Is parliamentary privilege shielding overt workplace bullying?

Senate estimates are a pillar of an open and vibrant democracy. They are a public forum where executive government and the bureaucracy answer directly to the people.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

But at times the machinery of transparency has the look of a blood sport, weaponised for the digital age.

Senator Katy Gallagher has raised the treatment of bureaucrats during and after Senate interrogations as a safety concern. Picture by Keegan Carroll.

In the wake of the attack on Helen Haines last week, and amid concerns about safety risks facing politicians, Senator Katy Gallagher has raised the treatment of bureaucrats during and after Senate interrogations.

Senator Katy Gallagher has raised the treatment of bureaucrats during and after Senate interrogations as a safety concern. Picture by Keegan Carroll.

Her concern is the way performances are clipped and shared on social media - and the public embarrassment that can cause to those facing often brutal questioning.

Senator Gallagher is right to ask why public servants must tolerate this hostile environment. In any ordinary workplace, the idea of being subject to questioning verging on a tirade by their ostensible bosses in estimates would have immediate recourse.

If a corporate executive behaved the way elected representatives routinely do at estimates, it would trigger an immediate summons to human resources. But, shielded by parliamentary privilege and empowered by the bully pulpit, politicians have an easy way to score political points.

This can take a devastating toll on individuals personally, inflict deep distress on their families and friends, demoralise colleagues, and prematurely end distinguished careers.

"I've worked with a couple of very senior public servants who have retired or left because they will not come to Senate estimates," Senator Gallagher said.

The temptation to play to the camera exists across all sides of the political divide.

Few sitting in the Parliament are completely blameless on this front, including Senator Gallagher - a point made forcefully by fellow senator Matt Canavan who said, "Is she seriously throwing mud about other senators doing their job?"

One of the few who consistently modelled civility and respect was Helen Haines, the last person anybody would have expected to be the victim of what appears to have been a politically motivated hate crime.

Her conduct stands in stark contrast to some politicians who have deliberately chosen to take the defenestration of public servants and political enemies to an entirely higher plane.

While students of Australia's recent political history point to the late 1980s and 1990s as the era during which estimates transformed from a rather dull and dry affair into a public blood sport, the scalpel that Bronwyn Bishop used on the then head of the ATO has been replaced by Senator Jacqui Lambie's baseball bat.

There is a world of difference between forensic and rigorous scrutiny intended to pierce through multiple levels of obfuscation and aggressive browbeating and outright abuse that must be called out for what it is: overt workplace bullying.

While Senator Lambie is not the only offender, her unfiltered outbursts - which on one occasion drove Defence Force Chief General Angus Campbell to tell her she should be ashamed of herself - would never be tolerated in any other workplace in the country.

Passionate advocacy is one thing; vitriolic and uncensored abuse is another thing entirely. It was refreshing to see the sudden outbreak of respect and civility that washed over Canberra as politician after politician lined up to show respect for Helen Haines on Monday.

It was a welcome acknowledgment that spoken words and digital discourse can spill over into real-world physical violence. But how long will the amity last?

Is dialling the outrage and abuse level down to moderate until the start of the summer break too much to hope for?

Send us a letter to the editor

• Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.

More from Federal politics