Part 4: Raising, reporting, and responding to harmful behaviour

A safe and respectful New Zealand Defence Force: First monitoring report.

4.1
A safe, respectful, and inclusive environment is one where personnel can raise concerns and trust that those in authority will act on them appropriately. Organisations need to create mechanisms that enable this.⁵⁰

4.2
Power is not equally distributed in NZDF, which can make speaking up difficult for some. If reports are dealt with promptly and appropriately, people are more likely to raise and report issues. They are also more likely to act when they see harmful behaviour occurring.

4.3
This Part sets out the data we collected that describes the experiences of personnel when they raise issues and report harmful behaviour.

The outcome and impacts we expect to see over time

4.4
The outcome area we are assessing in this part is "NZDF personnel work in environments where harmful behaviour can be raised and reported then dealt with safely and fairly".

4.5
We identified five impacts that we expect to see if NZDF is likely to achieve this outcome:

NZDF personnel understand how to raise and report incidents.
NZDF personnel feel able to speak up about harmful behaviour.
NZDF personnel reporting harmful behaviour are satisfied with the process and do not experience negative repercussions from reporting.
NZDF personnel trust that peers will respond to harmful behaviour appropriately.
NZDF personnel trust that leaders will respond to harmful behaviour appropriately.

Our assessment of progress

4.6
Based on the data we collected, our overall assessment is that NZDF has not yet created an environment where harmful behaviour can be raised and reported, and dealt with safely and fairly. Getting this right is difficult. However, this is fundamental to supporting personnel affected by harmful behaviour and preventing further harm.

4.7
Most personnel feel that they work in environments where it is safe to raise and report harmful behaviour. Motivated and skilled leaders who set clear behavioural expectations, and a wider context where personnel feel valued and listened to, contribute to creating this environment. However, this is not the experience for all personnel.

4.8
NZDF has a range of formal and informal ways for raising and reporting harmful behaviour. Most NZDF personnel understand how to do this. However, the avenues for reporting unwanted sexual activity are clearer than those for reporting inappropriate sexual behaviour or bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.9
Although most survey respondents said they feel safe to report, most personnel who experience harmful behaviour do not report it.

4.10
Personnel who experience harmful behaviour often fear repercussions or do not trust that anything will be done. Those who witness harmful behaviour do not always report it for the same reasons.

4.11
Those with lower trust in the systems and processes for reporting harmful behaviour often feel that accountability for senior personnel who engage in harmful behaviour is lacking. This is because they do not see harmful behaviour being addressed adequately, or feel that senior personnel do not face appropriate consequences.

4.12
Leaders are not always creating environments where personnel feel comfortable to call out behaviour when they see it happening to others or raise concerns with leaders. This means that responsibility for raising issues or reporting harmful behaviour still primarily falls on those directly affected by it.

4.13
NZDF has a range of support services that allow personnel to access help when they want to report harmful behaviour. These services can help personnel navigate processes that can be complex and difficult.

4.14
However, satisfaction with reporting processes and systems is low. Personnel who experience harmful behaviour often do not see behavioural change after the harmful behaviour had been reported and dealt with. This contributes to a sense that there are not adequate consequences, which undermines trust in the systems.

4.15
Our assessment of this outcome is based on findings from the five impacts described in paragraph 4.5.

Impact area 1: NZDF personnel understand how to raise and report incidents

4.16
All personnel need to be aware of the ways that they can raise issues and report harmful behaviour. This is critical for creating an environment that allows harmful behaviour to be identified and addressed, and that properly supports personnel.

4.17
Personnel can use a range of formal and informal mechanisms to raise or report incidents of harmful behaviour.

4.18
Uniformed and civilian personnel can go to a SAPRA when they have experienced any form of harmful sexual behaviour. SAPRAs can support them to make a formal report (through the chain of command as part of an unrestricted disclosure) or help them access confidential support (through a restricted disclosure). Personnel can also report through their chain of command, which will trigger an investigation.

4.19
There are two complaints processes uniformed personnel can use to raise a complaint – a complaints system for bullying, harassment, and discrimination (under Defence Force Order Three (Part 5)),⁵¹ and a formal administrative complaints system (under Defence Force Order Three and section 49 of the Defence Act 1990).⁵² The former can be used only for complaints of bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.20
Civilian personnel can also make complaints of bullying, harassment, and discrimination under Defence Force Order Three (Part 5). They can also lodge a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

4.21
Uniformed and civilian personnel who have experienced criminal behaviour can report it to the New Zealand Police. They can also make complaints to the Human Rights Commission if they feel they have been unlawfully discriminated against.

4.22
In this impact area, we look at whether personnel understand how to raise concerns and report different types of harmful behaviour.

Main findings for impact 1

4.23
Personnel had a good knowledge of the different ways they could raise concerns or report harmful behaviour. However, civilian personnel had a more limited understanding of how to report harmful behaviour than uniformed personnel.

4.24
Personnel understood the processes for reporting and getting help when they experienced unwanted sexual activity, but they were sometimes less sure how to do this when they experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour. They did not always understand that in these situations they could talk to a SAPRA, for example.

4.25
Some expressed concerns about the confidentiality of reporting processes and were not always aware of the confidential reporting and support options available.

Detailed findings for impact area 1

Personnel were generally aware of the processes for reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour

4.26
Results from our survey and interviews showed that most personnel had some understanding of how to report harmful sexual behaviour.

4.27
We asked survey respondents about the extent of their awareness of different types of support and the processes for reporting harmful behaviour in the workplace (see Figure 17).

Figure 17
Awareness of the support and reporting processes for harmful behaviours

Type of support or process	Very aware	Somewhat aware	Not aware	Total respondents
SAPRA	67.7%	29.0%	3.3%	6078
Access to social workers on base	60.1%	32.2%	7.7%	6036
The process for reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour	47.1%	46.5%	6.4%	6070
The process for making complaints of bullying, harassment, and discrimination	48.4%	44.8%	6.8%	6074
How to access confidential support for sexual harm	44.3%	44.1%	11.7%	6070
How to access confidential external support for sexual harm (such as the Safe to Talk helpline)	38.5%	46.7%	14.8%	6072

Note: Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.

4.28
Most survey respondents (93.6%) were very aware or somewhat aware of the processes to report inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour. Only 6.4% of survey respondents were not aware of the processes to report inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour.

4.29
In 2016, NZDF recruited SAPRAs to provide a pathway to raise issues outside the chain of command and provide confidential support. Survey respondents had a high awareness of SAPRAs. More than 95% (96.7%) of survey respondents said that they were very aware or somewhat aware of them.

4.30
In our interviews, personnel frequently identified a SAPRA as the first person to contact, particularly after incidents of unwanted sexual activity. However, in our interviews, we found that personnel's depth of understanding about this pathway for reporting varied.

4.31
Some personnel had a clear understanding because they had recently completed training, such as initial training or promotions courses. Others said it was frequently discussed at their unit or team meetings, and referred to regular visits from SAPRAs. Regular reminders of these processes appeared to help build awareness and understanding.

Civilian personnel and those in locations where SAPRAs were less visible had more limited understanding of how to report harmful sexual behaviour

4.32
Although awareness of how to report inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour was generally high, some personnel had less awareness.

4.33
Compared to uniformed personnel, civilian personnel had a more limited understanding and awareness of the processes for reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour. For example, 7.7% of civilian personnel did not know about SAPRAs (compared to 1.6% of uniformed personnel).

4.34
This was also reflected in interviews with civilian personnel, who rarely identified SAPRAs as an avenue for reporting harmful sexual behaviour. We interviewed several civilian women who had experienced harmful sexual behaviour and were not aware of the existence of SAPRAs (or other support services).

4.35
Although some uniformed personnel talked about receiving frequent information about the different ways of reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour, this was not the case for civilian personnel. This likely contributes to their lower awareness.

4.36
Our survey did not show any significant differences between the services about understanding the process for reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour or awareness of the SAPRAs. However, some differences were evident in our interviews.

4.37
The Papakura Military Camp did not have a permanent SAPRA, and personnel who worked at that camp spoke less about the SAPRAs. Navy personnel also spoke about the SAPRAs (and other support services, such as social workers) less frequently. This could be because SAPRAs are based on shore, and many Navy personnel spend significant periods at sea. Visibility of specialist support staff appeared to be an important factor in encouraging awareness of these reporting pathways (see paragraphs 5.71-5.73).

NZDF personnel tended to think SAPRAs only provide support after experiences of unwanted sexual activity

4.38
The role of a SAPRA is to provide advice and support to personnel who have experienced all kinds of harmful sexual behaviours, from inappropriate sexual behaviours to unwanted sexual activity.

4.39
It was apparent from our interviews that some personnel saw SAPRAs as an available support avenue for instances of unwanted sexual activity but not for inappropriate sexual behaviour (particularly sexualised comments, gossip, or unwanted contact of a non-criminal nature).

NZDF personnel were not always aware of the confidential reporting and support options that are available

4.40
Uniformed personnel were sometimes concerned about confidentiality, which affected how likely they were to report harmful behaviour (see paragraph 5.35). SAPRAs can provide confidential support for sexual harm. There are also external avenues available for this, such as counselling.

4.41
Personnel did not always know that this confidential support for sexual harm was available. Our survey results indicated:

11.7% of respondents did not know how to access confidential support; and
14.8% of respondents did not know how to access external confidential support.

4.42
Some personnel we interviewed did not fully understand the difference between restricted and unrestricted reporting avenues, or that they could go to SAPRAs for confidential support where they could choose what actions to take. This affected how likely they were to access SAPRA support.

Personnel were generally aware of the processes for making complaints about bullying, harassment, and discrimination

4.43
Most personnel had some understanding of how to make complaints about bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Our survey indicated that 93.2% of respondents had at least some knowledge about the processes for reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination. However, 6.8% were not aware of the processes for making complaints about bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.44
Personnel can go to social workers for support when they have experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Most (92.3%) survey respondents were very aware or somewhat aware of social workers on base. However, 17.3% of civilian personnel who responded to our survey did not know about the presence of social workers.

4.45
Awareness of the options available to get support in dealing with bullying, harassment, and discrimination was high. However, it was evident in our interviews that personnel do not always have a clear understanding of how the reporting process works.

4.46
Many personnel we spoke to said that they understood what to do, but their explanations were not consistent. Most understood that reporting harmful behaviour required working through the chain of command. Personnel variously mentioned social workers, psychologists, chaplains, and Anti-Harassment Advisors as places they could go.

4.47
The role of Anti-Harassment Advisors seemed the least well understood. Many personnel we interviewed did not mention them. Those who did were mostly from the Navy.

Impact area 2: NZDF personnel feel able to speak up about harmful behaviour

4.48
To speak up about harmful behaviour, personnel need to feel that they work in an environment where it is safe to do so.

4.49
In this impact area, we look at whether personnel feel safe speaking up about harmful behaviour and what affects their perceptions of safety.

Main findings for impact area 2

4.50
Most personnel felt safe to report harmful behaviour. In our survey:

82.9% of respondents said that they would feel safe reporting harmful sexual behaviour, irrespective of the rank of the person committing the harmful behaviour; and
78.1% of respondents said that they would feel safe reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.51
Although most personnel said they would feel safe to report harmful behaviour, most incidents of harmful behaviour were not reported to someone in authority. A range of barriers existed that undermined trust in reporting processes.

4.52
A fear of repercussions and lack of trust in reporting systems continued to be barriers to some personnel speaking up about harmful behaviour. These were most pronounced when it was senior personnel who engage in harmful behaviour.

4.53
A lack of trust in reporting systems often arose when personnel had seen harmful behaviour that was not dealt with properly in the past. Many personnel had seen various forms of harmful behaviour misunderstood, ignored, or diminished. Therefore, they did not trust that those in authority would deal with their complaints appropriately.

4.54
Women, especially junior women, felt less safe to report harmful behaviour than men. This means that the environment is not yet conducive for those most likely to be affected by harmful behaviour to report it.

4.55
Some environments are more conducive to raising and reporting instances of harmful behaviour than others. Personnel felt more able to speak up in environments that had:

clear expectations for appropriate behaviour;
leaders who acted on harmful behaviour;
clear support for personnel voicing their opinions and concerns; and
reporting avenues that personnel trust.

Detailed findings for impact area 2

How safe do personnel feel reporting harmful behaviour?

Most NZDF personnel said they would feel safe reporting harmful behaviour

4.56
We asked respondents whether they would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank (see Figure 18).

Figure 18
Perception of safety to report inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour

Statement	Sentiment	All	Women	Men
I would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank	Strongly agree	50.2%	38.0%	54.9%
	Agree	32.7%	34.9%	32.0%
	Neutral	10.2%	14.5%	8.3%
	Disagree	4.5%	8.2%	3.1%
	Strongly disagree	2.5%	4.3%	1.5%
	Total respondents	6067	1620	4325

Note: Totals of women and men respondents will not add up to total respondents because some survey respondents did not specify gender and some respondents identified as another gender. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.

4.57
Most (82.9%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank.

4.58
The rates were similar, although slightly lower, for bullying, harassment, and discrimination (see Figure 19). Most respondents (78.1%) either strongly agreed or agreed that they would feel safe reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination by someone, regardless of their rank.

Figure 19
Perception of safety to report bullying, harassment, and discrimination

Statement	Sentiment	All	Women	Men
I would feel safe reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination by someone, regardless of their rank	Strongly agree	44.8%	33.3%	49.5%
	Agree	33.3%	34.0%	33.4%
	Neutral	11.7%	16.7%	9.5%
	Disagree	6.2%	10.4%	4.5%
	Strongly disagree	4.0%	5.6%	3.1%
	Total respondents	6060	1614	4324

Women said they would feel less safe reporting harmful behaviour than men

4.59
Women, especially junior uniformed women, were less likely to say they would feel safe reporting both inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour and bullying, harassment, and discrimination than men. In our survey:

72.9% of women said that they would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank (compared to 86.9% of men);
63.1% of junior uniformed women said that they would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank (compared to 84.7% of junior uniformed men);
79.3% of senior uniformed women said that they would feel safe reporting inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour by someone, regardless of their rank (compared to 91.2% of senior uniformed men);
67.3% of women respondents said that they would feel safe reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination by someone, regardless of their rank (compared to 82.9% for men). For junior uniformed women, this rate was 61%, compared to 81.2% for junior uniformed men.

4.60
These results reflected what we heard in our interviews. Personnel expressed a range of views about how safe they felt raising and reporting harmful behaviour they experience or witness.

4.61
Those who had seen NZDF deal with harmful behaviour poorly in the past (either in the way that leaders had dealt with it or how the complaints and disciplinary system worked) had less trust and felt less likely to raise issues in the future.

4.62
Conversely, some who either had not seen any harmful behaviour occur or had seen issues dealt with well (such as being taken seriously by leaders) had more trust.

What do NZDF personnel do when they experience harmful behaviour?

4.63
Although survey responses showed a high level of trust in reporting processes overall, this did not always mean that those who experienced harmful behaviour reported it. Personnel often did not report unwanted sexual activity, inappropriate sexual behaviour, or bullying, harassment, and discrimination to someone in authority.

Most unwanted sexual activity experienced is not reported to someone in authority

4.64
It is common for people who have experienced unwanted sexual activity to not report it.⁵³

4.65
We asked survey respondents who said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity whether they or someone else reported it to authorities. One-third of respondents said that it had been reported to authorities. Of these respondents:

more than half (56.3%) reported it to their military or civilian supervisor; and
half (50%) reported it to the military or civilian police.⁵⁴

4.66
We asked survey respondents who had reported unwanted sexual activity whether the incident went to summary trial or court martial. In most instances (91.5%), respondents said that the incident had not.

Action is not always taken when someone experiences inappropriate sexual behaviour

4.67
We asked survey respondents who said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months what actions they or somebody else had taken in response (see Figure 20).

Figure 20
Actions taken after experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour

Reason	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
No action was taken	43.4%	46.6%	42.4%	41.8%	47.4%
I talked to the person or people responsible for the behaviour	34.4%	25.9%	35.9%	41.8%	26.3%
I reported the behaviour to someone in authority	21.6%	22.4%	18.5%	20.9%	28.1%
Somebody else talked to the person or people responsible for the behaviour	16.6%	19.0%	10.9%	18.2%	17.5%
Somebody else reported the behaviour to someone in authority	10.3%	17.2%	6.5%	12.7%	-
I spoke to the SAPRA	8.8%	10.3%	7.6%	10.9%	-
I sought support outside of the New Zealand Defence Force	8.8%	8.6%	12.0%	8.2%	-
An action not listed above	11.3%	10.3%	10.9%	12.7%	8.8%
Total respondents	320	58	92	110	57

Note: Percentages will not total to 100% because respondents could choose more than one response. Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. If there are fewer than five respondents, the percentage is not calculated and the breakdown is not provided.

4.68
Just under half (43.4%) of respondents who answered this question said that neither they nor anyone else had taken any action.

4.69
If respondents said that some action had been taken, the most common action reported was talking to the person responsible for the harmful behaviour (34.4%) or reporting it to someone in authority (21.6%). There were no significant differences in responses between the Navy, Army, Air Force, or civilian personnel.

4.70
When personnel reported inappropriate sexual behaviour to someone in authority, they most commonly reported it to their military or civilian supervisor. Two-thirds (66.3%) of survey respondents said this.

Those who had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination were most likely to report the behaviour to someone in authority

4.71
We asked survey respondents who said that they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months what actions they or somebody else had taken in response (see Figure 21).

Figure 21
Actions taken after experiencing of bullying, harassment, and discrimination

Action	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
I reported the behaviour to someone in authority	40.2%	43.0%	28.1%	27.9%	53.7%
No action was taken	36.6%	31.8%	43.2%	40.8%	31.4%
I talked to the person or people responsible for the behaviour	28.5%	29.9%	26.6%	27.9%	29.3%
Somebody else talked to the person or people responsible for the behaviour	18.0%	18.7%	14.6%	19.0%	19.4%
I sought support outside of the New Zealand Defence Force	15.7%	17.8%	19.3%	10.9%	14.5%
An action not listed above	14.2%	16.8%	19.3%	12.9%	9.5%
Total respondents	734	107	192	147	283

Note: Respondents could choose more than one action, so percentages will not add to 100%. Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian.

4.72
Of those who said that they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination, two-fifths of respondents (40.2%) reported the behaviour to someone in authority.

4.73
Our survey found that civilian and Navy personnel were more likely to report bullying, harassment, and discrimination to someone in authority (civilian personnel: 53.7%, Navy: 43.0%) than personnel in the Army and the Air Force (Army: 28.1%, Air Force: 27.9%).

4.74
More than a third of respondents (36.6%) said that neither they nor anyone else had taken any action after they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Respondents in the Army (43.2%) and the Air Force (40.8%) were more likely to report that no action had been taken compared to the Navy (31.8%) and civilian personnel (31.4%).

4.75
Although most (70.5%) respondents said that they had reported incidents of bullying, harassment, and discrimination to their military or civilian supervisor, about half (47.4%) reported to someone other than their supervisor.⁵⁵

Men were less likely to report experiences of harmful behaviour to a person in authority

4.76
There were differences between men and women when it came to reporting harmful behaviour. Our survey found that:

men were less likely to report inappropriate sexual behaviour to someone in authority (13.8%) than women (26.3%); and
men were also less likely to report inappropriate sexual behaviour to their military or civilian supervisor (55.0%) than women (69.5%).

4.77
Men who had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination were also less likely to report the behaviour to someone in authority (35.7%) compared to women (45.5%).

What factors affect the actions taken after personnel experience harmful behaviours?

Not trusting the formal complaints process and fearing negative consequences were barriers to reporting for personnel who experienced unwanted sexual activity

4.78
We asked survey respondents who said they had not contacted someone in authority after experiencing unwanted sexual activity why they had not done so. The most common reasons were that they did not trust the formal complaints process or that they did not believe that anything would happen.

4.79
Another common reason was fear of negative consequences (for example, revenge, career implications, being labelled). Survey respondents also said that they had not contacted anyone because they had not felt that the behaviour was serious enough, including when it was unwanted touching.

Fear of negative consequences was the biggest barrier to taking action when inappropriate sexual behaviour has occurred

4.80
We asked survey respondents who said that neither they nor anyone else had taken action after experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour why not (see Figure 22).

Figure 22
Reasons no action was taken after experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour

Reason	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
I was afraid of negative consequences for myself (such as personal harm, retaliation or revenge, career implications, being labelled)	50.4%	33.3%	69.2%	43.5%	51.9%
No action was needed, or I didn't think it was serious enough	48.9%	44.4%	51.3%	52.2%	44.4%
I didn't trust anything would happen if I reported it	44.6%	44.4%	46.2%	45.7%	40.7%
Those responsible were a higher rank than me	25.9%	33.3%	33.3%	19.6%	18.5%
I didn't know what to do	12.9%	-	28.2%	10.9%	-
Someone else had taken some form of action	5.0%	-	-	-	-
Other reason	23.0%	-	25.6%	26.1%	22.2%
Total respondents	139	27	39	46	27

Note: Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. Respondents could select more than one response, so percentages will not add to 100%. If there are fewer than five respondents, the percentage is not calculated, and the breakdown is not provided.

4.81
About 50% of these survey respondents said that they were afraid of negative consequences for themselves. Two other reasons why survey respondents said that no action had been taken were:

they did not think any action was needed (48.9% of respondents); and
they did not trust that anything would happen if it was reported (44.6% of respondents).

4.82
Women were more likely than men to say that they were afraid of negative consequences. Over half (55.2%) of women said that they were afraid of negative consequences for themselves, compared to 38.9% of men. This rate was highest for junior uniformed women, at 64.7%.

4.83
Nearly 70% (69.2%) of respondents from the Army were afraid of negative consequences for themselves. This was lower for the other two services and civilians. About half (51.9%) of civilian respondents, one-third (33.3%) of respondents from the Navy, and 43.5% of respondents from the Air Force were afraid of negative consequences for themselves.

A lack of trust that anything would happen was the biggest barrier to taking action when bullying, harassment, and discrimination has occurred

4.84
We asked survey respondents who said that neither they nor anyone else had taken any action after they experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination, why not (see Figure 23).

Figure 23
Reasons no action was taken after experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination

Reason	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
I didn't trust anything would happen if I reported it	61.4%	66.7%	61.3%	55.0%	64.3%
I was afraid of negative consequences for myself (such as personal harm, retaliation or revenge, career implications, being labelled)	55.6%	72.7%	62.5%	45.0%	51.2%
Those responsible were a higher rank than me	42.5%	60.6%	50.0%	33.3%	34.5%
No action was needed, or I didn't think it was serious enough	23.9%	21.2%	22.5%	35.0%	19.0%
I didn't know what to do	15.8%	15.2%	11.3%	18.3%	19.0%
Someone else had taken some form of action	3.1%	-	-	0.0%	6.0%
Other reason	17.8%	-	20.0%	18.3%	16.7%
Total respondents	259	33	80	60	84

Note: Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. Respondents could choose more than one response, so percentages will not add up to 100%. If there are fewer than five respondents, the percentage is not calculated and the breakdown is not provided.

4.85
Just over 60% (61.4%) of respondents said that no action had been taken because they did not trust that anything would happen if they reported the incident.

4.86
More than half (55.6%) were afraid of negative consequences for themselves. These rates were higher for respondents from the Navy (72.7%) and the Army (62.5%) than for respondents from the Air Force (45.0%) and civilian personnel (51.2%).

4.87
There was also concern about the rank of the person responsible. More than 40% (42.5%) of respondents said that no action had been taken because the person committing the harmful behaviour was of a higher rank than them. These rates were higher for respondents from the Navy (60.6%) and the Army (50.0%) compared to civilian personnel (34.5%) and respondents from the Air Force (33.3%).

NZDF personnel were most concerned about negative consequences when they had experienced harmful behaviour from someone more senior

4.88
The seniority of the person causing harm often affected how able personnel felt to raise or report harmful behaviour. In our interviews and responses to our survey, personnel commonly talked about not feeling comfortable speaking up about harmful behaviour when the person causing the harm is more senior than them.

4.89
Those who had lower trust in reporting processes felt that raising an issue involving someone senior was difficult because of the control that senior personnel had over their careers. They felt that the person would treat them poorly, especially if the complaint did not go anywhere. Some personnel had experienced this in the past, and so they did not want to report again.

4.90
Poor treatment that personnel were concerned about included receiving negative feedback in their Performance Development Report (PDR), having their competence questioned, supervisors not signing off paperwork needed to progress, withholding opportunities, or the harmful behaviour worsening.

4.91
Several personnel who had experienced unwanted sexual activity noted in their survey response a fear of not being believed or being judged for what had happened to them. A few said that even if the person responsible were held accountable, there was still a risk they might experience mistreatment by that person's friends.

4.92
Some were worried that reporting harmful behaviour would continue to affect their career, even when they moved into new roles, because details of what happened could become common knowledge.

NZDF personnel also feared repercussions when raising issues against peers, but having shared expectations helped

4.93
In some units or teams, raising issues involving peers presented risks of being excluded.

4.94
In interviews, personnel who felt able to raise issues commonly said this was because their unit had clear and shared behavioural expectations, including an expectation that they would hold each other accountable. When personnel received a good response from peers for speaking up about harmful behaviour, they were more likely to continue raising issues.

4.95
Some personnel told us that recent training, focused on what to say when they witnessed harmful behaviour, helped. We heard examples of some units practising giving and receiving feedback so that personnel knew what to do. Through practice, personnel felt they could get better at raising issues and having issues raised with them.

4.96
However, others we interviewed described barriers that had prevented them from raising issues involving peers. Personnel, particularly junior NCOs, commonly talked about having to be careful about when and how they raised issues involving peers because of the risk of exclusion.

4.97
We heard, in some units, men and women had a different understanding about what is acceptable, especially in relation to inappropriate sexual behaviour. This made raising issues more difficult.

4.98
Personnel we interviewed who had called out inappropriate sexual behaviour described receiving varied reactions. Some said that they were told they needed to "take a joke" or similar. Although some did not take this personally, it still limited how often they would raise issues.

4.99
Some personnel said they raised issues sparingly because they did not want to draw attention to themselves or be excluded by their peers. Some women we talked to felt that if they raised issues they would be perceived as the person who would get all men in trouble and be ostracised.

When personnel had seen leaders fail to respond in the past this impacted trust

4.100
In interviews and survey comments, people described instances where they had seen people in authority condone harmful behaviour, including harmful sexual behaviour. For example, we heard of an instance when a senior NCO made inappropriate comments in front of other senior NCOs and officers, and none of the senior leaders acted on it.

4.101
These types of situations led to a belief that senior personnel looked after each other, and that there would be no consequences for poor behaviour if the incident were reported. This diminished trust in reporting.

4.102
Some of the people we talked to believed that raising an issue about someone with specialist or sought-after skills is more difficult because NZDF prioritises these people. Several people told us that they had seen examples of this.

4.103
Similarly, we heard that people who worked in areas with not many job prospects could find it difficult to raise issues because they felt the risks to their career were greater.

Environments where personnel felt their voices were heard built trust

4.104
Some junior personnel described how working in environments where they were encouraged to voice their opinions helped build trust in the processes for reporting harmful behaviour.

4.105
We heard that when personnel raised issues about various aspects of their environment (such as health and safety issues) and received a good response, they were more likely to raise issues with harmful behaviour.

4.106
However, some junior uniformed personnel we talked to described working in environments where they did not always feel that their voices were heard or their ideas encouraged. This made it harder for them to feel safe reporting incidents of harmful behaviour. In some instances, they felt that senior personnel struggle with younger personnel having a voice.

4.107
Some uniformed personnel talked about it being more difficult to report in the military environment because personnel are meant to follow orders. They did not want to raise issues because it could make them appear difficult and hurt their career.

4.108
Civilian women expressed similar views. Several survey comments from civilian women indicated they felt that NZDF does not generally respect or listen to them. They felt that there was no point reporting the harmful behaviour they had experienced because they did not think it would be taken seriously.

Personnel were more likely to raise and report issues when they trusted the reporting processes

4.109
Personnel told us that they felt more able to raise and report issues when they trusted the processes.

4.110
In survey responses and interviews, some personnel said they were reluctant to report harmful behaviour they had experienced because they felt they would not have control over the actions taken. Some feared that there would be an over-reaction, which would have negative repercussions for themselves and the person responsible, and they did not see avenues for more informal action to be taken (see paragraph 4.154).

4.111
Several personnel told us that introducing specialist support services, such as SAPRAs and social workers, had created a better environment for raising and reporting issues. However, numerous personnel expressed concerns about how long and difficult the complaints, summary trial, and military justice processes can be. This was a barrier to some personnel reporting harmful behaviour (see paragraphs 4.166-4.168).

4.112
Fears about lack of confidentiality also affected people's willingness to raise or report harmful behaviour.

4.113
Several personnel expressed reservations because they did not think that command would protect their confidentiality. This was especially the case when they had experienced or heard about breaches of confidentiality previously.

4.114
Some personnel told us they worried about going to specialist support staff (such as medical staff, psychologists, and chaplains) to report harmful behaviour because they worried that what they said would be passed on to command (see paragraphs 5.34-5.42).

Impact area 3: NZDF personnel reporting harmful behaviour are satisfied with the process and do not experience negative repercussions from reporting

4.115
Personnel need to feel that NZDF takes their reports of harmful behaviour seriously. For the systems to work properly, it is critical that personnel feel they are appropriately supported and treated well through these processes.

4.116
In this impact area, we look at the experiences of personnel when they have raised or reported harmful behaviour and how satisfied they were with the response.

Main findings for impact area 3

4.117
Personnel were satisfied with reporting processes when they could access support, get a resolution through the right avenue, and observe a change in behaviour as a result.

4.118
As described in the previous section, although trust in reporting was generally high, personnel who experienced harmful behaviour often did not feel safe reporting it because of how they had seen it dealt with previously. Satisfaction with formal and informal reporting processes and systems was low. Low satisfaction with how harmful behaviour is dealt with can affect trust in reporting processes.

4.119
Personnel needed to see that someone in authority takes action to address the harmful behaviour that they report. However, this did not always happen. Our survey showed that although those in authority often acted on reports of unwanted sexual activity, they less commonly acted on reports of inappropriate sexual behaviour and bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.120
Personnel who experienced harmful behaviour were not often satisfied with how leaders responded to it when it was reported to them. Our survey found that:

slightly more personnel reported being dissatisfied than satisfied with the response from the person in authority after reporting unwanted sexual activity;
only 39.1% of survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the response from the person in authority after reporting inappropriate sexual behaviour; and
only 24.3% of survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the response from the person in authority after reporting bullying, harassment and discrimination.

4.121
There was a perception that leaders did not always understand that these behaviours were harmful, so they did not always act on them appropriately.

4.122
Personnel often had low satisfaction with the complaints process and/or the disciplinary system. These processes were often lengthy, and personnel often felt that they were not kept adequately up to date about what to expect or the progress of their case. This was especially so for complaints about bullying. Personnel with supportive managers and access to support services tended to have a less negative experience.

4.123
Personnel needed to see that the person responsible changed their behaviour. However, for those we talked to, this often did not happen – even after those in authority had taken action to address the harmful behaviour. Sometimes, harmful behaviour continued even after a complaint went through the complaints and disciplinary processes. If no further consequences were applied, this contributed to a perception that reporting harmful behaviour did not result in positive change.

4.124
Most personnel did not experience negative repercussions from reporting harmful behaviour. However, we heard that, when personnel do experience negative repercussions, others notice and this has a detrimental impact on their likelihood of raising issues they witness or experience.

Detailed findings for impact area 3

How were incidents of harmful behaviour responded to when raised or reported?

4.125
In our interviews, we heard about a range of issues that personnel had raised and the ways they did this. These included:

calling out inappropriate comments in the moment or afterwards;
alerting or telling someone in authority when other senior personnel made sexualised comments or touched them inappropriately;
making formal complaints about bullying or sexual harassment that went through an investigation; and
reporting incidents under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 and proceeding through formal disciplinary processes (summary trial or court martial).

Most reports of unwanted sexual activity were acted on when reported to someone in authority

4.126
We asked those survey respondents who reported an experience of unwanted sexual activity to someone in authority whether that person had followed it up.

4.127
Most respondents indicated that it had been followed up. However, the number of respondents was small because the number of personnel who reported their incident to someone in authority was also small.

4.128
Interviews and survey comments echoed this. Action was taken in most instances where personnel reported unwanted sexual activity. We were told that when unwanted sexual activity came to the attention of command, they dealt with it seriously and sensitively.

4.129
In some instances, personnel reported gratitude for support that their supervisors or chain of command provided. This included senior leaders and specialist support services, such as SAPRAs.

4.130
However, we heard of several instances where it was felt that those in authority did not act on behaviour appropriately. There was a perception that the behaviour was not taken seriously, or there were attempts to protect the person responsible for the harmful behaviour.

Those in authority did not always understand that inappropriate sexual behaviour was harmful, and this meant responses could be inconsistent

4.131
We asked those who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour to a person in authority if there had been any follow-up (see Figure 24).

Figure 24
Follow-up after a report to a person in authority of inappropriate sexual behaviour

	All	Women	Men
Yes	62.3%	65.2%	53.8%
No	36.1%	34.8%	46.2%
Don't know	-	0.0%	0.0%
Total respondents	61	46	13

Note: Totals for women and men will not add up to total respondents because some respondents identified as another gender or did not specify gender. If there are fewer than five respondents, the percentage is not calculated, and the breakdown is not provided.

4.132
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62.3%) who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour said there had been follow-up.

4.133
In our interviews and survey comments, the extent that personnel felt that inappropriate sexual behaviour was taken seriously by people in authority varied. When a senior leader took swift action, such as talking to the person responsible for the harmful behaviour, the person who raised or reported the matter viewed the process positively.

4.134
Personnel also appreciated efforts to keep details of the incident confidential, and some personnel described feeling very grateful for the support they had received.

4.135
However, some personnel told us that they had raised concerns about inappropriate sexual behaviour with leaders who did not always understand the behaviour as harmful. They felt leaders dismissed the complaints as not serious or did not properly investigate them.

4.136
We heard that leaders sometimes excused behaviours (which included unwanted physical contact and inappropriate messages sent through social media) by saying that it was not intended to be harmful, the person responsible is "just like that", or that the person affected was overreacting.

4.137
Several personnel described having to continue raising the behaviour with other senior personnel until they found someone who took it seriously.

There was follow-up in only half of cases where personnel had reported bullying, harassment, and discrimination to someone in authority

4.138
We asked survey respondents whether there had been any follow up by those in authority after they reported an incident of bullying, harassment, and discrimination (see Figure 25).

Figure 25
Follow-up after a report to a person in authority of bullying, harassment, and discrimination

	All	Women	Men
Yes	51.4%	51.3%	51.6%
No	48.2%	48.7%	47.6%
Don't know	-	0.0%	-
Total respondents	245	113	124

Note: If the number of respondents is fewer than five, the percentage is not calculated, and the breakdown is not provided. Totals for women and men will not add up to total respondents because some respondents identified as another gender or did not specify gender. Percentages might not total 100% due to rounding.

4.139
About half (51.4%) of those who reported incidents of bullying, harassment, and discrimination to someone in authority said that there had been follow-up. This was less than the level of follow-up reported for both unwanted sexual activity and inappropriate sexual behaviour. There were no significant differences by gender.

4.140
In our interviews and survey comments, some personnel described positive experiences where those in authority had taken immediate action in response to a complaint of bullying, harassment, or discrimination. They felt that they had been supported and treated respectfully throughout the process.

4.141
However, in survey comments personnel who had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination frequently described situations where they had tried to raise issues with someone more senior and they felt they had not been taken seriously, and the matter was not followed up.

4.142
Some personnel felt that when they raised concerns about an incident of bullying, harassment, or discrimination it was dismissed as "just banter" or the behaviour was excused because the person responsible was under pressure at the time.

4.143
Some felt that, although the behaviour might have been acknowledged as problematic, they were still encouraged to drop the matter because of the effort it would take to deal with it or because it would be disruptive to the team's work.

4.144
Other personnel felt that there was no follow-up because the complaint was about a person more senior.

4.145
We heard of some instances where personnel had received a good response from their immediate supervisor when they raised the issue, but it had stalled when it was escalated. In a few cases the complainant was told that this was because the person the matter had been escalated to was friends with the person responsible for the behaviour.

How satisfied were personnel with the response to reports of harmful behaviour?

There were low levels of satisfaction with how personnel in authority responded to all forms of harmful behaviour

4.146
Results from our survey and interviews showed that personnel were often dissatisfied with how those in authority responded to reports of harmful behaviour.

4.147
For unwanted sexual activity, the number of respondents to this question was small because only a small number of personnel reported the incident to someone in authority. Responses varied. Slightly more personnel reported being dissatisfied than satisfied.

4.148
We also asked respondents who had reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour how satisfied they were with the response (see Figure 26).

Figure 26
Satisfaction with response from a person in authority after reporting inappropriate sexual behaviour

	All
Very satisfied	17.1%
Somewhat satisfied	22.0%
Neutral – neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	19.5%
Somewhat dissatisfied	15.9%
Very dissatisfied	29.3%
Total respondents	82

Note: Percentages for men and women are not given because the number in some of the response categories is fewer than five. Respondents were expected to select only one response to this question. Percentages will not add up to 100% because three respondents selected more than one response.

4.149
Of all respondents who had reported inappropriate sexual behaviour, 39.1% indicated that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the response from the person in authority. Almost half of respondents (45.2%) indicated that they had been very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with the response.

4.150
We also asked respondents how satisfied they were with the actions those in authority had taken after reporting an incident of bullying, harassment, and discrimination (see Figure 27).

Figure 27
Satisfaction with response from a person in authority after reporting bullying, harassment, and discrimination

	All	Women	Men
Very satisfied	7.0%	8.9%	5.8%
Somewhat satisfied	17.3%	18.5%	16.2%
Neutral – neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18.2%	19.2%	17.5%
Somewhat dissatisfied	23.6%	24.0%	22.7%
Very dissatisfied	33.9%	29.5%	37.7%
Total respondents	313	146	154

Note: Totals for women and men will not add up to total respondents because some respondents identified as another gender or did not specify gender. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.

4.151
Most survey respondents said that they were not satisfied with the response. In our survey:

over half (57.5%) of respondents were very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with the actions taken; and
men (60.4%) were slightly less satisfied with the response from authority than women (53.5%).

4.152
These findings echo what personnel said in our interviews.

Personnel were more satisfied when the behaviour was dealt with in the way that felt right for them

4.153
In our interviews, we were told that when a person had reported an incident of harmful behaviour, they were more satisfied when it had been managed in a way they felt comfortable with and when they had some say over the process.

4.154
Personnel often wanted issues resolved informally, especially incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour. There were various reasons for this. Formal investigations and complaints were seen as arduous and time consuming, and personnel worried about negative repercussions from raising a formal complaint (see paragraphs 4.175-4.178).

4.155
We heard from personnel who appreciated it when those in authority dealt with harmful behaviour informally, particularly if they had requested this. An example of dealing with a complaint informally could involve a 1-up speaking to the person responsible for making inappropriate comments.

4.156
We also heard about leaders holding mediations or dealing with behaviours in other informal ways. Informal methods may sometimes be appropriate; however, it is important that leaders ensure that the behaviour is addressed with an appropriate level of seriousness. Leaders also need to ensure they have the right skills, or can access support, to manage difficult conversations. We heard that this is not always the case.

4.157
We heard from several personnel who were frustrated because incidents of harmful behaviour they had reported were resolved informally even though they had requested a formal investigation. They told us this made them feel less safe.

4.158
Personnel can choose to make a restricted or unrestricted disclosure when reporting behaviours that are offences under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. We heard from one person who had made a restricted disclosure. They told us they had appreciated the opportunity to access support without having to make a formal complaint. They had chosen the restricted reporting pathway because they feared repercussions.

4.159
Uniformed personnel we spoke to did not always understand that if they disclose experiencing or witnessing behaviour that is an offence under the Armed Forces Discipline Act (such as an indecent assault) to another uniformed person, that person has an obligation to report the behaviour to the accused's commanding officer. We heard of several occasions where personnel had disclosed this information without understanding what would happen. It is important that these processes are clear to all personnel so that they understand, and are prepared for, what will happen next. Otherwise, it can result in further harm for them.

Personnel were less satisfied when they did not see a change in behaviour

4.160
When personnel raised concerns or reported harmful behaviour, they were most satisfied when they saw a behaviour change from the person causing harm. In our interviews and survey comments, personnel gave us examples of changes in behaviour they had observed. These most often related to cases of inappropriate sexual behaviour. In some instances, all that was needed was for the person causing harm to be spoken to, and their behaviour changed.

4.161
We heard of several ways that harmful behaviour was dealt with, including:

Someone spoke to the person.
The person was charged.
The person received some form of mentoring or behaviour coaching.
The behaviour was noted in the person's PDR.
There was a formal investigation through the complaints process.

4.162
However, harmful behaviour did not always stop after one intervention. When harmful behaviour persisted after these responses, personnel became frustrated that those in authority did not take further action. We were told of only one instance where multiple escalating interventions were made, which did eventually lead to the person causing harm to change their behaviour.

4.163
We were told of some situations where a person engaging in harmful behaviour was moved to a different part of the organisation or promoted. Situations like this were also mentioned in survey comments.

4.164
We heard from those in leadership positions that addressing harmful behaviours could be challenging. They told us they were aware that personnel sometimes felt that nothing was being done. However, because of the need to protect privacy, leaders could not always share what was happening.

4.165
Finding ways to be more transparent about how issues are dealt with in general, while not referring to specific incidents, could help. Several personnel we interviewed told us that actions like publishing the outcomes of summary trials about harmful behaviour help to demonstrate that actions against harmful behaviour were being taken.

Those who went through formal processes generally described unsatisfactory experiences

4.166
Only a small number of personnel we interviewed made complaints that went through the complaints or disciplinary systems. However, we did get numerous survey comments about experiences with these processes. Personnel who had been through a formal process often found it stressful and confusing.

4.167
Most personnel we spoke to who made a complaint of bullying through the military or civilian complaints systems, had negative experiences. This was echoed in the survey comments we received. Experiences described included:

very lengthy processes;
not feeling informed about what to expect;
not being kept informed throughout the process;
not being properly informed when decisions were made and, in a few instances, never receiving information about the final outcome; and
not feeling supported during the process or not being protected from negative repercussions.

4.168
The few personnel we spoke to who had gone through, or were preparing to go through, the summary trial system or court martial process also talked about negative experiences they had. They had experienced many of the issues described in paragraph 4.178, as well as:

not being kept properly up to date on how they would be protected from the person responsible;
being worried about negative repercussions if they had to testify; and
feeling as if they were being put on trial.

4.169
We heard that access to SAPRAs, social workers, Anti-Harassment Advisors, external parties, and a compassionate and supportive command team helped reduce the negative impact of going through the formal complaints and disciplinary processes.

Personnel wanted clear information about the expected consequences for different behaviours

4.170
In our interviews, personnel who had reported harmful behaviour sometimes told us that they were frustrated with the outcome of their complaint. Some felt that the punishment did not match the seriousness of the behaviour. Conversely, some told us that they were frustrated by the outcome because the response had been too severe for the harm caused. Some felt that there was little consistency in how behaviours were treated.

4.171
Personnel affected by harmful behaviour do not all want the same outcome. A response that considers their views on how the behaviour should be dealt with can help ensure they have a sense of control over the process and are satisfied with the outcome. This must be balanced with ensuring there is consistency with how similar behaviours are dealt with and that there is a fair process for the accused.

4.172
We observed that personnel were not always clear about what to expect during the disciplinary and complaints processes or what the potential consequences were (for example, what kind of offence would lead to a fine or what an acceptable consequence was for someone who had repeatedly made sexualised comments). Not knowing what to expect sometimes made personnel reluctant to speak up.

4.173
It was evident from our interviews that it is more difficult for personnel to judge whether their case has been dealt with fairly if they do not have clear information about the expected consequences for different behaviours.

Only a small proportion of personnel who reported harmful behaviour experienced negative repercussions

4.174
Most (91.5%) personnel who reported experiencing unwanted sexual activity said that no-one in authority had done or threatened to do things that negatively affected, or could negatively affect, their position or career.

4.175
The very small number of personnel who reported repercussions gave examples such as being reassigned to duties that did not match their current grade, being transferred to a different unit, or being rated lower than they felt they deserved on a performance evaluation.

4.176
Similarly, most personnel we interviewed who had raised or reported instances of bullying, harassment, and discrimination did not experience negative repercussions. However, our interviews and survey comments highlighted some instances where they did.

4.177
These situations mostly arose after personnel had raised or reported instances of bullying. Examples we were provided included being treated worse by the senior person they had raised a complaint about, being accused of insubordination, being reprimanded, and being accused of being unfit for service.

4.178
Several women spoke about situations where they felt personnel had not been properly protected after sexual harm was reported. They told us about situations where the person accused of causing harm and the person who reported experiencing it continued to work together while the investigation was ongoing. Some told us they had witnessed instances where women were blamed for their assault.

4.179
Although these examples were not common, it was clear to us from those we spoke to that where personnel who raise issues do experience negative repercussions, those repercussions are often visible to or heard about by others. This has a wider impact on how safe people feel reporting issues.

Impact area 4: NZDF personnel trust that peers will respond to harmful behaviour appropriately

4.180
Responsibility for speaking up about harmful behaviour should not only fall on those that the behaviour affects directly. Creating an environment where peers can intervene safely and appropriately when they witness harmful behaviour helps build a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment.

4.181
In this impact area, we discuss how personnel responded when they witnessed harmful behaviour and how much personnel trusted their peers to act when harmful behaviour occurred.

Main findings for impact area 4

4.182
Our survey results found that most (81.7%) respondents trusted their peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour when they saw it.

4.183
However, junior uniformed women had less trust in their peers to call out harmful behaviour. Those most affected by harmful behaviour were still burdened with the responsibility of speaking up.

4.184
Personnel commonly acted when they witnessed harmful behaviour. In our survey:

three-quarters (74.1%) of survey respondents had acted in at least some situations where they had witnessed inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour; and
more than two-thirds (71.9%) of survey respondents had acted in at least some situations where they had witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4.185
However, a fear of negative repercussions (such as being excluded by peers) and lack of trust that anything will be done prevented some bystanders from intervening in incidents of harmful behaviour in the same way it prevented those who experienced it from reporting it.

4.186
Personnel felt safer to act when there were clear behavioural expectations, and they were supported to develop the skills to intervene.

Detailed findings for impact area 4

Harmful sexual behaviour

Women had less trust than men that their peers would call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour

4.187
We asked survey respondents how much they trusted their peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour when they saw it (see Figure 28).

Figure 28
Perception of trust that peers would call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour

Statement	Sentiment	All	Women	Men
I trust my peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour when they see it	Strongly agree	40.1%	33.6%	42.7%
	Agree	41.6%	40.8%	42.2%
	Neutral	12.6%	15.6%	11.0%
	Disagree	4.6%	7.9%	3.4%
	Strongly disagree	1.2%	2.2%	0.8%
	Total respondents	6057	1617	4320

4.188
Most respondents (81.7%) said that they trusted their peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour when they witnessed it. However, these rates were lower for women, especially junior women officers:

74.4% of women said that they trusted their peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour if they witnessed it; and
65.1% of junior women officers said that they trusted their peers to call out inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour if they witnessed it.

4.189
In our interviews, personnel expressed varying levels of trust in their peers to intervene when they saw harmful behaviour.

4.190
Men, more than women, said that they trusted their peers to intervene. For some, this view came from having seen someone intervene or having intervened in an incident themselves. We were told of examples where personnel called others out by saying that their behaviour was not consistent with Operation Respect. More commonly, we were told that although they had not seen it happen, they trusted that it would, based on what they knew about their unit and peers.

4.191
Women we interviewed expressed a range of views. Some said that they did trust their peers to intervene and gave examples of when that had happened.

4.192
These included situations where peers had challenged those who told women they only got into NZDF because of quotas, calling out inappropriate behaviour in the bars, standing up for women when they had experienced sexual harm, and supporting them to report it.

4.193
When these interventions occurred, women appreciated this support. It increased their overall level of trust in their peers and their sense of safety and inclusion in their unit.

4.194
However, this was not the experience for everyone we interviewed. Several women told us it was common for peers (particularly men) to ignore harmful behaviour when it occurred. They felt that it was generally left to them, or other women, to raise concerns. A few of these women talked explicitly about how they wished that their male peers would call out harmful behaviour and "have their back".

Most bystanders took action when witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour

4.195
We asked survey respondents whether they had taken any action after witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour (see Figure 29).

Figure 29
Those who took informal or formal action after witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour

	Yes	No	In some instances, yes; in other instances, no	Total respondents
All	30.9%	25.9%	43.2%	679
Navy	31.5%	22.0%	46.5%	127
Army	37.0%	23.6%	39.4%	208
Air Force	24.7%	26.0%	49.3%	219
Civilian	31.2%	33.6%	35.2%	125

Note: Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.

4.196
Most respondents (74.1%) who had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour reported taking action at least some of the time. Our survey results found that civilian personnel who had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour were less likely to report taking action at least some of the time compared to those in the services.

Fear of negative consequences and lack of trust that anything would happen prevented some bystanders from intervening when they witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour

4.197
We asked survey respondents who indicated that they had witnessed but not responded to incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour why they did not take action (see Figure 30).

Figure 30
Reasons those who witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour did not act

Reason	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
No action was needed, or I didn't think it was serious enough	40.3%	40.2%	44.2%	42.4%	30.2%
Someone else had taken some form of action	34.9%	37.9%	34.1%	32.1%	38.4%
I didn't trust anything would happen if I reported it	28.5%	29.9%	30.2%	25.5%	30.2%
I was afraid of negative consequences for those targeted by the behaviour or for myself (such as personal harm, retaliation or revenge, career implications, being labelled)	22.5%	21.8%	14.7%	28.5%	23.3%
Those responsible were a higher rank than me	16.1%	17.2%	17.1%	17.0%	11.6%
I didn't know what to do	5.6%	-	-	7.9%	9.3%
Other reason	15.8%	16.1%	16.3%	12.1%	22.1%
Total respondents	467	87	129	165	86

Note: Respondents could indicate more than one reason so percentages will not add up to 100%. If the number of responses is fewer than five, the percentage is not calculated and the breakdown is not provided.

4.198
The most common reason given for not responding after witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour was that respondents did not feel that any action was needed, or they did not think it was serious enough to warrant action (40.3%). This was followed by a third (34.9%) reporting that they did not act because someone else had taken some form of action.

4.199
More than a quarter (28.5%) said that they had not taken action because they did not trust that anything would happen. Just under one quarter (22.5%) were afraid of negative consequences for those affected by the behaviour or for themselves.

4.200
In our interviews, some personnel talked about the fear of being excluded if they acted. A few interviewees who had not intervened after witnessing harmful behaviour said that they knew it would have been the right thing to do. However, they felt they would be looked down on if they did.

Bullying, harassment, and discrimination

Most respondents who witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination took some action

4.201
We asked survey respondents who indicated that they had witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination whether they had taken any formal or informal action (see Figure 31).

Figure 31
Those who took informal or formal action after witnessing bullying, harassment, and discrimination

	Yes	No	In some instances, yes; in other instances, no	Total respondents
All	31.4%	28.1%	40.5%	948
Navy	35.1%	27.7%	37.2%	191
Army	32.0%	24.4%	43.6%	266
Air Force	27.2%	33.5%	39.3%	239
Civilian	32.1%	26.5%	41.4%	249

Note: Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian.

4.202
Most respondents who had witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination reported that they acted in at least some instances (71.9%). Just over a quarter (28.1%) of respondents said that they did not take any action.

There were a variety of reasons why personnel did not intervene when they witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination

4.203
We asked survey respondents why they had not taken any action after witnessing an incident of bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months (see Figure 32).

Figure 32
Reasons those who witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination did not act

Reason	All	Navy	Army	Air Force	Civilian
Someone else had taken some form of action	32.3%	32.0%	30.5%	31.6%	35.5%
No action was needed, or I didn't think it was serious enough	32.3%	30.3%	35.6%	43.9%	18.7%
I was afraid of negative consequences for those targeted by the behaviour or for myself (such as personal harm, retaliation or revenge, career implications, being labelled)	29.8%	33.6%	29.4%	26.9%	30.7%
Those responsible were a higher rank than me	24.2%	25.4%	27.7%	25.1%	18.7%
I didn't know what to do	8.3%	7.4%	6.2%	9.9%	9.6%
I didn't trust anything would happen if I reported it	31.4%	28.7%	26.0%	29.2%	41.0%
Other reason	12.4%	13.9%	13.0%	8.8%	14.5%
Total respondents	637	122	177	171	166

Note: Respondents could select more than one reason, so percentages will not add to 100%. Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian.

4.204
No one reason stood out to explain why people did not respond after witnessing bullying, harassment and discrimination. The same types of reasons were also provided in the survey comments and were reflected in our interviews.

4.205
Some personnel told us that fear of becoming the target of bullying was a barrier. This concern was included in survey comments, along with a fear of not being believed or having credibility questioned. Some comments indicated respondents had seen this type of thing happen in the past.

4.206
In survey comments, some personnel highlighted that they did not think anything would be done because they had seen these types of issues ignored in the past, especially when the person responsible for the behaviour was more senior.

4.207
Several personnel told us that they were unsure whether to intervene because they did not know whether what they witnessed was harmful or just banter (see paragraph 2.211). They found it particularly difficult to clearly identify exclusionary behaviour.

4.208
Some personnel told us that even when they did see harmful behaviour, they did not know what the right thing to do was. They told us specific training and guidance in how to intervene and what to say would be helpful.

Impact area 5: NZDF personnel trust that leaders will respond to harmful behaviour appropriately

4.209
Leaders play a key role in both resolving issues informally and initiating investigations through the disciplinary and complaints systems.

4.210
To create an environment where incidents of harmful behaviour can be identified, raised, and addressed, personnel need to trust that their leaders will respond to harmful behaviour appropriately.

4.211
In this impact area, we look at the experiences that personnel have in reporting harmful behaviour to leaders, and how much they trust their leaders to respond appropriately.

Main finding for impact area 5

4.212
NZDF personnel generally trusted that leaders – especially their 1-ups and 2-ups – would respond to harmful behaviour appropriately. Most (84.3%) survey respondents trusted their immediate supervisors to deal with harmful sexual behaviour effectively.

4.213
However, some personnel who had experienced harmful behaviour felt that those in authority did not always understand what harmful behaviour was or act on it appropriately. This affected their trust in leaders.

4.214
Perceptions about the skills that leaders have affected how much personnel trusted them. Personnel reported less trust in leaders who they felt lacked empathy, did not have the right skills to respond, or would not be able to influence behaviour.

4.215
Personnel felt that leaders needed to actively create a work environment where they could easily and safely report information about harmful behaviour. To achieve this, leaders needed to be accessible and open, demonstrate that they were trying to understand what personnel were experiencing, and create safe forums for issues to be raised. The extent that this was happening varied.

Detailed findings for impact area 5

Personnel often trusted their supervisors to deal with inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour effectively

4.216
We asked survey respondents to indicate how much they agreed that their supervisor would intervene in incidents of inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour (see Figure 33).

Figure 33
Perception of trust in supervisors to intervene in incidents of inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour

Statement	Sentiment	All	Women	Men
Would intervene if individuals were saying that someone who experienced harmful sexual behaviour was lying or was responsible for what happened to them	Strongly agree	57.2%	50.1%	60.1%
	Agree	31.9%	32.9%	31.8%
	Neutral	8.8%	12.6%	6.9%
	Disagree	1.5%	3.0%	0.9%
	Strongly disagree	0.6%	1.4%	0.3%
	Total respondents	6073	1621	4331
Would stop individuals who were making sexually suggestive jokes, discussing someone's appearance, or talking about people's sex life at work	Strongly agree	50.1%	44.7%	52.4%
	Agree	35.0%	35.6%	35.0%
	Neutral	10.8%	12.4%	9.8%
	Disagree	3.0%	5.2%	2.1%
	Strongly disagree	1.1%	2.1%	0.6%
	Total respondents	6070	1620	4330
Would intervene if an individual was the subject of unwanted sexual attention at work (such as staring at someone's chest, rubbing someone's shoulders)	Strongly agree	57.9%	49.5%	61.4%
	Agree	31.9%	33.5%	31.4%
	Neutral	8.2%	13.0%	6.0%
	Disagree	1.4%	2.8%	0.9%
	Strongly disagree	0.6%	1.2%	0.3%
	Total respondents	6071	1619	4331
I trust my chain of command to effectively deal with inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour	Strongly agree	53.4%	46.1%	56.3%
	Agree	30.9%	33.7%	30.2%
	Neutral	9.8%	12.1%	8.7%
	Disagree	4.0%	6.0%	3.2%
	Strongly disagree	1.8%	2.1%	1.6%
	Total respondents	6069	1621	4327

4.217
Most respondents said that they trusted their chain of command to effectively deal with different incidents of harmful behaviour. In our survey:

for all questions, more than 85% of survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that their supervisor would intervene;
the percentage of women who strongly agreed or agreed was slightly lower, but in all questions more than 80% of women reported that they felt that their supervisor would intervene; and
junior uniformed women were less likely to strongly agree or agree with all these statements compared to women overall.

4.218
In our interviews, men more commonly expressed trust in leaders to respond appropriately. Women's views were more mixed.

Personnel's level of trust was directly influenced by their past experiences of raising issues

4.219
In our interviews we heard that those who had higher trust in leaders often had positive experiences when raising issues with them (often their 1-ups and 2-ups).

4.220
In these instances, leaders took the behaviour seriously and responded with empathy, including when a formal disciplinary or complaints processes had been initiated. We were told that this helped to lessen the stress of this process.

4.221
Conversely, trust was often lower when senior personnel had engaged in the harmful behaviour, or it was felt that those in authority had not dealt with behaviour appropriately when it was reported. Personnel told us that when leaders did not keep information confidential, failed to call out inappropriate behaviour they witnessed, did not take incidents raised with them seriously, or did not follow the proper process (that is, start an investigation) it eroded their trust.

4.222
Personnel we interviewed often recognised the difficult position that their 1-ups and 2-ups were in when someone more senior (such as a warrant officer or commanding officer) was bullying or harassing. They realised that when they raised an issue about senior personnel with their immediate supervisors it was sometimes difficult for their supervisors to influence the situation.

4.223
However, personnel generally appreciated it when their supervisors took their complaint seriously and tried to address it. Even if their complaint did not result in the desired outcome, personnel thought more positively of leaders who had taken some action.

Leaders who prioritised outputs over personnel were trusted less

4.224
Personnel told us that they trusted leaders more when they felt that their welfare was being taken seriously. We heard about leaders who made sure that personnel knew what support was available and were always available if they needed to talk. People told us this made them feel that they could approach leaders to discuss harmful behaviour.

4.225
Conversely, some personnel talked about leaders who appeared too busy to deal with instances of harmful behaviour. Several talked about having less trust in leaders who more visibly prioritise outputs over the welfare of personnel. Some personnel told us this sent a message that dealing with harmful behaviour is not a priority.

Personnel trusted leaders who had a more open and accessible style of leadership and whom they felt had the skills to respond appropriately

4.226
Many personnel we interviewed had not experienced harmful behaviour – their perceptions of trust were influenced by how they saw leaders behave generally.

4.227
Some personnel trusted that their leaders would respond appropriately because they were accessible and empathetic.

4.228
Other personnel said that if something happened to them they would not go to their 1-up or 2-up but to the person they trust most in their unit who they felt was more accessible and empathetic.

4.229
There were specific skills that personnel felt leaders needed to respond properly to harmful behaviour. They needed to be able to have difficult conversations about harmful behaviour (including sexual harm) and to be able to talk to both the person experiencing the harm and the person responsible.

Leaders needed to understand what behaviours were occurring in their work area

4.230
Building trust in leadership requires more than encouraging personnel to report incidents. Leaders need to make a dedicated effort to put in place ways to understand what personnel are experiencing. This helps to avoid situations where the burden of raising or reporting harmful behaviour falls only on the person affected by it.

4.231
We heard about some situations where leaders attempted to find out what behaviours were occurring by, for example, setting up forums where personnel could speak to leaders and have above the line/below the line discussions. These were seen as beneficial and helped identify issues early.

4.232
It is important that these types of forums are safe spaces for personnel to raise concerns. Women-only forums or more private and anonymous ways to give ideas or feedback were also seen as useful.

50: Office of the Auditor-General (2022), Putting integrity at the core of how public organisations operate: An integrity framework for the public sector, at oag.parliament.nz.

51: This order sets out that personnel should first attempt to address these behaviours at the lowest level possible, such as by raising concerns with their chain of command or an Anti-Harassment Advisor (who should use informal resolution strategies where possible). Personnel can also request in writing that their commanding officer resolve the problem through a mediation process or a formal investigation.

52: This requires a verbal or written complaint to their chain of command, which triggers an investigation.

53: Ministry of Justice (2020), New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, at justice.govt.nz.

54: Respondents could select more than one response, so percentages will not add to 100%.

55: Respondents could select more than one response, so percentages will not add to 100%.