Senator Katy Gallagher's RN Breakfast Interview

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: New laws introduced by the Federal Government today could see members of Parliament fined, kicked off committees and even suspended from Parliament. The laws will increase the consequences for politicians and members of staff, official parliamentary staff, who engage in bad behaviour. Katy Gallagher is the Minister for Finance and Women and joins us now on RN Breakfast. Welcome back to the program, Minister.

SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR WOMEN: Thanks for having me on, PK.

KARVELAS: The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission will have the power to investigate complaints. Will it have the power to actually enforce things like suspensions from Parliament and dock MPs' pay? How will that work?

GALLAGHER: So, this - thanks for the question, PK - this body was recommended by the Jenkins Report, Set the Standard, into parliamentary workplaces, which, as you and your listeners will remember, found that it wasn't a great workplace for some people, that there was certainly issues around bullying and harassment and that a formal complaints mechanism needed to be put in place. So, over the last couple of years, we've been implementing the 28 recommendations of that review. This is the last big chunk of that, which was really to set up the complaints mechanism. So, the way it would work is that we have a body called the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. If someone has a complaint, they work in this building, they can - or in other Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces I should say, because they are around the country - they can make a complaint. If that goes to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, they can review that complaint, investigate that complaint. If it's about a member of Parliament and it's a serious complaint that would warrant sanctions of that order, it would - you know, like suspension or a fine or losing your spot on a committee - the IPSC, as it's shortened to, would provide its report to the respective chamber's Privileges Committee and they would be the ones that would consider appropriate sanctions, as it's really only the chamber that can sanction a member of Parliament.

KARVELAS: And that's the bit that I really want to interrogate, if we can. The parliamentary Privileges Committee is politicians. How can we be sure that they won't act as a protection racket for other MPs?

GALLAGHER: Well, the IPSC is going to be an independent body set up by legislation. So, it's a very significant structural reform to how our, you know, matters of complaints are dealt with in this workplace. So, there will be a chair commissioner. If they complete a report, they provide that report to the Privileges Committee. Now, these committees are often members, very senior members, of respective political parties. They deal with difficult matters all the time and they haven't traditionally operated in a partisan way at all. So, we believe the Privileges Committee is the right place for, you know, such a senior body to consider a report from the IPSC. And then they will have to make a decision on that and report to the Parliament. So, you know, I think it's through the transparency of needing to report back to the Parliament that it will be clear that they've had to respond to the IPSC's report.

KARVELAS: And will the public get the right to know?

GALLAGHER: Well, the report of the Privileges Committee would be public. So, that - you know, yes, in that sense, there would be public scrutiny of that decision. And of course then it's up to the Parliament, that chamber, whether it be the Senate or the House of Representatives, to, you know - well, if the Privileges Committee makes a recommendation for the chamber, to endorse that recommendation. And that would be obviously conducted in public as well.

KARVELAS: The five per cent fine has been criticised, described as a slap on the wrist by Independent Lidia Thorpe in the Parliament. How can you be sure you've struck the right balance there?

GALLAGHER: Well, the issue of the level of fine has come up through the consultations. And I should say this has been heavily consulted on, both across the Parliament and with our staff as well. It really relates to and it follows what's in place in the Public Service. It's really about you know the capacity of a non-court body, a non-legal process, to provide a punitive sanction. And so, anything really above five per cent would be a matter for a, you know, either a tribunal or a court to consider. And that's the level that's in the Public Service. So, if something like this - it's available under the Code of Conduct investigations in the Public Service. This has been seen to be the level that a non-judicial process can impose.

KARVELAS: The entire process could be confidential, especially, obviously, as the investigation is happening. There'll be little to no transparency unless, as you described, a recommended sanction is made. And there's been concerns that confidentiality agreements are used to silence victims more broadly. If a recommendation for sanctions is made, should it really be up to the commissioners as to whether information is released? Shouldn't the person who's been the victim have that right?

GALLAGHER: So, we have considered this really carefully around how to ensure that people who are making a complaint are not silenced, in a sense. But also, that there's a right to natural justice as you go through the process. So, the confidentiality requirements would be in place whilst the investigation was happening, but it's not an enduring confidentiality requirement. So, once that process had finished and a matter determined, then, you know, if a complainant chose to make a comment about that, that would be completely within that complainant's right to do so. But it is always striking a balance. And it's also about recognising that some complainants will not want their complaint made public for you know obvious reasons, I guess this being such a public workplace. So what we've tried to do is provide the right balance between protecting complainants' rights to either say something or not say something, but also allow the respondent to have some natural justice as the process is undertaken.

KARVELAS: If you're just tuning in, this is ABC Radio National Breakfast and my guest is the Finance and Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, who is explaining this legislation. You need cross-party support to get it through. Is that deal done now?

GALLAGHER: No, there's no deal done. I mean, we've done a huge amount of work through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and I thank all of those members that are on it. That's the group that's been put in place to implement all of the Jenkins recommendations this Parliament. They work really hard and you know, I think there'll - in this Parliament, nobody's ever completely happy with what the end result is, I think. But we've tried to strike a balance, again, to make sure that we're responding to people's concerns, but we've got a serious piece of legislation. It's going to continue to change the culture in this workplace and that was something that staff and others wanted in this building when the review was done and it's something the Government is absolutely focused on delivering. I think the workplace has changed in the last two years, changed for the better, but there is more work to be done and one of the findings from the original report was that the lack of consequences and the lack of public consequences was seen, particularly by staff, as a failure of this workplace. So, this IPSC deals with that.

KARVELAS: And just to be clear, that means you are yet to get the Coalition's support for the legislation?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think it has to go through their processes as you would expect, PK. We've worked very closely with the Opposition, as we have with other members of Parliament. We've addressed concerns where they have arisen and we've been, you know, obviously the shaping of the legislation has been informed by those consultations. But they need to take it through their processes. We're introducing it today and then it, obviously, you know, we'll have some time when the Parliament's not sitting to continue to talk with people but hopefully, we'll be able to pass this legislation in September and have it operational in October.

KARVELAS: That's interesting. I just have another question. Obviously, there are a lot of journalists who work in Parliament House in the Press Gallery. If a journalist is sexually harassed, for instance - just making up a scenario - by an MP, will this new body be able to do something about it.

GALLAGHER: Yes, yes they can. I mean, we have the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service available now if people want to participate in that and that will remain the front door for people who work in this workplace.

KARVELAS: Will this new IPSC be able to?

GALLAGHER: Yes, so, a non-core participant can make a complaint to the IPSC, but they can also have a complaint raised against them as well. If there is one raised against them, obviously there's usually codes of conduct that workplaces have in place. But this does apply to, you know, people who work in this workplace and in workplaces around the country. If there was, for example, a journalist against a journalist, you know, that wouldn't necessarily be seen - because they're non-core, they're seen under the Act as non-core participants, as something that the IPSC wouldn't handle. It would be something their employers would handle.

KARVELAS: Katy Gallagher, just a couple of other issues on some other big stories. The CFMEU is reportedly, according to The Australian newspaper, examining a potential High Court challenge to federal laws forcing the union's construction arm into administration. And in fact, even some left-wing union leaders in Victoria are looking at supporting the legal action. What's your response to that?

GALLAGHER: Well, very pleased that the legislation passed the Parliament this week. And I've certainly been aware that the advice provided to the Government is that it has been drafted to withstand legal challenge. Obviously, other parties will - you know, are free to examine legal options. But based on the advice that the Government has, that this legislation has been drafted, you know, mindful of potential challenges through the legal processes.

KARVELAS: The other big issue of course that's been dominating this week and last week is in relation to Palestinian visas. Is there a timeframe to determine the long-term status of thousands of Palestinians who've been approved for travel to Australia on visitor visas?

GALLAGHER: Look, my last discussion I had with the Minister was that - you know, he's a new minister for this portfolio - is he's taking advice on all of these matters from his department, these processes are being handled as they would normally be handled. You know, there's a lot of work involved, obviously, a lot of assessments and that is being completed. But I don't have anything further to add on that, PK.

KARVELAS: Just finally, we're going to talk to our next guest about this. Labor's proposed changes to gambling ad reform has of course come under very wide scrutiny, as you know. The majority of Australians support a blanket ban and experts want this treated as a health issue. Given the harm that gambling is doing, and we all accept that it's quite serious, it has links to suicide and domestic violence - is it time for Labor to reconsider where you seem to have landed and consider a blanket ban?

GALLAGHER: Well we, again, PK - I think as I've said before - Michelle Rowland's leading that work, working with stakeholders. She's done a huge amount of work to already impose new rules and regulations around gambling and advertising and support for gamblers, I should say, through BetStop. So, there's more work to be done. We're mindful of everyone's views as we undertake the final decisions around this. There's no shortage of opinions right across the board and we'll make the decision based on the work that Michelle Rowland has done, but also on evidence-based and how to protect children, that's front of our minds as we're finalising our decisions.

KARVELAS: South Australian Independent Rebekha Sharkie wants there to be a conscience vote on this legislation. You have people on your side who've been outspoken about it. Would you consider that?

GALLAGHER: Well, we have our processes. I mean, we're pretty clear about what matters are conscience votes. In fact, we had one in the Parliament yesterday. But you know, our processes are very consultative within the Labor Party. We have a lot of opportunities for people to have a say. You know, the strength of our party and our success in delivering reform has been around our ability to stick together and argue as a collective. But that does allow individual views to be put and for those contests of ideas to be had. But ultimately we resolve these positions as a caucus, and that really goes to the strength of our ability to deliver reforms in the long run.

KARVELAS: Katy Gallagher, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

GALLAGHER: Thank you for having me on, PK.