Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:

(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:

(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

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

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).

(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.

As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply.

It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future.

I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important?

I commend this amendment.