Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Having been on the committee for the duration of this inquiry I also wish to make some remarks in relation to the report. I endorse the remarks of Senator Macdonald and commend the report to senators and members to read.

I want to address my remarks to one particular recommendation, recommendation 5. This recommendation has the prospect, if the government wishes to adopt it, of extending the tenure of a serving Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner by a maximum of two years. Currently, the act provides for a five-year maximum tenure of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission­er. I was involved with the original drafting of the bill with the then justice minister, Minister Ellison. The purpose of the five-year tenure was obvious. Someone in charge and responsible for the integrity commission could become susceptible to corruption if left in a job for a long tenure. This was one way of alleviating that potential. I think it is very healthy to have a turnover of commissioners.

However, one thing that the original drafters—and the committee, when we started—did not look into thoroughly was what happens if the commission is going through a stage of expansion, as Senator Macdonald has just highlighted in relation to bringing other in other jurisdictions at a second-tier level. The commission has been growing since its inception, after the act was promulgated in 2006. However, not having that provision could restrict and severely dampen or even harm the reputation of the commission. Therefore the committee in its wisdom has decided to recommend that a further two-year tenure be allowed.

In doing that the committee has also put some great checks and balances in place. Firstly, the minister must recommend it to the Governor-General and, secondly, the parliamentary joint committee must also approve an extended tenure of two years. I think that is a great measure, simply because if the minister of the day, for whatever reason, extended the integrity commission­er's tenure—the minister may just decide to do that, although I know ministers look at things far more judiciously than that—the committee would have another right of veto. So, if the committee, with its closer involve­ment with the integrity commissioner, felt that that was an inappropriate extension, the committee could veto that.

I think that lovely safety valve within the recommendation warrants the government considering this recommendation and adopting it, in the event that it may be needed. It may never be needed; however, it would be there and the commission would not suffer if we could extend the tenure of the commissioner where the circumstances warranted it.

That is all I wish to add to the record so that people, when reading these recommend­ations, have a greater understanding of the thought and the work behind that particular recommendation. I thank the Senate.