Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to this motion, I say from the outset that I totally understand and accept the concern put up by the member for Melbourne to explain why he is raising this issue. I do not, however, accept and support his motion. The motion and the issue relate to the activity of the banknote marketing company Securency. Securency is half owned by the Reserve Bank of Australia and half owned by UK plastic film manufacturer Innovia. Securency was formed in 1996 to commercialise polymer banknote printing technology that had been jointly developed by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO. I think it is great to think that the CSIRO was involved in the development of the banknotes that are now being used by countries in other parts of the world. In order to win banknote supply contracts between 1999 and 2005 the marketing of the new design of these polymer banknotes began. If a contract is won, I understand that Note Printing Australia, a company 100 per cent owned by the RBA, manufactures the bank notes.

The prosecutions currently underway are the first under Australia's foreign bribery legislation introduced in 1999, and that in itself is quite significant—prosecutions are currently underway based on an act of parliament that was introduced 12 years ago, and this is the first time that it has been used. I understand that six former Securency officials have been charged with offences relating to bribing public officials in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria. I understand further that Malaysian authorities have laid bribery charges against two individuals.

These matters are currently before the courts, and I would expect that the matters are also currently under continuing Australian Federal Policy inquiry. It is my view, and I believe it would be the government's view, that these matters are being properly investigated across international jurisdictions—and, in fact, charges have been laid. To widen the investigation, as the motion proposes, with powers equivalent to a royal commission whilst court proceedings are underway would in my view be inappropriate, regardless of whether it was to be an investigation conducted by a member or former member of the judiciary, by another suitable person or even by a committee of this parliament

As the member for Moncrieff has said, it may be appropriate to widen the investigation subsequent to the court outcomes, but it is not appropriate in the midst of court proceedings. In response to the member for Moncrieff's criticism of the Treasurer, I point out to the House that the alleged offences took place between 1999 and 2005—that is, prior to this government's coming to office and under the watch of the previous coalition government.

I also note, as other members who have spoken have noted, that in 2007 the Reserve Bank of Australia engaged corporate law firm Freehills to carry out a confidential probe of the activities in question. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Freehills found no breach of Australian law involving Note Printing Australia. Of course, we have not seen that advice and we rely on the Reserve Bank's response in respect to it. I further note that since 2008—that is, subsequent to the matters before the courts—Securency and Note Printing Australia have both had a change of chairmanship; the Reserve Bank of Australia's Assistant Governor, Dr Rob Rankin, is now the chairperson.

The member for Melbourne referred to today's Age newspaper, where a story by Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie in which allegations of bribery associated with 2002 and 2004 note printing contracts for the Nepalese government by Note Printing Australia appear. I understand that the Australian Federal Police is also investigating that matter.

This is a serious matter—any allegation of corruption or bribery is serious—and it is reflected by the penalties associated with the matter. However, I say to the member for Melbourne, 'Let us wait to see what the court outcome is before we take this matter further.' (Time expired)

See this speech in context