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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to reintroduce the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 to the House.

The purpose of this bill is as vital as it is simple: to establish a robust integrity commission to restore public trust, confidence and pride in the parliament and their democracy.

Now more than ever, we need to pass this bill.

The Australian Federal Integrity Commission model I've proposed in this bill would enable clear and practical responses to allegations of serious and systemic corruption issues at the federal level in the public interest.

In its most recent comprehensive review, the Centre for Public Integrity ranked this bill the best model of an integrity commission in the nation.

AFIC would have appropriate powers to receive referrals, assess allegations, conduct investigations and issue findings.

The bill specifically allows for public referrals.

It is vital that any Australian and all public servants have a reputable body that they can trust with corruption concerns and that will protect them as whistleblowers.

This bill provides just that.

As a safeguard, this bill also includes protections against frivolous, vexatious or otherwise baseless claims. These provisions would allow the commission to vet referrals and protect the reputations of all involved.

AFIC would be retrospective.

I want to be clear: this bill would not apply new laws to past facts. If conduct was criminal at the time, it was criminal at the time. All integrity commissions in this nation are retrospective, and this bill is no different in that regard.

We must be able to examine serious past conduct so we can learn from our mistakes and improve as a democracy.

AFIC also uses a clear, broad and sensible definition of corruption that is fit for purpose, and does not duplicate the work of our criminal justice system.

When it comes to investigations, AFIC must focus on conduct that is serious or systemic in nature.

AFIC will also be empowered to hold public hearings when in the public interest.

Over the past two years, I've spoken with many about their views on public hearings and I've incorporated concerns from both sides of this House into a balanced public interest test in part 5 of the bill to ease those concerns.

For example, all persons called to give evidence will have a rolling right to request a private hearing and can present their reasons for this in private with the commissioner.

The public interest test balances the overarching need for transparency with other factors, such as how serious or systemic the corruption issue is, any unfair exposure of a person's private life and unfair prejudice to personal reputation, even if by simple association with the commission by name during a hearing.

This bill is more refined than any other on the table.

This bill is the culmination of over a decade of prior consultation, over a decade of committee inquiries and over a decade of evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of the ICAC laws that exist in every jurisdiction in this country except this one.

This bill has the endorsement of some of the finest legal minds who have served on the High Court, Federal Court and supreme courts across this nation.

Tomorrow, it will be one year to the day since I first introduced this bill to the House.

It is clear we need a robust federal integrity commission now more than ever, and that the government will not introduce a bill capable of passing this parliament before the election.

It's now been over 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised this nation a robust federal integrity commission.

It's a proposal which, unlike this bill, will put integrity scandals involving politicians and their staff in a black box, never to be heard of again.

The Centre for Public Integrity has described it as 'the weakest watchdog' in the country, and it's been roundly rejected by every expert in the nation.

I've watched on with dismay over the past year as scandals have poured out from both sides of politics.

From branch stacking, to fund rorting and blind trusts, the longer we go without a robust integrity commission, the more the Australian people will lose faith in each and every one of us.

We can do so much better.

With respect to colleagues on all sides, a bill for a federal integrity commission from a major party would almost certainly descend into partisan games and mudslinging.

An important reform like this is much better coming from the crossbench where we can foster bipartisanship.

Australians do not want to head into the next election without a robust federal integrity commission.

This is the way we can deliver it.

If the government, including members of the backbench, want to deliver for their constituents and the Australian people, then it's incumbent upon them to support this bill.

We can debate it. We can amend it. But this is the bill.

I commend this bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I am very proud to second this bill to establish an Australian federal integrity commission, presented by the member for Indi. The member for Indi has done the work. The Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 is absolutely the legislation the Australian people expect to be put into place to ensure we clean up our federal politics. An integrity commission with teeth is needed more than ever. This 46th Parliament has seen an appalling level of secrecy, shocking incidents, cover-ups and very questionable conduct from all layers, from backbenchers to ministerial levels—spending of public funds without due process or any transparency, an increase in the level of objection to any kind of freedom-of-information requests, a real obstruction to any kind of transparency. An integrity commission with teeth would be able to investigate whether there is any question to answer and whether any corruption has occurred in looking at issues like the member for Pearce's blind trust. The public is astounded at the events that can occur in this place.

We've seen the government hiding behind the absence of an integrity commission and the use of whatever tools they've had at their disposal to prevent a thorough investigation. By contrast, we have seen our two biggest states' integrity commissions in action over the past week. They are hard at work. This week both the New South Wales and Victorian integrity commissions are in full swing investigating potential misuse of public funds through grants and branch stacking and use of public resources to pay for political activity. And yet at a federal level there is no proper body to investigate serious allegations of abuse of position or power. Regular surveys show that 80 per cent of Australians support the establishment of a federal anticorruption watchdog. The closest thing we have at the moment is the Auditor-General's office, a body that is looking into scandals at the federal level, revealing further damning reports just last week into the administration of grants funds, showing that, by value, most grants—42 per cent—are awarded through a closed, noncompetitive selection process, and that 20 per cent had a reported selection process that was different to that reported for their related opportunities. This adds to the already long list of scandals, including car park rorts, sports rorts and the Leppington land sale for Sydney's second airport, to name just a few. The Auditor-General is going above and beyond to investigate such matters with severely limited resources.

A federal integrity commission would provide a forum for proper investigation and inquiry, an opportunity for wrongdoers to be exposed but also for those wrongly accused to be exonerated, and for due process to be followed. We don't want trial by media; we want thorough investigation. We need proper process. All sides of politics claim to support the need for a federal integrity commission, but the Australian people have seen very little action. I agree with the member for Indi that, to avoid the partisan slinging match that we see all too often in this place, it is a proposal from the crossbench that has that ability to bring together the best model possible.

A federal integrity commission with retrospective powers is needed now more than ever to ensure that this record-breaking spending and all the events and allegations we've seen from both sides of politics are properly investigated. We've seen in this parliament a disregard and carelessness for accountability and good governance, which is dangerous. I would say it's an insult to the Australian people and our communities. Australians are subject to rules and expectations in their duties, in their jobs. There is no reason for public servants, MPs and senators and their staff not to be held to the same standards.

It's time to bring on for debate the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve to trust in the government, trust in the decisions of this place and trust that there is a process to ensure integrity and anticorruption. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.