Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, for pronouncing the word 'Goldstein' correctly. This may seem like pedantry but it's actually incredibly important. The electorate of Goldstein is named after a suffragette, Vida Goldstein. I can say with absolutely confidence that that's how her name is pronounced because, in my research for my first speech, I actually found an article from 1904 where she articulated not only how to pronounce her surname correctly but, more critically, how frustrated she was when people did not, which is why I've taken it upon myself to always correct people who do not, sometimes probably to my own detriment. But I would have thought that, as part of the celebration of the historical figures of our great nation, all members of this parliament, in particular, would take heed of fighting for the rights of women to vote, to buy property and to enter marriage on the same terms as men.

We need to start this debate by acknowledging that every member of this chamber, and, of course, every member of the Senate as well, I would certainly hope, opposes corruption. The purpose for which we are elected to this parliament should categorically be to stand up for and advance the interests of the people of Australia. We will have our differences of opinion about what those best interests are and what the national interest is, but it does not have the objective of personal gain; it does not have the objective of achieving some sort of untoward end that isn't befitting of the public interest.

We need to make sure that the framework of oversight when people step over the line or do wrong is appropriate and proportionate so that it catches out wrongdoing. Sadly and unfortunately, that often isn't what has occurred at a state level, where legitimate issues have not been pursued—and I talk here particularly about the case of New South Wales. More critically, the use of corruption bodies should not become a pathway for show trials and public prosecutions against which people have limited recourse. We all saw this recently in one of the most disgraceful public acts I have ever seen. A New South Wales premier, who was a witness, not a person of investigation or interest, was dragged through a public trial, taken before an anticorruption hearing, and their personal life was used effectively as a political weapon. I think it is disgraceful. If there is corruption, there should be an investigation.

When the police conduct an investigation of criminal behaviour, they don't do so in the full public square because they need to build a case. Anticorruption bodies should build that case. If there is one that is entirely legitimate and reasonable and should be referred to a public prosecutor then should they do so. The matter, if a case is brought, then goes to court, where there is a proper trial. But to do investigations as the basis of a public debate simply seeks to tarnish people's reputations without any justification. We know specifically the conduct of the shadow Attorney-General: whenever anybody does anything in this place and he disagrees with it, he refers people off to the Australian Federal Police. He has a pad, like a dodgy doctor issuing dodgy prescriptions. It's all he does whenever he wants to score a political point and he is prepared to use any institution as a means of publicly prosecuting his argument. He has even referred me onto a case which was simply absurd and ridiculous if he had thought about it for more than about 10 seconds but it didn't stop him doing so because he sees these institutions as vehicles for political attack. If you want an anticorruption body that has integrity and has public confidence, you cannot provide a pathway where it can be used as a point of public attack. That goes for any member in this chamber, it goes for any member in the other chamber and it goes to the heart of whether you want to have a system of integrity.

I know the independent member for Indi wishes to have her bill debated and is more than entitled to make that argument. But at the same time, members of this chamber who were elected in this government went to the people of their electorates and said they would debate, negotiate and support a piece of legislation brought forward by the government. They want us to break the trust we took to the people, but we are not just breaking the trust and the relationship we had with the people at the last election simply to indulge the member, who did not get a number of members successfully elected with her party.

See this speech in context