David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher sure has a hide. She really should go back and look at history and the distribution of car park expenditure over time, rather than picking out one period, but I'll save those remarks.

I would like to make it clear, to the opposition and to all Australians listening at home, that this government will deliver an integrity commission. It's not only something that we promised to do; more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Not only that, we believe that having a robust Commonwealth integrity commission will help us ensure that our democratic functions, which we rely on so heavily, can continue to run unimpeded by crime and corruption. This government is doing the work as we speak so that legislation can be introduced before the end of the year. I can repeat that for you if you like, Senator: before the end of the year. This is, however, extremely important legislation, and it is important we get it right. Before the legislation is introduced, we must first consider the feedback that has been received from the extensive consultation process that has been undertaken. This nationwide consultation process on the legislation to establish the commission has recently been completed, with 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring during the consultation period.

We all know that it's been a long time since Labor were in government, and they may have forgotten what that's like. Let me remind them that sometimes you can't just click your fingers and make complex legislation appear out of thin air. In order to get the right outcome, you actually have to do the work in anticipation of the legislation. That is exactly that we're doing—unlike the Victorian government, which I heard reports of this morning. Their auditor-general had condemned them for going ahead and building railway lines without actually doing any planning. That's not how the Morrison government does its job.

Once the government has considered the feedback from the consultation, the legislation will be introduced. The passage of the bill will be subject to normal parliamentary processes. It will be debated here, and the commission will commence operations approximately six months after the passage of the legislation. Because this is such important legislation, we must get it right. It might do the opposition well to remember that, in the lead-up to the last election, they committed to 'continue to consult with experts on the design details'. As I've just outlined, that's exactly what the government is doing. The fact that they're now making noise about a process which they endorsed shows a lack of substance in their position on this motion. It shows they are simply making noise for the sake of making noise and trying to remain relevant.

The scale of reform occurring is immense, and getting the process right is important. We want Australians to have full confidence that the commission is doing what it's supposed to do. We've seen failed instruments like this before in other jurisdictions. Australians must be able to trust their institutions and be assured that they are getting it right. I'd like to remind the opposition that what this body sets out to do is extremely serious and the ramifications of not getting it right would be immense. This is an agency that will not only be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials; it will also be essential to ensuring that the Australian public has trust in its institutions, in government and in the rule of law.

As I said, Labor may have forgotten what it's like to govern, but it is essential to the functioning of Australia's government that we are methodical, consultative and thorough in our approach to developing this legislation. Australians expect us to get this right, and that's what we're doing. It's simply far too important to get wrong; that is not a risk that we are willing to take. As I said, we've seen instances in other jurisdictions where, because they did not get the legislation right, the lives and reputations of innocent people have been dragged through the mud and destroyed. That is not something we will let happen.

The point of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission is to investigate and, if crime or corruption is found to be present, act accordingly—referring prosecutions to the courts. This is why the government does not believe that public hearings are an appropriate mechanism for investigating agencies within the public sector division. As important as it is to detect and deter corruption, we must always design systems to prevent injustice and unfairness to the people being investigated and accused by the authority of the state. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission is not there to be used as some form of daytime entertainment that people can tune into to get their daily dose of drama. This is not reality TV. Nor is it there to be used as a political tool to drag others' names through the dirt or destroy their reputations. By conducting private hearings, we will avoid these potentially harmful acts from occurring. Private hearings will strike an appropriate balance between investigating criminal corruption and limiting the potential for reputational damage without any conviction. This will also ensure that the reporting of public hearings does not prevent anyone from receiving a fair trial if they are accused of criminal conduct.

This is not some made up, fanciful scenario. In my previous business, I helped a number of clients through accusations made in the New South Wales ICAC. The accusations were either disproven or shown to be of minor importance, but my clients' businesses, livelihoods and reputations were destroyed. We don't want that in the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We saw this happen in the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2019, when the New South Wales Supreme Court had to delay the trial of two former state parliamentarians, in part because of the adverse pre-trial publicity they received in response to the public hearings by the New South Wales ICAC. The New South Wales Supreme Court found that it may have prejudiced the availability of a fair trial for the accused.

Our government's model ensures that it's the courts that make the findings of criminally corrupt conduct and it's the courts that determine a person's guilt or innocence, not political commentators, not the media, not social media. The court will be the ones to decide the guilt of a person. Natural justice is such a fundamental concept to our society and our legal system that the presumption of innocence must be upheld. It is not something that we are willing to throw away simply because those opposite stamp their feet, throw their toys across the room and give us these motions to come in and debate.

Our commitment to establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission is firm. In the 2019-20 budget, the government committed $106.7 million of new money to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. This was in addition to the $40.7 million in funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, which will transfer to the commission. That is a total of $147.4 million. This investment, already committed by the government, is in stark contrast to Labor, which has something called seven design principles—whatever they are. Labor thinks it will cost only $58.7 million. That's nearly $90 million less than what the government has budgeted for.

While those opposite stand there making their weak commitments that they will never have to fulfil, this government is investing the money and the time to get this done, and get it done right. Not only have we committed the $147.4 million in funding; the government has already implemented phase 1 of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission by expanding the jurisdiction of ACLEI to cover four additional agencies: the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. While those opposite sit there and move motions like this, the record shows that we are getting things done and that we are committed to getting them done right.

In the interim, the government has allocated $54.4 million to support this expanded jurisdiction under the first phase. This means that ACLEI's staffing levels will increase from 64 to 110 in the 2021-22 financial year to support its expanded work. What this government has is a robust, multifaceted approach to combatting corruption. We want to ensure that, when and where corruption occurs, it is dealt with appropriately. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will further enhance our existing integrity arrangements. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be the lead body in Australia's successful multiagency anticorruption framework. It will enhance accountability across the public sector.

Under this framework multiple agencies have responsibility for preventing, detecting and responding to corruption. These already include: the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which has specialist skills to arrest corruption risks that face law enforcement agencies; and the Australian Federal Police, which works with partner agencies across the Commonwealth to leverage expertise, capabilities and information holdings to respond to serious and complex corruption offences, including fraud and foreign bribery. The Commonwealth Ombudsman considers and investigates complaints where people believe they've been treated unfairly by an Australian government department, and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority audits, advises on and reports on the work expenses of parliamentarians and their staff. Not only that, but Australia's democratic system of representative government, professional and independent judiciary, free media and active civil society all play an important role in protecting and preventing corruption by enabling and encouraging scrutiny of the public and private sectors.

There are also a few important points to remember regarding the government's model for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Firstly, it will have the same powers as a royal commission to investigate criminal corruption in the public sector. Like the opposition's national anticorruption commission, the Commonwealth Integrity Commission's jurisdiction will extend to a wide range of persons and entities. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be able to investigate private individuals and companies where this is relevant to one of its investigations. It will also be able to exercise its own motion powers in relation to law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to look into conduct that occurred prior to its establishment, if the offence existed at the time the conduct occurred. Therefore, for the life of me, I do not see why this is something that the other side would not support. If those opposite truly cared about combatting corruption and wanted to see an anticorruption body, they would get behind the government's model 100 per cent. But, as I said earlier, it seems as though all they truly want to do is make noise for the sake of making noise in an attempt to remain relevant.