Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

It's been three years since the Australian Human Rights Commission Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces and 2½ years since the North Sydney community sent me here to fight for the reform that that report recommended. It's frustrating that it's taken so long to see legislation that establishes the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC. Yet, having now seen this place from the inside out, I'm not surprised. The continued push-back says everything that needs to be said about the resistance of the old guard in this place to change.

In 2022 Australians, particularly Australian women and their allies, sent a clear message to our federal parliament that enough was enough, for while this bubble, as it's often described, sees itself as existing outside normal community expectations, everyday Australians disagree. The people we serve expect more from us. While we have made some progress, there are many in this place determined to do everything they can to block reform because they are, quite simply, threatened by it. This legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, represents tentative steps in the drive for reform by establishing the IPSC, and I thank the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for producing it.

The Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces was established following numerous reports about the toxic workplace culture in the system. Run by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, the review followed allegations of rape, bullying and abuse of power by former and current ministerial staffers and came in the wake of growing public anger about the treatment of women. That anger came to a head during the march for justice rallies attended by over 100,000 women and their supporters, including 10,000 outside this very building. It was further evidenced by the emergence of people like me, who stood as community independent candidates in the 2022 election. As a consequence, we now have the largest ever crossbench in the history of our parliament—one dominated by people who were committed to fighting for integrity in this place.

This bill is designed to make this place a safer and more inclusive work environment. With over 4,000 people working in Parliament House every day and thousands more in electoral offices or visiting parliamentary spaces, it's an important piece of reform because it finally provides an independent avenue for people, from parliamentarians and staff to parliamentary and service employees and all who work in this environment, to raise a complaint when they experience behaviour that they feel breaches a common understanding of what is acceptable.

I was a member of the joint parliamentary select committee that developed the codes of conduct and the behaviour standards in late 2022, so the importance of this legislation as a next step is not lost on me. The expectation has always been that the codes would set behavioural standards that would be binding and, if breached, would carry consequences. The absence of clear standards of conduct has left the Australian parliament out of step, not only with other jurisdictions and other workplaces but importantly with our community.

Reflecting on the response to this bill then, the very fact that there are those in this place who argue enforceable standards are not necessary concerns me greatly. It is the strongest indication yet that the old guard in this place are fundamentally out of step with our wider community. Some from the opposition have even gone so far as to suggest that establishing a mechanism for enforcing standards of behaviour would deter people from politics. I've got to say, that's just rubbish. If someone is deterred by behaviour standards, they probably have no place being here in the first instance. Indeed I'm pretty sure they'll struggle to find work anywhere, because behaviour standards are common in every work environment. Reform like this is more likely to encourage people to consider careers in this space because it will make politics more attractive for a diverse range of people, from women and younger people to people from migrant backgrounds, LGBTQIA+ people and Indigenous Australians, because the establishment of this body will help build trust.

While the bill is welcome, it ultimately falls short of the vision laid out in the Set the standard report and recommended by the joint parliamentary committee, and this is disappointing. As it stands there is no guarantee that findings of parliamentary misconduct will be made public, and the ability to make independent sanctions in cases of serious misconduct has been left to the discretion of the privileges committee rather than the IPSC.

The scope of the behaviour standards is also disappointingly limited to parliamentarians' conduct in the course of their role and pursuant to parliamentary privilege. Each of these weaknesses represents a significant dilution of this reform. The lack of transparency and true independence in the process means that, while the IPSC will be tasked with investigating referrals, their capacity to move and recommend sanctions will be limited to the scale of the breach. If the breach is considered minor, the IPSC will be empowered to act. If the breach is more significant, the IPSC will be required to refer the matter to the privileges committee, which in effect means that consequential steps will be shrouded. It's akin to empowering arsonists to put out their own fires. This weakening of accountability flies in the face of the Set the standard report.

Whether the established system likes it or not, Australians want to see parliamentarians in this place held to the same standards that apply in other work environments, and I can confidently predict most people will see this exclusion as politicians yet again looking out for themselves. Turning the light on poor behaviour is the quickest way to effect change, and for this reason I believe greater transparency and independence in this process is imperative. By placing the IPSC in a position where it must refer cases of serious misconduct to the privileges committee, this legislation significantly weakens the body.

To be clear, I believe the process of investigation proposed in this legislation is reasonable, with a panel of three independent commissioners looking into any case that involves a parliamentarian. If the commission finds misconduct they will consider the appropriate sanction. In less serious cases, the IPSC can impose non-parliamentary sanctions, including a reprimand or requiring a member to undertake training or to enter a behaviour agreement with the IPSC. If the commission determines a breach is serious, however, the matter will be referred to the privileges committee of the relevant chamber, and that committee will then decide whether to recommend a sanction. These sanctions may include fines, a discharge from a parliamentary committee or a suspension from parliament among other things. However, this approach is a departure from the recommendations of the Set the standard report that specifically stated it was critical that the IPSC be able to make independent recommendations. The report says, 'An independent mechanism and structural independence from parliamentarians and political parties is imperative to ensure a standards and accountability system is able to fulfil its accountability, deterrence and public confidence objectives.'

The ability for the IPSC to recommend serious sanctions was endorsed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, and it is already a feature of the parliamentary standards legislation recently introduced in Victoria. Indeed, a joint investigation conducted by IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman not only recommended a process for independent recommendations for serious sanctions but also recommended that the privileges committee of each house be reformed to dilute the capacity of the majority in each house to determine the privileges committee's priorities and decision-making.

In addition to this, as it currently stands, there is no requirement that the findings of the IPSC investigation be made public. This is unlike in the UK, where the findings of the independent body are published along with their recommended sanctions when a member of parliament has been found to be in breach of a code of conduct. While I understand there may be circumstances where someone who has made a referral may wish to remain anonymous, I think the expectation that those who have been found to be in breach of the code are protected by secrecy is a serious flaw in this legislation.

I also believe the IPSC should be given the scope to address any conduct that brings the parliament into disrepute, including conduct that is currently protected by parliamentary privilege or happens outside the normal scope of our roles. As drafted, the IPSC will not be able to investigate allegations of poor behaviour that happens in this chamber or during the proceedings of parliament, nor will it be able to investigate allegations of bad behaviour that occurs outside the normal course of work. This is, again, a departure from the Set the standard report, which recommended an approach which was more consistent with that which already exists in the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Scottish parliament.

Parliamentary privilege has long been an obstacle to behavioural reform here, with it often seemingly interpreted as an entitlement for parliamentarians to behave however they want. But I believe that interpretation is flawed and that parliamentary privilege should not elevate us above the people who elect us. The impunity it provides should come with responsibility and should not be exploited or used to resist regulatory changes to govern conduct.

The evidence received during the inquiry into parliamentary standards was largely supportive of behaviour codes applying to all parliamentary proceedings, with even the President of the Senate, the Hon. Sue Lines, giving evidence that the presence of a clear set of standards would be helpful in managing behaviour in the chambers. At the same time, multiple submissions pointed to the experiences of other parliaments that have implemented codes of conduct, including the United Kingdom, where misconduct is placed outside the protection of parliamentary privilege. The Set the standard report asserted that, while parliamentary supremacy needed to be recognised, the powers of the IPSC should be delegated from the houses of parliament. By doing so, the IPSC's investigations would not conflict with parliamentary privilege, because the scheme remains within the parliament.

Ultimately, if we can't agree that behavioural expectations should apply to us in all circumstances, we will have not only missed the opportunity to set a meaningful standard of behaviour in this place but failed to meet our communities' expectations. There is much more to do to ensure the behaviour in our federal parliamentary system meets the standards our public currently and rightly expects, and, while people like me can come here to deliver that message to the major parties, ultimately it's on them to get with the program and show they can change to meet modern expectations.

The distinction between legitimate, robust debate and harassment, sexism and bullying continues to be something many in this place struggle to understand. Many of these same people continue to mistakenly think that Australians want to see a performative contest and that Australians like the aggressive and combative behaviour that they see. While those same people hide behind an argument that the Westminster system is traditionally adversarial, they are missing the fact that everyday Australians want to see us challenge that highly gendered institutional legacy. After all, they did it in the UK. Why can't we?

Each time poor behaviour in this place is called out, I am inundated with messages from the community. People call my offices, they send emails and they call in en masse during radio interviews, as was the case when I recently spoke with Richard Glover on the ABC and he opened the phone lines. And the resounding message is consistent: this must stop. People are fed up with their elected representatives behaving like overindulged children, and, as someone who has worked her entire life in often male dominated environments where debate was part of unlocking great ideas, I can guarantee the behaviour we see in this place every day would not be tolerated in any other workplace. Yet, while parliaments, including in Wales and Northern Ireland, have banned parliamentarians from subjecting others to unreasonable and excessive personal attacks, and have prohibited language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory, in a bid to improve everyday respect in their chambers, it would seem the major parties in this parliament are paralysed by their idea of ambitious reform and accountability beyond a three-year election cycle.

Improving everyday respect in this place would benefit not only those who work here but also those who watch, because the norms exhibited here influence our society more broadly. If we cannot agree that it's not okay to yell out or harass each other when we disagree, how can we expect a man prone to dominance in the real world to allow his partner to express a divergent opinion at home? This very issue was noted in the Set the Standard report when one participant shared: 'You're constantly in that adversarial environment', with people 'just constantly arguing and yelling and screaming across the chamber … So if it's acceptable here when the public is watching, it must be acceptable in my office when the door's closed.'

Clearly, not only embracing but enforcing behaviour standards here would have positive outcomes across both our work environment and, more broadly, in our community, but for it to work all of us in this place must accept that this workplace should reflect the nation's values and meet our community's expectations. While this bill is welcomed, then, it is weaker than many had hoped, and for this reason I move the amendments circulated in my name. We must continue to advocate for greater ambition, to not only ensure any parliamentary workplace is respectful and inclusive but also, ultimately, to ensure it reflects everything our community wants us to be.

See this speech in context