Executive summary

Allegations of misconduct in a number of Australia’s parliaments have drawn attention to the adequacy of existing frameworks intended to regulate the conduct of those who work in this environment—including members of parliament and their staff, ministers and their staff, and parliamentary support staff. Members of the federal Parliament are not currently subject to a code of conduct, while various codes do apply to ministers, ministerial staff and parliamentary support staff. This contrasts with Australian state and territory parliaments, which all have codes of conduct, and with national parliaments overseas such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which also have codes in place. This paper outlines the variety of enforcement mechanisms these existing parliamentary codes of conduct exhibit, the findings of the reviews that have been conducted into the effectiveness of these arrangements in preventing bullying and harassment and discusses how these might inform debate about a response at the federal level.

Introduction

The workplace culture of the Commonwealth Parliament has recently become the focus of public attention following media reports in February 2021 of an alleged sexual assault of a ministerial staffer in Parliament House in March 2019, and the emergence of a number of other allegations of mistreatment of members of parliament and political and parliamentary staff.[1] Similar accusations relating to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault have recently arisen in a number of Australia’s state and territory parliaments, as well as in comparable overseas parliaments, including those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. Complex employment arrangements covering the many types of staff that interact in the parliamentary environment, as well as significant power imbalances between staff, and between parliamentarians and staff, are also found across these parliaments.

This paper seeks to identify how the framework for regulating workplace conduct in the federal parliamentary environment differs from those of comparable parliaments, and what reforms these other jurisdictions have implemented that might be adaptable to the federal Parliament. The paper examines parliamentary responses to issues of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault by describing current codes of conduct and other existing mechanisms in the federal Parliament, Australian state and territory parliaments and selected overseas parliaments. The paper also considers codes of conduct developed by the main political parties represented in the federal Parliament. Finally, the paper discusses the reviews announced by the federal Government in response to allegations made public in February 2021, and subsequent reports.

Given the specific focus of this paper on how parliaments have addressed allegations of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault through codes of conduct and related disciplinary mechanisms, it does not seek to address the many ways in which other aspects of parliamentary behaviour are regulated. For example, it does not address integrity measures relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interests and interactions with lobbyists, nor the regulation of conduct during parliamentary debates. These issues have been discussed in papers previously published by the Parliamentary Library.[2]

The discussion also does not address the application of the criminal law, which generally speaking operates separately and in addition to workplace codes of conduct (although workplace procedures can be relevant to ensuring the proper referral of matters to the police where appropriate).

Parliaments describe sexual harassment and assault issues in many ways. Unless using a direct quote, this paper uses the terms ‘bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault’, which are the terms used by the Government in its announcement of the Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces (see below for more details of this review).[3]

Current federal parliamentary codes of conduct

Unlike Australian state and territory parliaments and other Westminster parliaments in Canada and the UK, MPs and political staff working in the Australian federal parliament are subject to very few codes of conduct. Table 1 (Appendix 1) shows that even though ministers and ministerial staff are subject to codes of conduct, these are weak, standalone codes with no requirement for breaches to be dealt with by an independent arbiter. Senators and Members are not subject to any codes of conduct, with issues often dealt with by party leaders in response to pressure from the media and the public. Similarly staff working for non-ministerial members of parliament have no code of conduct. Only staff employed under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and the Public Service Act 1999 are subject to statutory codes with breaches handled by the employing department and, depending on the service, advice from the parliamentary service commissioner or public service commissioner.

More information on the parliamentary workplace is available in the Parliamentary Library publication Who works at Parliament House?.^[4]

The current federal parliamentary codes of conduct are discussed below. 

Ministers and Assistant Ministers

The Statement of ministerial standards covers ministers and assistant ministers.[5] The standards are issued in the name of the prime minister of the day, who is also responsible for the implementation of the code. Section 7 states, in part, that ‘[m]inisters must accept that it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether and when a minister should stand aside’. The prime minister decides how to deal with a breach and may seek advice from ‘an appropriate independent authority’ or from ‘the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’ and the advice received from the Secretary may be made public by the prime minister. There are no specific references in the Standards to bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault but section 2.24 does prohibit ministers from engaging in sexual relations with their staff. The Standards include a strong statement on criminal offences. Section 7.2 requires ministers to stand aside if charged and resign if convicted of a criminal offence.

The Statement of ministerial standards is not ‘a law or regulation’, it does not have ‘any formal parliamentary authorisation’ and there is nothing to stop the prime minister as author of the document from altering, amending or interpreting it in any way he or she sees fit.^[6]

Senators and members

Discussion about the introduction of a code of conduct covering members of parliament has continued for decades but a code has not yet eventuated. The issue was first raised in the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, Report on Declaration of Interests tabled in both houses on 30 September 1975. The committee noted that the drafting of a code of conduct was beyond its terms of reference but ‘felt that a precise and meaningful code of conduct should exist.’[7] Since then there have been a number of unsuccessful efforts in the Senate and the House of Representatives to introduce a code of conduct.

In 2010, a commitment to create a code of conduct for senators and members was included in the agreements to form government.[8] As a result, in 2012, the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests conducted a comprehensive inquiry into a draft code of conduct for members and included a draft code in its report.[9] Although a motion that the House endorse the code was passed, no further action resulted.[10] The Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests report tabled on 29 November 2012 recommended that the Senate not adopt the code of conduct proposed by the House of Representatives Committee.[11]

In 2017 the Australian Greens moved that the Senate acknowledge a parliamentary code for respecting cultural diversity and in 2018 that the Senate adopt a code of conduct for inclusion in the Senate Standing Orders.[12] In each case the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure did not recommend adopting the proposed codes.[13]

In the 46th Parliament bills proposing statutory codes of conduct for senators and members of the House of Representatives and their staff and the establishment of an independent Parliamentary Integrity Adviser and a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to investigate alleged breaches of the applicable codes of conduct have been introduced by the Australian Greens in the Senate and independent member for Indi Dr Helen Haines in the House of Representatives.[14] These recent bills have included the requirement that parliamentarians ‘must not bully or harass any person’.[15]

Ministerial staff, consultants and ministerial electorate officers

The Statement of standards for ministerial staff is published on the website of the Special Minister of State.[16] This code only covers ‘[m]inisterial staff and consultants and Ministers’ electorate officers employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act)’.[17] Although ministerial staff are employed under the terms of the MOP(S) Act, it does not contain a statutory code of conduct. There are no references to bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault. Notes published with the Statement state that the implementation is the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Government Staffing Committee (GSC). Any sanctions imposed will be determined after consultation with the relevant minister by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, acting on advice from the Special Minister of State and the GSC.[18]

Professor Anne Tiernan from Griffith University has noted that there has never been a substantive review of the governance framework that supports ministerial staff, including ‘examining the basis on which they are employed and managed, their relationship to the parliament or the community’.[19]

Another academic who has researched ministerial staff arrangements, Dr Maria Maley, from the Australian National University, has noted the lack of accountability of ministerial staff, despite a statement of standards:

… we never hear about breaches of the [ministerial staff] code because it is policed internally by senior figures in the government, the members of the shadowy Government Staffing Committee … Since coming to power in 2013, the Coalition government has refused to provide any details about the work of the committee.[20]

In a Budget Estimates committee hearing on 27 May 2021, Senator Birmingham was questioned about the GSC. He stated that the ‘prime function’ of the GSC related to appointments and in response to the question of sanctions he advised that:

Sanctions in relation to staff can constitute a number of potential steps. They would themselves have to be imposed by an employing member or senator under the MOP(S) Act framework.[21]

He also confirmed that it was not the job of the GSC to administer the Statement of standards for ministerial staff and that the GSC did not receive reports on breaches of these Standards.[22]

Journalist Verona Burgess has noted that the three main legal instruments that apply to parliamentary staffers are the MOP(S) Act, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Commonwealth Members of Parliament Staff Enterprise Agreement.[23] She said that, ‘[n]one exactly oozes with compassion or duty of care, let alone provides for mandatory reporting of an alleged sexual or other serious criminal offence’.[24]

In 2018 the Government commissioned an Independent Review of the Australian Public Service which was conducted by an independent panel chaired by former Telstra CEO David Thodey. His report included the following measure (recommendation 11):

Amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to establish a legislated code of conduct, with appropriate enforcement provisions, for advisors.[25]

The Government did not accept this part of recommendation 11, stating in its response that it ‘expects all ministerial staff to uphold the highest standards of integrity and it uses a range of mechanisms to ensure they are held to account for these standards’.[26]

Staff, volunteers and interns working for senators and members 

Staff working for senators and members who are not ministers or assistant ministers are also employed under the terms of the MOP(S) Act but are not subject to either a standalone code or a statutory code of conduct.[27]

Parliamentary service staff 

Staff working in the four parliamentary departments are employed under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and are subject to a statutory code of conduct (section 13) which also applies to departmental secretaries and statutory office holders (section 14). Parliamentary Service values are included in the Act (section 10).[28]

Australian public service (APS) staff

Most ministers have one or two Departmental Liaison Officers who are outposted from departments and some agencies to liaise between the Ministers’ offices and their departments. There are also three Cabinet Liaison Officers, two Parliamentary Liaison Officers and two Assistant Parliamentary Liaison Officers who assist with the legislative program.[29]

These staff are employed by various departments under the Public Service Act 1999 which includes the APS code of conduct (section 13) and APS values (section 10).[30]

Political party codes of conduct

The main parties in the federal parliament have published national party codes of conduct which either include or are accompanied by complaint procedures. All the national codes listed below include definitions of sexual harassment, list options for dealing with breaches of the code, and include procedures for dealing with complaints. Three of the four codes distinguish between formal and informal complaints procedures. Professor Louise Chappell from the University of NSW,  noted the need for political parties to develop ‘strong policies and accountability practices’ and suggested that:[31]

The ALP has started this process with its recent policy on sexual harassment but it needs to go much further to address more serious forms of abuse. The Liberal Party has developed a national code of conduct, but with vague enforcement mechanisms and sanctions left up to state branches.[32]

Australian Greens

The Australian Greens Anti-sexual harassment policy dated 2018 (reviewed 2021) and the accompanying Formal and informal complaints process apply to ‘all Australian Greens related contexts including (but not limited to) work-related context, work functions, business trips, conferences, meetings, and social and volunteer events organised by the Australian Greens’.[33] The policy only applies to incidents involving MPs and their staff ‘where internal staffing policies do not apply’.[34] The policy contains a set of principles, including that ‘there will be at least one female-identifying contact person at any given Australian Greens event’ and that managers or supervisors who fail to respond to a complaint in accordance with this policy may be subject to disciplinary action’.[35]

The policy includes a disciplinary action matrix according to the ‘severity of harassment’.[36] The disciplinary action ranges from formal training or guidance on appropriate behaviour to suspension or expulsion from the party.

Australian Labor Party

In February 2021 the Australian Labor Party (ALP) published four national policies: ALP National code of conduct, ALP National policy for sexual harassment and prevention and response, ALP National policy for bullying and harassment prevention and response and ALP National complaints handling process.[37] The code applies to ‘ALP members, elected ALP parliamentary representatives, official (paid and unpaid), staff, contractors, volunteers and any person who attends an ALP gathering or event (national level)’.[38] It lists workplaces where the code applies and states that for particular workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces, the ‘[c]ode is to be read consistent with … [the] legal requirements, codes and disciplinary processes’ of that workplace.[39]

The National complaints handling policy lists the consequences of a breach of the code and associated policies ranging from counselling, an apology, conciliation/mediation, training, performance management, a formal warning, demotion, to suspension or expulsion.[40] This policy also sets out the process for handling complaints involving four designated persons who ‘can provide informal advice to potential complainants or receive complaints formally’ and specifies the role of the National Secretary.[41]

The current ALP member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites, and the former member, Jenny Macklin, noted that ‘[o]ne of the biggest tests will be whether the consequences of not following these policies and procedures are serious enough to change behaviour’.[42]

Liberal Party of Australia

In 2019 the Federal Executive of the Liberal Party adopted the National code of conduct and the Complaints and dispute resolution policy following a review of complaints and dispute resolution processes.[43]

The code notes that state and territory divisions ‘have their own codes of conduct and their own disciplinary procedures or processes for dealing with misconduct’ and states that complaints relating to ‘breaches of the code should be dealt with in accordance with each Division’s complaint and dispute resolution procedures and Constitution’.[44] The Complaints and dispute resolution policy covers Liberal Party employees or contractors, financial Liberal Party members or volunteers and Liberal Party members of federal, state and territory parliaments.[45]

Under the Complaints and dispute resolution policy, state directors are responsible for handling informal complaints and formal complaint procedures.[46] The director has the option of referring formal complaints to a state Complaints and Dispute Resolution committee.[47] The Policy lists possible outcomes available to the State Director ‘depending on the nature of the complaint and the procedure followed to address the complaint’.[48] These range from counselling and an apology to termination of employment, censure and suspension or expulsion.[49]

The Nationals

The National Party of Australia harassment protocol, dated 2018 applies to members of an Affiliated and Associated Party, persons participating in functions and events of the Party, Party office bearers and members of staff of the Party.[50] The protocol defines sexual harassment and workplace bullying and states that all complaints should be notified to the Federal Director who determines the investigation process in consultation with the Federal President and the Honorary Legal Adviser. The protocol also states that as ‘[m]embership of the National Party of Australia is conferred by an Affiliated or Associate Party’ in some cases, ‘it will be the role of that organisation to investigate and determine [the] process related to claims of harassment’.[51]

Current arrangements and recent inquiries in state and territory parliaments

Codes of conduct

Parliamentarians

As summarised in Table 2 (Appendix 1) below, all but one of Australia’s state and territory parliaments has a code of conduct for parliamentarians in place.[52] The South Australian Parliament has not yet adopted such a code but has tasked a joint committee with drafting a code to be considered by both Houses.[53] The Western Australian Legislative Council has also not adopted a code, although the Legislative Assembly has done so. These codes have been established by a variety of means, including by resolution of each chamber of the parliament, by inclusion in legislation, or in the case of Queensland, through publication by a parliamentary committee pursuant to a legislative requirement.[54]

These existing codes generally focus on ensuring integrity in public office and require parliamentarians to act in the public interest rather than their private interest, avoid improper influence, use public resources appropriately, disclose their interests to the parliament, appropriately manage conflicts of interest and to treat constituents with fairness and respect. While these codes often include general requirements that parliamentarians maintain a high standard of conduct or refer to relevant obligations under workplace or anti-discrimination legislation, they generally do not contain explicit requirements in relation to bullying or harassment. The codes of conduct for Queensland and Tasmanian parliamentarians are exceptions, with the first stating that parliamentarians share in and support the ‘integrity, honesty, accessibility, accountability, fairness, transparency, courtesy, respect and understanding, without harassment, victimisation or discrimination’, and the latter stating:

Members should treat members of the public, officers and employees of the Parliamentary Service and other public officials with courtesy, honesty and fairness, and with proper regard for their rights, obligations cultural differences, safety, health and welfare.

Members should not use abusive, obscene or threatening language (either oral or written) or behaviour towards any officer, employee or member of the public.[55]

Breaches of these codes of conduct are generally matters to be dealt with by the relevant parliamentary chamber under established procedures for dealing with matters of privilege. Uniquely, the ACT Legislative Assembly has appointed a Commissioner for Standards who is responsible for investigating complaints made against members in accordance with a published protocol and, for serious matters, reporting to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, which will then recommend appropriate action to the Assembly.[56] State and territory integrity commissions are also able to investigate, including by using significant coercive powers where necessary, and report on the conduct of parliamentarians and ministers, provided the conduct meets the thresholds set out in each commissions’ enabling legislation. As discussed in relation to New South Wales below, the focus of these integrity commissions on serious corruption and misconduct means misconduct that falls below these thresholds may not be investigated by these agencies.

Ministers

As set out in Table 3 (Appendix 1) below, ministers of each state and territory government are also subject to ministerial codes of conduct issued by respective premiers or chief ministers. These codes are generally published by the government and are not adopted by the parliament, nor contained in legislation, with New South Wales being an exception as its ministerial code of conduct is contained in delegated legislation.[57] As with the parliamentary codes of conduct discussed above, these codes generally focus on integrity in public office and address issues such as compliance with the law, fairness in decision making, accountability to parliament, the operations of cabinet, interactions with the public service, interactions with lobbyists, registration of interests and management of ministerial staff. These codes also include clauses requiring ministers to maintain high standards in their public and private conduct, but generally do not contain explicit references to harassment and bullying, with the exception of Tasmania and South Australia. The South Australian ministerial code of conduct now requires:

Ministers must not engage in sexual harassment or in other forms of discriminatory behaviour (defined as discrimination based on one of the protected attributes in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984; that is, age, race, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or caring responsibilities).[58]

The Tasmanian ministerial code of conduct requires that:

Ministers are committed to ensuring and enabling for both women and men a safe, respectful and inclusive environment that is free from discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and bullying, and that they are respected and valued and treated as equals in both public and private life.

Ministers are to value diversity and work respectfully with people of different cultures, ages, ethnicities, religions, abilities, and sexual orientations and identities.’[59]

In all state and territory jurisdictions, the imposition of sanctions for breaches of ministerial codes of conduct is left to the discretion of the relevant Premier or Chief Minister.

Parliamentary staff

Beyond parliamentarians and ministers, there are a range of categories of staff working in the state and territory parliamentary environment, including ministerial staff, electorate office staff, chamber and committee support staff and parliamentary services staff. Employment arrangements for these different groups vary across state and territory jurisdictions but, broadly speaking, they are subject to codes of conduct which either address bullying and harassment explicitly or include general good conduct requirements.[60] However, as discussed below, the adequacy of these codes and associated enforcement mechanisms have been the subject of recent reviews.

Reviews and inquiries

New South Wales Parliament

Former Sex Discrimination Commissioner and former NSW Liberal Minister, Pru Goward, was recently invited by the then NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, to review ‘the adequacy of policies and procedures concerning bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct in Ministerial offices’.[61] Ms Goward’s report was completed on 19 April 2021.

Ms Goward made 13 recommendations, including:

development of a best practice Respectful Workplace Policy, including investigative and reporting procedures (recommendation 1)

training for Ministers and their staff on what constitutes bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct and how to manage a complaint about these issues. Chiefs of Staff should be provided with additional training and support. (recommendation 3)

an independent person should receive complaints of misconduct from Ministerial staff and may conduct investigations of complaints (recommendation 7).[62]

The report concluded ‘that the protections and processes available to Ministerial staff are unclear, ineffective and inadequate’.[63] The report was described as ‘brutal’ by the Premier, but a media article suggested that the Goward report faced criticism because ‘it had failed to adequately address some of the issues facing staff in the NSW Parliament, and … some of the remedies didn’t go far enough’ and had failed ‘to recommend sanctions for ministers who engage in misconduct’.[64] The Premier has indicated that the Government will accept all of the report’s recommendations and that ‘there will be an opportunity for consultation in the next phase of this process’.[65]

The Presiding Officers announced on 27 July 2021 that the Parliament had engaged former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to conduct a six month review of the parliamentary workplace in order to ‘provide expert advice to the Parliament to ensure a workplace free from bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.’[66] The announcement of this further review was welcomed by the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in her capacity as chair of the Parliament’s recently established advisory group on bullying, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.[67] This advisory group comprises ‘Members, Members' staff, parliamentary staff, relevant managers and other representatives and stakeholders.’[68] A report containing the findings and recommendations of the review by Ms Broderick will be provided to the New South Wales Parliament and made public in April 2022.[69]

In addition to these two external review processes, the two Houses of the New South Wales Parliament have recently been engaged, through their respective privileges committees, in deliberations on the establishment of a ‘parliamentary compliance officer’ and on amendments to the code of conduct for members of parliament. The proposal that an ‘external third party to deal with complaints concerning members’ be established was outlined in a 2013 report of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (NSW ICAC), with the intention of better addressing complaints against parliamentarians that fall outside the jurisdiction of the NSW ICAC.[70] However, the privileges committees of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council were unable to reach agreement on a model for a parliamentary investigator at that time.[71]

While the proposal had in this earlier phase been focused on addressing gaps in the regulation of members’ conduct in relation to entitlements and declarations of interests, it was revived in 2020 with a new focus on addressing bullying, harassment and sexual harassment by members of parliament. At the direction of the Presiding Officers, the Clerks of both Houses and the Chief Executive of the Department of Parliamentary Services developed a joint proposal to establish a position of ‘compliance officer’, which was referred to the two privileges committees in November 2020.[72] The proposal included among the functions of the compliance officer the confidential receipt and investigation of complaints against members in relation to: misuse of allowances and entitlements; other less serious misconduct matters falling short of corrupt conduct; allegations of bullying harassment and other types of grievances; and minor breaches of the pecuniary interests disclosures scheme.[73] The proposal also included an amendment to the Members Code of Conduct to include the explicit requirement that ‘Members must treat their staff and each other and all those working for Parliament in a manner compatible with a safe workplace, free from harassment’, and a note referring to section 22(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) under which it is an offence for a member of either House of Parliament ‘to sexually harass a workplace participant or another member in the workplace, or for a workplace participant to sexually harass a member.’[74]

The Legislative Council Privileges Committee reported on the proposal in May 2021 and recommended a number of amendments to the resolution of appointment of the compliance officer and to the proposed additions to the Members Code of Conduct.[75] The Legislative Assembly Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics Committee reported in July 2021, and also recommended a number of amendments to the proposed resolution of appointment, and did not agree with the proposed additions to the Members Code of Conduct in light of legal advice about the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).[76] While both committees expressed support for the establishment of a compliance officer, they have each proposed a range of different recommendations as to the precise scope and responsibilities of the role and associated amendments to the Members Code of Conduct.

Victorian Parliament

It was reported in February 2021 that the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly is examining options for reforming the code of conduct for members of parliament, a process that also involves the President of the Legislative Council.[77] This process was also cited in May 2021 in response to reports about the behaviour of a Labor MP in his parliamentary office, with a spokesman for the Speaker stating that ‘Parliament is currently working in a bipartisan manner to develop a framework for member behaviour to better respond to complaints about bullying and sexual harassment.’[78] A media report indicated that one proposal under consideration involved the appointment of an independent commissioner who would either be granted the power to impose sanctions on members directly or be required to recommend to the relevant House that it impose certain sanctions on a member.[79] The report suggested that no objections had been raised to the proposal by members of parliament during the consultation period and that the proposed ‘system will almost certainly be introduced, with the detail to be finalised by a committee and drafted into legislation.’[80]

In March 2021 the Victorian Government also established a ministerial taskforce for sexual harassment to ‘investigate ways to prevent incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace’. The taskforce will consider the threshold for mandatory reporting of workplace sexual harassment, but the Minister for Workplace Safety was ‘unable to say whether the new workplace laws, including the mandatory reporting of sexual harassment, would apply to MPs and staff working at Parliament House.’[81]

South Australian Parliament

On 12 November 2020, both Houses of the South Australian Parliament agreed to a motion moved by the then Attorney-General, Vicki Chapman, that noted ‘the prevalence and nature of harassment in the parliamentary workplace’ and requested the Equal Opportunity Commissioner to ‘consider the reporting of harassment in the parliamentary workplace, including existing complaint mechanisms and any cultural and structural barriers, including potential victimisation, to reporting’ and provide recommendations to improve awareness of, enhance protection against and respond appropriately to sexual harassment.[82]

The Equal Opportunity Commission presented its Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace to the Houses of the South Australian Parliament in February 2021.[83] The report referred to the events that had led to the motion passed by the SA Parliament:

Preceding this [the motion], Members of Parliament had expressed concerns about the occurrence and responses to specific incidents of alleged harassment in the parliamentary workplace. In particular, throughout 2020 there had been concerns expressed in the Houses about alleged incidents of sexual harassment by a Member of Parliament at a 2019 Christmas party at Parliament House.[84]

The report discussed the application of the South Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics to the various categories of employees in the parliamentary environment, and the avenues available for raising complaints in the parliamentary environment, finding that:

… there are few, and in some parts of the workplace no, procedures setting out internal complaint handling avenues. Where harassment victims sought to lodge complaints within the parliamentary workplace, the processes adopted did not reflect good complaint handling practice and the outcomes reached were viewed by the complainants as being unsatisfactory. None of the complaints processes the Review was informed about led to an outcome the Commission would consider an appropriate outcome or to a finding of harassment with sanctions. This is despite the fact that in [sic] least some of matters examined it appears likely that harassment had occurred.[85]

The report made 16 recommendations which included a significant number of reforms to the administration of the Parliament to be implemented by a newly formed centralised human resources function to be called the People and Culture Section.[86] The report also recommended that the Houses introduce a code of conduct for members of parliament, which:

(a) amongst other standards, provides that Members of Parliament must not engage in sexual harassment or other forms of discriminatory behaviour

(b) provides for a process whereby, following an investigation pursuant to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 and findings of misconduct being made against a Member of Parliament, a report is furnished to the relevant House to consider and, if appropriate, make recommendations that the Member of Parliament is sanctioned for the misconduct

(c) sets out a range of sanctions which may be imposed for a breach of the Code including a reprimand, a financial penalty and reduction of privileges.[87]

As noted above, the report suggested that the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct be amended to make ‘specific reference to sexual and discriminatory harassment to indicate that this type of behaviour by Ministers will not be tolerated’, a recommendation that has been implemented.[88]

The Commission considered that the amendments made in October 2020 to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) to capture instances of sexual harassment of a member of parliament by another member of parliament to be a ‘demonstration of commitment amongst Members of Parliament to addressing sexual harassment in their workplace’.[89] However, the report also recommended further amendments be made to the Act to limit the circumstances in which presiding officers may become involved in handling complaints that may impinge on parliamentary privilege.[90]

A Joint Parliamentary Committee was established to examine the recommendations of the report and develop a draft code of conduct.[91] The committee delivered its final report on 28 October 2021 and recommended that its proposed code of conduct be adopted through resolutions of each House of the South Australian Parliament and also be incorporated into the standing orders of each House.[92] With respect to behavioural standards, the code proposed by the committee requires that Members of Parliament must not ‘harass, sexually harass, or discriminate against’ a member of their staff, another Member of Parliament, a member of the staff of another Member of Parliament, an officer or member of the staff of the Parliament, or any other person who in the course of employment performs duties at Parliament House.[93] The committee did not support a proposal made by the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption that a parliamentary conduct commissioner be established to investigate and report on apparent breaches of the code, preferring instead that the South Australian Ombudsman conduct investigations and that sanctions be a matter for the parties, the parliament and the electorate.[94]

Tasmania

In the context of a number of recent allegations concerning the conduct of members of parliament, ministerial staff and candidates, the Government of Tasmania announced that it would request the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to conduct a review of ‘the current policies and practices in relation to providing appropriate responses to harassment, including any legislative, regulatory, administrative, legal or policy gaps associated with parliament, ministerial and parliamentary services and electoral offices.’[95] The Commissioner has also been tasked with making recommendations as to:

• Any actions that should be taken to increase awareness of the impact of workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying and improve workplace culture within MPS, including training and the role of leadership in promoting a workplace culture that does not tolerate workplace harassment.
• Any changes that should be made to legislative, regulatory, administrative, legal or policy areas to enhance protection against, and provide best practice responses to, workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying within MPS.
• Any other actions or changes necessary to ensure a safe and respectful workplace free from workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying within MPS and that set the standard for the broader community on best practice workplace policies and procedures that enable safe and respectful workplaces.[96]

The review has invited written submissions from, and will conduct interviews with, members of parliament and staff with the intention of completing a report by the end of 2021. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner intends to publish a report on their findings and recommendations by mid-2022.[97]

Examples of overseas parliaments dealing with allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault

The United Kingdom (UK) and Canadian parliaments have longstanding parliamentary accountability mechanisms in place, but these parliaments have also had to deal with allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The New Zealand Parliament has also dealt with similar allegations.

United Kingdom

Ministerial code of conduct

Ministerial conduct is governed by a Ministerial Code, with the current version of the code issued by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in August 2019.[98] The code’s general principles include the following statement on behaviour:

Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.[99]

Ministers are also required to comply with codes of conduct for their respective Houses and with any requirements placed on them by the House of Commons’ Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.[100] The Ministerial Code states that it is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the code.[101] The Prime Minister can ask the Cabinet Office to investigate a breach of the code and/or refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.[102] Media articles on recent alleged breaches of the code have noted that the Adviser cannot initiate inquiries and that the Prime Minister retains power to exonerate himself and ministers.[103] One commentator has suggested more radical changes to the code:

… the UK’s Ministerial Code has no real status. It can be rewritten by the Prime Minister. It could be withdrawn by the Prime Minister if it proved too annoying …

Better might be to rewrite the Ministerial Code, to make sure it covers relations with party donors, former colleagues, and any hint of improper influence; to put it in statute; and to make the Independent Adviser [on ministerial interests] a parliamentary appointment not a prime ministerial one, with an ability to report directly to Parliament.[104]

Codes of conduct covering members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords

Members of the House of Commons are subject to a Code of Conduct and Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members.[105] The code of conduct was first adopted by Resolution of the House of Commons in 1996.[106] A similar Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct, applying to members of the House of Lords was introduced in March 2002. The current document, dated July 2020, also includes a Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members’ Staff.[107] The codes and the guide are reviewed by the House of Lords Conduct Committee with recommended changes agreed by the House of Lords.[108] The committee is also responsible for overseeing the work of the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards.[109]

Role of the House of Commons Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS), established under House of Commons standing order 150, is responsible for investigating allegations of breaches of the rules of conduct in paragraphs 11-18 of the House of Commons’ code of conduct.[110] The Commissioner is an independent officer of the House of Commons.

The PCS website states that the Commissioner has oversight of investigations conducted under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme:

The Commissioner is the decision-maker for investigations conducted under the scheme, investigating allegations from the parliamentary community about harassment, bullying or sexual harassment by MPs’.[111]

The Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members sets out the procedure where the Commissioner has concluded that there has been a breach of the rules, and the Committee on Standards has agreed in whole or in part, those concerned face a range of penalties.[112] The Committee may recommend:

a) a written apology;

b) for relatively minor failures to declare interests, an apology on the floor of the House by means of a point of order;

c) an apology on the floor of the House by means of a personal statement;

d) for non-Members, withdrawal of Parliamentary passes, either indefinitely or for a fixed period;

e) suspension from the service of the House for a specified number of sitting days (during which time the Member receives no salary and must withdraw from the precincts of the House.)

In the most serious cases the Committee has the power to recommend expulsion. While the House itself decides whether a Member should be suspended, its practice has been to accept the Committee’s recommendations on such matters.[113]

The PCS may also refer cases to the recently established Independent Expert Panel (IEP).[114] The core function of the Panel is ‘to determine complaints of bullying or harassment under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS)’.[115] The IEP is ‘entirely independent of MPs, with no MPs taking part in its decisions’.[116] The IEP website outlines the Panel’s role:

The Panel will determine sanctions in cases referred by the PCS where she is not able to rectify the case using the sanctions available to her.

The sanctions determined by the Panel could include the suspension or expulsion of an MP, which requires action by the House. In these cases, the House will consider a motion to impose the sanction.[117]

The Committee on Standards has recently completed a report canvassing possible reforms to the system of sanctions for breaches of the rules set out in the code of conduct for members of parliament and also commissioned a legal adviser to review the extent to which standards of fairness and natural justice are observed in the House’s standards system. The latter review recommended, among other matters, that a right of appeal from decisions of the Committee on Standards should be afforded in certain circumstances.[118]

Inquiries into allegations of bullying and harassment in the UK Parliament

In November 2017, the New Stateman published a report on incidents of sexual harassment in Westminster over many years and noted that it was very ‘difficult to report sexual harassment at Westminster’. [119] The article also observed that:

The main victims of sexual harassment appear to be staffers, who … tend to be directly employed by their MP, [and] are at the bottom of the Westminster food chain …[120]

On 8 March 2018 the BBC Newsnight program reported that there was:

… a bullying and sexual harassment problem at the House of Commons. Women face greater obstacles holding jobs in the engine room of our democracy than men.[121]

Newsnight quoted one former House of Commons staff member saying that her career at the House of Commons didn't end when she was sexually harassed. Her career ended when she complained.[122]

In response to public allegations of bullying and harassment in the UK Parliament three independent reviews were established. The reviews were initiated by the governing bodies of both Houses, the House of Commons Commission (Cox and White reviews) and the House of Lords Commission (Ellenbogen review).[123] The Cox and White reports were tabled in the House of Commons; the Ellenbogen report was tabled in the House of Lords. These three independent reviews are described below.

The Cox report

The House of Commons Commission ‘decided [in March 2018] that there should be an inquiry into the nature and extent of bullying and harassment, the procedures available to address them and the general culture of the House as a place of work’.^[124] It was agreed that this inquiry should be carried out independently. The tasks of appointing someone to conduct the inquiry and of agreeing appropriate terms of reference were delegated to the two non-executive members of the Commission.^[125]

On 23 April 2018 Dame Laura Cox QC was appointed to conduct the inquiry and asked to ‘lay [her] … report before the House at its conclusion’.^[126] Her report, The bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, was published on 15 October 2018.[127] Before the completion of the report, the House of Commons resolved, on 19 July 2018, to adopt a new complaints procedure: an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) consisting of a Behaviour code covering everyone working or visiting the parliamentary estate, a Bullying and harassment policy and a Sexual misconduct policy.^[128] During debate on the motion to adopt the new scheme, Dawn Butler (Labour) noted that:

Behaviour or sexual harassment codes will not work on their own, but as a statement of principle, they are an excellent start with regard to our cultural intent, and they set the parameters in terms of behaviour.^[129]

On 17 July 2019, in response to a House of Commons Commission recommendation, the House of Commons amended the ICGS to allow historic (non-recent) cases to be considered under the Scheme.[130] The UK Parliament has published additional information on the ICGS, which includes detailed guidance on reporting sexual misconduct, and instances of bullying and harassment and also discusses support available to complainants.^[131]

The White report

The report by Gemma White QC, Bullying and harassment of MPs’ parliamentary staff – independent inquiry report, concerned staff of members of the House of Commons as well as Members themselves.[132] The House of Commons Commission responded to the report on 16 July 2019, and welcomed the principles and overall conclusions.[133] The response noted that although the House of Commons did not employ the staff of MPs and agreed with Gemma White that this should not change, the Commission accepted the principle that the arrangements for the employment of MPs' staff should reflect a modern workplace including the creation of a new HR department.[134] The Commission also urged MPs to approve the motion to ‘open the ICGS to non-recent cases and to former members of the parliamentary community’.[135] In May 2020, the House of Commons Commission, confirmed that it had ‘agreed to establish the Members Services Team which will deliver the recommendations of Gemma White QC’.[136]

The Ellenbogen report

The report by Naomi Ellenbogen QC, An independent inquiry into bullying in the House of Lords, concerned House of Lords members and their staff and administrative staff employed by the House of Lords.[137] On 18 July 2019 the House of Lords Commission responded to the report’s recommendations, including agreeing to some initial steps.[138]

Independent Expert Panel

On 23 June 2020 members of the House of Commons approved motions to establish an Independent Expert Panel (IEP).[139] The core function of the IEP is ‘to determine complaints of bullying or harassment under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme’ (discussed above).[140] The IEP is ‘entirely independent of MPs, with no MPs taking part in its decisions’ and it is not a Committee of the House of Commons.[141] The Panel determines sanctions in cases referred by the PCS where the Commissioner is not able to rectify the case using the available sanctions.[142]

The IEP website describes the sanctions available to the Panel:

The sanctions determined by the Panel could include the suspension or expulsion of an MP, which requires action by the House. In these cases, the House will consider a motion to impose the sanction …

Less severe sanctions will be imposed directly by the Panel.[143]

The operation of the IEP is illustrated in its consideration of the conduct of Conservative MP Rob Roberts.[144] The Panel noted that this was ‘one of the first cases that has been referred to the Panel to determine sanction, and as such there are as yet no precedents to follow’.[145] On 25 May 2021, the Panel found that Roberts ‘had acted in breach of Parliament’s sexual misconduct policy’ and recommended that he ‘should be suspended from the service of the House for six weeks’.[146] The Panel rejected appeals from Mr Roberts on the initial finding and the sanction.[147] The Chair of the Panel noted that he was ‘required to report to the House as the Panel has determined a sanction that can only be imposed by the House’.[148]

On 27 May 2021 the House of Commons voted to suspend Mr Roberts ‘from the service of the House for a period of six weeks’.[149] In April a BBC news item had noted that sanctions of this nature recommended by the IEP ‘do not automatically trigger the Recall of MPs Act 2015’, which provides a means of forcing a by-election where an MP has been convicted of an offence or suspended from the House following a recommendation of the Committee for Standards.[150] The IEP report on Mr Roberts similarly noted that:

The process for a petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 is not triggered by a suspension imposed on the recommendation of the [IE] Panel. For a recall to be initiated, the sanction must be imposed on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards, or another Committee of the House of Commons concerned with standards of conduct. The Independent Expert Panel is not a Committee of the House of Commons.[151]

Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, referred to this anomaly before the House voted to suspend Mr Roberts, stating that there have been concerns about the discrepancy between ICGS and non-ICGS cases and confirming that he had asked the chairman of the IEP if changes should be made to the current process to enable recall to be triggered.[152] He also noted that it is ‘ridiculous that we have a higher sanction for somebody who uses a few envelopes incorrectly than for somebody who is involved in sexual misconduct’.[153]

When his suspension ended on 8 July 2021, Mr Roberts returned to the House of Commons as an independent because the Conservative whip had been withdrawn (although he remained a member of the party).[154] He had previously been urged by the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the Labour Party, Sir Kier Starmer and other UK ministers to resign.[155]

On 8 September 2021, the BBC reported that Mr Roberts had been suspended from the Conservative Party for 12 weeks.[156] The suspension ended on 1 November 2021.[157]

A House of Commons Library paper on recall elections outlines the recall procedure which was introduced in 2015 in response to the 2010 MPs’ expenses scandal.[158] MPs can only be recalled under certain circumstances and there are no plans to extend recall to other elected officials.[159]

Canada

Ministerial code of conduct

Guidance on ministerial responsibility and standards of conduct is available in the 2015 guide, Open and accountable government, which is available on the Prime Minister’s website.[160] The guide:

 … sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada’s system of responsible parliamentary government. This includes the central tenet of ministerial responsibility, both individual and collective, as well as Ministers’ relations with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, their portfolios and Parliament. It outlines standards of conduct expected of Ministers as well as addressing a range of administrative, procedural and institutional matters.[161]

The guide also contains a code of conduct for ministerial exempt staff, that is ‘all persons appointed to positions in the office of a Minister under section 128 of the Public Service Employment Act’.

There are no references to bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault in the guide.

The guide operates in conjunction with the legislative code governing Ministers’ behaviour, the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, contained in the Federal Accountability Act 2006.[162]

Members of the House of Commons and their staff, and senators and their staff

In 2014 allegations were made public about the sexual harassment of two women MPs.[163] In response to these claims, the Canadian House of Commons, like its UK counterpart, ‘adopted rules to prevent non-criminal violence and abuse in the parliamentary workplace’.[164]

In December 2014, the Board of Internal Economy (the governing body of the House of Commons) approved the House of Commons policy on preventing and addressing harassment.[165] This policy applied to Members and House Officers (members appointed to organise the work of their party in the House and its committees) as employers, to their employees, and to political party Research Office employees.[166] The 2015–16 annual report on the policy, which covered its first 16 months of operation, noted that the Policy ‘applies to Members as employers and does not cover situations between Members‘.[167] It also stated that:

Employees covered under a collective agreement as well as employees of the House of Commons Administration are excluded from the application of this policy and are covered by separate frameworks.[168]

In January 2021, the Board approved a new policy, Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, which applies to Members and House Officers as employers, to their employees, and to Research Office employees.[169] As in the 2014 version, the policy does not cover situations between Members; these are covered by the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment.[170]

The 2020–21 annual report on the new policy noted that:

The updated policy sets out the specific duties of employers to investigate, record and report all occurrences of harassment and violence. It strengthens the focus on the prevention of harassment and violence, the timely and effective processing of complaints, and the support to be provided to affected employees.[171]

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its 38th report, recommended that the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment be added as an appendix to the House of Commons Standing Orders, which came into effect at the start of the 42nd Parliament in 2015 (Appendix 2).[172] An article by Canadian political scientists comparing, in part, ‘formal gendered rules in Canada and the UK’ noted that:

In 2015 the Canadian House of Commons became the first legislature in the world to adopt an MP-to-MP Code of Conduct on Sexual Harassment, which was amended to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.[173]

But the authors suggested that the result has been that ‘these new rules have been ”nested” on top of existing ethics regulations in ways that will enable politicians to largely self-police sexual harassment in parliament’.[174]

They concluded that:

… the Canadian Parliament has developed a less independent ethical machinery with more self-regulation compared with the British Parliament, which has been more open to external oversight in recent years.[175]

Senate harassment and violence prevention policy

In 2009 the Senate adopted the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, which applies to Senators, their staff, employees of the Senate Administration, contractors and their staff and volunteers.[176] It included references to sexual harassment.[177]

On 16 February 2021, a new harassment and violence prevention policy was tabled in the Senate.[178] The policy was drafted by:

… senators on the Subcommittee on Human Resources with extensive input from the Senate’s Policy Health and Safety Committee, which includes representatives from all categories of Senate employees. The policy was approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on February 11, 2021.[179]

The new policy introduced the position of an impartial third party to handle complaints of inappropriate conduct and reflected the legislative changes introduced by Bill C-65, discussed below.[180] Opponents of the policy argued that it did not deal with the issue of senator-on-senator abuse and suggested that the privacy provisions relating to complainants were too restrictive.[181]

Bill C-65

In 2018, legislative changes (collectively referred to as Bill C-65) were passed and took effect from 1 January 2021.[182] Bill C-65 included amendments to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.[183] A detailed explanation of the legislative changes, prepared by the Library of Canada, stated that:

Bill C‑65 modifies the existing framework under the Canada Labour Code … for the prevention of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in workplaces under federal jurisdiction ... It also amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act … in order to expand these protections to parliamentary workplaces, “[without] limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members”.[184]

New Zealand

On 27 November 2018, the Speaker of the New Zealand (NZ) House of Representatives, Trevor Mallard, announced an independent review into the problem of bullying and sexual harassment in the NZ Parliament dating back to October 2014.[185] The Speaker said that the review would be carried out by an independent, external reviewer, Debbie Francis, who had experience doing similar work with police and defence.[186] Ms Francis had also carried out past reviews of Parliamentary Services. The news and current affairs site, Newsroom, detailed some of the recent, serious instances of bullying and sexual harassment that led to the review.[187]

Ms Francis presented her report, External Independent Review: Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace, to the Speaker in May 2019.[188] The report made 85 recommendations and discussed in detail the risk factors for bullying and harassment in the parliamentary workplace.[189] On the issue of a code of conduct Ms Francis proposed that a Parliamentary Workplace Code of Conduct be developed, agreed and embedded in job descriptions, induction material and employment agreements (individual or collective) of all parliamentary managers and staff.[190] She also recommended that all Members sign, on commencement, an explicit agreement to abide by the Parliamentary Workplace Code of Conduct and that the code feature in the Member induction process.[191] Ms Francis noted that ‘Parliament must become more like the real world it represents’ and in reference to ‘parliamentary leaders - both managers and elected leaders’ she advised that they ‘must become the consistently aspirational role models New Zealanders expect them to be’.[192]

The New Zealand Parliament published a set of ‘behavioural statements’, but it is not clear if this document is intended to function as the code of conduct recommended by the Francis review.[193]

In July 2020 a media report indicated that the New Zealand Parliamentary Service was continuing to work through the report’s 85 recommendations, some of which deal with reporting processes and support for staff.[194] Another report noted the reluctance of some MPs to agree to a code of conduct and an independent commission to deal with breaches of the code.[195] In late July 2020 it was reported that the Speaker had released a code of conduct drafted by a cross-party group of MPs.[196] The code outlined ‘seven key commitments to create a safer workplace and discourage bullying or harassment’ but the Speaker said ‘the code was not compulsory and Parliament would not vote on it, but he hoped all political parties would get on board’.[197] Although all parties have signed on a ‘voluntary basis, leaving the speaker and party whips to enforce’ the code, there has been no agreement on the creation of an independent complaints commissioner.[198]

Inquiries and reviews initiated in response to allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Australian Parliament

Following media reports in February 2021 of an alleged sexual assault of a ministerial staffer in Parliament House in March 2019, a criminal investigation was launched by ACT Policing. The Prime Minister also initiated two inquiries into the actions of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office in relation to the incident and requested two Coalition MPs review the culture within the offices of Coalition MPs. The Government also initiated a short term inquiry into the support services currently available to parliamentary staff (which incorporated the review of culture within the offices of Coalition MPs) and a longer term independent review of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.[199] The latter two processes are discussed below.

Review of support processes available to staff (the Foster review)

On 16 February 2021 the Prime Minister announced that he had asked Ms Stephanie Foster, deputy secretary, PM&C to ‘assist and advise me on how better … processes can work to support people when incidents of this nature arise’. At an Additional Estimates hearing Ms Foster described the review’s terms of reference and confirmed that she had ‘been working very closely with [Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins—see below] in the thinking and design of these things so that we don't get a disconnect between my short-term work and her longer-term work’.^[200]

Ms Foster provided her report to the Prime Minister on 24 May 2021.[201] The following day the Prime Minister announced that he would adopt Ms Foster’s recommendation to establish an ‘urgently needed’ independent complaints mechanism.[202]

The consultation copy of the report, Review of the Parliamentary Workplace: Responding to Serious Incidents, was published on the PM&C website on 4 June 2021.[203] Ms Foster noted that the review heard a strong case for change—most particularly concerning the creation of a safe environment for people to call out unacceptable behaviour or report serious incidents.[204]

The review identified the ‘most significant gap’ in ‘current procedures and processes’ as:

... the absence of readily accessible, timely, independent, trauma-informed services and response mechanisms, now partially remedied with the introduction of a dedicated 24/7 support line, 1800 APH SPT [established on 2 March 2021].[205] 

Ms Foster’s review also found two other critical areas requiring immediate action:

… a trusted, independent complaints mechanism able to deliver proportionate consequences for misconduct, and tailored, face to face education and support for parliamentarians and their staff in preventing, identifying and responding to serious incidents in the workplace.[206]

This review concentrated on the processes and procedures relating ‘specifically to parliamentarians and MOP(S) Act staff in all parliamentary workplaces’.[207] It left to the Jenkins review, discussed below, a more comprehensive consideration of all workgroups in Parliament House, including those that ‘operate under different employment frameworks and support systems’ such as staff employed under the Parliamentary Services Act 1999.[208]

The review described the parliament as ‘a workplace like no other’ and acknowledged that the sovereignty of Parliament meant that ‘consequences for parliamentarians will be determined by the Parliament’.[209]

In her assessment of the Foster review, Professor Anne Tiernan, suggested that the Jenkins review ‘has been left to do most of the heavy lifting—particularly around the problems inherent to the “complex and unusual” employment framework for staffers’ and stressed that the Jenkins review ‘must confront the ambiguous role ministerial staff play in Australia’s political system’.^[210]

On 22 June 2021 The Guardian reported that the ALP had responded to the main recommendations in the consultation copy.[211] The party’s response included the suggestion of ‘a broader remit’ for the new independent complaints mechanism so it ‘can retrospectively investigate serious incidents’ and the need to explore and clarify ‘issues of privilege and parliamentary sovereignty’ before the commencement of the new system.[212]

The final report was released on 26 July 2021 following briefings ‘with the Opposition, minor parties, independents and staff’.[213] The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance announced that the Government had accepted all ten recommendations including the establishment of an independent complaints mechanism to handle serious incidents in the parliamentary workplace.[214] This complaints mechanism will be ‘overseen by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and will apply to incidents from the commencement of the current term of Parliament’.[215] Ms Foster’s final report recommended the esablishment of a taskforce to ‘undertake or support the implementation of the [report’s] recommendations’, and that one of the actions the taskforce should consider is:

[a] resolution … be moved by the Presiding Officers in both houses of Parliament to recognise the independent complaints handling process and enable referrals of a failure to act by a parliamentarian to the appropriate parliamentary body.^[216]

The Minister for Finance announced the launch of the new complaints mechanism, known as the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service,on 23 September 2021 and stated that Government and Opposition parties had agreed to the terms of a resolution to be put to both Houses to ensure the mechanism ‘can deliver the full accountability recommended by the Foster Review.’[217]

Parallel resolutions were subsequently agreed to by the House of Representatives and the Senate on 18 and 19 October 2021 respectively.[218] The resolutions set out a process whereby the Parliamentary Service Commissioner may make a report to the relevant presiding officer finding that an MP has not cooperated with a review conducted under the new complaints mechanism or has not acted on the recommendations of a review and requesting the matter be referred to the relevant privileges committee. The committee must report within 30 days of receiving such a referral and may only recommend: the MP cooperate with a review, the MP act on the recommendations of a review, or that the House or Senate take no further action. A failure by an MP to comply with the recommendation of the privileges committee without reasonable excuse ‘shall be guilty of a serious contempt’ and is to be dealt with by the House or Senate accordingly.[219]

The Government also announced that it had been piloting a face-to-face training program for parliamentarians and their staff and expected this training to be rolled out widely from September 2021.[220] The training ‘will be mandatory for all Coalition Ministers and staff, and it is expected that all other parliamentarians and their staff will undertake this training when it is available to them’.[221]

More recently, it was reported that the Government had appointed a team of five to ‘help [coalition] staff identify how to develop their skills, provide guidance on professional development, and deliver training to assist them in their jobs.’[222]

The Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces (the Jenkins review)

On 5 March 2021 the Minister for Finance and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, announced the establishment of an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to be conducted by Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins.[223]

Senator Birmingham noted that he had ‘consulted with current and former staff, a number of experts and many Members of Parliament, including the Presiding Officers, Opposition representatives, minor parties and Independent members and Senators, on the scope and process for the review’.[224] He announced Commissioner Jenkins would provide a public report by November 2021 and ‘may make interim recommendations, and will provide a public progress update in July 2021’.[225] The Government committed to making the interim report and the final report and findings public.^[226]

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) information on the review, includes a definition of the term ‘parliamentary workplace’:

While not defined, the term parliamentary workplace has regard to the locations in which parliamentarians work and encompasses

· Persons employed by a Member or Senator under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984

· Staff employed by the Parliamentary Departments under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999

· Staff engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 who work in Parliament House

· Volunteers and interns working with parliamentarians.[227]

In her media release on 5 March 2021, Commissioner Jenkins noted that the AHRC is an independent statutory authority whose independence is enshrined under the Australia Human Rights Commission Act (1986) and is ‘ … uniquely positioned to undertake a review of this nature’.[228] She also stressed the Commission’s previous experience in ‘undertaking independent, rigorous and confidential cultural reviews’.[229] This review built on the findings of Commissioner Jenkins’ national inquiry into sexual harassment in Australian workplaces, Respect@Work, handed to the Government on 2 March 2020.[230]

The independent review and the appointment of Ms Jenkins to lead the process were supported by the Labor Party.[231]

Findings and recommendations of the Jenkins review

The AHRC released a Progress update on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces on 19 July 2021, and its final report, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, on 30 November 2021.[232]

As part of its review, the AHRC conducted an anonymous online survey to which 23 per cent of those currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (CPWs) responded. This survey indicated that of those currently working in CPWs:

• 37 per cent had experienced some form of bullying while working there
• 33 per cent had experienced some form of sexual harassment while working there
• 1 per cent had experienced some form of actual or attempted sexual assault (noting this estimate was based on a small number of responses)
• 51 per cent had experienced at least one incident of bullying, harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault in a CPW
• 77 per cent have experienced, witnessed or heard about bullying, sexual harassment and/or actual or attempted sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces[233]

The report provided the following demographic information on those who reported experiencing misconduct:

• Women in CPWs experienced sexual harassment at a higher rate (40%) compared with men (26%)

• Women in CPWs have experienced bullying at a higher rate (42%), compared with men (32%)

• Women experienced both bullying and sexual harassment at a higher rate (24%) compared with men (14%), with actual or attempted sexual assault also typically experienced by women.

• More female parliamentarians (63%) have experienced sexual harassment, compared with male parliamentarians (24%) and the national average for women (39%).

• MOP(S) Act employees experienced the highest levels of bullying and actual or attempted sexual assault in CPWs, and relatively high levels of sexual harassment.

• People who identify as LGBTIQ+ experienced sexual harassment at a higher rate (53%) than people who identify as heterosexual (31%) or who preferred not to say (29%).[234]

Survey results also indicated that only a minority of those who experienced bullying or sexual harassment reported their experience. Common reasons cited for not reporting incidents of bullying included the view that nothing would be done in response and that the complainants reputation or career would be damaged. Common reasons given for not reporting incidents of sexual harassment included the belief that the incident was not serious enough or that others would believe the complainant was overreacting.[235]

The report also described a number of systemic ‘drivers’ and institution-specific ‘risk factors’ associated with bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in CPWs, including:

• Significant power imbalances between employees
• Underrepresentation of women in senior roles and a lack of diversity more broadly
• A lack of accountability and appropriate consequences for those engaging in misconduct and limited recourse for those who have experienced bullying, sexual assault or sexual harassment
• A lack of clear standards of behaviour in some CPWs and inconsistent enforcement of standards
• Some leaders in CPWs either being directly responsible for misconduct themselves, or lacking the skills necessary to effectively prevent or discourage misconduct by others
• Wokplace dynamics—including political loyalties and interests, intense media and public scrutiny and fears over job security—that lead to a reluctance to report or properly address misconduct
• Conditions of work—including high levels of pressure, travel, poor work/life balance and alcohol consumption—create environments in which bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault are more likely to occur
• Employment structures, particularly for those employed under the MOP(S) Act, that lead to high levels of insecurity, which in turn discourages employees from raising concerns about bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.[236]

The report includes 27 recommendations intended to make improvements in five areas—leadership; diversity, quality and inclusion; systems to support performance; standards reporting and accountability; and safety and wellbeing.[237]

On the specific issue of codes of conduct, the report recommends that both Houses of Parliament should establish a joint standing committee on parliamentary standards tasked with developing draft codes of conduct for parliamentarians, staff of parliamentarians and the parliamentary precincts, and incorporate a code of conduct for parliamentarians into their respective standing orders within 12 months. Additionally, the Australian Government should ensure that a code of conduct is included in the MOP(S) Act within 12 months.[238] The report recommends the codes of conduct for parliamentarians and their staff should, at a minimum, ‘address current legal requirements that prohibit bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault and workplace discrimination’, with consideration also being given to ‘other factors that influence a safe a respectful workplace.’[239]

The report also recommends the establishment of an independent parliamentary standards commission, noting that ‘a level of structural independence from parliamentarians and political parties is imperative to ensure that a standards and accountability system is able to fulful its accountability, deterrence and public confidence objectives’.[240] The report proposes the commission would:

(a) incorporate the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, including its advisory and support functions (and applying more broadly to misconduct covered by the Codes of Conduct)

(b) operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures, as well as handle informal and formal complaints and appeals about misconduct

(c) make findings about misconduct

(d) make recommendations on sanctions (in relation to parliamentarians, staff and others as relevant under the Standards of Conduct in the Parliamentary Precincts)

(e) apply sanctions for a breach of the Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians where such sanctions do not interfere with the functions of the Parliament.[241]

The report envisages that while the proposed commission would operate independently, it would be overseen by a joint standing committee and would depend on a delegation of the power of each House of Parliament to discipline its own members when imposing sanctions.[242]

The report also recommends that the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service be incorporated into the proposed independent parliamentary standards commission and that it’s scope be expanded to:

• cover all participants in CPWs

• apply to all allegations of a breach of a Code ofConduct or the Standards of Conduct for the Parliamentary Precincts (noting that complaints about conduct in the Chamber of a House of Parliament are referred to the Presiding Officer in the first instance)

• establish a clear pathway for anonymous reporting, including through a digital platform

• include coverage of historical complaints of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.[243]

As part of this process, responsibility for the PWSS would be removed from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and transferred to the proposed independent parliamentary standards commission.

Response to recommendations of the Jenkins review

Following the release of the AHRC’s final report on 30 November 2021, the Government stated that it would continue to run, and adapt as necessary, services commenced in response to the Foster Review, including ‘the dedicated unit of support staff within the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service and the independent complaints mechanism, 24-hour support line, and the continued workplace safety training.’[244] The Government also stated it would consult with the opposition, minor parties and independents on how to respond to the recommendations of the report, and had instructed the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide support to this process.[245]

Action has been taken in response to a number of the report’s recommendations. In response to recommendation 2, a leadership task force was established and held its first meeting on 3 February 2022.[246] The task force is chaired by a former senior public servant, Ms Kerri Hartland, and includes ministers and shadow ministers from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as a crossbench representative from each chamber.[247] The task force’s role includes:

• developing and communicating an implementation plan with specific timeframes

• defining and communicating common values which can drive cultural change across parliamentary workplaces

• preparing an annual public report of progress made in the implementation of recommendations

• tracking, on a quarterly basis, key measures of a safe and respectful work environment to monitor progress in implementation.

In response to recommendation 1, statements of acknowledgement were made on 8 February 2022 by the Speaker and the President ‘on behalf of the parliamentary cross-party leadership task force recommended by Commissioner Jenkins and as a reflection of the parliament.’[248] The statements acknowledged and apologised for 'the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces’.[249]

In response to recommendation 21, a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards was established in February 2022 by each House to develop ‘a code or codes of conduct for Commonwealth parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, and parliamentary workplaces to ensure safe and respectful behaviour’ and to recommend options for enforcement and review of the operation of the proposed codes.[250] The Committee is to present its final report by 1 November 2022.[251]

In response to recommendations 17 and 24, the Government introduced the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 on 9 February 2022. The Bill sought to amend the MOP(S) Act to clarify that the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to staff employed under the MOP(S) Act and require parliamentarians to provide a reason where they dismiss an employee. The Bill also sought to amend the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to clarify that these Acts apply to MOP(S) Act employees.[252] The Bill was passed by the Parliament without amendment on 15 February 2022.[253]

In response to recommendation 18, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has begun a review of the MOP(S) Act with the aim of identifying ‘legislative, policy or other changes or initiatives to ensure the employment arrangements of parliamentarians and their staff are fit for purpose.’[254] The review is currently seeking submissions and is to provide a final report to the Prime Minister by 30 September 2022.[255]

Conclusion

This paper has outlined issues facing a number of Australian and overseas parliamentary workplaces that can, in part, be attributed to ‘the unique structure and nature of parliamentary employment coupled with partisan politics’.[256] Some parliaments have already developed models for dealing with bullying and harassment, while others are in the early stages of dealing with the issue. There is some evidence that the introduction of agreed standards of conduct, mandatory training and the use of independent complaint and investigation bodies can assist in making these issues less political and parliaments more accountable.

On the issue of accountability, the report of the UK independent inquiry on House of Commons staff (the Cox report) suggests that ‘democratic accountability at the ballot box or on the floor of the House is not a sufficient or satisfactory mechanism for holding Members to account’.[257]

The Cox report also notes that ‘the keys to reform are independence and impartiality if the staff are to have faith in the process and if public confidence is to be restored’.[258] The report supports arguments that the mechanisms monitoring codes of conduct, hearing complaints and investigating breaches must be independent of the parliament and the government.[259] This approach suggests a limited role for the privileges committees of the federal Parliament, as the Cox report found a ‘general reluctance of Members to judge the misconduct of other Members, or even to assist in the investigations by others into such misconduct’.[260]

The recommendations contained in the AHRC’s final report are similarly focused on reforming Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to bring about a situation where ‘common standards of conduct are clear, where people are empowered to come forward and make reports, and there are visible consequences for misconduct.’[261] The report suggests that, for these goals to be achieved, it is necessary to establish a mechanism that will enable the fair, independent, confidential and transparent handling of complaints, as well as making findings about misconduct and recommendations about sanctions. As discussed above, the report proposes the establishment of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to undertake this role.[262]

The precise response of the Parliament and the Government to the recommendation that such an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission be established is not yet clear. However, resolutions concerning the new Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism agreed to on 18 and 19 October 2021 have already set out a role for the privileges committees limited to: requiring a member of parliament to cooperate with a review or to act on any recommendations, or recommending that the House or Senate take no further action.[263] The committees are, however, explicitly restricted to only these three courses of action. While it remains to be seen how this approach operates in practice, it appears this framework is intended to prevent the committees becoming involved in reinvestigating matters or making different determinations about appropriate actions. Their role instead appears to be limited to determining whether it is appropriate that a non-cooperative MP be exposed to the possibility of being found to have committed a serious contempt.

All political party codes of conduct discussed in this paper include the range of sanctions available to the individual or body responsible for dealing with breaches. The Cox report proposes that apart from ‘apologies or attendance on training or behaviour programmes’ other sanctions that could be considered include:

… the imposition of fines, disqualification from, or suspension of membership of select committees or membership of overseas delegations; the withdrawal of services by House staff, or the withdrawal of financial support for visits abroad or other activities.[264]

On the issue of sanctions, two Labor MPs have suggested that the federal parliament adopt a system, like the one operating in the UK Parliament, ‘which penalises MPs who are found to have engaged in sexual harassment, including the option of having them forced out of Parliament’.^[265]

Some jurisdictions with political staff employment arrangements similar to those in the federal parliament, have introduced independent human resources units to deal with staffing matters. This could change the power imbalance between the MP and the staffer, especially with the addition of an independent complaints mechanism to hear retrospective and current complaints.[266] Former ministerial staff have suggested a similar approach, involving the creation of ‘an independent parliamentary human resources authority to deal with staff matters, with functions provided at arm’s length from government’.[267] The AHRC’s final report recommended a similar reform be implemented in relation to staff employed under the MOP(S) Act by the creation of an independent and non-partisan office of parliamentarian culture and staffing. This centralised human resources support unit would be accountable to the Parliament and be responsible for enforcing standards, professionalising management practices, providing professional development programs and developing mandatory training programs for parliamentarians and their staff.[268]

With the Jenkins Review now tabled, the Federal Parliament has the opportunity to draw on diverse Australian and international experience in formulating its future approach to the issue.

Appendix 1

Table 1: Codes of conduct covering Ministers, members of parliament and staff working in the federal parliamentary workplace

# The UK Parliament has adopted a Behaviour code covering everyone working or visiting the parliamentary workplace. The code refers to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, with oversight by the Independent complaints and grievance scheme. The document states that ‘unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously, independently and with effective sanctions’

Table 2: Codes of conduct and enforcement mechanisms affecting parliamentarians in Australian jurisdictions

Table 3: Ministerial codes of conduct and enforcement mechanisms in Australian jurisdictions

• References

  [1].    S Maiden, ‘Brittany Higgins alleged rape: Parliament office steam cleaned after alleged attack’, News.com.au, 15 February 2021; L. Wilkinson, ‘Interview with Brittany Higgins’, The Project, transcript, Channel 10, 15 February 2021; D Crowe and K Curtis, ‘Ex-staffer says rape claim was dismissed’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 February 2021; J Maley and K Curtis, ‘Suck it up': Parliament staff claim bullying is typical’, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 February 2021; Editorial, ‘Will budget solve the 'women problem?’, Canberra Times, 3 May 2021; J Maley and K Curtis, ‘Unsafe house’, Age, 20 February 2021; H Sullivan, 'A scandalous swamp': how the Australian parliament's toxic male culture hit global headlines’, Guardian Australia, 24 March 2021 and M Maley, ‘Why political staffers are vulnerable to sexual misconduct - and little is done to stop it’, The Conversation, 15 February 2021.

  [2].    See, for example, D McKeown, Codes of conduct in Australian and selected overseas parliaments, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 18 September 2012; D McKeown, Who pays the piper? Rules for lobbying government in Austrlalia, Canada, UK and US, Research paper, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1 August 2014 and R Lundie, ‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2016, Research paper, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 22 December 2016.

  [3].    S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces, media release, 5 March 2021. See also K Jenkins, Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces: progress update, Australian Human Rights Commission, July 2021, Appendix 1, p. 13 for definition of these terms.

  [4].    C Madden, ’Who works at Parliament House?’, FlagPost, Parliamentary Library blog, 30 June 2021.

  [5].  S Morrison, Statement of ministerial standards, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, August 2018.

  [6].    J Uhr, ‘Howard’s ministerial code’, Res Publica, 7(1), 1988, p.9.

  [7].    Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, Report on declaration of interests, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 30 September 1975, p. 12. Information on attempts to introduce a code of conduct is contained in D McKeown, Codes of conduct in Australian and selected overseas parliaments, op. cit., pp. 5-9. See Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Code of conduct for members of parliament’, Votes and proceedings, HVP 146, 29 November 2012.

  [8].    The agreements to form government were negotiated in 2010 between the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Greens and the ALP and some members of the cross bench included the establishment of a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner and a formal code of conduct for senators and members. See ALP and the Australian Greens, Agreement, 1 September 2010, p. 3; ALP and the Independent Member Andrew Wilkie, Agreement, 2 September 2010, p 3 and ALP and the Independent Members Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, Agreement, 7 September 2010, Annex A, p. 9.

  [9].    House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, Draft code of conduct for members of parliament, House of Representatives, Canberra, 23 November 2011, see Appendix 5, p. 75 for the draft code of conduct.

  [10]. The motion that the House endorse the draft code of conduct and request that the Leader of the House bring forward urgently the proposed changes to standing orders and resolutions of the House necessary to give effect to the code was passed but no further action occurred. Australian, House of Representatives, ‘Code of conduct for members of parliament’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 146, 29 November 2012.

  [11]. Senate Standing Committee on Senators’ Interests, Code of conduct inquiry, The Senate, Canberra, 29 November 2012.

  [12]. The 2017 motion was moved after Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson’s One Nation) wore a burqa into the Senate chamber on 17 August 2017. R Di Natale, ‘Procedure Committee reference’, Senate, Debates, 6 September 2017, p. 6540. See also Australia, Senate, ‘Face coverings—Ban in public places’, Journals, SJ 55, 17 August 2017. For the 2018 motion see R Di Natale, ‘Motions: parliamentary code of conduct’, Senate, Debates, 29 November 2018, p. 9003.

  [13]. See Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, First report of 2017, The Senate, Canberra, December 2017, Appendix 4, ‘Parliamentary Code for respecting cultural diversity and proposal to amend standing order 193—Rules of debate’ and Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, First Report of 2019, The Senate, Canberra, 3 April 2019, p. 1. Additional comments to the 2019 report provided by the Australian Labor Party, referred to its 2016 Parliamentarians’ Code of Race and Cultural Ethics which was signed by all members of the ALP caucus but not members of other parties. This code was based on an earlier 1998 Labor Code of Race Ethics which ‘was signed by more than half the Parliament, including coalition senators and members’. See ALP Senators, ‘Additional comments by Australian Labor Party’, Additional comments to Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, First Report of 2019, 3 April 2019.

  [14]. Parliament of Australia, ‘National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2019 homepage’, Australian Parliament website and Parliament of Australia, ‘Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 homepage’, Australian Parliament website. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration recommended, in August 2020, that the Greens Bill not be passed. See Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2019, The Senate, Canberra, August 2020, p. vii.

  [15]. See, for example, Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020, op.cit., section 16.

  [16]. B Morton, Statement of standards for ministerial staff, Department of Finance, n.d.

  [17]. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.

  [18]. Note: from May 2019 to October 2021 the ministry did not included a Special Minister of State.

  [19]. A Tiernan, ‘Yes, the culture in Parliament House is appalling. But there are systemic problems that also need urgent reform’, The Conversation, 24 February 2021.

  [20]. M Maley, ‘Why political staffers are vulnerable to sexual misconduct - and little is done to stop it’, The Conversation, 15 February 2021.

  [21]. Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Official Committee Hansard, 27 May 2021, p. 8.

  [22]. Ibid.

  [23]. V Burgess, ‘The truth does need to see the light of day. Just don't hold your breath’, The Mandarin, 26 February 2021.

  [24]. Ibid.

  [25]. Our public service, our future. Independent review of the Australian Public Service (report prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by D Thodey), Commonwealth of Australia, September 2019, p. 137.

  [26]. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Delivering for Australians. A world-class Australian Public Service: The Government’s APS reform agenda, Government response to Our public service, our future. Independent review of the Australian Public Service, ibid., 13 December 2019, p. 18.

  [27]. The Foster review noted that, according to the Department of Finance, as at 12 March 2021, approximately 2,020 staff were employed under the MOP(S) Act. See S Foster, Review of the parliamentary workplace: responding to serious incidents (the Foster review), Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 4 June 2021, p. 20. See pp. 26–28 of this paper for details of the Foster review.

  [28]. Parliamentary Service Act 1999, see section 13, section 14 and section 10.

  [29]. Madden, Who works at Parliament House?, op. cit.

  [30]. Public Service Act 1999, see section 13 and section 10.

  [31]. L Chappell, ’Bad times call for bold measures: 3 ways to fix the appalling treatment of women in our national parliament’, The Conversation, 26 March 2021.

  [32]. Ibid.

  [33]. Australian Greens, Australian Greens anti-sexual harassment policy, Australian Greens policy document, April 2018 (reviewed July 2021) and Australian Greens,  Formal and informal complaints process, Australian Greens policy document, April 2018.

  [34]. Anti-sexual harassment policy, ibid., para. 2.6.

  [35]. Ibid., paras 4.4.1 and 4.6.

  [36]. Ibid., para. 8.5.

  [37]. Australian Labor Party, ALP National code of conduct, Australian Labor Party policy document, February 2021, Australian Labor Party, ALP National policy for sexual harassment and prevention and response, Australian Labor Party policy document, February 2021, Australian Labor Party, ALP National policy for bullying and harassment prevention and response, Australian Labor Party policy document, February 2021 and Australian Labor Party, ALP National complaints handling process, Australian Labor Party policy document, February 2021. Note: the Australian Labor Party had previously released an Interim sexual harassment and bullying policy in October 2018.

  [38]. National code of conduct, ibid, para. 2.4.

  [39]. Ibid., paras. 2.3 and 5.1.

  [40]. National complaints handling policy, ibid., section 9.

  [41]. Ibid., sections 3.5 and 5.

  [42]. K Thwaites and J Macklin, Enough is enough, In the national interest series, Monash University Publishing, Melbourne, 2021, p. 30.

  [43]. Liberal Party of Australia, National code of conduct, Liberal Party policy document, 2019 and Liberal Party of Australia, Complaints and dispute resolution policy, Liberal Party policy document, 2019.

  [44]. National code of conduct, ibid., see paras 4 and 28.

  [45]. Complaints and dispute resolution policy, op. cit., para. 17.

  [46]. Ibid., paras 25–26 and 27–31.

  [47]. Ibid., paras 32–36.

  [48]. Ibid., para 39.

  [49]. Ibid.

  [50]. National Party of Australia, National Party of Australia harassment protocol, National Party policy document, 2018.

  [51]. Ibid.

  [52]. New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Votes and Proceedings, 5 March 2020, pp. 575–579; New South Wales, Legislative Council Minutes of Proceedings, 24 March 2021, pp. 865–868; Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 (Vic), sections 4 to 16; Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Code of Ethical Standards together with the Guide to the Code of Ethical Standards and Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, June 2018; Western Australia, Legislative Assembly, Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative Assembly, n. d.; Western Australia, Legislative Assembly, Votes and Proceedings, 28 August 2003, pp. 772–776; Tasmania, House of Assembly, ‘Motion: Code of conduct for members of Parliament adoption’, Debates, 29 November 2018, pp. 71–87; Tasmania, Legislative Council, ‘Code of conduct for members of Parliament’, Votes and Proceedings, No. 38, 27 November 2018, pp. 177–183; Tasmania, House of Assembly Standing and Sessional Orders and Rules, pp. 20–23; Code of Conduct: Members of the Parliament of Tasmania; Standing orders and continuing resolutions of the Legislative Assembly, pp. 104–107; Legislative Assembly (Members' Code Of Conduct And Ethical Standards) Act 2008 (NT), schedule.

  [53]. South Australia, House of Assembly, ‘Resolutions: Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace’, Debates, 18 March 2021, pp. 4764–4765; South Australia, Legislative Council, ‘Resolutions: Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace’, Debates, 18 March 2021, pp. 2982–2983.

  [54]. With respect to Queensland, see Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld), section 86(1)(a).

  [55]. Code of Conduct: Members of the Parliament of Tasmania, p. 2; Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Code of Ethical Standards together with the Guide to the Code of Ethical Standards and Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, June 2018, p. 10.

  [56]. Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, Protocol for investigation complaints against members, revised August 2017; Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, Complaining about a Member of the Legislative Assembly, August 2019.

  [57]. See Appendix to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Regulation 2017 (NSW); Victorian Government, Code of conduct for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, 5 November 2018; The Queensland Ministerial Handbook: Governing Queensland; Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Ministerial Code of Conduct, n. d.; Government of Western Australia, Ministerial Code of Conduct, 30 April 2021; Government of Tasmania, Code of Conduct for Ministers, May 2021; Government of the Australian Capital Territory, Ministerial Code of Conduct 2020, p. 5; Northern Territory Government, Cabinet Handbook, September 2020, Appendix A.

  [58]. Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Ministerial Code of Conduct, n. d., p. 5; Equal Opportunity Commission, Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace, February 2021, p. 115; ‘SA government will not pursue code of conduct for MPs, but accused MP Sam Duluk says the idea has merit’, ABC News, 12 March 2021.

  [59]. Government of Tasmania, Code of Conduct for Ministers, May 2021, p. 5.

  [60]. Not all relevant codes of conduct appear to be publicly available; however, see the following examples: Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW), Ministers Office Handbook, n. d., p. 5 and pp. 53–54 (Attachment B); New South Wales Parliament, Code of Conduct for Parliamentary Staff, February 2013, section 3.3.5; Parliamentary Administration Act 2005 (Vic.), section 5; Parliament of Victoria, Code of Conduct for Victorian Parliamentary Officers, February 2019, p. 16; Queensland Parliament Service, Code of Conduct for the Parliamentary Service, 20 December 2019, section 4.1.2.5; Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Act 2010 (Qld), sections 16–18; Department of the Premier and Cabinet (QLD), Code of Conduct: Ministerial Staff Members, 18 February 2021, pp. 5–7; Commissioner for Public Sector Employment (SA), Code of Ethics for the South Australian Public Sector, August 2019, p. 13; Public Sector Commission (WA), Code of Ethics: Commissioner’s Instruction No. 7, 3 July 2012, p. 2; Parliamentary Employees General Agreement 2019 (WA), p. 72; Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas.), Handbook for Elected Members of the House of Assembly and Prescribed Parliamentary Office Holders, March 2021, pp. 29–31; Legislative Assembly (Member’s Staff) Code of Conduct for Staff of Non-Executive Members Determination 2015 (ACT); Legislative Assembly (Members’ Staff) Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff and Staff of Other Office-holders Determination 2015 (ACT); Office of the Legislative Assembly (ACT), Office of the Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct, 17 August 2017, pp. 18–19; Commissioner for Public Employment (NT), Code of Conduct: Employment Instruction Number 12, 25 June 2021.

  [61]. P Goward, Review of policies and procedures for Ministerial offices—bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct, 19 April 2021, see terms of reference.

  [62]. Ibid., pp. 6–8.

  [63]. Ibid., see foreword.

  [64]. A Smith, ‘“Brutal” state review reveals ministerial office failings’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 April 2021, p. 3; M Maddison, ‘Abusive ministers to escape sanction’, Australian, 29 April 2021, p. 7.

  [65]. A Smith, ibid.

  [66]. Parliament of New South Wales, Elizabeth Broderick to lead parliament review, media release, 27 July 2021.

  [67]. Ibid.

  [68]. New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, Review of the Proposed Resolution for Establishment of a Parliamentary Compliance Officer, July 2021, pp. 2–3.

  [69]. Elizabeth Broderick & Co., ‘Independent Review into bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct in NSW Parliament’, Elizabeth Broderick & Co. website, n.d.

  [70]. New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), Reducing the Opportunities and Incentives for Corruption in the State’s Management of Coal Resources, ICAC, Sydney, October 2013, pp. 43–44.

  [71]. New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, Review of the Proposed Resolution for Establishment of a Parliamentary Compliance Officer, July 2021, p. 1.

  [72]. ibid., p. 2.

  [73]. Ibid., July 2021, Appendix 1.

  [74]. Ibid., Appendix 1.

  [75]. New South Wales, Legislative Council, Privileges Committee, Proposal for a Compliance Officer for New South Wales Parliament, May 2021, pp. xii–xiv.

  [76]. New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, op. cit., pp. viii–xvii, 9–18.

  [77]. ‘MPs could be sacked for bullying’, Age, 19 February 2021, pp. 1, 14; I Stitt, ‘Answer to question without notice: Workplace Safety’, [Questioner: G Crozier], Victoria, Legislative Council, Debates, 4 March 2021, p. 882.

  [78]. S Deery and K Rooney, ‘MP sex romp’, Herald Sun, 15 May 2021, pp. 1, 4.

  [79]. ‘MPs could be sacked for bullying’, op. cit., pp. 1, 14.

  [80]. Ibid.

  [81]. A Smethurst and P Sakkal, ‘Victoria launches ministerial sexual harassment taskforce’, Age, 9 March 2021, p. 4.

  [82]. V A Chapman, ‘Parliament Workplace Cultural Review’, South Australia, House of Assembly, Debates, 12 November 2020, pp. 3347–3348; J M A Lensink, ‘Parliament Workplace Cultural Review’, South Australia, Legislative Council, Debates, 12 November 2020, pp. 2216–2217.

  [83]. Equal Opportunity Commission (SA), Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace, Equal Opportunity Commission, Adelaide, February 2021, see letter of transmittal.

  [84]. Ibid., p. 7.

  [85]. Ibid., p. 100. See generally pp. 78–83.

  [86]. Ibid., pp. 149–155.

  [87]. Ibid., p. 138.

  [88]. Equal Opportunity Commission (SA), op. cit., p. 115.

  [89]. Ibid., p. 131.

  [90]. Ibid., p. 132.

  [91]. ‘Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace’, South Australia, House of Assembly, Debates, 18 March 2021, pp. 4764–4765; ‘Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace’, South Australia, Legislative Council, Debates, 18 March 2021, pp. 2982–2983; P Starick and E Henson, ‘“No one to be silenced”’, Adelaide Advertiser, 17 March 2021, p. 13.

  [92]. Parliament of South Australia, Joint Committee on the Recommendations Arising from the Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s Report into Harassment in the Parliament Workplace, Report of the Joint Committee on the Recommendations Arising from the Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s Report into Harassment in the Parliament Workplace, 28 October 2021, pp. 10–12.

  [93]. Ibid., pp. 51–52.

  [94]. Ibid., pp. 43–44; S Lee, ‘New code of conduct will see South Australian MPs banned from harassing staff, each other’, ABC News, 28 October 2021;S Richards, ‘”Right to be cynical”: Commissioners slam MP draft code of conduct’, InDaily, 29 October 2021.

  [95]. Ms Archer, ‘Matter of public importance: workplace culture’, Tasmania, House of Assembly, Debates, 1 July 2021, pp. 28–30; M Grattan, ‘Gender is now another battlefield’, Canberra Times, 20 March 2021, p. 32; D Killick, ‘Embattled O'Byrne quits as Labor leader [Bec to the future]’, Mercury, 5 July 2021, p. 1; D Killick, ‘Ex-Brooks partner quits Libs’, Mercury, 26 May 2021, p. 9; Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, ‘Independent Review into Parliamentary practices and procedures to support workplace culture (the Review)’, Equal Opportunity Tasmania website.

  [96].Equal Opportunity Tasmania, ’Independent Review into Parliamentary practices and procedures to support workplace culture (the Review)’, Equal Opportunity Tasmanian website.

  [97]. Ibid.

  [98]. United Kingdom, The Cabinet Office, Ministerial code, August 2019.

  [99]. Ibid., para. 1.2.

  [100]. Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority website.

  [101]. Ministerial code, op. cit., para. 1.4.

  [102]. Ibid., and United Kingdom, The Cabinet Office, Terms of Reference for the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, April 2021.

  [103]. J Elgot and R Syal, ‘Ex-officials criticise limited remit of Boris Johnson’s new standards adviser’, Guardian Australia, 29 April 2021. Additional information on the Ministerial Code, the role of the independent adviser and the process for investigating breaches of the Code is available in C Rhodes and H Armstrong, The ministerial code and the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, Research Briefing, House of Commons Library, 12 August 2021.  

  [104]. J Rutter, ‘Feeble codes are inadequate to deal with shameless ministers (and officials)’, UK in a changing Europe, 22 April 2021.

  [105]. House of Commons, Code of conduct together with the Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members, 8 January 2019.

  [106]. See Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members, op. cit., p. 49 for the text of the 1996 Resolution.

  [107]. House of Lords, Code of conduct, Guide to the code of conduct and Code of conduct for House of Lords members’ staff,  July 2020. Note: Appendix B contains definitions of bullying harassment and sexual misconduct.

  [108]. House of Lords Conduct Committee website.

  [109]. Ibid., see also House of Lords Commissioners for Standards website.

  [110]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards website; House of Commons, Standing Orders, 5 November 2019, pp. 187–190.

  [111]. Ibid., ‘The commissioner’s remit and contact details’.

  [112]. House of Commons, Committee on Standards website. See also House of Commons, Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members, op. cit., para. 19, p. 43.

  [113]. Ibid., Guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members.

  [114]. Independent Expert Panel website. See below for more detailed discussion of the IEP.

  [115]. Ibid. See also UK Parliament, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme website.

  [116]. Ibid., IEP website

  [117]. Ibid.

  [118]. House of Commons Committee on Standards, Review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system, The House of Commons, 4 March 2022, p. 5; House of Commons Committee on Standards, Review of the Code of Conduct: proposals for consultation, The House of Commons, 29 November 2021.

  [119]. J Rampen, ‘A week in Pestminster: how the sexual harassment scandal unfolded’, New Statesman, 3 November 2017.

  [120]. Ibid.

  [121]. C Cook and L Day, ‘Bullying and harassment at the House of Commons’, BBC Newsnight, 8 March 2018.

  [122]. Ibid.

  [123]. See House of Commons Commission website and House of Lords Commission website.

  [124]. L Cox, The bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, Independent inquiry report, 15 October 2018, Introduction and terms or reference, para. 6.

  [125]. Ibid., para. 7.   

  [126]. Ibid. 

  [127]. Ibid.

  [128]. A Leadsom, ‘Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy’, United Kingdom, House of Commons, Debates, 19 July 2018, col. 627. See also UK Parliament, ‘Conduct in parliament’, UK Parliament website.

  [129]. D Butler, ‘Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy’, Ibid., col. 633. See also UK Parliament, ‘Behaviour code’, UK Parliament, ‘Bullying and harassment policy for UK Parliament’, 2021, UK Parliament, ‘Sexual misconduct policy for UK Parliament’, 2021 and Independent complaints and grievance scheme website, op. cit.

  [130]. House of Commons Commission, Extending the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, 15 July 2019, HC 2554 and M Stride, ‘Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme’, United Kingdom, House of Commons, Debates, 17 July 2019, col. 920. See also R Kelly, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, Research briefing, House of Commons Library, 27 April 2021. This paper includes details on the inquiries conducted by G White QC and N Ellenbogen QC., ch. 9, pp. 54–58.

  [131]. UK Parliament, ‘Using the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: guide for complainants’, UK Parliament website, 2019.        

  [132]. G White, Bullying and harassment of MPs’ parliamentary staff, Independent inquiry report, 11 July 2019.

  [133]. House of Commons Commission, ‘Commission statement on Gemma White QC's report’, 16 July 2019.

  [134]. Ibid. 

  [135]. Ibid.

  [136]. P Wishart, ‘Isolation of House staff: Gemma White QC recommendations’, United Kingdom, House of Commons, Debates,          19 May 2020, col. 478.

  [137]. N Ellenbogen, An independent inquiry into bullying in the House of Lords, 10 July 2019.

  [138]. House of Lords Commission, ‘House of Lords Commission respond to Ellenbogen report’, 18 July 2019.

  [139]. J Rees-Mogg, ‘Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme’, United Kingdom, House of Commons, Debates, 23 June 2020, col. 1244. See also House of Commons, Independent determination of complaints of bullying and harassment in the Commons, 23 June 2020.

  [140]. Independent Expert Panel website.       

  [141]. Ibid. 

  [142]. Ibid. 

  [143]. Ibid. 

  [144]. Independent Expert Panel, The Conduct of Mr Rob Roberts MP, Report presented to the House of Commons, 25 May 2021.

  [145]. Ibid., para 3.27.

  [146]. Ibid.          

  [147]. Ibid., paras 2.27 and 4.30.

  [148]. Ibid., para. 1.10.       

  [149]. J Rees-Mogg, ‘Business without debate’, UK Parliament, House of Commons, Debates, 27 May 2021, col. 580.   

  [150]. I Wells, ‘Rob Roberts: Conservative MP told staffer to be “less alluring”’, BBC News, 25 May 2021. See also Recall of MPs Act 2015 (UK) and N Johnston and R Kelly, Recall elections, Research Briefing, House of Commons Library, 2 July 2021, p. 3.

  [151]. Independent Expert Panel, The Conduct of Mr Rob Roberts MP,           op. cit., para 1.11.

  [152]. J Rees-Mogg, ‘Business of the House’, UK Parliament, House of Commons, Debates, 27 May 2021, col. 564.  

  [153]. Ibid. 

  [154]. I Wells, ‘Rob Roberts: stay away from Parliament, disgraced MP told’, BBC news, 8 July 2021. 

  [155]. ‘Rob Roberts: second UK minister calls on MP to resign’, BBC news, 3 June 2021.      

  [156]. I Wells, ‘Rob Roberts MP suspended from Conservative Party’, BBC news, 8 September 2021.

  [157]. Ibid.  Note: Mr Roberts is still sitting in the House of Commons as an independent.

  [158]. N Johnston and R Kelly, Recall elections, op. cit., p. 3 states that:

            MPs can be recalled only under certain circumstances:

          If they are convicted in the UK of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained and all appeals have been exhausted (and the sentence does not lead to automatic disqualification from being an MP)

          If they are suspended from the House following report and recommended sanction from the Committee on Standards for a specified period (at least 10 sitting days, or at least 14 days if sitting days are not specified)

          If they are convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (making false or misleading Parliamentary allowances claims)

          Once a petition is open it is available for signing for six weeks and is administered by the local returning officer for the constituency ...

          For a recall petition to be successful 10% of eligible registered voters need to sign the petition. If the required number is not reached the petition fails and the MP remains in post. If the 10% threshold is reached the petition officer informs the Speaker of the House of Commons. On the giving of that notice the seat becomes vacant. A by-election is then required.

  [159]. Ibid., ‘Recall of MPs’.       

  [160]. J Trudeau, Open and accountable government, 27 November 2015.   

  [161]. Ibid. 

  [162]. Federal Accountability Act 2006 (Canada)     

  [163]. A Raj, ‘2 Liberal MPs suspended from caucus after sexual harassment allegations’, Huffington Post, 11 May 2014.

  [164]. T Raney and C Collier, ‘Privilege and gendered violence in the Canadian and British Houses of Commons: a feminist institutionalist analysis’, Parliamentary Affairs, January 2021, p. 2.

  [165].  K O’Malley, ‘Parliament Hill harassment: Andrew Scheer unveils new policy for MPs, staff’, CBC news, 10 December 2014.  See also Board of Internal Economy website.

  [166]. House of Commons, ‘Party leaders and House officers’, House of Commons website.       

  [167]. Office of the Chief Human Resources officer, Annual report on the House of Commons policy on preventing and addressing harassment 2015-16, House of Commons, May 2016, p. 2.

  [168]. Ibid.

  [169]. House of Commons, House of Commons Policy on Preventing and Addressing Harassment, 28 January 2021. 

  [170]. House of Commons, ‘Code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual harassment’, Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1 January 2021, appendix 2.

  [171]. House of Commons, Annual report on the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy 2020-2021,    

  [172]. Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 38th report, House of Commons, 2015. See also House of Commons, Standing orders of the House of Commons, appendix 2.

  [173]. Raney and Collier, Privilege and gendered violence in the Canadian and British Houses of Commons: a feminist institutionalist analysis, op.cit., p. 9.

  [174]. Ibid., p. 11.       

  [175]. Ibid., p. 3.         

  [176]. Senate, Senate policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, 22 June 2009.

  [177]. Ibid., section 1.5, definitions.

  [178]. Senate, Senate harassment and violence prevention policy, February 2021.        

  [179]. Canada, Senate, Subcommittee on Human Resources, ‘Harassment and violence have no place in the Senate’, media release, 16 February 2021.

  [180]. Ibid.          

  [181]. J Tasker, ‘Senate’s new harassment policy ‘a gift’ for would-be abusers, senator says’, CBC news, 17 March 2021.

  [182]. See   An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations      Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1 (Canada), (Bill C–65).

  [183]. Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act 1985 (Canada).   

  [184]. M Perez-Leclerc, ‘Legislative Summary of Bill C-65: An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1’, Legislative summaries, Library of Parliament, Canada, 4 February 2019. Note: section 2.2 discusses the changes to parliamentary employment arrangements.

  [185].  T Mallard, Francis review launched to examine bullying and harassment at Parliament, media release, 27 November 2018.

  [186]. Ibid. 

  [187]. L Walters, ‘Overdue review into harassment and bullying in Parliament’, Newsroom, 27 November 2018.       

  [188]. D Francis, External Independent Review: Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace – Final report, 21 May 2019. 

  [189]. Ibid., pp. 90–95 (recommendations) and pp. 10–37.     

  [190]. Ibid, see recommendations 4 and 5.      

  [191]. Ibid., recommendation 6.        

  [192]. Ibid., p. 9.         

  [193]. New Zealand Parliament, Behavioural statements, 24 June 2020.        

  [194]. L Waters, ‘Bullying and harassment in Parliament – one year on’, Newsroom, 7 July 2020.

  [195]. A Vance, ‘Men and women behaving badly: why won’t MPs sign a code of conduct?’, Stuff, 22 July 2020.       

  [196]. C McCulloch, ‘Mallard releases code of conduct following bad behaviour in Parliament’, RNZ, 24 July 2020.   

  [197]. Ibid., see also A Webster, ‘Parliamentary code of conduct’, Transparency International New Zealand weblog, 14 September 2020.

  [198]. M Sawer, ‘Dealing with toxic parliaments: lessons from elsewhere’, Australasian Parliamentary Review, 9 July 2021, p. 21.

  [199]. V Burgess, ‘The truth does need to see the light of day. Just don't hold your breath’, op.cit.; K Murphy and K Knaus, ‘Brittany Higgins proceeds with formal complaint about alleged rape’, Guardian, 19 February 2021; ‘Brittany Higgins makes formal police complaint about alleged rape at Parliament House’, ABC News, 24 February 2021; ACT Policing, Man to face court for alleged historical sexual assault, media release, 6 August 2021; L Tingle, ‘State of paralysis as ministers hide behind rape victim’, Australian Financial Review, 20 February 2021; J Maley and K Curtis, ‘Unsafe house’, op. cit.; S Morrison [Prime Minister], JobSeeker payment increase; Craig Kelly's resignation from the Liberal Party; Barnaby Joyce, and Brittany Higgins, transcript, 23 February 2021; Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Official Committee Hansard, 22 March 2021, p. 42; P Gaetjens, (Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), ‘Media statement’, media release, 30 August 2021; D McCulloch, ‘PM orders Higgins 'backgrounding' probe’, Canberra Times, 26 March 2021; S Morrison, ‘Answer to Question without notice: members of parliament: staff’, [Questioner: C King], House of Representatives, Debates, 25 March 2021, p. 49; Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Letter to Scott Morrison, Prime Minister, from Dr John Kunkel, Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister—Document presented by Mr Morrison 25 May 2021’, Votes and proceedings, HVP 117, 25 May 2021, p. 1867.

  [200]. Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Official Committee Hansard, 22 March 2021, p. 42.

  [201]. S Morrison [Prime Minister], Foster report, media release, 25 May 2021.  

  [202]. S Morrison, ‘Answer to Question without notice: members of parliament: staff’, [Questioner: T Plibersek], House of Representatives, Debates, 25 May 2021, p. 22.

  [203]. S Foster, Review of the Parliamentary Workplace: Responding to Serious Incidents, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 4 June 2021.

  [204]. Ibid., p. 6.         

  [205]. Ibid., p. 5.         

  [206]. Ibid. 

  [207]. Ibid., p. 6.         

  [208]. Ibid. 

  [209]. Ibid., p. 63.       

  [210]. A Tiernan, ‘After Brittany Higgins: will the Foster review prevent another ‘serious incident’ at Parliament House?’, The Conversation, 7 June 2021.

  [211]. K Murphy and P Karp, ‘Labor says parliament complaints mechanism should be able to investigate allegations against departed staff’, Guardian Australia, 22 June 2021.

  [212]. Ibid. 

  [213]. S Foster, Review of the parliamentary workplace: responding to serious incidents: final report, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 26 July 2021.

  [214]. S Morrison (Prime Minister) and S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Foster report, media release, 26 July 2021.

  [215]. Ibid.

  [216]. S Foster, ‘final report’, op. cit., p. 89.     

  [217]. S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Launch of Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, media release, 23 September 2021; see Parliamentary Workplace Support Service website.

  [218]. House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 145, 18 October 2021, pp. 2200–2201; Senate, Journals, 123, 19 October 2021, pp. 4159–4160.

  [219]. Ibid.

  [220]. S Morrison and S Birmingham, Foster report, op. cit.

  [221]. Ibid. 

  [222]. S Hutchinson and S Brook, ‘CBD: Striking a blow’, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 August 2021. It is not clear if this team will be involved in the face-to-face training to be rolled out across the parliamentary workplace in September 2021.      

  [223]. S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces, media release,  5 March 2021.

  [224]. Ibid. 

  [225]. Ibid. 

  [226]. S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Independent review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces, transcript, 5 March 2021.

  [227]. Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), ‘Information-Independent review into commonwealth parliamentary workplaces’, AHRC website.    

  [228]. K Jenkins (Sex Discrimination Commissioner), Statement on Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces, media release, 5 March 2021. See also Australia Human Rights Commission Act (1986).

  [229]. Ibid., media release.        

  [230]. K Jenkins, Respect@Work: sexual harassment national inquiry report 2020, Australian Humans Rights Commission, 2 March 2020.     

  [231]. D Farrell (Shadow Special Minister of State), T Plibersek (Shadow Minister for Women) and K Gallagher (Shadow Minister for the Public Service),        Parliamentary workplace culture needs to change, media release, 5 March 2021.

  [232]. K Jenkins, Independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces: progress update 2021, Australian Human Rights Commission, 19 July 2021; K Jenkins, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, Australian Human Rights Commission, 30 November 2021.

  [233]. K Jenkins, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, Australian Human Rights Commission, 30 November 2021, pp. 16–17.

  [234]. Ibid., p. 17.

  [235]. Ibid., p. 18.

  [236]. Ibid., pp. 14–16.

  [237]. Ibid., pp. 18–27.

  [238]. Ibid., p. 25.

  [239]. Ibid., p. 24.

  [240]. Ibid., p. 228.

  [241]. Ibid., p. 26.

  [242]. Ibid. p. 231

  [243]. Ibid. p. 232.

  [244]. S Morrison (Prime Minister), S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), M Payne (Minister for Women, Minister for Foreign Affairs) and B Morton (Special Minister of State, Minister for the Public Service and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet), Release of Jenkins Report, media release, 30 November 2021.

  [245]. Ibid.

  [246]. ‘Jenkins Report Leadership Taskforce Meeting 3 February 2022’, Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet website, 4 February 2022

  [247]. Ibid.

  [248]. A Wallace (Speaker), ‘Statement by the Speaker: Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 8 February 2022, p. 1; S Brockman (President), ‘Statement by the President: Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces’, Senate, Debates, 8 February 2022, p. 2.

  [249]. Ibid.

  [250]. Australia, Senate, Journals, SJ 136, 10 February 2022, (proof), pp. 4547–4548; Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 164, 14 February 2022, pp. 2474–2476.

  [251]. Ibid.

  [252]. J Duniam (Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development), ‘Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022: Second Reading’, Senate, Debates, 9 February 2022, pp. 159–160.165

  [253]. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 165, 15 February 2022, pp. 2497.

  [254]. ‘Review of the Members Of Parliament (Staff) (Mops) Act 1984’, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website.

  [255]. Ibid.

  [256]. M Sawer, ‘Dealing with toxic parliaments: lessons from elsewhere’, op. cit., p. 7.      

  [257]. L Cox, The bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, op. cit., para.352.

  [258]. Ibid., para. 405.

  [259]. Ibid., para. 352 and see for example, M Sawer, ‘Dealing with toxic parliaments: lessons from elsewhere’, op. cit., p. 22.

  [260]. Ibid., para. 378.

  [261]. K Jenkins, Set the Standard Report, op. cit., p. 24.

  [262]. Ibid., p. 25.

  [263]. House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 145, 18 October 2021, pp. 2200–2201; Senate, Journals, 123, 19 October 2021, pp. 4159–4160.

  [264]. Ibid., para. 404.

  [265]. Thwaites and Macklin, op. cit., p. 29. See also the section in this paper on the UK Parliament and the discussion of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (UK).

  [266]. See for example, the UK House of Commons and the South Australian Parliament. The establishment of an independent complaints mechanism was announced by the government on 26 July 2021 but will not consider historical sexual assault complaints. See B Williams, ’Code needed for safer workplace’, Canberra Times, 3 August 2021 and S Morrison (Prime Minister) and S Birmingham (Minister for Finance), Foster report, media release, 26 July 2021.

  [267]. K Murphy, ‘Brittany Higgins tells Scott Morrison to 'show leadership' to change parliament's predatory culture’, Guardian Australia, 30 April 2021.    

  [268]. K Jenkins, Set the Standard Report, op. cit., p. 22–23.

• Licence

  © Commonwealth of Australia

  

  Creative Commons

  With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

  In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

  To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

  Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

• Disclaimer

  This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

  For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament. All links are correct at the time of publication and are not subsequently updated.

  Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian at webmanager@aph.gov.au. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

Related

Research Paper

Reforming Australia's safeguard mechanism: an update

By Dr Emily Gibson, Annika Hellsing, and Dr Martin Smith

27 min read

Statistical Snapshot

State Statistical Bulletin 2023-24

By Gregory O'Brien

27 min read

Statistical Snapshot

State Statistical Bulletin 2023

By Gregory O'Brien

27 min read