Sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins has made 28 recommendations on how to fix Parliament’s toxic workplace culture — the culture which has led one in three staffers to experience sexual harassment at work. They range from gender quotas to best practice training for staffers, although two in particular will be critical in creating change.
Jenkins recommended two bodies be established: a joint standing committee on parliamentary standards and “a consultative parliamentary body” that would recommend and endorse new policies and procedures for managing parliamentarians.
These bodies — which surprisingly don’t already exist — would give Parliament power to manage how people behave within the workplace.
Authority and oversight lacking
Parliament has no specific powers in the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, known as the MOPS Act, under which staff of ministers and parliamentarians are employed. The act does not include formal oversight mechanisms and creates no role for Parliament in managing and leading the workforce that supports its members. Because of this lack of authority, Parliament cannot provide guidance, set conditions or enact consequences for actions in its workplace.
In other countries, such as the UK, New Zealand and Canada, houses of Parliament have governing bodies that establish policies and codes of conduct and provide the authority for complaints mechanisms and disciplinary procedures. These governing bodies have broad representation of all parties.
In the UK, the House of Commons Commission also has “lay members” (non parliamentarians). It has played a strong role in addressing problems of bullying and sexual harassment in its workplace, driving the establishment of a behaviour code which applies to all parliamentarians and staff. The New Zealand Parliamentary Service Commission has a culture subcommittee. A key part of its remit is to improve the culture of Parliament.
The Australian federal Parliament does not have equivalent governing bodies, leaving its presiding officers relatively weak. Without this governing architecture, it is difficult for the Parliament to establish policies on conduct or to hold its members accountable for their actions as employers.
Importantly, the review also recommends that a cross-party leadership taskforce be established to drive the implementation of the report’s recommendations. So far, there has been only informal consultation between parties over these issues; this must become formalised. The Jenkins review suggests the taskforce should be gender-balanced. Currently, only the privileges committees have a role in cases of possible misconduct. However, these committees are almost entirely composed of members of the two major party groupings, and have very few women members.
Public reporting
The Jenkins review recommends quarterly tracking of key workforce data and that this be tabled in Parliament and made public, and that parliamentarians annually report on what actions they have taken to ensure a safer workplace.
It also recommends there be an annual parliamentary discussion about safety and respect in the parliamentary workplace. These suggestions seem almost revolutionary in the current context of extreme secrecy and silence about any matters relating to MOP staff — and is starkly different from the openness about the identities of staffers and discussion of staffing issues seen in other countries such as the UK or Canada.
Canberra’s secrecy contributes to a sense of entitlement by parliamentarians to act with impunity and contributes to the normalisation of poor conduct. Open discussion and public reporting of staffing issues is vital. It also acknowledges that safe working conditions for staff is a matter of interest for the entire community — not just politicians.
Leadership and commitment is vital for changing organisational culture. Parliament must create a safe workplace and achieve much-needed culture change, and the Jenkins review provides a clear way forward.
Dr Maria Maley received funding to undertake background research for the Australian Human Rights Commission.
One sentence describes it all: Canberra’s secrecy contributes to a sense of entitlement by parliamentarians to act with impunity and contributes to the normalisation of poor conduct.
Why am I not surprised that it’s women dragging our own male cultural Taliban into the 21st Century? Thank you for standing up Grace, Brittany, Rachel, et al.
Saxon, Chanel …
I know this is not in the report but I really think it would be very beneficial to the electorate if there was a rule that no-one could be an endorsed candidate for any party until they have worked for a minimum of three years in a job away from politics. As far as I can see the only representatives who display any integrity (and commonsense) are those who who have some otherworld experience.
Is the secrecy a feature of the Morrison style of government (like ‘on water matters’) or has it always been like that?
It has been getting worse over the years, but Morrison has accelerated the decline to a whole new level.
I agree with the point of this story. More broadly, the absurd laws that make the standard processes of the department that collects all the money required to finance the entire national polity secret are another blight. The prosecution of Richard Boyle is fascist. As are the continuing prosecutions of Collaery and McBride. The secrecy must be busted everywhere if we are to thrive as a society.