(Image: Mitchell Squire/Private Media)

Parliament House is Canberra isn’t merely a “toxic workplace”. In fact, looking at the revelations of the Jenkins report purely through the prism of the workplace is inadequate for conveying the enormity of what has been perpetrated in that building.

Parliament House may be a workplace, but it is one in which there is far less accountability or transparency than any other Australian workplace — not to mention far greater power imbalances and far worse consequences for those who speak out.

Just ask Brittany Higgins, who had the office of the prime minister backgrounding against her partner for daring to raise her voice.

What’s revealed in the report is as much about a criminal conspiracy as it is about a toxic workplace — a conspiracy to cover up, indeed, to normalise, sexual assault, sexual predation, harassment and bullying. It contains a litany of shocking incidents — accompanied by attempts to downplay or hide them, protect the perpetrators and punish the victims.

The first level of the conspiracy is failing to act against well-known perpetrators. The report described “a culture in which the individuals responsible for misconduct are often widely known and their behaviour deliberately overlooked, minimised or tolerated. The commission heard about individuals whose misconduct was an “open secret” that “everyone knows about, but nobody does anything to address”.

Even increasing the number of female MPs in Parliament isn’t going to address this. As one respondent explained, a “number of female shadow cabinet members and staff and press gallery journalists knew about some of my circumstances but other than gossip about me and shame me they offered no assistance”.

The second is failing to respond to complaints, or discouraging complaints. As one victim of sexual harassment noted when they complained: “His reply was that it was part of my job to get along with MPs and staff from all sides of politics, so that we could get things done in the chamber, and that this kind of thing was part and parcel of ‘getting along’. The implication was that this was not only to be tolerated by me, but actively sought out and encouraged.”

Another: “I was sexually harassed multiple times, sexually assaulted, bullied and terrorised. And I was told that if I ever sought help or spoke about what happened to me my professional reputation and personal life would be destroyed.”

The third is actively witnessing assault, harassment and predation and either failing to intervene, or actively encouraging it. One respondent describes being assaulted by an MP: “The MP sitting beside me leaned over. Also thinking he wanted to tell me something, I leaned in. He grabbed me and stuck his tongue down my throat. The others all laughed. It was revolting and humiliating.”

Another reported an MP “actually put his hand up my skirt and tried to kiss me at that party. And it was quite disgusting. And I was also told by state parliamentarians and members of the party constantly that they need young, sexy, attractive women in the … party”.

These are not bad apple situations: a third of respondents reported being sexually harassed. And 37% reported bullying, which ranges from unjustified complaints and belittling comments through to criminal acts such as physical violence or threats of physical violence, reported by 5% of parliamentarian respondents and 3% of staffers.

This is criminal conduct, being covered up by people who mock victims, refuse to take their complaints seriously, do nothing about widespread knowledge of perpetrators, and punish — or threaten to punish — those who speak out.

A focus on addressing Parliament House’s rotten culture — including the power imbalances, the sacrificing of everything for the good of the party, the terrible employment conditions of political staff, the long hours, the drug use, and the cult of non-accountability around MPs — is crucial. But confining the response to that comes with high risks: it means that many of the worst perpetrators of sexual assault, harassment and bullying will make the rules about what the new culture will look like. It means that senators like the clown who made dog noises at Jacqui Lambie yesterday will make the rules about what’s appropriate.

Even the recommendations of the report leave MPs in charge of dealing with parliamentarians who have engaged in misconduct or criminal behaviour, meaning no action will ever be taken if suspending an MP means political harm.

Until criminal behaviour within Parliament House — including attempts to interfere with complaints about criminal behaviour — is treated as such, and the perpetrators are subjected to external investigation and sanction, rather than the wrist-slapping of their own colleagues, talk of workplace culture can only be a beginning.