Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:

(a) be made in writing; and

(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and

(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.

I support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is long overdue and sorely needed. The bill of course responds in part to the recommendations of the Set the standard report, which in turn was the product of the 2021 Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and headed by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins.

As many in the community would remember, the Jenkins review was established with the support of both major parties and the crossbench in March 2021 following a litany of reports about the toxic, unsafe workplace culture in Parliament House, including most notably the allegation by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins that she was raped in a ministerial office in 2019. As Commissioner Jenkins noted:

The Commonwealth Parliament sits at the heart of Australia's representative democracy. As one of the country's most prominent workplaces, it should serve as a model for others and be something Australians look to with pride.

In other words, it's imperative that the people who work in this building are safe and respected and feel they can speak up against bad behaviour. Regrettably, however, this has not been the case, which is why the review found that too often this workplace didn't provide a safe environment for many, largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and a lack of accountability. Indeed, the actions of some people in this building over many years has made a mockery of this institution and left the community with little trust in what goes on in here. This bill can help address the dreadful situation, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC, promises to operate as a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct.

I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.

I am on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and I have great respect for my colleagues there. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a highly respected committee with a reputation for being multipartisan, collegiate and collaborative. However, it's not a given that this collegiality will always exist, nor that the public will always have confidence that it exists, and if trust breaks down, especially between the committee and the community, and the idea takes hold that poor behaviour is not being dealt with by an independent expert body then at best we've failed the so-called pub test and at worst allowed this place to drift into lawless mediocrity.

That's why my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report.

Importantly, my amendments respond to concerns which have been raised by a number of organisations focused on women's safety, on transparency and on good governance, including Fair Agenda, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network. On that note, I thank Fair Agenda in particular for their engagement on this issue and I commend the amendments to the House.

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

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect.

I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the Set the standard report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the Set the standard report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date.

Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go.

Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold.

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

I rise today in support of the member for Clark and his most excellent amendment to this very important, critical legislation. We are at a moment in our democracy that the people of Australia have been waiting a long time for—that is, to take responsibility for our actions. We come to this place with the hopes of so many people on our shoulders. We come to this place as potential—not actual but potential—role models for young people who may wish to aspire to public life, and we have let them down on so many occasions. That has been going on for a very long time.

In my second reading speech yesterday I spoke to the long history of getting to this point in this parliament to implement this most important recommendation of the Jenkins report. What I'm seeing now, though, is that we are falling not at the first hurdle but at the last hurdle. I really commend the member for Clark for bringing forward an elegant, simple remedy to this last problem. This last issue is about ensuring that the commission that we're about to legislate for can actually have the repercussions of serious misconduct acted upon. What the member for Clark has done for us is lay out how we can do this and still maintain the primacy of the parliament. The member for Clark has highlighted that the privileges committee is a most respected committee—well, to be frank, if a committee is not respected in this place, that's a problem. The fact that we have to call out that some committees are more respected than others is actually a problem and speaks to the issue that we're trying to remedy. Notwithstanding, the member for Clark is a member of that committee and can speak with authority on this. But what we could achieve here through this amendment is to ensure that that most respected committee still has all its agency but also has the accountability that is missing right now in this legislation—that is, accountability to the transparency of a decision.

The people of Australia are so tired of us making up our own rules and then hiding away when the rules are broken and making sure that nobody sees anything here. This amendment does not take away any power from the privileges committee. In fact, it embeds its power. What it adds is its responsibility to the parliament and the people of Australia. Should serious findings be made by the commission and sanctions put forward, those recommendations need to come to the privileges committee. What is the point of having an independent expert committee if their recommendations hold no water? It really does beggar belief for what it is we're trying to do here. I really commend the member for Clark for putting forward a way we can manage this.

Sure, the privileges committee may take a different view to the commission. Fine: explain the reasoning, table the reasoning in the parliament and make it public. Because, if you are a respected member of any committee you should have no shame in what it is that you discuss and decide on your committee—no shame whatsoever. In fact, you should be proud of your reasoning and you should be able to lay that out in a way that explains to Australia why you have arrived at that decision. Where is the problem with that?

I heard a very respected journalist give the Speaker's Lecture in this place only a couple of days ago. The take-home message for me was that Australia wants to have parliamentarians with a ticker. I say to every member of this House—whether you sit on the opposition, with the government or, indeed, on the crossbench: have a ticker, support this amendment, and restore transparency and accountability to this House.

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

I want to thank all members again for their engagement, not just the engagement on this proposed amendment but the engagement in the preparation of this bill. I think it is important that people watching or reading this debate know that, while there has been a parliamentary debate over the last few days, the work that has been done here is the result of a lot of consultation across this building for a number of months. As I have in every speech I have given on this, I have always wanted to note not only the work done by parliamentarians but equally the work done by staff and people who have given so much evidence in the Set the Standard report and continued to assist us in putting together this legislation. Because the reality is we can all come in here and say our piece and have it on the record under the cover of parliamentary privilege. That is not something that is available to the people who work for members in this building. They have made a huge contribution but they do not get to make a contribution at the final stage. I want to say thanks again to all who have engaged in that consultation.

I want to pick up on a point from the member for Indi, which is that I do want to say again, to anyone watching this debate or reading it in the future, that this bill is about encouraging people to make that choice, to stand for election or to be a parliamentary staff member or to join the Public Service. The reason we are doing this is not just to lift the standard for ourselves here and now but, as we all know, we are doing this to ensure that everyone who wants to make a contribution to this place has that opportunity and is not held back by some of the very inappropriate behaviours and practices that have been outlined in the Set the Standard report.

Again, it is a great honour to be able to stand for election in the Australian democracy. It is an even greater honour to be chosen to represent a community in this place. I would encourage anyone who watches this as we work to do exactly that—set the standard and lift the standard. We are working hard to ensure that this is a workplace that welcomes people's contributions and enables people to make those contributions.

I do want to note that the proposals in front of us from the government that we have consulted widely across the government on do indeed have substantial change. We are talking about the ability of this parliament, through the privileges committee and elsewhere, to impose substantial sanctions on members of parliament where there has been serious misconduct. Equally, we have substantial penalties in the form of an ability to fine a member a percentage of their remuneration—again, something that has not been done before. This is a big step and it is one I am proud our government is taking.

I also want to address what the member for Clark said. I agree with him. The government does believe in the bill that is in front of us. He now serves on the privileges committee. I have previously served on the privileges committee. I was very fortunate and honoured to be the deputy chair of that committee for a period of time. I agree it is multipartisan. It does operate in a collegiate manner. It not only treats the items that come to it with respect but equally the people who might be being considered. I commend all members of the privileges committee for showing how you can in this place, which is a place where we have a contest of ideas, have committees that do work in a way that is actually about upholding the standards of parliament and indeed upholding the rights of parliamentarians, and the privileges committee has a very important role there too.

I agree with the member for North Sydney: this parliament does have an obligation to act. That is what we have sought to do. We have not only sought to do that in the timeframes we have outlined for a number of years but also in a way that ensures we get the appropriate consultation, because the worst thing that could possibly happen would be that a bill such as this gets stalled in the parliament without actually taking action. That would break the trust of those who have very high expectations appropriately from the Set the Standard report.

Just briefly to the amendments: the government's view is that these amendments are not necessary. We prefer not to limit the discretion of a privileges committee in deciding the appropriate sanction. We think that in order to make referral to the privileges committee, the decision panel—three members when it comes to a parliamentarian—needs to be satisfied that the relevant conduct is serious and it is appropriate for a parliamentary sanction to be imposed. There is accountability in the process of the bill as it currently stands, and, obviously, I think it's also worth noting to all members that, under the bill that is proposed without these amendments, the recommendations of the privileges committee will become public when that report is tabled in the House.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To make it absolutely clear, the amendments in no way limit the freedom of action of the privileges committee, so, through you, Deputy Speaker, I think the minister is mistaken when he says they would. All the amendments do is require the privileges committee to explain itself and to simply say, 'This is why we have not followed the recommendations of the IPSC.' It's very straightforward, and that would give the community much confidence that any deviation from the recommendation is for a good reason.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.

I ask leave of the House to move the government amendment on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendment (1) on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (after line 20), after section 59C, insert:

59CA Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee

(1) There must be a Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee, who must be a member of the Opposition elected by the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee from time to time.

(2) The Deputy Chair holds office during the pleasure of the Parliamentary Joint Committee.

(3) A person holding office as Deputy Chair ceases to hold the office if the person:

(a) ceases to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee; or

(b) resigns the office.

(4) A person holding office as Deputy Chair may resign the office by giving a signed notice of resignation to a meeting of the Parliamentary Joint Committee.

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of Parliamentary Joint Committee, insert:

Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament means the committee of that House responsible for inquiring into matters of privilege.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 19), before "Senate", insert "Privileges Committee of the".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 20), before "House of Representatives", insert "Privileges Committee of the".

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (after line 12), after paragraph 59E(2)(c), insert:

(ca) the person ceases to be a member of the Privileges Committee of the House of the Parliament by which the person was appointed; or

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), omit "one of its members", substitute "a member of its Privileges Committee".

(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 18 (lines 14 to 16), omit the definition of Privileges Committee.

Question agreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I just want to briefly respond to the member for Mackellar. In the discussion that we've had in this parliament and the work leading up to the bill in front of members today, there has been good, thoughtful engagement, even when there have been differences in views about how to get this done. As the member said in concluding her remarks, there has been a strong commitment to getting this done. Again, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has worked on this, especially those in Minister Gallagher's office, and Minister Gallagher herself, who has engaged very thoughtfully across the parliament to get us to this point.

I would just note for members that the legislation already stipulates that the appointment of commissioners should be through a merit based and publicly advertised process. So that is already a requirement in this bill, which I hope will pass this House today. To be appointed, you have to have gone through that merit based process, and that is an important thing. I know the member for Mackellar is very passionate about seeing government do more in that space, but in this instance the reason that we're not moving an amendment on merit based or publicly advertised positions is that it is already in the bill.

It's worth noting that, currently, under the bill as it's proposed, commissioners would be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the relevant minister at the time. But before the minister can make a recommendation to the Governor-General regarding a commissioner the minister must be satisfied that the person meets the selection and qualification requirements under the bill—that is, specifically, that the person to be appointed as a commissioner must be enrolled as a legal practitioner and enrolled for at least five years, or be a former Commonwealth judicial officer, or be a former judge of a Supreme Court of a state or territory, or have the skills, knowledge or experience investigating workplace misconduct.

I note that we are appointing a range of commissioners, and having a range of different skills on that panel is very important. We don't want to unnecessarily limit the skill base available to the Commonwealth, but we also want to make sure that there is very clear guidance and requirements set out in the statutory books, for decade after decade, for the minister—not just the minister I referred to at the start of my remarks who has carriage of this and knows its intent—when they are making those decisions. We think that this bill in its current form gets that right. While I acknowledge the good intent of the amendments from the member for Mackellar, the government won't be supporting them.

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

I rise today in support of the member for Mackellar's considered amendments to this important legislation. There is no debate in this House about the need for an independent standards commission. We are all in furious agreement about that and welcome this legislation in most of its detail. But, as I spoke about on previous amendments, this is not the ideal piece of legislation, and, when we've taken this amount of time to finally establish such a commission, we should be working towards getting this right. Part of the getting it right is ensuring, again, that we have the guardrails, the safeguards and the transparency around who the important commissioners are on this commission.

What the member for Mackellar has been trying to achieve throughout her term in this parliament is the eradication of this pernicious culture of jobs for mates. We've seen it play out time and time again across many, many decades, and, again, the people of Australia are asking us to do better. The minister quite rightly laid out the very detailed qualifications, the resumes that would be required in order for someone to be successful in applying for such a position on this commission. I've got no argument with that. What the member for Mackellar is adding to this debate is an arm's-length transparency mechanism to ensure that there are no political imperatives when it comes to who is appointed to such a commission, and that really matters. It really matters. Many people in this House have spoken to the importance of fairness, of ensuring that no member of parliament's reputation is besmirched unnecessarily. There has been an enormous consultation to try and get this legislation right, and we're nearly there.

In my second reading speech I spoke of the gratitude I feel for the many people who have contributed to getting us to this point, but, again, I would say to this parliament: take the next step. Get it right while we have the chance to do so. The member for Mackellar is quite right in her argumentation about why these amendments matters, so I stand in support of her today on this one. We have the chance; we should get it completely right, and that amount of getting it right matters to the people who put us in this place. I commend her amendments and I encourage members of parliament to, likewise, support her in her endeavours.

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

I'd like to respond. We are talking here about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The key is 'independent'. While I absolutely commend the steps that have been taken here with this legislation—that there will be merit based expertise criteria that must be met and that these will need to be advertised—I think the substantive piece of the amendments that I'm moving is the fact that people need to be appointed independently. This is an independent parliamentary standards commission. That is why we need an independent selection panel. It must be done at arm's length. This is an area we don't want to see exploited. We don't want to see a jobs-for-mates culture. It affects people's reputation in this House, so we don't want this to be exploited in any way. We want it to be as trustworthy and as robust as possible, and the absolute key part of the amendments I am moving today is the fact that commissioners should be appointed independently. That is the crux of what I'm calling for with these amendments today.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Freelander, through you to the minister—and I have enormous respect for the minister, and I'm very grateful that he has no objection to be speaking back to the government amendments that went through the House minutes ago—I'm shocked that the government amendments went through the House minutes ago in the way that they did. There was no time to consider them and no time to debate them. The crossbench didn't even realise it had happened until after the fact. This is no way to be progressing and implementing reforms as important as this. These reforms go to cleaning up this place, holding parliamentarians to account for their misbehaviour in the future, to wipe the slate clean after the terrible events of recent years. It was no way for such significant amendments to be dealt with at all. And they are very significant amendments.

For a start, that the deputy chair of the joint parliamentary committee overseeing the IPSC is quarantined as an opposition position is to completely ignore the crossbench—the, right now, 18 crossbenchers—and the millions of people that voted for those 18 crossbenchers. We now have a completely different political landscape than we had before the last federal election. At the last election, the government got I think it was 32.8 per cent of the primary vote. The polls since then are trending down even further. The fact is our country is changing. Now, a very significant proportion of the Australian electorate is voting for someone other than the Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties. That should be reflected in the way this parliament operates.

Yes, there has been some progress, and I'm delighted to say I've been appointed to the Speaker's panel, and I'm delighted to say I'm on the privileges committee. I think that shows a very grown-up approach to the crossbench in those regards. But, in this case, for such an important parliamentary committee to be in the stranglehold of only the Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties is a betrayal of the electorate. It's not what the electorate wants. It's not where the electorate is going. This parliament is just fighting tooth and nail to keep their monopoly on power instead of waking up to what is changing and how this country is evolving.

For the membership of the parliamentary joint committee overseeing the IPSC to be controlled by the privileges committee is bizarre. This is such a thumping conflict of interest. The joint committee overseeing the IPSC is selected by the privileges committee, and the IPSC can't make recommendations to the privileges committee, and the privileges committee doesn't even have to follow any recommendations that don't come anyway. What's going on here? We've lost our way at the last stage of this important process to clean up this place. We really, really have. If we're going to be overseeing the IPSC, surely it should not be done by people selected by the privileges committee. The privileges committee, in effect, is overseeing itself, and that's just nonsense. That's complete and utter nonsense.

I'm very disappointed in the way that these amendments have been brought to the House and rammed through the House. I'm very disappointed with what they go to. I just don't know why the government is behaving this way. There's no good political reason for or public interest served by coming, at this late stage, to this point where the IPSC is effectively overseen by the privileges committee—that's the effect of it—where it can't make recommendations to the privileges committee and where the privileges committee doesn't have to pay any attention to what the IPSC does. This is a great case study in where the government is acting completely irrationally and at odds with the public interest, and it will feed into the continuing decline of popularity for the Labor Party at the next election, when this was a great opportunity to show the community that it's listening to the community, it's responding and it's doing good work. Instead, it does this, and I am just dismayed.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the spirit of consideration in detail, I have a question for the minister. It's a very straightforward question, and I'm sure the crossbench and the community would be very grateful for a very straight answer: were the government's amendments discussed with the opposition before now?

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

The government amendments were circulated to all members at 5.16 pm yesterday. They are now available for all members to debate. Despite the fact that they have gone through, I stood up here and introduced the explanatory memorandum. I didn't introduce the amendments, because they had already been circulated to members yesterday. Every member received on the NoticePaper and on the 'blue' that this debate was happening this morning. That has been clear for all members, and every member, be they crossbench, government or opposition, has had access to those amendments since 5.16 pm yesterday. I have been available to have conversations with any member who wishes to discuss them.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response. I'll sharpen my pencil and ask a narrower question. Were the government's amendments discussed with the opposition prior to the circulation of amendments?

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

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

While I really am grateful for the steps in greater transparency around the merits based appointment process, the advertising and the fact that new commissioners will need to do the training, I think there's something we're missing the point on, and that is the fact that an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission must be independent. An absolute key part of that is that it must be independently appointed. While we talk about commissioners having the right merit and the right expertise, that doesn't stop them from all being a part of the Labor Party or whichever party. Just because you have the right expertise or the right merit does not mean that you are independent. Having an independent selection panel is absolutely required. If we are to call this the Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee, an independent selection process must be required. Otherwise, we can't call it independent—we can call it merit based or expertise based, but we can't call it independent. There must be an independent selection panel if we are to call this the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

I'd also like to talk about this being modelled on other appointments processes. A precedent has been set with the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal because amendments were taken on board for there to be independent selection panels. Prior to negotiations by the crossbench, an independent selection panel was not going to be mandated or legislated. It is now mandated and legislated, and I think that we should use that appointments process to the Administrative Review Tribunal as the precedent gold standard for an independent body. We know that the core and fundamental part of having an independent body is for it to be independently appointed, not only based on merit and expertise. Of course that is important, but it must be independently appointed. Otherwise, the board is not independent. How can we call it independent?

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

I assure all members of the House that the commissioners will be able to act with independence. I want to note that the commissioners will be statutory office holders and therefore will be subject to the general duties of officials under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. I think that's an important item to note. They would also be bound by the APS Code of Conduct to the extent of the Public Service Regulations 2023. I want to note that that requires them to uphold APS values, amongst other things. I also note that commissioners will not have their salaries set by a minister. Their fees will be set by the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Again, it will not be a decision of the government of the day.

Further, to assure all members that—we're talking a lot about appointment, but I think it's also of note, in this bill, that the process through which a commissioner would be terminated is not just at the discretion of a minister or the government of the day. I draw members' attention to what would be provided by clause 36L(1):

The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner if each House of the Parliament, in the same session of the Parliament, presents an address to the Governor-General praying for the removal of the Commissioner …

Such a removal could be on the grounds of misbehaviour or that the commissioner is unable to perform their duties because of physical or mental incapacity.

So there are grounds to remove a commissioner, if there are any of those conflicts that the member foreshadowed, which I do not see being a challenge. But I want to note that, should that necessitate the removal of a commissioner, there will be a procedure through which to do that as well, although I hope, for many reasons, that we don't get to that point. That will be my last contribution to this debate.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Several minutes ago, I asked the minister a very, very straightforward question, and that was whether or not the government consulted with the opposition on today's third reading amendments before those amendments were circulated to all members, we now learn, late yesterday afternoon. I think it would be fair to say that the minister's answer was evasive. It certainly didn't answer the question of whether or not the government had consulted with the opposition on its two very important amendments today: (1) that the deputy chair of the joint parliamentary committee will be a position reserved for the opposition; and (2) that the privileges committee will select the membership of the joint committee.

To be fair to the minister and to give him an opportunity to assure the community that this isn't another major-party stitch-up to maintain their stranglehold on power in this country, I'll ask the minister one more time: does he rule out that the government discussed these amendments with the opposition before the amendments were circulated—amendments that were not seen by any of the 18 crossbench members of this House until they were circulated?

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

While I've already answered the member for Clark's question, I just also want to advise the House that members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce were provided with the amendments prior to them being circulated.

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

Whilst commissioners will have to abide by certain APS values and statutory values, I'd like us to be mindful of the precedent that we saw occur over the last decade with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which the government agreed had been stacked. People had not been independently appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and, as a result, the government themselves abolished the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—something which has cost taxpayers in this country tens of millions of dollars to do. In light of that precedent and in light of that example, why are we still neglecting that example—the fact that people were not appointed independently to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? The government felt the need to abolish that at a cost of millions and millions of dollars to our taxpayers. It eroded trust in that very important democratic institution. I would like to know why we are still not learning the lessons of that time and independently appointing people to such an important body as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.