|
senate vote 2024-09-12#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-22 14:01:10
|
Title
Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 - in Committee- Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 - in Committee - Propose sanctions
Description
-
- 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 subsection 24CY(2A).*
- >
- > *(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:*
- >
>> *(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.*- >> *(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2024-09-12#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-22 14:00:36
|
Title
Bills — Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024; in Committee- Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 - in Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised:</p>-
- 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 subsection 24CY(2A).*
- >
- > *(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.</p><p>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.</p><p>As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply.</p><p>It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future.</p><p>I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important?</p><p><i>I commend this amendment</i>.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>The opposition will be opposing this amendment, noting that the privileges committee shouldn't be directed, or shouldn't be bound, in a deliberation. But I note that, before, Senator Waters suggested voluntary trauma informed training for privileges committee members. It's not something we would have a problem with. Again, it would need to be voluntary because the privileges committee should never be bound or directed in any deliberation or any action, and that's certainly not something we would stand in the way of. It's not appropriate for it to be put into legislation, but it's certainly something that should be considered.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process.</p><p>I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I have just a brief retort to that. Minister, it's not about your level of trust in privileges. Surely, it needs to be about the level of trust that staff in this building have in a process that will finally exist to potentially hold their boss to account if their boss has committed harassment, assault or bullying against them. I take your point, but I just want to push back and say that it's very easy for us in these privileged positions to have confidence and trust, but unfortunately the system hasn't worked for so long for people with less power and privilege than we have. I commend the amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>On that point, I would say again that the responsibility falls on all of us to make sure that trust is there. If this system is to work and have the confidence of staff, MPs and senators—let's face it; all of our colleagues have to trust it—then the responsibility falls again to all of us to make sure that's the case.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>I want to ask the minister some questions about the appointment of commissioners. Can I confirm, Minister, how the commissioners will be appointed?</p> <p class="speaker">Jess Walsh</p><p>Minister, if you would not mind, resume your seat for a moment. It might suit the chamber if I put the amendments moved by Senator Waters before moving to other matters. Senator Faruqi?</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I just have a question on Senator Waters's amendment.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll come back to you, Senator Hume.</p><p>Minister, can you tell us how people of colour, people with disability, First Nations people and other diverse people can trust committees that are made up of all white members, and what are you going to do about that?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The appointment of members to privileges committees is a matter for individual parties. For example, if the Greens political party wanted to appoint you or another member of the Greens to privileges, that's a matter for the Greens. I disagree that people representing the groups that you have outlined in your question can't have faith in a process that it is being overseen by senior and professional members of parliament. Again, it's our responsibility and those members' responsibility to make sure people are dealt with fairly through the process we are establishing by this legislation today.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>Minister, those committees are dominated by Labor and the coalition. Are you telling me that you won't even consider diversity on those committees? I mean, I can't trust white people making decisions all the time. A full committee with no diversity making decisions on issues of racism—that is illogical. It is illogical to do that. Would you consider, at least, that these committees should have some diversity and that Labor and the coalition have the vast majority of members on those committees and there are enough people in parliament, in your parties, to be able to have more diversity in those committees?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The matter of who gets appointed to those committees is a matter the parties. That is as it is on every committee in this place. The broader point that you raise is that the committees themselves are not the investigators of complaints.</p><p>Well, you can shake your head, Senator Faruqi, but they are not the investigators of the complaints.</p><p>You said—</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>They are enforcers.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>You asked the question. If you have another question, that's fine, but you asked how you can have faith that someone would perhaps make a finding of racism. For a start, the IPSC would undertake to investigate the complaint. If they were to find that there was a serious breach of the code of conduct then that matter would be handed over to the privileges committee, but the privileges committee does not investigate that; they determine a sanction. That is the big difference there. So the point you raise wouldn't happen, because the privileges committee is not conducting the investigation. If there was a finding of a breach of the code based on racism, that would be determined by the commissioner undertaking the investigation.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I don't think I spoke about investigation. It is that the committee will be enforcing sanctions, and that's the issue here. It's beyond me, and I'm flabbergasted that you can't actually say that the committee does need more diversity. Some diversity exists in this parliament, and more people with lived experience of these issues should be deciding what the enforcement should be. It's not that hard, Minister. If we want to change this place, we need to make it more diverse. Why can't you just say, 'Sure, we can look into this'? That is one of the cruxes of the problem: the privilege that people have had which has been entrenched for such a long time.</p><p>I ask you again: will you consider that those committees need to be more diverse to make a more just and considered decision on experiences of people who, at the moment, don't have a place on that committee?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I can take responsibility for the government members, and, representative of the most diverse group of politicians in this parliament, we consider all of those matters as routine, Senator Faruqi. I don't need to give an undertaking, because we are the most diverse group in this parliament, and we consider all of those things as part of our core operations.</p> <p class="speaker">Jess Walsh</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|