Parliaments are gendered institutions animated by long-standing con­ventions, norms and practices. Thankfully, these are under challenge. But as our new book shows, informal norms and practices remain embedded in our system of government.

One of these norms is ‘adversarialism’ – a practice with a long history in Westminster systems. Its gendered effects include the masculine bias of perfor­mance standards (‘claiming scalps’), the weaponising of sexual gossip, and the viewing of issues of misconduct through a partisan lens.

A classic example occurred during the 2023 debate in the Australian Parliament, endorsing new codes of conduct for parliamentari­ans and staff. Major and minor party leaders as well as a representative of the crossbench joined in praising the cross-party work that had been done to make the parliament a safer and more respectful workplace. The Leader of the Opposition shared in this non-partisan approach—so vital for parliamentary reform—but then lapsed into partisan point scoring, blaming the shortfall of conservative women in Parliament on the fact that “women of centre-right views are subjected to some of the disgusting vitriol online and on social media dominated by the extreme and vocifer­ous Left.” The representative of the crossbench assured the Leader of the Opposition that it was women across the political spectrum, not just conservative women, who were receiving “a revolting amount of vitriol and abuse online” and that leaders needed to set the standard.

Adversarialism works against the important cultural change sought by new standards regimes – work that has been spearheaded by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and outlined in her report Set the Standard.

Instead, adversarialism risks undermining those efforts as it sustains a gendered logic of appropri­ateness within these parliaments.

One area that highlights the tension between existing norms and new standards of ‘everyday respect’ is that of parliamentary language.

While standing orders prohibit offensive language or personal reflections on members (such as calling them a ‘liar’) the rules have not kept up with the increased diversity of parliamentary representation.

In pursuing improved ‘everyday respect’ within their chambers, some parliaments (such as Wales and Northern Ireland) ban parliamentarians from subjecting others to ‘unreasonable and excessive personal attacks’ as well as prohibiting language that is sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory. This challenges a parliamentarian’s traditional right to express ‘robust views without fear or favour’.

The distinction between legitimate robust debate and sexism or bullying remains contested ground, as can be seen in several Australian cases.

In October 2022, almost a year after the Jenkins Report had been delivered, Liberal National MP Michelle Landry accused Prime Minister Albanese of bul­lying during Question Time in Parliament. She had left the chamber dis­tressed after the Prime Minister answered her question in an aggressive tone. At a media conference she said:

“He was yelling at me, he was pointing at me. … I’ve been humiliated in front of the whole parliament … he was look­ing at me and screaming at me.”

Despite this complaint occurring in the midst of Parliament’s focus on improving conduct, the Speaker of the House said he did not believe the Prime Minister had shown disrespectful behaviour.

In September 2023, only hours after the House of Representatives had passed the bill to establish the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, supported by many parliamen­tarians advocating culture change, Independent MP Kylea Tink rose to complain about “confronting” treatment she had experienced the previous day in the chamber. Not only was the tone of the debate “overly aggressive and per­sonalised, with numerous examples of condescending and offensive lan­guage … designed to intimidate others” but after voting she had been attacked personally by another MP who she said “yelled aggressively” at her as they returned to their seats. She said she “did not feel safe.” But when she reached out to the PWSS for support, she found it had no remit within the chamber.

It remains difficult to recognise and prevent bullying inside parliamen­tary chambers and to draw boundaries around the tradition of ‘robust’ debate protected by parliamentary privilege.

While such political combat in parliamentary chambers may be excused as ‘theatrical’, it serves to nor­malise conduct that may leak from chambers to other parliamentary workplaces, and it can have a devastating impact on those against whom it is directed. Bullying of witnesses can also discourage participation by civil society groups in parliamentary committee hearings.

Much work has been done to change parliaments from a masculine domain into a workplace that is more inclusive and family friendly. But to ensure parliaments are no longer toxic, and to strengthen and maintain new standards regimes, more needs to be done to challenge the gendered logic of adversarialism so central to the Westminster tradition.

The new willingness to call out bullying in the chamber marks a change in long-standing Westminster norms. Norm change can be slow, but it begins with naming certain behaviours as unacceptable.