The Albanese government is facing criticism over its proposed independent parliamentary workplace watchdog, with crossbenchers and advocacy groups expressing concerns that the plan gives too much power to MPs and senators to determine how their colleagues are punished for misconduct.
The independent parliamentary standards commission (IPSC), introduced by Finance Minister Katy Gallagher in August, is designed to investigate complaints and impose sanctions on those working within Parliament House. The IPSC would have the authority to determine and enforce non-parliamentary penalties, such as requiring training, professional development, or behaviour agreements.
However, for more serious misconduct, the IPSC would refer cases to the parliament’s powerful privileges committees, which are dominated by members of the ruling party.
These committees would then decide on more severe penalties, including fines of 2% to 5% of a politician’s annual salary, suspension from parliament, or removal from parliamentary committees. For example, a backbench MP could face a fine ranging from $4,673 to $11,682, while a prime minister could be fined between $12,149 and $30,374.
Critics argue that allowing privileges committees to make these decisions without providing justifications undermines the independence and effectiveness of the watchdog.
Renee Carr, executive director of the gender equity advocacy group Fair Agenda, criticized the proposal, stating it doesn’t “pass the pub test.”
She emphasized the importance of keeping serious misconduct cases above the political fray by having the independent body play a more significant role in recommending appropriate sanctions.
Greens Senator Larissa Waters, a member of the parliamentary workplace taskforce, echoed these concerns.
Alongside Tasmanian MP Andrew Willkie, Waters plans to introduce amendments to strengthen the IPSC’s role.
Specifically, she advocates for the IPSC to offer sanction recommendations to the privileges committee and require the committee to provide an explanation if it chooses to deviate from those recommendations.
“The public must have confidence that politicians will be held to account, and a strong and transparent process is needed for that confidence,” Waters said.
The proposed amendments aim to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the handling of parliamentary misconduct, addressing concerns that the current plan falls short of maintaining public trust in the process.
