The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC), created to clean up misconduct in Australia's Parliament House, is facing criticism over its lack of transparency and strict confidentiality rules that threaten complainants with jail time.
Background and creation of the IPSC
Following numerous allegations of sexual misconduct and bullying, the then sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, recommended in 2021 the creation of an impartial umpire to hold staff and parliamentarians accountable. After more than three years of work by a cross-parliamentary taskforce, the IPSC was established. In the interim, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS) handled complaints, but those were not automatically transferred to the new body.
Limited powers and secrecy
The IPSC can order politicians to undergo workplace behaviour training or sign behaviour agreements, but tougher sanctions like fines, pay docking, and suspension can only be recommended to the privileges committee. This two-tiered system was necessary due to the elected nature of politicians. Confidentiality was introduced to prevent vexatious complaints from being litigated publicly, but it has shielded the IPSC's work from public scrutiny.
Only one public referral in nearly two years
Since its creation, the IPSC has publicly referred only one case. In February 2025, it revealed that United Australia party senator Ralph Babet had refused to accept sanctions over offensive and disrespectful social media comments. Babet breached the code of behaviour twice but refused to attend training or sign a behaviour agreement. The IPSC did not confirm if it referred the non-compliance to the privileges committee.
Low awareness and trust
A 2025 culture survey found less than half (46%) of respondents were aware of the IPSC. Of those, only 55% understood its role, and 43% trusted it as an institution. In its first nine months, the IPSC received 49 complaints and investigated 15, with fewer than 10 completed, but outcomes remain unpublished.
Gag orders and fear of jail
Complainants are bound by near-total confidentiality, with warnings of up to six months in jail and a potential $9,900 fine for speaking out. A former political staffer, Jenny (anonymised), said she was threatened with jail if she discussed her complaint. She stated, "I was legally restricted from speaking about what I went through at parliament to my friends, family and community. I was threatened, repeatedly, with the spectre of jail if I spoke up." The IPSC said confidentiality notices are issued where appropriate to protect processes and identities.
Experts call for reform
Dr Maria Maley, a senior academic in politics and public administration, said the lack of transparency is a "serious problem." She added, "We need to know this system is working properly. If we can’t find out information about who faced complaints, what happened and what was the sanction that was applied … then people in the public also can’t feel confident that the system has been set up properly." Jenny noted the irony that complainants could face more severe penalties than any sanction the commission can order against a parliamentarian. An 18-month review into parliamentary support services is under way, with a final report due by the end of 2026.
