Jenny* was warned she could face jail time if she spoke to anyone except a lawyer or a psychologist about a workplace complaint she made about her former boss.<\/p>\n
The former political staffer is worried about publicly revealing details of her complaint against the federal parliamentarian, owing to heavy-handed gag orders that threatened to throw her in jail for six months and a possible $10,000 fine.<\/p>\n
Nearly two years after Australia\u2019s parliamentary workplace watchdog opened its doors in an effort to clean up the bad behaviour within Parliament House, some are questioning whether it\u2019s living up to the brief.<\/p>\n
\u201cI had hoped to be treated with respect and dignity,\u201d Jenny told Guardian Australia under the condition of anonymity.<\/p>\n
\u201cInstead, I was silenced.\u201d<\/p>\n
An impartial complaints body for the halls of power<\/p>\n
After handing in her report card on the workplace environment within Parliament House<\/a> following numerous highly publicised allegations of sexual misconduct and bullying, the then sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, recommended in 2021 an impartial umpire be created to hold staff and parliamentarians accountable.<\/p>\n Until that point, allegations of bad behaviour by politicians and staff on capital hill were left to the privileges committee, the media and, in some serious cases, the police.<\/p>\n It would take more than three years for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC) to be established after years of work by a cross-parliamentary taskforce.<\/p>\n In a 2021 review, then sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins said confidentiality agreements were crucial to instil trust in the IPSC, but also noted they could \u2018silence and isolate the people impacted\u2019. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts\/AAP<\/p>\n In the interim, a parliamentary HR body, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS), was created to support those aggrieved. It was also tasked with handling complaints until the IPSC\u2019s remit and powers could be agreed upon by parliamentarians. Those complaints were not automatically transferred<\/a> to the new body.<\/p>\n The parliament eventually agreed an independent body<\/a> within the PWSS would be the right mechanism to deal with allegations within the workplace. But as politicians were elected, not hired, to do their job, they couldn\u2019t simply be dismissed from their post for doing the wrong thing.<\/p>\n The IPSC can order politicians to undertake workplace behaviour training or sign behaviour agreements. For tougher sanctions, such as fines, pay docking and suspension, the IPSC can only recommend to the privileges committee they be imposed.<\/p>\n The two-tiered system was a necessary, if imperfect, solution for dealing with elected officials. Another necessary function was to provide a level of confidentiality over investigations, owing to a concern about vexatious complaints that could be litigated publicly through the media or online.<\/p>\n But that secrecy has meant the IPSC\u2019s work has been shielded from any public scrutiny.<\/p>\n double quotation markI was threatened, repeatedly, with the spectre of jail if I spoke up<\/p>\n In the nearly two years since it was first created, the IPSC has referred to only one case publicly.<\/p>\n In February, the parliamentary behaviour watchdog revealed the United Australia party senator Ralph Babet had refused to accept any sanction over \u201coffensive\u201d and \u201cdisrespectful\u201d comments he made on social media.<\/p>\n The statement said Babet had breached the code of behaviour twice for the posts in 2024 but refused to attend one-on-one workplace behaviour training by 20 December 2025 or enter into a behaviour agreement to refrain from using the language again.<\/p>\n Babet has said he would not comply with the \u201cdumb\u201d findings. The IPSC did not confirm whether it had referred the non-compliance to the privileges committee for further sanctions.<\/p>\n Under the law, the standards umpire is able to make a public statement about an investigation if a parliamentarian fails to comply with a sanction.<\/p>\n In its first nine months, the IPSC had received 49 complaints and investigated 15, according to its 2024-25 annual report. Fewer than 10 had been completed, though the outcomes remain unpublished.<\/p>\n