HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliament Workplace Culture Review

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

That this council—

1. Notes that on 19 February 2020 this council resolved that the President invite the SA Equal Opportunity Commissioner to make recommendations for reforms to facilitate the handling of harassment in this parliamentary workplace;

2. Acknowledges the resultant offer from the Equal Opportunity Commissioner in her correspondence of 13 March 2020 that was tabled on 24 March 2020 and outlined a proposal for a four-month review process of the workplace culture of the South Australian parliament;

3. Notes that the date in the proposal offer for a review to have been undertaken and reported back to the parliament was 31 August 2020, so this project has not only not yet been initiated but its original completion date has now passed; and

4. Requests the President urgently progress this SA parliament workplace cultural review project under the auspices of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, with a view that it report back no later than the first sitting week of 2021.

(Continued from 9 September 2020.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:55): I thank the Hon. Mr Maher for allowing me to speak before him because I have another meeting to get to in a few minutes. I rise on behalf of government members to oppose the motion. The original motion, which I think was back in February, the government opposed for the reasons that we outlined at that particular time. As a result of the successful passage of that resolution, there was correspondence between the then President and the commissioner. We have all been provided with a copy of the commissioner's response—I think now she is the former commissioner perhaps or soon-to-be former; I am not sure whether she has actually left or not.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: She's there for another three weeks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So she is still there, I am advised by my colleague. In that particular letter—I will not go through all the detail of it—she respectfully declined the request of the majority of the Legislative Council to investigate the specific instances of the alleged harassment, victimisation and inappropriate behaviour committed by the member for Waite, Mr Sam Duluk MP.

In relation to the second broad area, in summary, she said she was pleased to accept the recommendation to make recommendations for reforms, but nevertheless placed that acceptance with some caveats and they are as follows:

I accept this invitation on the understanding that I am afforded the full cooperation of the authorities of both houses of parliament. I understand this will require that you consult with the Speaker of the House of Assembly prior to confirming your acceptance of my terms.

She also then indicates that she wants to be provided with the transcripts of any statements made during the private investigation conducted by Mr Paul Hocking. I interpose that that would also be a decision of the Speaker in another chamber. Mr President, as you would be aware, you have no jurisdiction over that particular investigation. She also requested that she wanted confirmation in writing that her final report would be tabled in parliament. I assume that would mean in both houses of parliament.

The kicker at the end was an overview for the project activities, time frames and deliverables outlined in the attached proposal. 'The cost for undertaking this work is $152,873, excluding GST,' and then there is a further explanation of that cost. That would obviously be an issue for, I assume, both presiding members in relation to their budgets as to whether they were prepared to jointly allocate $152,873, excluding GST, for such an investigation.

Ultimately, this motion, in our view, cannot go anywhere unless there is, in the terms of the commissioner's request, a similar or equivalent motion passed by the House of Assembly. Mr President, as you are aware and as all members are aware, there has not been a similar motion or request passed by the House of Assembly. In the absence of that, a request for you to proceed with this, in our respectful view, fails on the basis that, even according to the restrictions placed by the commissioner, it fails the test of not having the authority of both houses of parliament to be able to proceed.

I think that is the threshold question. There would need to be an equivalent motion passed in the House of Assembly for the commissioner to be willing to commence the requested investigation. In the absence of that, it is clear that the commissioner is not prepared to proceed with an investigation into the parliament. If that initial threshold was met, which it has not been, then there would be separate decisions: one for the Speaker in relation to the request for the transcripts from Mr Paul Hocking and, secondly, there would then be a joint decision for the presiding members—the President and the Speaker—to allocate some portion of their budgets towards the $152,000 cost of the proposed inquiry.

For those reasons, the government, for the reasons we outlined back in February, does not support this proposed investigation. I think the letter from the commissioner now gives further justification as to why such an investigation cannot proceed in the absence of the stipulated requirements from the commissioner before she is able to proceed with such an investigation. For those reasons, the government does not support the motion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:01): I rise to speak on this motion and indicate from the outset that the opposition will be supporting it. Following disturbing reports about the behaviour of the member for Waite, Mr Sam Duluk, Labor moved a motion in this place back in February. The motion required the President of the Legislative Council to request an investigation by the equal opportunity commissioner of incidents of harassment, victimisation and inappropriate behaviour committed by the member for Waite in December 2019.

The Greens moved an amendment to the motion that was supported by the opposition. The amendment invited the equal opportunity commissioner to make recommendations for reforms to facilitate the handling of harassment in the parliamentary workplace. As parliamentarians and as a workplace we should seek to set an example for the wider community. We are accountable to the public and to each other. We must act accordingly and ensure that inappropriate behaviour is called out and people held accountable for their actions.

It has been many months since the commissioner offered to undertake this review project. It has been so long that the equal opportunity commissioner has since accepted another posting in Melbourne, although I trust a newly-appointed commissioner will be more than capable of progressing this matter. It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time this matter was resolved. Parliament must be a place of equal opportunity and safety and free from harassment. The opposition supports this motion and commends the honourable member for bringing it to this chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:02): I rise to acknowledge both speakers today and thank the opposition for its support of this motion. I note that this motion was not necessarily a Greens' motion as such, it was a motion moved by a member of parliament who has had enough of the culture of this place, which belongs in another place and time and not in this century and can no longer be tolerated. The object of this motion was following up on what I thought was an amendment to a previous motion to take a single issue, but to identify that this is a systemic problem.

It is a little rich for the Treasurer to stand here and say that a concurrent motion would need to be moved in the other place. If the government does not have the ability to move a concurrent motion in the other place, what do they have the ability to actually achieve within this government? A motion is the simplest, easiest possible achievement this government could undertake. In fact, it could suspend standing orders this very hour and pass such a motion should it so choose.

What the Treasurer has actually said today is that this government chooses not to act, chooses not to take the simplest measures to ensure that we have a workplace free from sexual harassment, archaic behaviours and a culture that benefits those who perpetuate such behaviours by looking away and feigning incapacity to act. A simple motion in the other place in this next hour is what I would expect from this government right now. What we are getting is a complete abrogation of their duties to ensure that this parliament of our state has the highest standards of our state in terms of a workplace instead of possibly one of the lowest and most retrograde workplace environments in this nation.

I cannot actually express how deeply disgusted I am with the response today from the Treasurer and how deeply disappointed I am in this parliament's failure, through its leadership, to act on this matter. We have had months and months and months with just this particular part of the debate. We have not had just years but decades of extraordinary unacceptable behaviours that have driven people out of their workplaces, that have driven people to quit their jobs, that have left people unable to take recourse that they would take in any other workplace in this nation. It is not good enough for the Treasurer to stand here today and say he does not even have the ability to move a motion in the other place.

I am sure he will get the full support of the opposition even if he could not convince some of his colleagues and I am sure some would cross the floor to finally have a workplace that is indeed one that all would want to be working in or would want to send their children to work in. I note that the Treasurer called the price tag that the equal opportunity commissioner associated with the four-month extensive undertaking that she and her office have offered to do for us 'the kicker'—$152,000 is apparently a kicker. Apparently, when it comes to workplace harassment, sexual assault—harassment that is unacceptable in any other workplace in this nation—it is a little bit too much to actually put some money behind eradicating it once and for all and changing the culture.

I am deeply disappointed that the Treasurer has provided that government response today. I hope this motion will pass the Legislative Council and it will sit there waiting for the other place to move that concurrent motion. I am sure it could come from a number of sources but indeed the support could also come from many more sources than it has done today.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT