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

I move:

That this House:

(1) agrees that effective politics requires constructive debate and consensus building on policy challenges and roadblocks that, if left unresolved, undermine the national interest;

(2) commends the Menzies-Calwell club for facilitating consensus-driven, cross-parliamentary policy discussions that do not regress into ineffectual, politically polarised rhetoric;

(3) reaffirms that establishing a robust federal integrity commission during this parliament well before the next election is essential to arresting the declining public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in the democratic system;

(4) notes that, according to the Beechworth Principles and the motion agreed to by the Senate on 9 November 2020, a federal integrity commission must have:

(a) broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector;

(b) common rules for all public officials;

(c) strong investigative powers and procedural fairness safeguards;

(d) an ability to hold public hearings when in the public interest;

(e) direct avenues for public referrals and an ability to commence investigations independently based on those referrals;

(f) strong whistleblower protections;

(g) adequate and secure funding to be able to fulfil its purpose; and

(h) oversight by a multi-party parliamentary committee, including of the appointment of commissioners, and an independent parliamentary inspector to ensure accountability to the people; and

(5) encourages Members of Parliament to debate the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 as a robust consensus package that all parliamentarians can engage with, in good faith, as a non-aligned private member's bill that answers the strong call from the Australian public for a robust federal integrity commission.

Parliamentary debate on integrity always hits a nerve. If you witnessed the matter of public importance debate on integrity this House held some months ago, you would know how swiftly rhetoric-driven debates descend into unconstructive name-calling and insinuation. The spirit of this motion is different. I want to thank in advance those speaking to this motion from the government side for their resolve to have this debate in a respectful manner—the member for Goldstein, the member for Bass, the member for Bennelong and other members on the government side who also wished to speak but could not secure a spot. I thank the member for Bennelong, in particular, for his leadership of the Menzies-Calwell club, who met to discuss the merits of a robust federal integrity commission and how to carve a path forward for that vision. This motion reflects the collaborative ethos that defines my politics as an independent member of the crossbench. This is how we write legislation we can all get behind, without ambushing one another or negotiating concessions in secret.

The 'bring on debate' campaign that started in my electorate of Indi is calling on parliament to debate the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill I introduced last month. Two weeks ago I met with the Attorney-General in his capacity as Leader of the House, to ask him to allow debate, but he refused. There are many MPs on both sides of the House who are still committed to that debate. It's actually quite clear what most MPs are looking for in an integrity bill—a broad jurisdiction that covers criminal and non-criminal corruption; common rules for all, with no exceptionalism for MPs and their staff; strong investigative powers and procedural fairness safeguards; the ability to hold public hearings when in the public interest; public referrals and powers to self-initiate investigations; strong whistleblower protections; adequate and secure ongoing funding; and oversight by a parliamentary committee and independent inspector. These principles, which are embedded in the AFIC bill, are not new. The Senate has agreed to these principles. MPs from across the House have come to meet with me to support these principles through the Beechworth principles process I've run since February this year. The Australian Federal Police Association support these principles. The national integrity committee of former judges from the High Court, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court from across the nation support these principles. Transparency International Australia support these principles. I could spend the five-minute allocation listing the supporters.

Just this morning, Professor AJ Brown launched Australia's second national integrity system assessment, which classifies the public hearing provisions in the AFIC bill as best practice. Those who have read the AFIC bill closely and have compared it to the state ICACs know that the AFIC bill builds on and improves lessons learnt in the states. Those MPs who worked with me to draft the AFIC bill know that treating AFIC the same as any state ICAC model is a total mischaracterisation. AFIC is focused on safeguards and protecting the public interest. It has special provisions to ensure personal reputations are not needlessly tarnished, including the right to request a private hearing. It includes special provisions for persons who are exonerated following an investigation. It includes protections against vexatious and frivolous claims, and it includes protections for those who are unknowingly caught up in corruption scandals or are forced to act beyond their will, such as junior staffers and frontline staff.

AFIC is a carefully crafted bill. Findings from the national integrity assessment released this morning show Australians increasingly view corruption as a major problem. The figure rose from 61 per cent in 2018 to 66 per cent in 2020. The proportion of those who believe the federal government is handling corruption issues very badly has also risen in the same time period—from 15 per cent to 19.4 per cent. Over 80 per cent of Australians want a robust federal integrity commission now as a matter of urgency. Through bushfires, the coronavirus and border closures, the people of Indi continue to implore me to pursue the AFIC bill and a better culture of integrity in federal politics. I will continue to heed their call, and I look forward to hearing from other members today whose constituents implore them to do the same.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

I call the member for Goldstein.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, for pronouncing the word 'Goldstein' correctly. This may seem like pedantry but it's actually incredibly important. The electorate of Goldstein is named after a suffragette, Vida Goldstein. I can say with absolutely confidence that that's how her name is pronounced because, in my research for my first speech, I actually found an article from 1904 where she articulated not only how to pronounce her surname correctly but, more critically, how frustrated she was when people did not, which is why I've taken it upon myself to always correct people who do not, sometimes probably to my own detriment. But I would have thought that, as part of the celebration of the historical figures of our great nation, all members of this parliament, in particular, would take heed of fighting for the rights of women to vote, to buy property and to enter marriage on the same terms as men.

We need to start this debate by acknowledging that every member of this chamber, and, of course, every member of the Senate as well, I would certainly hope, opposes corruption. The purpose for which we are elected to this parliament should categorically be to stand up for and advance the interests of the people of Australia. We will have our differences of opinion about what those best interests are and what the national interest is, but it does not have the objective of personal gain; it does not have the objective of achieving some sort of untoward end that isn't befitting of the public interest.

We need to make sure that the framework of oversight when people step over the line or do wrong is appropriate and proportionate so that it catches out wrongdoing. Sadly and unfortunately, that often isn't what has occurred at a state level, where legitimate issues have not been pursued—and I talk here particularly about the case of New South Wales. More critically, the use of corruption bodies should not become a pathway for show trials and public prosecutions against which people have limited recourse. We all saw this recently in one of the most disgraceful public acts I have ever seen. A New South Wales premier, who was a witness, not a person of investigation or interest, was dragged through a public trial, taken before an anticorruption hearing, and their personal life was used effectively as a political weapon. I think it is disgraceful. If there is corruption, there should be an investigation.

When the police conduct an investigation of criminal behaviour, they don't do so in the full public square because they need to build a case. Anticorruption bodies should build that case. If there is one that is entirely legitimate and reasonable and should be referred to a public prosecutor then should they do so. The matter, if a case is brought, then goes to court, where there is a proper trial. But to do investigations as the basis of a public debate simply seeks to tarnish people's reputations without any justification. We know specifically the conduct of the shadow Attorney-General: whenever anybody does anything in this place and he disagrees with it, he refers people off to the Australian Federal Police. He has a pad, like a dodgy doctor issuing dodgy prescriptions. It's all he does whenever he wants to score a political point and he is prepared to use any institution as a means of publicly prosecuting his argument. He has even referred me onto a case which was simply absurd and ridiculous if he had thought about it for more than about 10 seconds but it didn't stop him doing so because he sees these institutions as vehicles for political attack. If you want an anticorruption body that has integrity and has public confidence, you cannot provide a pathway where it can be used as a point of public attack. That goes for any member in this chamber, it goes for any member in the other chamber and it goes to the heart of whether you want to have a system of integrity.

I know the independent member for Indi wishes to have her bill debated and is more than entitled to make that argument. But at the same time, members of this chamber who were elected in this government went to the people of their electorates and said they would debate, negotiate and support a piece of legislation brought forward by the government. They want us to break the trust we took to the people, but we are not just breaking the trust and the relationship we had with the people at the last election simply to indulge the member, who did not get a number of members successfully elected with her party.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion by the member for Indi and, in particular, I would like to use this time to talk about the Menzies-Calwell club that is very much championed not only by the member for Indi but also the member for Bennelong, who is also here today, and a number of other honourable members. This club is about bringing together all sides of politics to talk about policy ideas and not to regress into partisan point scoring. It is a club or a connection open for all, and they meet every Tuesday lunchtime. The name recognises the extraordinary friend between two former members, two gentlemen: the late Robert Menzies, the longest serving Prime Minister of Australia, and the then Leader of the Opposition Arthur Calwell.

In September 2009 The Conversation's Michelle Grattan made a podcast with the daughters of these two gentlemen, Heather Henderson nee Menzies and Dr Mary Elizabeth Calwell. I would urge anyone who is interested in politics to find it and listen to it. It is free and it is really quite inspiring. The women share personal stories of their fathers and talk about that extraordinary friendship of those two gentlemen. The women were honest and open and acknowledged the friendship had its rough moments, such as during the Vietnam War, but it endured. Why did it endure? Well, because, for one, they respected each other. While they may not have agreed, they recognised the other person's point of view as a legitimate alternative. Politics was less about personality and it was more about policy because we had an impartial and objective Public Service that was able to give free and frank advice. Interestingly, the daughters also remarked on the absence of political staffers, who they think were perhaps a little less helpful as far as supporting the connection between members of parliament in this place. It endured because Calwell and Menzies recognised the importance of empathy, knowledge and experience. Perhaps it was a gentler time. Perhaps it was a time when people were just more respectful of each other.

I know that my community want to see politicians in this place work together. They hate the bickering. They hate watching question time. They hate the noise, the shouting and the performance. They want to see us work together for the good of the nation, and I think that's what Menzies and Calwell wanted to see. My community—and I think this speaks for many communities in Australia—don't want to see political pointscoring or factional games or the idea that we won't put something forward just because it's not done by the ruling party. They want to see this place used for what it should be used for, and that is the contest for great ideas and the contest for debate. As someone who sits on the crossbench and who often sees herself as a bit like the Switzerland of the parliament—and I think that is probably something that most crossbenchers feel about themselves—I can say that we don't do tribal politics. That means that we're open to talking to any member of parliament about good ideas—because we are all here for the same people. We all have the same employers—the people who elect us.

I hope that this motion encourages some new members to come along to the Menzies-Calwell lunch and to perhaps reflect on those great gentlemen of times gone by, to perhaps debate pieces of legislation or at least have a robust discussion about what a federal integrity commission should look like; and to perhaps be a little honest with each other around integrity in this place and how we lift ourselves up and how we lift each other up in order for this to be a better place and for us to be better representatives. So I commend the member for her motion, and I look forward to continuing to sit down at the table at the Menzies-Calwell lunch.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago I was fortunate to be invited by the Multicultural Society of Tasmania to discuss the role of the federal government and, more specifically, my role as the federal representative in our northern Tasmanian community. There were a lot of great questions asked; however, there was quite a focus on trust in government and trust in those elected to represent our constituents.

Trust in government is paramount. There is no better example of this than what we have seen this year with state and federal governments asking much of our communities in order to keep us all safe. We have asked for people to stay away from loved ones; to put a halt on activities, from sport to entertainment, that bring joy to so many; and to take on the extra responsibility of home-schooling while also working—all to keep our communities healthy. It was incredibly pleasing to see how communities listened and trusted the government's advice and adhered to these best practices, which has put our country in a situation that seems so different to what other Western countries are battling right now. We, as elected representatives, cannot take this trust for granted and nor should we be above reproach. Like the member for Indi, I do believe that establishing a robust federal integrity commission is essential to arresting the declining public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in the democratic system.

Our government is committed to establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission to enhance accountability across the public sector. Earlier this month, the government released an exposure draft of the legislation to establish the CIC for extensive public consultation. The draft legislation is the result of detailed planning to ensure that the new body has both the resources and the powers it needs to investigate allegations of criminal corrupt conduct that could occur across the public sector. Proper and thorough consultation is essential to ensuring a robust commission. A thorough consultation process has been taken in the lead-up to the draft legislation, and the government has said it is committed to further national comprehensive consultation. As part of this, a series of consultation sessions is being arranged for the law enforcement and public sector groups that would be regulated under the legislation, as well as roundtable meetings with civil society representatives, academia and other stakeholder representatives from all states and territories.

I welcome the member for Indi's contribution to this debate and I appreciate her putting forward such a comprehensive proposal. It's important to point out that our government's proposed integrity commission has some broad consistency with many of the principles that inform the member for Indi's AFIC Bill. Specifically, the CIC will be an independent statutory agency with broad jurisdiction over the federal public service and members of parliament and their staff. It will have appropriate powers, with the CIC to be given powers greater than those of a royal commission. And it will provide expert capability to investigate allegations of corruption within the public sector, including conduct that occurred before the establishment of the CIC.

However, I note that it does depart from the member for Indi's approach in some critical areas, including on the issues of retrospectivity, how corrupt conduct is defined, and on the issue of public hearings. It's my hope that the government and the member for Indi can work together to find some common ground on these issues.

As I mentioned to audience members at the multicultural society last week, Australia has a solid anticorruption reputation. It is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, including in the most recent Corruption Perceptions Index, where we're ranked equal 12th with Canada, the UK and Austria. However, despite the trust shown in our government during the global pandemic, we must continue to be accountable and transparent as elected representatives. The draft legislation is a step in the right direction, but I look forward to reviewing the appropriate changes and updates after further consultation with key stakeholders in 2021.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for putting the motion to the House. Consensus politics is vitally important to a functioning democracy. Yes, debate and disagreement are also a part of it, but we need to get beyond political point-scoring and party divisions. Martin Luther King Junior summed up the role of a leader well. He said that a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a moulder of the consensus. The role of a leader is to recognise the issues important to the population and to the national interest and mould the consensus for the good of the nation.

On so many issues and some of the most important in our times we've seen bitterly divided politics for far too long. This has driven stagnation on key issues, which is not in the national interest. The issues of a federal integrity commission and climate change are two of the primary examples where it is in the national interest to set a clear policy and take action. Over 80 per cent of Australians want clear policy direction and action on both of these issues, according to the Australia Institute. I suggest that, given a free vote, the majority of parliamentarians in this place would also like to vote for action on these issues.

Yet party divisions and an inability or unwillingness to achieve consensus have dragged our parliament into disrepute. We've not demonstrated leadership or ability to mould the consensus. Time and again it's been left to the crossbench to lead the charge on these important issues––to do the hard work, lead independent consultation, develop legislation and present it to the parliament for debate.

The Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill present a strong and well supported model for integrity. The need for this legislation was emphasised by the release of the Transparency International Australia report just today Australia's national integrity system: the blueprint for action. The report found that the corruption perception score for Australia has declined eight points since 2012. Correspondingly, in the last two years alone the percentage of Australians who think that corruption in government is a quite big or very big problem has increased by five per cent to 66 per cent. That's a large proportion of the population that has a strong belief that there is corruption in our government.

That is not being helped by the government's reaction to investigations, I suggest respectfully. Rather than increased transparency of grants, they've removed the concept of merit from the criteria upon which grants are provided. Similarly, the creation of a national cabinet in the place of COAG has further obfuscated the discussions and agreements made between federal, state and territory governments. We see an increasing of the veil of secrecy around government. Instead of increasing that secrecy, we need to look closely at the actions outlined in the blueprint to urgently address the issue of corruption and the absence of integrity in the country. Many of those actions are mirrored in the Australian federal integrity commission legislation presented by the member for Indi and referenced in the motion.

Similarly, the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 presents a proven model for addressing the challenges of climate change, having been implemented in the UK and New Zealand and now tabled in Canada. This bill is up for inquiry by the House Committee on the Environment and Energy, and submissions are numerous and continue. My intent for this inquiry is an opportunity to build consensus around the need to have sensible legislation on climate change. It's well past due.

These bills, the climate change bill and the AFIC Bill, are aimed at bringing the parliament together around a non-partisan platform to address some of the most important challenges that we face today. The strength of the crossbench is that it lies in between the two major parties. I agree with the member for Mayo that it often feels like Switzerland. We can be the consensus builders. We listen to our constituents and to the Australian public more broadly and bring to the fore the issues that they care about most. We work with both sides to lead and shape a consensus. We do the hard yards to garner support and consult with the community.

While the government may be hesitant to adopt the exact legislation tabled by those of us on the crossbench, the consensus that we are able to build smooths the way for similar legislation to be implemented shortly thereafter. The pressure built by crossbenchers on these key issues of national importance is key to shaping consensus on significant issues and driving change. As a member of the crossbench, it's really important for the Prime Minister and the government to work with all members of parliament to ensure that leadership in government is on behalf of all Australians, to shape the consensus in the best interest of the nation.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Indi for bringing forward this important and time-sensitive debate. You'll notice that I'm standing very close to the centre, where common sense dwells. I'd like to thank the member for bringing forward this debate in the name of the Menzies-Calwell group. For the uninitiated, the Menzies-Calwell group is a group of MPs who meet for lunch on Tuesdays to discuss in an open and bipartisan manner. We take our name and tradition from the group's namesakes, when they were Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition respectively—and respectfully. Every Friday, they would meet for lunch to discuss the affairs of the day to ensure that the two parties could work well together. They would listen to each other with respect and they would set politics aside. We'll be meeting again tomorrow in the Members' Dining Room, and all MPs and senators are welcome and encouraged to attend, on the condition that politics are left at the door. Politics is forbidden in the Menzies-Calwell group, but policy most certainly is not. We want to develop ideas, not just exercise our debating skills, for the betterment of our communities and all of Australia.

When meeting in the name of friendship—with colleagues regardless of party, or even if you don't have a party—and bipartisanship, integrity is the virtue we all hold dear. Integrity in parliament is something we all want to and need to improve upon. Polls always show that faith in politics and its institutions, but especially politics, is at an all-time low. Dwindling majorities for the main parties and the growth of minor parties demonstrate how people are turning their back on politics as it has been. They are turned off by the way we engage with each other and, through the game of politics, rarely make good progress. It is a stinging message that we all should hear.

Of course, it's not just politicians who need to be checked in on. One hat I wear is the Chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. As such, the behaviour of public officials at Western Sydney Airport has come up before my recent inquiry. We have seen much about this on the news recently, but there is a broader undercurrent of fortunate speculators pocketing huge sums of taxpayer funds on the back of government infrastructure. There is a great need for a commission in the infrastructure planning space, and I'll be talking about that very soon. I'm not a lawyer, and while I'm very familiar with courts I prefer the outdoor type, with a bat and a ball! But there is no doubt that such an organisation is necessary for the proper functioning of government.

There are of course two integrity commissions in the mix right now. There is the one that we're discussing today, the Beechworth Principles, and as we all know the government has invested time in putting forward its own version of the CIC. The government's proposed CIC bill is similarly directed towards the objectives that Dr Haines has identified—an independent, effective anticorruption body with wide powers to properly investigate all complaints. The latter is going out to consideration where it will be examined by legal minds far greater than mine. This consultation will be critically important for a bill of this nature, where the broadest considerations must be listened to in order to ensure that any commission that is set up is fit for purpose and does not create any unexpected results. Critically, I would like to call on the government to listen closely to the results of the consultation. This must be an open, transparent and purposeful inquiry. Consultations where the government's suggestions are rubberstamped and recommendations are swept under the carpet would not only be counterproductive; they would be the embodiment of the problem that this sort of commission is trying to combat.

Before I finish I would like to congratulate the member for Indi for her incredible work on this commission. The effort to put together the foundations of an integrity commission at the same time as being an independent MP without the resources of a major party is an incredible feat. I congratulate you on the impressive fruits of your labours. This debate is important, and it must be open. I thank everyone for being part of this conversation. I hope that by working together in the spirit of Menzies and Calwell we will soon have an integrity commission that is fit for purpose.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers on this motion, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made on order of the day for the next sitting.