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

I acknowledge and thank the minister for allowing some debate on those rapidly introduced amendments from the government, which arrived at the last minute. I would actually be very curious to know what consultation happened in deliberations around this bill about these particular amendments, which firstly define the privileges committee. I've got no argument with that. But they're now seeking—in fact, it's already gone through—to ensure that we have kind of the equivalent of a supermarket duopoly on the checks and balances when it comes to what is an esteemed reform on the IPSC. The checks and balances now are completely euchred. We're going to have the same people on the joint select committee as on the privileges committee, and the duopoly maintains its power and control by ensuring that no member of the crossbench can be a deputy chair. What a stitch-up!

I'm really staggered by this. When that happened before, it happened so fast it didn't seem right. It actually isn't right. We should have fulsome debate about these amendments because they don't speak to the integrity of this legislation that we're voting on today. I'm completely amazed by this, really. If members of this House think that it is okay to now, I think, effectively compromise the privileges committee by doing this, then I'm very surprised and really disappointed in the government. They have rapidly brought these amendments to the House. They've now gone through, and I really feel that this has tarnished what is otherwise a significant and important piece of legislation that I was fulsomely supporting. I really wanted to put that on the record.

See this speech in context