Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Code of Conduct requires parliamentarians to treat people with "dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect";

(b) the conduct of parliamentarians in the House of Representatives chamber—especially during Question Time—frequently falls short of these standards;

(c) there is no other workplace environment where shouting, mocking, and hurling insults is not only tolerated, but celebrated;

(d) since May 2022, politicians have been thrown out of the chamber over 200 times;

(e) this behaviour sets a terrible example to young Australians and does nothing to support constructive discussion and social cohesion, at a time when we are struggling to disagree well as a country; and

(f) the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is supposed to enforce the Code of Conduct for parliamentarians, but its remit will not extend to conduct in the chamber; and

(2) calls on the Government to embed the new Code of Conduct in the House of Representatives Standing Orders, and to take real steps to improve behaviour in the chamber."

I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. The legislation represents an essential step towards addressing the deep-rooted issues that have plagued our parliamentary workplace for too long. I commend the work of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, including the member for Warringah, in getting us to this point.

Like many Australians, I've been appalled by the reports and revelations about conduct in parliament over the last few years. Kate Jenkins's Set the standard report shone a stark light on the toxic culture that had been allowed to fester within these very walls, revealing a workplace where inappropriate behaviour, including sexual harassment, bullying and assault, was allowed to proceed unchecked. Her report found that parliament had become a breeding ground for misconduct, particularly against women, who were underrepresented in senior roles and often subject to gender discrimination in the workplace. As one woman interviewed for the inquiry lamented:

It is a man's world and you are reminded of it every day thanks to the looks up and down you get, to the representation in the parliamentary chambers, to the preferential treatment politicians give senior male journalists.

This male-dominated culture, described by Jenkins as 'testosterone fuelled', allowed a dangerous sense of entitlement to flourish. The report recounts the harrowing experience of one individual who recalled:

The MP sitting beside me leaned over … thinking he wanted to tell me something, I leaned in. He grabbed me and stuck his tongue down my throat. The others all laughed. It was revolting and humiliating.

Such behaviour is not only unacceptable but an indication of how far removed this workplace had become from the values of respect and equality that we as representatives of the Australian people are meant to uphold. TheSet the standard report also highlighted the extensive culture of bullying that existed within parliamentary workplaces, with 37 per cent of employees reporting that they had experienced some kind of bullying at work. One individual shared the disheartening advice they'd received:

Frequently, like at least every week, the advice was go and cry in the toilet so that nobody can see you, because that's what it's like up here.

Even more alarmingly, over half the people in the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces reported experiencing at least one incident of either bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault. A staggering 77 per cent said they had witnessed, experienced or heard about such behaviour.

These statistics paint a grim picture of our parliamentary workplace. They reveal a culture that not only fails to protect its workers but also perpetuates harm. As one individual described:

Aspiring male politicians who thought nothing of, in one case, picking you up, kissing you on the lips, lifting you up, touching you, pats on the bottom, comments about appearance, you know, the usual ... the culture allowed it …

Such casual references to such deeply inappropriate behaviour highlight are deeply troubling normalisation of this kind of misconduct.

But one of the most damning findings of the Set the standard report was that parliamentarians who engaged in misconduct were often not held to account. As one participant put it, 'There are no ramifications for bad behaviour because there is no risk of MPs getting fired or otherwise being held accountable for their actions.' This glaring lack of accountability is unacceptable. It undermines public trust in our institution and tarnishes the reputation of our democracy.

The findings of the Set the standard report sent shockwaves through my community and demand immediate and comprehensive action. It is clear that the status quo cannot continue. We need to create a parliamentary workplace that is safe, respectful and inclusive, where misconduct is not tolerated and where those who perpetuate it are held to account. This is not only about justice for those who suffered in the past but a necessary step towards restoring the public's faith in our political system.

Whilst many of the recommendations from the Set the standard report have now been addressed, this bill seeks to address several issues that remain outstanding by establishing an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The IPSC will have the authority to investigate allegations of breaches of codes of conduct for parliamentarians and staff, as well as breaches of conduct standards which apply to all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Importantly, it will address bullying and sexual harassment.

Complaints to the IPSC can be made through various channels, including through referrals from a parliamentarian, a party leader or the PWSS CEO. A single investigating commissioner will determine whether an investigation should commence, with protections in place to deal with frivolous complaints or those which should be addressed under other laws. After an investigation, the IPSC will make findings on whether a person has engaged in misconduct and impose or recommend sanctions.

This bill is a critical step forward in addressing misconduct in parliamentary workplaces. It sends a clear message that inappropriate behaviour will no longer be tolerated and that those who engage in misconduct will be held accountable. However, I have two key concerns with the legislation. First, when it comes to the most serious instances of misconduct, this bill only partially implements recommendation 22 of the Set the standard report. The Set the standard report recommended that the IPSC should have the power to recommend specific sanctions in relation to parliamentarians that had engaged in misconduct, but this is not fully provided for under this legislation.

Where there is a less serious breach of the code, the IPSC will have the power to determine and impose sanctions on parliamentarians, such as a reprimand or a requirement to undertake training, but where the IPSC determines that a breach justifies serious sanctions it will have to refer the matter to the privileges committee, which will then determine the relevant sanction and, in turn, recommend it to parliament. As a result there'll be no mechanism for the IPSC to recommend sanctions against parliamentarians for the most serious breaches of the code of conduct. This is concerning and creates a risk that the most serious offences could go unpunished or indeed be covered up for political expediency.

Now, I have the utmost respect for the privileges committee and I believe it will do its job well, but we are operating on trust here, without a legislative backstop, and the community doesn't have great trust in many of the institutions we hold dear at this stage. I therefore urge the government to look again at this issue and to ensure that there is appropriate transparency in the cases of the most serious breaches of the code. Without this, the IPSC will not meet public expectations of reform.

The second limitation of this bill is that it does not address conduct within the parliamentary chamber, and my second reading amendment goes to this point. The current code of conduct requires parliamentarians to treat people with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect, but the conduct of parliamentarians in this House of Representatives chamber, especially during question time, frequently falls well short of these standards. There is no other workplace where shouting, mocking and hurling insults are not only tolerated but celebrated. At times this House is more like a sporting event than a place of serious discussion about the laws and the most important issues facing this country.

I recall an instance during question time where a parliamentary colleague shouted, 'Rip him another one,' in the middle of a debate. On another occasion I left the chamber after question time, and two members of the public came up and asked me, 'Is it always like that?' They were so stunned by the behaviour they witnessed.

Today, we had members of the public leave the gallery and make obscene gestures towards the parliament, but the behaviour in this place, I think, encourages this sort of behaviour. It says: 'Hey, that's okay. This is the sort of behaviour that is expected in this place.' It made them think that was okay. There are so many other examples that I could cite, and indeed, since May 2022, politicians have been thrown out of the chamber over 200 times. I've heard of politicians, particularly on the coalition side, boasting of how many times they have been thrown out, as if this is some sort of badge of honour. This is disgusting. We have young people in this chamber almost every single day, looking down at this chamber as an example of how to have conversations about the most important issues of the day, and these politicians are competing with each other to be thrown out.

It does nothing to support constructive discussion and social cohesion at a time when we are struggling so hard to disagree well as a country. I have heard many sermons from all sides of the House about how social cohesion is so important and we can't stand for bad behaviour and we need to lead. We need to start by leading in this place. The director-general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, said:

… words matter. ASIO has seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions.

These are sobering words, but I fear that many in this place have not listened.

My community is, at this point in time, feeling these inflamed tensions more than most. At a time when we desperately need to bring people together, when we desperately need to be listening respectfully to each other, to hold deep emotions and deep convictions but still be able to listen and learn from each other, our tone and our language in this parliament are frequently seeking to divide. We should be setting an example for this nation, having difficult debates but doing so in a way that does not undermine social cohesion and does not foment fear and anger, and engaging in constructive discussions, not trading insults.

The Governor-General, in her first speech as Governor-General, spoke about going around the country and listening to what was important to the members of our community. She noted that many people expressed their concern that we might lose our capacity to conduct robust and passionate argument and debate with civility and respect without resorting to rancour or violence.

Question time frequently shows politics at its worst. It undermines the institution, it undermines support for politicians and it undermines our democracy. The problem with this bill is the IPSC and the codes of conduct do not apply in this place, which is the most visible place of debate in the country. I think that there are some people who have been in this parliament for so long, either as staffers or as members, that they have become completely out of touch with the Australian public and what they expect.

While I think this bill is a positive step forward, I am disappointed that the most important part of parliamentary conduct is not included. The IPSC is supposed to enforce a code of conduct for parliamentarians, but its remit will not extend to conduct in this chamber. I call on the government, through my second reading amendment, to embed the new code of conduct in the standing orders of the House of Representatives and to take real steps to improve behaviour in this chamber.

See this speech in context