. RaiderAspect (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, RaiderAspect, are you arguing that these two articles (2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals and Parliament House rape allegations) should both continue to exist separately, or are you foreshadowing a different merge or deletion discussion instead of this proposed merge? The aspects that directly relate to him are already being covered in Christian Porter now that we know it was him who was accused. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Valid question Scott Davis, I hadn't thought much about how to get there. Think my preferred way forward would be delete this article as a duplicate and use Parliament House rape allegations for the Higgins case. The '88 case can get spun out from Porter into a new article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with much of what RaiderAspect has said. The case involving Higgins has no correlation with that concerning Porter other than the stories emerging publicly in the same time frame and it is wrong to lump them together. Parliament House rape allegations about the Higgins story should be kept whereas the Porter allegations would be best to remain in the Christian Porter article for the timebeing as the majority of WP:EVENTCRIT remains to be seen. CalDoesIt (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. At its heart this a scandal about the culture at Parliament House. Although the two incidents are unrelated, they are part of a singular debate. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support but maybe rename (now leaning to oppose - cases are too different) - in the case of both alleged perpetrators (the Liberal staffer, and Christian Porter), there are wider allegations about sexual harassment and (in the case of Porter) sexist behaviour; as well as issues of the culture in parliament in general. There is also a story brewing about sexual harassment in the South Australian parliament.[1] I am not sure what to rename it, but that should be considered. Adpete (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support but only on the basis that the title of the article be "allegations", not "scandals". That the allegation against Porter is no more than an allegation is clear from his media conference, during which it was put to Porter that the deceased had alleged that in January 1988 he and the deceased danced at the Hard Rock Cafe and then he raped her. As a quick google search or visit to the Wikipedia article would have confirmed, that simply cannot have happened - Sydney did not even have a Hard Rock Cafe until 1989. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't engage in original research. --Find bruce (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with publishing original research on a talk page. It would be highly defamatory to Porter to use the word "scandal" as part of the title of an article describing the allegations that have been made against him when some very simple original research makes clear that those allegations are just not credible. It's also becoming clearer and clearer that even the deceased knew she had serious mental health issues that made her mind play tricks on her. She just wasn't well enough to be giving evidence in support of a prosecution. She even told the police at her first interview with them that she suffered from "dissociation". It's also no wonder that she decided, in the end, not to pursue her allegations. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are not here to give personal opinion about the credibility of the woman's complaint. We are here to discuss the structure of an article detailing Higgins' rape and perhaps a culture in Parliament House that has enabled this crime, or at the very least prevented adequate handling of the matter. It would be pretty naive to see Porter's allegations separated from Higgins, yes they are unrelated incidents but they both tie back to Australian politics. Every news article I've seen since Porter went public with his statement has mentioned both Higgins and the woman from 1988 together, as a recurring theme or a common background of context. Timing is everything. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that WP:OR, but I agree that "rape scandals" is a completely inappropriate title, when it not certain that Porter committed rape or that it is a scandal. Before going any further I think this needs to rename to 2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations - the current title is bordering on a WP:BLP violation. Adpete (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ashton 29: You mean alleged crimes. Nobody has even been charged in response to any of the allegations, let alone convicted. @Adpete: is correct in saying that the current title is bordering on a WP:BLP violation. As for original research, WP:OR begins with "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" (my emphasis, ie articles, not talk pages). Bahnfrend (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Scandals or allegations

The title of this article is a different question to whether the articles should be merged. There are comments above suggesting scandal implies some sort of judgment of guilt, but I don't think it has that definition of connotation at all. Scandal currently says A scandal can be broadly defined as the strong social reactions of outrage, anger, or surprise, when accusations or rumours circulate or appear for some reason, regarding a person or persons who are perceived to have transgressed in some way. ... The basis of a scandal may be factual or false, or a combination of both. To me that accurately fits the the current situation, its a scandal because of the strong reactions, not because the allegations are true or false. Allegations also fits, but misses the element of strong reactions to those allegations. --Find bruce (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I just asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Rename_while_a_merge_discussion_is_in_progress?_BLP_issues and got the opposite opinion, and was even told to rename immediately, for WP:BLP reasons. Also the Cambridge Dictionary says "(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval", with all its examples strongly suggesting it is true.[2] I think we should err on the side of caution here: I think at least to many people, "rape scandals" implies both rapes happened. Adpete (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly googling "Christian Porter rape scandal" gives plenty of news source hits, but the word "scandal" does not seem to be prominent. Adpete (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, on further reading, that Wikipedia definition Scandal of relies on a self-published source (see footnote 1 at bottom of that page), so needs to be discounted. Instead, I checked 3 online dictionaries from real dictionary publishers (not a selective choice, just the first 3 to come on googling "scandal meaning"), and all of them imply an actual event:

"A scandal is a situation or event that is thought to be shocking and immoral and that everyone knows about." - Collins

"a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it" - Merriam-Webster

"(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval" - Cambridge

So I am still convinced that a rename is required. Adpete (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As I have said below, I accept having the word changed (after typing that, "controversy" is another possibility), but I think the events that have caused scandal in 2021 are not so much the (alleged) rapes in 1988 and 2019, but the announcements, accusations and the description of "toxic culture". --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, that it is much more than allegations, it is also the fall-out (and hopefully, change). But still "rape scandals" seems wrong to me. But I am not sure what else... I guess "2021 Australian Parliament rape allegation scandals" is too wordy? Adpete (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we wrap these discussions up?

I count more preferences to merge the two articles, but not unanimous. This article has developed faster than the later started one. Can the opposing editors (@RaiderAspect, CalDoesIt, and Adpete) stand aside to allow Parliament House rape allegations to be merged into 2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals then have the result renamed to 2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations to address the use of the word scandal? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I still weakly oppose, but happy to let it happen. I am still trying to think of the best title at this stage! Adpete (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing a consensus to merge, opposition to scandals, no opposition to allegations, so agree the consensus appears to be as Scott Davis has suggested to merge & rename. --Find bruce (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename done. I have also moved a bit of material from Christian Porter to here. Adpete (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have dumped the content from the other article to this one, and will spend some time starting to clean up tonight. I intend to remove the {{|tl|Work in progress}} tag when I go to bed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Four Corners program

Should the article mention the Four Corners episode "Inside the Canberra Bubble"? It's a significant and relevant precursor to the allegations - it should be mentioned at least somewhere on the page. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it if it fits somewhere. I haven't watched it (yet), so don't know how it ties in. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

My opinion: only if WP:Reliable Sources make the connection. There may be some, but most/all sources I have read have said this has started with Brittany Higgins going public. Adpete (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The ABC website has several articles by Louise Milligan that assert the link, but she is not independent as the Four Corners story was hers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the transcript now, and don't see it fit here. It clearly fits on Christian Porter and is already referenced there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Shorten's Rape Allegation

Why is Bill Shorten's Rape allegation not receiving identical article coverage? Honestyisbest (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite different. Shorten's accuser was alive and interviewed by police, who found "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction". WWGB (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the real answer is: Wikipedia does not do WP:Original Research, it merely documents the political and media fall-out, which is far greater in these 2021 revelations. That said, Shorten's case has been in the news a lot lately, and I will probably add something soon. Adpete (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that 2021 March 4 Justice be merged into this article. I am not seeing evidence that the march will be notable in (say) a years' time, and this article is not especially long so there is plenty of room. Also having two separate articles risks a WP:CFORK happening. Adpete (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The march was a consequence of the rape allegations, and the content can fit easily into that main article. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - firstly, its too soon to narrowly define the march as purely a reaction to the rape allegations. The organising body has not specified the allegations in their public petition and instead call for more funding to combat sex discrimination and for the implementation of 55 recommendations from the Australian Human Rights Commission report on the issue. From an editor standpoint, this means that the stated purpose of the march is broader than the specific Canberra incidents. Finally, the rape allegations page will be at risk of violating WP:Coatrack as disperate events and issues are tied to a single allegation incident. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: This was an important event in its own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't have an account on Wikipedia but I do wish to add that the Women's March 4 Justice was/is a significant event in its own right. 2001:8003:D03B:1A00:6593:2C56:9A3B:8EB7 (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've withdrawn the proposal. Adpete (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Labor Allegations?

This piece claims the 2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations are 2 allegations causing controversy for the Liberal-National Morrison Government, but what of the Labor allegations? Senator Sarah Henderson reported that a Federal Labor Member of Parliament has been reported to federal police for alleged rape. Female Labor staffers have levelled accusations of gross sexual abuse and sexual assault against their male colleagues and politicians. Should these not be given similar coverage? 人族 (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Did they arise in2021? If not, they do not belong in this article. WWGB (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the ones that have been in the news recently should be in the article, because it is all part of the fallout which began with Ms. Higgins coming forward. Adpete (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is just the latest article I've seen: https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/labor-staffers-furious-facebook-posts-about-treatment-of-women/news-story/a39a2049f992edbef9a2d1804590f0e2

And here's a piece about the Labor rape accusation referred to police: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/28/liberal-senator-refers-allegation-against-unnamed-labor-politician-to-afp

As it stands the Wikipedia article reads as an anti-Liberal piece. While the Higgins case may have been the start of things, news articles show Labor is at the very least an equal offender. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the news.com.au article hints at something to add, but I can't distil anything more concrete than "some people say it is just as bad in the Labor Party". Perhaps it works in 2021 March 4 Justice? It's not clear the Guardian article is not about the Shorten accusation investigated and dropped by the police a few years ago. If it's about something new, then it will come out soon enough. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree they should go in, but I do not think 2021 March 4 Justice is the correct place; because the big issue is the allegations and the workplace culture; the march was just one reaction to these things. But the news.com.au story, while about some (alleged) very horrible behaviour towards women, is not about rape. That is one of the reasons I would like this article to be renamed - see the section below. Adpete (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ScoMo box on the right

Can we remove that box from the article? This isn't directly about Scott Morrison (at least not yet), so the big box with his photo seems WP:UNDUE weight to me. I also notice the box is not included in Sports rorts affair (2020), 2019–20 Australian bushfire season or COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, despite those articles all appearing in that box. p.s. It would be appropriate if it was one of those less prominent templates that appears at the bottom of articles, and I've got to question the move from using those templates, to the big boxes with the photo, for Australian PMs. Adpete (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. The change is easy - simple deletion of a template reference.

Since this controversy has nothing to do with Morrison it is inappropriate to feature him. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename (again) - replace "rape" with "sexual"?

I think the article needs another rename. The issue is broadening to include multiple allegations like those against Craig Kelly's head staffer,[3] the "swinging dicks",[4] sexual harassment in the Labor party,[5] and possibly more. So I think we should remove "rape" from the title, so that the broader sexual allegations can be included. I suggest 2021 Australian Parliament sexual allegations but maybe someone has a better idea. Adpete (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How about 2021 Australian Parliament Sexual Assault and Harassment Allegations? It's something of a spectrum and all should be covered. The assault allegations each get their own section - Higgins', the 1988 allegation, the Labor allegation, with the harassment allegations (which include assault allegations) having a large section of its own? The intro paragraph needs a massive rewrite however. I suggest:

The 2021 Australian Parliament Sexual Assault and Harassment Allegations began with two assault allegations raised in February 2021 which caused controversy for the Liberal-National Morrison Government, but soon became whole of Parliament with the revelation of allegations of assault and widespread harassment amidst the opposition Labor party. These allegations not only sparked further discussions over workplace culture, systemic misogyny and victim blaming, but also discussions of gender differences and victim status in crime statistics. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

More and more stuff keeps coming out, and I think a rename is urgently needed. This ABC article [6] calls it "allegations of rape, misogyny and sexism in Parliament". I think your suggested title 2021 Australian Parliament Sexual Assault and Harassment Allegations is pretty good, and I will rename the article in the next day or so if there are no objections. Adpete (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Too wordy, let’s come up with a better name here first. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What about my original suggestion of replacing "rape" with "sexual", i.e. 2021 Australian Parliament sexual allegations ? Adpete (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

To get an idea of scope, what other specific events should be added? There's obviously the masturbation over the desk of an unnamed female MP. Others? Also, the heading should include Parliament House, since Parliament refers solely to the legislators. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sexual allegations" is a very strange thing to say, I'd be kind of confused reading that as to what it means. "Sexual assault and harassment" is probably better. Volteer1 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

How does the Liberal wanker and the prostitutes in the prayer room constitute "assault or harassment"? The emerging issues are much broader than those two terms. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also the allegations of sexual harassment in Labor [7]. As for the name, I agree "Parliament House" (or even "Government") is preferable to "Parliament". Maybe we should be looking for general descriptions in secondary sources. So e.g. this ABC article says "sexual misconduct in the building" (i.e. Parliament House) [8]. This news.com.au one says "sex and rape scandals surrounding Parliament House" [9]. Perhaps some variant of 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations ? Adpete (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's good! I think we are getting there. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks to be the winner. Volteer1 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

NSW Parliament

I just saw the tag. I agree it should be deleted. I might change my mind if had federal ramifications (like the Eric Abetz one might, though a whole section is WP:UNDUE weight), but at the moment, no. Adpete (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The alleged incident is already covered in Johnsen's article, which is probably sufficient for now. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being covered in the appropriate place(s). I just think it's too far off topic here. Adpete (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)