Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, or the Inspector:

(a) the decision to approve or reject the recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee; and

(b) despite paragraph 173(5)(b), if the votes are equal, the Chair of the Committee does not have a casting vote.

Many of my colleagues have spoken in this debate about the loss of public trust in this place, and they have spoken about the corrosive impact that lack of integrity, accountability and transparency has had on our democracy. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a crucial first step in re-invigorating our democracy and beginning to restore that trust. That's why I'm proud to support this bill and why I'm proud of the contribution of communities like mine in making this reform a reality. This is a good bill, but it is not perfect.

Members on all sides have spoken about the importance of the NACC's independence and particularly the independence of the commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspectors who will each play a crucial role in rooting out corruption in public life. Their independence is crucial. But, as currently drafted, it is possible that appointments to all these positions could be politicised. This is because the government of the day will always have the majority on the parliamentary committee that oversees and confirms these appointments. Even if an appointment is opposed by all non-government members of the committee, it could be waved through regardless. This is not independence.

When the Australian public voted in May for more integrity in politics, they did not vote for a captain's pick for the role of the NACC commissioner, but that is what this legislation currently provides for. And when people tell me that this kind of politicisation won't happen with the NACC, that this time it's different, I'm afraid my community wants more than verbal reassurance.

I acknowledge the earlier words of the Attorney-General in relation to an amendment similar to this moved by the member for Indi. In that speech he noted that the parliament 'operates by a majority vote'. That is obviously how the parliament works; however, I also note that you have acknowledged and criticised the politicisation of key appointments made in this parliament by governments in the past. Twenty per cent of the AAT's 320 tribunal members have a direct political connection to the government that appointed them. Half the Productivity Commission's board members have a political connection to the coalition, and members on both sides of the House have called out the Fair Work Commission for being stacked in favour of one party or the other. We had verbal reassurances that all these bodies would be independent from government, but that is clearly not the case. It is clear that no-one can guarantee that the government of the day won't put the interests of the party ahead of the interests of the country.

Politicisation damages public institutions and our democracy, and we cannot afford to undermine the NACC. My amendment addresses the risk of such politicisation without affecting the government's control over the parliamentary committee's other functions. It prevents the committee's chair from having the casting vote when it comes to appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector. That means the majority of all committee members would be required to approve these appointments, including at least one crossbench or opposition member. My amendment will ensure that the people chosen for these critical roles enjoy multipartisan support and that they are truly independent from government. It is a commonsense way to ensure this commission delivers what the public expects. I call on the government to support it.

See this speech in context