David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Clearly, the evidence in the Set the standard report about some of the things that happened here, in the heart of democracy, is something that should be a source of national shame. I thank the government for the way they have taken this seriously. I thank Senator Gallagher and the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—Senators Davey, Hume, Farrell and Waters in this chamber, and Ms Steggall, Ms Claydon and Ms Ley in the other place— for their work and for their consultation in landing on a place where we will have a way to deal with the sorts of things we can all agree are totally unacceptable.

We should be setting the standard here. We should be the safest, most respectful workplace in the country. That an independent commission is required to lift and enforce appropriate behaviour in this place is a very sobering thought, and I think we should all be reflecting on the individual role we can play in ensuring that there's not a lot of work for this independent commission going forward.

There are, however, a few key places where I think the bill falls short, especially when it comes to transparency—and I note this has been well canvassed in the other place. I'll be supporting a range of amendments that seek to remedy these shortcomings and that were flagged by crossbench colleagues in the lower house, as well as moving my own that seeks to reverse a last-minute deal done between the government and the opposition regarding membership of the joint committee. Fortunately, the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, was in the chamber when this came up and brought it to the attention of the parliament, a parliament that today is split roughly into thirds—the duopoly of Labor and the coalition changed by an influx of community Independents, a growing crossbench. I believe the committee should reflect this new reality and it should be for the parliament to decide who fills the deputy chair position.

The bill also departs from the Set the standard recommendations in a number of key aspects; this was highlighted by the member for North Sydney in the House in her second reading amendment and the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, in a substantive amendment which Senator Waters moved and we've just voted on; the major parties voted against it. The bill doesn't guarantee that findings of parliamentarian misconduct will be made public. I think this is a serious shortcoming that needs to be remedied, and it's incredibly disappointing after everything we learnt from the passage of the NACC. We saw the major parties team up to say, 'Yes, we'll have a NACC but we'll make it secret.' I, and many, argued at the time—and I think history is starting to prove—that when you have something that is totally secret you undermine public confidence in something that needs trust, that people should be able to look to and say, 'Yes, they're in there, they're doing their job.' What do we have? Labor and the Libs saying, 'Yes, we'll set this up but let's make it secret.' Just as we've seen with the NACC, with people saying, 'Well, what's going on?' with the lack of action on robodebt, people are asking questions because we just don't know. It's incredibly disappointing to see this.

Whilst the bill makes the privileges committee the ultimate arbiter, the commission should be able to make recommendations to it. To go back to the amendment that was just voted on, there should be a public explanation if the commission makes a recommendation, which is why we're setting it up—to have an independent body to look at things and make recommendations— and the Privileges Committee decides something otherwise. It shouldn't just be a black box where you don't actually know what's happening in there.

The final issue I wanted to touch on is the scope. Department of Parliamentary Services staff should be included in this. I have had multiple constituents come forward with deeply disturbing accounts of their treatment in this building. Just today, there's an account in the Canberra Times from a former DPS employee who describes Parliament House as a 'toxic bin fire' of a workplace. This needs to be addressed. I thank Senator Thorpe for her amendments, which I will be supporting and which would allow the complainant in an open PWSS case from pre the code of conduct to choose if they would like their case to be referred to the IPSC rather than it remaining with PWSS.

This is clearly a critically important bill. It absolutely needs to pass. But, Minister, I'd like to ask, to my point about the secrecy—as we've seen with the NACC—why has the government agreed to deviate from recommendations and have no transparency over why recommendations may or may not be agreed to by the privileges committee?