The Jordan Steele-John allegations and the issue with parliament investigating politicians

According to signatories to a letter to new Greens leader David Shoebridge last week, there are allegations of misconduct regarding “multiple inappropriate comments to women” against WA Senator Jordon Steele-John. According to Steele-John, the allegations mainly stem from two notoriously difficult areas for outsiders to navigate: a former relationship allegedly involving coercive control, and factional politics within the WA Greens, with the senator saying his enemies are weaponising claims against him.

Some claims have been around long enough that, as The Sydney Morning Herald reported, they formed the basis of a secret, decade-old internal document that catalogued allegations, outlined how to suppress media coverage, and monitored members who raised concerns on social media.

But there remains an allegation — which Steele-John has acknowledged the existence of — of “sexual harassment in 2024 at a Greens Party campaign event” not reported by the survivor for fear of “backlash”.

Related Article Block Placeholder Article ID: 1267140

There’s a certain double standard and prurience attaching to all this, unrelated to the individuals concerned: the notion that the Greens are held to a higher standard of conduct because they’re progressive, and because they claim to pursue a better, more moral form of politics. As with the community independents, this means in practice that the media seizes on any suggestion of conduct below the highest standards as evidence of rank hypocrisy — and proof that they are just like all the other rotten (major party) politicians.

Shoebridge has referred the letter and allegations to the WA Greens for investigation. This is not good enough — and he has no choice. The bulk of the allegations relate to the period before the introduction of the parliamentarians’ code of conduct on October 14, 2024. The code of conduct allows for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC) to retrospectively investigate certain conduct before that date, but many of the allegations against Steele-John relate to a period before he became a senator, making it difficult to investigate. And as experts have pointed out, the process for handling the IPSC findings leaves politicians in charge of whether anything ever happens as a result of a finding of misconduct, with no non-political scrutiny of the process.

Thus we have the party branch of Steele-John himself — which he accuses of being factionalised against him — funding an investigation of claims of allegations.

It’s similar to the farce in 2018 that characterised the NSW Nationals’ response to allegations of sexual harassment — strongly denied — against Barnaby Joyce. An internal party investigation concluded it could make no finding against him. Along the way, the accuser’s name was leaked to News Corp, an experience the woman concerned described as “horrific” and “one of the most frightening things that you will ever have to live through”.

It was part of a broader pattern in which the right-wing media targeted any woman who exposed misconduct on the conservative side of politics. Having seen the treatment afforded by the right-wing media to Brittany Higgins, Catherine Marriott, Lucy Wicks and Rachelle Miller, including the publication of highly personal details of the kind that would utterly mortify most of us, why would any victim of sexual misconduct by a politician come forward ever again? Any investigation clearly needs to be independent of the party branch concerned — including the funding of the investigation, which, as KPMG has shown recently, tends to undermine the credibility of any review. This is also something the subject of allegations would surely welcome, given the possibility that factional politicking could affect the outcome of any internal inquiry.

The IPSC can undertake such a role going forward, as the relevant code of conduct covers not merely behaviour by parliamentarians in government workplaces but also “in the course of their role, including at social events, when travelling for work, and outside of normal business hours”. Whether it covers the internal party work of a parliamentarian if they are not acting as an MP or senator isn’t clear.

There’s also the vexing issue of whether politicians who are the subject of allegations of misconduct should stand aside. At the moment, depending on the level of media pressure and the general atmosphere around the party concerned, it’s entirely a lottery. Standing aside is also a go-to response for all parties to create the impression of action while an inquiry — whether authentic or not — is underway.

Related Article Block Placeholder Article ID: 1267451

In an ordinary workplace, employers can decide to stand someone aside, usually on full pay, while matters are investigated. Who makes such a decision for politicians? Politicians do, via parliamentary standards committees, because politicians are elected, not employed. That special status as elected, rather than appointed, officials shouldn’t be a protection — if anything, politicians should be held to a higher standard given they occupy public office, with any credible allegation being the basis for standing aside.

It’s also evident that a gap persists in relation to political parties when it comes to whistleblowers. There’s a persistent aversion to allowing workplace conduct matters, including sexual harassment, to be covered by whistleblower protections. The current public sector whistleblower protection regime only applies to public servants, not politicians or staffers. The corporate whistleblower regime, which criminalises exposure of the identities of whistleblowers, introduced by the Liberals’ Kelly O’Dwyer in the Turnbull years, doesn’t extend to political parties.

It was David Shoebridge who attempted to amend the public sector regime to extend to staffers in 2023. But that still leaves party officials and colleagues who are not employed by the Commonwealth in danger of retaliation — including by the media — if they reveal misconduct by politicians. And recent history suggests, unless you’re Barnaby Joyce, no-one emerges from such incidents undamaged.