Combatting Tech-Facilitated Sexual Harassment

Tech has changed almost everything about how we work. Unfortunately, it has also changed how some people choose to harass, intimidate, and undermine others. But two things have remained the same: the underlying behaviour of perpetrators, and the impact their behaviour has on victim-survivors.

When I spoke at Diversity Council Australia’s (DCA) recent webinar on Combatting Tech-Facilitated Sexual Harassment, this was what struck me most. The power plays, the intimidation, the unwanted sexual attention. None of which is new. Sexual harassment has been unlawful for decades. We know what it is. We know it’s wrong. We know it causes harm.

The ANROWS research presented by Carolyn Wilkes from the eSafety Commission showed that one in seven Australian adults admitted to engaging in workplace tech-facilitated sexual harassment. These are people who admitted it. The actual numbers are likely higher.

One of the most distressing aspects of tech-facilitated harassment is how relentless it can feel. Digital harassment follows people long after they’ve logged off for the day. It shows up through messaging apps, work platforms, social media, even screens shared during meetings. Workers describe feeling watched, unsafe, humiliated, or constantly on alert. It erodes trust in colleagues and in the organisation’s ability to keep them safe.

The webinar also made something else clear: this harm isn’t experienced uniformly. Tech-facilitated harassment disproportionately affects younger workers, women, LGBTQIA+ workers, First Nations people, migrant workers, and workers with disability. When you look at who is targeted most, you see the same patterns that have always shaped workplace inequality. Technology has quite simply given perpetrators more ways to reach the people already most at risk. 

Something else that came through strongly in the discussion was the lack of consequences for perpetrators. The gap between the impact on victim-survivors and the accountability applied to perpetrators is exactly where employers need to step up, and where the law now requires them to.

One thing employers often misunderstand is that their legal obligations don’t stop at 5:00pm and they don’t end at the office door. The lines between work and personal life have blurred, and the law has caught up to that reality. Under the Sex Discrimination Act, sexual harassment in connection with work is unlawful, and courts interpret that phrase broadly for a reason. If a work relationship exists, the behaviour may be unlawful whether it happens in the workplace, at a function, or through a midnight message.

The Respect@Work amendments raised the bar again. Employers have a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate sexual harassment as far as possible. This is a fundamental shift from reactive to proactive responsibility. Employers can’t just respond anymore. They have to prevent it.

The Fair Work Act also prohibits sexual harassment in connection with work. State and territory laws also provide protection. And importantly, psychological harm from harassment is now recognised under workplace health and safety laws.  

There’s another protection that’s particularly relevant here: the right to disconnect. This became law last year for large businesses and this year for small businesses, and I really want people to understand how significant it is. Workers have the right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to work-related matters outside of work hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable. In the context of tech-facilitated harassment, this law establishes clear boundaries in spaces where perpetrators have been exploiting the lack of them.

The legal framework has become increasingly comprehensive.

While most workplaces have policies and training, we still hear from workers who say these frameworks aren’t consistently understood or applied in ways that actually protect them. It shows us that many employers and workers still don’t fully understand responsibilities and rights. There’s a real education gap here. Awareness is not the same as understanding, and understanding does not always lead to action.

So, cases continue to come through our doors at JobWatch. People often ask me about the case studies we share, with a sort of disbelief: surely these things don’t happen? Unfortunately, they do. That’s exactly why we’re still having this conversation.

After more than 25 years in this field, I know that change is possible. The legal framework is stronger than it’s ever been. We have research showing us the scale of the problem. We have guidance from organisations like eSafety and Safe Work Australia on what to do about it. What we need now is action. We need employers to take their positive duty seriously.