Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I thank everyone for their contribution to this so far. I promise I won't labour on. I want to endorse the commentary of my colleague Senator Hume on this and a bit of the background that went into it.

One of the things we keep hearing about and people keep focusing on is past poor behaviour. There has been poor behaviour in this place over a long period of time, but we have also seen some really positive change. I want to acknowledge that change and reinforce that this is an evolutionary process. There is no silver bullet. Just as we have seen poor behaviour in other large-scale workplaces, such as in the Defence Force, universities, corporate Australia and the mining industries, so too, unfortunately, have we seen poor behaviour in this place, which, let us not forget, in a sitting week sees around 6,000 people working in this one little ant hill in the middle of Canberra—6,000 people in one building. One thing I would say is that I'm amazed we haven't actually seen more poor behaviour, and that is testament to the fact that people who come in here come because they want to see positive change in their communities.

That is not to say that we don't need what is before us today, because I think this is a continuation of the positive change that we are seeing. And it is time. I do agree with Senator Waters; it is time. The first time a code of conduct was proposed for federal parliament was actually back in 1975. So it's finally time—I agree with Senator Waters. It was 1975 when they first discussed it and we're finally going to see it today.

I commend the work that was instigated under the Morrison government. Preceding anything focusing just on this workplace, the Morrison government commissioned the Respect@Work national inquiry by Kate Jenkins. It was the first one, which reported through the Set the standard report and made some very significant recommendations which the Morrison government responded to. Then, following the airing of some very serious allegations very publicly in 2021, the Morrison government established two further inquiries. One was the Foster review, which Senator Hume has spoken about, and then there was further work done specifically about parliament, also by Kate Jenkins. I really commend Kate Jenkins on the work that she has done across the board on these issues. I thank her profusely because that is the groundwork that has led us to where we are today.

Congratulations, as well, to the Albanese government on the further work they've done since coming in. They provided a further response to Respect@Work, facilitated amendments to the Fair Work Act and brought in the PWSS legislation. The Morrison government established the PWSS but that was legislated by the Albanese government. There has been a bipartisan approach to ensuring that we make this place a safer and more respectful place to work. Many of the recommendations of the Set the standard report have now been implemented. We do have a digital platform to receive complaints. We do see an improved package of inductions for MPs and staff. And we have, as I said, seen a change in the behaviour in this place.

I want to come to the concerns raised by Senator Waters about the Privileges Committee being the committee to enforce sanctions recommended against parliamentarians. I think that that is the correct method. They will be taking the advice of the IPSC commissioners. They will be taking the advice in the summary of the review. But the Privileges Committee are elected representatives too, and, as elected representatives, we can't always be devolving our responsibilities to others who don't face the voting constituency.

And it is fair for the chair and the deputy chair to be drawn from the parties that form government or may form government. In the case of a minority government, the government of the day can choose whichever chair representative they want. It may be, in the case of a minority government, that they aren't from one of the major parties, but that is for a future parliament to decide. It is correct for the government of the day and the alternative government of the day to be in the chair and deputy chair roles.

This has been a long and drawn-out process, but I'm comfortable that we have taken the time to make sure we now have a process that can be implemented and that provides procedural fairness to both complainants and respondents. It is fair that we took the time to have the thorough debates and conversations we had to make sure it was implementable, because the last thing we want is to set up a system that, in practice, does not work as intended. We want to make sure there is fairness, we want to make sure that there are supports in place for complainants, and we want to make sure there are fair processes, including appeals processes, to enable due process.

I take exception to Senator Waters' claims that this will be a protection racket for MPs. The one thing that does provide MPs protection is the due process—but not to cover up. It provides them the confidence that a process will be followed and any reports or findings will be justified. I think we've taken care to develop this. I do support the reviews that are built into this bill so that every parliament can review the IPSC and the codes of conduct. I think that is fair.

I really want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, who have worked on this in good faith. I thank them all for their time. I thank the chair and I thank the staff who have supported the PLT. I thank the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for the work they have done to date. They have established some really good foundations on which the IPSC can build, so I thank the PWSS, their staff and their CEO. I also thank the parliamentary staff who have supported us through this process. I commend this bill to the chamber.