The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet has refused to accept any sanction from the parliamentary behaviour watchdog over “offensive” and “disrespectful” comments on social media, calling the findings “dumb”.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission reprimanded the Victorian senator for breaching the code of behaviour twice for the posts in 2024.
Babet, the United Australia party’s only senator, told Guardian Australia the findings, released in February, were “dumb”, and that he would not take part in the “ridiculous” sensitivity training it sanctioned him to undertake.
The IPSC, which was set up in October 2024 in the wake of the Set the Standard report, released its first public statement about an investigation late last month.
It centred on a social media post by Babet in November 2024 in which he used the N-word and grossly offensive terms for gay and disabled people.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
A panel of three commissioners determined the post breached two paragraphs of the 2024 code of behaviour; that parliamentarians have a “leading role to play in fostering a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment” and that they “recognise the importance and value of diverse viewpoints, and that robust debate is conducted with respect for differing views”.
“The panel considered Senator Babet’s posts to be offensive, disrespectful and harmful to individuals who are commonwealth parliamentary workplace participants,” the panel’s findings said.
The IPSC’s statement also revealed Babet had failed to comply with a sanction against him forcing him to attend one-on-one workplace behaviour training by 20 December 2025.
Under the law, the standards umpire is able to make a public statement about an investigation if a parliamentarian fails to comply with a sanction.
The commission otherwise seldom reveals or confirms any complaints it has received or whether it is investigating them.
The senator was also asked to enter into a behaviour agreement with the IPSC refraining him from using “racist, homophobic, sexist or other language demeaning of others whether verbally or in writing, or through sharing content on social media, until his term as a senator expires”.
Babet told Guardian Australia he did not believe “out of control” bureaucrats should be allowed to police his comments outside the chamber, labelling the body as “very dangerous”.
In the event of a serious breach of the code, an IPSC decision-maker can refer the incident to a parliamentary privileges committee.
The committee, made up of politicians, can determine a more serious sanction, such as a fine of between 2% and 5% of a politician’s annual salary, suspension from parliament, or being sacked from parliamentary committees.
The Greens’ democracy spokesperson, Steph Hodgins-May, said the body’s first public ruling exposed the watchdog as having “no real teeth”.
“If a senator can ignore an independent ruling like this, something is clearly broken,” she said.
“If racial slurs by sitting senators don’t carry real consequences, what does?
“The public expects better than this from their elected members. At the very least, I’d expect this non-compliance to be referred to the Privileges Committee.”
A government spokesperson, when asked if the IPSC was operating as it was intended, said: “The IPSC is deliberately and appropriately independent and operates according to their legislation.”
In the week after Babet posted the comments on X, he was censured in the Senate for “his inflammatory use of hate speech, designed to drive division for his own political benefit”.
The former Liberal senator, Simon Birmingham, described the comments in parliament as “repugnant, abhorrent” and having “no place” in civil discourse.
Thorpe was also censured by the Senate on the same day after earlier staging a protest against King Charles during his visit to Canberra.
Thorpe said the outcome of the IPSC’s investigation into Babet’s comments was “confusing” and offered “no real insight” into how the behaviour watchdog was supposed to function.
“In this first case that has been made public, it seems the only outcome was naming the senator involved,” she said. “We have no way of knowing whether stronger sanctions were considered by the IPSC or the Privileges Committee, or even if the committee discussed the matter at all.
“We can’t have faith in an accountability system still ultimately controlled by politicians who have their own interests in mind, rather than being at arm’s length from politics.”
