Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am speaking today in response to the Greens Party's private senator's bill, the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013. The bill proposes establishing a permanent national integrity commission that would oversee the investigation and prevention of misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments and agencies and among federal parliamentarians and their staff. The bill advocates the appointment of two commissioners and one adviser who would head up a staffed and resourced support commission to undertake the intended functions and activities: a national integrity commissioner to oversee the investigation and prevention of misconduct and corruption in all departments and agencies and among federal parliamentarians and their staff; a law enforcement integrity commissioner to oversee the investigation and prevention of corruption across law enforcement agencies, absorbing the functions of the existing Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; and an independent parliamentary adviser to, purportedly, provide independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of propriety but with no investigative function.

In September 2012 the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs noted that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had examined the bill and had expressed concerns about possible undue trespass on personal rights and liberties. These related to the right to a fair hearing and representation; the revocation of legal professional privilege; protection against self-incrimination; the broad definition of 'authorised officer' in the proposed bill; and concerns about the inadequate explanation of the need for the increase in search powers. I would respectfully submit that any one of those issues, standing alone, would present as a fatal flaw in any proposed legislation that respected the rights of its citizens and recognised the fundamentals underpinning the principles of natural justice.

The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended that the bill not proceed until a joint select committee is established to investigate the feasibility and costs of a national integrity commission. This has not occurred, and the Senate should not be persuaded to consider this legislation, or like legislation, until that has happened as a matter of course. Proposed legislation of this nature needs to expose itself to the most stringent examination and review measures that this place has to offer.

In support of Senator Cameron's comments—although directed at the coalition: in 2002 a paper submitted to the World Bank's investigation into anti-corruption bodies stated that adding additional levels of bureaucracy does not in and of itself indicate that there will be any reduction in corrupt activities. It has been suggested that the establishment of such an anti-corruption body would be a political response to scandal and provide a mechanism for political leaders to reassure voters and reformists that action is being taken to bring corruption under control. The extent to which the objectives of a new agency reflect a desire for systemic change, as opposed to scoring political points, is rarely clear and is rarely intended to be clear.

This government is proud of Australia's position and reputation. Australia is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. This is a recognition of the net measure of respective coalition governments in this place and in states right across this country. As a political movement, we have a sub-zero tolerance to corruption. Accordingly, I would urge the Senate to reject this legislation not because it is not honourable in its intent but because there are many better and effective ways to strengthen the already developed capacities to ensure that Australia continues to be one of the most democratic and corruption free nations in the world.