|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:55:41
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.42.6) to *disagree* with [amendment (10)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.40.4) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means they failed.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.42.6) to *disagree* with [amendment (10)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.40.4) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means it failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.40.4):
- > *This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation ...*
- >
- > *This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli.*
- >
- > *This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:*
- >
- >> *(2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) at least 2 Government members; and*
- >>>
>>> *(b) at least 2 non-Government members.*- >>> *(b) at least 2 non-Government members.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:25:19
|
Title
Bills — National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Majority
Description
<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>Many people in this place might be relieved to know that, depending on what happens in the Senate, these could be my final words on the National Anti-Corruption Commission.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.42.6) to *disagree* with [amendment (10)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.40.4) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.40.4):
- > *This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation ...*
- >
- > *This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli.*
- >
- > *This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:*
- >
- >> *(2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) at least 2 Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) at least 2 non-Government members.*
<p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I know, I know! I hope I'll be back by popular demand, with some fantastic amendments coming through from the Senate! I move amendment (10) as circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include:</p><p class="italic">(a) at least 2 Government members; and</p><p class="italic">(b) at least 2 non-Government members.</p><p>This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation. The independence of this Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive is fundamental to the functioning of this body. It's crucial. This is a powerful body, and it must be seen to be a powerful body, and it must be seen in every way to be independent from the executive of the government.</p><p>This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli.</p><p>This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision. I think it's a very important amendment.</p><p>I've considered the other proposals to amend this clause, including from the opposition—I had a very fruitful conversation with the shadow Attorney-General, and I thank him for that—and I believe the coalition also wish to see that we make sure this joint oversight committee has the capacity to keep the independence of this appointment of the commissioner and get a consensus appointment.</p><p>Ultimately, though, I've determined that my approach is the one that strikes the right balance between independence and a functioning body, and avoids unacceptable deadlocks in the appointment of the commissioner. I know my crossbench colleagues have some other remedies to this issue as well because it is so important. So I do ask the parliament to think about this very carefully. Understand, if you're on the government side, you won't always be in government. I know that's a shocking thought for you! Likewise, on this side, you were in government last time. Who knows when you will be again? For us here in the middle, we work with whoever's in this place—by golly, we do, don't we? And we're here to make amendments to legislation, every time in good faith. So colleagues I say to you today: look at this amendment; don't just follow along what your party tells you to do. Think like an Independent and pass this amendment!</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I thank the member for Indi for her amendment and for her constructive engagement throughout on this legislation, including long debate and, most recently, participation as deputy chair of the joint select committee of both houses of this parliament considering this legislation.</p><p>The appointments of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee following a recommendation by the Attorney-General. The bill provides for multipartisan representation on the committee and ensures that the commission, including its key office holders have the confidence of the parliament. It is the government's intention and sincere hope that appointments to this commission will receive multipartisan support. Broad parliamentary support for appointments will be integral to the commission's credibility—a bit like broad parliamentary support for this legislation, which is also very important. Proposed recommendations for appointments will be subject to transparent and merit based processes and statutory eligibility criteria. This will ensure that appointments are subject to appropriate oversight and the recommended candidates for these very important roles have the confidence of the parliament. It's the government's view that a simple majority is sufficient to achieve this.</p><p>This parliament works by majority vote. It does not work by giving a veto power to some sections of either house. The bill already includes appropriate safeguards in the appointment process, including by ensuring that a decision is made within a required time frame, generally 14 days, so there can be no unnecessary delay. It's appropriate that the government of the day, which has responsibility for government decisions regarding the commission, such as funding, hold the role of the chair and have the casting vote. For that reason, the government will be opposing this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>This will be the last comment I make upon this. I was just reflecting upon the fact that Peter Costello, who for a large number of years was the Treasurer in this place and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, had a great-great-grandfather who was the Mayor of North Melbourne. He was jailed, and it was simply nothing more than bitter, brutal infighting inside the labour party. It was nothing except internal fights within the labour party, and he went to jail. That was the great-great-grandfather of Peter Costello. John Maitland, the head of my union, the CFMEU, and one of the great industrial leaders of this nation in recent years, went to jail for two years—again, just an internal fight within the Labor Party, and he got caught in the crossfire. I think probably the most telling case was that of Graham Richardson. I did disclosures in this place, and the information I disclosed was given to me by two Labor members of parliament. So, again, people are going to jail and being destroyed as a result of political machinations.</p><p>I think the thing where the member for Indi's proposals bite deepest—and I will conclude on this note—is that, when I realised that the police were going to put me in jail, I rang up Premier Bjelke-Petersen, who I enjoyed a very close relationship with.</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>No, just listen. No, you know what you see in the media. You don't know what really happened. He hyperventilated in fear on the telephone, and I thought, 'If the Premier is terrified of this mob, where does that leave me?' Well, we didn't have a weapon to fight with. Even though we were a powerful, centralised government, under considerable brutality, we had no weapon to fight these people with. Here was the leader. He was scared, and my reaction was, 'If he's scared, what the hell is going to happen to me?' So I've just given case after case after case emphasising the necessity, for which I think the member for Indi will probably be pretty famous for the rest of her life.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendment (10), moved by the member for Indi, be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|