Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Okay. What a poor process that was. It is no wonder that staff didn't have confidence. That is why staff had reticence in using it: they thought, 'What's the point of making a complaint about the fact that I've been harassed in my workplace, or bullied in my workplace, because I know my boss is going to get away with it?' This is not an independent process, and they can't even be sanctioned. So I really welcome the fact that we have started to address that problem, acknowledge that it was a problem and are now attempting to fix it.

But of course the Constitution is a bit of a barrier in that regard, and this is my main critique of the IPSC that we'll be passing today—and we will be supporting the passage of this bill. Only the chamber can regulate its own. There's only so much an independent parliamentary standards commission can do, and that's because of constitutional limitations. We can be fired by people when they decide not to vote for us again next time, but we can't be kicked out of this chamber except by a vote of the chamber. So there is a fundamental tension at the heart of these reforms in that an IPSC can go only so far.

We pushed for it to go as far as it could, and I'll run through some of the things the Greens wanted to see that, sadly, we've not been successful in getting. But we have a fundamental tension here where, by design, the fox is still in charge of the henhouse. That's in the Constitution, and we can't fix that. I wish we could. That's just a bit of context.

The other main concern I've got is that it has taken so long to get to this point, and staff are deeply frustrated that it's taken this long. Recommendation 22 of Set the standard was that the houses of parliament should establish this IPSC within 12 months. It's been a lot longer than 12 months. Initially we were hoping and expecting that this body would be up and running a year ago. It's at least one year late. Here we are today, and I'm grateful for that, but it's really been a long time coming.

In the meantime, we did endorse those draft codes of conduct for staff and, importantly, for parliamentarians. Both chambers signed off on those. We are meant to be abiding by those draft codes of conduct, but I say that with some mirth, because it's pretty clear that the codes of conduct have not been abided by, and that is because there's been no enforcement body. That's exactly what the IPSC is meant to now be doing, once it's up and running. It will enforce the codes of conduct.

My colleague Senator Faruqi, who'll make a contribution a bit later, sat on the committee that drafted those codes and, under a common theme here, they're not as strong as the Greens would have liked them to be and pushed for them to be. They're certainly an improvement on having no code at all, but the codes themselves need to be strengthened. And until today there's been no enforcement mechanism for them. So we do welcome the fact that there will now be sanctions for badly behaved parliamentarians who act in a way that constitutes serious misconduct, harassment or bullying, but the sanctions are not as strong as they should be. They're less transparent than they should be.

We pushed for stronger sanctions. We pushed for larger fines for politicians who behave in either a harassing way or a bullying way, or even an assaulting way, towards their staff or anyone in the course of their work. We pushed for those stronger sanctions and, unfortunately, we don't have them. They're not in this bill. They're quite small fines, in my view. We also pushed for automatic standdown provisions so that the public can have confidence that, for the sake of the reputation of the parliament, if someone has been accused of something, they just stand down while that investigation is being resolved. Unfortunately, we didn't get that either.

We also pushed for more consequences for ministers where there's an adverse finding. There's this really complicated architecture whereby you've got these codes of conduct that are meant to bind everyone, but then you've also got a ministerial code of conduct. We said, 'Well, if you're found to have breached the code of conduct for all MPs, surely that should be considered an automatic breach of the ministerial code.' But, no, that was not to be. So, at the moment, it's up to the Prime Minister to decide what consequences there will be for a minister who misbehaves, and that seems to make a mockery of the import of what we're doing today.

We're concerned that the process is not as strong or as independent as it should be, and certainly not as strong or as independent as then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins recommended, and that's based on all the information that she gathered from the staff in this building who asked to be safe—and who deserve to be safe. One particular beef that I am seeking to fix with the amendments that I'll move once we come to the committee stage is that the bill doesn't allow the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to actually suggest appropriate sanctions for parliamentarians that would then be imposed by the Privileges Committee. Recommendation 22 of Set the standard said that that should happen. This bill is not doing that.

At the moment, the IPSC can only impose a range of non-parliamentary sanctions on misbehaving parliamentarians. They can require an apology. They can ask that politician to go and do some behaviour training. They can make them promise to never do it again. Now, those things aren't worthless; they're important too. But if it's any stronger sanction, like a fine or a suspension from the chamber, only the chamber can do that, and, in their wisdom, the two parties have agreed that it's the Privileges Committee that will perform that function. But the Privileges Committee are not trained professionals; they're politicians. We asked for them to have compulsory trauma training, and I reiterate that anyone who sits on the Privileges Committee who will now be in charge of regulating the conduct of MPs' behaviour should have the benefit of trauma-informed training. That's not in the bill. I still want that to happen, and I'd like the government to commit to that happening in a non-legislative fashion if it's not going to commit to an amendment to that effect.

The point of the story is that the Privileges Committee won't have the benefit of a suggestion from the IPSC about what should be done in the circumstance and how seriously the breach should be treated, because the IPSC will say, 'Yes, there's been a serious breach finding here and we're going to send this to the Privileges Committee. But we're not going to give them a copy of the full investigation report; we're just going to give them a summary. And we're not going to suggest to them a sanction that we think might be appropriate.' Even if they did, there's no rule that says that the Privileges Committee has to follow that suggestion. We are not arming the Privileges Committee with the information or the training that they need to do a good job here, and we should be doing that. I've got amendments to fix that, which I will move once we come to the committee stage.

There is concern amongst stakeholders and the public that lacking that transparency and that accountability will undermine people's confidence, so, as I said, I'll be moving amendments to address that issue. I want to acknowledge the work that Fair Agenda, in particular, and the Australian Democracy Network and Transparency International have done in noticing that key flaw and championing the need for it to be fixed. Politicians who are making decisions about sanctions for their own should at least have the benefit of a suggestion from the commission about the sorts of sanctions that might be appropriate. That would help them do a better job. How else are they to know what's appropriate when they haven't done the primary investigation and they're not getting a copy of the full report? That's a classic transparency measure that the bill lacks. I want to commend the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, who also sought to move an amendment in the House to address this flaw. Unfortunately, he did not get support.

I want to make a few other remarks. There is a review provision here in the act. It's a review provision for the codes of conduct. That's very welcome, but we want to make sure that the codes of conduct are strengthened and not weakened, so we have some concerns about that.

But I note that there's a review provision in the bill itself for the whole architecture to be reconsidered at the start of each term of parliament. Now, that is good and appropriate because we need to learn from this process. I don't think we've got it completely right this first time, and we need to learn and, I hope, improve and strengthen it. I note that Senator Thorpe has an amendment that requires a review, I believe, 18 months in, as opposed to the clause in the bill which says it's at the start of each parliament. I'm flagging that that's Senator Thorpe's amendment. We're content with the review time that's currently in the bill.

I might mention that Senator Thorpe has another amendment that we'll be moving on her behalf and supporting, which says that any currently open matter before the PWSS that really did belong with IPSC—but IPSC didn't exist until today—should be automatically referred, with the consent of the complainant. My understanding is that that is the intention, but I think it's important that that be clear and codified, so I'm flagging that we'll be moving that amendment on Senator Thorpe's behalf.

I also want to address some amendments that were made in the House that I believe were to ensure that the two big parties in this place could support this bill. There was an amendment that said that the membership of the IPSC, the governance oversight body, has to be drawn from the privileges committee—that is, the same people who are deciding cases, incidents, of misconduct are also then the people that are oversighting the process: is it working; should it be stronger; should we review these codes? That is a deep conflict of interest. That change should not have been made. Those two bodies should have remained separate. Now the membership of one has to be drawn from the membership of other. You've lost all sense of separateness and distinction there.

Without speaking for him, I notice that Senator David Pocock has an amendment that addresses the second aspect of what happened in the House, not that one that I've just mentioned. The other amendment made was that the deputy chair of that governance committee has to be an opposition member. Again, the two-party system is on the decline, folks. Your vote's declining, and members of the public actually want to see a more representative parliament. So it's a bit on the nose that you're essentially earmarking the chair and deputy chair positions for yourselves. It's a bit presumptive, to be honest. So I'm flagging that we'll be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendment that says, no, the deputy chair should not automatically be a member of the opposition.

They're the key concerns that we have with this bill. As I said, we will be supporting this today because this has been a long time coming and we need an independent process, but we are so disappointed that it's taken so long and that it's a lot weaker than it should be. The sanctions are weaker, the independence is pretty flimsy and there's not a lot of transparency. I am worried that there will be a perception by the public and by staff who work in this building that this will be a protection racket for politicians and that we will all protect each other. Now, I hope that that's not the case. I hope that's not what happens. But you can't deny that's the perception out there. I'm disappointed that we haven't designed a stronger system to meet that concern and to make sure that it doesn't become a reality.

I very much look forward to continuing to engage on this when the review rolls around. I really think we need to track how successful this is between now and then by asking staff how they feel and by genuinely consulting people who engage in this process, to learn from it and improve it. This should not be a set-and-forget. Australians need to trust that their elected officials will be held responsible if they misbehave, and you need a strong and transparent process to have that confidence.

I too want to thank everyone who's worked on that Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—it was very gracious of Senator Hume to do that; I endorse those remarks—as well as the secretariat. Lastly, I want to say, to all of the staff who have suffered and to other MPs who have been subjected to misconduct here, I'm sorry this isn't better. Thanks for really pushing as hard as you could to get us here. This is a real improvement. I'm just sorry it's not as strong as it should be.