Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, I want to reiterate that the coalition has said many times since the delivery of the Set the standard report into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces that everyone in this place deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties have a role in improving and maintaining the good culture of parliament. This bill represents the culmination of work in both the passage of other legislation and the consultation across this building to ensure the process for change in this place hears the perspective of all sides. The coalition would like to thank the many people across the parliament who have worked to develop the legislation to bring it into place. In particular, the coalition would like to thank the Independent Chair of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, Dr Thom, and her staff for their endless patience and commitment.

There have been challenges in our workplace, as most Australians would know, and the coalition has been working with all other parties and parliamentarians to address them. This includes through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, its staff and consultative group and the work of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Since the beginning of this process, the coalition has worked for practical and implementable changes that, importantly, respect the institution of our parliament. It's why we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Foster review, including an independent complaints mechanism, workplace training and improved independent support services. It's also why the former government accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all of the 28 recommendations at that time. There have been concrete changes that we have no doubt will make our workplaces more safe and respectful. We now have in place an independent and confidential complaints mechanism for current and former parliamentarians and staff, which this bill will further formalise and enhance by placing it in the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service.

We have a confidential 24-hour support service for current and former parliamentarians and staff. We have new training and education programs for all of our staff and parliamentarians to keep our workplaces as safe and respectful as they can be. It was the coalition that first established the parliamentary independent complaints mechanism under the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. That mechanism introduced a complaints process that for the first time was independent from the Department of Finance and its predecessors. This was an important step and was completed before the Set the standard report had been provided to the parliament. This new independent complaints mechanism had the power to hold parliamentarians as employers accountable for their actions and introduced the concept of referring parliamentarians to the relevant privileges committee if they failed to implement recommendations of relevant workplace reviews. It brought in new practices to improve the culture of our workplaces, which used the current institution's functions to apply accountability that, importantly, respects the role of the parliament in that process.

The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill is to establish the final piece in a legislative framework outlined by the Set the standard report. The bill will create a commission within the statutory PWSS and allow for the commission to investigate breaches of conduct by parliamentarians, their staff and other occupants within the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The commission will comprise nine commissioners, with one being the chair. The commission will enforce behaviour codes within the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and investigate breaches of these codes when they occur. These investigations will be conducted to establish on the balance of probabilities whether the code was breached or whether some other matter relating to work health and safety in our workplaces needs to be addressed.

The process established by this legislation for investigating a matter will ensure confidentiality, an appropriate process to deliver natural justice and the necessary fairness to allow for reviews of outcomes. Most importantly, for the first time, this body will be able to place sanctions on those individuals who breach the codes. This is a new element that does not exist in the current regime of the independent complaints mechanism.

The sanctions placed on staff and other Commonwealth parliamentary workplace occupants can be recommended directly by the commissioner to the relevant employer. However, when it comes to sanctions on parliamentarians, this legislation recognises and respects the importance of the parliament and parliamentarians within our Constitution.

It's worth touching on the importance here of the work undertaken by parliamentarians, why we are afforded parliamentary privilege and are covered by protections under the Constitution. It's a fundamental right of this place to govern itself and its proceedings. The absence from interference from either the judiciary or the executive is a fundamental protection for the independence of all of us as legislators. But this does not mean that there can be no change or progress or that we should be unaccountable as employers. This legislation is the result of a careful process in which the last parliament and the current parliament have engaged on how to manage the change.

All parliamentarians have had to grapple with how best to approach a unique work environment where the employer is constitutionally protected. The opposition wants to acknowledge the government for prioritising this institution and its integrity over rushed expediency. It is right that only the parliament can ensure that its privileges are appropriate and fit for purpose.

It's also worth noting that the first person to commence a process whereby Australia saw updates to the privileges in this place was the father of the member for Wentworth, the former Liberal member for North Sydney, John Spender. But, until that point, the privileges of the chamber had not been altered since they were established at Federation. The late Mr Spender acknowledged the fact that there needed to be modernisation but, importantly, with respect to the past. Speaking on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill in 1987, he said,

I believe that it is necessary for us to come into the 1980s. As Australians we should state what our main privileges should be and say that there are some privileges which we inherited in 1901 which have nothing to do with the way in which this Parliament should run in the 1980s.

Today's bill will acknowledge the need to modernise our parliamentary workplaces but, importantly, will also respect the important role of the protections that exist for this place. To do so it's recognised that sanctions on parliamentarians on how they conduct themselves in their work can only be determined by the relevant chamber of parliament. It will be the respective privileges committee that will ensure that parliamentarians adhere to the standards expected and sanction members appropriately.

To oversee this new commission and the process of enforcing the behaviour codes, a new joint committee will be established. This committee will be charged with overseeing the operation of the commission, approving the appointment of commissioners and undertaking necessary reviews including of the behaviour codes.

While the measures in these bills have the in-principle support of the opposition, at this time the opposition will be reserving its position, noting that the Minister for Finance has committed to our shadow minister to consider some minor technical changes to this legislation to improve the operation and to provide clarity.

The coalition, in government and now in opposition, have consistently taken the approach that these matters should remain non-partisan, and we've sought to deal with these by consensus. We acknowledge that the Labor Party, in government, has worked to do the same, particularly when reasonable and sensible compromises can and have been achieved. This is important and appreciated by the opposition, as we have consulted widely since this legislation was made public one month ago, at its time of introduction. Staff and parliamentarians have provided views to the opposition that there remain, as I said, some minor and technical issues as well as other concerns that the government will be aware of regarding the oversight committee and ensuring, importantly, that the codes of conduct are fit for purpose. The opposition takes these views seriously, particularly the views of staff who have raised concerns that the codes of conduct were not provided to the relevant employment groups before they were finalised.

We appreciate the minister has recognised the need for bipartisanship in these matters and is therefore taking time to work through the concerns of the staff and concerns of a number of opposition parliamentarians. We note the need for this legislation to pass soon to ensure it can achieve a start date of 1 October 2024, and we note the government has indicated that it will preference consensus over the timeline. Noting this goodwill, the opposition will assist with passage while the discussions between the minister and the shadow minister continue. I understand that there's been significant, good work, even in the last few days, of which the opposition is appreciative.

We support the improvements that this bill will implement in our workplaces and look forward to the continued discussions with the government as this bill moves to the other place.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throughout my working life I've been a farm worker, I've worked at Hungry Jack's, I've been a teacher, I've been a lawyer, I've been a union organiser, I've been a policy adviser and, for the last 17 years, I've been a member of parliament. So I have some understanding of what a safe and respectful workplace looks like. The best workplaces have fair treatment of all who work there. They respect each other's differences, whether they be in values, religion, culture, sexuality, sporting teams and so on. Those workplaces have open and civil communication, and people are always acting with integrity. I would add another point: good workplaces have accountability for employers' actions.

In February 2023, both the House of Representatives and the Senate endorsed, on an interim basis, the parliamentarian behaviour codes and standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. These were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and apply to parliamentarians, staff and the wider parliamentary workplace. The passage of this bill means that the behaviour codes will be formally adopted. It is worth highlighting the behaviour codes. The headline standards are:

Act respectfully, professionally and with integrity.

Encourage and value diverse perspectives and recognise the importance of a free exchange of ideas.

Recognise your power, influence or authority and do not abuse them.

Uphold laws that support safe and respectful workplaces, including anti-discrimination, employment, work health and safety and criminal laws.

Bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault, or discrimination in any form, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or religion will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored.

The behaviour code for Australian parliamentarians states:

All Australian Parliamentarians have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure that Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity—

I'll say that again: the highest standards of integrity—

dignity, safety and mutual respect.

It's a good thing to remind every MP and senator but also, in the lead-up to the election next year, every candidate that it's the 'highest standards of integrity' in this workplace. Unlike every other workplace in Australia, here we expect the highest standards. With the possible exception of early morning sporting events, where some people have unfairly indicated that I occasionally suffer from white-line fever, I agree with this statement. This parliament should have the highest standards. We do not hold these positions lightly or take them for granted. We need to reflect these standards in our daily activity, whether that's here in parliament, in our electorate offices or when travelling for work.

That's why I'm pleased to support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill. This bill directly addresses recommendation 22 of the Set the standard: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces from November 2021, probably more commonly known as the Jenkins report. Recommendation 22 states that the houses of parliament should establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, or the IPSC, to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct, and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct. Labor has been committed to implementing all 28 recommendations in the Jenkins report to ensure that this workplace, and all of the electorate offices and ministerial offices throughout the country—and anywhere else where parliamentary work occurs, because committees do a lot of travelling—operate in a safe and respectful manner, as I previously described. This is the standard we should have and one that proves worthy of the community we serve. This place should be, as the Jenkins report describes, a model workplace.

It is fair to say that the lack of clear standards of conduct and the lack of accountability for misconduct have put the Australian parliament behind most other workplaces. I remember, and I'm sure most people know—and you, Deputy Speaker Chesters, particularly—that when this building opened in 1988, it had four bars. Now it has none. One of those bars is a childcare centre that I know my children have been to and your children have been to. It reflects the modern parliament. That this bill ensures that it will no longer be the case that we're different to other workplaces in a bad way.

Labor intends that the IPSC will start on 1 October this year. This body will investigate complaints about breaches of the behaviour codes. It will be an independent body with fair, impartial and confidential processes, and it won't be toothless. If the IPSC decides that there has been a breach of the behaviour codes, it will be able to directly impose sanctions on MPs. The sanctions may include training, behaviour agreements or reprimands. Serious findings will be referred to the relevant Privileges Committee to recommend appropriate sanctions. I'm sure all of us in this place agree with these measures, and with the concept of holding each other to account for respectful behaviour at work. Any sanctions implemented by the Privileges Committee will become public.

The Jenkins Report states that taking steps to prevent and respond to misconduct effectively has several benefits. Not least of these is improved conditions for employees. In 'establishing Parliament as a model safe and respectful workplace', it will 'help to attract and retain and attract the best staff' in a competitive labour environment, 'support high performance in complex operating environments …' and 'support diversity and better democratic representation and decision-making'. This bill builds on Labor's leadership in bringing reforms to the parliamentary workplace. In 2023, the Albanese Labor government worked closely with the cross-party parliamentary leadership taskforce and its staff consultation group to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service.

I extend my thanks to those who participated in this process that will benefit us here in this chamber, our colleagues and our staff. I especially thank one of my indefatigable comrades, the member for Newcastle, who made a great contribution in steering that process—the Deputy Speaker, in a more respectful way. The remit of the PWSS is to provide independent and confidential human resource advice to create and maintain safe, respectful and inclusive workplaces. This encompasses workplace health and safety support, wellbeing, workplace reviews, conflict resolution, and early intervention to all who work or volunteer in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The PWSS is driving cultural change in response to the Jenkins report and the IPSC will continue the charge. It is important to us that the reforms hit the mark, which is why there has been careful consultation with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce.

The IPSC will be established as part of the PWSS while retaining a separate function between its investigatory function and the daily operations of the PWSS. Currently, the PWSS has the power to undertake workplace investigations. This function will sunset—hopefully, all going well—on 1 October in order for the IPSC to operate. Going forward, we anticipate that the PWSS will still be the initial recipient of any complaints or reports, and that the IPSC will not investigate any issues that are better off addressed through the complaint resolution function of the PWSS. If the complaint is determined to need an IPSC workplace investigation, PWSS could assist the complainant in their initial dealings with the IPSC.

Employees in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have existing obligations under workplace health and safety legislation. It is important to note that the IPSC complements these existing laws. It does not require additional reporting, but it does provide an additional pathway, if appropriate. Again, the PWSS can assist in determining if a complaint is best suited to existing work health and safety laws or to the IPSC. It will operate as the Set the standard report recommended. The structure of an investigation acknowledges that parliamentarians are elected members, so three commissioners will make the final deliberation for a parliamentary respondent. In the case of a staff respondent or other worker, a single commissioner would make the decision. There are pathways for internal review of decisions, and in these circumstances three commissioners would do the review.

It is intended that the behaviour codes be adopted into the standing orders for both the House of Reps and the Senate, in line with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards report, and the behaviour code for staffers will be formalised under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. Going forward, the PWSS will provide training on the behaviour code so parliamentarians, their staff and others who work in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces will understand their obligations, and the standards will be reviewed within one year of the first session of each new parliament, keeping them front of mind for all.

The Albanese Labor government has committed $3.8 million to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. This is an important reform which must be taken seriously. Obviously, I believe that this is the best country in the world, and we have the best parliament in the world, but it can still be better, and it can still be improved. As the song goes, rust never sleeps. We must keep trying to improve this building and all who dwell in it. The behaviour codes in the IPSC will work together to set expectations for safe and respectful workplaces and add accountability for actions. We all have a part to play, now and ongoing, and that's why I'm happy to commend the bill to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this bill. After years of advocacy from many corners of this country, we are finally seeing laws that establish a robust Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. It's been a long time coming. When I was first elected to parliament in 2019, I, like others, was shocked to learn there was no code of conduct for members of parliament and a complete lack of accountability for parliamentarians and parliamentary staff who breached the most basic workplace behaviour standards.

Across the hospitals and universities that mark many years of my career, the high professional standards expected of me and my colleagues had always been clear. As a nurse and an academic, I could see how codes of conduct and independent complaints procedures offset the risk of power imbalances and harmful workplace environments from forming. These exist for judicial officers, journalists, barristers and medical professionals. Codes of conduct for parliamentarians also exist in many other democracies: Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This workplace, the Australian parliament, should be no exception.

Like many Australians, I was appalled by the behaviour of some elected representatives that would not be tolerated in other workplaces—behaviour that, in the absence of clear standards and, importantly, enforcement mechanisms, has been allowed to fester: excessive alcohol consumption within parliamentary offices; unashamedly hosting political fundraisers with major donors inside this building; the use of taxpayer funded flights used for holidays, sport events or to host private fundraisers; and, of course, the terrible, traumatic, unacceptable rates of bullying, sexual harassment and even sexual assault. These are all examples of unethical, toxic behaviour that should not be accepted in any workplace, let alone in the workplace of representatives who must uphold the highest standards expected of public life and of elected office. These are behaviours that have gone on without any consequences for too long or have become another rolling news headline.

But these aren't unsubstantiated rumours within the Canberra bubble or media reports that haven't gone anywhere. The Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces in 2021, led by Kate Jenkins, clearly found an unacceptably high number of people, in particular women, experiencing bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplace settings.

We all know the grave impacts of this. Even before the Jenkins review, I sat with brilliant people who came to me to tell their stories of their experiences in this place—people full of potential who had come here to contribute to their country, who then had to deal with the consequences of a culture which enabled harm and were then disbelieved and sidelined when they tried to speak up about that abuse or about unethical behaviour that they had witnessed. I thank those people and the many people who came forward subsequently for their bravery. It's their actions that sparked us to progress reforms like this one.

As an MP with staff that I'm responsible for, I do not want them to feel threatened or experience harm in their workplace. As an MP who, every single sitting week, hosts in parliament volunteers from my electorate and interns from universities, I want their time here to be a catalysing moment that shapes their lives, not one that casts a long shadow.

Those who have come forward with their experiences undoubtedly set the wheels in motion for reform, and I want to acknowledge the many people who then listened to them and championed their cause. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the first Independent member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2018 brought a parliamentary standards bill to the parliament. I then followed this work with my own parliamentary standards private member's bill in 2020. That was introduced alongside my bill for a federal integrity commission.

Once again we are seeing a bill before parliament that has received consensus support, just like the one for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, after the hard work and relentless advocacy of many, especially the Independents on the crossbench.

I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Kate Jenkins and the Australian Human Rights Commission. This Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission implements one of their final outstanding recommendations. When they were writing their report back in 2020, I was pleased to share detailed information about my own private member's bill with them, and I thank them for listening to me and for their vital work in reforming this parliament's workplace culture.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, which includes representation from across the political spectrum. They worked hard to reach agreement on this bill, despite political differences. I thank the work of the staff consultative group, which includes a member of my own staff. It's important that everyone who works in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces has had say on this bill.

I also acknowledge the work of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, led by the Deputy Speaker, the member for Newcastle. I thank her for her leadership and outstanding contribution. The committee has been particularly instrumental in formulating the behaviour standards and the code, and I thank them all for their work.

Even though this bill directly impacts those who work in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces it is vitally important to those who exist outside the Canberra bubble. It is, of course, voters, everyday Australians, who expect their representatives in parliament to uphold their values and to behave to the highest standards, even if those standards might seem like basic professional conduct. Unfortunately, this expectation of the Australian public has not been met for some time. It is the scandals and more that are chipping away at the trust Australians have in government, in democracy and in all of us here in this place.

According to Transparency International's 2023 corruption perceptions index, Australia's rating has dropped 10 points since 2012. There are many factors that we can attribute to the worsening perception of corruption in Australia's public sector—pork barrelling, jobs for mates, lack of accountability for serious corruption—but the poor behaviour, the unethical behaviour, seemingly without consequence, of elected representatives is without doubt a key contributor to Australians' failing trust. If we, as parliamentarians, want the trust of the Australian people, if we want them to trust in government and in democracy, we have to show that bad behaviour won't be swept under the rug, that there are consequences and that we are holding ourselves accountable.

There are many reasons why the Jenkins report is called Set the standard, because we must set the standard in this workplace and demonstrate that to the nation. This bill is a significant step towards achieving that. The bill will establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce behaviour codes and apply sanctions for parliamentarians, parliamentary staff and others working in the parliamentary setting. These behaviour codes set clear standards for behaviour and consequences when MPs and staff do not meet those standards. They were endorsed by both houses of parliament in 2023. They include basic yet fundamentally important standards that parliamentarians and their staff must comply with. These include: to act respectfully, professionally and with integrity; to recognise your power, influence, authority and do not abuse them; to have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure parliamentary workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity, dignity, safety and mutual respect; a prohibition on bullying and harassment, sexual harassment and assault and discrimination; and the requirement to cultivate respectful and inclusive workplaces.

The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards heard from many witnesses who made it clear these codes would not be able to drive the long-term cultural change that is needed unless there is confidential, independent and serious investigative body with an effective sanctions regime, and this is what the bill before us ultimately attempts to achieve. Under the bill, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner would have powers to receive and investigate complaints against parliamentarians and staff. There are important safeguards, including that the commissioner can decide not to investigate a complaint if it is frivolous, vexatious or may be dealt with by another appropriate body. For parliamentarians, a panel of three commissioners would make decisions about whether that parliamentarian has engaged in misconduct. They could impose a less serious section such as a reprimand, training requirement or behaviour agreement. If they believe a more serious sanction is warranted, such as a fine, discharge from a committee or suspension from parliament, they would have to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, and I will address this more in a moment. For staff, a single commissioner would make the decision whether they have engaged in misconduct and make a recommendation to the relevant employing parliamentarian about an appropriate sanction. If a respondent or a claimant wants to review any of the commission's decisions, this review would be conducted by a panel of three commissioners.

The bill reflects key elements of my own private member's bill to ensure the independent commissioner conducts investigations with appropriate safeguards to protect rights to procedural fairness, rights to privacy and the protection of personal reputation. The bill also sets up appropriate oversight mechanisms in the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. This committee would have important functions to protect the independence of the commission, such as the appointment of commissioners, and would also be responsible for undertaking a review of the behaviour codes.

I also note the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce agreed to a review of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission itself 18 months after the commencement of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services, and the government had budgeted for such a review. It is important to make sure these new bodies are operating as they should and to make any necessary adjustments.

Now, I want to briefly address any concerns that by holding parliamentarians accountable for bad behaviour, this bill may hamper robust debate in parliament. Robust debate—a contest of ideas that serves the public interest—is a core function of parliament. I absolutely agree with this. But debate must still occur with respect. At the end of the day, parliamentarians are models of behaviour for their staff, for other MPs and for the public. The establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner recognises and upholds this.

I support this bill but I want to acknowledge it is not perfect. As I mentioned earlier, if the commission were to make a finding against a parliamentarian that would attract a serious sanction—a fine, suspension, discharge from a committee—it would have to refer this to the privileges committee. The commission will not make a recommendation of which sanction would be appropriate, and the report they provide to the privileges committee would not be published nor tabled in parliament. It would then be up to the privileges committee to make a finding against that MP and recommend a sanction for the parliament to vote on. It would also be up to the Privileges Committee to name that MP in any reports it made to parliament. I share the concerns of many about these aspects of the bill. Fair Agenda have undertaken significant work on these reforms and share this concern, because this means serious findings could be made about an MP but they could face no sanction, the public would never know, and that's a problem. The bad behaviour of parliamentarians should not be swept under the rug, because of the nature of the office that they hold.

We are legislating not just for now but for the future. We frankly don't know how future privileges committees will operate, even if the one that exists now is robust and non-partisan. We must ensure the commission and the privileges committee operate with transparency if we want the public to trust in the new frameworks established through this bill. That's why I support any amendments moved that would allow the commission to make recommendations to the privileges committee of serious sanctions against parliamentarians and that require the privileges committee to table reasons where its findings differ from recommendations of the commission. I urge the government and the opposition to listen to these concerns and support these amendments.

Finally I want to acknowledge that this bill has achieved the broad support of all major parties and from many Independent members in this place. Consensus decision-making is a significant achievement at any time in this parliament, and we should not underestimate it. With one voice, we recognise that we must do better—that we must meet the standards the public holds us to and that we hold ourselves to. It's up to us now to make this a safe and respectful workplace that attracts the highest calibre of people in our society. I commend this bill to the House.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember very well, during the election campaign in 2022, knocking on doors in my electorate of Chisholm. The issues of integrity and of trust in institutions, in parliament and in the government were a really big deal. At the heart of some of these conversations, every single day, was the issue of gender equality and the experience of women in this place. Indeed, it was a frequent question I had on the doors, with my now constituents asking me, 'How will you go in that place?' This is a really important issue in my community and in communities right across the country. People expect to see consequences for bad behaviour here. This institution really does matter. It must be a place that sets the standard, where integrity, respect, accountability and inclusion are at the centre of everything we do. And this must be a safe workplace.

I want to acknowledge everybody who did so much work to bring this bill to the House today, including the member for Newcastle, Minister Gallagher, Kate Jenkins and the hundreds of people who participated in and contributed to the set the standard inquiry. Here I want to say that I contributed to the set the standard inquiry before I was a candidate to be in this place, not knowing that I would end up here. I want to be a bit personal for a number of reasons, including the fact that yesterday we had a celebration of affirmative action in the Labor Party, marking 30 years of rules changes in the Australian Labor Party. What I have been reflecting on is that we bring our whole selves to this place, and there is a reason that we have fought to have more female representation on this side of the House. It's to make the kinds of changes that need to be made in this country.

So I will say that I participated in interviews and completed surveys during the set the standard inquiry process because, about 10 years ago, I worked here, and I do not believe I worked in a safe environment. I do not intend to detail discrete experiences here in the chamber today, but I want to do everything that I can, now that I'm a member of the House of Representatives, to make sure that this place is a safe and respectful environment. I take my responsibility as an employer very seriously and I take my responsibility as a woman in this place very seriously. I want to make sure that there are real and meaningful consequences for bad behaviour.

I'm also really sad to reflect on the fact that people I know, people who I care for and are my friends, have had their careers cut short due to the environments that they've worked in here, whilst others, who very well may have misbehaved, have thrived. This isn't fair. This isn't fair at all.

So the bill before us today will make a real difference to the culture in this place and the experiences of workers in this place. It is an incredibly important achievement from everybody who has worked on it.

Since the Set the standard report was first handed down, the Labor Party has been committed to implementing all 28 of its recommendations. Of course parliamentary workplaces, like every other workplace in this country, should be safe and respectful for everyone. Last year, the government, working with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its Staff Consultation Group, established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, commenced its enhanced operations in October last year, providing centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS also provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the parliament, to support a safe and respectful workplace.

This bill will establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, and this entity will be able to investigate complaints about breaches of behaviour codes that will apply in the parliamentary workplace. Its commencement will mean those codes can finally commence. It will have fair and confidential processes. It will be independent and it will be impartial.

Our government has worked really closely with parliamentarians, through the PLT, staff and others across parliament to get these important reforms right, so that, when serious workplace issues arise, people have recourse through an independent investigation and real accountability for those doing the wrong thing. We've also sought to align as much as possible with the approach and recommendations of the Set the standard report, whilst balancing the need for the legislation to carefully interact with the role of the parliament—which is, of course, a unique workplace. We've sought really carefully to strike this balance.

The IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. There's going to be a functional separation between the IPSC's investigation function and the PWSS's functions. Nevertheless, they will work together in complementary ways. It is intended that the PWSS will continue to be the front door for complainants, although a complaint could be made directly to the IPSC. The IPSC would not commence investigations that would be better addressed through the PWSS's complaint resolution function. As an independent and impartial body, the IPSC is well placed to undertake investigations and determine whether misconduct has occurred. Their process is very important in all of this. The IPSC will be able to directly impose sanctions on MPs, including training, behaviour agreements and reprimands, and will refer serious findings to the relevant privileges committee, to recommend appropriate sanctions to the parliament. This is really important in restoring faith in institutions that we know globally are in decline, including in Australia. People do expect parliamentarians to behave in a way that demonstrates integrity and accountability, and this body, I think, will enhance that part of the role of an MP.

The relevant house privileges committee would then be responsible for considering the appropriate sanction and would be required to report to the parliament with their recommendation. This would require a public report and ensure they are accountable for their recommendation to the parliament. This is consistent with the longstanding convention of the parliament appropriately holding members to account.

Passage of this legislation will help finalise the implementation of government recommendations from the Set the standard report. This was a historic report and, as I noted earlier, the government accepted the recommendations. So this really means that we are being good-faith operators in relation to what we believe are our obligations from those recommendations in the report and honouring the evidence that so many people generously and courageously gave to the inquiry. As I mentioned earlier, there were hundreds of people that were involved in that process.

This legislation will help ensure this workplace is able to lead by example and is safer for everyone—for parliamentarians, for staff—who works in this building and in other parliamentary workplaces. Parliament House is a unique workplace. We do want to attract the best here, and we want everyone who works here to have an enriching and fulfilling experience. Nobody's career should be cut short because they were subjected to inappropriate conduct with no recourse to any kind of action against any alleged perpetrator. All of us here have a shared responsibility to make sure that people who work in this building and in other political offices are able to do their job in a safe way and where they're confident that the systems and supports are there for them when they need them.

I think 'set the standard' as a title for the report is incredibly important, and I also reflect on the perhaps cliche maxim 'the standard we walk past is the standard that we accept'. I think it is really important that all of us here recognise the responsibility we collectively have to make sure that we are all paying attention and making sure that standards do not slip and that everyone here is included, respected and safe in this workplace and other parliamentary workplaces. We've taken time to get this right. I'm really pleased that we are here today speaking about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I hope that this will mean that, in the future, if things go wrong—and we absolutely hope that they do not and that the culture in this place improves—there will be meaningful consequences that will be able to be delivered. I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the original content of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 to establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, or IPSC. The bill represents a critical step towards enhancing the integrity and accountability of our parliament.

In 2021, reports of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in our parliament justly shocked the nation. It highlighted the need for urgent reform to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful places to work, and it resonated with the community as well. Indeed, tens of thousands of people took part in marches for justice, as they were known—rallies right across Australia calling for an end to gender-based violence and workplace harassment. The public were demanding change, as were voices from all parts of the parliamentary ecosystem. These demands culminated in the Australian Human Rights Commission being engaged to conduct an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces or CPWs. Led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, this review lifted a lid on parliamentary misconduct and found one in three people surveyed across the federal parliament reported being sexually harassed on the job.

The review uncovered some shocking discoveries. For example, 51 per cent of those surveyed for the review had experienced at least one incident of bullying, harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault in a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. Some 1,723 individuals added their voice to the review, as well as 33 organisations and collectives. This included 935 survey responses, 490 interviews, 302 written submissions and 11 focus groups. I won't read the testimonies from that report, because I have gone to some of that in previous speeches, but it is very sobering reading, and all members of this parliament should take the time to read that report again. Suffice it to say, much of that testimony was genuinely heartbreaking, some of it was infuriating, and some of it was just downright disgusting, and we should never lose sight of that.

The 2021 report of the review, entitled Set the standard, was a thorough and far-reaching review. It made 28 recommendations for improving safety and culture in our workplaces, including an expansion of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service; the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards to inquire into and report on matters relating to the development of codes of conduct; and the establishment of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, with responsibility for enforcing the codes of conduct—and that's the bill before us today.

As part of Labor's statement of acknowledgement to the parliament back in 2022, the government committed to implementing all recommendations of the report. While there are some people who want to see more, and there are some people who don't want this to see the light of day, I've got to say, as somebody who's been in this parliament for 11 years now, that 11 years ago it would have been unimaginable that this bill would have even been before the House—and I'll come back to that a little bit later. But, as infuriating and as slow as change can be at times, we have to recognise that these are all very important steps we make on a journey that we all have to collectively sign up to.

In February 2022, I was very privileged to be appointed the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, which brought together a group of 11 parliamentarians from right across the political spectrum, from the Senate and the House. I want to acknowledge the work and contribution of the member for North Sydney and, indeed, her speech earlier, and I want to acknowledge the members from this House, the members for Ryan, Bean, Calwell and Forrest, and the senators that joined us. This committee was quite exceptional in its work. Seldom is a parliamentary committee asked to draft legislation or codes of conduct, as the case might be, for the work that was before us. We were asked to draft three codes of conduct—one that was specifically for parliamentarians, one for parliamentarians' staff, and one for all other occupants of, and people who come in and out of, Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

The need and, indeed, the public expectation for codes of conduct was not new. In fact, this House has debated this issue for more than 50 years. We've been considering these codes. They have come before the parliament on four separate occasions, and previous parliaments were spectacularly unsuccessful in bedding down some codes of conduct. So to have them introduced is an incredible achievement for this 47th Parliament. I acknowledge the hard work of all members of that committee. As I said, this had been a longstanding failure of successive parliaments, where codes focused on conflicts of interest and broader ethical concerns rather than ensuring safe and respectful workplaces. All of those other codes of conduct did not see the light of day.

We wanted the codes to be part of a suite of reforms that created long-lasting cultural change in Commonwealth workplaces. The draft codes underwent extensive consultation with parliamentarians and their staff, parliamentary department employees, public servants, the press gallery, lobbyists, and other people that work in or visit our workplaces. The committee conducted staff surveys, considered submissions, consulted with expert stakeholders, held public and private hearings, and considered codes of conduct in similar, comparable jurisdictions such as the British parliament. We chose to collectively call them behaviour codes instead of codes of conduct because we wanted them to reflect the standard of behaviours that we expect in our workplace.

The committee eventually produced a consensus report, making 16 recommendations and including three draft behaviour codes—one, as I said, for parliamentarians, one for our staff and one for all other people entering and working in Commonwealth workplaces. Included in the recommendations were the development of guidance materials for those codes as well, the frameworks for continued review and monitoring, support for a body to apply sanctions for breaches of the codes, and for both houses of parliament to adopt interim codes ahead of the development of this sanctioning body. The draft behaviour codes have since been endorsed by all political parties and Independents both in the House and the Senate. The power and strength that comes from that collective action should not be underestimated. This is an Australian first. I look forward to them being adopted by both houses of parliament following the passage of this bill. There will be nobody in this House happier than myself, other than perhaps the member for North Sydney and everybody else who toiled on these behaviour codes.

The committee were constantly cognisant that the codes would be worth nothing without the independent enforcement regime. Witnesses to the committee's inquiry were most vocal in declaring that the codes of conduct were not worth the paper they were written on if there weren't a strong, independent enforcement regime to accompany them. This bill will establish that enforcement regime which is the next piece of the parliamentary cultural reform work. This is serious, hard work, but this IPSC will act as a fair and independent workplace investigatory body to handle complaints, make findings about misconduct, and make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct. It will have the power to investigate genuine complaints, to impose sanctions and to recommend reforms. It will not replace parliamentary privilege—it will work with the privileges committee where necessary—nor will the IPSC be an avenue for vexatious or malicious complaints or political pointscoring. The IPSC's independence from political pressure will be crucial. Decisions will be made based on principles of fairness and justice, not partisanship.

The bill outlines a clear and transparent process for handling grievances and disciplinary actions by establishing rigorous procedures and open channels for reporting and addressing misconduct. The commission will foster a culture of responsibility and ethical conduct within our system. The expanded Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, whom building occupants now know and trust, will remain the front door for people who have a workplace complaint. The IPSC will be located within the PWSS and will share some resourcing but will otherwise operate independently, and that is important. That means that if you have a complaint, you can go to the PWSS, like you currently can, and they will give advice on how it can be resolved, including whether it would be appropriate to be handled and investigated by the IPSC. If it is determined that an investigation is needed by the IPSC, the process will be rigorous, conducted by the independent expert commissioners and in accordance with the legislation before this House today.

Importantly, this legislation also allows for oversight and review. I say that to all those that have reservations, whether they're people who are very anxious about having any form of independent oversight or those that would wish to see even further requirements for greater independence. This is a process that we embark on now with, I hope and expect, the full support of everybody in this House. Notwithstanding some reservations that have been articulated, I believe there will be support for this bill from every single one of the 151 members of this House. That's an important signal to send to us all. This is a body that has a review mechanism in place, and it will be important to ensure that this is in fact delivering everything we want and need an independent body to be able to do. This legislation, as I said, will allow for that oversight and review, and I expect that that will be conducted in a very rigorous manner.

It will also establish a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards to reform a whole range of important functions: recommendations about the appointment of commissioners, reviewing the behaviour codes, monitoring and reviewing the performance of commissioners, and reporting on any matters connected with the performance and function of the IPSC and its commissioners.

Just like the way we drafted those behaviour codes, where we sought to reach consensus on that, I don't for one moment suggest that they should be set in stone, that they are perfect. They too will be subject to a review. This is important work. What we do in 2024 might not necessarily hold in 2034. I expect to see change in these. I expect to see a process of continuous improvement and best practice always applied to this House.

This is much-needed legislation, it is long-awaited legislation and it offers so many benefits to our parliament. There will be the enhanced accountability. There will be consistency in standards. There will be protection against political influence through independence to ensure that the investigations and decisions that are made are based on evidence rather than political interests. It will bring us improved public confidence by demonstrating a commitment to high ethical standards and transparency in the nation's parliament. It will bring effective oversight through the ability to investigate complaints, enforce rules and recommend sanctions or reforms. It will promote ethical behaviour by acting as a deterrent against unethical behaviour and encouraging a culture of integrity. And it will bring objective decision-making based on objective assessments and established criteria, rather than influence by external pressures or internal biases.

The Jenkins report gifted us, through very difficult circumstances, an opportunity to transform Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to become what they already should be—workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed, and enforced, where respectful behaviour is rewarded and in which any Australian, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or age, feel safe and welcome to contribute.

I also just want to acknowledge the work of Senator Katy Gallagher. We need to set the standard. I urge all members to support this bill.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to just make a few short remarks about this bill. Further and more detailed contributions are going to be made by Senator Larissa Waters and our other members in the Senate but I do just want a place a few matters on record. Establishing this Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce the codes of conduct that should regulate parliamentarians' behaviour has been a long time coming. Recommendation 22 of the Set the Standard report was that the houses of parliament should establish this body within 12 months. The IPSC was initially expected in October 2023 but that timeframe has since been delayed until October 2024.

Both houses of parliament have now endorsed codes of conduct for behaviour, but one of the things that we strongly believe and why we are pleased to see legislation coming here is that, without an independent body to investigate breaches, those codes have been unenforceable. It's for that reason that the Greens support the establishment of an IPSC to hold MPs accountable for bad behaviour.

We do have some concerns that some of the provisions in this bill don't go far enough, as far as had been mooted and had been recommended. We think there should be higher fines for MPs and more consequences for ministers where there is an adverse finding and that it shouldn't be up to the Prime Minister to determine what happens to ministers who misbehave. We are disappointed to see that the bill doesn't allow the IPSC to suggest appropriate parliamentary sanctions to be imposed on MPs by the privileges committee, because this is something that recommendation 22 of the Set the Standard report actually specified and actually proposed. We are disappointed that that hasn't been picked up.

We're also disappointed that there's no requirement for the privileges committee to report its reasons if it departs from IPSC recommendations. This is important. The 'I' in IPSC stands for 'independent'. Part of the reason that the public ought to have faith in this is that it may well be the IPSC that recommends action be taken. When that comes here—if it comes here—and, for constitutional reasons, it is only able to be dealt with by the privileges committee, if the privileges committee doesn't do what the independent body has recommended, I think people will be entitled to know why. If we've set up this independent body and then someone does something wrong and a sanction is recommended, but the privileges committee or a committee of the parliament—that is, the parliament itself—decides to depart from that, then, at a minimum, we say there should be reporting of reasons because the public must have confidence that politicians will be held to account. A strong and transparent process is needed for that confidence.

On those issues that are flagged—and potentially others as we work our way through the bill, but certainly on those—our leader in the Senate, Senator Waters, will move amendments in the Senate to address those omissions. I want to pay tribute to the work of Senator Waters and, indeed, all of the other members across parliament on the leadership task force as well as Greens deputy leader, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and all of the other members of parliament for their work on the codes of conduct. The Greens think that having an IPSC to enforce these codes of conduct is a very important step in making parliamentary workplaces safer.

Finally, to conclude my brief remarks, it is worth noting that as well as the work of people within the parliament, this progress would not have happened without all of the brave staff that spoke out. Many of those staff spoke out with great fear and trepidation, but they were brave. They brought their stories forward and they forced us to act. The request that they had is, indeed, a request that pretty much everyone else in this country would have—namely, that that this place set the standard rather than be a national shame; it is about time.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken in this place many times about the need for us to hold ourselves accountable and to, indeed, set the standard. I want to, once again, take the opportunity to acknowledge the critical work of the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and her team at the Australian Human Rights Commission in helping to set us on this course. I also want to acknowledge all the staff—current and former—in this place who contributed their experiences to that report. I know that was not easy for many of those staff, but we are a better parliament because of your efforts; thank you. I want to acknowledge the people in this place who have helped steer us to this point because—again, let's be honest—this isn't a workplace that embraces change easily. It is not a workplace that has done this really difficult work in the past. It has taken us far too long to get to this point. I want to acknowledge the people who, in just two years of our government being in power, have now got us to the point where we are introducing something that probably should have happened a very long time ago. In particular, I pay tribute to my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle for her leadership and, of course, to the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher.

Labor—both in opposition are now in government—have been steadfast in our commitment to making this a safer workplace for all people. This is something that we need to see action on. For too long, this parliament hasn't met the standards the Australian people expect of us. In fact, we're the place that sets the standards and the rules for other workplaces, yet we haven't managed to meet the standards that we have expected of those in the Australian community. That is shameful for all of us, and it is something that, collectively, we must continue to set right.

In particular, it is very concerning that this parliament has, in too many cases, not been a safe workplace for women. It is positive that that is changing, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought it was job done. This is a really important part of the puzzle, but it is still on all of us in this place, particularly those of us elected to this place and those of us who employ staff in this place, to make sure that we are doing everything we can, everything that we have a responsibility for, to make this a safer workplace for all, particularly for women.

The Set the standard report found that, for so many staffers and others who work in parliament or other parliamentary workplaces, their experiences were of a workplace that was often toxic and harmful. It's been absolutely clear for some time that parliament needs to improve and that we need that long-term cultural piece of change in how our parliament workplace operates. The recommendations that were put forward in the Set the standard report have helped us to ensure that we are on the pathway to making sure that this workplace, our electorate offices and related workplaces are safe and respectful. They put us in the area where we are now following best practice in preventing and responding to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The delivery of all of that work, as I said, is on all of us. Government members, opposition members, crossbench members—we all have a responsibility to deliver on making this a safe workplace and to ensure this building and Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces here and around the country are safe and respectful.

In particular, I think it's important that the architecture of the IPSC, which will be set up through this bill, ensures that there are consequences for actions and that we know that, if we are not behaving in a way in which staff feel safe and respected and we're not doing the work to make this a workplace where that is the norm, we will be held accountable for our actions. For too long, there has been impunity in this place. There has been a sense that being an elected member of parliament somehow, in some way, puts you above consequences or rules that apply to people who work in other workplaces. That is no longer the case. With the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, we will have, in this place, a mechanism to see the outcomes that will hold people accountable for their actions.

Since the Set the standard report was first handed down, our government has been committed to implementing all 28 of its recommendations. We are very clear that parliamentary workplaces should be safe and respectful for everyone, and it's work that we have done and tried to do by bringing the whole parliament together. Last year, the government, working with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its staff consultation group, established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS has since enhanced its operations, providing centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. I think, again, if you talked to people in many other professional workplaces around Australia, you would find that they would be astounded to hear that it took us until 2023 to really have in place a centralised professional HR service for this building, but that is, in fact, the case. I know, certainly from my experience, the experience of my staff and the experience of others I've spoken to, that having the PWSS in place has made a difference to our experience in this building. The PWSS provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the parliament, to support a safe and respectful workplace. That is a really important part of that architecture that we needed to set up to make this a safer workplace.

What we're doing now with this bill is the next part, which is the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The IPSC will be able to investigate complaints about breaches of behaviour codes that will apply in the parliamentary workplace. In fact, having the IPSC in place means that those behaviour codes that we have all signed up to can finally commence. Importantly, the IPSC will have fair and confidential processes. Again, that is important. I acknowledge all of the staff who, as part of this process, have brought forward their stories and experiences. It is vital that, as part of these mechanisms we are putting in place now, staff feel like they have avenues that they feel are safe and respectful to take complaints and issues to, and that is how the IPSC is being set up. It will be independent, and it will be impartial. The government has worked very closely with parliamentarians through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, with staff in the building and with other people right across the parliament to get these important reforms right. We do have to make sure that, when serious workplace issues arise in this place, people have recourse through an independent investigation and that there is real accountability for people doing the wrong thing. That accountability has been lacking in the past, and I think it has been a factor in making people feel both unsafe and also like they do not have genuine avenues to take complaints or concerns through.

In doing all of this work we've sought as much as possible to align with the approach and the recommendations of the Set the standard report, while also balancing that against the need for this legislation to carefully interact with the role of the parliament. In striking this balance we've worked out that the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS and that there will be functional separation between the IPSC's investigation function and the PWSS's functions. They'll work together in complementary ways. The PWSS will continue to be a front door for complainants, although a complaint could be made directly to the IPSC. The IPSC will not commence investigations that would be better addressed through the PWSS's complaint resolution function. Again, we have tried to be very thoughtful about how both of these bodies are providing people in this workplace with avenues to have issues addressed. Then at the end point, where necessary, there are also consequences for findings against people, and, as I said, those consequences will be an important part of the architecture that we're setting up.

As an independent and impartial body, the IPSC will be well placed to undertake investigations and to determine whether misconduct has occurred. The IPSC would be able to directly impose on MPs sanctions including training, behaviour agreements and reprimands and would refer serious findings to the relevant privileges committee to recommend appropriate sanctions to the parliament. The relevant privileges committee would then be responsible for considering the appropriate sanction and would be required to report to the parliament with their recommendation. Importantly, this would require a public report, ensuring that the committee is accountable for their recommendation to the parliament. Accountability, again, is part of what has been missing.

I've spoken with many people over the years that this process has been active in this parliament. I know, from many conversations with broader members of the public but particularly young women about how they view this place as a workplace, that they have really seen it as a consequence-free environment. Obviously, the concern for all of us in here is not just that which we should all hold that the Australian public aren't very impressed sometimes with how we conduct ourselves and how we treat this place as a workplace but also that the message we are sending to young women and that they're receiving is one of this not being a safe place for them either to want to work in or to enter into as an MP. That is something that is on all of us to actively work to change.

Passage of this legislation will help finalise the implementation of the recommendations from the Set the standard report, helping to ensure that this workplace leads by example and is safer for all—for parliamentarians, for staff and for all of those in the building. I absolutely acknowledge that Parliament House is a unique workplace. In that uniqueness we want to attract the best and the brightest here. We don't want to be exclusive about it. We don't want to be saying, 'You can only come if you can hack it; you can only come if you can work our unique workplace to your advantage.' We want to say, 'This is a safe and respectful workplace for all people,' and this legislation is an important part of sending that message both to the Australian people and also to all of those who work in this building. We have a shared responsibility to make sure that people who work in this building and in other political offices are able to do their jobs in a safe way and be confident that the systems and supports that should be in place to support them are there when and if they need them.

We have taken the time to get this legislation right and, as I said, to consult across the parliament. I do thank all the people not just in the government but in the other parties and the opposition who have been involved in that consultation. I am sure that, as a result of this legislation, we will get a better parliament. We will get a parliament that is more respectful. We will get a parliament that is safer for staff and people who work in this environment. We will place this parliament in line with the standards that we request of other workplaces right around the country.

Change like this doesn't happen overnight. I'm not kidding myself that we have done all the work we need to do. I say again that the responsibility is on all of us, particularly those of us who are elected members of this place, to make sure that we live up to setting the standard, to make sure that we don't think this is a set-and-forget and the work is done. We should continue to work together to set the standard to make sure that people are safe and respected in this workplace.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amended seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an important day, as we finally see this legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, here and we have the opportunity to debate it. The Australian federal parliament has failed to be a safe, supportive workplace in recent years. Indeed, we see, all too often, conduct that is incredibly inappropriate. We know from the Set the standard report that, too often, staff have had a very unsatisfactory experience. When it comes to sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation and even assaults, the rates have been incredibly high. The Set the standard report shocked the nation with the idea that our Commonwealth workplace—which should be the gold standard, leading the way for the private sector and other areas—was in fact miles and years behind the private sector. But is that really surprising, when we see the conduct in this place during the course of debate and often during question time?

The government has been investing in a campaign around respect, to address domestic violence, called Stop it at the Start. As I've said, and as I think the member for Mackellar said, we need to start it at the top. Ultimately, behaviour and culture change come down to leadership; it's how our leadership behaves that really makes a difference.

What we see, too often, especially during question time, is behaviour that has vitriol—bad behaviour. We have often tried to discuss those experiences—experiences of behaviour that is condescending, aggressive and misogynistic. The events of today just reinforced that perception and the reality that, as soon as there is a viewpoint that some members in this place—in particular, members of the coalition—don't like and don't want to hear, they think it is their right to yell over the top of someone, to try and bully them out of the opportunity to speak. I would remind the coalition: this is the House of Representatives, and all communities, under our Constitution, have a right of representation and a right to speak. That is what this place is for.

Just today, in fact, I had the Leader of the Nationals yelling at me that I should be 'careful'. Now, what exactly does that mean? Is that a threat? I raised my concern about conduct in the public gallery. Should I then feel threatened or intimidated from raising that point? That goes to the heart of what is wrong with this place and the culture that needs to change. As today's events show all too well, that change has to come from the top. Leadership matters, and those in positions of leadership of parties need to do better—or those below them in the parties need to seek better leadership that will set an example, will show integrity and will be the kind of behaviour that is becoming to this place, so that we can set the standard for other workplaces.

I know, and Set the standard identified, that many female MPs and staff have been subject to a lot of condescending, aggressive, misogynistic behaviour. We should be a gold-standard workplace here. We set the ethics and the laws that direct so many other workplaces. They look at the behaviour in this place and shake their heads at the arrogance of members in this place in trying to dictate to other workplaces the standards they should comply with, when this very workplace does not comply with any kind of standard or set any example. So is it any wonder that most Australians don't believe we are good role models? Yet we are elected to be leaders of our communities.

The Guardian Essential poll, reported in July, showed that the public is extremely dissatisfied with members as democratic leaders. Only 29 per cent are satisfied with the federal parliament. An overwhelming 75 per cent think most politicians enter politics to serve their own interests. Is it any wonder that the public has so little faith in what we do here as parliamentarians, when our own behaviour and standards fall well below what the community expects of us?

It is just incredible to hear the justification we hear, all too often, when trying to raise the standard. People have said: 'If you're not up for a robust debate, you should do something else.' I've been an Olympic athlete; I've been to Olympic games and stared down incredible pressure in other aspects. I've been a barrister for 10 years. I've been in courts with incredibly robust debate and arguments. Never have I seen, in any other professional environment, the disrespect we see in this place. Members in this place are kidding themselves if they think that in any way this is a question of robust debate. Robust debate is not disrespectful debate, and that's what, all too often, we see evolve in this place.

When I think of the schoolchildren in years 5 and 6 coming to see the place of debate, I really am concerned. And they all invariably raise concern and are surprised at the conduct they witness. I often think it's nearly like a white line syndrome. MPs come into this place thinking that it's going to be held to a different standard, that it's part of the game of parliament or of question time, without thinking about the impact, the role modelling, that this has at a time when we have a crisis of respect. We have a crisis when it comes to domestic violence. It really matters what kind of behaviour we say is acceptable, and it needs to start in this place.

Whilst I welcome the legislation we have before us today, it's incredibly disappointing that, ultimately, it does not apply to the conduct in this place, does not apply to the conduct in the Senate and does not apply to the conduct during Senate inquiries. I appreciate it is because of the question of parliamentary privilege, but I strongly support the amendment, and I call on the leaders of political parties to go that extra step of leadership and endorse the code of conduct in this place, take it to your party room. That is within the power of every leader of a political party.

I have been a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and I know how difficult it has been to even bring this legislation to this point. Obviously, a lot of the deliberations of the committee have been confidential. I thank the government and the minister, Senator Gallagher, for her leadership in bringing it forward. And I very much want to thank the secretariat and the taskforce chair, Dr Vivienne Thom, for all the work they've done to help us undertake implementing the recommendations of Set the standard and bringing this legislation to the front.

Establishing the IPSC is a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, completed by Kate Jenkins in 2021. Work on fully implementing the recommendations in this report has not been as quick as it should have been or as many wanted; it has taken too long. But we have to look at the glass half full—progress is being made. Change to the culture of the federal parliament is happening. But events of today would say it's happening very, very slowly, in this room at least. I hope that, at least for staff, this provides some level of security or a feeling that they are now going to have a body to properly investigate complaints.

The legislation before us formally establishes the IPSC. In Set the standard, the IPSC was recommended to ensure independent and consistent respondents to reports and complaints of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—again noting that this is part of our workplace yet it is exempt from the application. The bill aims—at least outside of this chamber—to apply those principles and that process. It will lift the standard and keep people safe—staff safe and MPs safe. And it will ensure there is the right support for everyone—MPs, senators and staff members alike. It's important to have a clear body that can investigate where these standards are not met. The draft behaviour standards, the codes of conduct, will now be enforceable by the IPSC, and that's important. I thank my colleague the member for North Sydney and all those on the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, who did the work to prepare the draft codes.

The IPSC will have the power to enforce these codes and investigate instances of where these codes have been breached for those who work in this place. It will also have the power to enforce sanctions on those found to have breached expected standards. Sanctions for staff will include fines or even dismissal. For parliamentarians, it's more complicated. Fines can also be imposed, along with more severe sanction, but there obviously are issues when it comes to sanctions for parliamentarians.

The bill formalises the parliament's first ever workplace investigation framework to cover everyone. That is real process and well overdue. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS, remains the place to provide advice and guidance for any in this place who need it.

The IPSC is the accountability and enforcement mechanism for when the behaviour codes are breached. It will be independent and impartial, it will ascertain the facts, and it will conduct investigations. Commissioners will be appointed who have the relevant experience and training to ensure they can undertake their investigative function as fully and properly as possible. Investigations would be undertaken where a commissioner judges sufficient information to do so with a complainant's consent. A commissioner has discretion not to investigate on several grounds, including if the conduct would be more appropriately dealt with under any other law, by the PWSS complaint resolution service, or if it is vexatious or lacking in substance. That is important, because complaints can obviously have huge reputational damage if it is vexatious or without proper merit. It's important to note that if another authority at the federal, state or territory level has jurisdiction, and it would be considered the appropriate place to take a particular issue or grievance, then that will occur.

The PWSS will remain an avenue to support people involved in an investigation, whether as complainant, respondent or witness, at all times. It is really important to emphasise the continued role that the PWSS will play in parliament and electorate offices. Potential complainants are encouraged to seek advice from PWSS, who can talk through options to facilitate resolutions of workplace issues. PWSS can provide advice about making a complaint to the IPSC if an investigation would be appropriate. However, there might be those who will be more comfortable reporting directly to the IPSC, and that is possible.

In relation to the more serious misconduct, particularly by parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has landed on a model which requires serious misconduct to be, essentially, referred to the privileges committee, and there will be a range of sanctions that can be imposed. I should say that is not my preferred pathway; ultimately, the privileges committee—without detracting from their professionalism, authenticity and integrity—are also parliamentarians and are also party members, so you have a situation where we are regulating ourselves. To date, that has not been a sufficient enough deterrent to improve behaviour. I do have questions about the effectiveness of the referral to the privileges committee and about leaving it to the privileges committee to determine the sanctions. The commission will not make recommendations and there is no requirement for the privileges committee to consider particular recommendations as to sanctions nor to explain why they may depart from recommendations. I understand the Constitutional and ethical dilemma around the fact that parliamentarians are elected—it is not a traditional employment situation—and the privileges committee is the committee that has oversight over the conduct of parliamentarians in other circumstances. But it's clear there is an expectation from the public that we as members of parliament need to be held more accountable than we currently are. There is a question whether or not the privileges committee will be capable of doing that, especially since it is, ultimately, still government-led.

Is that going to provide increased scrutiny on conduct? The jury's out. Ultimately, I support the legislation because it's overdue and we need it, but we need to be open to whether or not further amendments are going to be needed to ensure there is greater direction given to the privileges committee and accountability of the privileges committee in how it gets there. Ultimately, I am appreciative of the steps the government has taken to engage in genuine consultation, and in seeking to get as broad an agreement as possible. That is the difficulty with the nature of this place; it's so adversarial that even the question of whether we should be held to a better standard becomes adversarial in itself. Unless everyone is genuinely at the table wanting these changes to happen, it is difficult. Ultimately, the public will judge us on how well we improve standards in this place, but the key is to make sure there is visibility on those processes. I am absolutely committed as a parliamentarian to pull the curtain back on this place and keep the public informed.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It now comes to me to sum up this debate and thank members across the parliament for their contributions. The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. It will implement recommendation 22 of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission would function as an accountability mechanism to ensure safe and respectful parliamentary workplaces. We have in this place a shared responsibility to meet that objective. That has been widely acknowledged by members in their contributions today. A range of actions have already been taken to ensure we have a professional and respectful working environment. This bill will build on those actions already taken by this House and by the Senate. Importantly, it will mean that, shortly after the IPSC's commencement, the behaviour codes can finally be adopted.

The government thanks members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for their assistance in developing this bill. This bill will have application across the parliament and affects us all. We also thank members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce's staff consultation group for their time and constructive feedback on the draft bill. That input was very welcome, and I want to again thank every staff member in this building, both current and former, who helped get us to this place.

I want to highlight a few of the many contributions from today. The member for Moreton highlighted that, while we're talking about cultural change, sometimes it's the physical change that also reminds us what a journey this place has been on. He reminded us that it was this parliament that turned a pub into a childcare centre—a sign of this building reflecting modern Australia. The member for Indi talked intelligently about the fact that robust debate is a core function and job of the parliament but that that needs to be balanced with our role as role models—and that doesn't mean we can't also engage in respectful debate. The member for Chisholm spoke about her contribution to the Set the standard report from her experience as a staff member in this building a decade ago. She spoke very openly about people who've had their careers cut short in parliament, while others have thrived, and that this is about changing that culture. The member for North Sydney highlighted that everyday Australians disagree that this building exists outside of community expectations; indeed, we sit within those expectations and we should seek to raise those expectations.

The member for Newcastle and Deputy Speaker spoke about the work to land the behaviour codes and how much care was put into them. I want to thank the member for Newcastle and Deputy Speaker for her work. She also reflected that a decade ago you wouldn't have been able to get legislation like this through the House. That's a positive reflection on all of us. I also want to thank her for her work on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, something to which she—like many others—has given countless hours, which has allowed us to be in the position we are in today.

I want to note the contribution from the Assistant Minister for Women, who acknowledged that this is a unique workplace but that the mechanisms for transparency and the interaction with the privileges committees of the parliament are so important that we need to make sure that we don't use the fact that we are a unique workplace to not meet the standards of modern workplaces. There is one other thing she noted that I want to echo. She acknowledged all the staff who contributed their experiences, and she said very simply, 'For too long, this parliament hasn't met the standards the Australian people expect of us' and that we have set standards for other workplaces while not meeting those standards ourselves. Again, in passing this bill we will seek to walk in a different direction.

The member for Warringah noted the importance of the skill of the commissioners, and I want to echo that. She also said that it's important this be a service available to those that need it and that there is an appropriate way to deal with vexatious complaints, and I echo that. The member for Goldstein talked about the importance of leading here, in parliament, and how it lifts the standards for other Australian workplaces. And I really want to welcome the member for Curtin's commitment to seeing the passage of this bill and also her commitment to making sure that, when people look at this place, they more often than not do see the role models they expect to see.

Finally, I want to thank the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and her team. This bill is, hopefully, the final piece of the legislative actions we need to take for the full establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services and associated functions. Her leadership has got us to this point. She has negotiated and consulted very broadly across the parliament, recognising how important it is that we all go on this journey together. Again, I want to commend her and her team for that.

In saying all of that, I really do commend this bill to the parliament. It is a credit to all of us that we have got to this point. I am aware there are some foreshadowed amendments, and we will deal with those in the normal way. I want to thank all members for their constructive engagement, including members of the opposition.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for North Sydney moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Wentworth has moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'reading' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity at the next sitting day.

Debated adjourned.