Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak on this piece of legislation, particularly after the last fortnight in Parliament, where the question of whether parliamentary standards are up to scratch was on display for all to see. This is an important discussion to have, especially when trust in politicians and in our democracy is at a bit of a low. As a first-time crossbencher, I feel that I have brought fresh eyes to Parliament. While this legislation does not directly address behaviour in the chamber, that behaviour is the most confronting as a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the work environment. The jeering, heckling, and disrespect shown in the chamber is unlike any other work environment in the country.

This chamber should be a place for robust debate, but the culture demonstrated here is a relic of the past, as is the lack of accountability and standards more broadly. The standards in this house should not be so markedly different from the rest of the workplaces across Australia. If anything, we should be setting an example. If we want our constituents to respect our Parliament, we need to demonstrate that we are worthy of respect. If we want our constituents to trust us, we need to earn their trust.

Part of this means being transparent and open about misconduct in the Parliamentary workplace and holding those who betray the trust and respect afforded to them accountable. We also need to provide a safe and respectful workplace for our staff, just like any other workplace. The sad reality is that this place does not have a good reputation. I interviewed a young woman about a job on my team, and she hesitated about taking the job. When I asked why, she said she was quite worried because she had heard that Parliament House was "a bit rapey." It's absolutely horrific that this could be the reputation of the centre of our lawmaking, and we must do better.

This bill is the final piece of reform coming out of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces in response to public outcry over toxic culture and poor behaviour in the Commonwealth Parliament. The "Set the Standard" report was tabled in November 2021 and contained 28 recommendations to ensure Commonwealth Parliament workplaces are safe and respectful. Recommendation 21 was to establish clear and consistent codes of conduct, and recommendation 22 was to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC), which would enforce those codes of conduct. In November 2021, it was recommended that the codes and the IPSC be implemented within 12 months.

The Parliamentary Behaviour Codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and endorsed by both houses of Parliament in February 2023, some time later than expected. An Independent Parliamentary Workplace Support Service was established and commenced in October 2023, and today, we are debating this bill that establishes the IPSC and determining whether this is an appropriate response to the recommendations in "Set the Standard."

The report specifies that the IPSC should make findings about misconduct, make recommendations on sanctions, and apply sanctions for a breach of the code of conduct for parliamentarians. It also specifies that the IPSC should operate a fair, independent, confidential, and transparent system to receive disclosures, complaints, and appeals about misconduct.

Firstly, regarding the functions and powers of the IPSC: The IPSC has been set up to provide an enforcement mechanism for the behaviour codes. It is established as an impartial fact-finding body that investigates conduct issues submitted to the Commission in writing, provided there is sufficient evidence or information. After investigation, the decision maker provides a draft report, including preliminary findings, a summary of evidence, and proposed recommendations and sanctions, where relevant. The person subject to critical preliminary findings or proposed sanctions is then given an opportunity to respond before final sanctions are recommended. In the case of a serious breach, the IPSC refers its findings to the Privileges Committee, which considers the appropriate sanction and reports to the relevant house of Parliament with its recommendation. This recommendation becomes public.

This all seems a reasonably appropriate response to the "Set the Standard" report and the committee report. I agree that it's important to have a division between the IPSC's role in investigations and proposing sanctions and the functions of policy setting and providing advice and support on behaviour standards. I support the structure of the IPSC that requires MOP(S) employees to have one allocated investigating commissioner, while parliamentarians require a panel of commissioners. It's correct to have recommended sanctions communicated to the employer of a MOP(S) employee found to have breached a behaviour code, while less serious sanctions can be imposed by the IPSC on parliamentarians. I also believe that serious sanctions against parliamentarians should be applied through the house by the Privileges Committee.

Secondly, is the process fair, independent, confidential, and transparent? Transparency is essential to build trust. This bill does not require full transparency. For serious misconduct, the IPSC assessment and recommendations are given to the Privileges Committee, and there is some transparency in determining sanctions. However, there is no transparency for lesser breaches, and transparency on serious misconduct is limited based on the discretion of the committee. Some advocates are concerned about this, with Fair Agenda arguing that information about serious misconduct should be made public, as long as the complainant consents. The Australian Democracy Network stresses the need for public transparency if an MP violates the code of conduct.

However, there's a balance to be struck with confidentiality, especially for MOP(S) employees or less serious allegations. The bill keeps non-serious allegations confidential but allows for public statements regarding conduct issues in certain circumstances. I would prefer more transparency, but this is a difficult balance to find, and I think the current form strikes that balance.

Regarding independence: Some argue that the IPSC should have final say on all sanctions, but MPs, by nature of their election, are in a different employment arrangement than others under the MOP(S) Act. MPs are, in effect, employed by their electorate, so it's appropriate that the Privileges Committee has the ultimate sanctioning authority.

Lastly, is the process fair? MPs and employees must abide by the code of conduct, and they must uphold a standard of behaviour appropriate for their position. We cannot accept lower standards of behaviour in Parliament than we would expect elsewhere. This bill is a significant step forward in reforming how this place operates, though there may be future discussions about fairness.

I support the amendment put forward by the Member for Wentworth that would make the standards apply in this house. It is the behaviour in this house that people see and judge us by, including schoolchildren who observe us. It is crucial that there is a high standard of behaviour in this chamber, as well as in the wider Parliamentary environment.

This legislation could have gone further, but it is a huge and necessary step forward, and I will support it. It is arguably fair, independent, and strikes a balance between confidentiality and transparency, even if it's not exactly the balance I would have preferred. I commend this bill to the house.