silverguide.site –

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.

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.

Nearly two years after Australia’s parliamentary workplace watchdog opened its doors in an effort to clean up the bad behaviour within Parliament House, some are questioning whether it’s living up to the brief.

“I had hoped to be treated with respect and dignity,” Jenny told Guardian Australia under the condition of anonymity.

“Instead, I was silenced.”

An impartial complaints body for the halls of power

After handing in her report card on the workplace environment within Parliament House 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.

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.

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.

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’s remit and powers could be agreed upon by parliamentarians. Those complaints were not automatically transferred to the new body.

The parliament eventually agreed an independent body 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’t simply be dismissed from their post for doing the wrong thing.

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.

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.

But that secrecy has meant the IPSC’s work has been shielded from any public scrutiny.

In the nearly two years since it was first created, the IPSC has referred to only one case publicly.

In February, the parliamentary behaviour watchdog revealed the United Australia party senator Ralph Babet had refused to accept any sanction over “offensive” and “disrespectful” comments he made on social media.

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.

Babet has said he would not comply with the “dumb” findings. The IPSC did not confirm whether it had referred the non-compliance to the privileges committee for further sanctions.

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.

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.

An 18-month review into parliamentary support services is now under way with a final report due to be published by the end of next year.

Total silence or potential jail time

While the body has remained under the public radar, its visibility has become a problem within Parliament House.

A 2025 culture survey found less than half (46%) of respondents were aware of the IPSC. Of those who did know about it, 55% understood its role and responsibilities and 43% trusted it as an institution.

Once a person brings their complaint to the IPSC, they are bound by near-total confidentiality.

The rules caused concern for advocates, who worried the gag orders would mean harsher penalties for victim-survivors than potential offenders.

Jenny said the warning of jail time left her in fear about sharing her experience with others.

“I was legally restricted from speaking about what I went through at parliament to my friends, family and community. I was threatened, repeatedly, with the spectre of jail if I spoke up,” she said.

“Silence is traumatising … The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission took my voice. I was left in fear of penalties if I spoke up. I was given no support. I felt like my rights were violated.”

Guardian Australia has seen a number of the confidentiality notices sent to complainants that warn of both jail time and a potential penalty of $9,900 (30 penalty units).

The IPSC said it did not count the number of confidentiality notices sent but said they were issued “where appropriate to protect the integrity of processes, ensure fair proceedings, safeguard identities, prevent unreasonable detriment or restrict the disclosure of sensitive information”.

Jenkins’ 2021 review said confidentiality agreements were crucial to instil trust and confidence in the new body.

But she also noted confidentiality agreements “could silence and isolate the people impacted and can also allow bad behaviour to continue”.

Under the rules, the confidentiality requirements should lapse once an investigation has concluded but the commission has discretion to extend them indefinitely.

Dr Maria Maley, a senior academic in politics and public administration, said the lack of transparency around the commission’s work and outcomes is a “serious problem”.

“We need to know this system is working properly,” she said.

“If we can’t find out information about who faced complaints, what happened and what was the sanction that was applied … then people in the public also can’t feel confident that the system has been set up properly.”

Jenny says it is “deeply ironic” those who come forward could face “more severe penalties than any sanction the commission can order against a parliamentarian found to have engaged in workplace misconduct”.

“The secrecy at the heart of the commission must be urgently reviewed.”

*Name has been changed