Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

There have been a range of contributions from members of the crossbench on the member for Mackellar's amendments, which are, as we know, in the order of amendments that we're working through. We go through them in order. The member for Clark's amendment was submitted first in the parliament, and the government's amendments were submitted at 5.16 pm yesterday—or circulated, I should say—and therefore are the second item that the parliament's dealing with in the third reading and consideration in detail stage. Then the member for Mackellar's amendments were in fact the last to be circulated to members, and that is why we are debating them last. For those reasons, I disagree with the characterisation by some members of the crossbench of the process. I have stood and introduced the explanatory memorandum and the supplementary explanatory memorandum and circulated the amendments in the same way that any member who wishes to engage would and as you would expect of a government minister.

Equally, I really want to note that it has been very clear for all members of parliament that we were having this discussion this morning because indeed we had a deferred division last night. So we all knew we would be back discussing this again today. I think it's entirely reasonable for the crossbench to have a different view to the government about whether or not these amendments are the right path forward, and I respect that. But I do think that I'd rather have a debate about the substance of the nature of the change the government's putting forward in the amendments rather than just a debate which is a process debate. Again, the characterisation that this has somehow been done in any way other than the normal course of action is, frankly, wrong. I think we've had a very respectful debate about this, even where there are differences of opinion, and I hope we can conclude in that way.

On the questions about the commissioners, I want to draw the attention of people in this House and the public, who may be following this debate closely, to the commissioners and the establishment and functions of the commissioners. Firstly, again, I note the commissioners are appointed by the Governor-General. They will be statutory officeholders. I think it's worth noting that, in the composition of the body of commissioners that will be appointed, the bill in front of members requires that at least four of those commissioners be women. That is a reflection of what we heard in the Set the standard report. It's a requirement, as we noted in the findings of that report. Women in the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experience sexual harassment, bullying and actual or attempted sexual assault at a higher rate compared with men. So providing gender balance amongst IPSC commissioners will ensure that we can promote trauma informed investigations, and I welcome the support for that measure from all members.

I also want to note that section 36D ensures the independence of the commissioners. It's explicitly there in the act that it provides for their independence to go about their duties. Further, that independence is strengthened by having their investigation functions functionally separate from the independent Parliamentary Workplace Support Service.

On the qualification requirements, I note that the bill will ensure that a person must not be appointed as a commissioner unless the minister is satisfied that selection of the person was the result of a process that was merit based, which included public advertising of the position. This will ensure that they are merit based and transparent positions. I also think it will give us both independent and quality candidates. I hope that people who think that they might be able to make a contribution towards this important new function of the parliament may consider putting themselves forward.

Section 36E(3) also requires that the minister refer the proposed recommendations to the parliamentary joint committee on parliamentary standards and get their approval of the recommendations prior to making the recommendations to the Governor-General. Again, it is a further check and balance. That committee will, I hope, operate in a way that is well above the day-to-day disagreements that might happen in this place. It will have a similar role to that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Again, we're looking to model on good practices elsewhere.

I also note that when it comes to the appointment of commissioners, they are statutory appointments of no more than five years. Further, section 36G outlines a range of mandatory training requirements for commissioners. They must complete specified courses of training as soon as practicable after being appointed as a commissioner. That is, again, to ensure very high standards of this very specialised work.

See this speech in context