Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This should be the workplace that sets the standard, but it has in no way been that workplace, and too many people, especially young women, have been harmed by that and by what has occurred here. It is now on all of us here to make the changes that have to happen. This shouldn't be the building where the rules that apply in every other workplace in the country don't apply. We are unique and special in this place because we make the rules. We make the rules that apply in all the workplaces. But we are not unique and special because we are above the rules, and that is absolutely what we must address and what this bill that we are talking about today goes some way towards doing.

It's around a year since Brittany Higgins first publicly told her story, and I need to begin this speech by acknowledging her bravery and all the other women, current and former staffers, who have told their stories and who contributed to the Set the standard report. Their contributions are immense, and I know for many of those people they were very difficult contributions to make, but they have been so important in getting us to the point we are right now. And it's not just staffers of course. It's not just women in politics and men in politics. People from across this building contributed—journalists from the press gallery, public servants, other staff who are all associated with this. They were really thorough and thoughtful contributions that should be part of making this a better place for everyone to work, and they obviously lead to a really thorough and thoughtful report from the Commissioner Kate Jenkins. I also want to thank her for giving us this report, which gives us a platform to make the changes that need to happen in this parliament to make it a safe workplace, especially for women.

This bill implements the recommendations 17 and 24 from Commissioner Kate Jenkins's review. Recommendation 17 is that the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act be amended to make it clear that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act apply to MOP(S) Act staff and that written notice of termination specifying the reasons for termination must be provided. Recommendation 17 also provides that it should be made clear that the Work Health and Safety Act applies to parliamentarians in their capacity as employers.

Recommendation 24 is that the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act should be amended to clarify that these laws apply to MOP(S) Act staff. Why is this important? Because we know from what's come in the report, from the discussions, from what people have put forward that too often staff in this building have felt afraid to come forward when they feel that they have been experiencing bullying, harassment or other unacceptable treatment. They're told of a pattern of these types of allegations being dealt with like they are political allegations, not like they are professional allegations made in a professional workplace. So these are important reforms that go some way to making the changes needed in that space.

We've also heard from staff that these particular issues contributed to a feeling of a lack of job security, and that meant there was a power imbalance, and there is a power imbalance between those of us who are employers in this place and those people who are employees. Hopefully, these measures will go some way to fixing that imbalance to provide an environment where staff do feel confident and safe to come forward in the way they need to, to ensure that we do have a safe and supportive workplace for everyone.

Of course, this bill is just one small step—and it is a small step—in the process of making sure that we implement this review and we do make this a workplace that is safe for all. We had the statement of acknowledgement last week from the presiding officers, from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition, and that was also an important step. We have our cross-party independently chaired leadership task force to oversee the implementation of Commissioner Jenkins's recommendations, and we now have a joint standing committee on parliamentary standards to oversee standards and accountability in this place. So, again, some steps are being taken.

But what can't happen with this work is what happens to too many reviews and too many efforts to change this place—that we put it on a shelf and say: 'Job done! Good on us. We had a review and ticked some boxes. Let's move on.' This is a workplace that, across the country, people look to. If we cannot set the standard, if we cannot say to young women in this country that this is a place where they are safe to work, where they're not just in the room but they are heard in the room and are safe in the room, we are absolutely not doing our jobs. I'm very proud that Labor has a commitment to ensure that this is a safe workplace. We will prioritise our staff as part of this process. We will make sure that their voices continue to be heard. This is their workplace, and we have a duty to all of them.

Doing this work will take leadership and commitment from all of us, and I want to highlight some of the crucial areas of change that Kate Jenkins outlined in her report. There are two areas that I think particularly relate to our roles as MPs and employers in this place. I will quote from Kate Jenkins's speech here when she launched her report. The first area she called out is that we need is leadership. Our recommendations are focused on strengthening leadership to foster safe and respectful work environments. This includes both institutional leadership and individual leadership of parliamentarians, officeholders and party leaders. Leaders set the tone, and leadership at the top is particularly important to set clear expectations and role model safe and respectful behaviour.

I think if you asked many members of our community if that was the type of leadership they saw from this building at the moment, they might actually laugh in your face. We don't meet those standards at the moment. We have a lot of work to do to meet those standards, and that is on all of us in this place, because every single one of us can contribute to that—to showing the leadership that comes from the top but that comes from everyone in this building. It's going to be a crucial next step in getting the change we need.

The other area I want to highlight is needing to end the culture of entitlement and impunity that, for too long, has existed in this place. There do have to be consequences for poor behaviour. The report talks a lot and the debate around this has talked a lot about how this is a place that runs on power, and it absolutely does. But power shouldn't be unchecked, and power shouldn't mean that there aren't consequences when you don't do the right thing, when you cause harm to other people. So, again, I'm really pleased that this is something that Commissioner Jenkins picked up on in her report, and she made some very serious recommendations around how that power should be checked and how there should be accountability for behaviour in this place for employers. Again I will quote from her. She said:

The fourth is standards, reporting and accountability. We recommend establishing clear and consistent Codes of Conduct, alongside an independent complaint body, where it is safe to make a report, standards are enforced and people are held accountable through sanctions.

That is going to be so important if we are going to get change in this place.

I've been a staffer here and, like so many who have had that experience—and there are a number of us who are now elected who have had that experience—I came here because I believe in democracy and I believe in the power of the work that this place does. My experience as a staffer was positive, and that's one of the reasons why I find it so devastating to hear the experiences of so many other staffers who have been absolutely failed and let down by what's happened in this building. As an MP now, I rely on my staff and I know just how essential they are to keeping this place running. They deserve the respect of working in a professional and modern workplace, not a workplace that thinks the rules don't apply to it, that somehow we are in a magical category where we can do whatever we like and there are no consequences. So I'm also very pleased that, as part of the report, there is a lot that goes to support for us as employers so we can actually do our jobs better and support our staff better and have a safer workplace.

I want to briefly pay tribute, as part of this speech, to all the women who have gone before those of us first-term female MPs in this place and who have done much of the hard work of beginning to make this a workplace that women are welcomed in, even if we still have a long way to go before women are safe here. Susan Ryan introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, which became law in 1984 under the Hawke government. There are the female and male MPs—and we have one sitting down the front here—who made this an easier workplace for women like me who have had babies and young families while in office. Those are changes that have happened relatively recently. So it does show us that progress can be made. It does show us that we can change this place. It is on all of us to continue that change, to make sure that women are not just here but that they are supported to be here, that they are safe, heard and know that this is a workplace that they can fully participate in.

The women of Australia have been very clear over the past year: they will not sit back and let their voices be ignored anymore. Young women, in particular, have been very clear with me and, I know, with many others that their voices will not be ignored. It's a year since the March4Justice, and Australian women are still angry. They still don't believe that this place has met their demands. Doing the work to get this House in order, to get our workplace in order, is crucial to showing we can deliver.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to pick up where my good friend the member for Jagajaga left off in terms of women marching and women being angry and the voices of young women which are demanding to be heard just to make this observation. Not long after the March4Justice, I was sitting in a doctor's reception, waiting for an appointment. They always play something on the television for everyone when they are waiting. There was a documentary on about the women's marches and the feminist movement in the 1970s. They showed some of the meetings of the women planning their actions and planning their marches. One thing that really struck me was how excited and happy they were and how they were, it seemed watching the documentary, full of a sense that they were going to make change and that, whilst they were angry at—let's face it—centuries of women not being treated equally to men, they also seemed to be full of positivity and hope. As I said, they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Some of the meetings looked almost like a party. Then you fast forward to 2020 and 2021 and particularly the March4Justice, when, really, the aims of those women, you would think, would have been fulfilled by now. I think that the pervading emotions amongst the women who marched and the women who watched and supported the march were anger and disappointment that it was still happening and that, after all of those decades, in some circumstances it had got worse.

The other thing that happened with the March4Justice is that it was the voices of young women who, disturbingly and shamefully, had experienced sexual assault or harassment that were amplified. As the member for Jagajaga said, they demanded to be heard, and they demanded that without apology. They were inspiring. I think that in some ways that goes to the heart of one of the observations and recommendations of Kate Jenkins in her Set the standard report, about the need to end a culture of entitlement and impunity, because ultimately we know that sexual harassment, assault and violence, be it in families domestically, be it in the street or be it in the workplace—the private sphere or the public sphere—comes down to gender inequality and a belief in entitlement, impunity and superiority. For everything else that we can do, are doing and should do to make workplaces, homes, streets, sports clubs and theatres safe for women, fundamentally what we have to do is continue to work towards gender equality, and that goes for this parliament as well.

So this legislation is supported wholeheartedly and in a bipartisan manner because it is a step towards fixing the problems that clearly have existed in this workplace for far too long, and it's a welcome step, as was the acknowledgement and apology by the Presiding Officers, leaders of parties and Independents that happened earlier in this parliament. But it's not enough. Laws and words on their own don't lead to changes in culture. We've heard a lot of words from a lot of us about changing the culture and about a commitment to do so. Whilst this legislation and the words of apology and acknowledgement are a good start, they are not enough, alone or together, to change the pervading culture, particularly the pervading culture of entitlement and impunity that exists too much in politics, particularly—whilst I'm sure there are examples of women behaving badly—in the male dominated activities of politics and parliament.

Words and laws alone don't change the culture, but do you know what does? Actions change the culture. Demonstrated and lived attitudes change the culture. If we really want parliament to be the standard bearer for safe and respectful workplaces—and, if anyone doesn't, I ask why they're here—then the people who are here, who have been elected to be the leaders of this workplace, are absolutely responsible for setting that standard and demonstrating it in everything we do and in the way we interact with our staff, with the staff of other parliamentarians, with the people who work in this chamber, with those who clean our offices, with the secretariats of our committees, with those who serve us coffee and food in the canteens and at the coffee trolleys, and with those who work in the press gallery. We have to be responsible for setting the standard and demonstrating it in the way we interact with everyone, and we have to be responsible for setting the standard and demonstrating it in this parliament.

I'm pleased that there is a committee to establish a code of conduct for those of us who are elected to work here. My opinion is that that code of conduct needs to look at how we conduct ourselves in this parliament, particularly in the most watched part of this parliament, question time. You only have to look at the question time that we all had to sit through today to see examples of bullying and verbal abuse, of behaviour that is the antithesis of the behaviour that we should be modelling if we want to set the standard.

Too often, the behaviour engaged in politics in this chamber and outside of this chamber falls so far short of the ambitions of the Set the standard report and the legislation that we are all supporting today that it's not only depressing; it's just not surprising that so many Australians are lacking in trust and falling prey to the lies, the misinformation and the conspiracy theories of people who are taking advantage of that dissatisfaction with politics for their agendas and aggrandizement. How do we establish a workplace that abhors bullying, harassment and verbal abuse? It's up to us as the leaders of this workplace, but, in particular, the Prime Minister and the ministers in his cabinet, who displayed those very behaviours during all of their interactions, including in this parliament and in question time, need to change.

This legislation is welcomed, as is the legislation that I anticipate will follow, as we work to implement all of the recommendations of the Set the standard report, as the Labor caucus has unanimously committed to doing. While we're at it, we need to implement the Respect@Work recommendations. This workplace needs to be safe for everyone; every workplace needs to be safe for everyone. When we're given the tools to do it by the experts, we need to take those tools up and use them.

I want to finish my contribution by saying that these are the behaviours that I would like to see in a code of conduct, behaviours that talk about honesty, transparency, responsibility and respect. That's not too much to ask of our parliamentarians.

I want to join with others to say that we are nothing without our staff—those in our electorate offices, parliamentary offices and the staff that we don't employ but work in this building in the business that we're in. We are the face and the voice of the work that is done by people who are often young, enthusiastic, eager, smart and hopeful—people that we should be lifting up, not people that we should be crushing. We are responsible, no matter what the age of the people who work for us, for the way in which they are treated by us and by others.

I want to lend my support and admiration to the brave and tough young women who made the decision—and I can't imagine how hard it was to make—to speak publicly about their experiences that led to this Set the standard report being delivered after an investigation. To everyone who participated in that and had to relive, from the stories that we've seen in that report, horrendous behaviours in order to make it better for other people, that takes a strength and, I hope, a resilience that is hard for many of us to imagine. It also takes a selflessness that is more than admirable. Let us all here set the standard today, tomorrow, during the election campaign, when we're in government, when we're in opposition, when we're at the footy club or at the local play, and when we're in question time. If we don't set the standard and live up to that standard, how can we expect others to?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) | Link to this | Hansard source

Today marks one year to the day since Lisa Wilkinson's interview with Brittany Higgins and Samantha Maiden's reporting. Samantha wrote today:

One year ago today, on the morning of February 15, @newscomauHQ published the first interview with Brittany Higgins. A lot of things have happened in intervening year. Good & bad. I remain proud of the work we did & grateful she chose to speak.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

This, as I'm sure all honourable members know, is Latin for, 'Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.'

The #MeToo movement has reshaped the conversation over sexual harassment. The important contributions from Jess Hill, whose terrific book is titled See What You Made Me Do, Rosie Batty's time as Australian of the Year and the book Enough Is Enough by the member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites, and her predecessor, Jenny Macklin, have highlighted the importance of reducing the scourge of sexual harassment.

This is a simple matter of right and wrong, but, if you also need an economic argument to go along with it, it would be that sexual harassment is a huge drain on productivity. Australia faces a large gender pay gap which is closing at an extraordinarily glacial pace. That gender pay gap appears to be highest in professional occupations, and one reason for that, according to research by my former ANU colleague Deborah Cobb-Clark, now a professor at the University of Sydney, is the prevalence of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment often deters women from taking on jobs that involve long and irregular hours where they may be dealing with sexual harassment from co-workers or clients. Australia would not only be a more just country if we had less sexual harassment; we would be a richer and more productive nation as well.

As Jess Hill told me in a podcast that I do, The Good Life: 'The world has changed, and I went from a position where I didn't even know if I could use the word "patriarchy" in a book without coming across as some sort of, you know, radical man hater.' She said that changed because of the #MeToo movement. 'That changed because the world was ready for this change and was ready to start making invisible systems visible.'

That recognition of the challenge of sexual harassment is one that those of us on the Labor side saw in full throttle during the 2010-2013 parliamentary term, in which Australian's first female Prime Minister was subjected to an extraordinary level of gendered attacks from an opposition leader who called for an election so that, as he put it, she could 'make an honest Prime Minister of herself' and who stood in front of signs describing the Prime Minister in gendered terms. This sort of gendered attack was levelled at the person who held the highest office in the land and who is so often referred to in this place by her first name, rather than being accorded the respect that Australia's Prime Minister deserves.

We saw at that time that those extraordinary attacks flowed through to women's willingness to enter politics. Some were fired up by it, but some looked at it and thought that there were other occupations that they would choose instead and that that level of sexual harassment was not something that they would subject themselves to.

The issue of sexual harassment of parliamentary workplaces has arisen in other countries as well. In Britain, the allegations of sexual harassment in November 2017 led to the creation of a cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance policy. Dame Laura Cox's report was published in October 2018 and, ultimately, led to the establishment of an independent expert panel to consider cases against MPs in June 2020. Australia is running behind the United Kingdom in dealing with this issue.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, in bringing down the important report Set the standard. As that report notes, parliament should not be the floor for workplace culture, but should set the standard. Just as the Commonwealth, when it goes into a court of law, is expected to behave as a model litigant, this place should be a model for other workplaces. Yet, it is very clear from the surveys that were done by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, that it is anything but.

Thirty-seven per cent of people working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced some form of bullying, with one respondent saying, 'Frequently, like at least every week, the advice was to go cry in the toilet so that nobody can see you, because that's what it's like up there.' One in three people working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces said they had experienced some form of sexual harassment. One spoke of aspiring male politicians who, in one case, thought nothing of 'picking you up, kissing you on the lips, lifting you up, touching you, pats on the bottom, comments about appearance—you know, the usual; the culture allowed it'.

Over half of all people currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. Among female parliamentarians, 63 per cent reported sexual harassment compared to 24 per cent of male parliamentarians. I note that the rate of sexual harassment experienced by female parliamentarians is higher than the national average for women, which is 39 per cent. Respondents spoke about the culture in which individuals responsible for misconduct are an 'open secret' that nobody does anything to address and in which it was known that the perpetrator couldn't lose their job and it was expected that they wouldn't face any sanctions.

The report made a number of recommendations, one of which was a statement of acknowledgement, which the Prime Minister and the Labor leader spoke to in this place last Wednesday. That was an important act. It would have been better had the government brought to hear that statement some of those who had been affected by the behaviour that led to the commissioning of the Jenkins report. That was done in the case of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations; it should have been done in this instance.

There is a cross-party working group which will explore the creation of an independent parliamentary standards commission, and I hope that that commission will have some of the character of the British complaints procedure which ensures that the complaints are dealt with outside the regular parliamentary processes. The review also suggests that there should be consistent and comprehensive alcohol policies across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The occasional drink probably isn't a problem. Drunkenness, though, we well know, in this place and in other places can be associated with misbehaviour.

The report also made clear that the number of women in senior positions is a core determinant of misconduct. I went to the Parliamentary Library's latest figures on the gender breakdown of parliamentarians across both houses. Currently, among Labor representatives, 48.9 per cent are female; among Liberal representatives, 26.7 per cent; and among National Party representatives, 28.6 per cent. So nearly half of Labor representatives are women, while in the coalition the figure is barely above a quarter. Across other parliaments, I note that in Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT a majority of Labor representatives are women. Indeed, in Tasmania and the ACT, a majority of all representatives in the parliament are women. That must change the culture. It must make a difference.

I acknowledge a number of initiatives that have been important in helping to shape change. The Girls Takeover Parliament initiative recognises the value of having young women spend time in parliamentary offices. Last year in a parliamentary speech I quoted Sharmini Caldwell, who joined my office as part of that initiative. She said: 'It's not up to women alone. There is a responsibility on men to do better and to ensure that the men around them do better.'

The previous Labor speakers have highlighted the importance of reform of question time. I think we need to acknowledge that question time is a bizarre institution. Is there any other workplace in Australia where it would be considered acceptable to shout insults at your co-workers while they're trying to do their job? The nature of question time has become accepted in this place, but you need only speak to new members of parliament or to school groups who see it for the first time to recognise that it's pretty unusual. It's testosterone packed, it's noisy and it doesn't do us much credit in the broader environment. Many people see the behaviour in question time and say to themselves, 'Well, I wouldn't let my kids behave that way.' So reforming question time will help to raise the standard to which politicians are held in the broader community. Relatively few people watch question time in its entirety, but many people who watch the news will see a snippet of question time, and it's not normally a sober, calm, considered snippet; it's often the most overheated moment of the day. If they look at that and see behaviour that they wouldn't tolerate around their dinner table, I don't think that reflects well on us.

Trust in politicians is an issue for both sides, but it's particularly an issue for those of us who believe that government has a powerful role in addressing social problems—those of us who are proud of the creation of Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. For progressives, eroding trust in politicians erodes trust in government. The alternative to trust in government is that old Ronald Reagan approach, where he said: 'Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem.' The more people see that their politicians can't be trusted, the more likely they are to say that government can't be trusted, the more likely they are to turn to laissez-faire minimal-government approaches, and the less likely they are to back us in to create institutions like the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

I also want to commend to the House an initiative from Joanna Richards, who joined my office to produce A toolkit for gender advocacy. Joanna did that as part of her work completing her PhD at the University of Canberra, working with the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation located at the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. She's put together a really useful toolkit aimed principally at those who are advocating on gender based issues. She tells the story of the 2006 RU486 debate and the way in which lobbyists for that change worked constructively with parliamentarians on all sides. Joanna's toolkit is based on a series of interviews with parliamentarians on all sides of the house and with experienced parliamentary staff. It's a valuable toolkit for anyone lobbying on gender based issues, but I'll be honest: it's pretty valuable for anyone lobbying MPs on any issue. She has a range of tips and tricks for engaging, how to make the most of short meetings, how to prepare briefing notes and how to engage to get long-term reform. It's available for free download on my website and, for anyone watching who would like a copy, I'm more than happy to send you a copy of that. Working with Joanna, Sharmini and so many other talented women, including my extraordinary staff, has made me a better member of parliament.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this chamber to support the bill before the House. The Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 seeks to implement a number of the recommendations made by the Jenkins review and to improve the protections of staff within Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Over the course of the past 12 months, in particular, many times we have heard horrific stories relating to experiences of staff, particularly young women, in this place. Each time a survivor has come forward to share their story, it has struck a chord with our country. It is clear that there is an immediate and overwhelming need for cultural reform and for decisive action in order to address these issues, which is why Labor has worked very constructively and in a bipartisan manner on this bill and statements. It's because it's so important for all of us.

Every workplace in this country should be safe and free from harassment and assault, and the federal parliament should be setting the standard with regard to workplace culture, protections and, of course, safety. The reality is that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have failed to ensure safe environments and equitable treatment for staff. Not only are we failing to meet these basic standards of respect and workplace protection; we are lagging behind almost all other workplaces in the nation.

Many times when the Morrison government have addressed the issue of parliamentary culture publicly their attitudes have been somewhat disrespectful to those who have experienced harm in this place. There have been suggestions from some members of the coalition that some of these cultural issues within the parliament can be attributed to the inherently stressful nature of the work that we do here. It's as if long hours are a justification for this sort of harassment and assault. The justification is particularly offensive in the concept of current workplace conditions experienced by many across Australia. For example, healthcare workers and aged-care staff are on shifts for sometimes 12 hours or more. Paramedics run a 10-14 shift—that is, a 10-hour shift and a 14-hour shift. They are often understaffed, overworked and underpaid. But, every day, they do work that is just as stressful and just as taxing as the work that we do here. At least they have a positive outcome by generally saving people's lives.

As we complained about staying here until the early hours of the morning to pass legislation last week, there were thousands of healthcare workers across the country also awake, working in full PPE in difficult and stressful conditions to keep other Australians alive. These workers have not engaged in or sought to justify the kinds of acts that have been perpetrated in this building and that we heard about throughout the course of the Jenkins review. For it to be considered the stressors of this place justify this sort of abuse and harassment is really an insult to those who have experienced harm in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and those who work in far more difficult and stressful conditions than we experience here.

The substance of the Jenkins review has been deeply troubling. It's something that I, like all members, reflected on very deeply. The negative culture that exists in some corners of this place affects all of us, perhaps none more so than young women. I'll talk about a primary staffer in my office, a 21-year-old woman named Maddie. She began working in my office early last year, during the period in which many issues which have prompted the Jenkins review and the current bill before the House came to light. So I sat down and had a chat with her and consulted with her on the process of writing this speech. I was relieved that she has always felt comfortable in her workplace and never felt uncomfortable within the parliament or in the workplace either. But despite that, through conversations with Maddie and other staffers, it became clear that, even for those women within parliamentary workplaces who cannot point to a specific experience of discomfort or harassment, there is a palpable sense of apprehension and almost fear. That apprehension is capable of creating a hostile workplace in itself.

Maddie said that working in parliament had been a dream since she was a young girl. As a 10-year-old, upon hearing that Julia Gillard had become Australia's first female Prime Minister, Maddie said she burst into tears in her year 5 class. She was upset because she had wanted to be Australia's first female Prime Minister. She's got plenty of time and a good chance ahead of her; keep an eye on her! Working in parliament and as a staffer had been her dream for a long time. In early 2021 she was offered her first job as a parliamentary staffer, at the height of the media attention spotlight cast upon the conditions that exist for women within this building. She said she had an element of hesitancy about taking the job.

The seemingly endless series of stories relating to staffing culture and inadequate conditions for women creates a barrier to women's engagement in politics. Many women, rightly so, are apprehensive about engaging in politics for fear of the exact mistreatment that has existed for so many decades in this place. As a result, many have decided not to engage and seek careers elsewhere. Australian politics misses out on valuable intellect and insight, and men continue to be overrepresented, facilitating this whole ongoing cycle of harassment and fear.

Maddie fortunately decided to accept the job, and I am grateful for that because she is fantastic—she wrote that bit herself, by the way; I'll just put that in! She said she believes the only way a broken system can change is by people confronting it and working from the inside out to reform it. She said if she turned down the job she had been working towards her whole life because she was afraid, it would mean those perpetrating the fear had won. I commend her on her courage and many other women like her for their courage. But the reality is that she should never have been put in that position to begin with.

This bill is the legacy of women who overcame fear in order to change a broken system. They did so by sharing their stories, participating in reviews and calling out unacceptable behaviour—and sometimes just by turning up to work. In order to ensure that women have the opportunity to engage in politics as staffers, as journalists, as MPs and as senators, in order to ensure we honour the courage of these women who share their experiences, we must make sure we are doing more than just virtue signalling. It must be the first of many steps we take on a path to make real and meaningful change. The onus is on all of us in this place, especially as MPs, to change the system and to ensure that nobody feels fear to engage in the work that is done in this place.

The barriers to engagement for young women in politics have existed for some time. The recent media attention which has been thrust upon them should not be construed as an indication that these issues are only now surfacing, because, in truth, as we know from the Jenkins review, these issues have existed for a long time, and the attitude of this government towards women and female staffers has been present for some time. I want to think about a point that really got to me in 2018. Cast your minds back to two weeks after former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called for cultural change in the way women are treated in this parliament, when the current Attorney-General who was then the Minister for Jobs and Innovation used the privilege of coward's castle during a Senate estimates hearing to make threats to publicly name Labor female staffers. This was disgraceful—a sexist tirade that was predicated upon the innuendo that young female staffers were engaged in affairs. The implications made by the now Attorney-General were baseless lies and deeply offensive to the women working in this building. This was done to serve her own political purposes. The now Attorney-General explicitly threatened these young women and made public allegations without any proof or any rationale for her comments. This is one of the examples that we see of the government responding inappropriately and offensively to issues in workplace culture.

These sexist attitudes have been pervasive since their inception, and have become even clearer over the last 12 months as discussions of parliamentary culture and workplace protections have played a central role in national policy. Disrespecting women by engaging in unsubstantiated inappropriate gossip regarding their personal lives is one of the many factors which contribute to broader harassment and violence against women. The appalling attitude towards women has been present for some time. Little has been done to address the gaping cultural issues within the government over the past few years. Last year, in the wake of the allegations made regarding the unsafe culture within Parliament House and the stories of women who came forward and shared their experiences of physical and mental violence, thousands of Australian men and women marched on Parliament House. They protested peacefully, demanding accountability and demanding justice. And what was the response? The Prime Minister responded by saying they were lucky not to have been met with bullets. This disrespect has been the hallmark of the latest incarnation of this government. There has been an appalling lack of leadership by those responsible for championing cultural change and the rights of survivors. Engaging in politics and our democracy is the birthright of all of us, but when people are afraid to engage in it, it means that we as a collective have failed. Nobody deserves to feel unsafe in their workplace, and we should do all that we can to stop that.

The implementations of the Jenkins review are crucial to ensuring that we head down a new road. Legislation enables us to chart a path to a new and better future, but it's also critical to remember that we are just at the beginning of that path. The work does not end with this bill; in fact, I think it's the point where we sit down and say, 'This is where the real work begins.'

It's crucial for us as MPs to understand our own roles and our power in this place. It's not just the absence of abusive or harassing behaviour, but it's about each of us making an active effort to create positive environments. Culture change is not just about the absence of harm, it's about the creation of good. It's about us devoting ourselves to addressing the issues that have plagued this place. As MPs with power in this place we must be ready and eager to reflect upon our own behaviour. We must be willing to acknowledge instances where we have failed or not lived up to the best of what this place represents. There's no excuse for justifying the horrible things that staff in this building have been forced to endure. Every day we fail to proactively address these issues is a day where we enable the status quo to continue.

This is one of the joys of being a member of a party that is full of incredibly brave, strong and intelligent women. I think that we've been very lucky with the quality of people that we've have had around us. Being in parliament with the likes of Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and Tanya Plibersek, to name a few—and, of course, Amanda Rishworth, who is at the table now—I feel that I've been extremely lucky to have worked with these people for a long time and to have a really good grounding in and understanding of the things that matter. What matters is the way that we see the new generation of our people coming in, like the member for Lilley, as an example—that's going to cost you five bucks, Anika! From the progressive side of politics, we've been able to work to address these situations and, really, nip things in the bud before they get out of hand. And that's because we've got strong, talented women in our party that can lead on any given level, on any given topic and on any given policy. That's something that we should be proud of and something that I think Australians will benefit from when we see these people sitting on the other side of the parliament.

There has been no shortage of times throughout the past year when I've been concerned with the government's attitude towards those who have come forward and shared their stories. We must do more than just hope for change. We must work for it. It's my hope that this bill marks the first of many steps we will take to create a better, safer future for those in this building and to become a shining example for those across the country. Now is the time that we put a stake in the ground and say: enough is enough.

The parliament has resolved to establish the Joint Standing Committee on Parliamentary Standards to oversee standards and accountability. These standards are so important that our Labor caucus, which is at the forefront of these things, is committed to working towards implementing all the recommendations from the Set the standard report and to consulting with our parliamentary and electorate staff, unions and workplace representatives as we work towards the implementation. Our staff are our priority in this process. It is their workplace, and they deserve nothing less than a safe, supported work environment. Our long-held view in Labor includes a commitment to ensure our parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful for everyone and a commitment to gender equality, including the need to promote and support women's leadership in the parliament. We know there's a lot to be done, but the thing with Labor is that we know that an Albanese government is committed to working with all parties to ensure the safety of everyone that works here.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McEwen and, more particularly, Maddie, for their contributions to this debate. Maddie would, clearly, make an excellent member for McEwen—some might say the sooner the better!

Opposition members interjecting—

Oh, really? Maddie Renshaw.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I also support the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. It implements much-needed reform that is well overdue in this building, but it is just one step in the process of making Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safer by implementing some of the recommendations from the Jenkins review. It's just one step, and we have many more to go.

It's not just about us here, as important as this place is—the MPs, the staff, the workers in this place; it's really about every woman in every workplace around Australia. Our job here will not really be done until we can say there are structures in place to ensure that every woman is safe in the workplaces around the country, including ours, and in homes and even in schools. Our job will not be done until there is equality in every place and until women have the same opportunity to achieve whatever they want as any man. I don't think we can say that job will be done until we can say that.

There has been a lot of commentary and analysis about the toxic culture in Canberra—that bad behaviour has contributed to the bad culture of this place. But what people rarely ask is: What contributes to this culture? What are the contributing factors to this culture? We know that culture is determined by the behaviours and structures that are in place. While there has been bad behaviour that has occurred in this place; there has also been a lack of structure that has let people down. It's remarkable to me that in a building which 5,000 or so people descend on for weeks at a time, which involves long, late working hours, where there's a mix of power, a power imbalance and a lack of accountability, in the place where the actual laws of the land are made, the Commonwealth parliament, there's an absence of legal mechanisms, of HR structures, to deal directly with harassment, bullying and assault allegations.

Instead there are some 227 MP and senator offices that are effectively little fiefdoms, and each office deals with the transgressions, the assaults, the harassment and the allegations. Effectively there's a monarchy in each and every office. That is bad structure, and bad culture emanates from that. When you have a situation or an issue in an MP's or senator's office where there may be an allegation of harassment between staff members, how can the MP or the senator be the one to fairly adjudicate on that? Every workplace that I worked at before I entered parliament had an arms-length HR department or legal department and proper mechanisms to deal with those issues. That's been lacking here, and that's what I mean by the absence of culture.

We've also talked about behaviour and role modelling. As the previous speaker, the member for McEwen pointed out, we have in our party—we're not perfect—women in positions of leadership. That actually matters. They are role models that set a standard of behaviour. It also educates and informs our understanding of how we should be dealing with each other. That is something that, as the member for McEwen pointed out, has been of exceptional importance for the Labor Party in setting our standards to improve. Our caucus is almost 50 per cent women, and there are women in positions of leadership. That's not true often of many workplaces around the country, although it is somewhat better in the Public Service. I remember working in the Public Service, and most of my supervisors were women. For me it was basically understanding that, regardless of one's gender, it was about their merit, their hard work and so on. That was an important lesson for me through the workplaces that I experienced.

But, after a year or more of talking about these issues, not much has changed in some respects, as far as the actual structures that are or aren't in place are concerned. I would hope that the behaviours have changed and improved over that time as well. Just last week we sat in this place until 5 am, had a few hours break and then came back for another day of work. There are not many workplaces around Australia that would expect this of their workers. To be clear, I know that I'm here to do a job: to represent the people of Wills. Most of my colleagues here are the same: they understand that we're signing up for a job and that it's not a nine-to-five job. We understand that. The point is, though, that the MPs, the staff and the journalists—all the people in this building who regularly work very odd and long hours—do so in a high-pressure environment with high stakes. You can see that that is one of the reasons the Jenkins review found working at this parliament to be unsafe. It's a contributing factor.

The Kate Jenkins report also found that one in three parliamentary workers have faced sexual harassment and, out of those people, 84 per cent did not seek support or advice. That's a startlingly high number. To me, it shows that the lack of structure and the lack of mechanisms in place have meant that people have not been able to seek support or advice with respect to the harassment that they may have experienced.

Many people ask why this is. As I said, we know why: when people in this place do the wrong thing, there's not really a structure or even a culture to deal with the problem, at least effectively. As I said, it's sometimes left up to the MP or senator to determine this in their own office. There's no independent arbiter for allegations of harassment, bullying and assault. There is no arms-length process in the workplace, in a sense. There is no HR department or legal mechanisms in that respect. I think this structural deficit enables bad behaviour. People behave badly, but the structure, or the lack of it, also enables that bad behaviour and the overall culture.

But changing that culture is more than just talking about it, and that's what parts of this bill are fundamentally about. We have to match our rhetoric and our need for change with action. So we need to change those structures and set the standards that people can abide by. When we get this right—and I hope we will and I'm confident that we can—it can contribute and set an example for better behaviour, and that then becomes the norm. It becomes accepted, as I have experienced in other workplaces, as I mentioned. I think every woman in this building deserves that, at the very least.

The bill implements recommendations 17 and 24 from the Jenkins review. We know that recommendation 17 is that the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 be amended to make clear that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act apply to MOP(S) Act staff and that a written notice of termination specifying the reasons for termination must be provided. Recommendation 17 also provides that it should be made clear that the Work Health and Safety Act applies to parliamentarians in their capacity as employers. Recommendation 24 is that the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to clarify that those laws apply to MOP(S) Act staff. We know that the lack of job security for parliamentarians' staff is a major barrier to staff raising complaints. That's been quite clear in the review and the inquiry. The lack of job security results in power imbalance, which makes it easier—if that's the right word—for bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault to occur and harder for complainants to speak up, because they don't have the support network to allow them to raise those issues. Legislating these two recommendations of the Jenkins review will help provide greater job security for staff and highlight to parliamentarians their obligations as employers. It's a positive step. The parliament has also decided to establish a joint standing committee on parliamentary standards to oversee standards and accountability in this place, which I warmly welcome.

But these are only the first steps in making sure our workplaces—this workplace particularly—are safe and inclusive. The Labor Party have committed to working towards implementing all recommendations in the Set the standard report, and we will consult with our parliamentary and electorate staff, the relevant unions and workplace representatives to do this. Our staff are the priority in this process. This is their workplace. And, like all Australians, they deserve to feel safe and supported in their work environment.

Labor have a long-held commitment to ensure our parliamentary workplace is a safe and respectful place for everyone. We are committed to gender equality and promoting and supporting women's leadership in the parliament, but it is certainly true that there is still much work to be done.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone has a right to go to work, and to feel safe while there. We are so lucky to work in this, the people's house—to serve the Australian people, to represent them. It is an honour and a privilege. So to know that for some individuals it has been a place of trauma is not just greatly concerning, it is a travesty and a failure. It is up to all of us to change the culture of this place. It is something I have spoken about before. It is not enough to create new bureaucratic structures. While a necessary precondition, and very much supported, it is not sufficient. We also need to ensure the culture of this place changes for the better. There is no doubt there have been horrible things happen in this place to staff and to elected representatives. These individuals should be listened to and believed. These individuals deserve action. Future parliamentarians and staff need action too. The ongoing health of our democracy requires such action.

Two young women, Ms Higgins and Ms Tame, bravely stood at the National Press Club last week to not only share their stories but fight for positive change. They deserve to be heard and they deserve to see the change they so fearlessly advocate for—not just for them, of course, but for all of those impacted, and for those who might otherwise be affected in the future. The issues raised in the Jenkins reviews, and the issues raised by Ms Higgins and Ms Tame, are not just 'women's issues'. They are societal issues and cultural issues that affect all Australians no matter their gender, sexual orientation, race, creed or political persuasion. This is a people issue, and it's up to each and every one of us in this place to take action.

To date, the discussions here have focused on the establishment of inquiries and independent structures. Last year, Labor committed to act on the deeply concerning findings of the Jenkins review. Labor will work to implement all 28 recommendations that came from that review. Labor are working to improve the culture of parliamentary workplaces and, in doing so, we are consulting closely with our staff on how best to do this. As a party, we have adopted a new code of conduct, complaints handling process, bullying and harassment policy and sexual harassment policy. Our staff are truly our priority in this process. This is their workplace, and they deserve nothing less than a safe and supportive work environment.

The fundamental issue here is the need for cultural change. If you're a staffer with political ambition, or even career ambition, you don't want to be seen to be the one rocking the boat. You don't want to do anything that will reflect badly on your boss, on your party. You don't want to let down the team. Our political culture mitigates against encouraging staff or MPs to come forward, to take action against perpetrators and to stand up and say some behaviour is, frankly, unacceptable. We need to ensure that staff who come forward with concerns will not be exiled or silenced; rather they will be believed and supported.

It is time survivors of harassment or assault of any kind are assured the powers that be are on their side. It is time that politicians of all persuasions, and the public, see transparency and action against inappropriate and unlawful behaviour as the greater political benefit rather than it being seen as preferable to cover it up. Our staff are already willing to put their careers on the line every three years when we, not them, encounter an election. It is only fair, therefore, that it is clear that fair work protections against unfair dismissal protect them too. Similarly, the least we can do is make clear that the Work Health and Safety Act applies to parliamentarians as employers as well.

MPs and their staff come from all different backgrounds. It's something we celebrate in our increasingly diverse parliament. Some have directly managed staff in their past careers, some have run small businesses or large businesses, and others have been part of organisations with large human resources departments. Some MPs come to this place with no prior training on how to manage staff. To date, there is no requirement to do so. The recommendation to ensure that parliamentarians are bound by the Work Health and Safety Act is so important because it will make sure ignorance is no longer an excuse. Legislating these two recommendations of the Jenkins review will help provide greater job security for staff and highlight to parliamentarians their obligations as employers. Legislating these two recommendations will bring the parliament in line with the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Not only is that something that, frankly, should have happened long ago but most people were, no doubt, dumbfounded to discover that they didn't already apply.

These are just the first steps in making sure our workplaces are safe and inclusive. Labor has a long-held commitment to making sure our parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful for everyone. We are committed to gender equality, including the need to promote and support women's leadership in the parliament by parliamentarians and staff. I'm proud to be part of a caucus with almost 50 per cent women, and I'm proud that, after the next federal election, amazing Western Australian women like Labor candidates Tania Lawrence in Hasluck, Zaneta Mascarenhas in Swan and Tracey Roberts in Pearce will join us in this place, ensuring the next government of Australia is truly representative. It's women like Tania, Zaneta and Tracey who will also bring valuable life experience and insight to this place. It's through the promotion of strong women like them and like my WA colleagues the member for Brand, the member for Cowan, Senator Pratt and Senator Lines that we will ensure this parliament becomes better.

As I said, this is not a women's issue; it's a cultural issue. It's a people issue, and it's incumbent on all of us to fix it. There is still so much work to be done. It is important that we recognise that we should not be placing the burden of solving these problems and fixing this culture on the victims. It is incumbent on everyone here to make sure that there is actual real cultural change and that that must happen not by talking or taking unilateral action but by listening to those affected, those who have been abused and those who are in fear and making sure that their concerns are actually addressed. Labor will work with all parties to ensure the safety of everyone who works in this place. We'll ensure that our staff have the same rights as all Australians and that their workplace becomes the example to all Australian workplaces that it should be. I commend the bill to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many Australians, I've been disappointed, saddened and, at times, angered to hear allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in this place. I'm shocked that, according to the Jenkins report, over half of all people currently in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have reported at least one instance of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault in their workplace. I'm heartened, however, that some of the commission's recommendations are already bearing fruit here today.

I have felt keenly the need to make improvements to ensure that every Commonwealth parliamentary office, both here in the parliament and in our electorate offices, are safe and respectful places for every employee and to make sure that the parliament really does set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor. While her matter is before the courts, Ms Brittany Higgins's act of sharing her allegations, I believe, has catalysed much-needed change, and I thank Ms Higgins for her bravery and I thank every person who made one of the 1,700 individual contributions to Commissioner Jenkins's review. Each of you has courageously shared your experiences, contributing to what I hope will be a true and meaningful change.

I am proud to have worked with fellow crossbench members in crafting a letter signed by the whole of the then crossbench urging the government to launch an independent review into the workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff. The establishment of this review on 5 March last year was a vital step on the path to the bill we debate today. Last year the parliament also passed the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill has made changes to ensure confidence of submissions to the independent review could be maintained to encourage those who have experienced harassment or abuse to come forward and share their stories. Again, the crossbench played an important role in this.

This bill bears valuable fruit from the Set the standard report tabled on 30 November 2021, implementing recommendations 17 and 24 to require a higher and a safe standard of behaviour in parliamentary workplaces. I support amendments to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 that strengthen and clarify the employment rights of employees under the act, remove doubt that the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to those employees and require that parliamentarians provide written reasons where they dismiss an employee from employment. I support the amendment to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 that clarify that parliamentarians are officers of the Commonwealth for the purposes of that act and I support the amendment of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to put beyond doubt that employees under the MOP(S) Act, as we all know it, are protected from both age and disability discrimination in their employment and engagement.

The introduction of this legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, is a great first step of the many that are needed. Other important steps, such as the outcome of the current review of the MOP(S) Act, are eagerly awaited. I commend this bill to the House and urge that focus and action on these reforms continue, even as we head into an election. Hearing a broad cross-section of members speak today, I believe that this is an issue on which we can grasp the opportunity provided by strong bipartisan support to achieve more meaningful change.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. This is a bill that seeks to strengthen the rights of and protections for employees in parliamentary workplaces and, with that stated aim, I support the bill before us. This legislation will implement recommendations 17 and 24 of the Set the standard report of the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces carried out by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, and provided to the Australian government on 30 November 2021.

As a member of the task force charged with implementing the 28 recommendations of this vital review, I strongly support this bill and again reiterate my commitment to ensuring that all 28 recommendations of the review be implemented in full. Just a week ago we gathered in this very chamber to see the first recommendation of that review delivered through the reading of the joint statement of acknowledgement by the Speaker and the President of the Senate. It was a powerful moment for this parliament but, more importantly, for the survivor advocates who joined us in the chamber that day.

I would like to apologise to all of those who would also have liked to have been here to see that apology and hear that apology in person—in particular, Dhanya Mani and others who raised their concerns for some time in previous years and have not felt heard or have not felt that their concerns were properly acted upon. Whilst it's incredibly important that we have now acted upon complaints and better heard the accounts, it is important that we continue to work at having a better process to hear and engage with staff that have had issues. We also have to make sure that we are fully representing all people who have had those experiences. Having spent time with the women that were able to attend here last week afterwards, I know that was a very challenging experience for them to be here that day, but it was also an important step that they did not want to miss, so I am incredibly sorry to all those that were not given that opportunity.

The commission had recommended that 'leaders within the parliament deliver' that 'statement of acknowledgement' to publicly acknowledge the 'experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in CPWs; the impact of the misconduct on individuals; and the lack of action taken in the past'. Vitally, the delivery of that statement demonstrated a 'commitment to change, with shared accountability for progress'.

In her report, Commissioner Jenkins spelled out the importance of why a public statement from this parliament was required as:

An acknowledgement of the impact of misconduct is important for validating the experience of individuals who have been subject to harm under the watch of leaders in CPWs—

Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—

Further, an acknowledgement can start to restore the trust between individuals who have experienced misconduct … It would be an important demonstration by leaders in these workplaces that they acknowledge the experiences, recent and past, and are committed to working together to ensure—

these workplaces—

are safe and respectful.

It's for this reason that this bill is similarly important. By implementing two more of those important recommendations of the Jenkins review, we're demonstrating in this place a collective 'commitment to change'. This bill before us now will implement recommendations 17 and 24, essentially putting beyond doubt that employees of members of parliament and senators are protected by the provisions of the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. This should be a given. This shouldn't have to be spelt out, but the sad reality is that it does have to be because of past practices in this place.

There's no denying that this is an incredibly rewarding workplace but also an unbelievably challenging one. For the staff that sign up, they deal with some of the most emotional and confronting workloads, whether it's working with our community, assisting people with NDIS or aged-care packages, helping separated families, taking very distressing phone calls or working here in parliament with tight deadlines, fierce debate, intense negotiations and long hours. It's already such an intense workplace any hint of harassment, bullying or sexual assault would only compound existing trauma.

It's up to all of us to change the culture in this place. We don't need to wait for legislation or codes of conduct; we can each play our part, but this bill is a good first step. This bill amends the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the MOP(S) Act, to provide that reasons for termination of employment must be given in writing and to clarify that the existing legislative requirements apply to the termination of employments over the MOP(S) Act employees. It also amends the Work Health and Safety Act to clarify the duties parliamentarians owe under that act to their employee. Finally, it also amends the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act to clarify that these laws apply to staff employed or engaged under the MOP(S) Act as per recommendation 24 of the Jenkins report.

In summary, this bill seeks to put beyond doubt the employees of members of parliament and senators are protected by the provisions of the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. By providing these assurances I hope it will contribute to our overall goal of creating safe and respectful workplaces for our staff.

It's important to note that recommendation 17 came about because there were strong misconceptions about the right of parliamentarians to dismiss their employees under current arrangements. It was a recurring theme throughout the Jenkins inquiry—people held back from making complaints out of a genuine fear and a sense of job insecurity, the perception being that a parliamentarian could hire and fire staff at their own whim. A participant noted:

The ability of an MP to terminate a staff member without due grounds should be significantly reined in, as I believe the fear of being sacked is fundamentally what prevents staff from reporting workplace bullying and harassment.

Even the Department of Finance, the very department that has oversight of the employment of parliamentary staff, conceded this point in their submissions to the Jenkins inquiry. So, if the very department in charge of employment concedes there is a misconception here, it's only appropriate that the issue be clarified, and that's what we seek to do in this legislation.

We also need to use this opportunity to send a message to all MOP(S) Act employees that they have protection. They cannot be fired at the whim of an MP or senator. That misconception has helped perpetrate the culture of bullying, harassment, secrecy and cover-up. That must stop now. Please know your rights, your rights that are being strengthened as a result of this legislation.

I also want to refer to the replacement explanatory memorandum that has been provided and tabled in the House today, because it has an important change to the document that was originally tabled. The new replacement memorandum has an additional line regarding a notice of termination. To reflect the strengthening of employees' rights, the document now states that such a notice would need to provide in detail the reasons for termination. It's an important addition. No longer can it be a vague, tick-a-box exercise. A detailed reason for termination must be given. I think it's important that the government has acknowledged this and included it in the explanatory memorandum.

The other component of this bill today is to ensure protections against age and disability discrimination. The recommendation was to amend the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act to clarify that the laws apply to staff and consultants employed or engaged under the MOP(S) Act. It's important that the full suite of antidiscrimination laws contribute to the safe and respectful workplace we are trying to create through implementing the Jenkins report. It's important, again, to make it abundantly clear that employees in parliamentary workplaces are covered and protected under these acts.

Some participants in the review who identified as a person with a disability spoke about how they were excluded in the workplace or were viewed by managers and colleagues only through the lens of their disability. They felt excluded from decision-making roles and felt that they were treated differently to able-bodied colleagues. As a side note, the commission also recorded that participants noted the general lack of accessibility of Parliament House, particularly for people with mobility issues. They felt that this building not only excluded people with disability from physically accessing the building and its spaces but also sends a message about who belongs and is entitled to work in these workplaces.

This is something that I highlighted these with the Speaker in December 2019 when I invited a group of guests to come to Parliament House to witness the handing over of a petition highlighting inequity and treatment of people over 65 in accessing the NDIS. I was horrified and incredibly embarrassed that they described to me the difficulty of gaining entry through security, accessing public viewing galleries and even using so-called accessible toilets. I wrote to the Speaker at the time and was assured that these considerations would be incorporated in a future review and audit of Parliament House. I think this needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. This is the people's house, and we cannot have a situation where some people are excluded because of their disability.

I would like to refer to some of the comments made in the other place about this legislation. In introducing the bill, the assistant minister, Senator Duniam, said:

The bill would progress important and significant reforms to help ensure that Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces are workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced …

It's a lofty ambition, and I hope we can live up to it. It's a promising sentiment. Minister Birmingham said in his speech:

For the recommendations that are solely within the government's responsibility and control, our intention is they be implemented within the recommended time frames. Thus far, that is on track for all of those recommendations. We are conscious that the recommendations are complex, but they are also important, especially those such as establishing the office of parliamentary standards and culture.

Again, that's a promising and welcomed sentiment, but we must first make sure that we do this. We need actions rather than words.

Senator Waters, in the other place, a fellow member of the implementation task force, pointed out that this bill alone will not change the culture of shaming and silencing that stopped staff coming forward. She, in fact, detailed the experiences of Dhanya Mani, another brave former staff member who has been so poorly treated and has fought against the system to ensure her voice and the voice of others can be heard. This is an important step. We need to make sure that all the recommendations are implemented. We need to take note that the Jenkins review, which was rendered in relation to all workplaces, included the introduction of a positive duty on employers in this workplace and all workplaces to ensure that staff are safe, to ensure that it's not just all words but also real action.

Positive duties put an obligation on employers to protect their staff from sexual harassment in the workplace. It is the most important cultural change to help seriously address sexual harassment in our workplaces. It needs to happen. It's disappointing that the government simply has not tackled that in this term of parliament. A positive duty in parliamentary workplaces was one of the most prominent recommendations of the Respect@Workreport. It had the support of a vast array of groups, from the Business Council of Australia to the ACTU, from the Law Council to the Human Rights Commission. Yet that report and those recommendations have sat untouched. We simply cannot allow that to happen to the Set the standard report.

I welcome the government's commitment to implementing the recommendations. I repeat my call that we implement all the recommendations of the previous Jenkins report in relation to Australian workplaces and respect in Australian workplaces. I welcome the commitment to implementing the recommendations. But I have to note that it was only 24 hours after we delivered that statement to the House that we saw this parliament, this chamber, sit until 5 am. I note the Speaker's comments in relation to that being the standard practice and the convention of how that operated. But it showed that dissonance that, while we are here talking about changing culture, only 24 hours after implementing that change we were already acting contrary in this place to the very recommendations.

We have to change the way this is done. It starts with everyone in this place. The government is in a position to do so. It is important to note that, at the end of the day, it is conduct and behaviour that will judge how serious the desire is to change the culture in this place and ensure it is the gold standard workplace that it should be. This should be the gold standard of workplaces in Australia. We have a long way to go, but I welcome today's first step.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to share some brief reflections on Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, which has my support and commendation. This bill is a first step in the implementation of all recommendations of the Jenkins review into parliamentary workplace culture filed last November.

Specifically, this bill improves the existing provisions of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to ensure it's crystal clear that the unfair dismissal, antidiscrimination and workplace health and safety laws that apply to all other workplaces in this nation apply hereto in this parliament. That should not be a novel concept. This parliament should be a model workplace that operates on principles of decency, respect and integrity. Our democracy is worse for it if not. The government has taken the first step, but we have only just begun the work needed to improve the culture in this place. Apologies lose their meaning without action and results. The brave and impressive Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins reminded us of that just last week.

I welcome this bill, the statement of acknowledgement last week and the establishment of an implementation task force to action the rest of the Jenkins review recommendations. But I will not stop fighting until each one is implemented in full. I want to note in particular recommendations 21 and 22, which call on this parliament to establish a code of conduct for all MPs and their staff, and an independent parliamentary standards commissioner to enforce the code of conduct. The review specifically recommended that the commissioner be empowered to investigate and make findings of fact about alleged breaches of the code of conduct and recommend sanctions of our political leadership or we, as a parliament, can impose to resolve a breach.

In November 2020, I introduced the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill to this House, which has many of the same features as this recommendation. I was pleased to share detailed information with the Jenkins review about that proposal, and I implore the government and all other leaders in this place to do the work to ensure this parliamentary standards commissioner comes to fruition. No-one—be it a parliamentarian, a staffer, a journalist, a public servant or a contract worker—in this building should be left with nowhere to go if they experience misconduct. Our position as elected officials should never trump the safety of people who come to work in this place. From hospitals to university departments—I've worked in many, many workplaces in my career where robust codes of conduct offset the risk of power imbalances between colleagues and toxic and harmful work environments forming. This workplace should be no exception.

I thank Commissioner Jenkins for her work to ensure this bill has found passage through this place, and I thank everyone who contributed to the work that formed that report. I now call on my colleagues here and in the other place to join together and see this through as soon as possible.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 as a tiny step in the right direction by implementing two recommendations of the Set the standard report. There is still so much to do, but this is a start. These amendments will prevent staff from being able to be arbitrarily fired for no reason other than that they have become a political problem for their employer. We know from Set the standard that the broad powers of parliamentarians to fire staff without cause has been a significant barrier. It has stopped staff from coming forward because they fear that their job, not the job of their abuser, would be at risk if they did.

Requiring reasons to be given is not a complete solution, and we know that this change alone will not change the culture of shaming in silence that stops staff from coming forward. That cultural shift requires full implementation of the Set the standard recommendations: a robust, independent and well-resourced complaints process; trauma-informed training for all parliamentarians and senior staff; a code of conduct with meaningful options to sanction abusers and those who facilitate or ignore abuse; and genuine work for a more inclusive and representative parliament and parliamentary workforce. The Greens support this full suite of measures and will work to ensure the parliament adopts them as a matter of urgency.

The bill also makes clear that all parliamentarians have obligations, as officers under the Work Health and Safety Act, to provide a safe workplace. We welcome that. But the Respect@Work report made it clear that those obligations are not enough to protect staff against harassment, bullying and assault. What is needed in this workplace and in others is a positive duty on officers to ensure that staff are safe—where there is a zero tolerance policy in action, not just in words, and where appropriate support is available. A positive duty was the foundation of the Respect@Work recommendations for making workplaces safe. Without that duty, other reforms are built on very shaky ground.

The government voted against amendments moved by the Greens and Labor last year to introduce a positive duty. Despite vague assurances that they are working on it, we are yet to see a positive duty. Belatedly, yesterday, the Attorney-General's department released a discussion paper seeking consultation on a positive duty and several other outstanding recommendations under the Respect@Work report. Again, we welcome that progress but question why it has taken so long. Despite it being a key recommendation of a report delivered to the government nearly two years ago, workers are unlikely to get the protection of a positive duty before the election. The Greens will continue to push for a positive duty until every worker in every workplace feels safe and respected.

The final thing this bill does is ensure that MOP(S) Act staff are covered by the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. This fills critical gaps in the protections offered to MOP(S) Act staff. It is also a reminder that the abuse detailed in the Set the standard report is extensive and varied. The attention has been on sexual harassment and assault but we must not ignore the reports of racism, ableism and ageism in this place. People of colour, people with disability and older women have all reported that their harassment was compounded by discrimination—that they were targeted more, believed and supported less and, too often, driven from this workplace. We can't look around this room and pretend we don't have a representation problem.

The bravery of women like Rachelle Miller, Chelsey Potter, Brittany Higgins, Josie Coles, Saxon Mullins, Chanel Contos and Grace Tame is a key reason that we are even debating this bill today. But it is critical to remember those courageous women are not the only ones who have been abused, they are not the only ones who have come forward. Too often the experiences of women of colour, people with disability, older women and LGBTIQA+ people are ignored, diminished or misunderstood. My Senate colleagues Senator Thorpe, Senator Faruqi and Senator Cox can all attest to this. Each of them experiences abuse and harassment within this building, outside it and online that I cannot even imagine. It's appalling and shameful, and it will persist without serious cultural change. Until we have a more diverse and inclusive parliament and parliamentary workforce, this problem will not go away.

Last week my Senate colleague Senator Waters, the Greens' leader in the Senate, read a statement from survivor Dhanya Mani, who has pleaded with this parliament and directly to the Prime Minister to acknowledge the lack of diversity and to ensure that women of colour are not written out of the story of why things need to change:

If this parliament fails to act, it is tacitly endorsing and aggravating impenetrable barriers to equality for diverse, minority, identifying Australians. This country cannot achieve inclusive healthy progress for women in political life until and unless we start recognising and validating the vital work of women of colour and First Nations women in making opportunities for feminist cultural reckoning and reform possible.

On behalf of the Greens, I welcome this bill. I also urge the government to act decisively on recommendations 5 to 9 of the Set the standard report, to improve access, diversity and inclusivity in this place. This bill is the first tiny step in the right direction. It finally does some of the things that Dhanya and others have been asking the government to do for years. The Greens will work to ensure that this parliament urgently takes the rest of the steps needed to really turn things around and make parliamentary workplaces, and all workplaces, safe, equal, inclusive and respectful.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 will make initial changes to four pieces of legislation in order to implement recommendations 17 and 24 of the Set the standard report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, otherwise known as the Jenkins report. Just a reminder: Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, is also a proud Goldstein constituent.

The bill will progress important and significant reforms to help ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced, where respectful behaviour is standard and where any Australian, no matter their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, disability or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute.

The bill will amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to strengthen and clarify the employment rights of MOP(S) Act employees. The bill removes any doubt that the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to MOP(S) Act employees by making this explicit, and will require parliamentarians to provide written reasons where they dismiss an employee from employment. These amendments result in additional information being provided to employees who are being terminated, which will also result in an update to current forms required to terminate employees consistent with Commissioner Jenkins's recommendations.

The grounds for dismissing an employee have not changed. They may include: a restructure of the office which calls for different sets of employee skills; unsatisfactory performance or conduct by the employee; where the parliamentarian has lost trust or confidence in the employee; and where the employee has a significant conflict of interest.

The bill will amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to clarify that parliamentarians are officers of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act. This bill will amend the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to put beyond doubt that MOP(S) Act employees have protection from age and disability discrimination, consistent with recent amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

The government has, on a number of occasions, indicated support for the report's recommendations. The government has worked with the opposition, other parties and independents to establish a leadership task force to help drive implementation. A first meeting of the task force, independently chaired by Ms Kerri Hartland, was held on 3 February 2022. The task force will be integral to ensuring progress on all the Jenkins report recommendations, noting not all the recommendations are solely for the government to implement. For the recommendations that are solely within the government's responsibility, the intention is that these be implemented within the recommendation time frames. Thus far, the recommendations are on track. The government is, of course, conscious that the recommendations are complex, and it is making sure to work through the issues carefully.

This bill will provide additional protections to MOP(S) Act employees and provide clear intent that the government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Jenkins report. Significantly, the reforms in the legislative package would ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful and that the nation's parliament serves as a model workplace for our nation and strives for best practice in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Of course, all of us in this chamber, I would hope, would never need to resort to such obligations, but the practical reality is that sometimes they may occur. But the hope is that we can build a culture within this workplace where everybody feels a sense of dignity, respect for their work and inclusion. That really is one of the many factors that motivate not just me but many members who appear before this chamber: we come to this place to make a better nation. Of course, as many speakers have remarked, no-one should come to the Commonwealth parliament and feel that they are not a full participant in our nation and its success. We should be a model workplace. We sometimes have fallen short in the past, sometimes very egregiously and seriously. Our responsibility as members of parliament from this point forward is to show that we have learned the lessons from the past, from those who have engaged in misconduct; to ensure that it does not occur again; and, critically, to recognise the excellent work that has been done by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins.

As I remarked before, obviously in my former capacity as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner I had some dealings with Commissioner Jenkins in her capacity as Victoria's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner, where she did an equally excellent job. She's done an outstanding job in compiling this report and providing a pathway for those who have worked in and around the parliament presently and in the past to bring forward their concerns and ensure that they are heard with respect. I also participated in the inquiry, and I was very happy to do so. I outlined the challenges that are faced across the board. It's not just, of course, the concerns that staff have brought, although they're immensely important and I'm glad they have been given voice. Members of parliament also have their own concerns about how some of the legal and practical applications of the law and culture of Parliament House occur and about the power imbalances. The environment that's created is a consequence of those hard power imbalances in the workplace as well as soft power imbalances that exist too.

We all share a collective will and ambition to address these issues as part of improving a workplace to make it one that every Australian can be proud of, not just because they can look to their nation's parliament as a model workplace but so that the stain that has occurred from serious allegations of misconduct in the past does not continue to diminish this parliament, because it should be a beacon of light for the nation about what we can achieve when we work together to improve the health and welfare of our nation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.