There’s now an odd silence over Australia’s decaying industrial media panorama on the usage of non-disclosure agreements to guard media executives — together with a few of the strongest males in Australian journalism — from allegations of sexual harassment and bullying.
The Australian went exhausting early on claims that various non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) had been signed by feminine employees at 9 Leisure over allegations of misconduct by former head of stories and present affairs Darren Wick — claims 9 has dodged and weaved to evade answering. However Information Corp’s dogged journalists seem to have dropped the problem since then.
Information Corp is well-known for refusing to cowl itself — the goal of a rightly snarky tirade within the Monetary Evaluate at the moment — which prompts the query of whether or not its hacks have been informed to remain schtum on the usage of NDAs lest their use by Information Corp to guard its male executives, or former executives, come to gentle.
Using non-disclosure agreements isn’t merely to cowl up misconduct, after all — their use is a reputable observe within the company world, together with the media. However the abuse of NDAs as a mechanism to successfully gag victims of sexual harassment or bullying by senior executives is widespread sufficient to immediate the Victorian authorities to undertake in 2022 to ban their use in sexual harassment instances. The US Congress and the Biden administration handed the Converse Out Act in 2022 to ban the judicial enforceability of NDAs in sexual harassment and sexual assault instances, and a ban on such use of NDAs has additionally been proposed by a parliamentary committee within the UK. Some firms have voluntarily banned the usage of NDAs in sexual harassment instances. Nonetheless, such bans are additionally opposed by some victims of sexual harassment.
Crikey requested each main Australian media firm — 9 Leisure, Seven, Guardian Australia, Community Ten, ARN, SCA and Information Corp — in addition to the ABC and SBS, about their use of NDAs in relation to office misconduct, what number of they had been celebration to over the previous 5 years, and whether or not they noticed a pressure between the usage of NDAs and the position of journalism and newsrooms.
The shortage of replies, even after repeated promptings, was outstanding.
9, to offer it credit score, replied — albeit with extra weasel phrases. A spokesperson for 9 stated it was “not 9 coverage to require staff to signal NDAs the place they’ve made complaints about office conduct”, including “as is widespread in Australian workplaces, some staff will agree [to] confidentiality and mutual non-disparagement clauses as a part of their exit preparations”.
No different industrial media firm answered our questions. We expect it’s truthful to imagine that which means they’ve used NDAs within the decision of sexual harassment, bullying and assault instances — although readers will make up their very own minds.
The ABC refused to remark and SBS didn’t reply. We expect this additionally means the nationwide broadcasters have used NDAs in the same method — and maybe spent taxpayer {dollars} doing so. Taxpayers are, we propose, entitled to know if the broadcasters are spending cash in pursuit of NDAs, and probably their enforcement. Crikey is aware of of at the least one case the place a departing nationwide broadcaster journalist was requested to signal an NDA, regardless of their departure being a part of a redundancy spherical and unrelated to any claims of misconduct.
As for our half, full disclosure: we haven’t used them. Will Hayward, CEO of Non-public Media, which publishes Crikey, says the corporate is “not celebration to any office conduct NDAs during the last 5 years”, and the corporate was “not conscious of any NDAs with former employees at any level in our historical past”.
To repeat a degree made beforehand, it’s not possible to be a reputable media firm that purports to carry the highly effective to account and to additionally gag employees who’ve alleged harassment or bullying so as to shield highly effective executives. Our greatest media firms ought to comply with Telstra’s lead and ban their misuse. However judging by their non-response, they don’t even assume there’s an issue.
Ought to media firms be utilizing NDAs to silence staff within the occasion of office misconduct? Tell us your ideas by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please embrace your full title to be thought of for publication. We reserve the correct to edit for size and readability.
