Disciplining MPs for Bullying and Sexual Harassment

This video is about proposals in Australia to establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to investigate and make findings about complaints that Members of Parliament and staff within Parliament House have engaged in conduct (such as bullying and sexual harassment) that breaches a relevant code of conduct.
The proposal originated from an earlier report by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, called 'Set the Standard'. This video discusses the constitutional issues regarding the original proposal and how and why the resulting legislation is different. It explains how the system will operate and the type of sanctions that can be imposed. It discusses constitutional and privilege issues raised by the law.
Note: This video was originally filmed when it was still a Bill, and therefore refers to it as a Bill. It has since been passed by Parliament, so I have added an update at the end to reflect this. Apologies for the audio in the coda at the end, as it is not so great, and I'm not sure what went wrong.

[@johngross3506]

It all seems remarkably complicated!

[@karenm7449]

I feel quite disgusted that time and money was spent on this while the country faces such serious problems. It seems to me that it is an elaborate way to cover up even more wrongdoing. I have lost faith in the Parliamentary process after many years following events and situations. Every worker should have the capacity to expect their colleagues to behave as responsible adults, and failing that, have access to the police without interference, or fear of intimidation or threat.

[@joehutchin]

Given the growing tendency of some to shut down legitimate political debate on the grounds of bullying and putting people at risk, isn't there a risk the commission would be stacked for political purposes? I look at this not just for what will happen today, but in the years to come.

[@hornetfig]

In case anyone wants to ID the members whose proposed amendments were discussed: Division of North Sydney (NSW): Kylea Tink Division of Wentworth (NSW): Allegra Spender Division of Clark (Tas): Andrew Wilkie

[@robertlotric4496]

Can a parliamentarian physically assault a fellow parliamentarian during a parliamentary session, under the guise of parliamentary privilege and face no consequences then, I wonder.

[@williamsutter2152]

If we want parliamentarians to be more civil, I think the answer is to implement changes to our system of government that encourage consensus-building and cooperation. The Westminster system is, by design, a system that encourages discord and division within parliament. That's why there's an official opposition, that's why the houses are designed to have the government on one side and the opposition on the opposite side. It's always seemed odd to me that our government only consists of the party or coalition that controls a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, like those of us that voted for other parties aren't worthy of representation in our executive government. Why not make the executive and legislature both proportionally representative of the Australian voters and their voting preferences? That way parties will be forced to work together to get things done, which should encourage consensus-building and focusing more on evidence instead of ideology and this may even bring alternative perspectives to the decision-making processes of our government

[@cesargodoy2920]

would inciting a mob to attack your fellow Parilament members be punishable?not referencing anything of course? on a more serious do states have some power over there federal elections? perhaps the states could make a law like "if a member of our federal delgation does x we can recall them" or include "misconduct" as a reason for a special election...And i just remembered elections are called on federal advice..well i tried i think this is one of those issues where its a institutional reform more then specfic policy needed thanks again for the great video

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No, States cannot interfere with Commonwealth elections. There are also implied limits upon the Commonwealth interfering with State elections.

[@JacobKnight-Barendse-pe4jk]

Quick question, the Governor General must act on the advice of ministers, now I have seen articles (including yours I think) where the Governor General need not follow the advice of the Prime Minister if for example they advice the Governor General to stop the change of a government after an election. But how are other laws enforced for example what happens when a minister commits a crime and the Governor General receives a recommendation to either pardon that minister or receives a recommendation that effectively impedes the enforcement of important laws that are essential to our democracy? Ps Great Video

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The Governor-General ordinarily acts upon ministerial advice. In rare circumstances (eg around the appointment and dismissal of governments), the Governor-General has 'reserve powers' which allow the Governor-General to take limited actions without (or contrary to) ministerial advice. But these are governed by convention, and must be exercised consistently with constitutional principles. The Governor-General must also obey the law, and is entitled to request legal advice from the Crown Law officers to assure him/her that the actions requested of them are lawful. Unlike the United States, we do not have a custom of giving pardons for political reasons. Pardons are only given in rare circumstances - usually after an inquiry has shown that a conviction was wrong or doubtful.

[@JacobKnight-Barendse-pe4jk]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 few that’s a relief, thanks for your answer :)

[@shooterdownunder]

I think that there’s another idea that had a report handed down to the O’farrell government in nsw regarding implementing a recall election plan that was not favoured by the government and outlined the way it would work and some drawbacks to it.

[@davidbrown4849]

Horse before the cart, you say....

[@Robert-xs2mv]

The court need to start rejecting cases brought before when the laws appear to be of injustice. This is the courts DUTY!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No, the duty of the courts is to apply the law. It is not up to the courts to decide whether the law is a good one or a fair one. If every judge could decide to apply whatever they thought was fair, instead of applying the law, then the system would be most unfair because it would be applied inconsistently, depending upon which judge was allocated to a particular case.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I disagree, vehemently. The judiciary primary responsibility is to assess laws adherence to to whatever standards they need to be evaluated against. If the government were to make some blatantly insane laws of gross injustice then damn right it is up to the courts to send it back to the legislature. Of course to decide where to line is to be drawn can get complicated! Otherwise we might as well get rid of the judiciary and have Judge Dredd style adjudication! And even judge Dredd was banished!

[@mindi2050]

@@Robert-xs2mv That description makes it sound like you think the judiciary's job is to control or regulate the legislative branch.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@mindi2050 not think but know. It is the judiciary task to regulate the legislative branch. Not control though. After all who else would do it?

[@williamsutter2152]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Could a judge in a court besides the High Court reject a case on the basis that the applicable law is itself unconstitutional and hence invalid? That seems like it could be within their scope, but from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) only the High Court really has the power to interpret the Commonwealth Constitution.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hello Professor from Sydney. Are the houses of Parliament "The bear pit" a work place, and different to an electoral office? 🌏🇦🇺

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The Houses of Parliament are different, because their Members are not employees - they are persons who are elected to represent the people. Moreover, they have historical privileges which are meant to protect their independence, such as freedom of speech.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 may has to pass an Acts Act😇