THE Government has refused to budge on requests from the Opposition to increase the period for the first review of the anticipated Sexual Harassment Act beyond the current 18 months.

Leader of Government Business in the Senate Senator Kamina Johnson Smith says that while the latest version of the Sexual Harassment Act is not perfect, it cannot be considered a rushed Bill.

Senator Johnson Smith was responding to concerns that the 18-month period between implementation and review of the Act, which also includes a 12-month grace period for employers and heads of institutions to regularise their systems to meet the challenges of the new anti-sexual harassment regime, is way too short..

This followed concerns raised by some Opposition senators at Friday’s Senate debate that, while there is need for an early implementation of the Act, there is no need for a first review of the expected teething issues likely to arise during the early exploratory phase.

The Act is to be reviewed in 18 months after it is implemented, raising concerns both in Parliament and among stakeholders about whether a year-and-half wait for the review, which includes the 12-month grace period for employers/heads of institutions, is sufficient to test its proficiency.

“It is unusually short. That is recognised, but I think that the speakers have to also acknowledge that [though] the Bill is not perfect in its current form, it certainly cannot be described as a rushed Bill because it has passed through three administrations, three ministers and a joint select committee that has really dedicated a lot of time and thought,” Senator Johnson Smith mooted at the start of her opening contribution on Friday.

However, she said that because the idea is so new and touches so many different aspects of questions about lives, the Senate should recognise that a shorter criteria would allow for the Parliament to address even some of those matters which were raised, and are still being raised during debates, as soon as possible.

Among the senators who had reservations on the timing of the first review was Deputy Leader for Opposition Business Senator Donna Scott Mottey, who noted that five pages of amendments were received by members for discussion prior to the start of the sitting on Friday .

Senators spent more than an hour discussing 23 amendments which were prepared by the Government, following the debate in the House of Representatives in July when only 10 amendments were made.

However, Senator Scott Mottley was accommodating and suggested that “if it makes the Bill a better Bill, that is what we want”.

“Many persons today are in celebration that the Bill is now in the Upper House. These are persons who are looking on with a great deal of apprehension…. Because there has been recognition that there was a need to do something about sexual harassment and have it sorted out in the workplace,” Senator Scott Mottley noted.

She also raised the need to establish the tribunal, in the meantime, and the training of human resource personnel to communicate the policy to the public.

“I frankly think that 18 months for a Bill review in these circumstances do not serve us well, and we need a longer time. I ask that it be looked at,” she insisted.

Another Opposition senator, Dr Floyd Morris proposed a “cease and desist” clause with a complaint mechanism, which would be triggered if the complainant taking objection to the harassment feels that the person doing the harassment is failing to discontinue that action.

“We have to make sure that we understand that this is a new season, a new environment that we are entering into, and it is going to require significant resocialisation of both males and females, in terms of how we relate to each other,” Senator Morris said.

He said that he was also concerned about the input of entertainers, whom he suggested could help to drive the culture “in terms of how women are treated, how women are viewed and how we relate to them”.

He said that the entertainers will be needed to play a pivotal role in terms of the cultural shift that will be required.

However, Senator Morris confirmed that he supported any move to stamp out sexual abuse of either males or females, “and I look forward to the public awareness campaign to sensitise the population as to cultural shifts that will be required”.

Senator Johnson Smith, in her response, said that the idea of including a cease and desist mechanism in the amendments could not be considered, “because it perpetuates what is a consistent cycle, that the onus will always be on the victim”.

“This Bill does not intend to remove flirtation, remove the starting up of relationships, et cetera. It just really requires people to respect the concept that we may not want your advances. Respect is big for us, so why can’t respect simply be talked about in this context, as well,” she said.

“Respect my right to not want you to make an advance to me, and respect my right to work in a way where I don’t have to be thinking about that while I am doing my work. Should I have to be thinking about how I manage your desires? You need to sort out yourself,” she said.

“So that is an amendment that I don’t think will be taken on board. The broad language of the Bill does require that the tribunal must consider, or the complaint procedure must consider all the circumstances, which means that they must weight them, too,” she said.

Following the presentations the Senate retreated to the committee stage where it passed the 23 new amendments, including five which are very critical to the operations of the tribunal that is to be created to handle the claims of victims of sexual harassment.

This increased the total amendments to 33, as 10 amendments were already made during the debate in the House of Representatives in July. However, Friday’s amendments resulted from a ministerial review of arguments which flowed from the debate in the House of Representatives in July.