Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

In the months leading up to the election in 2019, as a first-time candidate I spent a great deal of time speaking to people about the national integrity bill and the national integrity commission, because I believed in it. I believed that it was required and was needed at a federal level. To be perfectly honest, I was quite surprised to find that there wasn't one. Having spent 12 years as a police officer and 18 years as a lawyer, I've always had a governing body watching over me, watching over conduct and watching over my colleagues, and calling out corrupt conduct where they saw it. As I said, it was quite surprising and the reason why I was quite open and was happy to see that the government I ultimately joined was going to push for a national integrity commission.

So it is with some frustration that I now stand here on the other side of the floor, having to talk about amendments and look at the integrity bill being put forward by Labor and the flaws in that bill. It is frustrating that we didn't get it through in our time. To be perfectly honest, it was a missed opportunity, and, if I want to be completely honest, it is one of the reasons we are on this side of the floor. It is imperative that we have the right National Anti-Corruption Commission Act and that it is fit for purpose, and there are a number of sections that concern me greatly that it is not fit for purpose. I can speak from experience because I've actually appeared before commissions in my 18 years as a lawyer. I've acted for those people who have been called to commissions by way of subpoena.

One thing that strikes me as ironic, and is one of the flaws in this bill, is that some of the worst people called before commissions are afforded protections that we see are not afforded to people who are high-profile. That is one of the major things that concerns me about this bill—that it will allow, through the 'exceptional circumstances' test, trial by media. Others across the floor may say, 'That's not going to happen; we've never seen it before.' I can think of three examples right now that I have watched. The first is of former minister Mike Gallacher. He was a former police officer. He was well respected. He left the police and became the minister for police in New South Wales. He was called before the ICAC in New South Wales, and the ICAC counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson SC, accused him of corruption in a public hearing. That was it for him. It didn't matter that he was ultimately exonerated; his career was over. He could have been the Premier of New South Wales, but, because of an allegation in a public hearing, rather than a hearing behind closed doors, to find whether there was a case to answer, his career effectively came to an end. He was, as I said, a well-respected police officer. He lost everything. The Liberal Party lost a good member. He was cleared of all charges but in the real world that meant nothing. There was that taint attached to him. People don't understand that the rules of evidence don't apply. The rules of evidence are paramount in a criminal trial. But before a commission you can make allegations, you can make suggestions and you can make innuendos that will crush not only a person's career but a person's life. It will crush their family.

I move on to extremely skilled and professional senior counsel Margaret Cunneen, in New South Wales. Margaret Cunneen was well known as an officious, professional barrister in the criminal field. Due to a set of circumstances and the fact that the definition of 'corrupt conduct', as in this bill, is ambiguous, is vague, she ended up in ICAC with allegations of a personal nature that bore absolutely no relevance to her professional position and therefore couldn't be defined as corruption. In my view, and in the view of the High Court ultimately, it was an abuse of process, and the High Court found on 15 April 2015 that the authority had misinterpreted the definition of 'corrupt conduct'. Thankfully for Margaret Cunneen, being such a tough woman and well respected in her field, she is still now at the top of her game—senior counsel.

And of course we all know about the former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian, whom I have personally known for over 20 years. Her reputation was dragged through the mud unnecessarily in the interest of the public and a public hearing. There was no reason that they couldn't have taken that evidence in camera, in private, and made a decision—which we're still waiting for, mind you. Gladys Berejiklian has had to stand down, and she'll never be back. Why would she be? She's been dragged through the mud, her personal life thrown all over the TV, the newspapers and social media. We still don't have a result. They could have had that behind closed doors.

Again, I am in support of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. I can say that I was in the police during the police royal commission, and there was a definite need for a police royal commission. I'm not walking away from that. But I did see colleagues whose families were targeted by investigators and terrorised to get evidence from them. It turned husbands against wives. So, we need to ensure that any type of anticorruption bill or anticorruption commission that we have does not do that again. Police officers were having mental breakdowns, institutionalised because of the bastardry and terrorism—the overreach—by the commission and the investigators. That is not what this bill is intended for.

Another flaw in this bill that greatly concerns me is that the bill doesn't make all decisions of the commissioner subject to judicial review, and I believe that is a serious mistake. There are scenarios in which the commissioner would be the sole decision-maker in a matter such as commencing a public hearing. In my view, this is a dangerous precedent based on the examples I've just provided.

Every level of the judiciary, with the exception of the High Court, which is exempt under this act, has a court of review. The local court has the district court reviewing. The district court has the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then why does this commission not have a body review? It is because people make mistakes. People have bias. When those considerations come into play you need that body of review. You need to have the honesty of the High Court to review these decisions so we don't ruin lives, so that people who have been accused of corrupt conduct but who have not engaged in corrupt conduct get a fair trial. As I said, there are no rules of evidence here. Any allegation can be made based on assertions, based on innuendo, and it will destroy lives. To those people who have been corrupt, I can tell you from a lawyer's point of view that when you enter into a commission, an ICAC, rest assured—and this is what I used to my client—they already know the answer to their question. So don't lie.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context