Mon Jun 2

Three years after the Jenkins report, there is still work to be done on improving parliament culture

Written by Maria Maley, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Three and a half years ago, then-sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins’ Set the Standard report ^[1] was handed to federal parliament, commissioned after Brittany Higgins’ allegations of sexual assault in Parliament House, which had shocked the public and politicians alike. Since then, work has been underway to implement its 28 recommendations.

The report found unacceptable levels of sexual harassment, bullying and misconduct in parliamentary workplaces, and laid out a radical plan to create a standards regime. The plan would provide tools to deal with such conduct, and try to prevent it by changing the culture of parliament.

In 2025, parliament’s implementation of the Jenkins review is due to be evaluated by an external independent reviewer. Have the recommendations been implemented? What are the prospects for continued reform of conduct in the parliamentary workplace? Will the election of an historic number of women into parliament create pressure for further reform?

Action after the review

On February 8 2022, the first sitting day of federal parliament after the Jenkins review had been handed down, both houses of parliament made an historic statement of acknowledgement ^[2] and apology to the victims of misconduct in its workplace. It stated:

We say sorry. […] This place and its members are committed to bringing about lasting and meaningful change to both culture and practice within our workplaces. We today declare our personal and collective commitment to make the changes required.

Parliamentarians committed to implement all 28 recommendations ^[3] of the Jenkins review. A cross-party body was created to lead the implementation process.

Known as the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce ^[4], it had members from both houses of parliament, ministers and legislators, Labor, the Coalition, the Greens and one independent parliamentarian. It worked hard for three years to design and put in place the rules and mechanisms laid out in the Jenkins review, before disbanding in September 2024.

The magnitude of the changes parliament had to make should not be understated. Among many ground-breaking reforms, it involved developing codes of conduct and a body to enforce them by investigating complaints about breaches of the code.

In February 2023, both houses of parliament agreed on codes of conduct ^[5]. In October 2024, an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission ^[6] was established to receive complaints, investigate and make findings about misconduct. There are seven commissioners, appointed from outside parliament, who are lawyers, former public servants, tribunal members and ex-ombudsmen. For the first time, there will be external independent review of parliamentarians’ conduct.

An independent human resources body for the parliamentary workplace was also created, known as the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service ^[7]. These are huge achievements and represent historic reforms.

In line with Jenkins’ recommendations, the taskforce committed to an external independent review ^[8] of parliament’s implementation of the Jenkins report.

Much has been done to change the culture in Parliament House, but there is more work to do. Mick Tsikas/AAP

But has it been effective?

It is hard to evaluate new rules, systems and bodies that are in their infancy, but one part of the new standards architecture does not represent best practice. After the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission has completed an investigation of a parliamentarian’s conduct, made findings and recommended sanctions, it will hand its report to the privileges committee ^[9] in each house.

The privileges committees are made up of parliamentarians, almost exclusively members of the major parties. It is up to these committees to decide on any action to be taken. We won’t know if they depart from the commission’s recommendations, as standards commission reports are not public.

In the United Kingdom House of Commons, which represents best practice ^[10] in this area, independent investigation reports are handed to a parliamentary committee called the Committee on Standards ^[11]. Half the members of that committee are MPs, but half are “lay members” – that is, appointed members of the community, including lawyers and HR professionals.

The House of Commons established its standards regime in 2018, and has reviewed and improved it over time. Lay members were placed on the committee because it was evident MPs found it difficult to judge the conduct of their peers and struggled to hold them accountable.

Unfortunately Australia’s new standards system leaves decisions in the hands of parliamentarians, without the corrective and robustness that members of the public would provide. Will the federal parliament continue to reform and reshape its arrangements if they prove not to be robust enough?

Ongoing leadership is needed if parliament is to continue to address conduct issues, drive culture change and refine and develop its new standards regime. Some ^[12] believe the culture of parliament has improved since the Jenkins review. Others ^[13] disagree.

There are still recommendations of the review that have not been addressed ^[14]. These include developing a ten-year strategy to increase diversity in the workplace, establishing a health and wellbeing service in parliament, and introducing an alcohol policy. Now that the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has disbanded, who will continue to advance the reform process?

In October 2024, parliament decided to create a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards ^[15]. Its functions include reviewing the operation of the new codes and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

This committee should play a leadership role on conduct and culture issues, but its membership ^[16] is tightly restricted. The government dominates positions and all members must also be members of the privileges committees. Presiding officers are not permitted to sit on the committee, despite their important leadership roles and responsibilities in parliament. Crossbenchers and independent parliamentarians are largely locked out of the committee (only two positions are reserved for them), despite the fact they have often been the leading voices calling for culture change.

With the influx of many more women and new faces into the parliament after the election, there is an opportunity to press for continued reform and for membership of the joint committee to include diverse voices from across the parliament.