|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:03:04
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.64.3) to *disagree* with [amendment (1) and (2)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.63.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (), which means they failed.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.64.3) to *disagree* with [amendment (1) and (2)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.63.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Ms Sharkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.63.1):
- > *The first really relates to the fact that I think it's important to provide as much clarity as possible with respect to what must be put into the review. I'm sure it is self-explanatory. You would expect these points—the role of the NACC, the oversight of the NACC, the use and conduct of hearings, and emerging best practice—to be in a review. But this is really to make sure that we don't assume that it is really quite plain and simple.*
- >
- > *Amendment (2) is to ensure that the minister—whoever the minister of the day is, for many parliaments to come—does provide to the parliament in a very timely manner a copy of the report of the review. What we have seen in the past—perhaps not in this parliament but in the past in parliaments gone by—is that sometimes ministers of the day have held on to reviews for a very long period of time and perhaps also released them at times when the rest of Australia is not paying attention. So this is really just about timeliness and about some detail of what is in that review.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 278, page 219 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider and report on the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the role of the NACC;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) oversight of the NACC;*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the use and conduct of hearings;*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) emerging best practice.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 278, page 219 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (6), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 business days, after receiving a copy of the report of the review, cause a copy of the report to be:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) laid before each House of the Parliament; or*
- >>>
>>> *(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.*- >>> *(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:01:04
|
Title
Bills — National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Conduct of review and tabling of review report
Description
<p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.64.3) to *disagree* with [amendment (1) and (2)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.63.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Ms Sharkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.63.1):
- > *The first really relates to the fact that I think it's important to provide as much clarity as possible with respect to what must be put into the review. I'm sure it is self-explanatory. You would expect these points—the role of the NACC, the oversight of the NACC, the use and conduct of hearings, and emerging best practice—to be in a review. But this is really to make sure that we don't assume that it is really quite plain and simple.*
- >
- > *Amendment (2) is to ensure that the minister—whoever the minister of the day is, for many parliaments to come—does provide to the parliament in a very timely manner a copy of the report of the review. What we have seen in the past—perhaps not in this parliament but in the past in parliaments gone by—is that sometimes ministers of the day have held on to reviews for a very long period of time and perhaps also released them at times when the rest of Australia is not paying attention. So this is really just about timeliness and about some detail of what is in that review.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 278, page 219 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider and report on the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the role of the NACC;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) oversight of the NACC;*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the use and conduct of hearings;*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) emerging best practice.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 278, page 219 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (6), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 business days, after receiving a copy of the report of the review, cause a copy of the report to be:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) laid before each House of the Parliament; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 278, page 219 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider and report on the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) the role of the NACC;</p><p class="italic">(b) oversight of the NACC;</p><p class="italic">(c) the use and conduct of hearings;</p><p class="italic">(d) emerging best practice.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 278, page 219 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (6), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 business days, after receiving a copy of the report of the review, cause a copy of the report to be:</p><p class="italic">(a) laid before each House of the Parliament; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.</p><p>I won't detain the House long; we have been here all morning on this bill. I'll just speak very briefly to these two amendments.</p><p>The first really relates to the fact that I think it's important to provide as much clarity as possible with respect to what must be put into the review. I'm sure it is self-explanatory. You would expect these points—the role of the NACC, the oversight of the NACC, the use and conduct of hearings, and emerging best practice—to be in a review. But this is really to make sure that we don't assume that it is really quite plain and simple.</p><p>Amendment (2) is to ensure that the minister—whoever the minister of the day is, for many parliaments to come—does provide to the parliament in a very timely manner a copy of the report of the review. What we have seen in the past—perhaps not in this parliament but in the past in parliaments gone by—is that sometimes ministers of the day have held on to reviews for a very long period of time and perhaps also released them at times when the rest of Australia is not paying attention. So this is really just about timeliness and about some detail of what is in that review.</p><p>I would hope that the government would consider and support these two very simple amendments to provide some strength and some clarity.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I thank the member for Mayo for her amendments. The bill does require a mandatory statutory review of the NACC legislation to be undertaken after five years of operation by a person or persons whom the minister considers possesses appropriate qualifications to undertake the review. The review would consider all aspects of the operation of the legislation, including the role of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, oversight and the use of hearings. Given this broad scope is already provided for in the bill, it's not necessary to prescribe additional matters to be considered. The bill requires the review to be tabled as soon as possible after it is received by the minister. The government expects this would be done in a timely matter. The government does not support these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by the honourable member for Mayo be disagreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|