Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process.

I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation.