Australian Senators Demand Parliamentary Rule Changes to Combat Racism and Bigotry

Australia's federal parliament faces mounting pressure to address systemic racism and discriminatory behavior within its chambers, as a coalition of crossbench senators warns that current parliamentary rules are failing to protect members from abuse. In an unprecedented move, independent senators Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe, alongside Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, have formally requested Senate President Sue Lines to intervene and implement structural changes to combat what they describe as 'overt and insidious' racism that is corroding Australian democracy.

The Call for Structural Reform

In a detailed five-page letter obtained by Guardian Australia, the senators expressed profound concern about the deteriorating standards of conduct in the upper house. They argue that when they attempt to speak out against racism, they face punishment rather than protection, creating what they describe as 'double standards' that silence women of color while allowing discriminatory behavior to continue unchecked. The senators specifically highlight how procedural rules are being 'weaponized' to shut down those calling out racism rather than addressing the racism itself.

The coalition's demands center on two key interventions: establishing a formal inquiry into racism and sexism within parliament, and implementing mandatory anti-racism training for all politicians, beginning with those who oversee parliamentary proceedings. They emphasize that these measures are not merely procedural adjustments but essential safeguards for democratic integrity and representation.

Documented Incidents of Racist Behavior

The senators' letter references several specific incidents that illustrate the systemic nature of the problem. One particularly notable example involved One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who wore a burqa in the Senate chamber for the second time in her parliamentary career. According to parliamentary records, Hanson remained in the chamber for at least 25 minutes before sitting was suspended over the matter, despite attempts by Senators Faruqi and Thorpe to raise points of order. The deputy president presiding at the time, Liberal senator Slade Brockman, stated that 'dress is a matter for an individual senator's conscience' and refused immediate action.

Another incident cited occurred in March 2023, when former NSW senator Hollie Hughes made what appeared to be a derogatory comment about the practice of acknowledging country. When Senator Thorpe interjected asking 'Is that racism?', she was ordered to withdraw her comment for breaching standing orders regarding 'imputation of improper motives and personal reflections against senators'. The senators argue this exemplifies how rules designed to maintain decorum are instead used to suppress legitimate challenges to racist remarks.

Political Responses and Historical Context

The push for reform comes against a backdrop of previous failed attempts to address parliamentary conduct. In November 2024, Labor had agreed to an inquiry into racism and sexism in federal parliament proposed by Senators Thorpe and Faruqi, but the committee never met and the initiative lapsed following the 2025 federal election. A subsequent attempt to re-establish the inquiry earlier this month was voted against by both Labor and the Coalition.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher acknowledged that conduct in the Senate had 'deteriorated to an unacceptable level' but argued that another inquiry wasn't the solution. She also suggested that those moving the motion should 'reflect honestly about their own conduct towards others in this place', highlighting the complex dynamics of parliamentary accountability.

Existing Mechanisms and Their Limitations

Since the landmark Set the Standard report in November 2021, parliament has established several mechanisms to address workplace behavior, including the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS) and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC). The report specifically recommended that presiding officers review standing orders and unwritten conventions to eliminate sexist, exclusionary, or discriminatory behavior.

However, recent cases demonstrate the limitations of these mechanisms. Earlier this month, United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet was named by the IPSC as refusing to accept any sanction over 'offensive' and 'disrespectful' comments he made on social media. While the IPSC can make public statements about non-compliance with sanctions like mandatory training, more serious penalties such as salary docking or suspension must be referred to the Senate's privileges committee and decided by peers—a process critics argue creates inherent conflicts of interest.

The Broader Implications for Australian Democracy

The senators' intervention raises fundamental questions about representation, inclusion, and the health of Australian democracy. They argue that allowing racism to persist in parliament 'signals to young women of colour across the country that their participation in public life will be met with hostility, belittlement and punishment.' This discouragement of future diverse leaders, they contend, represents a profound threat to democratic renewal and legitimacy.

The debate occurs amid broader concerns about rising Islamophobia and racism in Australian society, particularly following recent national events. The senators' letter emphasizes that parliament should be setting standards for respectful discourse rather than reflecting society's worst prejudices. Their call for mandatory anti-racism training represents a practical step toward creating institutional awareness and accountability, while the proposed inquiry would provide a formal mechanism for documenting and addressing systemic issues.

Conclusion: A Critical Juncture for Parliamentary Standards

As Australia's parliament grapples with these challenges, the senators' demands highlight a critical juncture in the evolution of parliamentary standards and conduct. The effectiveness of existing mechanisms like the IPSC and PWSS, combined with potential reforms to standing orders and mandatory training requirements, will determine whether parliament can become a model of inclusive, respectful discourse or continue to perpetuate patterns of discrimination that undermine its democratic function. The response from Senate President Sue Lines and the broader parliamentary community will signal whether Australian democracy is capable of meaningful self-correction when confronted with systemic failures of inclusion and respect.