Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:

(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and

(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:

(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).

I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.

At the last election the Australian public sent a very clear message to politicians of all stripes: they wanted integrity and they wanted transparency, not only in their elected representatives but, equally importantly, in our democratic infrastructure. Having heard that message in February 2023, I introduced a private member's bill, the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023, otherwise referred to as my 'Ending jobs for mates' bill. This bill aimed to transform the process of appointments to major Commonwealth positions. Underlying the bill was the critical and urgent need to restore the public's trust in our democratic processes and institutions after a decade of cronyism and party political appointments had eroded that trust.

My 'Ending jobs for mates' bill was designed in collaboration with the Centre for Public Integrity to ensure that all major Commonwealth public appointments could be made within an independent and transparent framework. The bill would legislate a public appointments commissioner and departmental independent selection panels overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments. The committee would not have a government led majority, guaranteeing independence from the government of the day. Under my bill, a degree of ministerial discretion would be maintained, an important element of our Westminster system of government, as the final decision regarding the successful candidate would remain with the relevant minister. However, the minister may only choose from a shortlist of candidates selected by the independent selection panel. Such a framework would ensure that key positions in our democratic institutions are filled through an independent, transparent and expertise based appointment process.

Applying anything less to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission may cause the public to question whether it can truly fulfil its function to be an arbiter of bad behaviour in this place. What if the commissioners are asked to investigate bad behaviour by the minister who appointed them? In the absence of an overarching framework of the kind proposed in my bill, I am putting forward amendments to this bill which would ensure that an independent panel is established to appoint commissioners. The panel would be chaired by a former judge and require: a merit based selection process; advertising of the position with selection criteria; consideration of the diversity of the commissioners running the IPSC; and the minister to choose from a shortlist of three candidates determined by the panel to be qualified for the job.

Since the last election, the crossbench has never shied away from putting the spotlight on some of the most egregious behaviour that is all too common in this place, behaviour which is not normal and which should not be accepted in any workplace. The establishment of the IPSC is a real step forward, and I congratulate and thank the government and all those staff who have worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation. The legislation will make the parliament a better and safer place to work. But my amendments would make a good institution even more robust, even more independent and even more trustworthy. I urge the government and all in this House to consider them.

See this speech in context