Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I know, I know! I hope I'll be back by popular demand, with some fantastic amendments coming through from the Senate! I move amendment (10) as circulated in my name:

(10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include:

(a) at least 2 Government members; and

(b) at least 2 non-Government members.

This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation. The independence of this Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive is fundamental to the functioning of this body. It's crucial. This is a powerful body, and it must be seen to be a powerful body, and it must be seen in every way to be independent from the executive of the government.

This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli.

This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision. I think it's a very important amendment.

I've considered the other proposals to amend this clause, including from the opposition—I had a very fruitful conversation with the shadow Attorney-General, and I thank him for that—and I believe the coalition also wish to see that we make sure this joint oversight committee has the capacity to keep the independence of this appointment of the commissioner and get a consensus appointment.

Ultimately, though, I've determined that my approach is the one that strikes the right balance between independence and a functioning body, and avoids unacceptable deadlocks in the appointment of the commissioner. I know my crossbench colleagues have some other remedies to this issue as well because it is so important. So I do ask the parliament to think about this very carefully. Understand, if you're on the government side, you won't always be in government. I know that's a shocking thought for you! Likewise, on this side, you were in government last time. Who knows when you will be again? For us here in the middle, we work with whoever's in this place—by golly, we do, don't we? And we're here to make amendments to legislation, every time in good faith. So colleagues I say to you today: look at this amendment; don't just follow along what your party tells you to do. Think like an Independent and pass this amendment!

See this speech in context