Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

If there is one thing that gets under the skin of the members of the Goldstein community who approach me it is parliamentary behaviour inside and outside this chamber. If there was one thing that helped motivate me to stand for parliament as a community independent, it was the account of sexual assault, harassment and bullying of parliamentary staff in the months and years before the 2022 election. What the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 does is give effect to the most important recommendations of Set the Standard, the landmark report of former sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins into workplace culture in and around Parliament House—that is, the establishment of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the next step in bringing workplace culture and parliamentary officers into line with those that apply or should apply, in every other workplace in the country and also in line with community expectations, as voters made clear at the 2022 election.

Based on contributions from 1,700 people, Set the Standard condemned the workplace culture here in Parliament House. It found that 51 per cent of all people currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault. What a disgrace. It revealed that one in three workers had experienced sexual harassment, with young women and people who identified as LGBTQIA+ the most vulnerable. It was laid bare for all to see: the nation's parliament was an unsafe place to work.

Kate Jenkins noted that, while men and women spoke of their experiences, the harassment and bullying was disproportionately aimed at female staff and MPs. It was largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality, exclusion and a lack of accountability. The contributions from those interviewed in the report are harrowing. For example, 'I now have the privileged position to have a good home, a family of my own but the scars of this period of my life run deep. I left the office after basically having a nervous breakdown,' one person said. 'I will never work in a political office again. It is not worth it,' another said. Another: 'I didn't want to stay in an environment where I was going to be subject that level of abuse.' And another: 'From the get go there is no incentive to actually report because it is not going to change it and it is probably actually going to make it worse.' Again, disgraceful.

In the past it has been too easy to say that parliament is a unique workplace, that no other workplace is like it. This narrative has to stop. By speaking about parliament this way, either intentionally or unintentionally, we excuse antisocial behaviour. Yes, it is the national parliament, the imposing house on the hill, but the people who work here have every right to feel safe and respected. The people who work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a safe and respectful environment—no exceptions. Society has a problem with the way it treats women and, if we cannot lead by example right here in Parliament House, how can we expect respect at work in other workplaces across the nation? Excusing poor behaviour perpetuates myths and misconceptions about sexual assault. The facts are that sexual assault is an underreported and under-prosecuted crime. According to the national statistics, in 2023, 92 per cent of women who experienced sexual assault did not report the incident to the police.

Changing the culture here in parliament has been a lengthy and tortuous process. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service is up and running, and parliament has accepted draft behaviour codes for MPs, senators and their staff. Establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission means that those codes can be formally adopted and that there will be a mechanism to ensure that they are enforced. As Kate Jenkins put in her report:

The Commission heard that reporting processes were opaque and ineffective, with employees perceiving the risks of reporting as outweighing the benefits.

Establishing an independent complaints mechanism will ensure that people working across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces feel confident to report misconduct and that standards will be enforced.

As the minister stated in his second reading speech, 'the absence of clear standards of conduct, and the absence of consequences for misconduct, make the Australian parliament not only out of step with developments in other parliamentary contexts but also with the most basic standards in other Australian workplaces.' You can say that again.

The question is whether the consequences for misconduct enshrined in the legislation are sufficient to be a deterrent and whether they provide adequate penalties for transgression. Fair Agenda, which campaigns for gender equality and safety, thinks not, arguing that the legislation does not go far enough to deliver strong transparency around misconduct by MPs and senators. It says:

Serious sanctions (like suspensions, fines or removal from a Committee) can only be imposed by the parliament itself—so will have to be voted on in the House or the Senate …

Indeed, this approach is at odds with recommendation 22 of the Set the standard report, which says that an independent parliamentary standards commission would:

make recommendations on sanctions … in relation to parliamentarians, staff and others …

The report further adds:

… an independent mechanism is needed to provide an effective reporting, investigations and sanctions authority in the context of CPWs—

Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—

In particular, a level of structural independence from parliamentarians and political parties is imperative to ensure that a standards and accountability system is able to fulfil its accountability, deterrence and public confidence objectives.

Instead, this legislation would require that where serious sanctions are recommended, the IPSC's report—including its findings and the recommended sanctions—would be directed to the relevant chamber's privileges committee. The privileges committee would then conduct its own inquiry, decide whether the alleged behaviour is substantiated and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be applied. It would be open to the committee to dismiss the complaint and to determine its own sanction rather than that recommended by the IPSC. I agree with Fair Agenda—and with the implications of the Jenkins report—that if the privileges committee does not accept the recommendations of the IPSC, it should say so publicly and give its reasons in a timely fashion. This is a requirement of recently enacted Victorian legislation, and there is no reason it should not apply in this parliament as well.

The members for North Sydney and Clark are both moving amendments along those lines, and they will have my support. I urge members of the major parties to support them too because the accounts of bullying and harassment reported to Set the standard show just how poorly this parliament has rated as a workplace. The accounts of bullying and harassment are, quite frankly, appalling and demand drastic remedies rather than halfway measures.

It's time for the major parties to step up and support these amendments which would give the public confidence that we mean what we say when we declare that this must be a workplace that is safe and attractive. Confidence in the quality of our democracy is low enough as it is. It will not be enhanced if we cannot attract the best young people to come and work for us.

On the matter of whether this legislation should have addressed behaviour within the chamber, I'm inclined to believe that that's a matter that is within our own hands in the absence of those particular clauses within the bill. It's up to us to show the voters that we can behave with the civility and decency that would be regarded as the norm in any other workplace. It's up to us to change the standing orders in such a way as to encourage robust but respectful debate, if that is what the majority wishes.

To date, governments of either stripe have shown no signs of wanting to reduce the advantage, as they see it, that being in majority provides. Indeed, the only significant steps forward in recent times were the improvements to question time initiated by the crossbench when it had the balance of power between 2010 and 2013. It looks like we'll have to wait until that happens again if there's to be any substantial improvement—unless, that is, that the government is hearing similar complaints from constituents to those that I get on an almost daily basis and decides to actually listen and act on making the standing orders in this House fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context