Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, particularly after the last fortnight in parliament when the question of whether parliamentary standards are up to scratch was on display for all to see. It's also an important discussion to have when trust in politicians and, indeed, in our democracy is at a bit of a low. As a first-time crossbencher, I feel that I've brought fresh eyes to the parliament, and, while this legislation does not directly address behaviour in the chamber, that's the behaviour that is the most confronting as a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the work environment. The jeering, heckling and disrespect shown in the chamber is unlike any other work environment in the country. This chamber should be a place for robust debate, but the culture demonstrated here is a relic of the past, as is the lack of accountability and standards in this place more broadly.

The standards in this House should not be so markedly different from the rest of the workplaces all across Australia. If anything, we should be setting an example. If we want our constituents to respect our parliament, we need to demonstrate that we are worthy of respect. If we want our constituents to trust us, we need to earn their trust. Part of this means being transparent and open about misconduct in the parliamentary workplace and holding to account those who betray the trust and respect afforded to them. We also need to provide a safe and respectful workplace for our staff, just like any other workplace, and the sad reality is that this place does not have a good reputation. I interviewed a young woman about a job on my team. She was hesitating about taking the job, and I asked her why. She said she was quite worried because she had heard that Parliament House was a bit 'rapey'. It's absolutely horrific that this could be the reputation of the centre of our lawmaking, and we must do better.

This bill is the final piece of reform coming out of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces in response to public outcry over toxic culture and poor behaviour in the Commonwealth parliament. The response to the review, the Set the standard report, was tabled in November 2021, and it contained 28 recommendations to ensure Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. Recommendation 21 was to establish clear and consistent codes of conduct. Recommendation 22 was to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission—I'll call it the IPSC—which would enforce those codes of conduct.

In November 2021, it was recommended that the codes and the IPSC should be implemented within 12 months. The parliamentary behaviour codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and endorsed by both houses of parliament in February 2023, sometime later. An independent parliamentary workplace support service was established and commenced in October 2023, and today, sometime later, we're debating this bill that establishes the IPSC and determining whether this is an appropriate response to the recommendations in Set the standard.

What did the report say? The Set the standard report says that the IPSC should make findings about misconduct, make recommendations on sanctions and apply sanctions for a breach of the code of conduct for parliamentarians. It also says the IPSC should:

… operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures … complaints and appeals about misconduct.

I want to look at how this has been translated into legislation. Firstly, on the functions and powers of the IPSC, it has been set up to provide an enforcement mechanism for the behaviour codes. It's set up as an impartial, fact-finding body that investigates conduct issues that have been submitted to the commission in writing, if it's satisfied on reasonable grounds that there's sufficient evidence or information to justify doing so. After investigation, the decision-maker provides a draft report which includes preliminary findings, a summary of evidence and, where relevant, proposed recommendations and sanctions. The person who's subject to critical preliminary findings or proposed sanction then has an opportunity to respond before final sanctions are recommended. In the case of a serious breach finding, the IPSC will refer its findings to the privileges committee, which then considers the appropriate sanction and reports to the relevant house of parliament with its recommendation, and a recommendation by the privileges committee will become public.

All of this seems a reasonably appropriate response to the Set the standard report and the committee report, and I agree that it's important there's a division between the IPSC's role of investigating and proposing sanctions, and the functions of setting policy and providing advice and support on behaviour standards.

I support structure of the IPSC that requires MoPS employees to have one allocated investigating commissioner and parliamentarians to require a panel of commissioners. I think it is correct to have recommended sanctions communicated to the employer of a MoPS employee found to have breached a behaviour code, while less-serious sanctions can be imposed by the IPSC on parliamentarians. I also believe that serious sanctions against parliamentarians should be applied through the House by the Privileges Committee. As I said at the outset, so much of the rebuilding and trust in this place requires the public to believe parliamentarians and their staff are acting within the highest standards.

Second, will it be fair, independent, confidential and transparent? I want to address those requirements in reverse. Firstly, is it transparent? Transparency is essential to build trust. This bill does not require full transparency. In fact, there is no need for the IPSC to ever show its fact-finding assessment nor its recommendations. In the case of serious misconduct, the IPSC assessment and recommendations are given to the Privileges Committee to determine a sanction, and the report of the committee is tabled, so there is some transparency and determination of sanctions for serious misconduct that goes through the Privileges Committee. There is no transparency for lesser breaches and limited transparency on serious misconduct based on the discretion of the committee.

A number of advocates are concerned about his lack of transparency. Fair Agenda said that as long as the complainant has given their consent, information about serious misconduct by parliamentarians should be made public as a matter of course so the public has visibility on whether those recommendations have been implemented in full. Australian Democracy Network says that it is crucial there is transparency to the public if a member of parliament violates the standards in the code of conduct.

But there is definitely conflict with the requirement of increased transparency balanced with the next requirement—that of confidentiality. As far as employment law and HR are concerned, it makes complete sense that the processes of the IPSC while they investigate and assess need to be confidential. Particularly for MoPS employees or for less serious allegations, the investigation and the outcome or sanction should be treated like a HR issue is treated in the commercial sector.

This bill keeps nonserious allegations confidential but includes limited provision for a commissioner or commissioners to make public statements regarding conduct issues. A public statement may also be made by the responsible commissioner where a parliamentarian decision panel imposes a sanction on a parliamentarian in limited circumstances. So we are finding that balance between maintaining MoPS employee nonserious breaches as confidential employee management procedures, and allowing the public to bear witness to serious or endemic conduct issues. My preference is probably for a bit more transparency but I can see this is a difficult balance to find and I think we can achieve the desired purpose in its current form.

Next, is it independent? Some have argued that the IPSC, as an independent body, should have final say on all sanctions and the Privileges Committee should not be permitted to impose sanctions on MPs, but there is a problem with this line of argument. MPs are, by nature of their election, in a different employment arrangement than others employed under the MoPS Act. MPs have in effect been employed by the electorate, and a sanctioning by an administrative body is imposing restrictions on a representative that does not report to that body. I am actually happy with the balance found on this. The procedure committee is probably the appropriate body to do the ultimate sanctioning but the proof will be in the pudding.

Lastly, is it fair? The final recommendation from Set the Standard is to make sure the process is fair, which is probably the crux of the argument. The premise is clear: MPs and employees must abide by the code of conduct. MPs and employees must have a standard of behaviour that is appropriate for their position. We cannot accept lower standards of behaviour in parliament than we would expect anywhere else. Is it fair that investigations and recommendations are confidential and that MPs are sanctioned only by their peers? The public demands more from politicians than it has in the past. We definitely need to be better and we have the opportunity to use this to make sure we can reform the way this place operates. So while I think there are likely to be future discussions about fairness, this is huge progress and I am really pleased to see this bill.

I do support the amendment put by the member for Wentworth that would make this standard apply in this House as well. It's the behaviour in this House that people see. It's that behaviour that we are judged by, not only by the public but also by the schoolchildren that come in and observe us, and I think it's really important that there be a higher standard of behaviour in this House as well as in the building more broadly.

This piece of legislation could have gone further, but it is a huge and necessary step up, and I will support it. It's arguably fair, independent and finds a balance between being confidential and transparent, even if it's not exactly the balance that I might have preferred. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context