Parliament Updates

10 September 2024

It is an important day, as we finally see this legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, here and we have the opportunity to debate it. The Australian federal parliament has failed to be a safe, supportive workplace in recent years. Indeed, we see, all too often, conduct that is incredibly inappropriate. We know from the Set the standard report that, too often, staff have had a very unsatisfactory experience. When it comes to sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation and even assaults, the rates have been incredibly high. The Set the standard report shocked the nation with the idea that our Commonwealth workplace—which should be the gold standard, leading the way for the private sector and other areas—was in fact miles and years behind the private sector. But is that really surprising, when we see the conduct in this place during the course of debate and often during question time?

The government has been investing in a campaign around respect, to address domestic violence, called Stop it at the Start. As I've said, and as I think the member for Mackellar said, we need to start it at the top. Ultimately, behaviour and culture change come down to leadership; it's how our leadership behaves that really makes a difference.

What we see, too often, especially during question time, is behaviour that has vitriol—bad behaviour. We have often tried to discuss those experiences—experiences of behaviour that is condescending, aggressive and misogynistic. The events of today just reinforced that perception and the reality that, as soon as there is a viewpoint that some members in this place—in particular, members of the coalition—don't like and don't want to hear, they think it is their right to yell over the top of someone, to try and bully them out of the opportunity to speak. I would remind the coalition: this is the House of Representatives, and all communities, under our Constitution, have a right of representation and a right to speak. That is what this place is for.

Just today, in fact, I had the Leader of the Nationals yelling at me that I should be 'careful'. Now, what exactly does that mean? Is that a threat? I raised my concern about conduct in the public gallery. Should I then feel threatened or intimidated from raising that point? That goes to the heart of what is wrong with this place and the culture that needs to change. As today's events show all too well, that change has to come from the top. Leadership matters, and those in positions of leadership of parties need to do better—or those below them in the parties need to seek better leadership that will set an example, will show integrity and will be the kind of behaviour that is becoming to this place, so that we can set the standard for other workplaces.

I know, and Set the standard identified, that many female MPs and staff have been subject to a lot of condescending, aggressive, misogynistic behaviour. We should be a gold-standard workplace here. We set the ethics and the laws that direct so many other workplaces. They look at the behaviour in this place and shake their heads at the arrogance of members in this place in trying to dictate to other workplaces the standards they should comply with, when this very workplace does not comply with any kind of standard or set any example. So is it any wonder that most Australians don't believe we are good role models? Yet we are elected to be leaders of our communities.

The Guardian Essential poll, reported in July, showed that the public is extremely dissatisfied with members as democratic leaders. Only 29 per cent are satisfied with the federal parliament. An overwhelming 75 per cent think most politicians enter politics to serve their own interests. Is it any wonder that the public has so little faith in what we do here as parliamentarians, when our own behaviour and standards fall well below what the community expects of us?

It is just incredible to hear the justification we hear, all too often, when trying to raise the standard. People have said: 'If you're not up for a robust debate, you should do something else.' I've been an Olympic athlete; I've been to Olympic games and stared down incredible pressure in other aspects. I've been a barrister for 10 years. I've been in courts with incredibly robust debate and arguments. Never have I seen, in any other professional environment, the disrespect we see in this place. Members in this place are kidding themselves if they think that in any way this is a question of robust debate. Robust debate is not disrespectful debate, and that's what, all too often, we see evolve in this place.

When I think of the schoolchildren in years 5 and 6 coming to see the place of debate, I really am concerned. And they all invariably raise concern and are surprised at the conduct they witness. I often think it's nearly like a white line syndrome. MPs come into this place thinking that it's going to be held to a different standard, that it's part of the game of parliament or of question time, without thinking about the impact, the role modelling, that this has at a time when we have a crisis of respect. We have a crisis when it comes to domestic violence. It really matters what kind of behaviour we say is acceptable, and it needs to start in this place.

Whilst I welcome the legislation we have before us today, it's incredibly disappointing that, ultimately, it does not apply to the conduct in this place, does not apply to the conduct in the Senate and does not apply to the conduct during Senate inquiries. I appreciate it is because of the question of parliamentary privilege, but I strongly support the amendment, and I call on the leaders of political parties to go that extra step of leadership and endorse the code of conduct in this place, take it to your party room. That is within the power of every leader of a political party.

I have been a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and I know how difficult it has been to even bring this legislation to this point. Obviously, a lot of the deliberations of the committee have been confidential. I thank the government and the minister, Senator Gallagher, for her leadership in bringing it forward. And I very much want to thank the secretariat and the taskforce chair, Dr Vivienne Thom, for all the work they've done to help us undertake implementing the recommendations of Set the standard and bringing this legislation to the front.

Establishing the IPSC is a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, completed by Kate Jenkins in 2021. Work on fully implementing the recommendations in this report has not been as quick as it should have been or as many wanted; it has taken too long. But we have to look at the glass half full—progress is being made. Change to the culture of the federal parliament is happening. But events of today would say it's happening very, very slowly, in this room at least. I hope that, at least for staff, this provides some level of security or a feeling that they are now going to have a body to properly investigate complaints.

The legislation before us formally establishes the IPSC. In Set the standard, the IPSC was recommended to ensure independent and consistent respondents to reports and complaints of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—again noting that this is part of our workplace yet it is exempt from the application. The bill aims—at least outside of this chamber—to apply those principles and that process. It will lift the standard and keep people safe—staff safe and MPs safe. And it will ensure there is the right support for everyone—MPs, senators and staff members alike. It's important to have a clear body that can investigate where these standards are not met. The draft behaviour standards, the codes of conduct, will now be enforceable by the IPSC, and that's important. I thank my colleague the member for North Sydney and all those on the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, who did the work to prepare the draft codes.

The IPSC will have the power to enforce these codes and investigate instances of where these codes have been breached for those who work in this place. It will also have the power to enforce sanctions on those found to have breached expected standards. Sanctions for staff will include fines or even dismissal. For parliamentarians, it's more complicated. Fines can also be imposed, along with more severe sanction, but there obviously are issues when it comes to sanctions for parliamentarians.

The bill formalises the parliament's first ever workplace investigation framework to cover everyone. That is real process and well overdue. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS, remains the place to provide advice and guidance for any in this place who need it.

The IPSC is the accountability and enforcement mechanism for when the behaviour codes are breached. It will be independent and impartial, it will ascertain the facts, and it will conduct investigations. Commissioners will be appointed who have the relevant experience and training to ensure they can undertake their investigative function as fully and properly as possible. Investigations would be undertaken where a commissioner judges sufficient information to do so with a complainant's consent. A commissioner has discretion not to investigate on several grounds, including if the conduct would be more appropriately dealt with under any other law, by the PWSS complaint resolution service, or if it is vexatious or lacking in substance. That is important, because complaints can obviously have huge reputational damage if it is vexatious or without proper merit. It's important to note that if another authority at the federal, state or territory level has jurisdiction, and it would be considered the appropriate place to take a particular issue or grievance, then that will occur.

The PWSS will remain an avenue to support people involved in an investigation, whether as complainant, respondent or witness, at all times. It is really important to emphasise the continued role that the PWSS will play in parliament and electorate offices. Potential complainants are encouraged to seek advice from PWSS, who can talk through options to facilitate resolutions of workplace issues. PWSS can provide advice about making a complaint to the IPSC if an investigation would be appropriate. However, there might be those who will be more comfortable reporting directly to the IPSC, and that is possible.

In relation to the more serious misconduct, particularly by parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has landed on a model which requires serious misconduct to be, essentially, referred to the privileges committee, and there will be a range of sanctions that can be imposed. I should say that is not my preferred pathway; ultimately, the privileges committee—without detracting from their professionalism, authenticity and integrity—are also parliamentarians and are also party members, so you have a situation where we are regulating ourselves. To date, that has not been a sufficient enough deterrent to improve behaviour. I do have questions about the effectiveness of the referral to the privileges committee and about leaving it to the privileges committee to determine the sanctions. The commission will not make recommendations and there is no requirement for the privileges committee to consider particular recommendations as to sanctions nor to explain why they may depart from recommendations. I understand the Constitutional and ethical dilemma around the fact that parliamentarians are elected—it is not a traditional employment situation—and the privileges committee is the committee that has oversight over the conduct of parliamentarians in other circumstances. But it's clear there is an expectation from the public that we as members of parliament need to be held more accountable than we currently are. There is a question whether or not the privileges committee will be capable of doing that, especially since it is, ultimately, still government-led.

Is that going to provide increased scrutiny on conduct? The jury's out. Ultimately, I support the legislation because it's overdue and we need it, but we need to be open to whether or not further amendments are going to be needed to ensure there is greater direction given to the privileges committee and accountability of the privileges committee in how it gets there. Ultimately, I am appreciative of the steps the government has taken to engage in genuine consultation, and in seeking to get as broad an agreement as possible. That is the difficulty with the nature of this place; it's so adversarial that even the question of whether we should be held to a better standard becomes adversarial in itself. Unless everyone is genuinely at the table wanting these changes to happen, it is difficult. Ultimately, the public will judge us on how well we improve standards in this place, but the key is to make sure there is visibility on those processes. I am absolutely committed as a parliamentarian to pull the curtain back on this place and keep the public informed.