Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from the member for Wills, because they are doing—

An honourable member interjecting—

Not quite yet, although I know that you'd like to be there! But then you wouldn't have to put up with me in the PJCIS.

The issue of foreign bribery is one that goes to the heart of foreign interference and influence in this country. It's not just a matter of corporate crime. It's a matter for politicians and political parties; it's a matter for government, it's a matter for bureaucracy; it's a matter for all Australians, families and their businesses. What makes it a challenge to address is that red tape and complex corporate arrangements make it difficult to get to the bottom of cases and to enforce wrongdoing.

When we tabled the bill last time when in government, we said that the opaque and sophisticated nature of corporate crime can make it difficult to identify and easy to conceal, through complicated structures and transactions. We said investigations into corporate misconduct can be hampered by the need to process large amounts of complex data, including evidence that may be held overseas. Court proceedings can be protracted, expensive and involve well-resourced corporate defendants. We said that the measures in the bill, at the time, seek to address these challenges and remove undue impediments to the successful investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery cases. It is the same now.

The bill before us creates a new offence for corporations that fail to prevent foreign bribery, which carries a maximum penalty of $27.5 million. We absolutely must hold corporations to account when they squander Australians' goodwill, when they accept foreign bribes and abuse the trust of the Australian people by committing such offences. But harsh penalties and strongly worded legislation amounts to nothing if it can't be enforced.

Labor have weakened this bill by preluding deferred prosecution agreements. A deferred prosecution agreement, DPA, allows a prosecuting body to negotiate conditions with a defendant in exchange for deferral of a prosecution, potentially indefinitely. They often involve paying a significant fine and making changes to the way business is done. If the conditions aren't met, the prosecution can be re-enlivened.

International consensus is that these agreements are an essential tool in the prosecution of foreign bribery. We saw that with the US Department of Justice and Airbus that I talked about earlier—a $3.9 billion fine. Yet this government thinks that, despite the United States having DPAs, the Attorney-General knows better. He knows better than a tried, proven and successful mechanism that is working, seeing record penalties holding the corporate world to account in an environment where the world is awash with money being spent, particularly, in the defence sector.

The Law Council of Australia, Transparency International, even Austrade, an Australian government agency, agree that a DPA is necessary. They are an invaluable tool to punish offenders, deter offences and disrupt complex and organised crimes, where this would not necessarily be possible. Not only is enforcement difficult but prosecution is incredibly hard. We're talking about multiple jurisdictions and, sometimes, multiple nations, as we saw with Airbus. We're talking about intensive investigations with deep forensic accounting, extensive paper trails and, oftentimes, the need for specialist cyberinvestigation skills. And we're talking about the Australian government logjammed, tied up and financially invested in protracted and uncertain litigation for years.

A DPA is about more than efficiency; it's about efficacy and ensuring that Australia's justice system is functional. It's about actually holding people to account for their misconduct instead of just throwing their cases in the too-hard basket. It's about countering foreign interference and influence to bolster our sovereignty and national security. Our own head of ASIO, the Director-General of Security, has identified that foreign interference is the greatest threat posed to the security of this nation, yet the government doesn't want to introduce deferred prosecution agreements. It just beggars belief.

What we have proposed is a requirement that, before a DPA could be executed, a former judge would need to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement were fair, reasonable, proportionate and in the interests of justice. The Attorney-General himself made clear that this bill is meant to enhance implementation of the OECD antibribery convention. However, in 2021, the OECD council itself expressly recommended that foreign bribery provisions consider using non-trial resolutions to improve the prosecution of foreign bribery. How much evidence do they want? This is so typical of those opposite. They say it's about accountability, but they fail to make the accountability mechanism functional. They say it's about enhancing compliance with the OECD convention but have opted not to include the one component they indicated would be most helpful.

It's a simple solution to a massive problem, and Labor have refused to support it. Why do government members opposite refuse to support DPAs? It's because it was our suggestion. This lot are so politically driven by ideology that they just will not accept a good idea if it's been put forward by us. Members opposite need to wake up to themselves and look at the good that can be brought to bear against bribery and corruption. Listen to yourselves. Go and replay the tapes of what you talked about at the last election. Listen to what you said about accountability and transparency. It would be really interesting to see if we hear any teals speaking on this bill—the teals who talked in such a high and mighty way about integrity and accountability. Let's see what the teals have to say about holding the government to account on introducing, or agreeing to, the amendments that we're moving in relation to the deferred prosecution mechanism.

This is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing—the sensible thing—and I'm looking forward to listening to the member for Wills, who's going to make a contribution where he'll stand up, put his hand on his heart and say: 'We got it wrong. This is what we'll do. It's a good submission by Mr Wallace. We will accept the recommendation, and we will accept deferred prosecution agreements because that is the sensible way to go.'

See this speech in context