To set the scene, let me remind you that earlier this year, we hoped the bravery of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins would come to something. Higgins alleged she was sexually assaulted in Parliament House. Her story led to a national conversation about violence against women, power and gender inequality in this country. At the time of the March 4 Justice, I thought our rage would deliver answers. For a minute, I forgot myself. Those with a vested interested in the status quo are doing everything they can to make sure we don't get answers. At least not in the lifetime of this government.

Thanks to the unexpected release of the Kunkel report, we are getting a close look at power relations in Parliament House. The Kunkel report refers to the four-page document prepared by the Prime Minister's chief of staff John Kunkel, who was asked to investigate whether staff in the office had backgrounded against Brittany Higgins' partner, David Sharaz. It was released without any notice to either Higgins or her partner on Tuesday by the Prime Minister.

I couldn't decide whether this was just bad manners or bad behaviour or carelessness, and then decided it was all three. Here is an investigation with Higgins at the heart of it. You'd think the Prime Minister could do the right thing and at least get Kunkel to give the young couple a heads-up. But no. No, no. Why would you consider the feelings of a young woman who has already been through hell? Only two minutes ago, the Prime Minister was telling us that because he had daughters he also had empathy for other people's daughters.

Anyhow, it's the least independent report ever. As Denis Muller, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism, says, that lack of independence colours the entire report, and as a result it is inconclusive.

It can't say the backgrounding happened. It can't say it didn't happen. And everyone interviewed knows everyone else being interviewed, and heaven forfend you shit in your own nest. Plus, as is well known, snitches get stitches.

Or, as the highly professorial Muller (my first ever chief subeditor and now ethics guru) puts it: "The real problem is a journalist has been backgrounded, and backgrounding takes place on the basis that you might be able to use the material but you can't identify the source."

The journalists interviewed could not have disclosed their sources without compromising their promise to keep their sources confidential. And one journalist, at least I think it was a journalist, bailed on the whole catastrophe.

"The individual who contacted me on 25 March 2021, when contacted subsequently in relation to the process, did not wish to be identified, did not wish to make a complaint, and did not wish to participate in this process," writes Kunkel.

Probably my favourite bit of the "report" is this: "All senior members of the media team rejected the allegation of backgrounding with the purpose of undermining the reputation of Mr Sharaz."

As if anyone would own up to that. Maybe the undermining happened as a side effect but wasn't the purpose. Also, "members of the PMO media team recalled that Mr Sharaz's work history was raised by certain journalists". Ah, brought up by someone else in the context of another conversation. Not my fault. I didn't do it. You can't make me.

As Muller quite rightly says: "This was a futile public relations exercise."

And that would be a great way to describe every bit of performative anti-sexism from the Prime Minister down. The endless inquiries will mostly remain secret, including the one led by Phil Gaetjens, the former political staffer and now head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, who claimed to have paused his inquiry into contact between Scott Morrison's staff and Higgins because of advice from the Australian Federal Police. It will probably end up being on the down-low so no one's feelings - or careers - will get hurt. The Foster review. Kate Jenkins' report. The lot of them. From a big picture perspective, it's utterly dispiriting - and that hope we had back in March is deader than a Tasmanian tiger.

ANU political scientist Maria Maley has strong views about the abysmal workplace practices at Parliament House.

"They are all just making this stuff up," she says bluntly.

READ MORE:

Surely that can't be! It's Parliament House! Maley is an expert on the MOPS Act, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act under which staffers are employed. She says that although the investigation into the alleged backgrounding occurred because another party brought it to the attention of the PMO, perhaps Morrison and Kunkel believed they did not have to go back to Higgins to forewarn of the release of the report.

"That is clever of them to put Higgins outside this investigation of misconduct. That tries to deal her out of being a party to this matter, even though it is 100 per cent about treatment of her. The PM can release this report publicly without reference to her as it is about a standards breach by his staff. How she should have been treated is another matter," says Maley.

She adds that we know very little about the Government Staffing Committee.

"I have never seen any document about the appropriate process for investigating allegations of misconduct against staff, because it is an internal process done by the GSC and the work of that committee is not made public," she says.

Yeah. And hell will freeze over before we see any of this. Just remember the Australian Federal Police received 40 reports since February 24, relating to 19 different allegations of misconduct involving parliamentarians, their staff or official establishments. 40 reports.

Of those, 12 are described as "sensitive", pertaining to politicians, staff or journalists in a workplace where that word appears to have no real meaning. I fear that the public treatment of Brittany Higgins is a warning sign to women who complain.