Systematic bullying among Parliament staff, inquiry finds

CHRONIC bullying and harassment is rife in Parliament House, a Senate committee says.

By InvestSMART · 30 Nov 2012

By InvestSMART ·
30 Nov 2012

Comments

CHRONIC bullying and harassment is rife in Parliament House, a Senate committee says.

Many confidential submissions to the Senate finance and public administration committee have documented what it calls "disturbing" evidence of a "systematic and organised form of bullying" entrenched in the Department of Parliamentary Services.

While not adjudicating on individual cases, some of which are being considered by Fair Work Australia, the committee has highlighted some allegations that include:

Use of performance management systems and code-of-conduct investigations as tools to bully staff who questioned management decisions, with unsubstantiated claims and innuendo being used.

Bullying at staff meetings in the form of derogatory comments. For example, staff members being told they were "too stupid to be given a task".

Derogatory comments made about staff in emails which were forwarded to other staff.

Staff ostracised by being moved to accommodation a significant distance from their team.

Incidents of alleged sexual harassment treated as a source of humour in the workplace.

Senior executives in the department have denied any problem, even though staff surveys indicated one in five staff had been bullied, one in three had witnessed bullying and only one in three thought management was effective.

The Senate committee, chaired by Labor senator Helen Polley, concluded that "the long-term prevalence of bullying and/or harassment points to poor leadership".

Veteran Labor senator John Faulkner triggered the inquiry when senior departmental officers were found to have misled a Senate committee by fabricating a heritage assessment after two heritage billiard tables were sold to parliamentary staff in 2010 through an online auction website.

The department's head at the time, Alan Thompson, later apologised for providing "misleading and inaccurate information" to the Senate, adding that his department's conduct was "inconsistent with our commitment to serve the Parliament honestly, diligently and competently".

Nearly $100,000 was spent on reviews arising from the sale of the tables, which yielded only $2000 after auctioneer and removalist fees were paid.

Mr Thompson subsequently took early retirement and many of the department's senior executives have now been replaced as a result of administrative changes that have been implemented by the department's new secretary, Carol Mills, a former senior New South Wales public servant.

She has assured the Senate of her determination to pursue wide-ranging reforms.

Senator Faulkner described the Department of Parliamentary Services as "the worst administered government department I have seen in the time I have served in the Parliament".

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What did the Senate inquiry find about bullying in Parliament House?

The Senate finance and public administration committee found chronic, systematic bullying and harassment entrenched in the Department of Parliamentary Services. The report described disturbing evidence from confidential submissions, citing organised patterns of mistreatment rather than isolated incidents.

Which department was named in the report and what kinds of bullying were alleged?

The report singled out the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS). Allegations included misuse of performance management and code-of-conduct investigations to target staff, derogatory comments at meetings, insulting emails forwarded to others, ostracising staff by relocating them far from their teams, and instances where alleged sexual harassment was treated as workplace humour.

How common was bullying at Parliament House according to staff surveys?

Staff surveys cited in the inquiry showed significant problems: about one in five staff said they had been bullied, one in three had witnessed bullying, and only one in three believed management was effective in handling these issues.

Were any senior officials held accountable following the inquiry?

Yes. The department head at the time, Alan Thompson, apologised for providing misleading information to the Senate and later took early retirement. Many senior executives were replaced as a result of administrative changes implemented by the department’s new secretary, Carol Mills.

Did the inquiry reveal any misuse or waste of taxpayer money?

The inquiry reported that nearly $100,000 was spent on reviews arising from the sale of two heritage billiard tables, but the auction produced only about $2,000 after auctioneer and removalist fees — an example cited in the report of poor administration and wasted resources.

Are individual bullying complaints being investigated or adjudicated?

The committee did not adjudicate individual cases. The article notes that some individual matters are being considered by Fair Work Australia, while the Senate inquiry focused on systemic problems and leadership failures.

What reforms have been promised to fix the problems identified by the Senate committee?

Carol Mills, the department’s new secretary and a former senior NSW public servant, has assured the Senate she is determined to pursue wide-ranging reforms. The department has implemented administrative changes and replaced many senior executives to address leadership and cultural issues.

Why should everyday investors or taxpayers care about this Senate inquiry into parliamentary bullying?

For taxpayers and everyday investors who watch public-sector governance, the inquiry highlights how poor leadership and workplace culture can lead to wasted public money and damaged accountability. The findings underline the importance of transparency and effective management in government departments that steward public resources.