‘Toiletgate’: in NSW Parliament, some ‘concerning’ interactions lead to a controversy

In recent years, public bathrooms have become highly politically charged spaces. Not least in NSW Parliament, where MPs on their winter break are feuding over access to a lavatory in a controversy that’s been dubbed “toiletgate”.

As a chain of emails obtained by Crikey makes clear, some MPs are very concerned, but others say the entire saga is a Nationals beat-up aimed at hassling a senior party member seen by some as a turncoat for accepting a plum job offer from Labor Premier Chris Minns. 

The Nat in question, upper house president Ben Franklin, says he had to revoke access to the toilets because of “some concerning interactions” that made one of his staff members uncomfortable. 

At issue is a set of toilets, male and female side by side, located near state Parliament’s upper house chamber, outside the president’s office. Franklin moved to limit who could access the facilities late last month, which made some of his colleagues see red. 

An email sent by a senior official in Franklin’s office, addressed to all upper house MPs and obtained by Crikey, shows more than one politician had complained about the move.

“A couple of you have raised concerns directly with me, regarding the recent change of access arrangements to the toilets within the president’s staff area,” the person wrote on June 28.

Using the shorthand “LC” for the Legislative Council, which is the official name of the upper house, the person went on: “I would like to advise all LC members that the closest non-public toilets to the LC chamber are located directly up the stairs to level 8 and across from the LC clerk’s office. The public toilets in the cafe are also available.” 

The missive appears to have done little to placate the MPs, because several hours later, shortly before 7pm, Franklin himself sent an email to address the issue. 

“This decision was made for two reasons,” he wrote. “First it was done after an assessment by parliamentary security and second (and more importantly) it was after one of my staff members felt uncomfortable in their work environment on more than one occasion due to some concerning interactions.

“As you are aware, the offices of staff members are some way away from my office and reception and — particularly at night — it can be very isolating.”

Franklin went on to say it was “perfectly fair” for MPs to want to continue to use the bathrooms, and said he would make the toilets accessible again, while keeping a glass door leading farther into the office shut. 

Franklin’s message prompted more than one fellow Nat to hit reply all and weigh in. 

“Dear Ben, thank you for your prompt response and resolution to this issue,” deputy party leader Bronnie Taylor wrote. 

“I am sure I am not the only member that is concerned that a member of your staff felt uncomfortable in their work environment.

“Given the seriousness of this complaint, which then resulted in a security review, subsequent members passes being denied access with immediate effect before they were told or consulted, it would appear it was of a very serious nature.” 

Taylor also made reference to the Broderick review, a bombshell report into bullying and sexual harassment allegations in Parliament released last year, and said she hoped “a consensual reporting and investigation can take place”.

Deputy opposition whip Wes Fang also weighed in, urging Franklin to release whatever security assessment advice led to the toilet closure. 

“I believe you have a duty of care to provide advice to members, as to this increased risk or steps they should take to increase their own personal security measures in the vicinity of the fountain courtyard,” the Nationals MP wrote. 

Franklin wrote back and got the last word.

“The staff member has been provided appropriate support, and the issue will not be repeated due to implementation of details outlined previously,” he wrote. “I suspect this issue has taken up more than enough members’ time, so if anyone would like to discuss toilets — or anything else in the parliamentary precinct — they are welcome to chat with me personally any time.”

In comments to The Daily Telegraph, which first broke the story, NSW Premier Chris Minns said he wouldn’t launch an investigation but urged people to contact Parliament’s independent complaints officer if they needed to. 

“I’d encourage anybody who feels there’s been an event or an incident at work to go to that independent body,” the premier said. 

MPs from other parties who spoke to Crikey on condition of anonymity said that while the allegation that a staff member had experienced an uncomfortable incident should be taken seriously, the issue of whether all members should be allowed to access the president’s bathroom was being blown out of proportion.

“It’s such a beat-up … I didn’t even know those toilets existed, and if I had, I would never have assumed I could just waltz in and use them. The feelings of entitlement of those Nats are extraordinary,” one MP said. 

“As for the supposed security incident, I don’t know, but there are a lot of unsavoury types in Parliament that I wouldn’t want near my staff either.” 

“The Nats in opposition have no policy agenda so they’re just focusing on the most trivial things, and they’re still sore Ben got to be president.” 

Another non-Coalition upper house MP said most members were “bewildered” by the controversy.

“No other [upper house MPs] have access to another’s office,” the person told Crikey. “The access issue of the toilet has been resolved. It appears the issue is being beaten up by disgruntled Nationals still angry with Franklin for being elected president.” 

Franklin’s office declined to comment when contacted by Crikey. Fang and Taylor did not respond to requests for comment. 

Franklin’s decision to accept the position as upper house president rankled other Nationals because he won’t be able to vote on legislation, giving Labor a leg up in that chamber.  

Franklin, who is a close personal friend of Minns, faced calls for his expulsion from the National Party for accepting the $315,000-a-year job in May, the Australian Associated Press reported.

Correction: A previous version of this story said that “LC” stands for Legislative Chamber. The correct name for the upper house is the Legislative Council.