Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. EMMA HURST (14:28): I support the motion and I thank Ms Abigail Boyd for bringing it before the House. The Broderick report cast a damning light on conduct within New South Wales Parliament and the fact that many members of staff in this Parliament do not feel safe from bullying, harassment, sexism and racism. All members should urgently be looking to address those matters. That starts with the conduct we model in the Chamber but also the conduct we model outside this Chamber—in meetings, discussions in offices and in the lifts. As politicians we should be setting the standard for respectful and appropriate behaviour. Far too often we fall short and, in fact, see displays of conduct that one would not find in any other workplace.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I do not appreciate comments that have been made in this Chamber implying, for example, that I should be put on a spit at the next party barbeque and other grotesque comments. Of course, those comments have never been addressed. When I have spoken up about them, it has always been met with silence from most other members or with a very soft, "Sorry, but we don't want to upset those MPs because we may need their vote later." That is exactly how things get out of hand in this place. Bullying, sexism, harassment and racism occur because very few people want to address it in case it has political consequences. That simply is not good enough.

The motion is a sensible step forward. It will allow the Procedure Committee to "inquire into and report on updating the standing orders to require respectful behaviour in the Chamber, particularly as they relate to sexism and racism". We have standing orders about disorderly conduct and the power of the President to call members to order for this conduct, and even to remove members from this Chamber if that conduct persists. There is no reason why we cannot have similar rules regarding sexist or racist conduct. It is sensible to have the Procedure Committee explore potential approaches.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (14:30): I support the motion moved by Ms Abigail Boyd to update the standing orders to require respectful behaviour in both Houses of this Parliament. When I joined the Legislative Council, I volunteered to become a member of the Parliamentary Advisory Group on Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct so that I could become informed and support the work undertaken by the Broderick review. The sad fact is that New South Wales is not alone in this matter. Other parliaments around the world are reviewing and amending their policies and practices to ensure a safe workplace where freedom from harassment is the norm.

It pains me to inform the House that I have witnessed behaviour that, quite frankly, does not meet with community expectations. I have been subject to behaviour that I chose to brush off because at the time I was new to this place and wanted to fit in. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility and a duty to be respectful and to be role models. It would be a travesty if nothing changes. I am anxious that this change is happening at a snail's pace when that change should be happening now. We can all be a part of that change. Renowned American professor and writer Brené Brown said, "What we know matters, but who we are matters more."

The general public can tune in to these sittings. Schoolchildren are regular visitors to this place. The behaviour they see is an embarrassment. This place has the nickname the "bearpit". That name is no badge of honour. It comes from an arcane mentality of a brutal time in the past. I refuse to allow behaviours that were considered acceptable in the past to rub off on me. Rather, I want our standards lifted to encourage others to consider a life in politics as a noble and respectful occupation.

At the risk of stating the obvious, our standards of behaviour are changing but, let's face it, it is happening too slowly. Instead of lip-service, let us genuinely move forward and make inclusiveness and diversity of opinion a norm that is respected rather than ridiculed. In my inaugural speech I said I was committed to seeing changes made in my workplace. Those who know me know that I am no raging feminazi. I am a woman, a wife, a mother and a grandmother who expects that decency, respect and fairness are accorded to all women in the workplace.

The Hon. BOB NANVA (14:33): I sincerely thank Ms Abigail Boyd for bringing this matter to the House, and I wholeheartedly commend the motion. I do not doubt for a moment that improvements have been made in this place since the Broderick review was handed down. But it remains clear, particularly to those of us who are still relatively new to this place, that much more can be done. It is not revelatory that change in one of Australia's oldest institutions, with its folklore and historic tolerances—or intolerances—can be hard fought. But it is not impossible. I say, without judgement or criticism, that some failures in culture, processes or standards are not always seen by those who have long become accustomed to the status quo. That point was strikingly made to me by Ms Lambert, a talented university intern placed in my office. She made the observation that her placement:

… was the opportunity to explore the home of the inner workings of democracy, representative government, and meaningful debate … an opportunity to explore my childhood dream of being a politician, when eight-year-old me planned to be the first female Prime Minister to serve a full term.

But, as a result of her experiences, she said she would now:

… hope to avoid any career where I am a part of this Chamber.

There is clearly more to be done, including the implementation of the Broderick review recommendations. It has to be done in a non-partisan way that does justice to the people who had the courage and conviction to share their experiences and advocate change. They did not have to, but we should be thankful that they did. We cannot let them down.

The public would naturally expect the Parliament to be the standard-bearer for other workplaces around the country if we are to sit here and be a judge of their workplaces. The time has passed—if there was ever an appropriate time at all—for pressure, stress or political debate to provide a shield for blatant expressions of intolerance, harassment or a lack of basic civility towards an intended recipient in this place. To proceed in a way that assumes we are immune from the norms we expect of other workplaces obviously opens us to charges of hypocrisy, which is perhaps the most charitable criticism the public could make of us.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (14:36): I am pleased that Ms Abigail Boyd has brought the motion forward and that we will send it with Government support to the Procedure Committee for proper examination. The Broderick report was groundbreaking in relation to the culture and behaviour in this workplace—not just in this Chamber but across the entire building. There are hundreds of staff in this building and 135 MPs. We all have to work well together. Everyone should expect a workplace free from harassment, violence and discrimination. That is the entry-level point at which we should begin.

Members have robust debate, and I flag that there will be some tricky discussions about how the Procedure Committee will deal with this. That will include our rights as individual MPs and the fact that we are voted in by a group of people who are often very different to the people that we all find ourselves together with. But I do not think we should shy away from those conversations. At the end of the day, a higher standard will lead to a much better democratic outcome, which the general public would like to see. We should not hide from the fact that there are some pretty thorny issues here.

Finally, we talk a lot about ourselves as MPs and the workplace that we expect to have, which is fine and absolutely responsible on behalf of all of those excellent young people who we want to come through this door and to stand here in the future. We want them bold and brave, helping to solve the problems of the future. But we also need to recognise there is still a lot of work to be done in relation to staff. They are the large bulk of the people in this building and they have the least power in these matters. So while it is good for the Procedure Committee to work on all of those things, I flag that the Government is keen to keep cracking on with the other work of the Broderick review and to get that right. I acknowledge the work of the Presiding Officers in terms of input and the new structures that they are driving through. We welcome that approach. We need to make sure that all of those things happen at the same time. We all love working here, but we need a workplace where people can be fully and freely themselves, where they can fully and freely participate, and where they can enjoy coming to work every day.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:39): In reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the motion. In response, I start with the contribution from the Hon. Mark Banasiak, to which I say that this isn't about him. I understand that an article was written about this issue last week and that that article mentioned, as just one example of sexist behaviour in the Chamber, the contributions from the Hon. Mark Banasiak to a particular motion last year. That was one example of inappropriate behaviour but unfortunately the sexism in this place goes far deeper than that. Take, for example, the Hon. Mark Latham's obsession with my experiences of child sexual assault. Rather than being able or willing to intellectually engage with the substance of my proposal, we have yet another example of instead making comments directed to the characteristics of the person putting forward the proposal.

That is a particularly egregious form of sexism—the idea that if someone has been the victim of sexual assault at some point, then they cannot be taken seriously on an issue without their motivations and sanity being questioned in the process. What a double whammy that is. Not only do women who have been the victims of sexual assault have to battle against victim blaming and all the other barriers to justice, apparently forever more they will be subjected to characterisations of them being inhibited in their abilities to do their jobs because of their victim-survivor status. That is misogyny.

Once again, we have another example of the Hon. Mark Latham proving my points for me. Those comments and this sort of behaviour directed against a colleague in one's workplace would never be accepted in any other workplace in Australia. They would not just be called out but they would be actionable under laws designed to keep our workplaces safe. But here in this Chamber, they result in no real consequence. During debate members mentioned the number of complaints to the Independent Complaints Officer since that role was established but left out was the fact that the ICO's remit only applies to words said outside of this Chamber. Again, that is the point here.

This motion, and the recommendation it is based on, is not intended to curb spirited debate in this place. It is not intended to stop the banter or even reduce the noise levels. It is intended to stop those sexist and racist comments and behaviours that prevent this place from being an inclusive and safe workplace for everyone. This is not about me and it is certainly not about the Hon. Mark Banasiak; it is about the welfare of every person who works in this environment in whatever capacity, for this cohort of members, for future members and for all staff in this place. Whether or not this referral results in changes to the standing orders, change will only really happen when we take active steps together to change the culture of this place. It is the very act of coming together and deciding to progress this issue that will begin to erode the culture of impunity that exists in this place. I encourage everyone to think about what small actions they can do every day to help chip away at this harmful culture to reveal a progressive and modern Parliament.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.