Bill
Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024
passed, as at 2024-09-17. Finance portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Finance
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2024-08-21
- second reading — 2024-08-21
- second reading — 2024-09-10
- other — 2024-09-10
- other — 2024-09-11
- second reading — 2024-09-11
- second reading — 2024-09-11
- committee — 2024-09-11
- third reading — 2024-09-11
- introduced — 2024-09-12
- second reading — 2024-09-12
- second reading — 2024-09-12
- second reading — 2024-09-12
- committee — 2024-09-12
- third reading — 2024-09-12
- passed — 2024-09-12
- royal assent — 2024-09-17
Divisions
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7236_amend_63088ad3-de60-4a01-a6eb-2cbd912f6218%22;rec=0) to an [original amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7236_amend_2df1ea9a-b755-4da1-a2f5-3cbafa37b712%22;rec=0) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This amendments was introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “reading” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“the House:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) the Code of Conduct requires parliamentarians to treat people with “dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect”;* >> >> *(b) the conduct of parliamentarians in the House of Representatives chamber - especially during Question Time - frequently falls short of these standards;* >> >> *(c) there is no other workplace environment where shouting, mocking, and hurling insults is not only tolerated, but celebrated;* >> >> *(d) since May 2022, politicians have been thrown out of the chamber over 200 times;* >> >> *(e) this behaviour sets a terrible example to young Australians and does nothing to support constructive discussion and social cohesion, at a time when we are struggling to disagree well as a country; and* >> >> *(f) the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is supposed to enforce the Code of Conduct for parliamentarians, but its remit will not extend to conduct in the chamber; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to embed the new Code of Conduct in the House of Representatives Standing Orders, and to take real steps to improv — 2024-09-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 13, noes 55
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7236_amend_2df1ea9a-b755-4da1-a2f5-3cbafa37b712%22;rec=0) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time"* (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the usual second reading motion will remain unchanged. The amendments were introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) codes of conduct and their transparent enforcement are critical to the healthy functioning of democracy;* >> >> *(b) this bill does not guarantee findings of parliamentarian misconduct will be made public and leaves the recommendation and imposition of serious sanctions to the discretion of the relevant Privileges Committee rather than the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission;* >> >> *(c) this is a departure from the recommendations of Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards Final Report;* >> >> *(d) concerns have been raised by The Australian Democracy Network, Transparency International Australia and Fair Agenda that the bill contains inadequate transparency measures; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to amend this legislation to:* > >> *(a) allow the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to make independent recommendations for serious sanctions;* >> >> *(b) require a comprehensive explanation of reasons if the privileges committee disagrees with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission’s recommendations, — 2024-09-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 13, noes 52
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1): > *I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission] to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.* > > *... my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so — 2024-09-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 13, noes 48
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independents), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1): > *I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:* > >> *(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and* >> >> *(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and* >> >> *(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).* — 2024-09-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 13, noes 50
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2): > *As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:* > >> *(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:* > >> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under su — 2024-09-12, Senate: negative, ayes 14, noes 20
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
em supp
em revised
billhome
frl act