Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (5) and (6), as circulated in my name, together:

(5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

(6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must".

I am a vocal supporter of this bill. I believe overall it's an exceptional model, an excellent model, and I applaud the government for prioritising the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation as top order in their agenda since they came to parliament. We've been waiting a long, long time to see legislation such as this. I thank in particular the Attorney-General for the way in which he has gone about putting this bill together, for the consensus approach he has adopted as best he can, for the many roundtable meetings and for the work of his department and of his staff. This will indeed establish a powerful anticorruption commission. The fact we have worked so hard together across the parliament to pull together what I hope will ultimately be a consensus bill is something I have long called for—that we can, together, bring about this extremely important change.

But it could still be better, and I've long said that I won't finish until the absolute finish line, and we're getting close to that. This bill can be improved before we deliver to the Australian people the National Anti-Corruption Commission they truly deserve: an anticorruption commission that's fit for purpose and that fulfils its role not just now but into the future for many years to come. I urge all members of this House to think very carefully about what our nation has asked us to do and to consider my amendments on their merits. I ask you to support them so that we pass legislation for the best possible integrity body.

Our nation desperately wants to restore its trust in us. I know it does. Part of that is people seeing how we deal with corruption when it comes before us. I would never ask for carte blanche public hearings—not at all. That is not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is that the public get to see, when it's in the public interest, an inquiry of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Amendment (5) will strike out the unnecessary and alarming exceptional circumstances requirement. In my mind, this is the single most important change to this bill. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe. As deputy chair on the committee examining this bill, I sat through almost 40 hours of evidence from integrity experts, former judges past and current, ICAC and IBAC commissioners, and transparency advocates. We heard little support from witnesses or submissions for the exceptional circumstances test and, in fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Sufficient protections are provided by requiring a hearing to be public only when it's in the public interest. Coalition committee members indeed cited fears about grave mental health impacts that may arise from appearing in public, when arguing to keep the exceptional circumstances test. But I would point members to the government amendments which will allow additional protections to seek mental health support, because it is an important concern, and I share it, but the exceptional circumstances clause is not the way to fix it. These concerns can be addressed in a way that enhances protections but does not hide the most critical corruption investigations away in the dark.

That's why amendment (6) will make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider certain factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing caused by a public hearing. This amendment boosts the protection of people who would be affected by the decision to hold a hearing in public. It was supported by the Law Council of Australia. It's already in place for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and in some state anticorruption commissions, including in New South Wales. This amendment was supported by coalition committee members inquiring into the bill. The opposition—and I spoke to them about inserting 'must' instead of 'may'—decided not to proceed, so they have the opportunity to back this amendment. So, if you're concerned about protecting the mental health and reputations of people who may be subject to a public hearing, I urge you to vote for this amendment.

See this speech in context