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

I want to take a moment to just reframe this debate because I think there's a lot of heat in this chamber at the moment, and rightfully so. We are all incredibly passionate advocates for our community and for our democracy, and I think there's not a single person in this building who doesn't believe that the reason this parliament operates at its best when it's operating at its best is that we come here presenting the opinions of hundreds of thousands of people. The truth of the matter is that every member in this chamber represents over 100,000 Australians. Our democracy was built on the very basis that every community should have the right to send somebody to speak for them in a way which is consistent with their voice.

I rise today to support the member for Curtin's motion because I cannot see how it is an unreasonable motion. This reform is warranted. This reform is necessary. Australians need to know that their democracy is healthy. Australians have a right to know who is giving what money to whom, and they have a right to know how that money is being spent. You are not going to get an argument from me against that reform. What is egregious in the way that this legislation is proceeding is that—and I say this with respect to the assistant minister, through you, Deputy Chair—there has been a very long process of consultation to even get us to the point for this legislation to be tabled. There have been many voices that have been heard. We know there were hundreds of submissions on this matter made. But the report that came from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was incredibly high level. And there was a dissenting report. There were additional comments made to that report. It's great that we finally have a minister who said he's prepared to listen to a committee and to work with his staff to bring forward a piece of legislation. But why stop that transparency, that accountability, that reviewing process, now? This is the bit that makes no sense to me. We've done the work, we've done the consultation, the legislation is prepared—great. This parliament still has near on six months to run. May next year is when this parliament formally expires. Why is the government insisting on introducing this massive piece of legislation as of Friday—I got it on Sunday—and telling us they want it through the House this week? What I've come to learn in this place is that we do not do good policy when we seek to rush it. We do not do good policy when we're afraid to have it scrutinised. The very first Independent in my seat of North Sydney, Ted Mack, was very clear when he said that it is true that the best policy comes when the opinions of many are weighed up against the opinions of few. Whether we want to believe it or not, or whether the government wants to accept it or not, at the moment, these are the opinions of a few. These are the opinions of the government in terms of how they've listened to the JSCEM report, how they've interpreted it and how they've turned it into legislation.

I support the member for Curtin's motion to have it referred to a committee because, by doing that, we enable the opinions of many to be taken on board in terms of what this reform looks like. As a participatory democracy—a democracy that exists to represent ordinary Australians—ordinary Australians should have every right to know that this piece of legislation has been laid open in the sun for all to see and really deeply understand.

I do not understand why, in the interests of transparency, accountability and integrity, the right course of action for this legislation is not for it to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and taken through an inquiry process and for a report from that committee to come back—if you want it before the next election—next March. That would still give us ample time to deal with this legislation before this parliamentary term ends.

See this speech in context