Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace Report 2025

Question

On 13 May 2026, the day after the federal budget, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace Report 2025 was released. The PWSS website says: "This report brings together information on the culture, workforce characteristics, performance and work health and safety of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, including the experiences of MOP(S) Act employees... Its purpose is to provide a transparent, evidence-based picture of workplace culture that can support reflection, learning and informed discussion." On participation rates and statistical validity of the culture survey, the gold standard for participation rates in survey data is generally considered to be 50-90% and at least 30-40% participation is considered industry standard for employee surveys. 1. Given that only 18 of 226 parliamentarians participated in the culture survey (approximately 8% of parliamentarians) and only 360 of 2,583 MOP(S) Act employees participated (approximately 14% of MOP(S) Act employees), on what basis does the PWSS consider these survey results sufficiently representative to support parliament-wide conclusions about workplace culture when over 85% of MOP(S) Act employees and over 90% of parliamentarians did not participate in the survey? 2. The response from AFP and media officers were less than 10 in total. The report says that they were "too low to be considered statistically significant" (p. 18) and were therefore excluded from the report's findings altogether. Please provide details of what other engagement PWSS regularly has with the AFP and media representatives based at Parliament House, including in onboarding processes, offboarding process, training, counselling, regular meetings between representatives of PWSS and these cohorts. 3. Did the PWSS obtain any independent statistical or methodological advice regarding whether participation rates from the culture survey were adequate to support the findings and conclusions presented in the report? If so, please provide details. 4. What steps were taken by the PWSS to encourage participation in this survey, particularly given the significance of workplace culture and psychosocial safety issues across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces? Were the approaches the same to each cohort? Provide details of the approaches and follow-up made to each group, including copies of any emails. 5. Did the PWSS make editorial decisions regarding which findings would be visually highlighted in infographics versus embedded within body text? If so, who made these decisions? Why were positive findings (such as trust of the IPSC on p. 29 and trust in the PWSS on p. 30) chosen to be presented through enlarged text, graphics and highlighted colour, while more concerning findings (such as fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct on p. 19; lack of ability to count any AFP or media responses due to such low level of engagement - p. 18) comparatively less prominent and buried in paragraphs of text? Was this to provide a more positive impression than the underlying data supports? 6. Did any external party, ministerial office, parliamentary office holder, political staffer or consultant provide feedback or proactive advice or instructions on the preferred framing or presentation of the report prior to publication? If so, who? 7. When will the next culture survey be done? And how does the PWSS plan to improve rates of engagement in the future?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• F108.pdf (opens in a new tab)