Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

Establishing the IPSC was one of the recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its November 2021 report—Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplacesalso known as the Set the Standard Report.

That report set out a framework for action to ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful.

In doing so, it observed that these workplaces should uphold the standing of the Parliament as a worthy reflection of the community it serves.

That observation is incontestable.

It's why—on the first sitting day of 2022—a joint statement of acknowledgment was delivered on behalf of the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce declaring that this Parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation.

And it's why—in progressive updates on implementation of the Set the Standard Report—this place has acknowledged the mistakes of the past and committed to build safe and respectful workplaces.

The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—chaired by Dr Vivienne Thom AM—has been working to steer implementation of the Set the Standard Report's framework for action. Much has been achieved. There have been real and important improvements to the culture of this place.

Last year the Government, working with the PLT and its Staff Consultation Group, progressed legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service.

The PWSS—as it is known—commenced its enhanced operations as a statutory agency on 1 October 2023. It provides 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. These are its confidential support service and a complaint resolution service.

The PWSS also has an interim function to undertake workplace investigations. This 'review' function will sunset on 1 October 2025. It is intended that the PWSS review function would be replaced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission which would be established by the Bill.

Following the PWSS's successful commencement last year, the Government turned its attention to progressing the IPSC. These represent two significant structural reforms to our workplace. As such, we considered that their progression in a staged and orderly way would best integrate these entities into our workplaces.

Subject to passage of the legislation, our aim is that the IPSC would commence on 1 October this year.

The IPSC's commencement will mean that the separate Behaviour Codes for Parliamentarians and their staff—and the Behaviour Standards for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces—can be finally adopted.

These codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. They were endorsed by both Houses of the Parliament in February last year pending establishment of the IPSC to enforce them.

Together, the Behaviour Codes and the IPSC are about accountability. The Set the Standard Report said that 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.

Consistent with the Report, the Bill would establish the IPSC as a fair and independent workplace investigation framework. Its role is to be an impartial fact finder.

The IPSC Commissioners would perform their functions in an independent and impartial way.

Where expected standards of conduct have not been upheld, the IPSC will be able to impose or recommend sanctions set out in the Bill, or make a referral for further action in the case of Parliamentarians.

If the IPSC finds that a parliamentarian has seriously breached the conduct requirements, there will be a role for the Houses of the Parliament. The IPSC would refer its findings to the Privileges Committee which would then consider the appropriate sanction and report to the relevant House of the Parliament with its recommendation.

It is appropriate that the Houses of Parliament make such decisions about disciplining their members.

There is accountability through this mechanism, and a recommendation by a Privileges Committee will become public.

The structure of an IPSC investigation process in the Bill aligns with the Set the Standard Report. Recognising parliamentarians are elected members of the Parliament, three Commissioners would decide a final report for a parliamentarian respondent. A single Commissioner would make that decision for a staff respondent or other worker. The Bill also provides avenues for internal review of decisions. In all cases, a review panel would be constituted by three Commissioners. Again, this aligns with the Set the Standard Report.

Under the Bill, the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. While its investigation function will be separated from the PWSS's support and complaint resolution roles, the IPSC would still need to work in a complementary way with the PWSS.

It is not intended that the IPSC would investigate a complaint that would be better addressed through the PWSS functions.

People who have a workplace issue would be encouraged to contact the PWSS's confidential support service. This should be the front door for help and advice as envisaged by the Set the Standard Report.

The PWSS will be able to provide advice on ways to resolve a complaint. It can also provide wellbeing support. This is a confidential service and available to potential complainants, respondents or others who are involved.

If an IPSC workplace investigation would be appropriate, the PWSS could assist a person to make a complaint to the IPSC.

The Bill is the product of extensive consultations with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the PLT Staff Consultation Group. A lot of thoughtful and constructive feedback was received.

Ranges of views were put forward on various points, and some balancing has been required.

A particular point to emphasise is that it is not the intention of this Bill to change existing work health and safety laws.

Nothing in the Bill requires people who have duties under work health and safety laws to make reports to the IPSC. The IPSC complements existing work health and safety laws.

Importantly, employers in Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces already have obligations and duties under work health and safety laws. The IPSC provides an additional pathway to take action, where appropriate.

Because of many variabilities that can arise, if unsure of what to do to meet a WHS duty, parliamentarians and their staff could obtain advice from the PWSS, as they can now. As part of this function, the PWSS can assist with advice on a referral for an IPSC workplace investigation is an appropriate action.

The establishment of the IPSC, and the adoption of the Behaviour Codes, will be a significant change in our workplace. The PWSS also has a function to provide guidance on the Behaviour Codes. It will roll out education on the Codes so that people are aware of their obligations when the Codes commence.

Consistent with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards Report, shortly after the IPSC has commenced, it is intended that the Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians and the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces would be adopted into the standing orders of each House of the Parliament.

As indicated in the Bill, it is proposed the Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians' Staff would be formalised via a determination under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to coincide with commencement of the other codes.

However, we know standards in this place are not to set and forget. The legislation also sets out that the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would commence a review of the behaviour codes within one year of the first session of each new Parliament, once the IPSC has commenced.

As has been said before, the Parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. It should set the standard.

Through the Set the Standard report, we heard from so many people who have worked, and continue to work in this place. As a Government we have worked steadily and thoroughly to support implementation of the recommendations of the report.

This Bill provides further accountability, and will enable enforcement of behaviours codes and standards to improve safety and wellbeing across Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, which is a goal we all share.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. The nuts and bolts of this bill will be traversed by others in their contributions, so I will use my time to discuss aspects of this legislation which I believe are important to us all.

Those in this chamber and those here in years to come, for whatever reason, may look back on this debate and ask, 'How did they get to there?' It was noted in the other place that this bill is not perfect. That's not unusual for any legislative solution to a human problem. Yet, unlike any other bill the chambers debate, this bill is less about our alignment or our party; it has significant implications for us all as individual parliamentarians. It's about how we as parliamentarians carry and conduct ourselves in our roles and go about the business of running the small businesses that are our offices. It's about our staff and our expectations of them. Indeed, it's about the standards of behaviour expected from everyone, from the Prime Minister right through to journalists, security guards, lobbyists and visitors.

Many workplaces have codes of conduct that are expected, and remedial action is taken or sanctions are available if they are breached. You can see there already where the conundrum begins in this unique workplace. The implications of this bill cut through to the core of the chamber to which we have each been elected to represent our constituents. Our privileged elected positions come with significant responsibilities, expectations and consequences. Equally, in the execution of certain duties, these positions are afforded protections that make our democracy work. Those protections are not new. In fact, they were first articulated in a bill of rights that was passed nearly 335 years ago. This parliament inherited the protections, privileges and immunities of previous parliaments. They have endured not because politicians think that they are above the law but because they are fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. That is something that we should seek to protect and uphold. But, while we may have inherited the protections and privileges, this parliament should not inherit the culture of another time. That is something which we are responsible for, that we have to confront and that we have to act to amend, and we all agree on that.

Our workplace should always seek to raise the bar and set the standard. This bill seeks to change the way that parliament adjudicates behaviour. The Set the standard report of the independent review into the parliamentary workplace known as the Jenkins review found that the culture in this place had failed many—staff, parliamentarians and the public. Everyone deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties, parliamentarians and staff, have a role in improving parliament's culture. We each have a role. It would serve us all well if, when we consider what role we each have in improving the culture of our workplace, our first instinct is to reflection and self-assessment rather than assuming the worst in others. That would be a great step forward.

Since the Jenkins review and before it, the coalition has sought reform through practical and implementable change that respects the institutions of parliament. It's why we implemented the recommendations of the Foster review including creating the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service in 2021. It's why the former government accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all 28 recommendations. There have been concrete changes: new training and education programs and a confidential 24-hour support service. Indeed, it was the coalition that first established the parliamentary independent complaints mechanism under the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This bill, which addresses recommendation 22 of the Jenkins review, will further formalise and enhance that mechanism by placing it in the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. It's worth noting that it was the Foster review's independent complaints mechanism that first had the power to hold parliamentarians as employers accountable for their actions, and it introduced the concept of referring parliamentarians to the relevant privileges committees if they failed to implement the recommendations of workplace reviews.

This bill represents the culmination of a significant amount of work both in the passage of other legislation and consultation around this building. It will establish a new statutory body that will review and consider the conduct in our workplaces, including that of parliamentarians. This is transformative to the extent that this bill provides legislative powers to non-parliamentarians to investigate matters that, before 2021, were conducted by administrative review with few avenues for accountability. This bill fulfils a commitment to apply accountability that has never been given to the many people who have gone through this place and have been subject to conduct that is unacceptable in any workplace at any time. We thank again the people who have contributed to the process since it commenced in 2021 through submissions to the reviews all the way through to the development of this legislation. We are committed to that change and to ensuring that we call out that behaviour when it occurs.

The conduct of parliamentarians and the judgement of them is not just a serious matter, it's also a constitutional one. Regardless of any reductionist interpretation, our workplace is one of three that has some element of protection by our first law. This is important because the independence and ability for an individual in this place to discharge the responsibility bestowed on them by Australians at an election is paramount. We have two protections that allow this: freedom of speech and control over the internal proceedings of parliament.

Parliament should provide the grounds for the fiercest contests, the sharpest arguments and the strongest views. We are chosen and choose to be here specifically for that purpose. Outside of this place, those views are controlled by laws that constrict expression. They provide protection but also prevent and preclude a freer exchange of views. Here, in this chamber, we are entrusted and unencumbered by design. Those outside are not, but they have chosen us in free and fair elections to use this privilege on their behalf.

We are then only burdened and bound by the responsibility to speak on behalf of our fellow Australians, and, when we do, we should be able to give those views their full voice. That's what our parliamentary privilege protects. The fact that it also protects how we go about those debates is also important. Privilege protects our voice and the ability for us and only us to determine how we use that voice.

If Australians who put us here wish to withdraw those privileges from any one of us, they can do so via the ballot box on election day. I warn those who would introduce constraints on those fundamental tenants of parliamentary representative democracy that, when you willingly place limits, they can have far-reaching consequences and they cannot be undone at will. Our conduct is important. Standards of behaviour should be exemplary. But I say to those who seek, often for political benefit, to curtail the voices of others, particularly those that they disagree with—particularly within these privileged chambers—that you may instead be seeking to diminish the democracy that you are trying to protect.

Past members of parliament, from the lion of the Labor Party, Senator Gareth Evans, to the Liberal father of a current independent MP, John Spender, have opined on this very fact, debating Australia's first privileges act. Even if it seems black and white today, conduct is conduct and behaviour is behaviour. Life is never black and white, and we have to legislate for the inevitable grey. Surely being a parliamentarian teaches us that we are not all alike. To that end, the answer does not lie in the removal of privileges that this institution has protected under our Constitution.

The opposition agrees with the government's legislation insofar as it maintains the primacy of the parliament in its own affairs. While an independent body will investigate matters—and so avoid obvious conflicts of interest—it's still up to the parliament to both oversee that body and determine the application of any punitive sanctions on its own members. The process of the development of this legislation has been a cross-party effort, and this is no easy task. It has pushed and pulled each of us from our original positions. We have engaged with respect, not assuming ill intent, we have listened to each other's concerns and we have found agreement after discussion.

It has reminded many, I suspect, of the wisdom that it is better to get 80 per cent of something than to go over a cliff with your colours flying. Make no mistake: the implementation of this reform places both the power and the responsibility for change in our hands. Institutions are only as strong as those who are inside them. It is incumbent on us, then, to police and protect ourselves, the people with whom we work every day and this institution through our conduct, always striving to be our very best selves, even when politics is at its most combative.

I believe that this bill manages to get the balance right. We will no longer decide whether our conduct in our workplaces was a breach of community expectations. That will now be done by an independent commission. That is a very big change for this place. But we will determine what happens when those breaches of the standards occur, and the electorate will expect that we deal with those breaches appropriately.

The coalition would like to thank the many people across this parliament who have worked to develop this significant legislation and, indeed, acknowledge all of the changes to our workplace recommended by the Jenkins and Foster reviews. I want to particularly acknowledge the members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. I would like to thank Senators Davey, Gallagher, Farrell and Waters, as well as the member for Farrer, the Deputy Speaker Claydon and the member for Warringah, who have served on that body. The opposition would like to thank the PLT's Staff Consultative Group and all staff who have given up their time in order to deliver feedback on behalf of their colleagues.

The opposition would like to thank the officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who have been very patient in spending their time explaining this legislation. The opposition would also like to thank the Independent Expert Chair of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, Dr Vivienne Thom, and Jenna Parker, who supports her in this role, for their endless patience and commitment to a sometimes thankless but, I hope, still rewarding task. Finally, the opposition would like to thank the minister and her office, in particular her chief of staff, Georgia, and her senior adviser, Sol. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. This has a been such a long time coming. Establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce codes of conduct that apply not just to MPs but also to staff has been an incredibly long wait. It's been desperately needed, and I'm pleased we're here today. But I do have some concerns that I'll be going through in my contribution.

We've seen some truly horrific behaviour in this building over the years—some criminal behaviour. And I want to deeply thank all the brave staff who have spoken out about that conduct, and indeed also some MPs, for their courage and resilience. Thanks to their courage and their bravery in speaking out, we have seen a series of reforms to try to clean this place up, to try to improve the conduct and to try to set the standard for workplaces around the country. As everyone will acknowledge, we had been so far from doing that up to this point. Setting up the IPSC has been the next piece of this puzzle.

The reason we've needed this is that, prior to this series of reforms with the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service and today with this bill—the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission—all we had was an internal process run by the Department of Finance. Put yourselves in the position of a staff member, knowing there was a process that was ultimately not really that independent and was run by a department that was overseen by a minister and could never have resulted in consequences if the offender was an MP. What a shit process—excuse my language. Do I need to withdraw that?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, if you could, Senator.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to fully support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is a vast improvement on the previous system, and I sincerely wish it had been brought in sooner, as my colleagues have raised. In the efforts to raise the standards in this place, it brings more rigour to the process and higher standards of review, which will ensure that the review is more just.

This bill is essential for strengthening accountability and improving workplace standards in parliament, addressing the critical need for reform highlighted by the Jenkins review. I welcome the bill. It's important that the processes within it uphold fairness for all involved. We must maintain rigorous standards when handling allegations of misconduct. This will help prevent vexatious allegations and hopefully prevent the political weaponisation of that complaints process. This bill will also strengthen the procedural fairness in these complaint processes.

It is heartening to see the strengthening improvement of this bill, and I also support Senator Thorpe's amendments that we will debate later. I thank Minister Gallagher and her team, Georgia and Solange; they have been amazing. Thank you for working with me on this and bringing about this much-needed reform.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions on this bill. As others have said, it has taken some time to get to this point and a lot of work has gone into getting this bill in the shape it is today.

The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Establishing the IPSC was one of the recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2021 report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, also known as Set the standard. I join others in acknowledging the fearless work of the team led by Kate Jenkins in putting that report together.

The report set out a framework for action to ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. In doing so, it observed these workplaces should uphold the standing of the parliament as a worthy reflection of the community it serves. That observation is incontestable. It's why, on the first sitting day of 2022, a joint statement of acknowledgement was delivered on behalf of the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce declaring that this parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation, and it's why, in progressive updates on the implementation of the Set the standard report, this place has acknowledged the mistakes of the past and committed to building safe and respectful workplaces. The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, chaired by Dr Vivienne Thom—and I thank her and Jenna for the incredible work they have done in helping to steer the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—has been working to steer the implementation of the Set the standard report's framework for action. Much has been achieved. There have been real and important improvements in the culture of this place; I strongly believe that.

Last year, the government, working with the PLT and its staff consultation group, progressed legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS, as it is known, commenced its enhanced operations as a statutory agency on 1 October 2023. It provides 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; these are its confidential support service and a complaint resolution service. The PWSS also had an interim function to undertake workplace investigations. This review function will sunset on 1 October 2025. It is intended that the PWSS review function will be replaced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, which will be established by this bill.

Following the PWSS's successful commencement last year, the government turned its attention to progressing the IPSC. These represent two significant structural reforms to our workplace, and they are historic reforms. As such, we considered that their progression in a staged and orderly way would best integrate these entities into our workplace. That provides some of the background to the reasons and the concerns raised by Senator Waters—I acknowledge them—around the time it's taken to get to the IPSC. Through the work of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and through other discussions, the decision was made—and it was the right one—to concentrate on the PWSS, to get that in place, and ensure we had time to work through all the issues that would be raised through the establishment of an IPSC, which was always going to be the one that was going to be harder to put together and enshrine in legislation.

That is why we took the decision, supported by many of the discussions we had across the parliament, to get this right. This is long-lasting structural reform. Meeting a timeframe that was set down is certainly one path, but doing it properly and having the time to make sure we got it right, that people felt consulted and that we did all the work we needed to do with staff was another reason we split these important works. But these reforms are here for the long term, and I think that was a much more important way of progressing it so that we could hopefully move, once we vote on this bill, with the agreement of all in this place.

Subject to the passage of this legislation, the aim is that the IPSC would commence on 1 October this year. The IPSC's commencement would mean that the separate behaviour codes for parliamentarians and their staff and the behaviour standards for the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces can be finally adopted. These codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. They were endorsed by both houses of the parliament in February last year, pending establishment of the IPSC to enforce them. Together, the behaviour codes and the IPSC are about accountability.

The Set the standard report said that the absence of clear standards of conduct and the absence of consequences for misconduct make the Australian parliament out of step not only with developments in other parliamentary contexts but also with the most basic standards in other Australian workplaces. Consistent with the report, the bill would establish the IPSC as a fair and independent workplace investigations framework. Its role is to be an impartial fact finder. The IPSC commissioners would perform their functions in an independent and impartial way. Where expected standards of conduct have not been upheld, the IPSC will be able to impose or recommend sanctions set out in the bill or make a further referral action in the case of parliamentarians.

If the IPSC finds that a parliamentarian has seriously breached the conduct requirements, there will be a role for the houses of the parliament. The IPSC would refer its findings to the privileges committee, which would then consider the appropriate sanction and report to the relevant houses of parliament with its recommendation. It is appropriate that the houses of parliament make such decisions about disciplining their own members. There is accountability through this mechanism, and a recommendation by the privileges committee will become public. The structure of an IPSC investigation process in the bill aligns with the Set the standard report. Recognising that parliamentarians are elected members of parliament, three commissioners would decide a final report for a parliamentarian respondent; a single commissioner would make that decision for a staff respondent or other worker. The bill also provides an avenue for internal review of decisions. In all cases, a review panel would be constituted by three commissioners. Again, this aligns with the Set the standard report.

Under the bill, the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. While its investigation function will be separated from the PWSS's support and complaint resolution roles, the IPSC will still need to work in a complementary way with the PWSS. It is not intended that the IPSC would investigate a complaint that would be better addressed through the PWSS's functions. People who have a workplace issue would be encouraged to contact the PWSS's confidential support service. This should be a front door for help and advice as envisaged by the Set the standard report. The PWSS will be able to provide advice on ways to resolve a complaint; it can also provide wellbeing support. This is a confidential service and available to potential complainants, respondents or others who are involved. If an IPSC workplace investigation would be appropriate, the PWSS could assist a person to make a complaint to the IPSC.

The bill is a product of extensive consultations with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the PLT staff consultation group. A lot of thoughtful and constructive feedback was received. Ranges of views were put forward on various points, and some balancing has been required.

A particular point to emphasise is that it is not the intention of the bill to change existing work health and safety laws. Nothing in the bill requires people who have duties under work health and safety laws to make reports to the IPSC. The IPSC complements existing workplace and safety laws. Importantly, employers in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces already have obligations and duties under work health and safety laws.

The IPSC provides an additional pathway to take action where appropriate and, because of the many very variabilities that can arise, parliamentarians and staff who are unsure of what to do to meet work, health and safety duty can obtain advice from the PWSS as they can now. As part of this function, the PWSS can assist with advice on whether the referral of an IPSC workplace investigation is an appropriate action. The establishment of the IPSC and the adoption of the behaviour codes will be a very significant and structural change in our workplace. The PWSS also has a function to provide guidance on the behaviour codes. It will roll out education on the codes so that people are aware of their obligations when the codes commence.

Consistent with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards report, shortly after the IPSC has commenced it is intended that the behaviour codes for parliamentarians and the behaviour standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces would be adopted in the standing orders of each house of parliament. As indicated in the bill, it's proposed that the behaviour code for a parliamentarians' staff would be formalised by a determination under the Members of Parliament Staff Act 1984 to coincide with the commencement of other codes. However, we know that standards in this place are not 'set and forget', and the legislation also sets out that the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would commence a review of the behaviour codes within one year of the first session of each new parliament once the IPSC has commenced. I would say that I expect that, as one of their first items, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would be looking at how to operationalise the behaviour codes as they have been designed—consider those and make recommendations about any adjustments if needed. If not, great, but I think for the first time there is an opportunity to look at how those behaviour codes can be implemented smoothly.

As I've said before, and many others have also, the parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. It really should set the standard, as the title of the Kate Jenkins report said all those years ago. We've heard from many people who have worked and continue to work in this place. As a government, we've worked steadily and thoroughly to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report. I would like to thank all of the members of the parliamentary leadership taskforce, many of whom sit in this place. There is Senator Hume, Senator Davey, Senator Waters, me and Senator Farrell. On the other side, in the other chamber, there is Ms Lee, Ms Steggall and Ms Claydon—have I forgotten anybody? That group has worked very collegiately to try and ensure that we get the implementation of Set the standard right. I really, genuinely thank everyone for their engagement. It really has been a structure that has improved the legislation but also made sure that we have been accountable to a decision taken in the previous parliament to support and implement all the recommendations of the Set the standard report.

To all of those staff who came forward—to those who have worked here in the past and this workplace hasn't lived up to the expectations that we hold—this parliament has already recorded an apology for that and a commitment to make sure that, as we go forward, this workplace continues to strive to be the best workplace in the country. I would like to thank those who were courageous and took part in the Jenkins report and also through all the staff consultations to date about what needs to happen. These are big changes to our workplace. This is a very traditional workplace in many senses—through federation and decisions taken by people many years ago about how this building operates and the culture that exists within. In my time sitting in parliament, I have seen a noticeable change in the last two years about the expectations of conduct and of the responsibility taken by leaders in this place to make sure not only that we hold each other to account but that we look after the people who work in this building. This should be the best workplace to work in. I acknowledge that it is probably the most unique workplace in the country.

I want to acknowledge all of the people involved: the PLT, the people who have taken part in the consultations, the Jenkins implementation team, who are sitting here today, as well as my staff, Sol and Georgia, who have, of course, been incredible and have been acknowledged in the chamber today for all the work that has gone into this. I think this is a moment when we look back in time and look at how these structures and changes were implemented and see that we have displayed the leadership that was required. We've taken it seriously. We haven't shied away from the challenges set out in the Set the standard report, and we've taken our time so that we could move as one, as a parliament. I strongly believe that that gives the IPSC the strongest chance of being successful, and it is up to us to make sure that that is the case and that it doesn't become something that is used to weaponise or play politics with but is a genuine feature of a workplace that is serious about making sure that, if complaints are made, they are dealt with fairly and with appropriate protections for all involved.

Thanks to everybody for all of the work that has gone into this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

(Quorum formed)