Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Bills

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jacinta Allan:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (15:51): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. Members may well ask themselves: how did we get to this? In my time in this place, which has been nearly 18 years now, we have seen a lot of changes in the way in which members are regulated. When I consider how those changes came about, almost every single one of them came about because of bad behaviour by MPs – people breaking the rules, people rorting, people being dishonest – and it is those actions by those individuals that have ultimately led us to where we are today. I can recall the former – and I emphasise former – Speaker and former Deputy Speaker in this place, Mr Languiller and Mr Nardella, very senior officials of this house charged with upholding its standards, and yet both of those individuals were found to have rorted their second-residence allowances. They both represented western suburbs seats but claimed to be living in Queenscliff in the case of Mr Languiller and a caravan park in the case of Mr Nardella – a caravan park where the local residents who actually lived in the caravan park had never actually seen the bloke. So it was pure and utter rorting of second-residence allowances, and that led to a tightening up of the rules in relation to those. Bad behaviour of Labor MPs leads to changes of the rules.

Then of course we saw the former Labor minister Steve Herbert. It is very appropriate that it is ‘Bring your dog to Parliament’ day today, because of course we all famously remember the former minister Steve Herbert using his ministerial car with driver to chauffeur around his two dogs Patch and Ted, driving them from Trentham up in country Victoria down to Melbourne. Once again we get bad behaviour of Labor ministers –

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: If any members actually want to defend this outrageous conduct, then let them do it, but these are facts. You have a rorting minister using his ministerial car and driver to ferry around his personal pets. Is it any wonder this government does not care about running a decent public transport system when not only do they not have to rely on it for themselves, they do not have to rely on it for their dogs?

Then of course we famously had 21 Labor MPs embroiled in the red shirts scandal – and scandal it was. And didn’t this government do everything it could to try and stop that scandal from ever seeing the light of day. This government even took the extraordinary step of taking the Victorian Ombudsman all the way to the High Court of Australia. That is how desperate the government was to stop that rorting disgrace, that scandal of the red shirts, from ever seeing the light of day. Thankfully, the High Court sided with the law, as you would expect, but also sided with the interests of transparency and democracy, and when that report came down those Labor MPs were condemned. They were found to have effectively stolen over $388,000 from taxpayers, which was forced to be repaid, and that led to further changes in the rules.

And then how did we get to this point? Well, we had the IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman undertake a joint operation. I think it was the first joint operation in their history, and it was one that was initiated at the behest of the opposition, I am proud to say – I think I was Leader of the Opposition at the time. When the stories emerged about the sort of rorting and abuse of publicly funded resources that we saw from members of the Labor Party in this government, Labor MPs and Labor ministers – abuse of electorate offices and entitlements, abuse of electorate staff, abuse of ministerial offices and entitlements and abuse of ministerial staff – it was an absolute disgrace, and what we saw was a very lengthy, deep investigation into the rorting of members of this Labor government in Operation Watts.

I see the member for Mordialloc here, and of course he got more than a passing mention in terms of his penchant for using stamps that were not his and were not paid for by him to run his election campaign. There are plenty of members still in this place today –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Mate, IBAC said it in the report. I do not have to worry about parliamentary privilege. I am very happy to walk out the 10 steps any time you like, sunshine.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: When you start identifying back on the right, like before you started identifying as a Socialist Left, then we might hear from you, okay?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc will cease interjecting, please.

Michael O’BRIEN: So we have absolutely rorting, disgraceful behaviour by members of the Labor Party and members of this Labor government, and once again it is because of the rorting by this Labor Party and this Labor government that Operation Watts brought down these recommendations that, no, MPs – mainly Labor MPs – cannot be trusted to actually behave decently, to keep their fingers out of the till and to behave in an honourable way. For that reason we had the recommendation to establish an independent parliamentary commission. I should say, that is before we even get to Banquo’s ghosts over there – those whose names shall not be spoken, those who do not even put in an appearance anymore despite receiving a full MP’s salary. I refer of course to the member for Ringwood and the member for South Barwon.

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: To hear the catcalls of those opposite defending the member for Ringwood and defending the member for South Barwon is extraordinary. I am not sure why they are defending them. If you are defending them, why don’t you go over and sit with them? Why don’t you get them to turn up to work occasionally? That would be lovely. That poor community of Ringwood is left unrepresented and the community of South Barwon is left unrepresented because once again appalling behaviour by Labor members of this Parliament has led to the public being ripped off and denied. This is what we have seen time and time again. I have gone through a litany; there are many more.

I could go back even further into history. I could refer to the Labor member in the other place who actually assigned the use of his electorate car to his former wife as part of a divorce settlement only for that electorate-funded car to then be used as a getaway vehicle in a shoplifting ring. There is a long history of this. There is a long history of the Labor Party rorting public entitlements. The public is rightly sick of it, and because the Labor Party cannot be trusted to keep their fingers out of the till, because they cannot be trusted to keep their hands to themselves, that is why we are in this place today. We are all condemned in the public’s eyes, but we should all know that this is a Labor Party problem. They are the rorters. They are the ones who have done the wrong thing, and this is why we have this bill before the house today.

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 to from the IBAC. It also seeks to establish a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation. We already have one, but this is designed to put this into legislation and to provide confidential advice and training to MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It 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 Parliament and in the community. I should note that in addition to all the Labor rorting, which I have put on the public record and which has been the progenitor of this bill, it considers investigations at the federal level, including the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces report, otherwise known as the Jenkins report, undertaken by Kate Jenkins.

So how would this new parliamentary commissioner work? The first issue is how you would be establishing the qualifications for a parliamentary commissioner. The government initially felt that the government should have the ability to appoint parliamentary commissioners with only a cursory majority on the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC). This is completely unacceptable because we know this government likes to stack committees, and if this commissioner is to be truly independent, there can be no suggestion that the Labor government has put its Labor mates in to try and make sure that they can turn a blind eye to rorting and bad behaviour. Then the government’s next suggestion was to make it a two-thirds majority of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, but that was not acceptable. If this is to be genuinely independent and enjoy genuine cross-party support, it must be unanimous, and I am pleased that as a result of our views being taken into account by the government in discussions prior to this bill being introduced we do see a bill that requires any appointment of a commissioner to be unanimously endorsed by the Integrity and Oversight Committee. That is a very important safeguard to make sure we do not get another Labor mate put into a position of power to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.

There are other issues as well. The bill provides for certain disqualifications in relation to somebody being appointed as a commissioner. Some of those disqualifications are if the person is or has at any time in the last five years been a member of an Australian Parliament – that is, any Australian Parliament; if they are or have at any time in the last five years been a councillor of an Australian local council; if they are or have at any time in the last five years been a member of a registered political party; or if they are or have been at any time in the last five years registered on the register of lobbyists. There are a couple of other disqualifying provisions: if they are an insolvent under administration or if they are a candidate for election to a Parliament or to a council. We do not believe that five years is enough. I think that we need people who are sufficiently removed from the day-to-day battle of politics to be regarded as truly independent. So we will be seeking to amend the bill to increase that disqualification period from five years to 10 years.

There is another amendment that we will be seeking to make, and that is in relation to the provisions for the appointment of acting commissioners. The government has listened for once and understood that this bill will not be received with support from other parties in Parliament unless we can be confident that the commissioners will not be partisan political appointments, and to that end the government agreed that the IOC must unanimously agree to the appointment of any potential commissioner. However, when it comes to an acting commissioner that is not the case. When it comes to an acting commissioner – and remember under this bill acting commissioners operate for up to a year; they can be appointed for six months and can be renewed, so an acting commissioner can be engaged for up to a year – there is no requirement for IOC endorsement with any majority, simply a requirement that the IOC be consulted. That is absolutely unacceptable to this side of the house. To think that we could have a commissioner who is appointed with the unanimous support of the IOC and then that commissioner could be outvoted by two acting commissioners put in by the Labor Party ‍– two of their mates put in by the Labor Party with only the obligation to consult with the IOC on who those acting appointments are – is absolutely unacceptable to this side of the house, and we need to see this changed or this bill will not receive our support. We will not support this bill if that is not changed, so under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Michael O’BRIEN: The amendments that I have circulated increase the prohibition period, or the disqualification period, for a potential commissioner in relation to those matters that I have previously referred to from five years to 10 years. They also require that any appointment of an acting commissioner must also be unanimously endorsed by the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, and that is an absolutely vital safeguard to ensure that this commission is not stacked by Labor mates – not for a second, not for a day. Otherwise this bill will not receive support from this side of the house.

There are other matters that concern us in this bill. Some of the matters that concern us about this bill are what is not in this bill. This bill has a dual-track approach in relation to the way in which ministers and parliamentary secretaries are dealt with compared to members of Parliament. Now, I should say where an allegation or complaint is made about a minister or a parliamentary secretary in their capacity as a member of Parliament the process is the same. That is equal and that is right, and we would not consider supporting the bill otherwise. But we accept that in relation to breaches of things like ministerial codes of conduct – things which are within the purview of the government rather than the Parliament – there is a dual-track process. For example, reports from the commissioner after an investigation go the Premier before they go to the Parliament rather than going to the Privileges Committee before going to the Parliament.

One of the things that concerns us and I understand concerns a lot of members on the other side is we do not want to see any situation where there is unequal treatment. We would not want to see a situation where ministers and parliamentary secretaries are potentially able to access support for legal assistance in relation to dealing with complaints through the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority that is not also available to a member of Parliament. I mean, we have to be genuinely serious about these issues. It should be a level playing field, and legal advice and support should be either available to none or available to all. We have asked the government about this and understand the government has acknowledged that this is a problem and it is a problem that needs to be fixed. The government have advised us that they believe this requires a policy solution rather than a legislative solution. Well, time is running out. This bill is now in the Parliament. It is going to be debated this week, and I want to place on the record that as far as the Liberals and the Nationals – the coalition – are concerned we are very much reserving our position on this bill in the other place until this issue of legal costs is dealt with. It is a matter of fairness to every member of this house and a matter of fairness to every member of the other place. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries should not have any advantage over any backbench member of Parliament on either side. It just should not be the case.

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Well, Minister, the government has acknowledged through bill briefings that this is a live issue. The government has said it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The government has told us it needs to be dealt with as a policy response rather than a legislative response. What I am making very clear is that that policy response needs to be dealt with prior to this bill being debated in the other place, because we will not be supporting it – we will not consider supporting it – unless that is done. This is a matter of absolute fairness.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: I am not sure which side of the bar table you would have been on, member for Mordialloc. You might have been in the dock, mate. I never did crime. I probably would not have seen the member for Mordialloc, but anyway. Please do not pretend that members of your own caucus have not also raised these as issues, because we know you have. And, do you know what, the wheel does turn, because one day members of the government will be on the other side of this place. Hopefully it is sooner rather than later, but we all know one day it is going to happen. What is important is that this system is fair to all, and it is not fair to say that a minister should be able to receive some form of legal assistance in relation to a complaint made against them but a backbencher, who could have a complaint over exactly the same or a similar sort of alleged conduct, receives no support. We just want a level playing field. We think that is fair and that is completely within the spirit of the IBAC and Ombudsman’s report. The government has said it requires a policy response rather than a legislative response. What I am saying is: get that policy response and get it in place before this matter, before this bill, goes to a vote in the place upstairs.

As to how the bill actually operates, this has changed a lot from the initial drafts. I acknowledge the government has been willing to listen to concerns that have been expressed to it, and we have seen significant changes in the bill. Effectively the bill will set up the independent commission, and the independent commission can receive complaints effectively from anybody at all. The first process that occurs is that it can act as a clearing house if a matter needs to be referred to a more appropriate agency. For example, if a matter complained about is clearly a criminal matter, it can be referred to Victoria Police. If a matter concerned relates to serious corruption or misconduct in public office, it can be referred potentially to IBAC. It can be referred to the Ombudsman. There are other options that are available to it. There is also the power contained in this bill for the commission to decide not to continue with a complaint where clearly it is trivial, it is frivolous, it is vexatious or it lacks substance. Having been in this place for quite a while, I think we are all aware that we have certain constituents ‍– some of us refer to them as ‘frequent flyers’ – who may have unrealistic levels of expectation as to –

Tim Richardson: Do you go to yours?

Michael O’BRIEN: I do, and I live in my electorate too, member for Mordialloc. You should try it sometime. It is good. When I started in Parliament there was one thing that Liberal MPs and Labor MPs both agreed on, and that was that Liberal electorates are great places to live. It is true.

We need to have a process where trivial, vexatious, frivolous complaints are weeded out. We cannot have a situation where members have to respond to complaints that are without basis. So I think it is appropriate that this bill does contain certain safeguards in that regard, that they can just simply be dismissed. We do need to also ensure that there are opportunities for matters to be dealt with in ways other than full investigations and there is effectively an alternative dispute resolution route that the commissioner is able to take. Where it is more appropriate that a matter be dealt with through conciliation on a voluntary basis, then the bill provides for that. In the bill it is termed ‘an appropriate dispute resolution’ mechanism.

In summary, the commission, when it receives a complaint, or what is known as a ‘referral’ in the bill, can redirect, it can dismiss, it can engage in appropriate dispute resolution or it can investigate. Investigate obviously is the most serious of the options that are available to it at that stage. Under the bill there is power to conduct an investigation. Obviously there is some limit to the ability of the commission to require members of Parliament or ministers or parliamentary secretaries to appear or produce documents. However, failure to do so is the sort of thing that can result in adverse comment and can be regarded as potentially misconduct in some way.

Following an investigation – and I should say that this is where the issue about legal cost does need to be resolved, because there are, appropriately, rights to consult with legal representation to be represented in certain circumstances during the conduct of an investigation – it is then a matter where the commission can determine that parliamentary misconduct has occurred. I will not go into all the definitions, but obviously there are different degrees of seriousness in relation to findings that can be made. In relation to non-serious parliamentary misconduct, there is capacity for the commission to impose sanctions directly. That I think is important, and the sorts of sanctions that are able to be imposed by the commission directly include the ability to require that a public apology, for example, be made or an explanation can be made. There can be a requirement to participate in a facilitated meeting with an affected person. There can be withdrawal of services, removal of access to certain facilities or other personal restriction relating to the functions of the MP. I would just say that obviously there would be the ability to make it very, very difficult for an MP to do their job if that sanction was used in an overly zealous way. Given that the bill does not provide for the commission to have the direct power to remove an MP from Parliament, I would hope that they would take that on board in relation to how they might exercise that power of sanction in relation to the removal of access to facilities or services.

They can directly require discharge of any other sanction that the commission considers appropriate. Where there is a finding of serious parliamentary misconduct or a failure by the MP to comply with an investigation request without reasonable excuse, the commission may not impose but may recommend more serious sanctions, and that includes, again, a requirement to provide – actually, I beg your pardon, I think the sanctions I referred to were what the committee may recommend. So in terms of what the commission can actually do –

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: No, it is important we get this one right. In terms of written apologies, participation in facilitated meetings et cetera I think it is important, but in terms of more serious matters it is essential that the Parliament ultimately remain in charge of that. It is also important that there be transparency. The system is, in relation to a complaint against an MP, if the finding is of serious parliamentary misconduct, the report goes to the Privileges Committee of the relevant house. That Privileges Committee has the opportunity to consider the report and to invite a response from the member concerned, and then the Privileges Committee may make a report to this house, if it is the Assembly Privileges Committee, and recommend the original recommendation of the commission or in fact make another recommendation. Either way, the house and therefore the public will see what the commission recommended, and I think that is an important transparency element.

One of the matters that has arisen is: what happens where a report has been made and a complaint has been investigated but there has been effectively a finding that there is nothing to it, there is no substance to it? In terms of reputational protection for people who have not done the wrong thing, it is important that the commission take into account those matters contained within this bill, but there are times when it may not be appropriate for unexpurgated reports to be made where there is effectively no finding of wrongdoing on the part of a member. We are all entitled to have the presumption of innocence, and on that basis it is important that those safeguards be observed by the commission.

In relation to ministers and parliamentary secretaries where the complaints are against them acting in that capacity, similarly the commission can impose sanctions for minor matters. In terms of serious matters, it goes to the Premier and the Premier will ultimately have the say on what sanctions are imposed. But in both circumstances the commission’s report will be tabled in the Parliament and therefore there will be transparency. This is going to be a new world for all of us. Previously we have been, as members, used to collectively dealing with the Presiding Officer and dealing with the Privileges Committee where there have been matters of wrongdoing. This is going to introduce a new independent and arms-length process where complaints against members of Parliament – ministers, parliamentary secretaries and even the Premier – can be investigated and be investigated independently of us. I think in a modern workplace that is appropriate, and that is where we have got to because of, as I established at the start of my contribution, the behaviour of members on the other side of this place over a long period of time.

In terms of other changes in the bill, as I mentioned, the bill does establish the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation. This office has been operating for some time, but to give it a statutory basis it is contained in the bill. The bill also establishes a Parliamentary Ethics Committee, which shall be a joint committee consisting of six, eight or 10 members – I am not quite sure why the government is so unsure as to how many members this would comprise – half from the Assembly and half from the Council. Importantly, it also provides that not more than half of the members of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee may be members of a political party forming the government. So this would be a non-government-controlled committee, and I think it would be in the interests of democracy to see a little bit more of that.

This is a bill which does have some safeguards in relation to unfair accusations against members of Parliament. The commission has the ability to issue a confidentiality notice where it believes on reasonable grounds that disclosure of one or more restricted matters would be likely to prejudice investigations by integrity bodies, the safety or reputation of a person or the fair trial of a person who has been or may be charged with an offence.

I do note that while a confidentiality notice may be issued in those circumstances, that can only take effect once the complaint or the referral has been received and there is nothing to stop an individual from going to the press about the fact they have made the referral or complaint before any opportunity for a confidentiality notice can be engaged.

It is very sad that it has come to this and that we are apparently no longer capable of collectively behaving, and as I said, the behaviour of Labor MPs over a number of years has led us to this very sad place. The opposition is very serious about these amendments. We are also very serious about resolving the legal costs matter. At this point the opposition will not be opposing the bill in this place, but I make clear our position in the other place is reserved until the government accepts amendments, improves this bill and makes this truly a level playing field.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (16:21): I rise to make a contribution on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, a bill that represents a very important step in strengthening Victoria’s parliamentary standards and Victoria’s integrity regime. The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill is designed to promote the highest standards of accountability, integrity and behaviour among all members of Parliament, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It is a bill that implements seven recommendations from the IBAC and Victorian Ombudsman’s report into Operation Watts, and it will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight not just in Victoria but also in Australia.

The member for Malvern just concluded a 30-minute opening contribution on this legislation. I did not catch the start of his contribution, but when I did walk in he was talking about a couple of a former members of this side of the house. I have got to say it was pretty gutsy of him to do that, because I do not think anybody should claim purity here. I am not going to go through all of the members of that side of the house who have not behaved appropriately at all times, but I will mention one thing in that space. If we think back to what was happening in this house exactly 10 years ago in the dying days of the Napthine LNP government, when one Geoff Shaw, formerly a Liberal member for Frankston, turned independent, was threatening their parliamentary majority, they refused to take action on the former member for Frankston until such time as it was constitutionally impossible for his resignation to cause a by-election. You can be purist about this, but frankly you do not have a leg to stand on on these issues.

I could go on. I could talk about a former Liberal member for Hastings who was a member of the member for Malvern’s party room when he was leader for two years or whatever it was. But at the end of the day, as I said at the outset, let us not claim purity here, because our singular focus has to be on lifting standards. At the end of the day people are fallible. Politicians are human, and I have got to say the most confronting thing about becoming a member of Parliament is that your life does change. Suddenly there are transgressions that when you are not a member of Parliament or not a person in public life would otherwise go unnoticed. Suddenly as a member of Parliament you do have that added layer of scrutiny and also self-scrutiny. These integrity bodies that we have but also codes of conduct and all of these things that have been improved by both sides of the house over the years have served to make sure that we seek the best in ourselves and that we are always lifting our standards as members of Parliament, because that is exactly what we need to be doing. I have always said that there are a lot of people in the community who do have a dim view of politicians. It is not just here in Victoria, not just throughout Australia, but all over the world. For some people, there is not much that we can do to change those views. But what that is to all of us is a reminder that we always need to seek to do better, and that is what this bill does.

It should not go without being mentioned that my seat of Bentleigh is named after Sir Thomas Bent. Sir Thomas Bent was –

Michael O’Brien: Bent by name, bent by nature.

Nick STAIKOS: That is right, member for Malvern. Sir Thomas Bent was the Premier of Victoria from 1904 to 1909. Before that, he was Minister of Railways. Throughout all of that he served on the Moorabbin shire as well, concurrently. The reason why he did that is because back then it was the local councils who maintained the voters roll, so he certainly wanted a say in who was on the voters roll. There are all sorts of things that I can say about Thomas Bent, but we have thankfully come a long way since then. The reality is that both sides of politics over the years have sought to strengthen our integrity regime. As I said, this is one of the most significant overhauls in recent memory.

I will now go through some of the key features of the bill. Firstly, the cornerstone of this bill is the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, an independent body which will be responsible for receiving, managing, investigating and resolving allegations of parliamentary misconduct and inappropriate workplace behaviour, including bullying, harassment, discrimination, victimisation and occupational violence and aggression. The commission has been developed based on recommendations from detailed reviews and best practices from existing integrity frameworks in other jurisdictions. It will operate under seven guiding principles: integrity, independence, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, respect and safety, and fairness. These principles will ensure that the commission supports the integrity of Parliament and meets community expectations of their elected representatives.

The bill also introduces complementary reforms to the code of conduct in the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978. MPs will have a positive obligation to foster a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment in the parliamentary workplace, free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. MPs will also be required to demonstrate respect for parliamentary standards and integrity, including complying with reasonable requests made by the commission. In relation to any MP, including any minister or parliamentary secretary acting in their capacity as an MP, the bill defines ‘parliamentary misconduct’ broadly as: contravention of the MP code of conduct; a wilful, repeated or deliberate contravention of part 4 of the MP standards act; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of work-related parliamentary allowances; wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electoral office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour.

I also just want to say a word on how the bill deals with the issue of frivolous complaints – and of course we know that there will be frivolous complaints received. Under the bill, 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. Additionally, it is a criminal offence, punishable by up to 12 months in prison, to provide false or misleading information to the commission. These measures ensure that the commission’s resources are focused on legitimate issues and prevent the misuse of the complaints process. The commission may decide to investigate a matter, and it has appropriate powers to request information or attendance at an interview. It can apply to the Supreme Court to determine if a person has a reasonable excuse not to comply with an investigation request, and if a current or former member fails to comply without reasonable excuse, the commission can recommend sanctions for noncompliance or report the noncompliance to Parliament.

I also just wanted to say: what this brings into the Parliament is process – process to deal with certain events where members of Parliament are not behaving appropriately, process that everybody understands and process I think that will make members of Parliament, both current members of Parliament and future members of Parliament, better and more honest representatives of the people.

I think by and large people who are in public office in parliaments throughout Australia, not just in Victoria, are good, honest people, people of significant integrity. I think by global standards we already have a very robust system of integrity. But as I said at the outset of this contribution, we constantly need to be seeking to do better, to improve our systems and to make sure that we are the best possible representatives of our electorates. This is a strong bill that will do just that. I commend it to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:31): I rise to make a contribution on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 following on from the Shadow Attorney-General and our lead speaker. I commend the Shadow Attorney-General for the work he has done, and some of the other members of this side of the chamber for the work they have done, working with the government. I give credit to the government as well for actually being open to discussing this bill, to take it forward and get a sensible outcome. If the government take on board the two, I think, very good suggestions from the Shadow Attorney-General around amendments to this bill, which will make it even better, there is the opportunity to move forward together on this particular piece of legislation. It can be rather unique in this place to have that sort of situation, but it is important.

This piece of legislation came out of Operation Watts, which was a joint investigation conducted by IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman. It was initiated following two referrals: one from the Attorney-General to IBAC, and from the Legislative Council to the Ombudsman following allegations of branch stacking involving the misuse of public funds by certain moderate Labor members of Parliament, although I think there is conjecture as to whether it was limited just to that particular faction of the Labor Party. The investigation examined a range of matters, including allegations of misuse of electorate officers, ministerial office staff and resources for branch stacking and other party-related activities. The key findings included the hiring of unqualified people into publicly funded roles, using those roles to support factional work, nepotism, forging signatures, bullying behaviour and attempts to interfere with government grants. The key recommendation arising from the report, as has already been talked about, is the establishment of a Parliamentary Ethics Committee and a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, which this piece of legislation puts into place.

I suppose again, like the Shadow Attorney-General said, we are in this situation principally because of the fact that an element of the Labor Party membership in this place could not keep their hands out of the cookie jar. If you actually look over the history of my time in this place and you think back – and I know the member for Bentleigh did not want to talk about those sorts of issues, but I think we do need to talk about those issues to lift the lid on corruption. Until you actually lift the lid on misconduct by parliamentarians, you do not actually get change. I think Operation Watts and some of the other investigations that have happened by the Ombudsman and by IBAC have actually lifted the lid, which is why we are in the situation where we have this legislation before us today.

I just find it absolutely offensive that we had in a previous Parliament a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker who lost their positions because they rorted the second residence allowance. To have a member of Parliament deliberately relocate a distance away from Melbourne to qualify for the second residence allowance, if they did, and then take that money I think is just abhorrent. It is wrong and it brings us all into disrepute. The unfortunate situation is that when any MP – it does not matter almost in what state or whether it is federal – does something wrong it taints us all. We are all deemed to be one of those politicians out there that are always looking to do something wrong to get some advantage of some sort. So when the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker in that particular Parliament did that, that brought us all into disrepute.

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: You just worry about licking the stamps you have got stashed away in your office, mate. You just worry about licking the stamps that are stashed away. You just go and lick the stamps.

We had a former minister who thought it was appropriate to use a separate ministerial car to cart his dogs to his residence in country Victoria, not put them in the car with him but send them ahead in a ministerial car on their own with a driver and then follow in his car at some later stage. When someone thinks that that is all right, we know the standards have actually fallen lower. And again, we are all ridiculed about, ‘Well, are you using your car to cart your dogs around?’ That is not the first time that happened. From my recollection it also happened to a former minister, Minister Barry Rowe, I think, if I remember rightly, who actually used a second car to take his dogs to the Melbourne show, going back to the Cain–Kirner era.

So there is a pattern on the other side by an element – and I am not putting all the members on the other side in that category, but there is a pattern on that side of the house – where somehow they think it is all right to use taxpayers funds for inappropriate purposes. We have seen that with the use of printing allowances. We have seen it with the use of stamps for that sort of thing. It is just not right, so this legislation puts in place a process where if there is a report, that can be investigated. As the Shadow Attorney-General set out, we will still have left in place the Privileges Committee to have the final call on what it believes the penalty should be once it gets to be a serious issue. But the Privileges Committee, if it disagrees with the commission’s finding or disagrees with the commission’s recommendations, actually has to put in writing why it disagrees with that recommendation and why it is making a separate recommendation. I think there is the balance there.

Some people are concerned about this legislation. I suppose some people are concerned about speed restrictions, whether they be 40 kilometres, 60 kilometres, 80 kilometres or 100 kilometres. But only those that break the speed limits have concerns about those particular limits. If you do not speed, you do not get booked. As one of my former colleagues used to say, it is taxation by choice. If you choose to speed, you run the risk of getting caught and you pay the fines and that goes into consolidated revenue. So if people do the right thing, if people talk to the parliamentary staff about what is appropriate to use allowances for and what is appropriate to do, they should never fall foul of this particular piece of legislation, but it is there to make sure that people do do the right thing.

Can I urge the government on the other side to take the Shadow Attorney-General’s amendments seriously. I think the change from five years to 10 years for effectively a non-compete clause in the legislation, that if you have been a member of Parliament, if you have been a councillor, if you have worked for parliamentarians or if you have been a member of a political party –

A member interjected.

Peter WALSH: or if you have been a lobbyist, thank you – you cannot serve as a commissioner. I think that change from five to 10 years is suitable and relevant, because if you actually look at today’s world, people are entering politics at a younger age in general. That is a good thing. We are getting a good diversity across the chamber of gender, of age, of employment and of experience, but someone could be in here at 30 or 35 years old, be out, and then – five years goes very, very quickly – they could end up being put in place for one of these particular commissioner roles. So I think 10 years is a good balance that the Shadow Attorney-General has put there. Also the fact around the appointment of the temporary or acting commissioners, making sure that they have the same right of veto as people on the independent oversight committee as far as their appointment goes – they both make sense, and in the spirit of how both sides of the chamber have worked together on this piece of legislation, I would hope that the government takes those issues seriously as it moves from this house to the other house as we move it forward.

Just to finish off, if you do not do anything wrong, this legislation is not going to be an issue. If you do something wrong – if you have not sought the correct advice, if you have not followed that advice ‍– there is the potential that you can wind up being reported to this commission. You could find yourself having a recommendation against you in this commission. The only concern that I have and a number of other MPs have raised is the risk of this being weaponised. There is a risk, from either side, of this being weaponised and someone using it for a political stunt to embarrass someone, to have them dragged before it, to leak to the press that they have done this so it actually comes out and embarrasses someone when they maybe have not done anything wrong. So I suppose the only caution with the legislation – and as I said, it goes to both sides of the chamber – is making sure that this is not weaponised and used as an attack weapon against MPs rather than an actual integrity body, as it is intended to be.

Natalie HUTCHINS (Sydenham – Minister for Jobs and Industry, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Minister for Women) (16:40): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. This is a new bill that will have a key role examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including around allegations of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation. I am sad to tell you that I have myself as a worker, not in this place but in many other places, experienced sexual harassment, bullying and victimisation, particularly at a time when I was young and I was a waitress. It was, unfortunately, commonplace in many workplaces where I worked that young women had to face this, and I am really glad our government has taken the steps forward to improve our workplace safety standards across this state to make sexual harassment, victimisation and bullying issues that are dealt with under the workplace safety act and make sure that there are supports out there for young women to be able to report to. Unfortunately, one in three workers that were surveyed had experienced sexual harassment within their workplace in the last five years. Half of those incidents were repeated, and of those, half were ongoing for more than a year. That is just one stat from the fifth national survey on sexual harassment in the workplace. Unfortunately, no industry – no workplace for that matter – is immune from workplace bullying or sexual harassment.

The Jenkins report in the federal Parliament found that 51 per cent of Commonwealth parliamentary officers had experienced at least one incident of bullying, harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. Jenkins also found that 77 per cent of people in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced, witnessed or heard about bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault – that is 77 per cent. That is huge, and it is absolutely unacceptable. Whilst these statistics relate to federal Parliament, we know that there are similar challenges here in the Victorian Parliament.

At the start of last year we finally saw some codes of conduct applied to all parliamentarians and staffers in the federal Parliament. I have even visited the federal Parliament and seen the little contact cards that are now available all over Parliament House up there. In response to multiple news stories surfacing about misconduct and poor behaviour the federal government established their parliamentary workplace standards service, and governments have been leading by example by holding up higher standards than in other workplaces, and that is the way it should be.

Whilst the federal independent parliamentary standards commission is still six months away, now is the time for us to look, here at the Victorian Parliament, at protecting our parliamentarians and of course our staff. We need to follow the steps of the federal government. All Australian employers now have a legal obligation to implement measures that prevent workplace sexual harassment, thanks to the Commonwealth’s respect-at-work legislation. The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will go a long way to achieving this in our workplace. The commission, along with other measures proposed in the bill, will also address non-sexual instances of harassment and enhance the integrity and transparency of this workplace. Unfortunately, racism is also still an issue. We and all of our staff deserve to work in safe, respectful and accountable work environments.

The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill is an important piece of legislation. It upholds the highest standards of accountability and integrity, and this bill promotes these in a range of ways. The recommendations that were outlined in the Jenkins review have informed this bill. It will establish a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct. This will provide an avenue for complaints to be heard and investigated independently and according to due processes. This will be the first legislated parliamentary investigative commission in Australia and the only parliamentary investigative commission which will cover ministers. Later this year the commission will be established, and it will receive, manage and investigate allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints. A Parliamentary Ethics Committee will also be established in this legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace. We know current arrangements are inadequate and inconsistent with standards in other workplaces. Victorians expect and deserve better from their Parliament. How can we expect the public to trust us if we do not hold ourselves to account to the highest standards and lead by example?

The government is committed to upholding the standards and values reflected in this bill, and as Minister for Women I am very proud that our gender equality strategy, Our Equal State, has an entire pillar dedicated to the safety and respect of all Victorians. Our Equal State includes several initiatives designed to improve safety and respect in the workplace. For example, the Allan government is responding to the recommendations made by the ministerial taskforce on workplace sexual harassment. The taskforce was established in March 2021 to develop reforms to prevent and better the response to sexual harassment in Victorian workplaces. This government accepted or accepted in part 21 of the 26 taskforce recommendations. These included continuing to work to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements for workplace sexual harassment cases in Victoria and ensuring workplace sexual harassment is treated as an occupational health and safety issue.

Last year WorkSafe announced a $4 million project – which I was really pleased to be at the launch of – the WorkWell Respect Fund, which provides eligible organisations with grants to support projects aimed at preventing work-related gendered violence and sexual harassment. The Victorian government also agreed to advocate to the Commonwealth to implement all 55 recommendations from the Respect@Work report and implement any recommendations applicable across Victoria. But now it is time to look at our own workplaces, because a safe and respectful workplace is not negotiable.

Ahead of our local council elections later this year I encourage women to stand up and be heard, stand up and nominate. We need 1000 women to nominate in order to reach our 50 per cent target. No matter what party they are from, what background they are from or what religion they are from, we want them to step up. I know there are issues even across the local government sector around respect in the workplace, and I call on anyone in that sector to support women candidates that are running in the forthcoming election and to make sure that the debate and the campaigns are respectful, because we want to make sure that our equal state is one at all levels of government. Of course we have very proudly achieved that here in the Victorian Parliament – equality when it comes to gender-based representation. That has been very much held up by this side of the house. We want to see that continue across our local government. Of course I commend the federal government on the work that they have done to achieve gender equality – absolutely stunning results they have in the Senate – but also for taking this issue about workplace safety so seriously in adopting the Jenkins report and making the changes and being real leaders on the federal level.

Everyone has a right to a safe workplace, whether you are a teacher, a tradie or a politician. Victorians should have faith that people that they elect to represent them are held to the same high standards as they are. We must lead by example.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:50): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I do so to make comment initially and say this is a bill that came into the Parliament as a response to the recommendations the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, and the Victorian Ombudsman, the VO, made after the handing down of the Operation Watts report, a joint investigation by IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman. This was as a result of the misbehaviour of various Labor MPs and misuse of public resources. I commend and credit the work done by my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien in bringing this bill to this stage in the Parliament today. I do also recommend the two amendments that he has put forward. Both of those will make substantial improvements to the bill, and I am confident and hope that the government will take those into consideration and that the moving forward together continues so that we make sure we get this bill right. We all deserve respect in the workplace, and the use of the word ‘integrity’ is something that I think anyone expects in their workplace and particularly expects of their members of Parliament.

Actions speak louder than words, and I have always felt if you do the right thing you will get the right result. So to see the misuse of funds that we have seen by the Labor Party in the past that this report brings to light does make people in the community feel very disheartened. You see today two previous members of the Labor Party sit now behind me over here, and it is really disappointing that even two years after this report was handed down, when it actually says in the bill that there should be an explanation of behaviours to the public, we have not seen any explanation. I am pretty confident that the people of South-West Coast would expect me to show integrity and to turn up as their representative in Parliament. It is not an optional thing to turn up here; it is what I need to do to be a representative voice, and the Labor Party have allowed two members to just to sit over here – they are never, ever actually there – and the people of Ringwood and the people of South Barwon not to get representation in the Parliament and their voices not to be heard because the members are not present. I think there is an expectation that all our electorates would have of their elected representatives, so it is very disappointing that this conduct has not been identified and explained, as is the recommendation in this bill.

I also think that we should expect integrity. We expect in the workplace respect from employers, and it should be an inclusive and respectful environment. Two weeks ago we had the Premier come into South-West Coast and go and visit the hospital. We were all wondering what was going to be announced, but rather than tell us any news about the developments at the hospital, what we heard was reannounced programs, and the Premier left. Within six days the hospital came out and talked about how the promised scope of the build at the hospital would not actually be delivered by Labor. We would be getting cuts to the scope, we would not be getting areas of the hospital that were scoped out over a 10-year period and had been designed; feasibility studies were conducted and master plans done that we were told we would have to wait patiently for, and we were told we would not get the hospital announcement until they were all done because it had to be meticulously thought through, designed and scoped, even in February. Where is the integrity of the Minister for Health coming and visiting and being asked about that hospital being delivered to scope? We got no answer, and then both the Minister for Health and the Premier came to the electorate within months – within days in the Premier’s situation – and left the staff to come out and say that the hospital will not be delivered as promised. It is the most gutless act I have ever seen of a Premier, and it absolutely smacks –

Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I just think it is best to adhere to the central tenets of this legislation and the purposive elements of this legislation. I fear that the member is going on a tangent that is not actually fundamentally the purpose for which this legislation was developed.

Roma BRITNELL: On the point of order, this is a bill about how we should act in our workplace, this is a bill about how we should be as employers, and what we saw was a Premier, who employs the hospital staff, namely, the CEO, leave that person to actually carry the can and deliver the –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I will rule on the point of order. The member has strayed from the topic of the debate. And if she believes she was still on the topic of debate, she may be skirting close to impugning sitting members, so she may like to reconsider the approach that she is taking.

Roma BRITNELL: Do I have the opportunity to talk to you about that later?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): You can absolutely speak to the Speaker’s office.

Roma BRITNELL: Thank you. I will continue on the subject of integrity, which is what this bill is actually titled as, and the behaviours of parliamentarians in their role as politicians and the integrity that should be seen by the public in our behaviours. What I was referring to was the misleading, false and deceptive information that comes from the Labor Party and is delivered to South-West Coast, and I used the example of a hospital that was promised and had the members of Parliament, namely, the Minister for Health and the Premier, come to the region and absolutely avoid the question being asked of them directly and then leaving their staff – nurses, CEOs of hospitals are all staff members of the government. That is exactly what we are discussing here: how we behave in the workplace and the respect that we deserve in the workplace.

That is what I think could be expected by the community of South-West Coast so that they get the respect that they need from their government – when they are promised something, that it is delivered. And when they are told it is going to be built to scope only less than three months ago, or even six days earlier the question being asked and being avoided – that is not something that I think we can call a display of integrity by a government that is expected to govern from border to border, not just within the confines of the city of Melbourne. There is far more to this state than the city of Melbourne. We should see a government that understands the importance of South-West Coast as well as all the other electorates.

I am very disappointed that we talk about integrity and then we can isolate it to not mean how we deliver, and this government is delivering many misleading, false and deceptive stories to the communities. I have highlighted here one particularly around our hospital which I think is an absolute disgrace, and the Labor Party should be absolutely ashamed of how they have treated the community of South-West Coast and the hospital staff who worked so well in extraordinary conditions. This opportunity to discuss integrity I think highlights the lack of integrity that we witnessed in South-West Coast just last week.

Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (16:58): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. If I can take up from where the member for South-West Coast was talking about the conduct in the workplace in general, before being in this place I had my own business and before that I worked in corporate Australia. Throughout having my own business I obviously worked with many other businesses, both clients and suppliers et cetera. Behaviour in business is not always good; behaviour in any organisation is not always good. There are mechanisms in the wider community for dealing with behaviour. It is not always perfect. There is too much bullying that goes on, regardless of whether it is corporate Australia, whether it is the public service, whether it is tribunals – any organisations – and we are no different in this place in that regard. One thing that makes us different, though, is that the 88 of us sitting in this room or the 40 in the other place do not have a boss. You would rightly say that our bosses are the 50,000-odd constituents who, to our great privilege, put us in this place, but we do not have someone that necessarily we answer to on a daily basis in the conduct of our job. This makes us rather unique in our society.

We also have privilege in this place, and that is in fact that we can stand up here and pretty well say anything we like. Yes, there is the Privileges Committee that can deal with abusers of that power, but what we have seen – and I take examples that have been put forward, and I am sure it will be one side and the other side of noted examples of where behaviour has not been acceptable – is the methods of dealing with that unacceptable behaviour have not been clear enough, so I think this bill is a good step in essentially us debating that today. I note that from what I can see – I was not here for all of the member for Malvern’s contribution – from looking at the amendments that he put forward, it is not a reasoned amendment, so therefore I would hope that the opposition would not be opposing this bill. I am not going to say they are or they are not, I missed that bit, but I presume they are not. So we are in the strange place that we are policing ourselves and writing a law that will hopefully allow an independent body to do that.

At the same time, we are trying to balance the special privilege that we have in this place to say whatever we like, within reason, within accountability, and so I think this bill is a good balance. We can all talk about the egregious examples there have been in the past from members, and it is not just one side. None of us are perfect. Let us hope none of us in the future make similar mistakes of character, but there is ‘there but for the grace of God go we’ miscommunication. This bill does hopefully take care of actions against serious misbehaviour, but it also allows a mechanism for what could potentially be called lesser behavioural issues.

Now maybe, and I like to hope with the hopeful passing of this bill, we will actually see with this bill and the integrity adviser that comes with it and the mechanisms of the integrity body cultural change over a period of time, so we do not need to be talking about our own behaviour. It does not matter to me which side of this table we sit on; this is a professional workplace and we should all be professional. We are in a place where we can pretty well say whatever we like, and it does not have to be true, although one would hope it would be. But let us face it, sometimes exaggerations are made. Sometimes the lily is gilded a little bit. Look, that is fine in the sense of debate and the theatre of this Assembly and hundreds of years of tradition – we all accept that. When we are in question time and everyone puts a bit of a slant on things, that is part of the job, but we should all remember at the end of the day that, especially when we walk outside the little brass line at the bottom of the door there, we are professionals doing a job. Whether it be our own staff, whether it be parliamentary staff or whether it be members of the public who seem aggrieved at something that we may or may not have done, this bill provides a mechanism to find recourse for people who think that they have been mistreated.

Now, it is possible that there may be some in the community who seek to make frivolous complaints, and that, I would think, at some point will probably happen to one of us. I think there is enough in here regarding powers to look at frivolous complaints that we can feel a sense of security, but I would be more concerned, personally, if the focus was not on those who are rightfully aggrieved.

Whilst we have privileges and we have accountability publicly, what this bill does is it says there is somebody else on the beat watching us to make sure that we are fit and proper people to be sitting in this place, and that is a good thing. It is a good thing that we are accountable. Yes, it is another body that has powers, but I think the very ability of this body to be able to look at minor errors of judgement or action means that, if we have not been already – and I am sure most, if not all, of us already have been aware – we should all start being aware that the roles that we do outside this place and within this place are the one thing. We live in a world where we respond to and are accountable to, in my case, 50-odd thousand people. In the other place, it is a lot more. They are our constituents. They have a right to expect that we are professional in nature. They have a right to expect that we uphold and try and live our best by the very laws that we are in this place to create.

I think this bill does a good job. I am also encouraged that we are having a review in two years. That does not mean that I have problems with the bill. What that means is that we are not accepting that it is done and dusted and we move it. Each of the laws that we have got in front of us, in the green books there, we have most likely changed, and the law is a moving feast. I commend the Premier on putting through this bill. I commend the bill to the house. This is a good step forward and will only make this house a more reputable and respected place.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:08): Despite varying codes of conduct being in place at different times, it is evident that there have been a number of situations arise that have meant we have had to put into place in this Parliament a workplace standards and integrity bill to deal with them. I think there have been a lot of examples in years gone by where people have seen that behaviour has not been great and things have needed to alter in this place in particular. I was involved during the last Parliament in having a look at some bullying and harassment policies, and I got to understand this area quite a bit. One thing I think that has made a difference in this area, surprisingly, is finishing earlier and people not being in the bar. Apparently the number of incidents that arose – too much poor behaviour – as a result of that in the parliamentary precinct did cause more angst than perhaps there should have been ordinarily.

The bill before us establishes a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, a Parliamentary Ethics Committee and a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. These are to be enshrined in legislation, and each one has a specific role. The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will be able to investigate allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints referred to it, including by IBAC. The Parliamentary Ethics Committee is to be a joint committee to provide confidential advice and training to MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser will foster an ethical parliamentary workplace through the promotion of a members code of conduct and other obligations in Parliament and the community. And of course with all of these bills these are there are consequential and related amendments.

But why are we here? We are here for two purposes. Clearly we need to be told as MPs what is appropriate, what is okay and what is not okay, because not everyone gets that – it is a bit surprising. I would like to think that I uphold high standards of integrity and I behave accordingly, but there are times and places where we have had MPs and ministers – even at the moment – who have been absent from their parliamentary duties and not coming in here. But we are also here because we had an incident that was investigated by the Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC. We had Operation Watts, which was about a scandal, and this was a scandal in the Labor Party, in one of its factions. Such was the information that was supplied and the investigation that it was obvious that there were some things missing as a result of the bad behaviour. You would think that ordinarily most people would understand what was kosher and was not kosher. Apparently a lot of members in the Labor Party do not understand that, so the Ombudsman and the IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich put out a report, which they tabled, with 21 recommendations.

Operation Watts was about branch stacking and the misuse of public funds for party political purposes. It is really interesting when you look at some of the comments and the quotes. Robert Redlich was quoted as saying this was ‘jobs on the public purse’ and Deborah Glass, former Ombudsman, found:

… a catalogue of unethical and inappropriate behaviour and concerning practices, and the environment in which such behaviour was able to flourish.

These are pretty significant, and it has led to their recommendations, which the government have no choice but to adopt to show that they are actually starting to do something about this, because for a long time they sat on their hands; they let this behaviour continue to happen.

The behaviours that happened according to Operation Watts: unqualified people were placed in public roles; they were using ministerial officers to support factional work; and there were behaviours of nepotism, forging of signatures, bullying behaviours and attempts to interfere with government grants. This is a culture that leads to corruption. Whilst they could not find hard corruption here, it was evidence that there is a grey zone of soft corruption. The state of the law at the time – the legislation that was there – meant they could not determine criminal conduct. Had the legislation been in place, that may have been a different thing. But they certainly did find that they breached the ministerial code of conduct and the MPs code. So make no mistake that it is the behaviour of the Labor Party and ministers that is really why we are here today, because otherwise the government probably would have continued to sit on their hands.

The Ombudsman in 2018 had the red shirt investigation, and she said that there was a tepid response to that investigation and that little had changed. Several years later she was very keen to see clear, unambiguous conduct, which is part of the reason why the Parliamentary Ethics Committee was born, as well as the independent integrity commissioner.

Now, I want to talk first of all a little bit about the ethics committee. The legislation talks about the make-up of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee in clause 140, which inserts new section 21B. It talks about the number – six, eight or 10 members, so have a bit of a guess there. Half must be members of the Assembly and half must be members of the Council, so it is a joint committee. I would have liked to have seen it said that if you are on the Privileges Committee you are not also on the ethics committee. It does not say that, but I think it would be quite good if that could happen. Not more than half of the committee may be members of a political party forming government. That, I think, is particularly good ‍– but a non-government chair.

With the eligibility of appointment for the commissioner, I want to go back to that for a moment. Section 49 talks about the eligibility for appointment and outlines quite a number of areas where a person should have extensive or specialist knowledge. It lists about eight different areas, including government, community affairs, industrial relations law, dynamics of sexual assault and gender-based violence, public sector governance, public sector ethics and integrity and anything else that the minister considers relevant. If you overlap that with the role of the commissioner in adjudicating, if you like, or undertaking alternative dispute resolution – different dispute resolution mechanisms – there is an entire section on that dispute resolution, and I would have thought that perhaps one of the pieces of expertise or specialist knowledge would have been around dispute resolution, because none of those eight factors that are listed there actually touches on that. I think that is an oversight. Also with the eligibility for appointment, we have somebody being ineligible if at any time in the last five years they have been a member of an Australian Parliament or local council. What we have put forward in the textual amendments that the lead speaker, the member for Malvern, has put here, is to have that extended to 10 years. Five years is only really the last term, and I think that people need to be further distanced from that. On top of that we have that the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee do have a right of veto, so if one member out of that committee says that they do not agree with the proposed appointment then that appointment does not go ahead. But I would expect in this case that the government work very closely with the opposition to make sure that they do have somebody appointed in that position or positions who does uphold really high standards of integrity and has the appropriate expertise.

One thing that has always concerned me is confidentiality and how you maintain confidentiality, because we know, and it has been canvassed previously, that there are vexatious litigants out there. There are people who will say certain things just to cause problems for MPs. These can be very frivolous and, as I said, vexatious. It is very difficult if somebody’s name gets raised early on through trial by media when there has been a claim like that. One thing that I am pleased but still have a little bit of concern about is that a breach of confidentiality, which is outlined in clause 81, is 120 units. Today that is $23,000, so you would hope that it does try and maintain the confidential element, but at the same time it is very easy and we see too often that cases end up in the media because somebody goes to the media first before going through the correct processes. So this bill, whilst it may not be perfect, goes some way to addressing some of the extraordinarily poor behaviours that we have seen through Operation Watts.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (17:18): I am very pleased today to stand here and speak in support of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. This legislation does one simple thing. It sets standards that are fitting for this place. There is no reason why the workplace standards of this place should be weaker than for those who work in any other sector, because a safe and respectful workplace is non-negotiable, whether that is a school, which I have previously worked at, a hospital, where I have also done placement, or here in Parliament. This legislation will establish a new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, which will have a key role examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries and ministers, implementing seven recommendations from IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman’s report into Operation Watts. This will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country. This legislation has been drafted after months of consultation since October last year that has been incredibly widespread. We have made sure to include non-government members, and their input has made this bill what it is today.

We have also made sure to include Presiding Officers, clerks, integrity agencies and other experts across law, workplace standards, human rights, equal opportunity and gender equality. I think it is especially important that we have consulted with others that work in this place who are not members of Parliament, because the behaviour of elected members here impacts other workers here beyond our colleagues, such as our own electorate officers, advisory staff and the independent staff here in Parliament.

Before I talk about the new commission, I want to highlight changes this bill will make beyond its establishment. 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 elected members. It will also establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation, amend 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 the parliamentary adviser. This, to be blunt, should be a bare minimum in any workplace, and this obligation includes a requirement to provide a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment in a workplace that is free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. As a psychologist, I know the impact that these behaviours can have on a person long term, so we need to put this in place. These changes will all make positive impacts in the workplace before we factor in the work of this new integrity commission.

The main purpose of this bill is the establishment of the new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission. This body will receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints. There will be up to three commissioners: one full-time commissioner that 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, as we have heard, a local council, a registered political party or on the register of lobbyists. This avoids having commissioners with vested interests and ensures that it remains truly independent. 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, again making sure that the right people hold this very important role.

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 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 go-to for public interest disclosures, and 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.

For current MPs, 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 allowances; a wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electorate office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour. So it covers quite a lot.

For ministers or parliamentary secretaries, 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. To protect the rights and wellbeing of all parties involved in reporting and investigation processes, the bill will contain appropriate safeguards on the commission’s discretion and 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.

When dealing with a complaint, the first thing the commission will have to do is to determine whether they have jurisdiction to cover it. This includes complaints made in bad faith, lacking in substance or credibility or related to an allegation of conduct engaged in at a time that is too remote to justify an investigation. The commission will also be able to dismiss complaints already addressed by other relevant bodies, such as law enforcement or IBAC. We all want complaints to be dealt with as quickly as possible and with as little formality as possible, so this will be an important aspect of the commission’s framework. It is incredibly important that this body focuses on legitimate concerns and complaints. 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 that the commission considers necessary for the investigation and even request a person to attend an interview. Parliament will then have the discretion to decide whether to take any action. The commission will also be able to recommend sanctions for noncompliance as part of its final investigative report.

I could go on and talk about baseless complaints as well, because I know that might be of concern for some in this place. No-one wants the commission dealing with baseless or politically motivated complaints, and as noted earlier the commission will be empowered to dismiss complaints on a range of 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 prison to give false or misleading information to the commission. The bill also has the confidentiality protections to protect the integrity of investigations and the privacy of people involved in a matter.

Given the significance of this legislation, it is appropriate that there is a review of its operation. The bill provides that a statutory review will take place two years after commencement. I was formerly on council, and we recently introduced legislation to ensure that there is appropriate behaviour of our councillors. I do not see why we should not be doing the same for ourselves. As a psychologist, we have a code of conduct as well that we abide by to ensure we maintain appropriate behaviour in our work. Again, I do not see why we as parliamentarians should be exempt from this. I commend the bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (17:28): It is a pleasure to rise today on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I am just looking around the room. It is interesting being one of the newer members of Parliament. I think what I am going to speak to is probably public perception and what the public expects of us. Coming into this place now – I have been here since February last year, so I still have not been here that long – the public really does deserve a better level of behaviour from the people that work in this building. I think it is fair to say a lot of the behaviour over the last decade probably has not passed the pub test. I think as MPs, when we think about what we are doing, quite often we should think in the back of our minds: does this pass a pub test?

This bill has obviously been introduced on the back of Operation Watts and the recommendations from Operation Watts. I will not read through all 21 recommendations, but there were some pretty serious recommendations in there that we should not ignore. We should have a higher standard of behaviour. The Victorian public expect more from us. They expect us to operate professionally. They expect our behaviour to pass the pub test. Even if we go back to 2014 and we talk about the red shirts ‍– I was not very political in 2014, I was not even a member of the Liberal Party in 2014 – from a general public person’s perspective, from me not knowing anything about it, that did not pass the pub test. I think a lot of these recommendations are based around these behaviours that we have seen going on over the last decade. Like chauffeuring your dogs in a ministerial vehicle to somewhere, wherever it was in the state, it is fair to say no-one thought that would pass the pub test.

So these recommendations and this bill coming on the back of Operation Watts I think are a step in the right direction. Obviously we do not oppose this bill, but we do have some amendments that the Shadow Attorney-General has put forward that I think are fair and reasonable. I do not think they are arduous amendments, and we do have a reserved position in the upper house. The amendment to have a veto right on the appointment of acting commissioners and commissioners – that is very important, because if we are going to establish this commission, we have got to choose the people in charge of this commission in a bipartisan manner and we have to make sure they are people of the ultimate integrity. I mean, they are judging our behaviour, so we do not want their behaviour to be tarnished in any way. I think it is actually important that there is that veto to say, ‘Well, we don’t think they’re quite the right fit,’ or ‘They might have too many political connections, so there could be bias there.’ I think that is really important.

Victorians really want this to happen. Let us be realistic, I think Victorians have had enough. They have had enough of the reports, they have enough of the headlines, so they want this to happen. We really do need to get this right, and where we have to start is with the commissioners. They have to be the right people. That is why also the other amendment, which I have here, is to increase the time that a potential commissioner appointee is required to have not been an MP, councillor, lobbyist et cetera from five years to 10 years. I think that is quite important as well, because you need to get that disconnect. As stated earlier, it might have been by the member for Eildon, five years is just one term out if it is going to be an MP. So I think 10 years is quite a good timeframe. It gives time for that person to step back and away from all their positions and everything else. To have a truly, truly independent commissioner is going to be very important for this actual commission to work. I truly believe that. I think it is very important.

I could beat up on several people over the way they have behaved in the past and the things that have gone on, but I do not necessarily want to do that. What I want to see happen and what I think the Victorian people want to see happen is that we get this right. As the Leader of the Nationals said earlier, if you do not want a speeding fine, do not speed. It is quite a simple analogy, but it is true. If you do not want to end up in front of this commission, do not do the wrong thing. That is what Victorians expect from us. But I do understand too that there are some people out there that are litigious, vexatious or however you want to say it, and we have probably got them on both sides. You will see them on your Facebook feed; it is not that hard to find them. So there is a chance that you will get dragged in front of this commission for a very frivolous, false or vexatious claim. The commissioner has the right to deal with that as outlined in the body of the bill.

The member for Bentleigh said it, and I will reference him. He actually said that when we come into Parliament our life changes because you are more aware of your behaviour as a parliamentarian than you are as a normal person out on the street. People watch what you do. They watch how you behave, so you do have this elevated sense of: am I doing the right thing? So it is very important that we do have in the bill that vexatious claims can be dealt with in a way that does not drag the reputation down of an MP who really has not done anything wrong but has got caught up by someone that is bearing a grudge. That, unfortunately, will probably happen, I imagine. There will be someone out there with a grudge, and once this commission gets set up, someone will use it for those means.

I think this is a step in the right direction, especially on the back of Operation Watts and the recommendations from IBAC and the Ombudsman. It was a fairly extensive report, and it did raise some pretty big red flags that we need to deal with. I did say this on the government business program this morning: it is interesting, or it is a little bit ironic, that now we are introducing a bill because of past behaviour of the government, tongue in cheek or however you want to say that, this is how this has come about, and this is why we need this bill to clean these things up and to have a process to deal with these things when they do come around.

In closing on this – and I probably will not go on for too much longer – a member mentioned that we have to be fit and proper to do our job, and I agree with that. We do have to have fit and proper people in this place, because we do represent the people of Victoria, all 88 seats – that is what we represent – and 40 seats in the other place. We do have to have this in place to ensure that that still happens into the future. Unfortunately, MPs will make mistakes. We are only human, and we will make mistakes. Hopefully, those mistakes that are not deliberate will be dealt with properly and confidentially, and I think that is very important. The confidentiality side of this is very important, that the person is not embarrassed publicly for making a simple mistake, because we are only human, and it will happen to someone in this chamber or someone in the other chamber.

The Shadow Attorney-General’s amendments are fair and reasonable, and as he said, we have a reserve position in the upper house because we want to get these amendments through. He also talked about the legal representation of MPs. I think he said earlier in his contribution that you cannot have one rule for one and different rules for others. It is either all in or nobody is in, and I think that is a very valid point. I think every MP in here can find that fair and reasonable. In saying that, I will end my contribution there. I encourage the government to work with the Shadow Attorney-General to get those amendments up, because as I said, we do have a reserve position in the other place.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (17:38): I too am pleased to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, noting that if you look at the purpose behind it – and I will try to start with the positive end in the sense that it is to promote the highest standards of accountability, integrity and behaviour of all members of Parliament, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries – if you think about bringing Parliament into the contemporary space when it comes to workplaces, if you look at other arrangements and standards in other workplaces, which is the point I am trying to get to, Parliament has got to be in that frame as well within the caveats et cetera that one would anticipate because it is the Parliament. But at the same time appropriate workplace behaviour and making sure that it is safe and respectful are non-negotiable.

I should note that we should not underestimate – I do not think anyone does actually – the significance of these reforms and the extensive consultation that has been undertaken to make sure they are drafted as sensitively and as appropriately as absolutely possible within the context of human behaviour, noting humans can make mistakes but at the same time of course we have to have appropriate workplace boundaries.

The point I was trying to get to, when we look at how significant these changes are, is that this will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country. I am not saying that in any way to inflate it if we are looking at how fantastic or otherwise the legislation is. Rather, I am just stating that these are really important reforms – they are significant reforms – and we are breaking new ground here for our Parliament. I think that should not be underestimated, bearing in mind that there are necessary caveats, for good reason, to mitigate the risk of unnecessary litigation that might actually be counterproductive and not in any way further the betterment of the community within which we live or help to improve parliamentary behaviour at the same time.

When we look at the types of complaints that can be brought about – I do want to revisit this element, and I know there will have been others who have spoken to this – I thought there may have been a bit of a deviation in terms of the central premise of the types of complaints that can be brought pursuant to this legislation. I do not think it hurts to revisit that in this context. We really are talking about parliamentary misconduct, so what is that? 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 allowances; a wilful, repeated or deliberate misuse of the electorate office and communications budget; and inappropriate parliamentary workplace behaviour. If you look at the frame within which this is set – and I was reviewing this in my preparation for the bill – when it comes to the register of interests and all these other elements being transactionally transparent but also accurate in declarations is absolutely critical and reasonable.

Another element that has to underpin this legislation is reasonableness when we are looking at the behaviour of colleagues and the like. I do not think it is unreasonable to have that element underpinning this legislation. I do not mean to make light of it, but when we look at the law more generally there is that frame of reasonableness. We are not trying to extract a standard of behaviour that is impossible for an MP to meet, so to speak, if I were to reverse the emphasis here. On the contrary, having said that, and I think it has been mentioned in the chamber, MPs are well used to having pretty high levels of scrutiny of anything and everything that we do, and that does come with the territory within which we operate. Having said that, I think we are human, but at the same time, having appropriate workplace boundaries and ensuring that we have inclusive and supportive workplaces that are free from bullying and harassment makes good common sense and certainly brings the Parliament into a very clear frame in the contemporary working environment that we all operate in.

A couple of other points that I want to make clear are that with regard to the commission, and there is a lot more information to be transacted with regard to the commission for obvious reasons, when we look at some of the parameters within which this legislation is designed to operate 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. I do not wish to presume the complete rationale underpinning that, save for the fact that, further to the point, where a matter has already been very well transacted there is no need necessarily to keep transacting it over and over again when an authoritative body has already assessed it appropriately. I am proffering that that would be the rationale underlying that particular element of the frame within which the commission operates, so I hope that makes sense as well.

I know that some of my colleagues have already mentioned some of the sanctions, and the importance of that is of course that these matters have to be enforceable, and for the community to respect the clarity which we are seeking to bring before the chamber in terms of workplace standards, they need to know that there actually are mechanisms to enforce the standards which we are seeking to have met on a consistent basis. There are a range of sanctions. I will not go through all of them, but it could be issuing a public apology in a manner and a form determined by the commission; giving a written apology or explanation to an affected person; participating in an education or training program determined by the commission; or participating in mediation with an affected person. So you can see the range of behaviours there that no doubt are finding a way to effect an outcome to remedy situations relative to the gravity or otherwise that has been proven or brought before the commission themselves.

The other point that I was going to make, if I could actually read my writing, is with the appointment of commissioners and oversight – I know there were some comments made about making sure there is appropriate objectivity when it comes to the commissioners themselves – they will of course be independent officers of the Parliament consistent with the classifications of the heads of other independent bodies, such as the Commissioner of IBAC and the Ombudsman. I know people have referred to the Ombudsman and others alike here, referencing certain commentary, so I think we can see that there will be significant rigour in the appointment of commissioners, when you look at the frame within which they will have to be selected and operating. The bill also sets out the skills and experience for commissioners, making sure that they have the appropriate qualifications and experience to handle matters with the relative sensitivity but also applying the law appropriately and respectfully, such as specialist knowledge of or expertise in matters including public sector ethics and integrity, industrial relations or the dynamics of sexual assault and other gender-based violence. You can see that these matters, in terms of the selection and appropriateness of commissioners, has been very thoroughly considered, as it should be, in order again to have the confidence of community when it comes to the way in which any matters that may be brought before the commission are handled so that they can have confidence in the decision-making processes and the outcomes that result.

We would like to think that none of these matters have to be transacted, but of course we have to have these measures in place in the event that there is inappropriate behaviour from members of Parliament, and on that premise I will have to say that I think it gives confidence to us all to know – and I do not want to speak for others, but if I speak personally – that there are clear processes, that we have the requisite independence et cetera for the selection of commissioners. There has been extensive consultation, and I commend this bill to the house.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (17:48): I always say it is a pleasure to make a contribution to bills that seek to improve political integrity in this place, so rarely am I afforded the opportunity to do so. Because it is fair to say that of the many achievements under a decade of Victorian Labor, which I readily acknowledge, a genuine commitment to strengthening political integrity is unfortunately not yet among them, either as an operating principle of the government or as a legislative priority. Indeed the very reason that we are here today debating this bill to establish a parliamentary integrity commission is because the former Premier made a captain’s call to go against the advice of his former Special Minister of State and reject the creation of this office back in 2019, and then, along with the Liberal Party, voted down Greens’ amendments to create this office. But it gets worse, because instead of creating a parliamentary commissioner, the former Premier reinstated to the front bench an MP he described as his good friend, despite said MP previously being stood down for workplace bullying and inappropriate physical contact with a female staffer. So we did not get an integrity commissioner in 2019, but we did reappoint a Labor minister who had previously repeatedly engaged in the kinds of egregious workplace behaviour that this bill defines as ‘serious parliamentary misconduct’.

Unsurprisingly, this captain’s call did not work out so well – not politically for the Labor Party and not for local government and councillors, who continue to suffer from Mr Somyurek’s reforms as a minister, but most of all not for the reputation of the entire Victorian Parliament and the public’s perception of and trust in Victorian politicians. Consider the fact that were it not for some good journalism in the media, it is likely that Mr Somyurek would still be a Victorian Labor minister and he would still be meddling with the Local Government Act 2020, would still be misusing parliamentary resources and likely would still be bullying his staff and parliamentary colleagues with his trademark bigotry and misogyny. Such is the pernicious power of the Labor Party’s factionalism and branch stacking that even the most autocratic Premier in a generation felt obliged to not just tolerate such behaviour but actively reward it with a seat in his cabinet.

There is no better example of why we need a strong, independent anti-corruption commission, or Ombudsman, than the events uncovered in Operation Watts. But also we need strong parliamentary investigatory committees, including the privileges committees, which importantly are free from interference by the government and executive of the day. It shows why Victorian politics have needed for a long time the parliamentary integrity and behaviour commission that is proposed in this bill. We cannot know whether or not the behaviour uncovered during that IBAC investigation would have been prevented had the government not blocked the creation of this office in 2019, but it certainly would have helped. We also now know that the release of the Operation Watts report did not put an end to misconduct but merely marked an outrageous example of ongoing inappropriate behaviour, or grey-level corruption, from Labor government MPs since its release. Incredibly, we saw with IBAC’s Operation Clara how the venality of some Labor factional figureheads persists even after they have left the Victorian Parliament.

Of course no party or government or Parliament is immune from a toxic culture and bad workplace behaviour, even if Victoria appears to have become a showcase for these practices. So I am glad that this bill also incorporates some of the lessons from other jurisdictions, most notably the findings of the Jenkins report from the Australian Human Rights Commission. I also want to recognise that the government has engaged in the type of genuine consultation across the Parliament before introducing this bill that, in my opinion, does not happen nearly enough. I particularly want to recognise Mike Williams from the Premier’s office in this regard. While I have felt obliged to call out the recent poor culture and behaviour of some Labor MPs, because this is what ultimately led to this bill being introduced, it is important I also recognise the many current Labor MPs, ministers and staff members of integrity who, along with everyone in Victorian politics, have been unfortunately sullied by what I truly hope is the behaviour and attitude of a few.

Obviously the Victorian Greens, who have been championing the reforms in this bill for half a decade, welcome the government finally introducing this bill, which we will be supporting. But under standing orders, I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Tim READ: I will just speak briefly to these amendments circulated today and why I believe they should be supported. Clause 30 of the bill provides that the commission may impose sanctions on the Premier, a member, a parliamentary secretary or a minister where it has made a finding of parliamentary misconduct that is not serious parliamentary misconduct. We are talking here about relatively less serious cases where the commission can directly impose a sanction on a member, such as a requirement they issue an apology. But I do believe there is a small oversight in the current bill where it does not provide for circumstances when a member who receives a direct sanction under clause 30 refuses to comply with the sanction imposed on them by the commission. My amendments propose to allow the commission to further investigate and report should a member fail to comply with any sanctions previously imposed on them by the commission under clause 30. The amendment further clarifies that such noncompliance can constitute serious parliamentary misconduct, effectively upgrading an initial finding of non-serious parliamentary misconduct against a member.

I also wish to flag today that as this bill moves to the other place, the Greens will have further amendments to improve the integrity and operation of parliamentary committees, which I will also summarise. Operation Watts 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 that:

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

Likewise, the government were clear and unequivocal that they would support all the recommendations of Operation Watts, including specifically bringing legislation to reform the privileges committees before the Parliament. Given this commitment, it is rather surprising the government has had an apparent change of heart on reforming the composition of the privileges committees, which does not appear in this bill. So the Greens will introduce amendments in the other place to acquit recommendation 3 of Operation Watts by amending the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to provide that not more than half the members of the respective privileges committee in each house may be members of a political party forming the government and that the chairperson of a privileges committee must not be a member of a political party forming the government.

But we will go further by introducing these same amendments so that they will apply to all of Parliament’s investigatory committees to ensure their independence 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. It simply defies logic that the bill requires that the proposed new ethics committee must be composed in a way to be independent of the government of the day but leaves the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which has far greater responsibility in monitoring and overseeing the overall integrity framework proposed in the bill, without this requirement. For the same reason the oversight functions and veto powers of all joint investigatory committees must be sufficiently independent from the government they scrutinise, and I note the comments earlier today from the member for Malvern along these lines.

I confess these amendments also represent something of a test for this Labor government under the leadership of a new Premier purportedly determined to turn over a new leaf from some of the unacceptable behaviours of the past. If this new Allan Labor state government is now genuine about improving parliamentary standards and the integrity of Parliament, about upholding that almost forgotten democratic notion of good government, meaning that it holds itself transparent and accountable to the people’s representatives in this Parliament, then it will support the Greens amendments and reform parliamentary investigatory committees. If it does not, we can safely assume that once again it is trying to get away with implementing the minimum amount of integrity reform possible only because one of its ministers was found out, because a good government that is genuine about improving political integrity does not wait for the corruption scandal, the resultant political fallout and the IBAC recommendations before it belatedly acts and because a good integrity system is not designed retrospectively by a government playing whack-a-mole in response to its own scandals, especially when there is so much in Victoria still to improve on with integrity.

The former Premier possibly thought he had dodged a bullet when he shut down the push to establish a parliamentary integrity and behaviour commission in 2019. He probably thought that by shielding his government and ministers from greater scrutiny and keeping this Parliament’s behavioural standards low he was better able to avoid pesky questions of integrity and get stuff done. But what actually occurred instead was that the litany of poor behaviour of Labor MPs and ministers simply grew until it was too big to ignore. The end result was not good for the Parliament, for the people who work in Parliament and for our reputation as parliamentarians working for the public good, and if you want to analyse it in blunt political terms, the end result also became one of the major political liabilities for the Andrews Labor government and the Victorian Labor Party. By the same token, the government may think that blocking Greens amendments which seek to increase accountability and transparency represents a win for them, but I would suggest that in the long term all of us, especially the government, ultimately lose from holding ourselves to lower political standards.

I can say, however, that I have been encouraged by my conversations across the Parliament on ways in which we can improve this bill. I genuinely hope that this results in a multipartisan commitment to strengthening this integrity legislation even further. I urge all of us in this place not to waste this opportunity for genuine reform. Let us all take the worst Victorian political behaviour exposed by Operation Watts and make it the catalyst for improving the standards, integrity and functions of our Parliament and parliamentarians. The Greens commend the bill, and our amendments to enhance it, to the house.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Development Victoria, Minister for Precincts, Minister for Creative Industries) (18:00): I am very pleased to be able to join the debate on this important bill, the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. At the outset I just want to comment on a number of contributions that have been made in this debate today, starting with the lead speaker from the opposition right through now until the considered contribution from the member for Brunswick. There has been a theme running through the contributions from non-government members today that I would characterise as being that all of the bad behaviour of members of Parliament has been Labor members of Parliament and therefore these changes are being implemented. There has been an inability to resist the temptation to take the political cheap shots as opposed to looking at this bill as an opportunity to have a discussion as parliamentarians about lifting the standards and reassuring the Victorian community about the standards to which the vast majority of members of Parliament adhere as they practise their vocation and go about their business in a way that the community would expect.

But of course it is important to point out that the characterisation that poor behaviour only resides on this side of the house is entirely incorrect. I had the privilege of sitting in that chair as Speaker for about five years and seeing a range of things come to my attention – not that I will share in this place. I respect the confidentiality of a whole range of matters, but let me assure you that there have been publicised and non-publicised matters that apply to members of every party in this place – whether that be Labor Party, Liberal Party, National Party or the Greens – of which none of us would be proud. So I think it is disingenuous for anyone from any party in this place to suggest that these reforms have been brought forward by a government because of behaviour of its own members. Certainly that has contributed to it. I think it is important that we are honest enough to say that, but I am absolutely of the view that there are behaviours across all sides of this chamber that need to be reformed, and I think this bill is an incredibly important step forward in doing just that.

This is a comprehensive piece of legislation establishing a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission. This is a really important step forward, a place where people can take concerns about the behaviour of people in the parliamentary workplace. It is important for parliamentarians, all of us, to be cognisant of the fact that the parliamentary workplace extends beyond the parliamentary precinct and our electorate offices to basically wherever we are performing our parliamentary duties ‍– turning up to give a report at your local branch meeting about parliamentary proceedings, attending public meetings as a member of Parliament. So members will be wary of that and mindful of that as they go about their work.

I am glad to see included in the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 the insertion of a set of words that places an obligation on members. To quote:

A Member must foster a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment in the parliamentary workplace, free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination.

One would have hoped that we did not need to set out that requirement, but it is important that it is there, I think. We have seen examples of poor behaviour where there is no doubt that we have to be really clear. We have to put in black ink in the legislation the sorts of things that we want to see and the sorts of things that we do not want to see in terms of parliamentary behaviour.

I think one of the key aspects, one of the really important aspects, of this bill will be the ability of people to seek confidential advice about what might be considered to be minor matters – things that they are concerned about but certainly are not at the end of the scale that might be serious criminal matters. I think in many workplaces behaviours of particular individuals can escalate from minor things to repeated minor things and then continue on and cause great distress to other people who work in that workplace, particularly when we work in an environment where there is a significant power imbalance. Sometimes I think we forget as members of Parliament the power imbalance that exists here between members of Parliament and other staff who see parliamentarians differently. It is not something that we reflect on very much, I do not think, but it exists, and I have seen it play out, as I said, in my previous role as Speaker where people were too scared to raise issues about members of Parliament. Because of that perceived power imbalance, they do not think it is something they can do. I think this new commission will provide an opportunity for people to be able to speak up in confidence and raise issues in a way that they know might be dealt with informally, if they are not that serious, and those matters are then resolved. I think that is a good outcome for people in this workplace. It is also a good outcome for members of Parliament who might be making a mistake, but not yet making serious mistakes, for them to have the commission let them know that they might need to undertake training or make an apology and hopefully they correct the actions that they are taking.

The establishment of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser is another really important part of this legislation. I think a key aspect of the work of that needs to be training, so I am hoping to see a significant amount of training provided to members – not just new members but all members, because I think sometimes, particularly in relation to some of the behaviours we have seen, it is about members not having appropriate training around what the processes are and the particular requirements that they are expected to adhere to. Again, one would hope that we did not need to have training around some of those really basic standards, but I think the fact that we have now got this integrity adviser – when this legislation passes, hopefully – that will be enshrined in legislation and they will have the ability to run training programs. I hope that there is a commitment from all of the parties to encourage members to participate in that training. I think the Parliament has run over a number of years different training courses for members of Parliament and it is important for members to attend those. Sometimes not everybody does, and I think party leadership on all sides of the Parliament has a responsibility to encourage and ensure that all members undertake that sort of training.

I just want to move back to the origins of some of this work. The member for Eildon touched on this earlier on, and I was pleased to hear her contribution on this matter. This work obviously flows from Operation Watts, but prior to that in the last Parliament there was an informal working group that was established, a bipartisan group, to do some work on putting in place a framework to address issues of sexual harassment and bullying. This is, I suppose, the precursor work to the work that took place once Operation Watts had made some recommendations. That working group looked at best practice in other parliaments. It recognised the power imbalances I was talking about before. It consisted of, along with me and with the support of the President – and there were two presidents during this time, Mr Leane and Mr Elasmar – also the member for Dandenong, and I also want to acknowledge the member for Rowville and the member for Eildon, who put in a significant amount of work to work through those issues. Many of those issues have been picked up through the rest of this work that has now come to the Parliament. That was a really important piece of work not just for the development of a framework which eventually was put to government and other party leaders, but also to the Ombudsman through consultation in informing recommendations that the Ombudsman and IBAC ultimately made in Operation Watts to combine these roles into a member behaviour framework and into what we see now in terms of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill.

I also want to acknowledge Steph Ryan, who was the member for Euroa. She played a role in that work as well, albeit briefly, and also the former member for Ripon Louise Staley was involved in some of that work. It was a good example of bipartisan work to address some issues that we all had concerns about, and it worked reasonably well. I also want to acknowledge the support of Jason McDonald in that process, who was my adviser in the Speaker’s office; the clerks of the Parliament; the Department of Parliamentary Services; and also some learned advice from Derek Humphrey-Smith and Annika Anderson-Carter, who worked at the legal firm which assisted the Parliament in doing that work. In particular I want to acknowledge the many people in the parliamentary staff who came forward with examples and suggestions for improvements, and I want to recognise the courage that they showed in bringing those to my attention.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (18:10): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. The bill establishes three new bodies: firstly, a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to investigate allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints referred to it from IBAC; two, a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, or PIA, to provide confidential advice and training to MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries; and three, a Parliamentary Ethics Committee to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace and promote the members code of conduct and other obligations in Parliament and in the community.

This bill is very important because everyone deserves the right to a safe workplace. There is no-one in this place that denies that; we are all in agreement that everyone deserves the right to a safe workplace. Everyone deserves the right to raise complaints when they feel unsafe. This bill is also important because maintaining political face cannot come at the expense of justice when people have done the wrong thing. Those who have done the wrong thing, no matter their role in this place, must be held to account. The commission can take complaints and referrals from anyone, and this is good, allowing for everyone’s voice to be heard. Sanction and recommendation powers of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission include, for parliamentary misconduct, the PWIC can impose sanctions such as a public apology, written apology, education or training or mediation; entering into a behaviour agreement with Presiding Officers; and for serious misconduct the committee can only recommend actions to the Parliament or the Premier. For MPs’ serious parliamentary misconduct the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission can recommend withdrawal of services or removal of access, discharge from a parliamentary committee, a penalty in accordance with the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 and any other sanction the PWIC considers appropriate.

So that is the bill that we are speaking of today, and what I would like to say is on this side of the house we are champions of integrity and workplace standards, unlike Labor which attacked integrity agencies such as former IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich and former Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass, cutting their funding and reducing their powers. The Liberals and Nationals were the ones to actually establish IBAC, believe it or not, and have championed integrity in government and in Parliament. Yes, you heard it – the Liberals and Nationals were the ones to establish IBAC. I am relieved to see that this form of the bill has taken into account so many of the suggestions of the coalition compared to earlier drafts. In fact the Liberals and Nationals are always willing to be there to hold the hand of the government when it comes to matters of integrity. As leaders in our communities, members of Parliament ought to be leaders in integrity for the people of this state. We should be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard. I am glad that this bill reflects this high standard and will hold members of this place to account for their actions.

So why is it that we need this bill? What is the reality that we are debating in this place? It is not because of the issue across the Parliament, but it is actually a pervasive issue in the government that we are addressing with this bill and that we are redressing with this bill, and it was covered earlier today by our lead speaker, the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern. I will list the examples again here, where we have seen example after example, time after time, of misbehaviour from those on the other side: a former Speaker and Deputy Speaker who rorted their second-residence allowances and claimed to be living in Queenscliff and a caravan park respectively despite representing western suburbs seats – Mr Languiller and Mr Nardella. I will list another one: former Labor minister Steve Herbert, who used his ministerial car and driver to transport his two dogs Patch and Ted from Trentham to Melbourne. What about the red shirts scandal, which involved 21 Labor members of Parliament, and the government then tried to prevent the scandal coming to light by taking the Victorian Ombudsman to the High Court of Australia. That is great integrity for you! That is sarcasm, for Hansard. These members of Parliament were found to have stolen over $388,000 from taxpayers, which they were forced to repay. Examples, as I say, time and again – and we have got the member for Mordialloc in this place, who also used stamps that were not his or paid for by him to run his election campaign, as well as the Labor member in the other place who assigned the use of his electorate car to his former wife as part of a divorce settlement. The car was then used as a getaway vehicle in a shoplifting ring. And then I speak of more recent incidents we have seen involving two former Labor members that are now sitting in this corner, the member for Ringwood and the member for South Barwon. So may I suggest that perhaps the clean-up needs to start in their own house, on their own side, before they try to clean up the whole of Parliament.

Why else has this issue come to light? Well, it is increasing focus on parliamentary misconduct at a state and federal level, including the Operation Watts investigation, which was initiated at the behest of our side of the house. Thankfully we on this side do actually care about integrity. Operation Watts investigated abusive use of publicly funded resources by Labor members of Parliament and ministers, including electorate officers and ministerial staff.

That aside, and back to the content of this bill, one outstanding issue remains the question of whether and how MPs should be able to be supported in relation to the costs of seeking legal advice and representation if they are the subject of a complaint. Given the prospect that ministers subjected to a complaint may have their legal costs covered by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, there needs to be some parity for other MPs. Either ministers should bear the cost for commission-related matters or all MPs, both government and opposition, should be treated on an equal footing. The government has acknowledged that this is a live issue, and it appears that government backbench MPs are similarly concerned. However, we have been advised by the government that this issue will require a policy response rather than a legislative one.

Therefore we on this side of the house propose also an amendment to increase the time a potential commissioner appointment is required to not have been an MP, councillor, lobbyist et cetera from five years to 10 years. We propose an amendment to clause 58 so that the Integrity and Oversight Committee has a unanimous right of veto on the appointment of an acting commissioner. The government wanted the appointment to be by a majority, and then they walked it back to two-thirds, and then we on this side of the house pushed for it to be unanimous, because we cannot let the Labor government stack it like they do their branches.

In closing, the truth of the matter is that the recent issues within the government are what have led us to needing this bill and the prompting of this bill. It is about time, and, with the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern’s proposed amendments, I welcome this bill.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (18:18): I am proud and pleased to rise to contribute to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. Just in response to some of what we have heard from the other side – and I am not going to name names of MPs that have done the wrong thing or been put into a position where they can no longer be a member of a particular party – for those opposite to make this only about Labor Party MPs is absolutely hypocritical. The difference here is that the Labor Party or the Labor government have actually dealt with the situations as they have arisen and have dealt with them appropriately. The former Premier and the current Premier have all dealt with situations that have arisen. However, those opposite have not dealt with any of the issues. I can think of four or five offhand that should not be sitting over on that side in this house or the upper house but continue to do so because those complaints were ignored.

Those opposite have not dealt with the situations that have arisen, unlike what we have done on this side – yes, it has been painful, but we have dealt with it – so for those opposite to criticise the Labor government is ridiculous. What we are doing here now is setting out a process to ensure that there is a system in place for these matters to be dealt with. I agree with the comments from the member for Bundoora that it does happen on all sides. Politics should not be brought into this. This is about making things right in this place, and we know it has been lacking. There has been an enormous amount of consultation with many people, and I want to thank all those involved in having this bill presented to us today for debate, because we need to make sure we get it right, and that is exactly what we have got here on the table today.

The purpose of this bill is to promote the highest standards of accountability, integrity and behaviour for all members of Parliament, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Everyone has a right to a safe and respectful workplace; there is no doubt of that. I think our communities expect that. No matter where you work – whether it is in a shop, a construction site, a hospital or within the Parliament; whether you are a member of Parliament or whether you are one of the parliamentary staff – we all deserve that respect and to be treated in such a way that is acceptable in our community. For all the years this Parliament has been here and the number of members that have gone through this place, we are now bringing it into a modern age where we do actually have a system in place to ensure that people know where to go to lodge a complaint and there is an investigation that takes place.

These reforms will ensure Victoria’s parliamentary system operates with the highest standards of accountability and integrity, and as I said, that is what Victorians expect. It is a system that ensures matters are dealt with, and that anyone with a complaint knows that there is a process and how to go about that. The new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will have a key role in examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation. After the comments from those opposite, maybe something will be done with those who have not been brought to the attention that they deserve. The new Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission will have a key role in examining the behaviour of members of Parliament. This will provide a critical avenue for complaints to be heard and investigated through a proper process. We know current arrangements are inadequate and inconsistent with standards in other workplaces, and we should not be any different to them. The model in the bill draws on the groundbreaking work of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Jenkins report and allows the commission to investigate the behaviour of MPs.

I want 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. As the member for Bundoora pointed out earlier, there probably is a real need to have that training and for new members to understand what the expectations are and that level of respect and how to go about making a complaint if it does arise. It will establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee in legislation to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace, amend the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 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 amend 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 the parliamentary workplace that is free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. This is what Victoria expects and deserves of its elected representatives. I have to say, when we move about our electorates – and I am sure other members are the same – we are role models to many people, particularly young people when we go out to schools and we talk about our role in the Parliament. So I think it is important that we have this in place and that members are mindful of their behaviour and the respect that others deserve. If we do not do that, what sort of role modelling are we showing particularly to young people in our communities that do look up to us? Members of Parliament will also be required to demonstrate respect for parliamentary standards, including respecting the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, for example, by complying with a reasonable request that is made.

A new independent Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission is a key feature of the bill. This will have 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 or part-time or sessional basis. The three commissioners 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 government or 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 and about parliamentary misconduct. We also need to be mindful of the frivolous complaints that are likely to come up. I am sure the conspiracy theorists in my electorate will lodge a complaint because there is a 5G tower right next to my office, which means they cannot come to my office. I am sure there will be those sorts of ones.

Juliana Addison: The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Chris COUZENS: Yes, that’s right. I am very happy about that, I have got to say. But there will be those frivolous complaints that I am sure the commission will deal with. But in a serious way we need to look at ensuring that people can go through this process and have confidence in the fact that their complaints will be considered seriously. This is a really important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:28): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I do only intend to make a number of comments. The community have and should have an expectation that their members of Parliament behave appropriately and with the highest standard of behaviour – of course they should – not that everybody expects members of Parliament to be perfect, because nobody is. When parliaments were formed, when parliaments were created, it would be fair to say that the behaviour of members was primarily governed by a set of rules, or standing orders in our case, that set out how members should behave, and if they did not behave in that way, the house would deal with them for breaching those standards. We have seen over time laws come in to assist and provide more guidance around members’ behaviour, and some of the driving force of that is, frankly speaking, because members of Parliament, as the former Speaker rightly said, from all sides of all chambers have not upheld the compact they have with the community on behaviour, and the community expects more.

You can see, certainly not just in this country but across the world, that communities are fraying in terms of their views of how their elected leaders behave. Partly that is because of a greater deal of scrutiny and probity, which is seeing behaviour in a far closer way, but it is also because the community will always have a very strong expectation of their elected representatives – and so they should. This bill I think adds to that work by ensuring that there is a framework that provides appropriate protections and appropriate ways in which this workplace works but also in how members work more broadly. That is why I do want to put on record a number of things. The government have, in my view, on this bill, worked outside of their own party in a way that I have not seen before, and I think that that is worth acknowledging. The government have definitely engaged with and amended a proposed bill in a way that I have not seen before. They have worked on a draft, and you can see in a number of areas, including areas where I did not think there would be compromise. On things like the scrutiny of ministers, the government have certainly amended the framework to come into this place in a way that I think the non-government members will feel more come comfortable about considering. I think that it is important to acknowledge the government’s work on that.

But there are other areas that have not landed yet. I know the shadow spoke about this in relation to legal costs and the litigious nature of the community more generally. There is an allowance for a mechanism by which ministers and parliamentary secretaries have access to legal costs in terms of dealing with matters in this process. The shadow did make it clear that when this bill comes before the upper house we will need to land on an outcome on that policy issue. The shadow I think made it very, very clear that he has accepted in good faith the Premier’s and the government’s commitment to look at that policy issue before that is considered by the upper house. We take the government at their word, because we have certainly approached this bill in a way that is in my view collaborative. Having been part of many conversations around the work that has been done on this bill, we have certainly approached this bill in a collaborative way, as have the government. I think what has come before this house shows, frankly speaking, that sometimes when governments put bills to the crossbench the crossbench can improve the bills and make the bills a better joint outcome. There is no doubt that that is the case, so I restate that there have been a number of amendments that have been made around the way privileges work, the way that ministers are held accountable and the way that certain position holders are appointed. All of these things have, over time, improved. That is not to say that the government have compromised where they intended to go; I do not mean to say that at all. Oftentimes the opposition has been able to talk through some of the specifics and worked to a point where what has come before this place is, in my view, a better outcome. It does not mean that they are perfect, and I mention the issue of legal costs and again implore the Premier that that policy issue does need to be resolved. I just would not want to see a debate in the upper house have to focus on that if that issue were not resolved by the time it was debated.

Many members in this place of all sides have mentioned the frivolous complaints or the vexatious complaints and the capacity for the weaponisation of the complaints system. I have come to the view that there is no doubt in my mind that this system will be weaponised. I do not think it is possible for it not to be. I think that it is just not possible for it not to be, in that there will always be someone who misuses a system to undermine members of Parliament they do not like. That unfortunately will form part of this system. We will see unfortunately complaints which are found to have no basis reported to the house, as is required by the bill, even where there has been found no substance. Those reports will land in the chamber, and all media outlets will write about them despite the fact that there has been no finding of substance. Unfortunately that is going to happen, both in relation to members and also to ministers. It will feature as part of the process, and there is no full protection from that. I think it would have been possible to slightly tweak the process to probably protect a little more from that; however, I accept that the government has taken the view that everything in relation to these issues is about balance at the end of the day. To ensure there is a full framework of protection, you sometimes need to probably lean in, and that certainly is the case in relation to that element.

I wanted to put those particular matters on the record along with the hope that by the time this bill gets to the Council, that final policy matter especially is dealt with, because the community deserves members who behave in the best possible way, and we have seen instances where that has not occurred. I think it would be fair to say things that we saw in the last federal Parliament shocked the community to its core. That is just a fact. I think that the framework that will be in place will certainly enhance how the community expects, but also what they can expect – because this is in place. With that, I will leave my comments there.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (18:38): Today I rise to contribute to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, and this is not just a legislative change but an important step towards upholding the integrity and standards that our government and its representatives are held to. The Allan Labor government’s commitment to strengthening our parliamentary standards and integrity regime is not merely about compliance, it is also about ensuring that our democracy operates at its highest ethical standard. The new parliamentary standards and integrity commission will have a key role examining the behaviour of members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries, which will include things such as bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation. This reform is rooted in our responsibility to serve the people of Victoria with transparency, accountability and fairness.

I want to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Bundoora, Minister for Precincts and Minister for Creative Industries. Clearly he knows best out of all of us in regard to the behaviours – and poor behaviours – of people within the previous Parliament from his role as the Speaker. Unfortunately when some of those on the opposition benches want to sling mud at the government and say it is just government people, then clearly the previous Speaker –

A member interjected.

Steve McGHIE: I was not referring to you; I was referring to the member for Warrandyte. It is about all parties, and that is what this integrity commission is all about. It will provide crucial avenues for complaints to be heard and investigated through a proper process, and we know that the current arrangements are not fit for purpose and are out of step with the standards in other workplaces around the country.

The weaponising of this bill by some opposite, who are using the bill to attack the government, is inappropriate and certainly inconsiderate of anyone who has experienced sexual harassment, sexual assault, discrimination – any type of harassment or bullying in any workplace. I do remind those opposite that there was previously, in 2021, a report on the federal government at the time – the Morrison government – called the Sparke Helmore report, which has never been released, but certainly some of those opposite in the Victorian opposition are named in that report. As I said, that report has never been released. If those opposite thought that that held up the highest integrity, I think they would want to have another look at themselves in regard to that.

I would like to remind those present here that more people are affected by this inappropriate workplace behaviour than we know. There was a survey by the Australian Human Rights Commission that found that only 18 per cent of employees who have experienced inappropriate workplace behaviour have reported that inappropriate behaviour. There is a lot of work to be done in that space so that people can feel that they are safe to come forward and report any inappropriate actions towards them within any workplace, including this workplace. That is one in five people that report any issues against them. I just want to remind members in this chamber that they should be mindful of that when they are speaking about this issue.

The Minister for Women mentioned that in federal Parliament a survey revealed more than half of all employees experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or attempted or actual sexual assault – again, this is a shocking figure. It is the same workplace that in 1984 passed the world’s first sex discrimination act, making sexual harassment in the workplace unlawful.

We have heard that Operation Watts was a very comprehensive investigation by IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman, and they identified critical areas where our current systems can and must be improved, and that is exactly what this bill will deliver: the recommendations put forth in their report alongside additional measures to address inappropriate workplace behaviour within our parliamentary institutions. We are signalling a very clear intention to restore trust and confidence in our democratic processes, which we have heard time and time again is one of the most important priorities to the Victorian community.

As previous contributions have mentioned, this will be the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country. It is landmark legislation which culminates extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including government and non-government MPs, Victoria’s integrity agencies, parliamentary officials and experts in law, workplace standards, human rights, equal opportunity and gender equality. It is designed to address the findings and recommendations in the Operation Watts report and to respond comprehensively to the identified shortcomings in our current oversight of parliamentary conduct. It is the first legislated parliamentary investigatory commission within Australian legislation.

These changes transcend party lines, because it is about safeguarding the workers that work in this workplace. For all its traditions and conventions, I agree with the member for Malvern: this is indeed a modern workplace and our standards here must reflect modern standards. This place is too important to have issues such as bullying, sexual harassment, assault or discrimination within its walls. As an elected member of this place I want a positive environment; I want to foster a healthy, safe and respectful workplace. Of course as an ex-union boss who dealt with a lot of bullying and harassment in the workplace – and sexual assault – I would not stand for it as a union boss in representing members and I would not expect that any member here would stand for those types of actions towards any other person within this particular workplace or even outside of this workplace as part of their duties. It is about ensuring that every member of Parliament upholds the high standards of conduct both inside and outside the chambers. It is about creating an environment where every voice is heard and respected and valued, and that is exactly what we are trying to deliver.

In regard to upholding the high standards of conduct, I would like to make an anecdotal reference to what the member for Bentleigh said about politicians being humans and their behaviours changing because there is always someone trying to catch a politician out. It has been referred to in previous contributions. I do not know whether people know – I have probably raised it before – but I have an identical twin brother, which is interesting at times. When I was elected in 2018 I had to have a word to my twin brother, knowing that he enjoys himself very much – he likes the taste of wine and things like that – and he has got a very short fuse. I just said to him that he will need to pull his head in if someone has a go at him thinking that it is me, and he is not to be caught on camera like Barnaby Joyce laying on the footpath after he tripped over a planter box or something like that. So for the last six years he has had to keep a fairly low profile, which is completely against his lifestyle. But for my sake it has worked out quite well so far – touch wood. We will see how we go. If anyone has got relatives that look like them, make sure you encourage them to pull their head in so the press cannot find something against you.

We all owe it to ourselves and to future generations who choose to service and honour their communities by working in this place to leave behind a system that is much, much stronger – that is fairer and more accountable – than the one that we found. This bill will allow for the establishment of this Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission. Of course it will play an important role in receiving, managing and investigating allegations of parliamentary misconduct and inappropriate workplace behaviour, from bullying and harassment to discrimination and occupational violence. I wish we were not even talking about that – that it would not even be contemplated in this workplace. It will be able to receive anonymous reports, and it will act to encourage people to report misconduct. That is what we want to eliminate – misconduct in all those forms that have previously been described. This is a really important bill for this Parliament. It has taken a long time to get here. I am pleased that it is a Labor government that is introducing this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (18:48): It is a delight to rise tonight to speak about the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I want to just reflect at the outset on the comments made by the Minister for Precincts, the member for Bundoora – and they were also reflected by the member for Melton – about this being an opportunity to actually raise the bar and lift the standards of this place. It has been disappointing to see that some members in this place have used this as an opportunity to take pot shots at members of the Labor Party for activities that have occurred in the past when I think everyone can think of pretty clear examples of members from other parties who have also conducted themselves in an inappropriate way.

I also note that the member for Warrandyte did make a particular example about IBAC and was calling out Labor attacks on the IBAC Commissioner. I note that just in the previous sitting week the Shadow Attorney-General made some fairly unsavoury comments about the current IBAC Commissioner and the perceived lack of work that they are doing on their current operations. I think it would behove all of us across the whole chamber to be approaching this bill with the intent with which it has been put up, as the member for Brighton has said. There has been a lot of work done across all parties of the Parliament because this is an important bill. This is an important bill to lift the standards of our workplace and lift the standards of integrity throughout the Parliament.

The member for Bentleigh I think was noting his journey into Parliament – the transition into Parliament – and how one has to I guess not adopt a different persona but adopt certain responsibilities. You have a much higher responsibility when you are elected to this place. It is interesting for me to reflect, not coming from a political background and having worked in engineering, that almost from the very day that I was elected the common refrain to me was, ‘Oh, well, you’re just a politician.’ There was an immediate switch in perception of what I was simply from standing and then being elected and being a politician.

I would like to have a look at some research that has been published by the Governance Institute of Australia. It talks about ethical behaviour and how the public perceives the ethics of various occupations and professions. Sadly, engineers are not on there, but the member for Melton might be pleased to note that ambulance service occupations – paramedics – are the second highest, after fire emergency service workers. They are given a rating of 80, which is a very ethical rating. They are number two out of all the occupations. Sadly, state politicians are ranked fourth bottom. They are ranked in neither the ethical nor unethical categories. I know between the member for Melton’s time being a paramedic and his coming to Parliament, he was also a very proud representative of the ambulance union, but unfortunately he has had a fall from grace from being in one of the most respected, ethical professions to being in one of the least. Pleasingly, state politicians actually rate above federal politicians, so we are in a good –

James Newbury interjected.

Paul HAMER: Every cloud does have a silver lining, as the member for Brighton says. But I think it is unfortunate that the community at large does not hold politicians – whether it is federal, state or local government politicians – in great esteem. Unfortunately there have been well-publicised instances that have I guess helped solidify some public opinion. Any action that can be taken to lift standards and demonstrate to the public that we are a modern workplace and we are a workplace that respects the standards that are expected in Australia at this point in time is a good thing, even more so because we are the leaders of the community and we have to not only be doing the right thing but be seen to be doing the right thing. Having laws in place that solidify this behaviour can only be a good thing.

To reiterate some of the key features of the bill, the bill will establish a Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, which will be able to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of parliamentary misconduct and public interest complaints. It will strengthen the Victorian parliamentary standards and integrity framework by establishing the existing Parliamentary Integrity Adviser – who we already have on the precinct – in legislation to provide confidential advice and training to members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The bill will also establish in legislation a Parliamentary Ethics Committee to foster an ethical parliamentary workplace, and amend 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 the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. Finally, it will also amend other relevant acts to integrate the commission and the 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 the parliamentary workplace that is free from bullying, sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. This is what the Victorian community expect and deserve. The majority of people, both elected and those who work for us as our staffers, and of course also the parliamentary staff, come into this workplace because of their respect for the institution of Parliament and the importance of the work that goes on in this place. We all deserve a safe workplace. Everybody in this work environment – everyone in Parliament and everyone in the parliamentary offices, the electorate offices and the ministers offices – works incredibly hard, puts in an enormous amount of hours and sacrifices a lot of time. If we look here, we are now at almost 7 o’clock on a Tuesday evening. Many of us have families that are currently not seeing their mother or their father or someone in their family or their partner because we are doing work for the community.

It is important not just, obviously, for members themselves but for all the staff that are working for the members and for all the people who are working for Parliament that they have standards that are upheld to the highest order. No-one should feel that they are coming into an unsafe workplace and being threatened or feel that they may be harassed or intimidated or bullied in any particular way. So having a confidential process that staff and members of Parliament are able to address and process I think can only be a positive sign for the Parliament and for the community as a whole, and I commend the bill to the house.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (18:57): It gives me great pleasure to stand before you and speak in favour of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. The purpose of this is obviously to ensure high standards are upheld in this place, and no-one, no party, no individual is above the highest standards. Ultimately, we are members of Parliament, and we need to ensure that we hold ourselves to the absolute highest standards in the community. Unfortunately, there have been clear examples across all the aisles – it does not matter which side of the fence you are on – of foul behaviour in the past. That is not something that we should be proud of, but it is something that we should reflect on. On that, I want to make mention of the fact that so much work has gone into this bill to ensure that it has been done in a thorough way to make sure that we as members of Parliament hold our heads up high and make sure that we have the highest standards and integrity. I do not get it. People work so hard to get into this place. Some have had life ambitions to get here. Then they get in, and unfortunately there is foul play and they slip up, and it is just not acceptable. It does not matter what the scandal is, it is a scandal, and it is unacceptable for any member of Parliament to be tied up in anything like that.

This bill will ensure that we know what our code of conduct is and we know what standards we have to uphold, and I would like to think that everyone will read through this bill thoroughly and make sure that they live up to these standards. We need to ensure that we have a workplace which is safe and where we are respected, because as we know, MPs need to be held to the highest standards possible. It is absolutely what the Victorian community expects.

Many of you may not know, but I was actually elected to Hobsons Bay City Council in 2008. I will never forget when I was elected to Hobsons Bay City Council that Joan Kirner, a dear friend of mine, a mentor and somebody that I really believed in, called me up and said, ‘Luba, if you’re going to do one thing, you have to lead with integrity.’

Business interrupted under sessional orders.