Division Description Changes — Bills — Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail — 11th Sep 2024

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-09-11#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-09-29 14:06:49	Title Bills — Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Including recommendations for sanction Description ~~<p class="speaker">Andrew Wilkie</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</p>~~ The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1): > I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission] to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour. > > ... my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report. ### Amendment text > (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert: > >> (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent. > > (2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert: > >> (1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must: >> >>> (a) be made in writing; and >>> >>> (b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and >>> >>> (c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision. <p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:</p> ~~<p class="italic">(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:</p> ~~<p class="italic">(a) be made in writing; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.</p>~~ <p>I support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is long overdue and sorely needed. The bill of course responds in part to the recommendations of the <i>Set the standard</i> report, which in turn was the product of the 2021 Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and headed by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins.</p> <p>As many in the community would remember, the Jenkins review was established with the support of both major parties and the crossbench in March 2021 following a litany of reports about the toxic, unsafe workplace culture in Parliament House, including most notably the allegation by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins that she was raped in a ministerial office in 2019. As Commissioner Jenkins noted:</p> <p class="italic">The Commonwealth Parliament sits at the heart of Australia's representative democracy. As one of the country's most prominent workplaces, it should serve as a model for others and be something Australians look to with pride.</p> <p>In other words, it's imperative that the people who work in this building are safe and respected and feel they can speak up against bad behaviour. Regrettably, however, this has not been the case, which is why the review found that too often this workplace didn't provide a safe environment for many, largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and a lack of accountability. Indeed, the actions of some people in this building over many years has made a mockery of this institution and left the community with little trust in what goes on in here. This bill can help address the dreadful situation, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC, promises to operate as a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct.</p> <p>I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the <i>Set the standard</i> recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.</p> <p>I am on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and I have great respect for my colleagues there. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a highly respected committee with a reputation for being multipartisan, collegiate and collaborative. However, it's not a given that this collegiality will always exist, nor that the public will always have confidence that it exists, and if trust breaks down, especially between the committee and the community, and the idea takes hold that poor behaviour is not being dealt with by an independent expert body then at best we've failed the so-called pub test and at worst allowed this place to drift into lawless mediocrity.</p> <p>That's why my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the <i>Set the </i><i>standard</i> report.</p> <p>Importantly, my amendments respond to concerns which have been raised by a number of organisations focused on women's safety, on transparency and on good governance, including Fair Agenda, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network. On that note, I thank Fair Agenda in particular for their engagement on this issue and I commend the amendments to the House.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p>~~ <p>I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect.</p> <p>I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the <i>Set the </i><i>standard</i> report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the <i>Set the </i><i>standard</i> report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date.</p> <p>Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever.</p> <p>You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go.</p> <p>Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p>~~ <p>I rise today in support of the member for Clark and his most excellent amendment to this very important, critical legislation. We are at a moment in our democracy that the people of Australia have been waiting a long time for—that is, to take responsibility for our actions. We come to this place with the hopes of so many people on our shoulders. We come to this place as potential—not actual but potential—role models for young people who may wish to aspire to public life, and we have let them down on so many occasions. That has been going on for a very long time.</p> <p>In my second reading speech yesterday I spoke to the long history of getting to this point in this parliament to implement this most important recommendation of the Jenkins report. What I'm seeing now, though, is that we are falling not at the first hurdle but at the last hurdle. I really commend the member for Clark for bringing forward an elegant, simple remedy to this last problem. This last issue is about ensuring that the commission that we're about to legislate for can actually have the repercussions of serious misconduct acted upon. What the member for Clark has done for us is lay out how we can do this and still maintain the primacy of the parliament. The member for Clark has highlighted that the privileges committee is a most respected committee—well, to be frank, if a committee is not respected in this place, that's a problem. The fact that we have to call out that some committees are more respected than others is actually a problem and speaks to the issue that we're trying to remedy. Notwithstanding, the member for Clark is a member of that committee and can speak with authority on this. But what we could achieve here through this amendment is to ensure that that most respected committee still has all its agency but also has the accountability that is missing right now in this legislation—that is, accountability to the transparency of a decision.</p> <p>The people of Australia are so tired of us making up our own rules and then hiding away when the rules are broken and making sure that nobody sees anything here. This amendment does not take away any power from the privileges committee. In fact, it embeds its power. What it adds is its responsibility to the parliament and the people of Australia. Should serious findings be made by the commission and sanctions put forward, those recommendations need to come to the privileges committee. What is the point of having an independent expert committee if their recommendations hold no water? It really does beggar belief for what it is we're trying to do here. I really commend the member for Clark for putting forward a way we can manage this.</p> <p>Sure, the privileges committee may take a different view to the commission. Fine: explain the reasoning, table the reasoning in the parliament and make it public. Because, if you are a respected member of any committee you should have no shame in what it is that you discuss and decide on your committee—no shame whatsoever. In fact, you should be proud of your reasoning and you should be able to lay that out in a way that explains to Australia why you have arrived at that decision. Where is the problem with that?</p> <p>I heard a very respected journalist give the Speaker's Lecture in this place only a couple of days ago. The take-home message for me was that Australia wants to have parliamentarians with a ticker. I say to every member of this House—whether you sit on the opposition, with the government or, indeed, on the crossbench: have a ticker, support this amendment, and restore transparency and accountability to this House.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Andrew Wilkie~~
~~by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:~~
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed.
### What do these amendments do?
Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1):
> *I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission] to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.*
>
> *... my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report.*
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:*
>
>> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.*
>
> *(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:*
>
>> *(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:*
>>
>>> *(a) be made in writing; and*
>>>
>>> *(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and*
>>>
>>> *(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.*
(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:
~~(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.~~
~~(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:~~
(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:
~~(a) be made in writing; and~~
~~(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and~~
~~(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.~~
I support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is long overdue and sorely needed. The bill of course responds in part to the recommendations of the Set the standard report, which in turn was the product of the 2021 Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and headed by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins.
As many in the community would remember, the Jenkins review was established with the support of both major parties and the crossbench in March 2021 following a litany of reports about the toxic, unsafe workplace culture in Parliament House, including most notably the allegation by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins that she was raped in a ministerial office in 2019. As Commissioner Jenkins noted:
The Commonwealth Parliament sits at the heart of Australia's representative democracy. As one of the country's most prominent workplaces, it should serve as a model for others and be something Australians look to with pride.
In other words, it's imperative that the people who work in this building are safe and respected and feel they can speak up against bad behaviour. Regrettably, however, this has not been the case, which is why the review found that too often this workplace didn't provide a safe environment for many, largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and a lack of accountability. Indeed, the actions of some people in this building over many years has made a mockery of this institution and left the community with little trust in what goes on in here. This bill can help address the dreadful situation, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC, promises to operate as a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct.
I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.
I am on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and I have great respect for my colleagues there. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a highly respected committee with a reputation for being multipartisan, collegiate and collaborative. However, it's not a given that this collegiality will always exist, nor that the public will always have confidence that it exists, and if trust breaks down, especially between the committee and the community, and the idea takes hold that poor behaviour is not being dealt with by an independent expert body then at best we've failed the so-called pub test and at worst allowed this place to drift into lawless mediocrity.
That's why my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report.
Importantly, my amendments respond to concerns which have been raised by a number of organisations focused on women's safety, on transparency and on good governance, including Fair Agenda, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network. On that note, I thank Fair Agenda in particular for their engagement on this issue and I commend the amendments to the House.
~~Kylea Tink~~
I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect.
I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the Set the standard report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the Set the standard report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date.
Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go.
Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold.
~~Helen Haines~~
I rise today in support of the member for Clark and his most excellent amendment to this very important, critical legislation. We are at a moment in our democracy that the people of Australia have been waiting a long time for—that is, to take responsibility for our actions. We come to this place with the hopes of so many people on our shoulders. We come to this place as potential—not actual but potential—role models for young people who may wish to aspire to public life, and we have let them down on so many occasions. That has been going on for a very long time.
In my second reading speech yesterday I spoke to the long history of getting to this point in this parliament to implement this most important recommendation of the Jenkins report. What I'm seeing now, though, is that we are falling not at the first hurdle but at the last hurdle. I really commend the member for Clark for bringing forward an elegant, simple remedy to this last problem. This last issue is about ensuring that the commission that we're about to legislate for can actually have the repercussions of serious misconduct acted upon. What the member for Clark has done for us is lay out how we can do this and still maintain the primacy of the parliament. The member for Clark has highlighted that the privileges committee is a most respected committee—well, to be frank, if a committee is not respected in this place, that's a problem. The fact that we have to call out that some committees are more respected than others is actually a problem and speaks to the issue that we're trying to remedy. Notwithstanding, the member for Clark is a member of that committee and can speak with authority on this. But what we could achieve here through this amendment is to ensure that that most respected committee still has all its agency but also has the accountability that is missing right now in this legislation—that is, accountability to the transparency of a decision.
The people of Australia are so tired of us making up our own rules and then hiding away when the rules are broken and making sure that nobody sees anything here. This amendment does not take away any power from the privileges committee. In fact, it embeds its power. What it adds is its responsibility to the parliament and the people of Australia. Should serious findings be made by the commission and sanctions put forward, those recommendations need to come to the privileges committee. What is the point of having an independent expert committee if their recommendations hold no water? It really does beggar belief for what it is we're trying to do here. I really commend the member for Clark for putting forward a way we can manage this.
Sure, the privileges committee may take a different view to the commission. Fine: explain the reasoning, table the reasoning in the parliament and make it public. Because, if you are a respected member of any committee you should have no shame in what it is that you discuss and decide on your committee—no shame whatsoever. In fact, you should be proud of your reasoning and you should be able to lay that out in a way that explains to Australia why you have arrived at that decision. Where is the problem with that?
I heard a very respected journalist give the Speaker's Lecture in this place only a couple of days ago. The take-home message for me was that Australia wants to have parliamentarians with a ticker. I say to every member of this House—whether you sit on the opposition, with the government or, indeed, on the crossbench: have a ticker, support this amendment, and restore transparency and accountability to this House.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~