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

I rise again in support of the amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've just got to say how sensible the member for Indi and her team are in terms of how they approach not only this piece of legislation but every piece of legislation that we see come into the House. There are very few members in this House that have a higher level of integrity than the member for Indi. When you hear the member for Indi suggest that the best way for a piece of legislation to be scrutinised is by an independent parliamentary committee, you can actually pretty much guarantee that she knows what she's talking about. This is a member that has been involved in developing bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is a member who has argued, since she joined parliament, for increased levels of integrity in this place.

But, for those who are at home wondering why you wouldn't just go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to explain the structure of parliamentary joint committees in this place. What usually happens in a parliamentary joint committee is that the party of the government of the day dominates the committee. They have the most numbers on the committee. In fact, every committee in this place, bar one—and that is actually the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission—will be chaired by a member of the government of the day, and the deputy chair will be from the opposition of the day. In the case of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is a great committee—I think we should have it; we should be very transparent around it—the truth of the matter is it was originally tasked with looking at the results of the 2022 election, an election which created the largest crossbench in the history of the Australian parliament, and that crossbench has the largest number of Independents in the history of the Australian parliament.

Yet, interestingly, for those playing along at home, there wasn't an Independent on that committee until the member for Curtin joined the committee on the last hearing day. For all of the hearings prior to that, there was not a person of an independent political persuasion involved in the assessment. And, in fact, when the report was tabled by what we call JSCEM, the member for Curtin, the only Independent member of that committee, lodged a dissenting report. She provided commentary around where she felt things were heading in the right direction and where things can be improved. In an environment where we do the best we can—and I believe everybody in this place comes to the questions we have in absolute good faith—the truth of the matter is, when we're looking at something as important as this, we should be able to delegate to an independent statutory review. That's where the member for Indi has nailed this recommended amendment to the government.

At the end of the day, this legislation has not had a lot of light during this debating process. If we could go back to our communities and say, 'If nothing more, at least we know in 12 months it will be independently reviewed,' then I think the Australian public could take some faith that there will be somebody other than the major parties looking at how this is functioning.

Question unresolved.

See this speech in context