Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I move the following motion –
With reference to the Interim Report of the Joint Sessional Committee on Workplace Culture Oversight (Paper No. 26), that for the current Parliament, unless otherwise ordered, the Council agree to the following statement for Members in relation to alcohol and other drugs –
Our acknowledgements
Attendance at social and community events, official functions, protocol, and other activities where alcohol is served are frequent features of the work of an elected Member of Parliament. We value the reputation of the institution of Parliament, public trust in Members, and the safety and welfare of the people with whom we work.
We acknowledge that impairment from alcohol or other drugs can significantly increase risks to Work Health and Safety, including during work related travel.
We acknowledge that alcohol use is correlated with sexual harassment and assault.
We accept that our role as elected Members of Parliament does not excuse irresponsible consumption of alcohol or being more generally impaired by alcohol and other drugs.
Our commitments
We commit to managing the risks associated with alcohol and other drug use and acknowledge our shared responsibility under the Work Health and Safety Act to maintain a safe and respectful workplace for all.
We commit to principles of responsible consumption of alcohol and preventing the adverse consequences of impairment from alcohol and drug use on staff and other Members in the workplace.
We respect the choice of an individual to not consume alcohol in any setting where alcohol is served.
We recognise and respond to inappropriate behaviour, intervening when needed, and encourage and support others to speak up.
Mr President, it’s taken a while to get here today, but I’m very pleased to be able to move these motions on behalf of this House and the parliament and I know we followed up on it in the other place by the Premier. In doing that, I acknowledge and pay respect to the work of our project team and welcome them to the Chamber. Notably, Andrew Young is the consultant who’s been working with the Workplace Culture Oversight committee to deliver these really important parts of the recommendations made. Also Caitlin and Anne, who are no longer with us, but they’ve done a whole body of work that supports that. They are back in their substantive roles now, but we thank them for being here and acknowledge that enormous amount of work that they have put into this. It’s really important that we acknowledge that, Mr President.
I will speak broadly to all three motions before the House. I think it’s more effective to do it that way. They are linked in many ways, and I will move the first motion as has been read at the end.
These three motions are the result of three years of work by the Joint Parliamentary Sessional Committee on Workplace Culture Oversight. The committee first met in September 2022 to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of what is informally known as the Bolt report, that is the report titled Motion for Respect – Report into Workplace Culture in the Tasmanian Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, an independent review of this workplace conducted by the former Anti Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt.
I acknowledge the leadership of the Premier and the initial establishment and initial work of the committee. It is important to see the Bolt report in the broader context of the developments in standards in Westminster Parliaments in Australia and overseas. In the four years preceding the Bolt review, similar reviews were conducted in the United Kingdom Parliament, New Zealand, New South Wales, South Australia and perhaps most notably, in the Australian Parliament following the allegations made by Brittany Higgins.
In all cases, codes of conduct have been modernised or established for the first time and, in most cases, independent complaints processes have been set up.
In 2024, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association published new standards for codes of conduct throughout the Commonwealth. It is broadly accepted that members are part of the workplace, even if their status as employees or employers is unclear.
Members and staff in parliamentary ministerial workplaces have a right to be safe in the workplace. Complaints processes need to be more professional and independent. It is accepted that resources need to be provided to the parliament’s Clerks to ensure that training and support for new procedures, including independent complaints processes, are effective.
While this broader context is important, it is worth repeating some key aspects of the Bolt report. The review had a comparatively high survey response rate of 56.5 per cent, including 318 members and staff, an indication that members and staff were highly motivated to speak up. It identified a range of workplace behaviours, in particular bullying, harassment and discrimination. It found that the House’s code of conduct was no longer fit for purpose. There were unclear or no avenues for people to make or take complaints. It emphasised the rights of everyone, including members of parliament, to a safe and fair workplace.
The code and the Independent Complaints Commissioner motions have to be read in conjunction to fully understand the scope of what is being proposed. Section 2.1 of the code makes it clear that a complaint may be made against a member, including a minister or presiding officer acting in their capacity as a member.
With regard to former members, section 2.1 of the code also provides that a former member may be held to account for a breach of the code, but only if the alleged breach of the code occurred when they were a member.
With regard to ministers, section 1.1.1 of the Independent Complaints Commissioner motion provides that the commissioner can receive a complaint of alleged behaviour of a minister that breaches section 6 of the code in relation to a safe and respectful workplace. The reason for this specific inclusion is because it would be difficult and counterproductive to decide if a minister accused of bullying or sexually harassing a person had done so in their capacity as a minister or a member. For the avoidance of doubt, the commissioner has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint that a minister has otherwise breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Such matters remain a matter for the Premier and the ministerial code that the Premier oversees.
With regard to people eligible to make a complaint, section 1.7 of the Independent Complaints Commissioner motion provides a description of the people who may make a complaint that a member has breached the code. These people include members of parliament and those employed pursuant to an act of Tasmania or by Crown prerogative, whose duties require them to engage with members of parliament. The prescription means that not only are staff with everyday contact with members such as parliamentary staff, ministerial advisers included, but so is a public servant whose duties may include briefing a member or minister but does not have necessarily have frequent contact with them.
Section 1.8 of the Independent Complaints Commissioner motion provides that a complaint cannot be made if the alleged conduct occurred prior to the resolution of the code of conduct. It further provides that complaints must be logged within two years of the alleged conduct occurring. This timeframe seeks to strike the right balance in acknowledging that a victim of certain behaviour, or a person who knows of improper conduct by a member, may have legitimate reasons for not coming forward immediately. This timeframe is also relevant to the earlier point that if members have since become a former member, the complaint may still be received and acted upon.
Turning to some specific provisions of the code. The Houses have had a code of conduct since 2018. The committee’s report has recommended that the Houses resolve an entirely new code that addresses the findings of the Bolt report and reflects the rapidly developing best practice standards for codes of conduct in parliaments, particularly parliaments in the Commonwealth.
The recommended code of conduct for members is in three parts. Part 1 sets out the principles and scope of the code. It is a preamble to the enforceable standards and includes a range of positive statements which are important in setting a tone that is aspirational and consistent with members being leaders in the community.
Part 2 of the code is the enforceable standards. That is, only alleged breach of the standard in Part 2 can be the basis for a complaint to the Independent Complaints Commissioner. Section 3 of Part 2 requires an amendment that each member will publicly affirm in their respective House their commitment to the enforceable standards in the code within the first two sitting weeks of being elected. The code leaves it up to the two Houses to decide the form and mechanism of this affirmation. It should be noted that in the ACT Legislative Assembly, this is done by way of a motion that all members affirm. In some other parliaments, such as Ontario in Canada, it is done by form of a written pledge. The public affirmation by every member is the best way for members to show leadership to the community.
Sections 4 and 5 of the code deal with general conduct in public office, including rules regarding engagement of staff, conflicts of interest, lobbying, the use of public resources, financial inducements and complying with the Parliamentary Disclosure of Interest Act 1996. The code does not seek to override or replace rules that are in place, such as the rules for members’ use of allowances and resources but requires the members to comply with those rules.
The code’s requirements that members comply with all the relevant rules, laws and policies regarding the use of public resources found in section 4, therefore requires members to be aware of their entitlements and responsibilities in the Parliamentary Salaries, Superannuation and Allowances Act 2012 combined with the guides produced by Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Legislative Council.
Section 6 of the code is an important initiative because it lists prohibited workplace behaviours, particularly discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual assault and victimisation. The code does not define these behaviours in a unique manner but clearly states that they are to be understood consistently with the relevant laws. This is a key aspect of responding to the Bolt report and acknowledging that members and staff are participants in the contemporary workplace and that, notwithstanding the cut and thrust of politics, people – members included – have a right to a safe and respectful workplace.
Section 6 also addresses one of Bolt’s key findings about lack of bystander action. Bolt’s survey found that only 11 per cent of those who witnessed a prohibited behaviour, such as sexual harassment or bullying, actually intervened. Intervention is not an easy step to take, and the code does not put an unreasonable onus on members. Section 6.2 states that:
Members shall take appropriate steps to protect the health and safety of their staff and if they observe or receive a report of unacceptable workplace behaviour toward them.
This code should be read in conjunction with section 1.5 in the principles of the code, which states:
Members ensure that bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault, discrimination or victimisation in any form is not tolerated, condoned or ignored in the parliamentary workplace. Members encourage the reporting of such behaviour and the importance of considering the welfare of those affected.
With regard to online behaviour, the prevalence of the use of digital communications and social media means that they have become an extension of the workplace. This is true of many industries where the behaviour of staff online is treated just as seriously as face-to-face behaviour. Section 7 of the code includes the standard that:
Members shall not use social media, messaging services, email or any other online activity in breach of the Commitment to a safe and respectful workplace section of the code.
This stand extends to members being accountable for the use of social media by their staff and, when the member has authorised the staff to act on the member’s behalf, a member will not be held accountable if the staff member acts without authorisation.
Section 7 does not prevent robust debate or opinion being expressed on social media or other digital means, but it does make clear that the use of social media media is not a vehicle for directing behaviour at another member or a person who works with members. That is a breach of a safe and respectful workplace behaviour.
Section 9 of the code provides that all members will participate in induction training in relation to the code within certain timeframes after the adoption of the code and after election to a House. The code does not propose that there will be routine public reporting of attendance, but it may be relevant for a complaint’s commissioner investigating allegation against a member to know that if a member attended mandatory training. For this purpose, the code requires the
Clerks to maintain a record of attendance.
A natural concern for members in a political environment is that the code and complaints process could be weaponised by making groundless complaints against a member. Section 10 of the enforceable standards requires that a member shall not make a complaint alleging a breach of this code by another member unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect noncompliance, or if such a complaint is frivolous or vexatious. Part 3 of the code provides necessary aspects of governance to ensure that the new system of a code, an independent complaints commissioner will work.
Section 12 provides that induction and training will be provided to members and that the member should ensure that their staff are aware of both the member’s obligations and the rights and responsibilities of staff in the workplace. Induction and periodic training are crucial elements to professionalising the role of a member and promoting a positive culture.
Section 13 states an independent complaints process will be established, which is the subject of the third motion, in the order we’re doing them. Both sections 12 and 13 make reference to the need for Clerks to be properly resourced and to ensure that training can be provided and that the independent complaints process can be established and continue to operate. The model the committee has put forward to the House is not a large cost model; it’s not a bureaucratically over-engineered model. However, it will require that the Clerks be supported with resources to ensure the process succeeds. This is something that was fully considered by the committee and the Premier absolutely gets this and has committed to advocating on behalf of this process.
The other motion relating to the independent complaints commissioner provides for the establishment of an independent complaints commissioner. Until recent years, most parliaments in Westminster jurisdictions relied solely on privileges or standards committees of the House to investigate alleged misconduct by a member. In many cases, Houses and committees construe the role of such committees in very narrow terms, so there was no avenue for complaints to be made about the conduct of a member. Furthermore, privileges committees were not equipped to carry out investigations on the basis of procedural fairness or processes that have regard to the welfare of complainants and members.
The establishment of the independent complaints commissioner addresses these shortcomings and puts in place an independent complaints mechanism already in place in numerous Australian parliaments, including New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, the Commonwealth, Canada and the UK.
Section 1 of the motion sets out the functions of the ICC, which includes a resolution of minor complaints and imposition of agreed remedies by the ICC itself. A further function is to carry out more formal investigations of more serious breaches of the code or matters which failed to be conciliated. A function of the ICC will be the provision of information and education on the role of the ICC. It is expected that information education will be provided to both members and staff.
Section 1.1.2 makes it clear that complaints involving proceedings of the Houses or committees, that is those things subject to parliamentary privilege, are not within the scope of the ICC. Similarly, the ICC will not investigate matters in the Criminal Code, or which would constitute serious misconduct in the Integrity Commission Act 2009.
There may, therefore, be a small number of things that could constitute a breach of the code of conduct for members, which the ICC would not investigate because they are more properly a matter for the police or the Integrity Commission. It is expected that people appointed as ICC and Deputy ICC will have the experience and expertise to understand the distinction.
Speaking about the appointment of the ICC and Deputy ICC, section 1.2 requires the Speaker and President, acting jointly, to be joined by a suitably qualified person on a panel to select an ICC and Deputy ICC. The motion does not include a job description or required qualifications, but the various aspects of the code of the ICC motion inform a recruitment process that would logically appoint a person who understands concepts including procedural fairness, victim welfare and evidence-based finding amongst other things.
This section also requires that there be a gender balance between the ICC and Deputy. This is important given the type and sensitive complaints that could be made, being mindful that victim welfare and preparedness to come forward are sometimes based on whether the person can confide in a man or a woman.
Section 1.4 provides that the appointment panel will consult the Premier, Leader of the Opposition, leaders of other parties, crossbench and the independents prior to appoint the appointment of the ICC and Deputy.
Section 1.5 leaves it to the Presiding Officers to contact the ICC and Deputy on terms and conditions. This will enable Presiding Officers, assisted by the Clerks, to consider a retainer approach for the first instance rather than a full-time engagement.
It is not the intention of this motion to create a bureaucracy and over engineer the establishment of the ICC. There should be no requirement for staff or separate office accommodation for the ICC in its first iteration. If over time, caseloads increase, and one would hope they wouldn’t, there would be opportunities for contract arrangements and the terms of the resolutions to be revisited.
Section 3.3 provides that the ICC may seek advice in relation to the nature of a complaint and jurisdictional issues. This may include the right to seek advice from the Clerks on matters of parliamentary procedure and privilege.
Section 3.5 states that, where possible, the ICC will facilitate early confidential resolution or consideration of a complaint without progressing to a formal process. This is important guidance for the ICC, that some matters are best resolved by bringing the complainant and the member together, or having the ICC conciliate individually with each person in the manner that protects both persons privacy, while also finding a resolution agreeable to both.
Dispute resolution, at this early stage, may include remedies such as a verbal or written apology, correction of the public record, agreement to undertake a training or education session, or other remedies dependent on the act or admission that constitutes the breach of the code.
Section 3.6 requires confidentiality in certain circumstances but also enables the ICC to publicly confirm the fact that a complaint has been received; only in exceptional circumstances where this declaration addresses initial fairness for one or the other person. There may be an exceptional case where public conjecture about a matter means it is fairer to one party or the other that the ICC clarify the fact that a complaint has been made.
Section 4 sets out the processes for investigation of more serious allegations and matters that could not be conciliated.
Section 4.4 provides that the ICC may require a person to attend a meeting and to produce documents. The ICC may report a failure to cooperate to the relevant privileges committee.
Section 4.3 requires the ICC to report findings and recommended sanctions to the relevant privileges committee where the recommended section would require consideration and enforcement by the relevant House. An example is when the ICC recommends that a member make a public apology in the House, or the House resolve to admonish the member.
Section 4.7 enables the privileges committee to receive reports from the ICC and to review only the recommended sanction, not to carry out its own investigation of the allegation. The committee will invite the member who has been found to have breached the code to make a submission only in relation to the recommended sanction. The privileges committee will have to include the ICCs report or a summary of it as part of the report to the House, which provides transparency in relation to the matter in general and in relation to the committee’s final recommendation for sanction.
It should be noted that when the Houses have adopted the new code and complaints process, the DPAC handbook and other guides should amend any references to a complaint being made to the Integrity Commission and state that alleged breaches of the members’ code of conduct can be directed to the Independent Complaints Commissioner.
To speak specifically to the alcohol and other drugs statement, this motion is a statement rather than a policy to acknowledgements and commitments in relation to alcohol and other drugs. It does not seek to prevent or enforce certain behaviours. Enforceable conduct is a matter dealt with in part 2 of the code of conduct. The statement acknowledges, amongst other things in paragraph three, that members acknowledge the impairment from alcohol and other drugs can significantly increase risk to workplace health and safety, including during work related travel.
Among the commitment made by members in the statement, members commit to managing the risk associated with alcohol and other drug use and acknowledge that our shared responsibility under Work Health and Safety Act to maintain a safe and respectful workplace for all. While these may appear to be self-evident statements, members in parliament in Australia have not made them as a collective before. We are the first jurisdiction to do this. This not only demonstrates community leadership, it also honours the findings of reviews in several parliamentary workplaces, including Tasmania, that irresponsible consumption of alcohol is often associated with incredibly harmful behaviours such as sexual harassment and assault.
To conclude, I wish to make some observations about the relevance of these matters and some very recent public reporting of issues around parliaments in Australia. In just a few days since the workplace culture committee report was tabled in the House, there have been very public reports of alleged conduct in various parliaments around Australia, all of which support the need for a modern code of conduct and an independent, empowered complaints and investigations process.
In Victoria, during debate on a bill in one of the most recent sitting weeks, a member reflected on being a victim of inappropriate workplace behaviour, including sexual harassment, during her time as both an adviser and an elected member. That member was Georgie Purcell[checked], MLC and the reference is Hansard, Legislative Council, 20 November 2025. These comments attracted media coverage and reflected poorly on the Victorian parliament. In South Australia, media has reported that an independent review of workplace culture in the parliament has found that staff believe politics is prioritised over their welfare and that staff are held to a higher standard than members.
The reference for that is ABC South Australia website, 22 November 2025 by reporter Thomas Kelsall[checked]. This followed a report three years earlier by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner which reported allegations of sexual harassment, indecent exposure and physical assault. A new code was put in place in South Australia, but the most recent report suggests that a code must be accompanied by an independent complaints process, training of members and staff and longer-term cultural change.
Only days earlier, the Federal Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from Senator Hanson[checked], who was found by the Federal Court to have racially discriminated against Senator Faruqi[checked] in a 2022 exchange of tweets. Faruqi versus Hanson, 2004 Federal Court of Australia 1264. This case has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and has brought to light the way in which social media is often used to convey words that would be a breach of workplace behaviour if spoken face to face.
Words said in a digital form can still be intimidating, harassing, bullying or discriminatory. The decision by Justice Stewart in the 2024 case in favour of Senator Faruqi also highlighted the fact that there are limits to the implied right of freedom of political communication when a member of parliament is saying things on social media that were designed to be personally hurtful. If the Commonwealth parliament had a code of conduct that included online behaviour by members and an independent complaints commissioner that could have conciliated or made findings, Senator Faruqi and Senator Hanson could have had an alternative and a much less costly avenue to resolve the complaint.
This code of conduct proposed by our Tasmanian parliament addresses this issue in a balanced manner. It does not seek to prevent social media being used to conduct robust political debate and opinions, but it does make it clear that the use of social media will not be a vehicle for directing behaviour at another member that is a breach of a safe and respectful workplace.
Mr President, I commend the motions to the House and in this instance, I move
That the members’ Alcohol and Other Drugs Statement be agreed to.