Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect.

I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the Set the standard report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the Set the standard report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date.

Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go.

Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold.

See this speech in context