12th Sep 2024, 12:27 PM – Senate Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 - in Committee - Propose sanctions

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

Senator Waters explained that:

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:

(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:

(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).

(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.