James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I will speak first of all to the proposed Greens amendments on sheet 2096. The coalition will not be supporting those amendments. These amendments would place new administrative hurdles in the path of the IGIS. Specifically, before engaging consultants or service providers, the IGIS must clear jurisdictional hurdles that would require them to satisfy a requirement that is not reasonably practical to engage persons who have suitable qualifications and experience from the Public Service. It is unclear whether these new provisions would open up new grounds for administrative law challenges or what the operational impact more generally might be. Indeed, it is possible that these provisions may impede the IGIS in the conduct of its oversight functions. For those reasons, the coalition considers the amendments unnecessary.

In relation to the amendments from Senator Thorpe on sheet 2089, the coalition will not support these. We do not consider these amendments are necessary. In relation to items (1) and (2), the proposed changes are unnecessary. In particular, limitations on the person who may be appointed as inspector-general go much further than was recommended by the Richardson review. In relation to item (3), the proposed restrictions on the IGIS's powers is not necessary given its important oversight role. It would create unnecessary delay and administrative burdens, broaden avenues for legal challenge, and impede important oversight function. In relation to item (4), this goes far beyond a transparency or integrity measure. It is an inappropriate restriction on the freedom of the individual to engage in paid work and can only disincentivise individuals from taking on the IGIS role. In relation to item (5), the case for significant changes to this important immunity has not been made out. It is unclear what problem this change seeks to address and whether the solution is appropriate in the circumstances, and we are not aware of any reputable body calling for this change. In relation to items (6) and (7), these are consequential changes that are contingent on the passage of item (3). Given we do not support item (3), we do not support these measures.