The employment dispute between Richard Marles and his chief of staff, Jo Tarnawsky, is raising questions about the independence of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, after it sent Tarnawsky a legal letter that included Marles’ side.
When Tarnawsky’s lawyer wrote to Marles on 24 June, the deputy prime minister and defence minister referred the letter to the PWSS, which engaged top-tier Sydney-based law firm Ashurst to provide legal advice.
In the 24 June letter, Tarnawsky’s lawyer laid out the workplace rights she claimed to have exercised and what she alleged was the adverse action she experienced in response – that she sought to complain about staff behaviour and, instead of being protected, was allegedly told to find another job.
Two days later, on 26 June, Tarnawsky’s lawyer received a reply through Ashurst, explaining that the firm had been engaged by the commonwealth to act for the PWSS.
The PWSS legal letter informed her that Marles disagreed with her account of events.
Tarnawsky has since engaged Michael Bradley, managing partner of Marque Lawyers. Bradley told Guardian Australia the content of the letter raised serious questions about the role of the PWSS, which is empowered to “advise and assist” both parties and to resolve parliamentary workplace disputes but is also described as “independent”.
“From her perspective, it looks like there’s an indivisible line between the PWSS and the deputy prime minister,” Bradley said on behalf of his client. “She’s on one side and they’re on the other.”
Guardian Australia asked the PWSS how it could independently seek to mediate and resolve disputes between parliamentary employers and employees if it was engaging lawyers and presenting an employer’s side of the argument.
While it does not comment on specific cases, it said in a statement that the PWSS complaints resolution function “facilitates the independent resolution of complaints”.
“These services are provided by staff with appropriate skills and training (which may include external services) who have not had prior involvement with the matter,” its statement said. “Should a Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace (CPW) participant engage legal representation, the PWSS may also seek representation.”
It said its human resources functions apply to parliamentarians, staff employed under the Members of Parliament Staff (MOPS) Act and “designated workers” as specified in its legislation. The legislation says the service also extends to people formerly in those positions.
The legislation says the PWSS’s role is to “advise and assist” on obligations in relation to “policies and procedures”, codes of conduct and work, health and safety matters.
The dispute between Tarnawsky and Marles centres on her allegation that when she complained to him in late April that other staff were bullying and undermining her, he responded by allegedly telling her to find another job.
Since then, she alleges she has been sidelined, shifted into a specially created temporary position but still paid as the chief of staff, and barred from her own office without 24 hours’ notice, with no resolution to her employment situation and no contact from her boss in five months.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Marles told Guardian Australia last week that “a number of the assertions and recollections are contested”. In parliament, Marles said he had upheld the code of conduct and always acted with Tarnawsky’s welfare in mind, calling her a “wonderful person”.
After being directed to the PWSS to access psychological counselling in the months since she was moved out of her office, Tarnawsky was alarmed to receive the 26 June letter confirming the PWSS had engaged lawyers who had obtained the deputy prime minister’s version of events.
“She quite reasonably received that as adversarial, which is precisely not what the PWSS’s function is supposed to be,” Bradley said. “One could be forgiven for thinking that it’s been set up as a protective buffer between MPs and their own staff, which is not what it was sold as.
“It raises a question about how it can perform an independent function when there seems to be an inbuilt conflict.”
The PWSS told Guardian Australia that counselling services were available to all commonwealth parliamentary workplace participants.
“There is no cap on these services,” its statement said.
The independent MP Kylea Tink, who was involved in drafting the codes of conduct, told Guardian Australia that while the PWSS offers some support to staff, its ultimate loyalty is to their employers – the MPs and senators.
“The PWSS is absolutely there for staff but only to a point,” Tink said. “When push comes to shove, at the very pointy end, the PWSS – like any other HR department – is there to protect the employer.”
Commenting on the system more broadly, Tink said it is clear Australians want to see parliamentary workplace standards aligned with those in workplaces across the board.
“The challenge is that we have over 100 years of workplace practices which have been quite extraordinary and now you have a system that is trying to regulate itself from within,” she said.
Tink said the Set the Standard report by the then sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, was insightful. But she argues what is missing is “the capacity of somebody or something to independently reset this workplace”.
“The question for all Australians to be answering is whether or not what we’ve ended up with is actually going to change the environment,” she said. “Have we actually introduced something that can start to tangibly help shift the culture or have we just created something in name only?”
The PWSS provided Tarnawsky with access to counselling, for which she says she was grateful, but then told her she had hit her “cap” and was not eligible for further services – something they reversed when she engaged a lawyer.
She says there needs to be “more awareness about what the PWSS does and doesn’t do and any processes that are required to engage their services”.
In its statement, the PWSS said information and training about the PWSS is provided to new parliamentarians and their staff during induction training.
“The PWSS sends regular email communiques to parliamentarians and their staff and provides a range of printed materials, including PWSS information cards.”
On its website, the PWSS describes itself as “an independent and trusted HR and support service”.
Tarnawsky said the perception of independence is also important.
“Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done,” she said. “The same principle applies when it comes to the independence of the PWSS.”
The PWSS and Katy Gallagher were approached for comment.
