|
representatives vote 2024-09-11#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-29 13:59:34
|
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 - Independent appointment
Description
<p class="speaker">Patrick Gorman</p><p>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independents), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1):
- > *I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:*
- >
- >> *(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and*
- >>
- >> *(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and*
- >>
- >> *(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and*
- >
- > *(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:*
- >
- >> *(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).*
<p>I ask leave of the House to move the government amendment on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move government amendment (1) on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (after line 20), after section 59C, insert:</p><p class="italic">59CA Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee</p><p class="italic">(1) There must be a Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee, who must be a member of the Opposition elected by the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee from time to time.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Deputy Chair holds office during the pleasure of the Parliamentary Joint Committee.</p><p class="italic">(3) A person holding office as Deputy Chair ceases to hold the office if the person:</p><p class="italic">(a) ceases to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee; or</p><p class="italic">(b) resigns the office.</p><p class="italic">(4) A person holding office as Deputy Chair may resign the office by giving a signed notice of resignation to a meeting of the Parliamentary Joint Committee.</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of <i>Parliamentary Joint Committee</i>, insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>Privileges Committee</i> of a House of the Parliament means the committee of that House responsible for inquiring into matters of privilege.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 19), before "Senate", insert "Privileges Committee of the".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 20), before "House of Representatives", insert "Privileges Committee of the".</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (after line 12), after paragraph 59E(2)(c), insert:</p><p class="italic">(ca) the person ceases to be a member of the Privileges Committee of the House of the Parliament by which the person was appointed; or</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), omit "one of its members", substitute "a member of its Privileges Committee".</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 18 (lines 14 to 16), omit the definition of <i>Privileges Committee</i>.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:</p><p class="italic">(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and</p><p class="italic">(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and</p><p class="italic">(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).</p><p>I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.</p><p>At the last election the Australian public sent a very clear message to politicians of all stripes: they wanted integrity and they wanted transparency, not only in their elected representatives but, equally importantly, in our democratic infrastructure. Having heard that message in February 2023, I introduced a private member's bill, the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023, otherwise referred to as my 'Ending jobs for mates' bill. This bill aimed to transform the process of appointments to major Commonwealth positions. Underlying the bill was the critical and urgent need to restore the public's trust in our democratic processes and institutions after a decade of cronyism and party political appointments had eroded that trust.</p><p>My 'Ending jobs for mates' bill was designed in collaboration with the Centre for Public Integrity to ensure that all major Commonwealth public appointments could be made within an independent and transparent framework. The bill would legislate a public appointments commissioner and departmental independent selection panels overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments. The committee would not have a government led majority, guaranteeing independence from the government of the day. Under my bill, a degree of ministerial discretion would be maintained, an important element of our Westminster system of government, as the final decision regarding the successful candidate would remain with the relevant minister. However, the minister may only choose from a shortlist of candidates selected by the independent selection panel. Such a framework would ensure that key positions in our democratic institutions are filled through an independent, transparent and expertise based appointment process.</p><p>Applying anything less to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission may cause the public to question whether it can truly fulfil its function to be an arbiter of bad behaviour in this place. What if the commissioners are asked to investigate bad behaviour by the minister who appointed them? In the absence of an overarching framework of the kind proposed in my bill, I am putting forward amendments to this bill which would ensure that an independent panel is established to appoint commissioners. The panel would be chaired by a former judge and require: a merit based selection process; advertising of the position with selection criteria; consideration of the diversity of the commissioners running the IPSC; and the minister to choose from a shortlist of three candidates determined by the panel to be qualified for the job.</p><p>Since the last election, the crossbench has never shied away from putting the spotlight on some of the most egregious behaviour that is all too common in this place, behaviour which is not normal and which should not be accepted in any workplace. The establishment of the IPSC is a real step forward, and I congratulate and thank the government and all those staff who have worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation. The legislation will make the parliament a better and safer place to work. But my amendments would make a good institution even more robust, even more independent and even more trustworthy. I urge the government and all in this House to consider them.</p> <p class="speaker">Patrick Gorman</p><p>I just want to briefly respond to the member for Mackellar. In the discussion that we've had in this parliament and the work leading up to the bill in front of members today, there has been good, thoughtful engagement, even when there have been differences in views about how to get this done. As the member said in concluding her remarks, there has been a strong commitment to getting this done. Again, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has worked on this, especially those in Minister Gallagher's office, and Minister Gallagher herself, who has engaged very thoughtfully across the parliament to get us to this point.</p><p>I would just note for members that the legislation already stipulates that the appointment of commissioners should be through a merit based and publicly advertised process. So that is already a requirement in this bill, which I hope will pass this House today. To be appointed, you have to have gone through that merit based process, and that is an important thing. I know the member for Mackellar is very passionate about seeing government do more in that space, but in this instance the reason that we're not moving an amendment on merit based or publicly advertised positions is that it is already in the bill.</p><p>It's worth noting that, currently, under the bill as it's proposed, commissioners would be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the relevant minister at the time. But before the minister can make a recommendation to the Governor-General regarding a commissioner the minister must be satisfied that the person meets the selection and qualification requirements under the bill—that is, specifically, that the person to be appointed as a commissioner must be enrolled as a legal practitioner and enrolled for at least five years, or be a former Commonwealth judicial officer, or be a former judge of a Supreme Court of a state or territory, or have the skills, knowledge or experience investigating workplace misconduct.</p><p>I note that we are appointing a range of commissioners, and having a range of different skills on that panel is very important. We don't want to unnecessarily limit the skill base available to the Commonwealth, but we also want to make sure that there is very clear guidance and requirements set out in the statutory books, for decade after decade, for the minister—not just the minister I referred to at the start of my remarks who has carriage of this and knows its intent—when they are making those decisions. We think that this bill in its current form gets that right. While I acknowledge the good intent of the amendments from the member for Mackellar, the government won't be supporting them.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I rise today in support of the member for Mackellar's considered amendments to this important legislation. There is no debate in this House about the need for an independent standards commission. We are all in furious agreement about that and welcome this legislation in most of its detail. But, as I spoke about on previous amendments, this is not the ideal piece of legislation, and, when we've taken this amount of time to finally establish such a commission, we should be working towards getting this right. Part of the getting it right is ensuring, again, that we have the guardrails, the safeguards and the transparency around who the important commissioners are on this commission.</p><p>What the member for Mackellar has been trying to achieve throughout her term in this parliament is the eradication of this pernicious culture of jobs for mates. We've seen it play out time and time again across many, many decades, and, again, the people of Australia are asking us to do better. The minister quite rightly laid out the very detailed qualifications, the resumes that would be required in order for someone to be successful in applying for such a position on this commission. I've got no argument with that. What the member for Mackellar is adding to this debate is an arm's-length transparency mechanism to ensure that there are no political imperatives when it comes to who is appointed to such a commission, and that really matters. It really matters. Many people in this House have spoken to the importance of fairness, of ensuring that no member of parliament's reputation is besmirched unnecessarily. There has been an enormous consultation to try and get this legislation right, and we're nearly there.</p><p>In my second reading speech I spoke of the gratitude I feel for the many people who have contributed to getting us to this point, but, again, I would say to this parliament: take the next step. Get it right while we have the chance to do so. The member for Mackellar is quite right in her argumentation about why these amendments matters, so I stand in support of her today on this one. We have the chance; we should get it completely right, and that amount of getting it right matters to the people who put us in this place. I commend her amendments and I encourage members of parliament to, likewise, support her in her endeavours.</p> <p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>I'd like to respond. We are talking here about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The key is 'independent'. While I absolutely commend the steps that have been taken here with this legislation—that there will be merit based expertise criteria that must be met and that these will need to be advertised—I think the substantive piece of the amendments that I'm moving is the fact that people need to be appointed independently. This is an independent parliamentary standards commission. That is why we need an independent selection panel. It must be done at arm's length. This is an area we don't want to see exploited. We don't want to see a jobs-for-mates culture. It affects people's reputation in this House, so we don't want this to be exploited in any way. We want it to be as trustworthy and as robust as possible, and the absolute key part of the amendments I am moving today is the fact that commissioners should be appointed independently. That is the crux of what I'm calling for with these amendments today.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|