"Parliament House must be more than a functional building. It should become a major national symbol..." This requirement of the brief for the building was beautifully achieved in the Aldo Giurgola design that has been the home of the nation's Parliament on Capital Hill for nearly 33 years. It not only delivered a functional building and an architecturally elegant response to the brief's challenges. It did something even more precious.

Part of Giurgola's gift was the expression, in built form, of a national narrative that begins in the building's forecourt, setting the context of an ancient land possessed by Aboriginal people. It then speaks of first contact and the meeting of cultures in the great verandah and foyer, of living with the land in the Great Hall and then into the Members Hall, off from which senators and members in the chambers discuss the affairs of the day. This sequence leads on to the Cabinet Room and committee rooms, where future plans and legislation are examined. From there the progression is open-ended, reflecting the unbounded opportunities of the nation's aspirations.

This is an architectural sequence worthy of inspiring anyone who comes to this place to participate in the work of the nation's affairs. Sadly, it seems many of those who currently occupy these spaces have little time for these aspirations or are more focused on their own venal preoccupations. If there is a problem with the culture in the building, it also includes an ignorance of the symbolism expressed in the building.

Winston Churchill is said to own the truism: "We shape our buildings and our buildings shape us". However, it would be wrong to suggest that there is a direct link between the design of Parliament House and the behaviour of senators, members and staff, that rightly has been under scrutiny in recent times. There are many other cultural factors that people bring to the parliamentary workplace, factors that characterise it in ways not evident to the same extent in other work environments. Indeed society, through the Parliament, has made serious efforts to ensure this in most workplaces.

These include long hours, high pressure, an often-unchecked adversarial contest, relatively close contact, stress, adrenalin, a plentiful supply of alcohol and long periods of absence from home and families. These are all factors and work patterns that only the Parliament, led by the government, can address. Sadly, it has shown itself unable to make significant changes, even when faced with successful and unsuccessful suicide attempts by members and senators.

It is true that behaviours in the provisional building were also often frantic and furtive. Inappropriate behaviour and abuse of building spaces is something that manifested itself early after the move to the new building. No doubt it also occurred in the provisional building. Instead of broom cupboards, the new building provided opportunities to access spaces, "off the beaten track", such as the meditation room, that are unlikely to be disturbed.

The meditation room was always seen as a curiosity, with an unfortunate potential for multiple purposes. Given the pace and frenzy that sometimes consumes Parliament House a meditation space was thought to be a useful facility. It was included in the building brief among services for members and senators, to be "a quiet area for individual meditation or prayer" with an "interior designed to create a serene quiet atmosphere. Seating for up to 10 persons is to be provided in an arrangement which allows each person to be in a separate screened-off area". The room was briefed to 47 metres but the building delivered a space just over double that size. The top level of the central part of the grey granite curved walls offered a space with a distant view and able to be fashioned into three discrete areas.

The push for such a space came originally from parliamentary religious groups, who advocated for a chapel in the building. A facility so labelled presented some unique challenges, given possible constitutional issues and complications with different denominations. In the end the requirement for a chapel morphed into a space for individual prayer and reflection. Its legitimate users were always going to be in a minority, however, used appropriately it is arguably a facility of more relevance today than when the brief was settled in the late 1970s. I suspect genuine meditators in the parliamentary community have probably resorted to using quiet spots in the building's generous gardens and surrounding bush areas.

That gets us back to culture and respecting the needs of others. Clearly the odious behaviours of recent times, and their underlying attitudes, are unacceptable on multiple levels. That includes the dishonour they do to the designers and builders who, on behalf of the people, delivered a building to inspire the nation and those who work in it. It seems however that much of that inspiration is unknown or disrespected today. Senators, members and all who work in the building need reminding that the people commissioned and achieved a building that expressed the best of Australia and Australians. Those who occupy it, do so but fleetingly, and should conduct themselves with similar aspirations.