Thursday, 1 August 2024

Bills

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jaclyn Symes:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:06): I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals opposition on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I will state our position and then speak on our amendments.

It is worth considering how we got to this point, why this bill exists and why integrity is a concern for this Parliament. We have a 10-year-old Labor government which from its inception has treated ethics and integrity as things that could be discarded for expediency. This is a government that was born with the whiff of scandal and continues a decade later to be defined by rorting and dodginess. From red shirts to big rorts, when the history of this Labor government is written it will be a case study in the misuse of taxpayer funds for political ends.

I strongly recommend that all members take the time to read the words of my colleague the member for Malvern in the other place on this bill. He gave an excellent history of the Labor Party’s greatest hits, from Mr Nardella’s caravan to former minister Herbert’s doggy chauffeur service, a former Speaker’s Queenscliff home, the phantom members for Ringwood and South Barwon, the member for Mordialloc’s stamp collection and of course Labor’s origin story, the genesis, the red shirts scandal, where they fought every step of the way, all the way to the High Court in Canberra, to hide the truth. This Labor Party stole over $388,000 from taxpayers, which was forced to be repaid – for shame! We stand here looking to restore integrity and trust in the Parliament because of a decade of Labor’s rorts and misbehaviour.

As the member for Malvern outlined, this bill seeks to establish a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission in legislation to investigate allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints referred from IBAC. It also seeks to establish a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation. This is a role that already exists, but the bill will strengthen the role and position. The bill also seeks to establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace through the promotion of the members code of conduct and other obligations in the Parliament and in the community.

The first question that must be looked at is how the role of commissioner is to be appointed. Labor’s original plan was a simple majority of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which would of course be stacked with Labor MPs to make sure a Labor mate got the gig – a legislated wink and a nudge. They then tried to propose a two-thirds majority, which again failed to address the fact that this commission and the commissioner are not creatures of the government, they are creatures of Parliament and therefore must be endorsed by both sides of politics – all sides of politics – in this place and the other place. The system is about trust and must start from a position of mutual trust within the Parliament. I am pleased that the government has seen the light on this and has agreed with the Liberals and Nationals that the appointment of this commissioner must be unanimously agreed to by the Parliament’s committee.

One issue that still does exist where we are seeking to amend the legislation is around the disqualifying terms for a candidate for commissioner. As it stands, a candidate is ineligible if they, in the last five years, have been a member of the Australian Parliament, a councillor of an Australian local council, a member of a registered political party or registered on the register of lobbyists. Candidates are already disqualified if they are a candidate for election to a Parliament or to a council. We do not believe that five years is good enough. Given Mr John Setka resigned form the Labor Party in 2019, technically, under this bill, he could be a candidate. As the old saying goes, Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, so we are seeking to amend this to 10 years to put this above reproach – a decade – and to ensure the candidate is completely removed from the fray of politics. For context, 10 years ago, in 2014, the number one hit on the ARIA charts was Pharrell Williams’s Happy, and it would make the opposition very happy if the government and the chamber would agree with us on this integrity measure.

Our final amendment is around the appointment of an acting commissioner. Any acting commissioner can be in the role for up to a year – six months, with the option for renewal – so they have the real potential to make a big impact in the role. Under Labor’s legislation, though, our Integrity and Oversight Committee only needs to be consulted, whatever that means. We know through countless stakeholder groups that they are always consultold by this government, so the Integrity and Oversight Committee only really needs to be consultold about an acting commissioner, who has all the same powers as the commissioner, who requires a complete consensus. This is completely unacceptable to the Liberals and Nationals. This bill allows for there to be up to three commissioners, including a chair. How on earth is it acceptable to this chamber that a commissioner appointed through due process and with the unanimous consent of members of the committee could be rolled and overruled by two Labor mates who have been appointed with no due process and no oversight and who would then wield enormous power over the perceptions of integrity and trust which the Victorian public hold this place to? This amendment is about closing a loophole, really. We have worked closely with the government around commissioners being unanimously appointed by the Integrity and Oversight Committee, but a loophole exists where the government could appoint an acting commissioner to the role to stack out the commission. We do not think that is right, and this amendment is about closing that loophole to ensure integrity in the entire process.

There is another issue in this bill that must be addressed. The Premier in her second-reading speech mentioned the integrity of the Westminster system, so it would be good if the government actually respected it. Under the Westminster system of government we are all members of Parliament. In addition to that, some members are fortunate enough to be called to higher office as members of the executive, and ultimately the executive is beholden to the Parliament. I believe there might be some movement on this, but that position has not quite landed yet. Under Labor’s bill, members of the executive – ministers and parliamentary secretaries – are potentially able to access support for legal assistance in relation to dealing with complaints made about them in their capacity as a member of Parliament through the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority. This support is not available to backbench members of the government, not available to the opposition or shadow cabinet members and not available to the crossbench.

We have a two-tiered system that is completely unfair: some members, just because they so happen to be ministers or parliamentary secretaries, get their legal costs covered for this process. That is a two-tiered Parliament. That is something that is completely unacceptable to us, and I know that is something that is completely unacceptable to many of the government backbenchers as well, so we are continuing to work through with the government to land a position. Where a complaint is about a member’s conduct as a member, legal advice and support should be available to all or none. This is not us simply saying we want coverage. This is saying that the access point should be equal to all. We accept that this support would be available to ministers and parliamentary secretaries only when the complaint about them is in relation to their capacity as such. But again, this process has not been finalised so our position on the bill will remain unresolved until that issue is finalised and the government sorts it out.

I hope they are sorting it out. I have to say the conversations have been amicable and respectful and there is a lot of work that has gone on on both sides into making this a reality. There are good people working together, and I want to thank my colleague Michael O’Brien for all the work that he has done, but I know there are many on the other side that are working together to get an outcome for the whole of Parliament, because if we cannot resolve this issue, I know there are plenty on the government backbenches that will be quite frustrated that there is a two-tiered system in terms of legal costs. We are working hard to make a system that has integrity, that has a level playing field.

The operation of the bill is as follows: it will set up an independent commission, and the commission will be open to complaints from all. The commission will have the power to refer complaints on to more appropriate agencies such as Victoria Police, IBAC, the Ombudsman or others as needed. One aspect that I am sure that members who have spent time in their electorate offices – so not all members – will agree is important is the power contained in this bill for the commission to decide not to continue with a complaint where it is clearly trivial, frivolous or vexatious or it lacks substance. This is important because sometimes there are complaints that lack rigour and substance. That is a fact. We cannot have a situation where members have to respond to complaints that are without basis, and the Liberals and the Nationals believe it is appropriate that this bill does contain safeguards in that regard and that complaints can simply be dismissed. We see it in the political theatre all the time. There might be a contentious policy issue that a particular party do not agree with and they will throw around allegations of corruption or misbehaviour or something lacking integrity. The threshold really needs to be high. If this is to work for all of the Parliament, we need to make sure that they are legitimate complaints, that they are not vexatious, because that will take the micky out of the whole process.

After an investigation, which is the third avenue available after referral and dismissal, the commission can determine whether parliamentary misconduct has occurred, and there are varying levels of seriousness to the misconduct. Outcomes can be as simple as a public apology or mediation and meetings with the affected person. The commission can also order the withdrawal of services, the removal of access to certain facilities or other personal restrictions relating to the functions of an MP. If the finding is of serious parliamentary misconduct, the report goes to the Privileges Committee of the relevant house, and the committee may then make a public finding, which we welcome as a piece of transparency. Indeed this new process of an independent commissioner, rather than in-house dealings with the Presiding Officer and Privileges Committee, does really increase transparency overall, which can only be a good thing.

Sunshine, they say, is the best form of disinfectant, and we have seen that, over the last decade of Labor MPs, it is going to take a little more than a bottle of Glen 20. Other measures worth noting include a Parliamentary Ethics Committee. It is a welcome show of good faith and transparency from this government that the committee will be legislated to not be government controlled. I explained the amendments before, but I might ask that they be formally circulated if they have not been already.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As I was saying before, our position is still unresolved on this bill, and hopefully the government is working hard on some final details so that we can get a good outcome. I know that there is a lot of distrust in the community. They see things like members being booted out for bad behaviour and allegations thrown around the Parliament and they cast it over all politicians – they do. They see South Barwon or Ringwood. They see us yelling at each other, and they cast it over all politicians. That is just not true. Most politicians come in here with integrity, wanting to work hard and wanting to do right by their constituents. There are good people on all sides. Hopefully this is an example where people can work together, the majority of politicians can work together, in good faith to get a good outcome on restoring integrity in this place. A tough cop on the beat can only be a good thing after all the behaviour we have seen over the last 10 years, and we look forward, hopefully, to the commission and the commissioners holding all members to account for their behaviour.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:23): The Greens commend the government for finally bringing an integrity bill before this house, because if there has been a single theme emerging from all the non-government business in this place during the 60th Parliament, it has been a common desire to push through some integrity legislation this term. Note that private members bills strengthening aspects of the Victorian integrity framework have passed this house only to be immediately blocked by the government in the other place. We are genuinely excited that there may finally be some progress from the government to strengthen political integrity rather than continuing to block all attempts to raise standards. An unfortunate characteristic of stronger governance and integrity standards is that as a general rule they are only introduced retrospectively, after instances of serious misconduct and scandal are exposed and where extensive media coverage forces otherwise insouciant leaders to finally act. Leaders, whether in government, in corporations or on boards, are naturally reluctant to proactively improve governance and integrity standards, believing that doing so will invariably mean placing themselves under greater scrutiny. Sadly, this was the case with this bill introduced by the Labor government.

Here I want to recognise the efforts of my colleague Dr Ratnam, during the previous term, who sought to move amendments to create an office of a parliamentary integrity commissioner proactively, which were blocked by the Andrews Labor government. We cannot be sure whether if Labor had not blocked establishing this office back in 2019 it would have helped prevent some of the many serious cases of misconduct and allegations of corruption and appalling behaviour that finally led to the government reversing its position now, some five years later. While nearly all of these allegations since this time have been made against Labor ministers, parliamentary secretaries and MPs, the Greens take no partisan pleasure from this fact, because we know that it does not matter which side politicians come from. As Mr Mulholland has just pointed out, poor behaviour ultimately ends up meaning all of us get tarred with the same consequence, which is a growing perception of mistrust, cynicism and contempt from the public towards politicians. Those of us who are trying to do the right thing to make a positive difference by engaging and representing our constituents lament how the poor conduct of a few makes all of our jobs even harder.

At its essence the bill provides a means to make complaints of parliamentary misconduct against members of Parliament to a newly established independent workplace standards and integrity commission, a process for the commission to investigate and report on these complaints and finally a process for the commission or Parliament to impose sanctions if necessary.

I am not going to go into the specific details of all the aspects of this bill, as this has been very well done already in other contributions on this bill in this place and the other place. However, we note that the government has genuinely and broadly engaged across the Parliament and beyond in developing this bill. While many of the aspects of this bill we commend and support, particularly in regard to matters relating to improving workplace behaviour, we do take exception to the claim made in the second-reading speech that this bill will promote:

… the highest standards of accountability, integrity and behaviour of all Members of Parliament … including Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Now, ‘highest standards’ is a superlative. For this statement to be true, there must be no higher standards of accountability, integrity and behaviour which we could reasonably raise through this bill. We know that this bill falls substantially short of holding parliamentarians and the executive to the highest possible integrity standards. It does not implement all of the recommendations of IBAC’s Operation Watts report, and it selectively implements other recommendations, overlooking some of the stronger measures. It does not address the significant weaknesses in IBAC’s jurisdiction, it does not fix the enforcement of ministers and staffers codes of conduct, it does not legislate for rules for political lobbyists, it is silent on the government’s refusal to comply with standing orders regarding the claiming of executive privilege and it does not strengthen parliamentary committee oversight functions. To put it bluntly, while this bill is a step forward in terms of upholding higher standards in workplace behaviour by members, it still leaves the overall integrity standards required by members and ministers in Victoria light-years behind those required in other Australian jurisdictions.

The Greens have a number of amendments we believe are within the objectives of this bill to fully implement the recommendations of relevant integrity reports and hold members and ministers to the highest standards, as is claimed in the bill’s second-reading speech. Under the standing orders, I request kindly that those amendments now be circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Sarah MANSFIELD: My amendments 1 to 10 provide the commission additional powers to further investigate and report should a member fail to comply with a sanction previously imposed upon them. This includes the commission being able to make a finding that noncompliance constitutes serious parliamentary misconduct, effectively upgrading its initial finding.

The Operation Watts report also contains significant discussion on the current problems and ineffectiveness of the privileges committees in investigating MP misconduct and recommending sanctions. Recommendation 3a of the Watts report is unambiguous:

the privileges committees of each House be reformed to dilute the capacity of the majority in each House to determine the privileges committees’ priorities and decision making

The privileges committees are proposed in this bill to play a meaningful new role in relation to the commission’s reporting and investigatory functions. It is very strange, to say the least, that recommendation 3a will not be acquitted by this bill, particularly as the government’s response to the Watts report stated that they would bring legislation to reform the privileges committees before the Parliament. My amendment 18 will acquit recommendation 3a of Operation Watts and the government’s own commitment to reform privileges by amending the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to provide that not more than half the members of the respective Privileges Committee in each house be members of a political party forming the government and that the chairperson of the Privileges Committee must not be a member of a political party forming the government.

Finally, my amendments 11 to 17 propose to ensure that the chair and composition of Parliament’s investigatory committees are likewise sufficiently independent from the government of the day. This is particularly important for the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which is proposed to have significant additional oversight functions of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission in this bill, including a veto power over the minister’s proposed appointment of a commissioner. However, we note that other investigatory committees under the Parliamentary Committees Act have the same functions and responsibilities as the IOC, including veto powers over ministers’ appointments to independent integrity agencies, including the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s veto of proposed appointments of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and PAEC’s direct appointment of the Auditor-General under the Constitution Act 1975. For these legislated veto functions to provide a legitimate check on partisan appointments by government ministers, the membership of these committees must also be sufficiently independent of the government of the day.

What is more, we have witnessed ongoing examples of blatant partisan conduct by government members on these government-dominated committees where the primary objective seems to be to shield the government and the executive from proper scrutiny and oversight. Some government members have quite literally pulled the plug on the working of committees to ensure that uncomfortable facts and criticism of the government and ministers are not heard. It simply defies logic that the bill recognises this inherent problem of government-dominated joint committees in the proposed new ethics committee, yet it fails to fix exactly the same problem in all the other committees. The Greens strongly believe that it is this failure of Parliament’s investigatory committees to provide proper, rigorous oversight of government policy and legislation which has contributed in large part to Victoria’s reputation as the national capital for political scandals, corruption and misconduct as well as poor planning and decision-making, leading to regular cost blowouts and cancellation of major projects.

This is not a partisan criticism of this Labor government. Regardless of who is in power, this pattern will not end until there is proper oversight of the state government of the day. The second-reading speech said that this bill was about upholding the highest standards of integrity; it did not say doing the barest possible we can get away with. The Ombudsman called Victoria the national laggard on integrity. The Centre for Public Integrity rightly points out that Victoria has the weakest and least democratic parliament in Australia. The bill, unamended, does not change these facts. The endless scandal after scandal, the budget blowouts and the subsequent time wasted in this place as we have to have a political fight every time as to whether to create another new committee to investigate these things could all be prevented to a significant degree if we just got our Parliament’s joint investigatory committees to finally start doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that is properly scrutinising, not shielding, the government of the day. Today we have the opportunity to say enough is enough. Victorians deserve the highest standards, and this means passing this bill with our amendments.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:34): Today I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. In doing so I want to emphasise the importance of what we are doing. It has taken time because we knew we had to get this right, and we want to get this right because this is important to all of us. The bill is wide ranging and makes consequential amendments to many acts, including the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 – the IBAC act; the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016; the Local Government Act 2020; the Ombudsman Act 1973; the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968; the Public Administration Act 2004; the Racing Act 1958; and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011.

This bill has 182 pages and, on top of that, has an explanatory memorandum 73 pages long, because we are doing this right. We are doing this to deliver on our commitment to introduce legislation that strengthens the standards of the Parliament and the integrity regimes of Victoria’s Westminster system of government, which will critically bolster the integrity of the parliamentary standards for workplace accountability and behaviour both within the chamber and in our activities as representatives in the community. Victorians should have a strong expectation that their Parliament operates with the highest standards of accountability and integrity, and that is what this legislation will do.

Every workplace should be a respectful and safe environment, whether it be a shop, a hospital, a construction site or of course this Parliament. The Allan Labor government is therefore acting on recommendations from IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman’s report on Operation Watts, ensuring parliamentary standards are in line with community expectations. We will be doing this by first establishing the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, enshrined in legislation, to investigate allegations of parliamentary misconduct and to investigate public interest complaints referred to it by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. This bill will also establish a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser to provide confidential advice and training to members of Parliament and ministers, including parliamentary secretaries. The bill will establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace through the promotion of the members code of conduct and members’ obligations to the Parliament and the community. These bodies will ensure that our workplace is a safe and respectful one while ensuring public confidence and trust in our activities as elected representatives.

The crux is establishing the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, which is critical to a ‘no wrong door’ approach to reporting and investigating misconduct. The commission is accountable to seven fundamental principles which are key to its effective functioning. These are: integrity, independence from political bias or influence, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, respect, safety and fairness. Critically, the role of the commission is to provide an independent and clear mechanism through which reports of misconduct can be made and delivered. Where appropriate the commission may refer the matters to bodies that already exist with jurisdictions over a subject matter. We will have this commission established this year. It will commence operation on 31 December. With $11.9 million set out in the latest budget to support its establishment, this does not include a further $3 million each year going forward to support its operations, which itself is on top of a $8.52 million investment from this government into parliamentary services to support the implementation of Operation Watts recommendations.

In creating this commission it is important that we centre confidentiality and safety in reporting while deterring vexatious complaints and weaponised political attacks. That is why we are ensuring its independence, with the Integrity and Oversight Committee of Parliament monitoring, reviewing and reporting to both houses on its activities and performance as well as having the Victorian Inspectorate for independent oversight of the commission, holding responsibility for ensuring its compliance with procedural fairness and receiving complaints and investigating conduct with the commission and its representatives. This commission allows for those impacted by misconduct in parliamentary workplaces to accept anonymous reports where otherwise individuals or bodies may hesitate to disclose for fear of consequences, and the commission will be able to handle any reports of this nature made from the time of its establishment.

The commission will be comprised of three commissioners, one full-time acting as chair and two that can be appointed on a full-time or sessional basis. This is derived from one of the key elements of the Jenkins report, citing the need to have commissioners with the right skills to deal with inappropriate workplace behaviour and to improve culture. These commissioners will have the authority to receive and address complaints about members of Parliament, ministers and secretaries about parliamentary misconduct. The bill has clearly defined parliamentary misconduct in ways to ensure accountability, integrity and respect in all activities of a member. They include a contravention of the MPs code of conduct, which has, additionally, within this bill been defined to foster a direct obligation on MPs to ensure a respectful and safe workplace and a demonstration of respect for parliamentary standards and integrity; wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of the members register of interests; wilful, repeated or deliberate use of work-related parliamentary allowances; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of electoral office and communication budgets; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation and occupational violence or aggression.

In the case of ministers or parliamentary secretaries, specifically pertaining to their role, parliamentary misconduct is defined as inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour, as I have just described. ‘Serious parliamentary misconduct’ has been defined in this bill as parliamentary misconduct that can be the best described as intentional, wilful or deliberate, occurring frequently or which forms part of a pattern of behaviour or that is serious enough to provide reasonable grounds for a member having to vacate their seat. The commission will have the capacity to refer matters to other appropriate bodies if it is deemed necessary. Criminal matters are expected to be referred to Victoria Police and alleged corruption to IBAC, in line with community expectations. We are centring the needs of victim-survivors by ensuring that the commission does not limit their reporting to other bodies if it has already been reported to them.

This bill has been designed to ensure efficient dispute resolution, minimising formality and facilitating early confidential resolution in appropriate situations. Complaints can be deemed appropriate to be managed through this dispute resolution process at any time in order to achieve that goal as an alternative to conducting an official investigation. If a complaint is regarded to have insufficient evidence to warrant a response, the commission will be required to dismiss it, protecting these processes from being weaponised for political motives. Furthermore, the commission will have the discretion to dismiss any case they determine to be unreasonable and lacking in substance, including vexatious or frivolous complaints.

To reinforce the fact that the commission will not act on politically motivated cases, they will be required to publish guidance on how they come to a decision of dismissal. Any person who provides false or misleading information to the commission can face penalties of up to 12 months imprisonment under this bill. If the commission finds that no parliamentary misconduct has occurred in relation to an investigation, the relevant member or minister will be able to express a preference. It will be up to them as to whether they would like the matter to remain confidential or for it to be brought to Parliament.

This commission has a myriad of provisions and powers to investigate and deal with cases of misconduct, and as such it is critical that there are strict consequences for any attempt to abuse the mechanisms for political gain. If the commission elects to pursue an investigation on a matter, the bill will provide it with the appropriate powers to gain information with consideration to procedural fairness. If a current or former member who is party to an investigation refuses to comply with a reasonable request of the commission, they can face consequences such as the closing of an investigation and sanctions for noncompliance akin to those applied to serious parliamentary misconduct and the reporting of noncompliance to Parliament, which then can be referred to the Privileges Committee to investigate, as would any case of breaching parliamentary privilege or helping to facilitate any motion of contempt against a member to be passed. This holds members accountable to the reasonable investigation process of the committee, further ensuring integrity of its activities.

Following the finalisation of an investigation the committee will prepare a report for the Privileges Committee, or in the case of inappropriate workplace behaviour of a minister or parliamentary secretary, to the Premier. They will in turn be required to table those reports in Parliament unless it is determined not in the public interest by the commission itself. If sanctions for serious parliamentary misconduct or failure to comply with an investigation request are recommended by the commission’s report, the Privileges Committee must invite the implicated member to provide a written response to the sanctions, ensuring procedural fairness at all points of the process. Any sanctions determined by the Privileges Committee or the Premier that are at odds with the commission’s recommendations must be justified in these reports. These provisions will ensure transparency and procedural fairness in any consequence administered following an investigation of both public and parliamentary complaints. Confidentiality requirements through this bill act to protect the referrer of a complaint and investigated parties in the process of an investigation, and the bill creates an offence if the commission knowingly releases information pertaining to an investigation without the authority to do so.

This legislation will establish the current Parliamentary Integrity Adviser role in legislation as an independent officer of Parliament. The integrity officer will be able to give confidential advice, written or verbal, to members of Parliament who seek that advice on a range of complex integrity and ethical issues. Continuing that confidential training and advice to members is crucial to building a safer and more respectful workplace.

Supporting that will be a new Parliamentary Ethics Committee, which this bill establishes as a joint house committee. In that nature it will comprise an equal number of members from each house of Parliament, and then the number of government members will be limited to no more than half, with the requirement of a non-government member on board. The ethics committee will play a role in the appointment of the aforementioned Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, ensuring and upholding the principle of integrity and independence from partisan politics. This sets out a model consistent with Operation Watts, where the ethics committee can promote the MP code of conduct in Parliament and monitor the effectiveness of such activities.

Given the scale and scope of this legislation it is appropriate that there is a review of its operations. Every two years from the bill’s coming into effect a statutory review will take place. This will allow all those with an interest in the legislation to provide feedback, making clear what is working well and where the bill could be enhanced, with strong accountability and strong oversight and a sound reporting and compliance structure drawn from consultation and from recommendations from Operation Watts.

This legislation sets out an overhaul of workplace standards. As I say with most bills, we consulted widely, and you can imagine why, with a bill like this, it is vital. So what stakeholders were consulted? The bill has been informed by consultation, and that consultation was extensive and we engaged with a wide range of stakeholders. That includes government and non-government MPs. It includes our integrity agencies. Acting President, you may know it includes our Presiding Officers, clerks of the Parliament and current Parliamentary Integrity Adviser Professor Charles Sampford, someone I am looking forward to meeting one day. And of course we also consulted with one of the experts in public office across the law, workplace standards, human rights, equal opportunity and gender equality.

At the end of 2023 and again from March to April this year we consulted with the following bodies: IBAC; the Victorian Ombudsman and Victorian Inspectorate; the Privileges Committee; our compliance officers and the Integrity and Oversight Committee; the Department of Parliamentary Services; the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission; the Commission for Gender Equality in the Public Sector; the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner; WorkSafe Victoria; the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office; the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal; the Accountability Round Table; the Centre for Public Integrity; the Victorian Trades Hall Council; the Community and Public Sector Union SPSF branch, which I note is doing fantastic and diligent work representing electorate officers and Parliament staff in Victoria, and I encourage all staff to become members; the Office of Public Prosecutions; the Supreme Court of Victoria; and Victoria Police. The reality is most stakeholders supported the features of this bill, and we thank them for their input. We thank them for their help and their assistance in getting it done. I note they include integrity agencies, who typically agreed that the bill acquits relevant recommendations from Operation Watts, but we will continue to collaborate closely with stakeholders.

We will work right across the aisle to support the passage of this bill through this place and the other to ensure that entities that are established can operate as intended. The Allan Labor government understands the importance of strong parliamentary standards and integrity, and that is why we are bringing these standards up to community expectation. Everybody deserves to feel respected and safe in a workplace, and Parliament is no exception to that. The establishment of strong oversight, upheld by the commission, built in the spirit of and with recommendations from Operation Watts and the joint ethics committee comprising all sides of politics, sets out clearly the Allan Labor government’s commitment to integrity. We know current arrangements are inconsistent and inadequate in contrast to other workplaces, and that is why we are getting this done. I hope today the whole chamber will join to support this important bill.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:49): I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, and I do so to make a few points following my colleague Mr Mulholland’s contribution on this important matter that we are debating today. My colleague in the other place Mr O’Brien has eloquently spoken on this issue in his contribution. He has laid out what the genesis of this bill is all about, and of course we know and the public know what it is all about. It is about the unfortunate and very undignified behaviour of some MPs. They have conducted themselves in a way that is not befitting and not appropriate, and for members of Parliament standards should be much higher. I am talking about a number of Labor MPs – a former Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the Legislative Assembly – who disgracefully rorted taxpayers money. A former minister used his taxpayer-funded ministerial car to chauffeur dogs around – his pet dogs, no less. Extraordinary. We have seen through many years –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: That was Mr Nardella supposedly living in a caravan, yet no-one ever saw him in the caravan park. He rorted taxpayers money, Mr Mulholland. It is extraordinary. We saw through the red shirts saga that unfortunately the public did not understand the extent of what that meant. We just listened to Mr Berger talking about integrity – there was no integrity with what went on with the red shirts and the disgraceful abuse of taxpayer-funded money under Labor. A Labor Speaker of the Parliament, a Labor Deputy Speaker, a Labor minister, Labor MPs and ministers were involved in red shirts, and now we have got two Labor MPs sitting on the backbench because they have been booted from Labor in this term of Parliament because of their conduct. I am saddened that we have to be speaking to this bill, but that is the genesis of it.

Can I remind members that Operation Watts was a referral from this house by the Liberals and Nationals to look into that rorting by Labor MPs. So it is in the culture of Labor to undertake these issues, and it is extraordinary to hear the words come out of Labor MPs to even speak about integrity. They really need to take a good hard look at themselves and understand what integrity means – it certainly does not mean ripping off the taxpayer, which they have done. If we look at the recent allegations around CFMEU misconduct – and the close associations of that rorting of taxpayer money with ghost shifts, overblown budgets, kickbacks and a whole range of things – the government is not serious about that rorting either. But I digress from the importance of this bill.

What this bill will do is respond to a number of recommendations that the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, and the Victorian Ombudsman made in Operation Watts, the joint investigation by those two important agencies into the misbehaviour of various Labor MPs and their misuse of public resources. As I said, that investigation was actually instigated by the Liberals and Nationals, and I am pleased to say that we took it seriously, and that is why the matters were referred to these important agencies. There were 21 recommendations as a result of that, and there are a number of those recommendations that the government is acting upon. In Mr O’Brien’s and Mr Mulholland’s contributions they talked about how the actual commission will work, what the bill intends to do, how the commission will be set up and what it intends to do to be able to take complaints around bullying, sexual harassment and misconduct – all of those serious allegations and obviously the misuse of taxpayer-funded money – in our roles as MPs.

I have got to say when this bill was first drafted and came to the opposition, there were many flaws in it. It has taken a long time to get to this point where we are debating it in this house today, and there are still issues with it that remain unresolved. I have to commend my colleague Mr O’Brien on the work that he has done – considering where the bill started from – in pointing out the issues around the inconsistencies in the bill and the issues that we still strongly believe in, and I will come to one of those in a moment.

But it has come a long way, and that is as a result of not only the opposition but other crossbench members who have also given feedback and had input into what they consider to be important. I want to commend the Greens for their efforts in this too, and I know that they have put a number of amendments. One of those amendments is to look at the seriousness of the nature of misconduct being elevated, if need be, and that is entirely appropriate. However, there are some concerns around what we do see as an unlevel playing field in relation to legal representation should an MP’s complaint go to the commission. While ministers have a legal defence or legal support from the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA), every other member of the Parliament does not. So that is a concern to us. That is not fair.

If you look at it, while we are talking about this, it was the officeholders of the highest order in this place, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, who actually rorted the system in the most disgraceful manner – ministers abusing taxpayer-funded money through chauffeuring dogs in their taxpayer-funded cars. They would essentially have support with legal representation, whereas if anyone else had a complaint against them and were seeking for it to be put forward before the commission, they would have to pay their own legal fees. That is not fair, and that is not right, given the nature of what has gone on. Let us not forget the red shirts rorts, which was cooked up by the former Premier Daniel Andrews and a bevy of ministers who were involved in that red shirts scandal. Why should they have legal representation if a complaint like that comes before the commission yet again? Acting President Galea, you as a backbencher would not have that legal support, and I think you, like me, are quite concerned about that, as you probably should be. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am sure, by the look on your face, that quite rightly there are concerns around this issue. As I said, I do not want to put words into your mouth on that, but I am just looking at your expression, because –

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: I apologise, Acting President. I do not want to reflect on you, but it is quite a serious matter and we do need to get this right. The point is I think we need to get it right on behalf of all MPs, and that is the point that Mr O’Brien has very much been in dialogue with the government over for many, many months around this issue, and it is one that is a sticking point for the Liberals and Nationals.

There are a range of other things that the commission may be able to do should such a complaint come before them in relation to what they may be able to do. They may direct a referral at any time to a specified entity where more appropriate, such as an integrity body like IBAC; the Ombudsman; a law enforcement agency such as Victoria Police if there was a very serious complaint made about an issue; a prosecutorial body; the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission; the coroner; the Privileges Committee; or the Presiding Officer of a house, either the Speaker or the President, as we can do now. Of course we can also do that with the Privileges Committee, a very important committee of this Parliament and a committee that needs to uphold its independence and be able to do the work that it needs to do in the interests of what the Parliament is here for on behalf of the Victorian community and to be able to hold that important position. The commission may also redirect a referral to a person or body with an appropriate public or official function and a prescribed person or body, as outlined in clause 14 of the bill.

The other issue in relation to anything around these referrals from the commission is that they have got to be done as expeditiously as possible and with as little formality as is appropriate, meaning that you do not want a complaint that has come before, say, an MP to be hanging around. If this body is set up, then that complaint needs to be dealt with. Obviously there could be, from time to time, vexatious complaints, and the commission can look at those and rule them out accordingly, because they diminish the serious nature of some of the very serious complaints that I have referred to that need to be addressed. The commission will be able to rule out any vexatious or minor complaints, and that is why a referral must be acted on immediately or thereabouts.

There is a huge amount in this bill. There has been a lot of discussion around it. There are a whole range of issues in it. It has been a complex matter, and I have to say again that from the outset when the bill was first provided to the opposition, it has come a long way. I am not sure that those issues have been completely resolved as such, but we will find out as the debate goes on. I do not want to be speaking on this bill, to be honest, but we are speaking on the bill. It has come about because of what has happened – the history in this place over recent years. It is those Labor MPs that cannot be trusted, whether it is the rorting of taxpayers money or whether their behaviour has been completely inappropriate and unbecoming to members of Parliament and very demeaning for those that are affected. It is a real shame that I have to be up here speaking about it.

It is up to all of us to understand that the positions that we hold in here as elected representatives of our communities are incredibly important. They should not be diminished; they should be absolutely respected. Unfortunately, as I said, I do not think the community knew the gravity of the red shirts rorts. They bunch us all into this unfortunate area of not being able to be trusted. The community needs to have faith in the process, in the government, in the officials that are the executive of government and in the officials, the department secretaries and those that are actually making decisions on their behalf. It is incredibly important that we uphold those very sound principles around what it means to be in this place.

Unfortunately, the systemic actions of the Labor Party have brought us to debating this bill. It is that simple. That is something that I just cannot get away from, because it is extremely disappointing for the rest of us that have to be caught up in the scrutiny and the strict adherence to what we are expected to do. We should not have to do that; we should just know it. Nevertheless there is integrity that needs to be brought back to this place because of the rorting and the bad behaviour and misconduct by some Labor MPs in recent years, as I have outlined, and this bill goes to restoring that integrity.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:04): I am just going to speak briefly on this bill as the second speaker for the Greens, because I think Dr Mansfield outlined our position very clearly. I also want to thank all members across the chamber for their contributions. I think this was one of those times where everyone contributed something useful and interesting to the debate on the bill, which is always pleasing and especially important for the gravity that this bill brings to this house.

Back in 2019, on behalf of the Greens, I did move amendments to a government bill titled the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Bill 2019 to create the office of parliamentary integrity commissioner with investigation and reporting powers with regard to members conduct – very similar to what has been proposed in this bill today. Even back then I think we all knew it was obvious that we needed an independent commissioner if we were to lift the standards of behaviour of MPs. Certainly the former Leader of the Government in this place Gavin Jennings was a big proponent of establishing a commissioner, but his plans were blocked by the former Premier and Labor also ended up voting against our amendments.

As we now know, the government’s improving Parliament standards bill of 2019 did not improve the conduct of members of the Victorian Parliament. I am not going to go into all of the allegations and scandals one by one. Suffice to say, if anything, member standards actually appear to have steadily regressed the passage of that bill, so I certainly regret the fact that a commission was not established half a decade ago, and it would be really interesting to know if the former Premier too now regrets that he blocked establishing a commission back then given subsequent events. I bring up this history not in order to gloat or to say to the government ‘We told you so’ but because I think it provides an example of the important point my colleague Dr Mansfield raised, which is that far too much action on improving integrity, governance and standards is implemented retrospectively and only after the scandals have been splashed all across our newspapers, forcing the government to finally act.

When we know that there are objective integrity standards that Victoria is currently failing to meet, that the Ombudsman recently labelled Victoria the national laggard on integrity and when we know other Australian jurisdictions have stronger anti-corruption commissions, more democratic parliaments, more powerful parliamentary oversight committees, actual laws in regard to political lobbying and more transparent FOI schemes, is it really acceptable for the Victorian government to keep on doing nothing to improve political integrity and block other efforts to do so until it is forced to because of 60 Minutes running a story on industrial-scale branch stacking or Robert Redlich writing a letter accusing government MPs of improper conduct on committees or persistent complaints of inappropriate workplace behaviour by government MPs?

We have an opportunity with the belated introduction of this bill to actually take some proactive steps to raise standards with regard to Parliament’s joint investigatory committees. I urge all MPs in this chamber to support Dr Mansfield’s amendments, because we cannot have a situation where this Parliament recognises that government-dominated joint committees cannot effectively undertake their oversight functions and hold the government of the day to account, including the potential veto of government appointments – as this bill recognises in regard to requirements on the make-up of the proposed new ethics committee – while at the same time leaving all the other investigatory committees, such as the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) and the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC), which have the same oversight role and the same kinds of veto powers on appointments dominated by government.

For those non-government members who have been talking a big game on improving political integrity; who throw around accusations of government corruption, secrecy and cover-up in every utterance; who call for select committee after select committee seemingly every month; who shrill endlessly about government chairs on committees running defence for ministers as witnesses; and who claim that they are all about shining a light on Labor’s largesse and waste, I say to you: here is your moment. Here is your opportunity to have strong, ongoing committees that will be able to forensically examine the performance of government ministers and departmental heads, similar to what we see in the Commonwealth estimates system. Here is your opportunity to hold as many powerful inquiries into government rorts, stuff-ups and cost blowouts as you care to allege. Most of all, here is your opportunity to be able to legitimately show Victorians that you would hold yourself to a higher integrity standard were you to be granted the privilege of forming government in the future. Will you seize this moment, or will you show Victorians that you have no more integrity and transparency than the current Labor government?

Today we all get to see if the state opposition is genuine about improving political integrity in Victoria, fixing the broken system and ending corruption in this state both now and into the future or if it is all big talk on integrity or just theatre. These changes we are proposing will test if the opposition are more concerned with principles or performances. To be or not to be – that is the question for the opposition on Dr Mansfield’s amendments. I fear once again they may choose not to be and that the opposition will lose the name of action, as Shakespeare wrote so many years ago.

I have amendments to the bill that effect a weaker change to what has been proposed by Dr Mansfield in regard to reform of the joint investigatory committees by seeking to reform the IOC and PAEC separately as discrete amendments. I kindly ask that these be now circulated, and I will speak more to them in the committee stage.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:10): This bill will deliver a significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight. It promotes the highest standard of conduct and integrity of all members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The bill empowers the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to independently receive, manage, investigate and resolve complaints about MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It enables the commission to impose or recommend sanctions where complaints have been substantiated. It provides for the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser to provide confidential advice and education to MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries on ethical and integrity matters. This is critical as there can be no place for ambiguity or lack of understanding when it comes to upholding ethical standards.

This bill has been quite unique because there was extensive consultation across the Parliament and with all of the parties over months and months as it was being developed. I do thank the team who worked on that consultation and made the changes in response to the feedback, whether it was feedback from the Liberals or Labor or the Greens or others. That has really made for a better piece of legislation, and I am genuinely interested in the amendments that will be coming forward today and in following their progress. If we look back in history, I would say that both sides of this chamber and this Parliament have had the occasional inappropriate conduct, and I am not going to pass any judgement on any of that history. None of us is really in a position to pointscore in this space, and I do not intend to.

This bill enables the Parliamentary Ethics Committee to monitor the effectiveness of the statement of values and the MP code of conduct. It will promote the MP code of conduct in Parliament and to the community. Critically, it will encourage an appropriate culture at Parliament around workplace standards and integrity by preparing guidance materials and information and training for MPs on integrity and ethical issues. I have to say I did have occasion to google the MPs code of conduct, and it is pretty much still in the legislative format. It is not really like what you would normally see, say, in the public sector code of conduct, which is formatted in a much more accessible and useful and interpreted version, so I look forward to that.

The bill also updates the MP code of conduct to create positive obligations for MPs to ensure a safe workplace and demonstrate respect for parliamentary standards and integrity. This bill is about reinforcing that a safe and respectful workplace is not negotiable. Victorians expect the parliamentary system to operate with the highest standards of integrity and accountability. The current arrangements are inadequate and do not meet the standards of other workplaces, and this bill seeks to remedy that. After all, we should all try to work, to live and to conduct ourselves to the same standards that this place legislates for across our state.

The bill is informed from the extensive work done in the Jenkins report and Operation Watts. Seven recommendations from the IBAC and Victorian Ombudsman report from the operation will be implemented with this bill. This is no tiny piece of legislation. This is perhaps the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in this country. It will see the very first legislated parliamentary investigation commission in Australia and perhaps, most importantly, the only parliamentary investigation commission that covers ministers. This year we will see the commission established, with this bill commencing at the end of December 2024. The commission itself will be an independent body with up to three commissioners appointed. As taken from the Jenkins report, the commissioners will need to have the right skills to deal with any reports or investigations into inappropriate workplace behaviour and to improve culture within the workplace. Just to correct something that was said previously this morning, the skilled commissioners will be fully independent, and a person will not be eligible to be a commissioner if they have been a member of an Australian Parliament, a member of a local council, a member of a registered political party or on the register of lobbyists within the last five years. Commissioners will have skills and expertise in critical areas such as government, law, public governance, industrial relations or public sector ethics and integrity.

The Allan Labor government has ensured that the commission will have the ability to take complaints about the parliamentary conduct of MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Importantly complaints can be made anonymously by any person to the commission. Allowing anonymous complaints encourages and emboldens people who might not feel comfortable making a public complaint. A ‘no wrong door’ approach will adopt a positive lean towards that option. This will ensure that all matters are dealt with by the most appropriate integrity body. Adopting this approach also means the commission can receive public interest disclosures regarding current or former MPs, ministers or parliamentary secretaries. These disclosures will be referred to IBAC for assessment. A disclosure that meets the definition of parliamentary misconduct can be referred back to the commission for investigation. Again, I think this is a really important triage process. Just because a complaint or a disclosure may be lodged does not automatically mean that there will be an investigation; they need to meet a certain standard.

Parliamentary misconduct where it relates to a current MP is defined within the bill as breaches of the MP code of conduct; wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of the members register of interests; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of work-related parliamentary allowances; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electorate office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour. These levels of misconduct are not some small thing, and they will ensure that all MPs and ministers are very clear about their responsibilities. Parliamentary misconduct is defined as inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour and applies to all current and former MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries if such conduct was engaged in whilst they were in their role as an MP, so it can be retrospective but not prior to the start of the bill.

The protection of the rights and wellbeing of all people involved in the reporting and investigation process is paramount. That is why the bill contains appropriate safeguards on the commission’s discretion and powers. These safeguards include the commission having the power to issue confidentiality notices to ensure the privacy, safety and welfare of those involved in an investigation. To the best of this bill’s ability this will prevent the politicisation of this integrity process. I know that some of my colleagues in the chamber have mentioned concerns about that, and I think it is very important that we acknowledge that.

All investigations will be subject to appropriate procedural fairness and protections. This bill will ensure that the commission will not prejudice legal or criminal investigations or proceedings conducted by other integrity agencies. It provides for a criminal offence for a person providing false or misleading information to the commission, and it refers to vexatious referrals as well. Where a complaint is received by the commission, they will first be required to determine whether or not the complaint is within their jurisdiction or if it is for another more appropriate integrity body. Complaints that relate to conduct prior to the commission being established must be dismissed, which is that reassurance that this is not retrospective legislation. Where a complaint is not supported by sufficient evidence it must also be dismissed, and again this will prevent that misuse of it for political purposes.

Discretion will be afforded to the commission to dismiss a complaint – and I think this is absolutely important – where it lacks substance and credibility; it is trivial, frivolous or vexatious; it has not been made in good faith; it relates to an allegation or conduct engaged in at a time that is too remote to justify investigation; or it is otherwise unjustifiable or unnecessary to deal with. The commission will also have discretion to dismiss any complaint that has been dealt with by another integrity body, a law enforcement agency, an entity with powers to require production of documents or to answer questions or a prescribed entity. The commission will deal with complaints as quickly and with as little formality as possible. Justice is also about swift justice.

As this is an important part of the commission’s framework, several avenues will be open to the commission, such as appropriate dispute resolution processes. Dispute resolution will occur when all parties agree to this process. I think that is very important because sometimes in some workplaces, private or public, broadly speaking, the use of mediation inadvertently on occasion has the impact of retraumatising the victim or putting the victim in an unsafe environment. It is sometimes quite naively used in that way, and the management do not even realise. An outcome report will be prepared by the commission at the conclusion of a dispute resolution process, unless it is determined not to be in the public interest to do so.

Any current or former MP that does not comply with the investigation request without a reasonable excuse may be reported by the commission to the relevant house. The commission does not have coercive investigative powers. The commission is required to issue guidelines regarding its function and must outline a person’s rights and responsibilities when they are issued with an investigation request. Where sanctions are recommended or required there are several remedies available to the commission, who may directly impose those sanctions. If a complaint is found to be of a serious nature, improper conduct or detrimental action matters are found to be substantiated, the commission may only recommend a sanction to a relevant oversight entity such as the Premier or the Privileges Committee. Other sanctions may include withdrawal of services, removal of access to certain facilities or any other personal restriction.

Just before I close, I want to say that this bill – as is often the case with a piece of legislation, but not always – is needed because a very small minority of MPs, historically over many previous parliaments a small number, have not conducted themselves according to the traditions, protocol and respect that this place deserves and the rules around the handling of money and conflicts of interest and roles. I would say that on the whole, from my experience in the 60th Parliament, most but not all of my interactions I have noted to be of a very appropriate and respectful nature. This bill is the result of extensive consultation across the political landscape. It is literally the Parliament’s bill. Planning has already begun to establish the commission this year, and I look forward to the establishment of the commission and seeing it begin to complete its incredibly important work.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:25): Thank you for the call today on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I understand that there are a range of speakers coming to join us in the debate on this bill before us today, so before I continue on with my remarks can I take a moment to say thank you and to acknowledge the work that has gone on to bring it before us today, including the contributions made by members already in this chamber. As I understand it and as has been said, there are a range of contributions and feedback and some really collaborative efforts that have gone into bringing this bill to us today. My thanks to members for those efforts. I too have looked into this bill with great interest and enthusiasm, because as members of Parliament it really is the expectation that we act with the utmost composure and credibility worthy of the offices that we all hold. This bill before us aims to ensure that the high standards of behaviour for all members of Parliament are met. Every Victorian indeed has the right to a safe and respectful workplace free from harm, mistreatment and harassment. Whether you work in an office here or at the other end of the city or indeed anywhere out in our community, can I just say in this place that you deserve to feel safe and secure every day you go to work.

The new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will play a key role in examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation. It also will provide a really crucial avenue for complaints to be heard and investigated through a proper process. There is some honesty that has been shared in this room already. I will continue to say that we know that current arrangements are inadequate, and I too would lend my voice to that and say that there is inconsistency with the standards that we uphold here in the Parliament with respect to other workplaces right around the state. It is our job as community leaders to stamp out this toxic behaviour in any way that we can, and as members of Parliament we must be kept accountable for misdeeds and provide avenues for people to call out really disgusting behaviours that have no place in our community so that we can all enjoy a Parliament and politics that is free from harm, free from victimisation and free indeed from abuse of any kind.

Whilst we all have some very firm views as members of Parliament – and I understand that many members have made some very substantial contributions in the development of this bill – I also think it is worth noting and calling out and providing a vote of thanks to all the people who have helped inform this view by standing up, by being brave enough to share their stories and by calling out bad behaviour when it has happened, when they have seen it or indeed when they have survived it. This bill before us is in part because of your bravery and your stories and your resilience. We are adding more protections to staff and the staff of the future through increased accountability for MPs. Can I also say that I am very happy to report that this bill draws on the groundbreaking work of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Jenkins report, led by Kate Jenkins, whose work would be known to so many of us. It allows for the commission to investigate the behaviour of MPs as well as implementing all seven recommendations from the IBAC and Victorian Ombudsman’s report into Operation Watts. This change will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country and a welcome change and commitment from this government to the safety and security of everybody in this place.

When an MP’s behaviour is not meeting the expected standards, there are a wide range of sanctions that are available to be used either by the commission, by a chamber or indeed by the Premier. If a parliamentary misconduct matter is substantiated, the commission, a house of Parliament or the Premier will have the power to directly impose or recommend sanctions of any of the following – and I think it is worth listing them for the benefit of the chamber. It may be the issuing of a public apology in a manner and form determined by the commission. It may be to give a written apology or explanation to an affected person. It may be to participate in an education or training program determined by the commission, participation in mediation with an affected person, or to enter into a behaviour agreement with the Presiding Officer of the house of which they are a member. It may be a requirement to give a written apology or explanation to an affected person; a requirement to participate in a facilitated meeting with an affected person; withdrawal of services, removal of access to certain facilities or any other personal restriction relating to functions of the minister or parliamentary secretary or member; any other sanction that the commission considers appropriate; and lastly, discharge from a parliamentary committee. These sanctions aim to ensure that when members of Parliament behave badly they can be handled appropriately and managed in a way that keeps up with the high standards and expectations demanded by the Victorian public.

These commissioners will be independent officers of Parliament, similar to the heads of the other independent bodies, like the commissioner of IBAC or the Ombudsman. The bill before us outlines the required skills and experience for commissioners. One that I think is really important includes expertise in public sector ethics and integrity, industrial relations or gender-based violence issues. You see, different kinds of methods can be used to instil really a sense of confidence within the processes of the Parliament, and that is why we are ensuring that these major positions surrounding integrity are not politically motivated. That is why, in order to maintain public confidence and avoid potential conflicts of interest, the bill actually specifies that to be considered for the commissioner role you cannot have held the role of a current or former member of any Australian Parliament, not just the Victorian Parliament – that is an important thing to note there, that it is any Australian Parliament – within the last five years. This is really a simple and practical step to ensuring transparency and accountability for all those in this place.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee of Parliament has been mentioned by previous speakers, and I will just add that that committee will monitor, review and report on the commission’s performance to ensure support for proposed commissioners from all MPs regardless of their political party affiliation. This is the most significant parliamentary oversight reform in decades. It is really critical that the reform has broad support and that appointed commissioners have the confidence of all members of Parliament, as integrity and accountability must really be multipartisan. We are the only government in Australia undertaking such ambitious changes to holders of public office. Under the bill before us, the Victorian Inspectorate will provide independent oversight of the commission by ensuring compliance with procedural fairness, monitoring the commission’s use of its investigation powers, receiving complaints about the commission and investigating the conduct of the commission and its officers.

This bill is truly designed for true claims – and I think this is important to really examine here – that should be based entirely in fact. No-one wants a parliament wasting its time on politically motivated complaints that have no bearing on real misconduct. The commission will be empowered to dismiss complaints on a range of grounds, including if they lack substance or credibility, are not made in good faith, are unsupported by sufficient evidence or are trivial, vexatious or made on frivolous grounds. The bill also empowers the commission to dismiss complaints if the person who made the complaint has been aware of the alleged conduct for more than 12 months.

The bill also includes confidentiality protections to protect the integrity of investigations and the privacy of people involved in matters. In investigating, the commission will be bound by the rules of procedural fairness, and we will require the commission, with the bill before us today, to issue guidelines on how it will dismiss complaints, including complaints that are unfounded or politically motivated, as I mentioned before. As I said, we are very much keen to ensure that anyone in this place who wants to weaponise or politicise the work of the commission is very much limited. The bill introduces commissioners as independent officers of Parliament.

There is so much more that I could speak to, but can I take a moment in what few minutes I have got left to talk about the commission and how complaints may be received, because I think it is really important to note that the commission will promote a sort of ‘no wrong door’ approach for complaints about misconduct and be able to give and receive referrals to ensure matters are dealt with by the most appropriate integrity body. It is fair to say that not all complaints would go through this body – there may be other appropriate integrity and oversight bodies to investigate claims. This includes the commission’s ability to receive public interest disclosures about current and former members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. You will see in the bill there are some references to disclosures to IBAC for assessment as a clearing house for public interest disclosures. If IBAC in fact determines that a disclosure is a public interest complaint that meets the definition of parliamentary misconduct, it can refer it back to the commission for investigation.

In relation to any current MP, the bill defines ‘parliamentary misconduct’ as breaches of the MP code of conduct; wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of the members register of interests; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of work-related parliamentary allowances; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electorate office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour. In relation to a person in their capacity as a minister or parliamentary secretary, the bill defines ‘parliamentary misconduct’ as ‘inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour’. Parliamentary misconduct applies to former MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries if the conduct was engaged in when they were an MP, minister or parliamentary secretary – I think that is really important to note. Parliamentary misconduct also applies to former members of Parliament in their capacity as a former member if it relates to a breach of section 15 of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, which applies to former members, who must not take improper advantage of any office held as a member of Parliament after they cease to be a member.

There is more to speak of in this. Can I just say that the commission will have the power to issue confidentiality notices to protect the privacy, safety, welfare and reputation of those involved in an investigation as the circumstances obviously require. It is a step that can protect those wishing to do the right thing. No-one should be punished for telling the truth. People subject to such notices will still be able to seek advice and support as appropriate, and additional investigations will also be subject to appropriate procedural fairness protections. The commission will be mandated to not prejudice legal or criminal investigations or proceedings by other integrity agencies, and it will be a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information to the commission, such as false complaints. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the house, and I look forward to other contributions by members today.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:40): I also rise to make a contribution on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, and I am very pleased to do so. This is an important bill. It gives voice to and deals with a number of important issues. As parliamentarians in this place, we should all ensure that we uphold behaviour of the highest standards. This is a workplace. We should all ensure that each of us in here has a safe and respectful workplace.

Our workplace is unique. Obviously, there is rough-and-tumble in here. There is robust debate and the like, but I do think a line can be drawn about that. Sometimes I actually think in here that we do work in a very toxic and hostile workplace. I think there is a line to be drawn. I think sometimes in here that people do in fact cross that line. I will just point out that even yesterday, in my contribution on the motion with the CFMEU integrity inquiry that got defeated, I think I had only been on my feet for less than a minute or so before those opposite were hurling abuse at me – and interjections. Interjections are fine. That is what happens in this place, but excessive interjections are unruly. I think what it does is raises the level of the debate to where then all voices are raised and we all end up shouting at each other. I think sometimes kinder kids are better behaved.

We need to remind ourselves too that parliamentary proceedings are live streamed, so people can actually see us behaving like this. I sometimes think that some people think it gives them licence to really unleash their true inner self and behave in ways that are not really appropriate or are really nasty, and that is not appropriate. I think it is also good for us just as individuals to reflect on how we conduct ourselves in here as well. Some people will take up that opportunity as a consequence of this bill coming into place, which is a great thing. Others will not, because they love it, and that is a matter for them. But we all bring our whole selves to work, and we need to remind ourselves of that. So as I said, we need to remember that this is a workplace.

The new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill sets up a commission, and it will have a key role in examining the behaviours of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation. These are things that should not happen in this workplace. Up until now, if you were experiencing those things, it was actually quite difficult to make a complaint or even have it dealt with, because there is actually no process. I think one of the things that is really critically important in any workplace is that there needs to be a process to deal with behaviour – complainants need to be able to come forward without feeling that they may be victimised or intimidated in any way – and a process that can fully ventilate someone’s complaint and afford the other person procedural fairness and natural justice in being able to respond to that.

Sadly, I have also seen in this place people make fake allegations and fake complaints about other members, and I think that is disgusting. I really think it is disgusting. I myself, as a former trade unionist, would never, ever make a false allegation about somebody, no matter what I felt about them. It is just not within my personality to do that. I understand that in here, like I said before, we have robust debate and we may disagree on things, but making a fake complaint is really beneath contempt. There have absolutely been examples of that. I myself have experienced it in this chamber this year as well from a number of people. Bullying and harassment absolutely need to be stamped out.

The bottom line – we need to remember and reflect on this – is that bullying or harassing someone or intimidating someone or victimising someone does not change one vote. It does not change a single vote. So then I ask why people think that it is okay to treat each other in that way. Do they think that it is going to force the government into capitulating on something? I really do not know. I really have no idea. But as I said, I think sometimes some people in this place really like to think that it gives voice to their true inner selves, and they are not really pleasant people or people with a pleasant way of operating. As a former trade union official I know that I have been called in to look at workplaces that have been hostile and toxic. Whilst it may not be able to be pinned down to particular actions or processes or whatever, the general culture in a place – I do not want to use the words ‘the vibe of the thing’, because it kind of demeans what I am talking about, but culture matters. The way that –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Absolutely. It is about how the way that we treat each other within this culture creates hostility and toxicity. That is something that I look forward to in the work of the commission perhaps in the future and further down the track. Whilst they will be looking at our processes and practices there may be opportunities to look further and a bit deeper into the role that Parliament has in the way that we conduct debates.

This bill will strengthen Victoria’s parliamentary standards and integrity framework by establishing the existing Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation to provide confidential advice and training to members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The integrity adviser is already on the beat. You can go to him and ask for advice about any actions that you may take as an individual, and he will give you advice as to whether there are any integrity issues about it.

The bill will also establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace. Ethics is a really interesting thing. As a lawyer I have also been trained in ethics. Sometimes people might have different points of view about ethics, but it is not appropriate to come in here and make baseless accusations about unethical practices just because people might think that it is politically expedient to do so. I am sad to say that there has been a lot of rhetoric about corruption, unethical practices and the like that really does not pass the pub test. It is just a way of trying to throw mud at the government and government members as well. I have noticed that government members particularly get singled out, not only by the Liberal opposition but also by crossbenchers who think that they can make baseless accusations about all manner of things. I think that is something that is inappropriate, but it continues to happen, and it goes back to my earlier comments about the way that people think that they can conduct themselves.

There is also just the general tone of making threats to MPs. There were earlier scenes, prior to the break earlier this year, where some MPs stood out the front of Parliament. There was abuse hurled at people, and even threats about retribution that MPs might face because of their particular stance or non-stance on an issue. Really, MPs have a duty and an obligation as leaders in their community to set standards. It is not appropriate to incite people to be in such a state that they might think that it is okay to take steps to threaten or commit acts of violence or even vandalism. We saw this year that MPs’ offices were damaged and attacked. These are things that I find particularly disappointing that as leaders in our community some members of Parliament wholeheartedly embrace and think are okay. I think they are disgraceful acts, and we all need to remember that those actions will not change one vote.

Whether I am in here in the Parliament or whether I am in my electorate office or even working in my electorate, that is my workplace. That is my entire workplace, and I would like to think I could go about my elected duties. People like the Victorian public in my region elected me to represent them, and I should be able to go about my duties without feeling threatened, intimidated or like at any moment my electorate office and my staff – quite frankly I take very seriously their health and safety and wellbeing – might have to deal with someone who is completely violent and has come to my electorate office to vandalise or inflict damage on the office. That is something that they need to deal with as well. Again, I urge members in this place to think about the consequences of their actions, because it is not going to change one vote if you vandalise an MP’s office – it is just not. So it is also important that this bill will be amending the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, including updating the MP code of conduct to create positive obligations for members to create a safe workplace and demonstrate respect for the commission and the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, and amending other relevant acts to integrate the commission and the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser into Victoria’s existing parliamentary standards and integrity framework. These are important matters.

Under the bill members of Parliament will have a positive obligation to foster a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment in the parliamentary workplace that is free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. These are the things that I just spoke to previously. These are important, and we can do better. All of us in this place can do better. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and forcefully putting your views, but there is a line, and like I said earlier, I think in this place that line is often crossed. There are ways in which you can prosecute your view, and like I said, disagreeing with someone is not bullying and harassment. Asking for something to be done in a competent way is also not bullying and harassment. Doing what you are asked to do by somebody and then a person saying, ‘Hey, that wasn’t what I asked you to do; I’d like you to now do what I’ve asked you to do’ – that is not bullying or harassment. But that goes to what I am concerned about, actually, which is fake complaints. Someone who might be trying to cover up their incompetence on a matter or something they have done will then say, ‘Well, I feel like I’m being bullied and harassed now, because I’ve been asked to do my job.’ They are concerning aspects to this bill, but the good thing about that now is that we will have a process that can inquire into these types of matters and get to the bottom of what really happened.

Victorians expect and deserve that their elected representatives behave in ways that basically lead. We are leaders in our community, and we need to make sure that we demonstrate respect for parliamentary standards, including respect for the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission by complying with a reasonable request made. Again, I will just give an example of what happens in this chamber. Like I said yesterday, interjections are fine, but there is a constant stream of interjections from those opposite, and constant and excessive interjections are unruly. Now, government members – I know Mr Mulholland is smiling – are subject to constant attacks. Like I said, there is a line to be drawn. We can do better and we should.

There are a range of complaints that can be made under the bill, and I have just gone to a range of things that can be inquired into, but under the bill the commission will have jurisdiction to receive complaints about members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries and about parliamentary misconduct. A person can make a report to the commission, including anonymously. One of things I get concerned about is that if I raise a concern about a member in this place, the next thing I am faced with is, like, 10 complaints back as a way of me being victimised or the retaliation or retribution that I then face. So this is a good thing. It is a good thing that people be able to make a complaint without fear or favour. The commission being allowed to receive anonymous complaints will encourage people to report misconduct, as I said, without fear of reprisal or potential repercussions. This is important, and this is consistent with recommendations from the Jenkins report and is consistent with complaints to IBAC and Victoria’s public interest disclosure scheme.

The commission will promote a ‘no wrong door’ approach for complaints about misconduct and be able to give and receive referrals to ensure matters are dealt with by the most appropriate integrity body. This includes the commission’s ability to receive public interest disclosures about current and former members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The commission will refer these disclosures to IBAC for assessment as the clearing house for public interest disclosures. If IBAC determines that a disclosure is a public interest complaint but also meets the definition of parliamentary misconduct, it can refer it back to the commission for investigation.

In relation to any current MP, the bill defines parliamentary misconduct as breaches of the MP code of conduct; a wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of the members register of interests; a wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of work-related parliamentary expenses; a wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electoral office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour. So again, I look forward to the important work that will happen as a consequence of this bill passing through our chamber. I know there are some amendments that will be no doubt debated and discussed in committee. But I also look forward to the setting up of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, and there will be some appropriate and eminent people appointed to that.

In closing, our workplace is a weird animal of a workplace. It is strange. It is like no other workplace. But it does not mean that we cannot do more or do better to improve things. We will not be here forever. We have also got to remember we want to encourage younger people into the Parliament, to stand in politics, and we want to make sure that they can feel like this workplace is somewhere that they could actually walk into and do the job that they are elected to do. So we learn and grow together, but we also need to make sure that we do better – and we can.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (11:55): I rise to make a brief contribution – it might necessarily be brief at the moment – to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. The bill follows a long process and follows the Operation Watts report and a range of other integrity reports that have been brought to the Parliament over the recent period. It establishes a workplace standards and integrity commission. It establishes a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. It seeks to establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee as a joint committee of the Parliament and make a number of consequential and related amendments.

There are all sorts of issues with this bill. The idea that we need better parliamentary standards is a reasonable one. Certainly last year I spent time in the Westminster Parliament talking to a number of the secretaries of committees over there about the model that they have adopted, and there is I think a lot to learn from what is occurring overseas. Certainly I think in many respects they had a deeper problem than we have had, but I think the idea that there would be some stronger standards here is a reasonable one.

In that sense we are supportive of the general ideas behind the bill and supportive of the general thrust of the bill, but there are some issues. I do personally have cautions to put on the record about the application of these steps to our Parliament. Our Parliament has a lot of protections for MPs, and it does that for good reason – for very good reason. Going back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, article 9 of that lays out significant protections for MPs, and it does so because the sweep of parliamentary history was such that the government – the King in those days, but the government – was in a powerful position to influence, pressure, threaten, cajole and bully MPs. So I am always conscious that that is a base on which we want to build our system. What we do not want to do is erect infrastructure that may actually have a perverse effect, whatever is intended. It might be intended to lift parliamentary standards, but it might act as a vehicle, as a back door, for greater government leverage and government power. And it might also open up MPs in some cases to unreasonable and unfair threats.

There are a raft of issues, and I will no doubt deal with those in the period after question time. But I want to start with that base, that we actually need to preserve the strength of our institutions and with this sort of bill not compromise the essence of our system in any way.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.