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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes;

(2) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) collusive tendering;

(b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources;

(c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage;

(d) defrauding the public revenue;

(e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official.

(3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 24), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not".

(4) Clause 8, page 15 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)".

These amendments are really important. They put beyond doubt that pork-barrelling falls within the definition of 'corrupt conduct' when it meets the threshold of being serious or systemic. Pork-barrelling under this amendment will be defined as any conduct 'that involves the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes'.

Let's call pork-barrelling out for what it is. It is buying votes with taxpayer money. It doesn't pass the pub test. My constituents are stumped as to why it still goes on. The public are sick and tired of it, because they know that every time a marginal electorate gets pork-barrelled important infrastructure in other electorates misses out. They are absolutely sick of it. In the last parliament, I heard the now Attorney-General standing in this place constantly—constantly!—calling out the then government on this. I heard the now Prime Minister do the same thing—constantly calling out pork-barrelling and constantly calling for an anticorruption commission that would fundamentally stop pork-barrelling.

Now that we have this government's National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation, I want to make sure that there is not one element of doubt that the commissioner can, when they determine that this is serious or systemic, go ahead and undertake an investigation into this egregious practice that has been going on across this nation for way too long. There is significant and growing concern about the alleged misuse of billions of dollars of public grant funds, and there should be absolutely no ambiguity regarding the NACC's ability to investigate what is a really, really disgraceful practice.

I want to be clear. This amendment does not force the commissioner to investigate all instances of pork-barrelling—though, I might say, it would be jolly good if there was some way that we could do that! The amendment doesn't do that at all. This amendment retains the discretion of the commissioner as to whether or not to commence an investigation, as it should be. These amendments also ensure that the conduct of any person—and, notably, third persons—that could impair public confidence in public administration can be investigated by the NACC, when it meets the threshold of being serious and systemic. These amendments on third-party involvement which impairs public confidence are really important. This is a tried and true provision in every single anticorruption body in Australia, apart from Western Australia and Tasmania, and it belongs in this body, too.

These are two really important amendments. Members of this place, you haven't got much time left now to make this bill the very, very best it can be. If, like me, you get tired of constituents coming to you when something good does happen in your electorate—the member for Bass talked to me about this yesterday, and it's so true. Members of this place work really hard with government to advocate for excellent policies and excellent infrastructure to come into their electorate. When that happens, to feel like you're then part of this great big bad situation of pork-barrelling actually undermines the good work that happens here, and it doesn't do anything about the bad stuff.

I say to you: if you want to regain the trust of the nation, if you want to walk out in your community and feel that, every time you work hard for them to get the infrastructure they need, it's going to be done in the right way, under clear guidelines and with real integrity, then you should be voting for this amendment, so we make this absolutely crystal clear. Members, think carefully about this one, and think carefully also about third parties and the erosion of public confidence in public officials. We can fix this now. I think the Attorney-General knows what I'm talking about. This is a real opportunity to get this bill as tight as we possibly can, to say to the public, 'We're here for you, right down to the wire, to make sure that we have an anticorruption commission that is absolutely fit for purpose and will restore your trust in us.'

See this speech in context