The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC), established as an impartial umpire to address misconduct in Australia's Parliament House, is facing criticism over its lack of transparency and heavy-handed confidentiality measures. Experts and complainants argue that the commission's secrecy and gag orders undermine its purpose.
Background and establishment
Following numerous high-profile allegations of sexual misconduct and bullying, former sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins recommended in 2021 the creation of an independent body to hold parliamentarians and staff accountable. The IPSC was formally established in October 2023 after years of cross-party negotiations. In the interim, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS) handled complaints, though these were not automatically transferred to the new commission.
The IPSC can order politicians to undergo workplace behavior training or sign behavior agreements. For tougher sanctions like fines, pay docking, or suspension, it can only recommend action to the privileges committee. This two-tiered system was deemed necessary because elected officials cannot be dismissed from their posts for misconduct.
Secrecy and gag orders
Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the IPSC's operations, intended to protect against vexatious complaints and ensure fair proceedings. However, complainants are bound by near-total confidentiality, with warnings of up to six months' jail time and a potential fine of $9,900 (30 penalty units) for disclosure. A former political staffer, identified as Jenny, told Guardian Australia under anonymity: “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 stated that confidentiality notices are issued “where appropriate to protect the integrity of processes, ensure fair proceedings, safeguard identities, prevent unreasonable detriment or restrict the disclosure of sensitive information.” However, critics argue that these measures silence victim-survivors and allow bad behavior to persist.
Limited public transparency
In nearly two years, the IPSC has publicly referred to only one case: in February 2025, it revealed that United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet had breached the code of behavior twice for “offensive” and “disrespectful” social media posts and refused to accept sanctions. Babet called the findings “dumb” and said he would not comply. The IPSC did not confirm whether it referred the non-compliance to the privileges committee.
According to its 2024-25 annual report, the IPSC received 49 complaints and investigated 15 in its first nine months. Fewer than 10 were completed, but outcomes remain unpublished. A 2025 culture survey found that less than half (46%) of respondents were aware of the IPSC, and only 43% trusted it as an institution.
Expert and complainant concerns
Dr. Maria Maley, a senior academic in politics and public administration, described the lack of transparency as a “serious problem.” She said: “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 face “more severe penalties than any sanction the commission can order against a parliamentarian found to have engaged in workplace misconduct.” She called for an urgent review of the commission's secrecy.
Ongoing review
An 18-month review into parliamentary support services is underway, with a final report due by the end of 2026. Jenkins' 2021 review had acknowledged that confidentiality agreements could “silence and isolate the people impacted and can also allow bad behaviour to continue.” The current review aims to address these concerns.
