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.

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.

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.

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.

I acknowledge and thank the minister for allowing some debate on those rapidly introduced amendments from the government, which arrived at the last minute. I would actually be very curious to know what consultation happened in deliberations around this bill about these particular amendments, which firstly define the privileges committee. I’ve got no argument with that. But they’re now seeking—in fact, it’s already gone through—to ensure that we have kind of the equivalent of a supermarket duopoly on the checks and balances when it comes to what is an esteemed reform on the IPSC. The checks and balances now are completely euchred. We’re going to have the same people on the joint select committee as on the privileges committee, and the duopoly maintains its power and control by ensuring that no member of the crossbench can be a deputy chair. What a stitch-up!

I’m really staggered by this. When that happened before, it happened so fast it didn’t seem right. It actually isn’t right. We should have fulsome debate about these amendments because they don’t speak to the integrity of this legislation that we’re voting on today. I’m completely amazed by this, really. If members of this House think that it is okay to now, I think, effectively compromise the privileges committee by doing this, then I’m very surprised and really disappointed in the government. They have rapidly brought these amendments to the House. They’ve now gone through, and I really feel that this has tarnished what is otherwise a significant and important piece of legislation that I was fulsomely supporting. I really wanted to put that on the record.