Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak to this bill, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, and a related bill. The Albanese government has presented a model for the NACC in its first six months, a model which is much stronger and much more independent than that proposed by the previous government.

I congratulate the Attorney-General and his team for the speed, dedication and commitment that they have displayed in bringing this legislation to this place. In this last sitting period for the year, the parliament has an opportunity to keep faith with the Australian people and to pass this legislation for a national anti-corruption commission. It's a very exciting moment for this parliament.

Integrity in government was high on the agenda in this year's election. In my electorate of Kooyong, the integrity and transparency of our federal government was a leading concern, along with urgent action on climate change and women's equality. There are, however, three residual areas of particular of concern in this legislation. They are of concern because they go to the issue of trust. Public confidence in a government's ability to govern fairly, transparently and with integrity underpins the success of its every policy. To prevent perceptions of interference, governance of the NACC, including appointment of its commissioner and allocation of its budget, should be beyond the reach of the elected government. The NACC must be able to operate independently in order to reinforce its transparency and effectiveness in the public eye and to rebuild public trust in our institutions.

Firstly, the government proposes a committee with broad representation from parliament to oversee appointments to the three key NACC roles. Involvement of all sides of the political spectrum is important in ensuring that these appointments are above reproach. Giving a government member overriding power on this committee renders it vulnerable to influence from a political appointee with a sympathetic ear. The stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with some 88 political appointments by the former government is a salient reminder of the risks of government interference. An appointment committee with broad representation from this parliament, and with decisions made by the majority, would provide assurance of the commission's independence. I know that my crossbench colleagues will be speaking in detail to this really important matter later in this debate.

Secondly, the NACC will be different from other government agencies. Its purpose is scrutiny of our government, but our government is the entity which will decide on its funding. This engenders conflict, and the conflict means that the funding of the NACC cannot, and should not, be dependent on the usual appropriations processes. To ensure that the NACC has the staffing and resources sufficient to discharge its statutory obligations, it has to have sufficient resources to discharge all of those responsibilities to a high standard and in a timely manner. We know that governments can starve oversight bodies of funds through the usual budget processes in order to limit or delay their scrutiny. Claims of underfunding of anticorruption bodies in other jurisdictions in the last few years demonstrate that this is a real possibility. In 2020, the state Auditor-General, reviewing the New South Wales ICAC, decried the absence of an independent adviser on its funding requirements. In Victoria, the head of our own Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, Robert Redlich, has also suggested that funding should be removed from the discretion of the government of the day and given to the parliament.

At a federal level, in recent years we've seen how the previous government responded to the Australian National Audit Office's examination of the sports rorts affair and of a dubious transaction in which $30 million of taxpayers' money was paid to a Liberal donor for land valued at one-tenth of that sum, to name just two of the rorts that we saw with the previous government. What did that government do when the ANAO identified these rorts? It cut its funding. It also cut funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. It cut funding to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It cut funding to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I could go on and on, but I only have 15 minutes.

What is the solution? The solution is to safeguard the funding base of the NACC with legislated annual indexation and with an independent parliamentary body reviewing the agency's requests for greater funding. This is the basis for the amendment which I move today. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to set a funding floor for the NACC which is equal to the amount allocated to the NACC in the 2022-23 Budget; and ensures that the annual budget for the NACC includes a minimum indexation which is not less than the annual CPI".

This amendment calls on the government to set a funding floor for the NACC equivalent to that allotted to it in the 2022-23 budget and to ensure appropriate indexation of the NACC's annual budget. This would ensure that subsequent governments can't cause this important body to die a miserable death by a thousand budget cuts. A budget mechanism independent of the executive government will ensure that our National Anti-Corruption Commission is robust and viable and able to do its job.

Thirdly, the arguments for public hearings are fundamentally about transparency. Public hearings are an opportunity to see our anticorruption mechanisms in operation, particularly in cases that do not meet the criteria for prosecution in the courts, in which public hearings are, of course, the norm. They can expose systemic failings of government of the sort that we're currently seeing with the robodebt royal commission. They can set a standard for public servants of the level expected and desired by our constituents and by the public. Politicians should be held to a higher ethical and behavioural standard than other members of the public, not a lower one.

The late inclusion of the exceptional circumstances clause in proposed section 73 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill is disappointing. 'Exceptional' is not defined. In effect, all investigations under the NACC will be unusual, given that its primary remit is to investigate serious or systemic corruption. Proposed section 73 separately mandates a public interest test aimed at protecting reputations, safety and security. So exceptional circumstances are separate to the question of public interest. The effect of this is to set the bar too high for there realistically to be any public hearings. Should a brave commissioner attempt to exercise her discretion to hold public hearings, the potential is there for witnesses to initiate potentially drawn-out litigation on the meaning of the term 'exceptional circumstances', which will render the process unproductive and expensive. The Victorian IBAC is the only state or territory integrity commission to have this test, and it has told us that the exceptional circumstances test has the effect of placing an artificial limit on the IBAC's ability to conduct examinations.

We do need to have public hearings when they are in the public interest. Australians need to see the checks and balances of our government in action and to hear the evidence of its investigations at first hand, without media filters or political spin. Without these areas being addressed, we risk having a NACC which does not fully give the country what it really wants: a strong, independent body which will re-establish our faith in the transparency and the integrity of our public institutions.

This is not just a test of the Albanese government; this is a test of every member of both houses of our federal parliament. Your votes for a stronger NACC will be a public record of the importance that you place on restoring trust. This is an opportunity for our parliament to keep faith with the Australian people and to build an independent and transparent anticorruption body as a pillar of accountable government. The last election was largely about climate, but it was also about trust. Our public institutions suffer from a chronically low level of public trust, and so I say to my parliamentary colleagues, on both sides of both houses: this is your opportunity to keep faith with the Australian people.

The NACC will not just expose corruption; it will expose weaknesses in our systems and, importantly, it will set the standard for what integrity in our government looks like. The amendments that I and other members of the crossbench are submitting are the checks and balances required to safeguard the reputation of our National Anti-Corruption Commission and to ensure that we have an anticorruption body that all members of this parliament can be proud of. This will be our legacy to future Australians. This is the way to restore trust. When we all return to our electorates, they'll know how we voted for this amendment. They'll know if we were prepared to stand in the light. They'll know if we were happy to provide this important body with the assurance of the appropriate funding that it needs and deserves.

I'd like to finish by circling back to the significance of this legislation. In 2012, the people of Indi banded together to elect Cathy McGowan, an Independent who pledged action on integrity in government. Her lead was then taken by Helen Haines, a much-respected member of this place, who fought with tenacity and grace on this most important of issues during a time in which the previous government was not interested in engaging on this important issue in any meaningful way. More recently, a record number of electorates around Australia have acted, singly but simultaneously, to elect Independent representatives chosen by their communities.

In 2022, a people-powered coalition of the willing and the passionate came together and listened to the voices of my electorate. The people of Kooyong told me that integrity and transparency was one of their most significant concerns. The people of Kooyong want to be able to trust their government. The people of Kooyong want to be proud of their government. I'm privileged to be in this House and to have the opportunity to support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. The people of Kooyong voted for this law, and I'm proud to be able to deliver it. I commend my amendment to the House, and I thank the government for the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation.

See this speech in context