Schoolyard brawls do little for the lot of MPs

When an expression like "snivelling grubs" is used, I'd normally think it had emanated from the primary school playground or even the kindergarten sandpit. But no, this time it's from the most public of our workplaces, Federal Parliament.

At the same time we have witnessed the public distress of a number of senior federal and state politicians and political advisers over the past few years. They come from across the political spectrum and both genders. Is there a connection between the way they treat each other and this public and private distress?

In my own work I have had the privilege of meeting and working with many politicians. I have a great respect for many of them - because of their commitment, energy, skills and intellect. But I can't say I admire or respect their workplaces, which have variously been described as "a ‘Boy's Own’ culture that rewards bullies" by former Victorian Liberal Attorney-General Jan Wade and as "needlessly cruel and primitive" by former federal adviser Greg Barns, and where "personal abuse is part of political life" by Greens Senator Kerry Nettle.

We are not alone - in New Zealand they have "aggressive and warlike behaviour in the debating chamber", and a report in Britain in 1999 described the House of Commons as a backward institution that needs to be dragged into the 20th century.

What is it that puts the health of our MPs at risk? Melbourne University's associate professor Tony LaMontagne and colleagues, in their report Workplace Stress in Victoria: Developing a Systems Approach, have shown that job stress is related to high demand and low control.

High demand means long hours, high workloads, high pressure and the constant public scrutiny of MPs' work, competing demands of family life, especially young children, and long travel time. As we know, these characteristics are common for many parliamentarians.

Low job control is shown by them having little participation in the decisions of their day-to-day work. Perhaps you would think that politicians would have a high level of control. Yet it seems they don't. In Britain they report very low levels of job control, perhaps because of the strongly hierarchical nature of most political parties.

We elect our MPs and we acknowledge them as important community leaders, yet at the same time levels of public distrust are around 70-80 per cent. This alone must cause some heartache for our MPs.

These two factors are greatly compounded by job insecurity, something not unique to MPs, but central to our system of elected parliamentary representatives.

Job stress is further compounded by low levels of support from co-workers and supervisors. Greg Barns said it "was virtually impossible for MPs and staff to find a shoulder to cry on" because vulnerability was perceived as weakness.

It makes sense that active harassment and bullying makes the situation worse. We know from work done by Associate Professor Lyndal Bond and her colleagues at Melbourne's Centre for Adolescent Health that harassment is associated with up to 30 per cent of depressive symptoms in high school students.

In their extensive review, LaMontagne and colleagues have stated that for men, up to one-third of cardiovascular disease could be attributed to job stress, and up to one-seventh in women.

Job stress accounts for up to one-third of depression in women and up to one-fifth in men.

An MP's job cocktail of high demand, low control, job insecurity and actively harassing each other is a potential "Molotov". This combination can raise job stress to extreme levels.

A study of mid-career professionals in Canberra has shown that extreme job stress can increase levels of depression and anxiety 13-14 fold.

So perhaps it is no wonder we see, and will continue to see, MPs in distress. The 1999 British study stated that MPs "pay a personal price in terms of psychological health and family life".

What can be done? Many of the determinants of job stress for parliamentarians are only marginally alterable, such as the work hours and workload, and job insecurity is an essential feature of a democracy. Perhaps it is in the culture of the workplace where real progress might be made. It's of the workplace that Jan Wade asks, "Do we want the boys' boarding school environment to continue?"

Progressive private and even public sector workplaces don't tolerate bullying. They promote family friendly policies, they have employee assistance programs, they promote team work and mutual respect and, as Kerry Nettle says, "they promote robust issue-based debate devoid of personal abuse".

They actively promote the physical and mental health of their employees, both for altruistic reasons and for productivity. As the saying goes, contented cows produce more milk.

Parliaments - apart from sporting fields, perhaps - are the most public of workplaces, so in no small way they help to set the culture of all of our workplaces. If our parliaments can change, it could well assist in improving the mental health of workplaces across the nation.

We ask a lot of our elected representatives; like us, they are only human. Spare a thought for them.

But change, like charity, has to start at home - that is, unless they want to see more colleagues "hit the wall".

No doubt some MPs reading this will say the “Boy's Own” workplaces are all part of the rough and tumble of politics, and they will say "if we don't do it, they will".

I would ask in return, is it really worth belting the metaphorical crap out of each other, within parties as well as across party lines? Does calling each other snivelling grubs really make for better legislation?