TLDR
Harassment was widespread among South Australian lawmakers and judges, harming their mental wellbeing and personal lives. Lawmakers faced more severe harassment and were less satisfied with available help.
Summary
This content was automatically synthesized by Credo's AI models directly from the original source text.
AI summaries can make mistakes — double-check important details against the original source.
1 Study Aim
The study examined harassment experienced by South Australian parliamentarians (elected lawmakers) and judicial officers (people serving as judges or magistrates). The authors tested whether the groups differed in harassment types, settings, effects, support, and preferred prevention advice. The research sought to show how harassment affects lawmakers and judges differently.
2 Study Design
The authors distributed an anonymous electronic survey to members of South Australia's parliament and judiciary. They compared responses from the two groups across harassment experiences, personal effects, support sources, and satisfaction. Twenty-eight percent of all invited members responded, and 96% of participants reported at least one type of harassment. The researchers used a questionnaire to compare lawmakers' and judges' experiences.
3 Findings
The study found that parliamentarians reported more serious harassment than judicial officers. Parliamentarians experienced harassment privately and professionally, while judicial officers experienced it almost entirely professionally. Harassment caused substantial psychological harm (damage to mental wellbeing) and social disruption (interference with personal or social life) in both groups. Judicial officers were more satisfied with help received. Most respondents supported advice from a specialised service to reduce future harassment. Harassment seriously affected both groups, and many wanted expert help to prevent it.