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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:

(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:

(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).

(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.

As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply.

It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future.

I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important?

I commend this amendment.

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

The opposition will be opposing this amendment, noting that the privileges committee shouldn't be directed, or shouldn't be bound, in a deliberation. But I note that, before, Senator Waters suggested voluntary trauma informed training for privileges committee members. It's not something we would have a problem with. Again, it would need to be voluntary because the privileges committee should never be bound or directed in any deliberation or any action, and that's certainly not something we would stand in the way of. It's not appropriate for it to be put into legislation, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

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

The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process.

I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation.

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

I have just a brief retort to that. Minister, it's not about your level of trust in privileges. Surely, it needs to be about the level of trust that staff in this building have in a process that will finally exist to potentially hold their boss to account if their boss has committed harassment, assault or bullying against them. I take your point, but I just want to push back and say that it's very easy for us in these privileged positions to have confidence and trust, but unfortunately the system hasn't worked for so long for people with less power and privilege than we have. I commend the amendment.

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

On that point, I would say again that the responsibility falls on all of us to make sure that trust is there. If this system is to work and have the confidence of staff, MPs and senators—let's face it; all of our colleagues have to trust it—then the responsibility falls again to all of us to make sure that's the case.

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

I want to ask the minister some questions about the appointment of commissioners. Can I confirm, Minister, how the commissioners will be appointed?

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if you would not mind, resume your seat for a moment. It might suit the chamber if I put the amendments moved by Senator Waters before moving to other matters. Senator Faruqi?

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a question on Senator Waters's amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll come back to you, Senator Hume.

Minister, can you tell us how people of colour, people with disability, First Nations people and other diverse people can trust committees that are made up of all white members, and what are you going to do about that?

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

The appointment of members to privileges committees is a matter for individual parties. For example, if the Greens political party wanted to appoint you or another member of the Greens to privileges, that's a matter for the Greens. I disagree that people representing the groups that you have outlined in your question can't have faith in a process that it is being overseen by senior and professional members of parliament. Again, it's our responsibility and those members' responsibility to make sure people are dealt with fairly through the process we are establishing by this legislation today.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, those committees are dominated by Labor and the coalition. Are you telling me that you won't even consider diversity on those committees? I mean, I can't trust white people making decisions all the time. A full committee with no diversity making decisions on issues of racism—that is illogical. It is illogical to do that. Would you consider, at least, that these committees should have some diversity and that Labor and the coalition have the vast majority of members on those committees and there are enough people in parliament, in your parties, to be able to have more diversity in those committees?

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

The matter of who gets appointed to those committees is a matter the parties. That is as it is on every committee in this place. The broader point that you raise is that the committees themselves are not the investigators of complaints.

Well, you can shake your head, Senator Faruqi, but they are not the investigators of the complaints.

You said—

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are enforcers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

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

You asked the question. If you have another question, that's fine, but you asked how you can have faith that someone would perhaps make a finding of racism. For a start, the IPSC would undertake to investigate the complaint. If they were to find that there was a serious breach of the code of conduct then that matter would be handed over to the privileges committee, but the privileges committee does not investigate that; they determine a sanction. That is the big difference there. So the point you raise wouldn't happen, because the privileges committee is not conducting the investigation. If there was a finding of a breach of the code based on racism, that would be determined by the commissioner undertaking the investigation.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I spoke about investigation. It is that the committee will be enforcing sanctions, and that's the issue here. It's beyond me, and I'm flabbergasted that you can't actually say that the committee does need more diversity. Some diversity exists in this parliament, and more people with lived experience of these issues should be deciding what the enforcement should be. It's not that hard, Minister. If we want to change this place, we need to make it more diverse. Why can't you just say, 'Sure, we can look into this'? That is one of the cruxes of the problem: the privilege that people have had which has been entrenched for such a long time.

I ask you again: will you consider that those committees need to be more diverse to make a more just and considered decision on experiences of people who, at the moment, don't have a place on that committee?

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

I can take responsibility for the government members, and, representative of the most diverse group of politicians in this parliament, we consider all of those matters as routine, Senator Faruqi. I don't need to give an undertaking, because we are the most diverse group in this parliament, and we consider all of those things as part of our core operations.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

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

On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move her amendment on sheet 2899:

(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 97 (lines 18 to 20), omit subitems (2) and (3), substitute:

(2) If the complainant consents to the complaint being referred to the IPSC, the CEO must refer the conduct issue arising from the complaint to the IPSC.

(3) If the complainant does not consent to the complaint being referred to the IPSC, the PWSS must finish the review.

(4) A referral under subitem (2) must:

(a) be made in writing; and

(b) include the following information:

(i) details of the conduct issue;

(ii) any evidence relevant to the conduct issue.

(5) The new law applies in relation to a referral under subitem (2) as if it were a conduct issue referral under section 24CB of the new law.

(6) If subitem (3) applies, the old law continues to apply in relation to the review and in relation to the complaint for the purposes of the review.

This amendment is important to move because the nub of the amendment is to make sure that complaints that are being investigated by the PWSS—because the IPSC hasn't existed until now—can now, with the consent of the complainant, be transferred to the IPSC if that's where they belong, given the severity of the conduct under investigation. My understanding is that that's the intent of what's meant to happen anyway, but I think it can't hurt to have that clarified and confirmed in the bill. I proudly support and move the amendment on sheet 2899 on behalf of Senator Thorpe, and flag that the Greens will be supporting it.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to 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?

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

We dealt with this just before with Senator Waters's amendments. Fundamentally, we believe there is accountability and transparency. The fact that a report has gone to the privileges committee in itself means that there has been a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct—the fact that there has been a referral. There's a timeframe for the privileges committee to consider that—I think it's 60 days—and then make a report. That is the transparency that comes with that.

But there's very clear delineation between the independent investigator, the fact-finder and the assessor of the complaint, and then handing on that responsibility for the imposition of sanctions. The sanctions are set out in the bill as well, clearly, and the privileges committee must report publicly on their deliberations. So there is that transparency and accountability. Those deliberations would be made public, and that is the way that you enforce the accountability mechanism. But we strongly believe in a very clear delineation between the investigation, the finding of the breach and then the sanctions imposed.

Obviously, this has been consulted on heavily. Legal advice has been taken to make sure that it's robust and it can stand up to people opposing being considered through this process, and part of that was to make sure that that very clear delineation between responsibilities is made.

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

Thank you, Minister. I have just a quick follow-up on that. So, if there is a deviation between the recommendation and the sanction, will that be made public?

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

The IPSC won't be making a recommendation. They determine if there's been a breach and the level of that breach. If it's not a serious breach, then they have responses available to them, like training, apologies and things like that. If they believe that it's a serious breach of the code of conduct, they make that finding and that goes to the privileges committee. They then have essentially 60 days to consider that and make a determination on a sanction.

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

For the sake of clarity, the opposition will be opposing the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Waters on behalf of Senator Thorpe. We haven't been provided time to consider the implications of this, but I think that our natural inclination is to oppose it.

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

On the amendment—this is the one relating to transitional provisions—the reason we won't be supporting it is so that the rules of engagement are not changed midstream for all the people involved in those. I acknowledge that for people who are involved in any investigation it's very difficult, and it's very important that people are able to seek wellbeing support from PWSS. This has been one of the most significant reforms this parliament has put in place in recent times. It is being well utilised. It's highly respected. And we believe that ensuring that those investigations that are ongoing can be concluded through the transitional arrangements is preferable to this amendment.

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

I would like to move on and ask the minister some questions about consent. I don't know whether you would like to deal specifically with the amendment before us, before we do that.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I was about to say, if your questions are not in relation to this particular amendment, I might go to Senator Van to make his contribution on that, and then we'll deal with the amendments and come back to you, Senator Hume.

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

I will be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment. The process as it stands at the moment is not working. There deserves to be an off path to the IPSC for matters to be reviewed in a far more professional way than is being done currently.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If no other senators wish to contribute to the debate on that amendment, then I will put it. The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 2899 in the name of Senator Thorpe, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I ask that the Australian Greens' support for that amendment be recorded in lieu of a division.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Waters.

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

Minister, I'd like to ask a question about section 24CH(1)(b), which allows for the commissioner to investigate a matter without consent. Could the minister confirm that this provision is intended to be used only when there is no identifiable complainant to consent to an investigation?

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

Generally IPSC commissioners would investigate a complaint only if the complainant consented to an investigation. As an exception, the bill provides that a commissioner may decide to investigate a complaint without complainant consent if they are reasonably satisfied that a serious risk to work health or safety arises or could arise from the conduct concerned. This is entirely consistent with the Work Health and Safety Act where that act does not require complainant consent to take action to address a work health or safety issue.

However, consistent with the Set the standard report, the IPSC could not investigate an allegation of sexual assault or assault without the complainant's consent. It should be emphasised that the IPSC has a discretion to investigate under the work health and safety ground. Whether a workplace investigation is warranted will depend on the circumstances. And if a complainant does not want to be involved then commissioners will need to assess whether it is practical and appropriate to investigate.

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

Thank you, Minister. I want to ask about section 24CH(5)(b), which allows for the cessation of an investigation where there has been a withdrawal of consent only where the commissioner deems that it's reasonable and fair. Could you explain to the chamber why a commissioner might proceed with an investigation, even without the consent of a complainant?

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

The bill has a strong focus on complainant consent as a general principle. But in circumstances where consent is withdrawn, this could be a ground for the commissioner to decide not to investigate further if an investigation has already commenced. However, a provision in the bill recognises that this may not always be a fair outcome, particularly for a respondent who may wish to have their name cleared, when an investigation has substantially progressed. For this reason, if consent is withdrawn, the bill indicates that a commissioner may consider the progress of the investigation and fairness between the persons affected by the investigation.

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

I have some questions for the minister about the independent review. Minister, can you confirm that the amendments in this bill will be subject to an independent review under the existing act's section 68?

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

Yes, I can. They will.

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

Minister, can you confirm that this will mean there will be a review of these amendments within the next two years at the latest, given the section that will cause a review within one year of a new parliament?

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

Yes, that's right.

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

I have some questions around limitation on criminal matters within this bill. Minister, could you confirm for the chamber that the bill does not intend to allow for findings of criminality, noting that this body is not a court and makes findings only on the balance of probabilities.

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

Yes, the bill makes very clear that the IPSC cannot make findings of criminal guilt and includes sections stating such. For the avoidance of any doubt, I think it is section 24CY.

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

Minister, could you confirm that the commission will investigate matters that may be civil or criminal offences only after they have engaged advice from the relevant authorities in order to not prejudice any potential civil or criminal proceedings?

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

The bill gives commissioners the flexibility they need to inform a decision on whether it is appropriate to investigate or not. The bill has information sharing provisions to support this. This includes permitting a commissioner to confer with police to assist them to decide if it is appropriate for the IPSC to investigate.

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

I have questions around legal and professional privilege. Minister, could you confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, the privilege against self-incrimination?

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

My answers are quite short, in the interest of time and getting this bill passed, but the answer to that is: that's correct. It does not waive, in any way, the privilege against self-incrimination.

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

Minister, could you also confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, legal professional privilege?

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

That's also correct.

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

Minister, could you also confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, parliamentary privilege?

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

That's right. And the bill does allow for commissioners to confer with presiding officers on matters that may engage parliamentary privilege. I would just say this is an area that a lot of people involved in the drafting of this legislation have focused on, which is: how do we ensure that parliamentary privilege is protected through this?

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

I have some questions about the reviews of the code of conduct. In your second reading speech, you mentioned that the behaviour codes that will be established by this bill will apply to staff of parliamentarians, and we were informed that in their drafting there was little consultation with the established staff employment bodies, such as the work, health and safety committee and the employee consultative group. Minister, can you commit to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards consulting fully with these bodies on codes that will directly impact staff during any future review?

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

Thank you, Senator Hume, and for the ongoing dialogue we've had around this. Obviously staff consultation is incredibly important. There was consultation through the joint select committee process and we have no problem with further consultation with staff. The explanatory memorandum is clear that it would be expected that there would be further consultation with staff. We're very supportive of ensuring staff consultation. We're very happy to commit to ensure that this would happen and would expect that all members of the PJCPS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards, once established, would share this goal. And we will work with my colleague the Special Minister of State to ensure we get the consultation right, including working across the parliament to make sure that we are addressing everybody's needs.

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

I just have one further line of questioning around assessments of complaints. Minister, the explanatory memorandum to the bill outlines how each complaint will be assessed. What guarantee can you provide to staff that steps such as assessing the appropriateness of progressing to an investigation will be followed in practice?

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

This is an important part of the bill. The legislation does give that guarantee. It sets out a detailed framework, including the matters that a commissioner would need to consider on whether investigation should be commenced. We're confident that the legislation allows for this process balancing well the flexibility for commissioners considering appropriate approaches to investigations. However, this is setting up a new system, so if there are any issues with this process in operation, we would imagine they would be dealt with or assessed during the review of the legislation. I think we've tried to set out the framework to make it as good as it can be, but obviously we will learn from how it's operationalised in practice.

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

Finally, Minister, can you confirm that the decision to progress an investigation by a commissioner assessing a complaint will be a justiciable decision—that is to say, able to be assessed by a court?

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

Yes. There's nothing in the bill that prevents people having the right to seek review of decisions under existing law. That is, a decision to investigate conduct is open to be judicially reviewed according to existing laws.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm in the hands of the chamber. There are a number of other amendments that I know have been circulated that haven't yet been moved.

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

I move my amendment (1) on sheet 2898:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 16), at the end of subsection 24CY(1), add:

Note 4: To avoid doubt, in paragraph (1)(a), being satisfied on the balance of probabilities means that the decision-maker must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the respondent engaged in relevant conduct, taking into account matters such as the gravity and inherent improbability of the allegation (see Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336).

[clarifying meaning of 'balance of probabilities' ]

This amendment simply seeks to clarify the burden of proof that the independent parliamentary body will have.

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

Senator Van, could you repeat that?

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

Yes. I was simply moving the amendment. But I might ask you some questions if you have any commentary on it.

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

The opposition will be opposing this amendment, as we haven't had time to consider the implications.

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

The Greens will be opposing this amendment. We think it's unnecessary.

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

The government won't be supporting this amendment either, for the same reason.

Question negatived.

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

In the absence of Senator David Pocock, who has circulated an amendment that I presume he would like moved, I'm standing and perhaps giving him some ample time, as he may be making his way to the chamber. If he doesn't appear momentarily, then I'll speak to his amendment on his behalf. It's an amendment that the Greens will be supporting. It's in relation to amendments that were moved in the House that said that the opposition automatically gets the deputy chair on the oversight committee for the IPSC.

Now, I did refer to this in my second reading contribution. It's not appropriate for the two-party system to continue to stack the deck in its own favour, when support for both of the big parties is diminishing at every election—and, frankly, for good reason. It is overreach in the extreme to pre-emptively dedicate these positions to particular political parties. On that basis, the Greens will be supporting this amendment, and, in the absence of Senator Pocock, I might take the liberty of moving it on his behalf. Therefore, I move amendment (1) on sheet 2895 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (line 23), omit "a member of the Opposition".

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

The opposition will be opposing the amendment from Senator Pocock. The opposition, no matter what hue it is and which party it represents, will always represent the second-largest number of parliamentarians and the second-largest number of staff in our workplaces and, therefore, should be given the responsibility of representing them on the oversight committee.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—Chair, could you please record the Australian Greens support for that amendment. And if I could be so presumptive, I'm sure Senator David Pocock would also like support for his own amendment to be recorded.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you can be that presumptive, Senator Waters.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.