BILLS - National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 - Second Reading

Ms WARE (Hughes) (20:00): I rise to give my support to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Anticorruption and integrity are intricately linked. Integrity is important. Integrity matters. Transparency in government decision-making matters. Transparency in government decision-making is important. An underlying tenet of our system of democratic government is that Australians have trust in the institution of parliament and in the decision-making of federal parliamentarians—federal parliamentarians elected by Australians to represent their interests and serve them in this place.

Australians have a right and an expectation that public officials, whether elected or from the bureaucracy, will conduct themselves appropriately, with integrity, putting their public duty before any private interests. Integrity within government is intricately linked to transparency, good governance, corruption prevention and, where necessary, investigation into suspected corruption.

In 2018, the independent think tank the Australia Institute reported:

The perception of corruption in Australia is growing, as is public mistrust in government—

and that—

85% of Australians think there is corruption in federal politics

As a member recently elected to this place, that is a perception that greatly concerns me, and one that I wish to assist to change where possible.

In May of this year Australians told us that they expect better from us, their federal parliamentarians. I am a strong advocate for stamping out corruption in all of its forms. I'm also a strong proponent of the rule of law. Corruption undermines democracy. Corruption destroys public trust in institutions. And corruption skews policymaking in the interests of the law.

Corruption comes at both a social and an economic cost. It is appropriate that federal parliamentarians and the bureaucracy are held to the same account as those in state and local governments throughout our country. I say that coming from the state of New South Wales, where we have an Independent Commission Against Corruption. I also say that having worked in the public sector, in local government, within New South Wales.

Now is the time for a national institution to be established to investigate potential corruption at a federal level. I support the principles underlying the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which I will shorten to the NACC, that have been established within this bill. However, it is important we get the balance right. The NACC must be an institution that embraces and enhances our democracy, that enforces Australians' fundamental values of fairness and the rule of law.

The 76 senators and 151 members of this House of Representatives, including the Prime Minister and ministers, will be subject to the NACC—as we should be. But the jurisdiction as currently proposed will also cover the lives of over 7,000 members of the Australian Federal Police, 84,000 members of the Australian Defence Force, over 248,000 Australian public servants, as well as hundreds of thousands of contractors, subcontractors and anyone exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth—everyone, that is, except trade unions.

The job description for those within the Public Service can be summarised easily, looking at the words 'public' and 'service'. We are here as servants to the general public. Working in the public service, whether that be through appointment to a government department or elected as a legislator, is an enormous honour and one which I remain incredibly humbled to play my part in. However, those who abuse their service to the public and derive personal benefit from their position must be held to account. Corrupt behaviour, where individuals have the honour to serve the public, cannot simply be ignored or allowed. While still egregious, the most unfortunate part of corrupt conduct is not the unfair advantage garnered from the corrupt action; it is the loss of public confidence in the public sector. If people are to have faith in the integrity of the decisions made by our public service and elected officials, it is important that any conduct undertaken by these individuals is seen to be above reproach.

Besides the social impacts, there is an economic cost of corruption. PwC has analysed the cost of corruption in Australia to be at around four per cent of our annual GDP. This would mean, in this current year, the figure is at around $69 billion. It is for these reasons—both the social and economic impacts of corruption—that the coalition has supported and continues to support the establishment of the NACC. There are, however, a number of sensible amendments which we believe would allow the NACC to strike the correct balance between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of the everyday people who will be called to come before it.

I do welcome the additional amendments announced by the Attorney-General recently. These include broader protection for journalists, advising a person who has been cleared of investigation of the outcome, and requiring a warrant to be signed off by a superior court judge. There are, however, further safeguards that should be considered by this parliament. And, in all of these considerations, we need to remember that the NACC as proposed will not be a court of law. It will be an arm of the executive, a very powerful arm, and, unlike courts, it potentially strips people off almost all of the rights that are afforded to them in a court. Accordingly, safeguards are important.

I turn first of all to the jurisdiction proposed under the NACC. Inconceivably, trade union officials are not directly included within the jurisdiction as this bill is currently proposed. The coalition will be proposing an amendment that will close that loophole. Why is it, for example, that union officials wouldn't have to answer to the NACC—union officials such as John Setka—but aged-care workers in my electorate, in Kirrawee or Hammondville, would? If it is good enough for aged-care workers to be subject to the jurisdiction of the NACC, it is good enough for trade union officials, and it is inconceivable why, at the moment, that is not proposed.

I turn now to the commissioner. The person appointed to the NACC will have significant powers. The spirit of bipartisanship in which this NACC is being established has been essential to the creation of this new body. The commissioner, whether appointed by this government or future governments, will have enormous capacity—capacity both to do good and to do harm. Therefore, to ensure integrity, and perception of integrity, appointments of the commissioner and the inspector could be made by a three-quarter majority of the parliamentary committee, rather than resting solely with the Attorney-General of the day. Without the support of all sides of government the commission risks being seen as a politicised body and could therefore quickly lose the trust of the public.

The exceptional circumstances in which a public hearing may be conducted has been one of the more contentious parts of this bill. This is a strict test as currently drafted, and it should be. Balancing the private interests of individuals before the commission with the public interest of accountability and good governance is not easy. Nevertheless, it is important; actually, it is an imperative. It would be grossly unfair to apply court-like transparency without court-like rules of evidence. As previously stated, the NACC will not be a court of law. Many of the safeguards within our legal system which have been developed over centuries will not apply to those appearing as witnesses or persons of interest before the NACC.

Particularly I draw attention to some recent examples from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, as it is better known. The intention of the establishment of the ICAC by a Liberal government in 1988 was that no government can maintain its claim to legitimacy while there remains any cloud of suspicion over its activities—a very noble intention. However, our legal system relies heavily on the presumption of innocence, that those accused of a charge can be guaranteed that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the immortal words of Horace Rumpole, the presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through our judicial system. Once upon a time we also thought that it ran through our civil society, but now, particularly with live-streaming and sensationalised, 24-hour news media, the presumption of innocence is often lost. Live streaming of ICAC investigations in New South Wales has meant that in some eyes an investigation into potential corruption has evolved into political weaponisation against both New South Wales MPs and also bureaucrats, and this has included a former senior counsel from the New South Wales bar.

This is what we colloquially refer to as a media circus. I would think that this parliament would wish to avoid some of the problems that have arisen within the New South Wales ICAC framework. In particular I mention one of the best premiers that New South Wales, perhaps even our country, has ever had, in the form of Gladys Berejiklian. In October of last year Ms Berejiklian resigned as Premier concurrently with the ICAC announcing a further investigation by way of public hearing into what was essentially a private relationship she had with a former colleague. The announcement came before any negative finding by the ICAC, before any evidence was released and before any due process in the right to respond to the evidence was afforded to Ms Berejiklian. However, because of the nature of public hearings, Ms Berejiklian felt that her position to remain as Premier while the public hearing was conducted was untenable. Even if the ICAC does not make a finding against Ms Berejiklian, her career as New South Wales Premier and indeed as a New South Wales parliamentarian is over.

Tragically, recently in an ICAC investigation, Operation Galley, also not concluded, a witness involved in the public hearing committed suicide. There was no allegation against him; however, he felt that his honour and reputation had been damaged beyond any redemption, due to the nature of the live streaming and the public hearing. My point here is that there must be a strict test as to when the public hearing provisions are invoked, where people's careers, people's reputations and indeed people's lives are on the line. To that end I support the exceptional circumstances test. The decision for the ICAC to conduct a public inquiry is entirely at the discretion of the commissioner. For those reasons it is important it isn't just a commissioner that decides to commence a public hearing, which would see too much power vested in a single official. Additional measures can be put in place to protect the reputation of some individuals who are adversely named in an investigation, and, to that end, the coalition will put forward amendments that give clear guidelines as to the factors a commissioner should take into account before going down the public hearing route.

To conclude, corruption has both social and economic costs. It is now time that a federal integrity commission is established with powers to investigate corruption. In this House, and in this country, we have a democratic system of government. To ensure confidence in that system of government, it is appropriate that suspicions of corruption are investigated. Overall, this bill, with the foreshadowed amendments, is a good bill. It is good for integrity, it's good for anticorruption, it's good for the public and it's good for Australia. I commend the bill with amendments to this House.