Thursday, 1 August 2024

Bills

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (02:03): I am pleased to continue my contribution. I was talking to the chamber before about the importance of article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the need to ensure that nothing in this bill impinges on that, not least so-called independent committees or independent officers, who might in many cases be the most exemplary people but are not always so. We have seen the situation in this Parliament indeed – in this Parliament of Victoria. We have seen the situation from time to time where high and mighty officials have bullied and belted, figuratively, MPs so that MPs are fearful and unable to discharge their duty and are unable to raise matters that –

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: I am not going to name them; I am making a point of principle here. I am making the point that we cannot have independent individuals who may be appointed and then cannot be removed but can actually impact very negatively on democracy. The government has sought in its changes to deal with that matter, and I think they have had a measure of success there. The decision to discipline, as I see it, an MP largely falls to the chambers and ultimately to a relevant ethics committee of that chamber, and the ability to make those decisions does fall in the end to parliamentarians, which protects against some of the concerns that I am raising.

I am just going to say something briefly about the amendments that have been produced. There are a number of worthy amendments that the Greens will bring forward, and there is some agreement on a number of them which our Liberals and Nationals have worked with the Greens on. I understand that we may not agree with all of these amendments. We think that greater independence, greater unshackling from the executive, of parliamentary committees is by and large a good feature, and we understand that the Greens are seeking to do that on a wide scale. Our proposals are more modest, but we do understand what the Greens are seeking to achieve there. Mr Mulholland will move some amendments, which we obviously think are very sensible amendments.

The reality is that greater independence of some of these committees is important, but there are some concerns that we do have. One of those in particular relates to issues around the legal support of MPs. The truth of the matter is that a referral to one of these committees and one of these offices will have a very significant impact on an MP, who could be from any party. There will be media interest, there will be pressure and the complaint may be fair or it may be unfair. There is obviously a balance to be struck to ensure that MPs are not targeted and that does not occur in an unreasonable way. I do note that the legal support that is available to ministers through the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA) is very significant. I am concerned that that legal support is available to ministers but not to those on the backbench in government or in the opposition or on the crossbench. This means that there is a very uneven legal playing field here, which means that ministers about whom complaints are made may well have a greater ability to withstand and to push back against those complaints than an MP who is just a backbencher in government or indeed on the crossbench or in the opposition. We think that that is a significant flaw that the government has not addressed.

Michael O’Brien, our Shadow Attorney-General, has obviously done a lot of work on this bill, working with the government collaboratively, and I do put on record that there has been a significant collaboration on that. I think that the government has moved on a number of areas, and I know that Michael has made suggestions, some of which I think have been heavily supported inside government, including by the Premier and others. I think it is important to state on the record that we are not blindly opposing parts of this. We are indicating that those collaborations have occurred, the bill has been improved from a much earlier point and the agreed changes that will be made are further improvements.

I think the one area of particular concern that is outstanding – there are probably dozens of smaller areas – is the big area of legal support for ministers through the VMIA. A number of us in this chamber have had circumstances where legal actions have been launched. We have had ministers who have been part of launching those legal actions who have had VMIA support, and opposition members, even when they became ministers in some cases, who did not have VMIA support because it was relating to cases that were prior to them becoming ministers. But you still had individuals who had been ministers as participants in the case with full VMIA support. It becomes like heavy cavalry charging towards a sole person with a small shield and their own capacities and their own resources – you have got the armoury and the heavy cavalry of government marching forward at high pace in a cavalry charge to overwhelm a single backbench MP. That is a circumstance that I think is deeply concerning.

This is not an academic point that I am making here. I am making reference to a specific case, but there are other cases where government ministers have had the resources of government and the resources of the VMIA insurance backup and are able thereby to put up a very, very strong position. To some extent here what I am saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is perhaps a gendered phrase these days, but nonetheless I think people know what I am saying. The reality is that this is an important bill and we have to get it right. I urge the government to rethink this part of it, noting as I do that there has been a hell of a lot of good work done collaboratively across the chamber with minor parties and with government, and I want to put on record particularly the work of Michael O’Brien in that process.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:12): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Because we are talking about integrity, I thought we should have a little bit of fun today, so I would like to begin my speech with a little bit of trivia that speaks to the need for checks and balances when it comes to parliamentary powers. What do you think the last member of the Victorian Parliament to be expelled was expelled for? Edward Findley was his name. Was it (a) multiple attempts to fight other MPs on the floor of Parliament, was it (b) for being an editor of a newspaper that published an article criticising the Crown or was it (c) that he had terrible dress sense?

Ryan Batchelor: It has to be (c).

Rachel PAYNE: I don’t think anyone in this place has terrible dress sense, do they? But this does not apply to us. I would love to be able to provide that answer now, and of course you can Google it, but I think that I will wait until after my speech just to keep you intrigued along the way.

This bill comes in the wake of decades of scandals: MPs misusing parliamentary entitlements, bullying, sexual harassment and systemic cultural problems in parliamentary workplaces. There has been incident after incident of inappropriate behaviour and misconduct on all sides of this place. People have been kicked out of their party and even banned from the parliamentary precinct. It is my hope that we have finally reached a turning point. The last few years have been a watershed moment for discussions about bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in parliamentary workplaces.

Federally, in 2021 the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces led by the former Australian sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins published the Set the Standard report. It found that over half of all responding staff at Australian Parliament House had experienced workplace bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault, and it led to serious reforms. In Victoria we are not faring any better, and unlike our federal colleagues, we still have a bar in our Parliament. We have had Operation Watts, an investigation into the Victorian Labor Party for alleged misuse of public funds for party political purposes. The investigation found taxpayer-funded employees were tasked with factional work during office hours, there was branch stacking, and unqualified relatives and factional allies were parachuted into jobs. Much like Operation Daintree, Operation Watts found poor accountability and an urgent need for significant reforms to the ethics and integrity regime for members and ministers.

Parliaments are unique workplaces with severe power imbalances. When it comes to misconduct, often there is no formalised process, and this means there is no guarantee of consistency, due process or any transparency. This bill addresses several of these recommendations. It will establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee and a parliamentary integrity commission and enshrine the role of Parliamentary Integrity Adviser into legislation. It has been pleasing to see this government undertake extensive consultation on this bill, and we thank them for their engagement and for acting on our feedback. Parliaments should be the nation-leading examples of good workplace culture and integrity. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case, but working together will help us get there.

Last year the Australian Public Service Commission conducted a trust and satisfaction in Australian democracy survey. It found that less than half of those surveyed thought Australia performed well when it came to conducting enough checks to ensure politicians and officials cannot abuse their power. For those dissatisfied with how Australian democracy works, this was their number one area of concern: ensuring that politicians and officials cannot abuse their power. We are in a time of political polarisation and distrust in government. We need to address this head-on or we may lose our chance.

This bill is not perfect. It is a good start, but there are aspects that need to be improved upon. We are disappointed by the decision to disallow the commission from being able to receive retrospective referrals. We have been advised that this is standard when introducing new laws and that retrospective provisions would only ever be included in exceptional circumstances. We understand the practicalities of this decision, but I would say that we have seen exceptionally severe misconduct in the past and it is a shame that this commission wipes its hands clean of it.

More generally, given the control the minister has over the tenure, appointment and suspension of commissioners and integrity advisers, it is not fair to say that they will be truly independent. Another concern of ours stems from sanctions that may be imposed by the commission. With the power to recommend any other sanction the commission considers appropriate, the commission has powers to recommend an MP be expelled. We understand this is a matter for the commission, but they have the power to make guidelines on its functions. However, the expulsion of MPs is a tricky thing. It is part of the privileges, immunities and powers inherited from the UK House of Commons and vested in our state’s constitution. These powers have been used in Victoria a total of five times – another bit of trivia. This gives us the award for being the state that has expelled more members of Parliament than any other in Australia.

Back to my trivia question, you will be pleased to know that the answer was (b). The last member to be expelled was Edward Findley way back in 1901, as I mentioned earlier. He was expelled for seditious libel because the Tocsin newspaper, of which he was editor, published an article criticising King Edward VII. The Commonwealth Parliament abolished the power to expel its members in 1987. Prior to this time the power had been used only once: in 1920 Hugh Mahon was expelled for seditious and disloyal utterances following a speech in Melbourne in which he criticised British policy and urged Australia to become a republic. I would expect that we are not so fearful of criticising the monarchy in this day and age, but it is concerning that this power still exists here in Victoria. These powers could be enlivened by future bad operators. In the past it was disloyalty to the monarchy, but who knows what it could be in the future. I would like to see the commission and the Victorian Parliament proactively develop policy to address this grey area. This could include developing criteria to guide the use of these powers and protect against political weaponisation.

I will leave you with that plea and move on to some of the highlights of this bill. Firstly, there is the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct by MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Secondly, the amendment to the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 creates positive obligations for members to create safe workplaces and demonstrate respect for parliamentary integrity. It is unfortunate that it needs to be said, but it clearly does. I hope this positive obligation encourages all MPs in this place to reflect upon the workplace culture they cultivate. If you need to make a change, now is your time to do it. I commend the inclusion of anonymous referrals, consistent with other disclosure schemes and outlined in the Set the Standard report. Particularly when it comes to sexual harassment, we know that people often do not come forward because of the heavy burden of reporting. It is also great to see that the Parliamentary Integrity Advisor will be enshrined in legislation to provide confidential advice and ongoing training alongside the Parliamentary Ethics Committee. Hopefully these discussions will foster more ethical workplaces and an environment where people will proactively seek out advice before issues escalate.

Turning now to the proposed amendments, both the opposition and the Greens have put forward amendments to this bill. The opposition’s amendments extend to the periods of ineligibility around the appointment of a commissioner and require a majority of the Integrity and Oversight Committee to appoint an acting commissioner. These reforms will go some of the way to safeguarding against these bodies being politicised. The Greens amendments will provide important clarifications about the penalties for noncompliance, with sanctions by the commission. Their broader amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 will require that for all joint investigative committees not more than half the members may be members of a political party forming the government and that the chairperson must not be from the government. This is consistent with the findings of Operation Watts. The government of the day should not have direct control of the privileges committee’s priorities and decision-making. It is important that politicisation in government integrity bodies is avoided at all costs. It undermines all the hard work we have done to reach this point. This bill represents important, albeit overdue, integrity reforms. We are glad to offer our support to it and to amendments that will further strengthen these integrity measures.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:22): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 and will do so in great detail. Before I commence I did just want to take up the contribution that Ms Payne made about Edward Findley, who obviously was a former Labor member for Melbourne in the other place. He was expelled for seditious libel for denigrating in his publication Edward VII. Given you are in the chair, Acting President McArthur, I will not go anywhere near anything that could remotely accuse me of denigrating our sovereign, because that would be contrary to standing orders. But only to provide people with a bit of reassurance and hope, if you look at what happened to Edward Findley after he was expelled from this place, for those who fail to meet the standards of the Victorian Parliament there is a home. For Edward Findley that was the Australian Senate and a ministry in a Labor government. He was a minister without portfolio in the Fisher government, representing the Minister for Home Affairs in the Senate, no doubt a role that would keep anyone busy in 1911 or 2024.

But that is not why we are here, to talk about Victorian political history, although we could probably spend a long time doing so. We are here to talk about the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill, which is a very important and nation-leading addition to the accountability of members of Parliament for their actions to promote the higher standards of integrity and accountability for all of us who hold elected office including, uniquely amongst the regimes that exist, those who hold executive office as a minister.

The bill before us today is the implementation, as the government committed to at the time it was handed down, of the recommendations from the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in their report on Operation Watts. This is the implementation of some of those key recommendations, around seven of them in total, and it is the first legislated investigatory commission of its kind in the nation and certainly the only one that has its powers extended not only to the members of Parliament in their capacity as members of Parliament but also to holders of office in the executive, namely ministers of the Crown, which I think provides all of us with confidence that this body in its design has been developed thoughtfully with consideration to how to best give effect to the intent of those recommendations arising out of IBAC’s special report on Operation Watts. But also more broadly, drawing on the experience we have seen from things like the Jenkins review coming out of the Australian Human Rights Commission, looking at culture and workplace culture in and around Parliament, it will establish proper investigatory processes for complaints, including anonymous complaints, against the conduct of members of Parliament, and that extends to how they have gone about the use of their benefits and entitlements, which is an important safeguard.

I think one of the other features of how we got here to the bill today is that this bill has been the subject of extensive consultation over the last several months, certainly since the end of last year, whether that be with members and representatives of their parties or with some of the key parliamentary committees. We have had extensive consultation on the content of this bill, and I think that has been a really important process for it to go through so that not only is there cross-partisan buy-in to the concepts that this bill is trying to achieve but also, with the mechanisms by which that is sought to be enacted, everyone has a clear and common understanding about what is likely to occur and is also given ventilation and the opportunity to provide feedback. It has certainly been a process that has been marked by extensive consultation, engagement and improvements in various ways on propositions that have been put before it.

The government has also, through a prior budget, provisioned for upwards of $11 million over the forward estimates period to assist in the establishment of the new commission, to provide it with resources for its commissioners and to engage staff, and then ongoing funding has been provided to enable the commission to continue to do its work. The government clearly takes these issues exceptionally seriously, with detailed legislation, extensive consultation and adequate provisioning of establishment and ongoing costs. It is a demonstration that the government takes these matters very seriously, as evidenced by the way it has gone about the development of the legislation before us today.

The bill will establish the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints. It will establish a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation to provide confidential advice and training to members of Parliament. It will establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation, which will be a forum to discuss and foster ethical standards in the parliamentary workplace so that we have somewhere that is providing us with the sort of guidance that is often useful and required about the sorts of conduct that constitute ethical behaviour. That is an important function so that we not just are viewing this through a compliance lens – this is not just an exercise in having an investigatory body to ensure compliance with rules – but have established mechanisms through the integrity adviser and through the ethics committee to foster a better culture, to foster a place that can look at what better and best practice is. If we as members of Parliament rise to the opportunity to engage with that process and turn our minds and our actions to how we best utilise the new legislated Parliamentary Integrity Adviser and also the work of the ethics committee, then we will be in a position of strengthening the ethical foundations of this Parliament and its conduct. I think those two things, not often remarked upon, are essential ingredients in improving how this Parliament conducts its behaviour.

We are amending through this legislation the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, which contains a codified code of conduct, a statutory code of conduct, for members of Parliament, which places on us a range of obligations. One of the new positive obligations that this bill will include in the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act is a positive obligation for us to create a safe workplace and to demonstrate respect for our colleagues, for our staff and also for the commission and the adviser. The bill will enable the new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive complaints and investigate where we have not lived up to that legislative code. It gives life to the code in a way that perhaps it may not have had in the past. It gives us a body and a mechanism for where we are alleged to have fallen short of those standards, where our conduct is alleged to have fallen short of what is expected in the law. There is now a mechanism that can make a determination as to whether that in fact is the case. That sort of behaviour is what Victorians expect and what they deserve from their elected representatives.

But I also think it will create through this integrity architecture a place where we as members can be assured that there is an independent process that is able to look at conduct which some may think impugns the standards and make an independent, objective determination. That will give us a new forum that will provide us all with the sort of guidance on what is acceptable and what is not at an objective standard, at a standard that is not part of the political fray, that is not part of the daily cut and thrust of political debate and that can sit and reflect potentially with a slightly cooler head than you would get in the cut and thrust of day-to-day politics. Hopefully, that mechanism and that spirit will vastly improve the way that these matters are handled when transgressions are brought to light but also will give confidence to everyone else who comes to work with us, who comes to work for us, that the environment that they are coming to work within is one that is based on mutual respect and one that fosters a culture where that is implicitly and expressly recognised as being incredibly important.

The new commission in its structure will have a full-time commissioner, who under the terms of the bill will be required to have certain characteristics, including not being a member of Parliament for a certain period of time prior to their appointment, but the bill will also facilitate the appointment of part-time commissioners so that different expertise can be brought to the commission as a whole. We are not expecting one person to hold all of the wisdom in all matters that may come before the commission, but through the panel of commissioners, with the full-time and two part-time commissioners that will be established under this bill, we can get a breadth of experience and perspectives that can then turn their wise and cool heads to the matters that are brought before the commission.

To ensure that the appointments to this commission are ones that everyone in the Parliament can have confidence in, the appointments are going to be run through a process where a relevant minister will recommend appointment, but that process will involve a requirement to obtain the support of the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee of the Parliament, which is one of the joint investigatory committees of the Parliament and the one that is charged with oversight of our state’s independent integrity agencies. As a member of that committee since the start of this term of Parliament, those are functions that the committee takes exceptionally seriously, and I have no doubt that the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee will apply the same degree of care, thought and consideration to this new body that the committee will need to oversight and to their important role in the appointment of those commissioners.

The commission will be empowered to take a range of reports of conduct, including those which are delivered anonymously, promoting a real ‘no wrong door’ approach to complaints so there is every way possible to make a complaint, including public interest disclosures, about current and former members, referring on to other integrity bodies in appropriate circumstances or undertaking investigations itself on things like wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of the register of interests; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of work-related allowances or offices or budgets; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour.

It is a significant bill. A lot of work has gone into it. It is a demonstration of the government’s commitment to the implementation of the recommendations of Operation Watts and improving the culture of parliamentary behaviour and parliamentary workplace standards in this state. It is a very comprehensive package that in many ways leads the nation in terms of what it seeks to achieve. I think we should all benefit from the bill’s passage and introduction here in the state of Victoria.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:37): I rise to make a short contribution on this bill. I have been around here a while now. I have seen some of the highs of this place and I have seen some of the lows. Integrity in this place is unfortunately a bit of a rubbery thing. I have been listening to some of the contributions. Stuff that is tolerated and encouraged in this workplace would end up in prosecution in a lot of other workplaces. The bullying, the pressure, the promises made and then broken – it just really would not fly. I understand that is Parliament, that is politics. I am not having a whine about it. It is more of a statement that sometimes this place lends itself to problems. Sometimes this place works towards issues just through how it works.

I think a lot of the time how we get somewhere is nearly as important as getting there. This is very results oriented. The government of the day wants to get some legislation through both houses – boom, out the door, it gets royal assent and we move on. From time to time it gets tight and you get pressure – I speak to it only as a crossbencher of course – from both sides. That is life, but it kind of leads me on to an issue I have in general, and that is the Victorian Managed Insurance Agency funding for ministers and nobody else. I am aware of a situation where a sitting minister of the day defamed someone in the opposition – they personally defamed the opposition of the day – and got VMIA funding, whereas the person who had been defamed had to do it themselves. When the matter was settled the minister had retired but was still covered by the VMIA. That is going back quite some time now, but it does really lend itself to a problem where the backbenchers of the government could find themselves in a situation where their ministers are covered but they are not. The opposition is not covered, whether they are shadow ministers or not. I am not covered and the Greens are not covered. The inequity of this is staggering. If one of the ministers decided to defame me – I will just pick me because we could go anywhere – outside of their portfolio, outside of the cut and thrust and outside of the chamber, I would have to fund my own legal defence and they would not. That is not really fair. I am a firm believer in these sorts of things. Everyone should get it or no-one should get it. Now, having said that, the ministers deal with their portfolios and there is a level of protection that they should get in dealing with vexatious complaints and things like that which we will not get, but to leave individuals hanging when someone else has cover is kind of gross. You wonder why people do not like getting involved in politics, and it is because of things like these.

There is inequity in the way this place works. I do not mean in terms of power because power is kind of absolute – you have got enough power to get in government and you need to do what you have got to do – but in terms of just making sure we are all fighting on the same plane. This could have been dealt with in this bill. What this bill is to me, if I were really to simplify it, is instead of problems going from the chamber to privileges, there is now another body which then answers to privileges. So there are problems with the whole system still. In the end you have partisan politicians deciding how other partisan politicians will be dealt with.

Changing that gets problematic because you also do not want unelected people having the ability to get rid of elected people. For criminal acts it is one thing, but for misbehaviour it could go in a number of ways. So there are a few missed opportunities. I am all for making people responsible for their actions. I am all for making sure that people are answerable. I have got to say in my time I do not think I have ever used privilege in this place, and I hope to finish up never having used it. I would like other people to do this, but they can roll how they roll. I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and what I say I will say outside of here. If I cannot say it outside of here, I will not say it in here. So I am actually not entirely sure how I am going to vote on this bill if it comes to a division. There are some amendments, and as uncomfortable as it makes me feel to say it, some of the Greens ones are not bad.

Samantha Ratnam: That’s as good as it gets, isn’t it?

Jeff BOURMAN: I know – I will take up that interjection. I may need a shower later, but we will work through that. There are times in this place where there is an opportunity to fix things. I have seen some breathtaking treachery in this place that would never have been dealt with through any committees because that is the cut and thrust of politics, but other things could well have been dealt with. So just in summing up, I am going to wait and see how the amendments go and listen to the questioning. I think that it is disappointing when there is a chance to fix some endemic problems in this place and it is missed.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:44): This new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will have a key role examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. This will provide an avenue for complaints to be heard and investigated through a proper process. We know current arrangements are inconsistent with standards in other workplaces. The model in the bill draws on the groundbreaking work of the Australian Human Rights Commission Jenkins report and allows the commission to investigate the behaviour of MPs. It will also implement seven recommendations from the IBAC and Victorian Ombudsman report on Operation Watts. This will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country. It will be the first legislated parliamentary investigatory commission in Australia and the only parliamentary investigatory commission which will cover ministers.

The bill has been informed by extensive stakeholder consultation. Consultation commenced in October 2023, and it has been widespread. We have consulted with non-government members, and their feedback has resulted in significant changes to the bill. We have also consulted with the Presiding Officers, clerks of Parliament, integrity agencies and other experts across law, workplace standards, human rights, equal opportunity and gender equality. It is important that we get this model right; this is Parliament’s bill. The commission will be established this year, with the bill commencing on 31 December 2024. The 2024–25 budget invested $11.9 million to support the establishment and operations of the commission, and over $3 million is ongoing. This builds on the $8.52 million that the government has provided to the Department of Parliamentary Services to support the implementation of Operation Watts recommendations that relate to the operation of Parliament.

To outline some of the key features of the bill, as noted, the bill will establish a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints. The bill will also 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; establishing a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace; amending the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, including to update the MP code of conduct to create positive obligations for members to create a safe workplace and demonstrate respect for the commission and Parliamentary Integrity Adviser; and amending other relevant acts to integrate the commission and Parliamentary Integrity Adviser into Victoria’s existing parliamentary standards and integrity framework. Under the bill members of Parliament will have a positive obligation to foster a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment in a parliamentary workplace which is free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. This is what Victorians expect and deserve from their elected representatives. Members of Parliament will also be required to demonstrate respect for parliamentary standards, including the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission – for example, by complying with a reasonable request made.

A new, independent Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission is a key feature of the bill. There will be up to three commissioners: one full-time commissioner, who will also be the chair of the commission, and two that can be appointed on a full-time, part-time or sessional basis. The three-commissioner model is one of the key elements taken from the Jenkins report, namely the need to have commissioners with the right skills to deal with inappropriate workplace behaviour and improve workplace culture. Commissioners will also be independent and appropriately skilled. A person will not be eligible as a commissioner if they have been, in the last five years, a member of an Australian Parliament, local council, registered political party or on the register of lobbyists. Commissioners will have complementary skills and expertise in areas such as government, industrial relations, law, public sector governance or administration, and public sector ethics and integrity.

Under the bill the commission will have jurisdiction to receive complaints about members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries about parliamentary misconduct. Any person can make a report to the commission, including anonymously. Allowing the commission to receive anonymous complaints will encourage people to report misconduct without fear of reprisal or potential repercussions. This is consistent with recommendations from the Jenkins report and complaints to IBAC and Victoria’s public interest disclosure scheme. The commission will promote a ‘no wrong door’ approach to complaints about misconduct and will 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 a clearing house for public interest disclosures. If IBAC determines that a disclosure is a public interest complaint that 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; 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; or 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. Parliamentary misconduct also applies to a former member 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 and provides that they must not take improper advantage of any office held as a member of Parliament after they cease to be a member.

To protect the rights and wellbeing of all parties involved in the reporting and investigation process the bill contains appropriate safeguards on the commission’s discretionary powers. The commission will have a power to issue confidentiality notices to protect the privacy, safety, welfare and reputation of those involved in an investigation as the circumstances require. People subject to such notices will still be able to seek advice and support as appropriate. Investigations will also be subject to appropriate procedural fairness protections. The bill requires the commission to not prejudice legal or criminal investigations or proceedings by other integrity agencies. It will be a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information to the commission, such as false complaints.

The commission will first need to determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with a complaint. The commission must dismiss any complaint that relates to conduct that occurred before it was established or where the complaint is not supported by sufficient evidence. The commission will have discretion to dismiss complaints which are lacking in substance or credibility, trivial, frivolous or vexatious, not made in good faith, related to an allegation of conduct engaged in at a time that is too remote to justify an investigation, otherwise unjustifiable or unnecessary to deal with. The commission will also have discretion to dismiss a complaint that has already been dealt with by an integrity body, a law enforcement agency, an entity with the power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions or a prescribed entity.

The commission will then have discretion to decide how to deal with the complaint but will be required to deal with it as quickly and with as little formality as possible. All parties want complaints to be dealt with as quickly and with as little formality as possible, so this is an important aspect of the commission’s framework. This will include the use of appropriate dispute resolution processes. An appropriate dispute resolution process may only take place if all the participants agree to the process. This is important as there may be some matters that all parties wish to see mediated. Following an appropriate dispute resolution process the commission will prepare an outcome report unless it is not in the public interest to do so. The report, if produced, will be provided to the Premier if in relation to a person in their capacity as a minister or parliamentary secretary or otherwise to the relevant Privileges Committee if in relation to a member of Parliament or the Premier.

If the commission decides to investigate or is otherwise required to investigate if a matter is a public interest complaint, the commission will have the appropriate powers to investigate, including the power to request any document, information or other thing the commission considers necessary for an investigation and request a person to attend an interview. If a current or former member of Parliament does not comply with an investigation request from the commission without a reasonable excuse, the commission has the power to report the current or former member of Parliament to the relevant house. The Parliament will then have discretion to decide whether to take any action. The commission will be also able to recommend sanctions for noncompliance as part of its final investigative report.

The commission does not have coercive investigation powers, as these are generally only appropriate in exceptional circumstances such as anti-corruption investigations. The commission is also required to issue guidelines about its functions and will need to outline a person’s rights and responsibilities whenever they issue an investigation request. Re baseless complaints, this is a reasonable bill designed for reasonable and legitimate complaints. No-one wants the commission dealing with baseless or politically motivated complaints. As noted above, 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. Under the bill it is a criminal offence punishable by up to 12 months in prison to give false or misleading information to the commission.

The bill has confidentiality protections to protect the integrity of investigations and privacy of people involved in the matter. In conducting an investigation the commission will also be bound by the rules of procedural fairness. The bill also requires the commission to issue guidelines on how it will dismiss complaints, including complaints that are unfounded and politically motivated. The last thing anyone in this place wants are attempts to weaponise or politicise the work of the commission.

At the conclusion of an investigation the commission will be required to prepare an investigative report. The bill provides for various requirements relating to investigative reports, such as providing a member of Parliament or minister with an opportunity to respond to an adverse comment or finding and maintaining the confidentiality of the person who made the referral as required. The investigative report will be provided to the Premier if in relation to a person in their capacity as a minister or parliamentary secretary or otherwise to the relevant Privileges Committee if in relation to a member of Parliament or the Premier. Consistent with the existing lines of responsibility in Victoria’s system of government, investigative reports relating to the conduct of an MP, including the Premier, will be provided to the relevant Privileges Committee for their consideration and tabling in Parliament.

Investigative reports relating to ministers, parliamentary secretaries and the cabinet secretary will be provided to the Premier for consideration and tabling. It will then be the responsibility of the relevant Privileges Committee or the Premier to ensure the report is tabled in Parliament within the timeframes set in the bill. If the commission’s investigative report recommends sanctions in relation to serious parliamentary misconduct, improper conduct or detrimental action, the Privileges Committee or the Premier will also be required to prepare their own report in response to address the recommended sanctions. If the final sanctions recommended by the Privileges Committee or imposed by the Premier depart from what was recommended by the commission, the Privileges Committee or the Premier will have to include in their report any explanation for these differences. Investigative reports will generally have to be tabled in Parliament unless it would not be in the public interest to do so. The commission will decide whether it is in the public interest and will provide a summary report as appropriate to be tabled if so. Once the report is tabled in Parliament the commission will then be able to publish the report on its website.

There are a range of sanctions that can be imposed by either the commission, a house of Parliament or the Premier. If a parliamentary misconduct matter is sustained, the commission will have the power to directly impose sanctions, including a requirement to issue a public apology in a manner and form determined by the commission, give a written apology or explanation to an affected person, participate in an education or training program determined by the commission, participate in mediation with an affected person or enter into a behaviour agreement with a Presiding Officer of the house of which they are a member. In relation to serious parliamentary misconduct, improper conduct or detrimental action matters that are substantiated the commission will only be able to recommend a sanction to the relevant oversight entity, such as the Premier in relation to a minister, or the Privileges Committee of the house to which the member belongs. In relation to the Premier this includes a requirement to give a written – (Time expired)

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:59): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.