Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to support the amendments from the member for Indi, and I acknowledge her tireless work on this issue, along with other Independents sitting on this crossbench and others who are no longer sitting on this crossbench who have worked hard to bring this legislation to the parliament. I believe this is defining legislation, which will define not only this government but this parliament, and it is a legacy that this government and this parliament will leave.

In that context, I wonder why we would pass a weaker version of the legislation than we need to. I could guess at why we are doing so, and I think many of us know that conversations have been happening in the background to get us to where we are. But the government has the numbers, particularly with the members of this crossbench, to pass legislation that I believe is more workable than the bill that we are likely to put through this House today. On that basis, I endorse the amendments from the member for Indi, and I agree also with the member for Wentworth that the bar of exceptional circumstances is too high. If we are to put trust in the commissioner and commissioners to act in the public interest, I would argue that the checks and balances that are inherent within the legislation to protect safety, reputation, mental health and such are enough for those commissioners to make a decision in the public interest on public hearings.

Like my crossbench colleagues, I don't argue for across-the-board public hearings. I agree that there are arguments for hearings to be held in private, but I also would reverse the onus to say that private hearings should be held in exceptional circumstances, not the other way around. On that basis, I commend the member's amendments to the House.

See this speech in context