The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC) is independent and impartial. This means the IPSC cannot make a case for or advocate for a complainant and cannot investigate anonymous complaints.
After making a complaint to the IPSC, the Chair Commissioner will assign a single Commissioner (known as the investigating Commissioner) who will determine whether to investigate the conduct complaint.
Not all complaints made to the IPSC will be investigated.
Confidentiality Notices
Commissioners may issue a confidentiality notice to prevent a person from disclosing, or making a record of, certain information.
These notices are used to:
- protect a fair investigation
- protect the identity of people involved in an investigation or
- prevent the release of sensitive information.
If a confidentiality notice is issued, it will typically be in place for the duration of the investigation and until the matter is finalised. This includes the 28-day review period. Outside of this, if a confidentiality notice is extended, it will clearly state the timeframe the notice is in place.
Please note, confidentiality notices only apply to information that has not already been legally made public.
A confidentiality notice is not a non-disclosure agreement. It is in place to protect parties during the course of an investigation and will not be made indefinite.
For further information, please refer to the ‘Confidentiality’ factsheet.
Notices to Give Information
An investigating Commissioner may request information relevant to an investigation via a Notice to Give Information etc. This power can only be used if the Commissioner provides the request in writing and believes the person has information that is relevant to the investigation.
This request may include providing documentation or attending an interview with the investigating Commissioner. If a person does not comply with the notice, this may result in an offence, and the party could face a penalty.
Exceptions to this request include information about a Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS) or the identity of journalist’s source.
Certain legal protections may apply. These include parliamentary privilege, the right not to self‑incriminate, and legal professional privilege.
Parliamentarians and staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 must cooperate with investigations. Failing to do so may be a breach of the Behaviour Code.
Support Persons
A support person can be nominated during the investigation process by any party involved in a matter i.e. complainant, respondent or a witness. A support person could be a colleague, family member, friend, or union representative. The Commissioner may issue the support person with a confidentiality notice to keep information confidential.
A support person may sit in on interviews, as long as their presence does not affect the interview or investigation.
A support person’s role is to provide emotional support only. They must not speak on a party’s behalf or interfere with the investigation at any stage.
For further information, please refer to the ‘Support Persons’ factsheet.
Complaint Assessment
Decision to investigate:
An investigating Commissioner may only decide to investigate a conduct issue if they:
- are satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is sufficient evidence or information to justify an investigation and
- if the issue arose from a conduct complaint or conduct issue referral—either:
- the Commissioner has the complainant’s consent to investigate the issue; or
- the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that a serious risk to work health or safety arises, or could arise, from the conduct concerned.
The investigating Commissioner will gather information and evidence to inform a decision on whether there has been a breach of the Behaviour Codes and Standards.
The investigating Commissioner may investigate the conduct issue in any way the Commissioner considers appropriate and must do so as quickly as possible, while still complying with the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023 and ensuring procedural fairness to all parties.
Decision to not investigate:
The investigating Commissioner can decide not to investigate a conduct complaint if:
- the issue would be better handled through the PWSS’s local resolution complaints process
- the complaint is considered frivolous, vexatious, unclear, lacks evidence, or was not made in good faith
- the issue is better dealt with, or has already been dealt with, under another Commonwealth, State or Territory law.
If the Commissioner decides not to investigate, they may in some cases:
- refer the matter to the PWSS
- refer it to the head of a public sector agency
- refer it to be dealt with under another Commonwealth, State or Territory law.
Possible Outcomes
Recommendations and sanctions are disciplinary actions to support a safe and respectful Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. The investigating Commissioner or Parliamentary Decision Panel (PDP) can only recommend or impose a sanction, or refer a serious breach, if it is necessary to promote appropriate behaviour in a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace.
The type of sanction that may be recommended or imposed depends on who is involved. This includes whether the person is:
- a current or former parliamentarian
- a current or former employee under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, or
- another participant in the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace.
Sanctions for parliamentarians:
The PDP may impose one or more of the following sanctions on a parliamentarian:
- a written reprimand
- a requirement to complete training or professional development within a set time, and/or
- a requirement to enter into a behaviour agreement with the IPSC.
If the PDP finds that a current parliamentarian has committed a serious breach, they can refer the matter to the Privileges Committee of the relevant House of Parliament.
The Privileges Committee decides whether a penalty should be recommended and report its decision to the House.
If it finds that a sanction is needed, the Committee may recommend that the House:
- suspend the member from Parliament for a set period
- remove the member from one or more parliamentary committees
- fine the member between 2% and 5% of their annual base salary
- apply any other penalty the Committee considers appropriate.
Sanctions for Members of Parliament (MOPS) employees:
If the person is a current employee under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the investigating Commissioner may recommend that the employing parliamentarian impose one or more of the following:
- a written reprimand
- training or professional development
- a behaviour agreement
- changes to duties, where possible
- a fine of up to 2% of annual salary and/or
- termination of employment.
If the person is a former MOPS employee, the decision‑maker may recommend a written reprimand.
The employing parliamentarian is required by law to impose any sanction recommended by the IPSC.
Sanctions for other people:
If the person is not a parliamentarian or a MOPS employee, the investigating Commissioner or PDP may recommend that their employer take appropriate action within a set time.
If the person is a non‑core participant, such as a journalist or contractor, and is situated in a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace, the investigating Commissioner may also recommend that their access to the parliamentary precincts be restricted or removed for a period of time.
For further information, please refer to the ‘Sanctions’ factsheet.
Publishing Reports
The IPSC do not publish investigation reports.
In some cases, the IPSC may publish a public statement about a matter if information is already publicly available. This may be done to ensure fairness to those involved or to correct erroneous reporting.
The IPSC may publish a statement that names a parliamentarian if:
- more than one adverse finding has been made against them on separate occasions or
- they do not comply with a sanction imposed by the IPSC.
Review of a Decision
The complainant or the respondent can ask the IPSC to review certain decisions in the final report. If the respondent is a MOPS employee, the respondent’s employer may also apply to the IPSC for review of a decision to make a recommendation for the employer to take action in relation to the respondent.
A written request for review must be made within 28 days of being issued the final report and must set out the reasons for making the application. If no review is requested, the decision is final and the matter is closed. A person may apply to the Chair Commissioner to extend the review application period.
If a review is requested, the Chair Commissioner will appoint a review panel of three independent Commissioners. The review panel may dismiss the application if they find that:
- the application is frivolous, vexatious, unclear, lacks evidence, or was not made in good faith; or
- has no reasonable prospects of success; or
- is otherwise an abuse of the process of the IPSC.
The review panel or Commissioner may:
- confirm the original decision
- change the original decision or
- replace the original decision with a new one.
If sanctions apply, they will be managed by the investigating Commissioner or the PDP.