Legislative Council, Wednesday 7 September 2022

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I support the motion as noted and moved by the Leader. I wish to speak in broad terms to the report itself, acknowledging that all the points the Leader has raised have my full support and acknowledgement.

I also note, Mr President, your comments made yesterday, and concur with the matters you raised in your statement to the House here as well. I also express my regret for the experiences of far too many people who work in and with the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services (MPS) and the lack of appropriate structures to support those who have experienced bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination in this workplace.

The motion for respect reports a strong willingness, however, to see and be a part of the much-needed cultural change. This is so important, and I personally commit to doing all I can to see the recommendations of the report implemented and a much-needed cultural change occur.

To speak more directly to the motion before us, and the content of the report particularly, having now had time to read it right through, it is apparent that there has been a lack of strong, effective and informed leadership across many - if not all - areas of the MPS over many years, as evidenced by the outcomes of the motion for respect review. That is at the heart of this report. Effectively, in many cases this lack has turned a blind eye to inappropriate behaviours, sought to protect the government of the day from embarrassment and inconvenience, and in doing so, has enabled a culture of disrespect to the point that we now know at least 24 per cent of the people in this workplace have experienced discrimination, 15 per cent sexual harassment, and 40 per cent bullying. Every time we walk past any of these behaviours, we become part of the problem.

The reviewer heard that people have felt belittled and degraded. This is serious and they are owed a solution to change the way business is done in this broader workplace and to lift standards.

I have heard many in the broader MPS say that they never saw any of these behaviours. I have suggested to them when I have heard them say that, and would suggest to any who do say it, that they are indeed fortunate. However, in light of the high instance of such inappropriate behaviour, I would suggest it is much more likely that they have not perhaps understood what they were seeing. Having witnessed such behaviour as part of the culture of the place for so long, the way things are done around here, is just accepted as the norm.

Those stating they have never witnessed any inappropriate behaviour, as is described in this review, need to ensure they do not inadvertently diminish the very real experience of the many, two-thirds of those who responded to the review, and potentially create further harm to these individuals. We must believe people when they report such behaviours.

These behaviours often happen in plain sight, more often than not. We have pretty much seen it all, or been informed of it. For many, it has been so much easier to say nothing, not to get involved, turn the other way, or ignore it. I get this where in many cases, victims genuinely fear retribution in one form or another, and even those who might seek to call it out can also fear retribution. However, those of us who can, should speak up. Effective bystander behaviour must be part of the solution to addressing what has clearly been identified as a toxic and unsafe workplace for an alarmingly high number of individuals.

Some time ago after seeing the experience of some of these inappropriate behaviours, I made a commitment to myself and to all others who are victims of these behaviours, to call it out and not walk past. That was when I truly knew there was a problem. Not only was I often not believed, at times I was also shamed. Behaviours did not change and the culture remained.

I thank the member for Nelson for writing to the then-premier Peter Gutwein about these matters and suggesting that a review of the culture within the MPS be undertaken, as was occurring or had occurred in other jurisdictions.

I refer to some of the more concerning matters raised in the overall report. It was predominantly managers, supervisors and members who were behaving badly, and involved in inappropriate, and at times, unlawful behaviour. The report does apply, in my view, a bit of a one-size-fits-all approach. However, I do believe a recognition of various employers' responsibilities may need to be appropriately addressed to their area with the overarching recommendation being preserved. I know that the motion the Leader read goes to that, and also, Mr President, your comments yesterday clearly articulated that from this place's perspective.

I did have some concerns regarding clause four that called for a centralised and independent human resources unit in light of this. I believe this needs to be well thought through in its application. The intent of the recommendation is very solid and very sound, but it is important that it is well thought through, particularly as the areas of the MPS are completely separate operations guided by different values and different arrangements.

For example, many ministerial staff work for the government of the day and are loyal to the government of the day. Parliamentary staff work for the institution, and service each and every one of us without fear or favour. Our Legislative Council electorate officers are employed by the Legislative Council, and they are not party political.

The report contains many observations that sit under the recommendations that do need to be fully considered. The question remains as to who this responsibility falls to, particularly recommendations related to Legislature-General and how joint services are run; parliamentary officers and appointments and employment practices; and the review of parliament's governance structure, not the ministerial office governance structures.

I do not think any of us here are surprised by the findings in the report, sadly. In the words of Paul Bongiorno, 'I am rarely surprised these days, but occasionally I am still shocked'. We should all be shocked by the scale of the problem we need to address here.

We need all of us who work within MPS to take responsibility for our own behaviours and actions, and very importantly, how to respond when we witness inappropriate behaviour from others.

The findings in this report identify a number of ingrained and inappropriate attitudes and processes. It reveals, among other concerning matters, high levels of mistrust, prevailing attitudes of self-entitlement, a lack of accountability and consequences and a strong perception of nepotism and cronyism. This is all in the report. I am not pulling this out of anywhere else.

Many of these findings have developed and become deeply ingrained in the culture of MPS, and will be difficult in some respects to completely or quickly turn around. Some attitudes run deep to the point where I believe some are not even aware they are occurring. Heightened self-awareness will be an important part of the education and training work that needs to occur across the whole MPS.

It is no surprise to all or many of us, that not only do we need to know how to respond, but we also need a robust, independent, confidential, well-understood and resourced process for reporting and responding to inappropriate behaviours. We need a process that we can all have confidence in.

The Motion for Respect Report contains many key and important recommendations. At first review, I was concerned that there may have been a blurring of the lines between MPs, who regulate, or should regulate their own behaviour, the Executive, and the staff who work in the ministerial services and parliament itself. I do not believe MPs should be directly making decisions in matters outside of our responsibility.

I was concerned that the proposed committee may have been expected to undertake some of the inquiry processes into matters that are the responsibility of others. However, when reading the whole report and the rationale sitting behind the recommendations, it is clearer the committee is to have an oversight role, overseeing the implementation and I assume monitoring progress of the outcomes of the recommendations as they move forward.

When I raised my initial concerns regarding the scope, remit and role, through any terms of reference for the committee, I spoke with a number of members of the working group raising those concerns. I certainly appreciate those who acknowledged and listened to my concerns on that. The scope of such a committee and its terms of reference need to be very clear as to the remit and role. Some of these comments I am saying now rather than in a subsequent motion.

As I have stated, MPs are responsible for regulating their own behaviour, and presiding officers and Clerks have responsibility for Parliamentary Services and employment with the parliament and the operations of the parliament. This is an important distinction as the Clerks are effectively the custodians of the institution of the parliament and the keepers of the practices, procedures and traditions.

The Premier and departmental leaders have responsibility for Executive and ministerial officers. As we know, the parliament is supreme and the Executive is accountable to the parliament. I am sure all of us appreciate the separation of powers but to reiterate, the parliament has the power to make and change law. The Executive has the power to put law into action and the judiciary has the power to make judgments on the law. The separation of powers work together with the principles of responsible government, to guide the way law is made and managed. Responsible government means a party, or coalition of parties, must maintain the support of the majority of members - in Tasmania's case - the House of Assembly, in order to remain in government. This provides another check on the Executive, ensuring they are accountable to the parliament and do not abuse their power.

To reiterate and comment a little further on the supremacy of parliament, as it is key to what will be some of the considerations of the committee if established and others tasked with the delivering on the recommendations. As I have referred to, parliament's role is to make the law, approve the appropriation of funds, that is, pass the Budget, scrutinise the Executive and inquire into issues. The inquiry and functions of parliament may result in recommendations, but that is all it can do. It cannot administer a government department, or corporation. In addition, the Executive government has no authority over the affairs of the parliament. The government of the day is answerable to the parliament. Not the other way round. The judiciary interpret the law. Parliamentary democracy cannot function in any other way. Parliament and its members should be an exemplar in conducting themselves.

It is important to also make the distinction between the government and governance. When we refer to governance, this is the system by which businesses, organisations and corporations are directed and controlled. The system specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among different participants in the organisations, such as the board, managers and other stakeholders and spells out the rules and procedures for making decisions on the affairs of the organisation. Governance is different from managing a corporation. Managing a corporation is concerned with running the organisation's business affairs. Governance is concerned with running the enterprise, making sure that it is running in the right direction and being run well.

Although corporate governance is about power exercised over activities of an organisation, corporate governance principles do not explain how, or in whose interest that power should be exercised. That would depend on the view taken about the role of the organisation and in this, there are many views. Essentially, a governance framework is there to encourage the efficient use of resources and equally to require accountability for the stewardship of those resources. The aim is to align as neatly as possible the interests of individuals, corporations and society. These standards require commitment to delivering value to customers, where there are customers; investing in employees, through training, education, diversity inclusion, dignity and respect; dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers; supporting the community in which the corporation works; and generating long-term value for shareholders, where there are shareholders.

These principles can equally apply to a parliament and it is of note the reviewer has made quite detailed recommendations regarding the governance and operation of the parliament, particularly joint services. Why? The practices, policies and procedures, reporting lines and what we may describe as governance affect culture. Accountabilities and responsibilities are key - who is accountable for decisions and actions and who has responsibility for doing things?

Of note, Mr President, the Royal Commission into Crown Casino made similar observations. While not about bullying and harassment, the inquiry was about money laundering and irresponsible financial and gaming practices. The commission of inquiry found that these matters had continued.

It is also interesting to note the Rio Tinto - Report into Workplace Culture. The reviewer, Elizabeth Broderick and Co (EB & Co), heard about significant challenges across Rio Tinto's workplace culture, including that:

• Bullying is systemic, experienced by almost half the survey respondents.

• Sexual harassment and everyday sexism occur at unacceptable rates.

• Racism is common across a number of areas.

• Employees do not believe that the organisation is psychologically safe, which impacts on their trust in the reporting systems.

• Harmful behaviours occur between employees, managers, and leaders, including senior leaders.

• Unique workplace features such as hierarchical, male-dominated culture create risk factors.

• A capability gap in leading and managing people exists across many levels of the organisation, particularly on the front line.

• People, policies, and systems are not properly embedded or 'lived' across the organisation.

• Harmful behaviour is often tolerated or normalised.

• Harmful behaviour by serial perpetrators is often an open secret.

• Employees believe there is little accountability, particularly for senior leaders, and so-called 'high performers', who are perceived to avoid significant consequences for harmful behaviour.

Sadly, Mr President, much of this sounds familiar when we read through the Motion for Respect report.

The EB & Co review findings guided Rio Tinto's decision to prioritise cultural change across their organisation. Some of these findings included that:

• A strong and commendable appetite for cultural change exists across the organisation - as we heard in the report here - including at senior leadership levels and high rates of confidence among employees that Rio Tinto will make a meaningful difference in relation to harmful behaviours over the next two years.

There are a lot of commonalities between that report and this one.

• A visible shift has occurred in recent times towards a healthier culture.

I hope that that is the case in this place as well.

• Investment in adaptive leadership development for senior leaders provides a strong foundation for accelerated cultural change.

All of these things are part of the recommendations and the findings in the Motion for Respect report.

Mr President, we also know that there have been many other such reviews in parliaments around the country, including the federal parliament, South Australian Parliament, and the New South Wales Parliament. All these reports reflect the need to make change, to stamp out bullying, and sexual predators and requires cultural change - cultural change that is lived through leadership.

We need leaders who will walk the walk, invest in people, policies, and training, which are key. However, a deep dive into the way that things are run is important as well, including how we fund a parliament, how decisions are made, what the institutional values are, and how we develop leaders and managers. All these matters are fundamental to change here, just as they have been in other organisations.

I note again that in the Rio Tinto response - The Importance of Caring, Courageous and Curious Leadership - it stated:

These findings highlight, the importance of caring, courageous, and curious leadership - values which Rio Tinto has identified as priorities across the organisation. Leaders must model these values in a way which drives genuine reform. As one Rio Tinto employee commented: 'Leaders need to be the shining examples of everyday respect'.

Leaders in middle management have the most day-to-day interaction with employees, but EB & Co found that not all in these positions are modelling these values, creating a disjuncture between organisational messaging and the lived experience for employees. It is therefore crucial for middle management to commit to their role in creating an inclusive workplace.

Mr President, as members, we are all leaders in our communities. We are leaders in this place and with each other in the course of our parliamentary work. We need to maintain that leadership. However, I ask; are we leaders in the operations of parliament? We need to make sure we do not cross over into areas that actually are not our responsibility as members.

We also need to carefully consider our role in delving into the operations of the parliament and members', ministerial and parliamentary staff. This is necessary in order to preserve the separation of powers, to manage conflicts of interest that, as members, we may have in driving reform of parliament's workplace. We collectively do not run the Executive, and those charged with employing ministerial staffers need to take these things on board. They are the ones who need to act in those areas.

We need to concern ourselves with how we exercise our power and our privileges, including, but certainly not limited to, how we exercise the privilege we have in parliamentary privilege, and in how we behave toward each other, our communities, and our staff. I raise these points, as they sit behind my concern that I had regarding the scope and role of the proposed committee, that it will be considered in the following motion. I wanted to make those points. They are the things we need to be really cognisant of.

I said any committee charged with monitoring, overseeing, or actually implementing any of the recommendations made is to be very cognisant of these separations, and the various responsibilities and where they lie.

I do not raise these matters only to remind members of our responsibilities, but more so to make it clear to others listening that the separation of powers and responsible government are key pillars to all we do and to the supremacy of parliament. As I mentioned, my key concerns relate to the scope, the remit and terms of reference about the committee to be established under a subsequent motion, should that be successful.

I also note the second recommendation, that an appropriately-resourced independent project manager be appointed to execute implementation of the accepted recommendations. I actually hope all recommendations are accepted that relate to this role. It is vital that the person who is appointed to this position is done so through a rigorous, transparent, independent process to avoid repeating some of the problems that led to this review.

There is much in this report that highlights the needs for safety relating to complaint making and balancing transparency with confidentiality. The importance of codes of conduct that also contain sanctions for dealing with misconduct was noted. These are important and complex matters to navigate - that transparency and confidentiality - and it is imperative that the MPS has access to appropriately skilled and qualified people to oversee these critical areas. Victimisation must be avoided, and a better understanding and utilisation of our integrity bodies must be available and accessible in ways that create psychological safety for those engaging with them. This is particularly important when we note the reasons people did not speak up were fear of reprisal, negative impact on one's career, et cetera.

I return to the matter of leadership. As the report states, leaders of the organisation must be dedicated to making positive, proactive and effective change. Further, as noted in the report, strong and constructive leadership will be required to inspire confidence that meaningful change can be achieved. We will need transformational, not transactional, leadership from all leaders within the MPS to ensure the underlying toxic culture that has created an unsafe workplace for too many, from all MPs, party leaders, Clerks, presiding officers, heads of departments and agencies, and managers to ensure that we can, and do, create and maintain a safe, positive, healthy workplace for all.

As noted in the report, workplace culture is directly linked to organisational frameworks, including through comprehensive policies and processes, oversight, accountability, transparency, values, training, competency of leaders, access to support systems, bystander action, and protection from victimisation. What has been clearly described in this report is the need for a complete overhaul of the MPS workplace to effectively address the existing problems and prevent further exacerbation of the existing problems.

There are and will be many involved in this transformation, and we all have a part to play. The proposed committee is only one part of it. As I have said, the remit and scope of the committee does need to be clearly defined to ensure appropriate accountability for all parts of the MPS, and the MPS leadership response is focused on the area of their responsibility and accountability.

My final comment in this important matter is that we all need to be part of the solution here. My commitment is to work together to progress these recommendations and give effect to real, lasting, and meaningful cultural change.

I support the motion.

 

Go Back