James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In addressing the matter of public importance, can I start by saying I certainly support having a Commonwealth integrity commission and I strongly support the legislation that we, as a government, have drafted and produced, and it's available for anyone to review online as part of the extensive consultation that has been undertaken on that. It has also been made clear to us that the opposition in this chamber, without sitting down and talking through the issues, have said they have no interest in supporting the bill we have put out for public consultation. That's the reality of where we are right now. It's disappointing because it's important that we don't have a Liberal integrity commission or a Labor integrity commission; we've got to have an institution that is respected, that is endorsed, that everyone supports, that has a robustness. It should be an institution that endures well into the future and should not be designed on any particular short-term objects or political pointscoring in the lead-up to an election campaign. It should be true to its objective, which is to make sure that genuine issues of corruption have a proper dedicated channel through which to be investigated and potentially followed through to prosecution.

Corruption is already a crime at the federal level, and anyone aware of any corruption can raise it with the Australian Federal Police. But it does make sense to have a dedicated independent body focused on investigating serious corruption issues and then deciding whether they think a credible prosecution brief should be given to the Commonwealth DPP, and potentially that will lead to a prosecution in the courts. One of the important things in all of that, in my personal opinion—and I know it's the view of our government—is that there is enormous risk to the reputation of people if, until that point is reached, until that test is met, these bodies can be used to unfairly destroy reputations permanently because of the mere spectre that someone has had a referral to these bodies or even that an investigation is commenced within these bodies. If they ultimately find no evidence for the claims, they can still destroy reputations.

It's very easy for us to learn lessons, because these bodies exist at a state and territory level across the country as we speak. I don't cast any aspersions on particular integrity bodies that are operating around the country already, but I don't think any of them is perfect and I don't think anyone would suggest that any one particular model is perfect. They are all different. They all have some things that some of us would agree with more with than others. But I think there are some fundamental propositions we have to defend in this country, and the first is the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The mere suggestion that someone may be referred to a body for the initial component of an investigation—that could potentially be something that is in the public domain from that point, and that is something that can be used to cast aspersions on that person whether or not they have committed a crime that they have had no chance to defend themselves against but, more importantly, should not be expected to in our society. If we want to end up in a situation where we're going to use these bodies as political weapons so that people can say they've referred you to an ICAC or they've sent a letter to a person claiming that you've done certain things and they want them investigated—those sorts of things can be used as political stunts rather than genuinely creating an integrity body that has at its heart a focus on investigating, uncovering it where it exists, and then presenting briefs of evidence to the authorities for prosecution.

That's what we need to be focused on. We could have a constructive conversation about the model we've presented. We could talk very genuinely about how we can create an institution that is respected, that is seen as having the utmost integrity and that is put in place for the right reasons. Our opponents in this chamber don't want to do that. So now we have a slanging-match over whether to have an ICAC, when we could have one already if those opposite were prepared to indicate an open-mindedness towards the legislation we're ready to introduce into this chamber. We're in this position because we don't have that bipartisanship. I fundamentally believe that some things need to be way above petty politics. This is exactly the sort of thing that should not be about pointscoring in the media; it should be about the genuineness of a body that will properly investigate and root out corruption in our society. (Time expired)

See this speech in context