Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a real privilege to follow the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. I want to make a number of comments in this regard. Firstly, I want to provide some acknowledgements, and, secondly, I'd like to make a number of substantive points. With respect to acknowledgements, I think the chair of the joint select committee, Senator White, did an absolutely outstanding job chairing the committee. It was a big ask for a senator who is new to this place to undertake that role, and I think Senator White performed it admirably and did an outstanding job. There was a combination of a velvet glove and an occasional flourish of the iron fist to bring the joint select committee back to heel, and it was very effective chairing.

On one occasion, committee members were aghast to see, in no less than the Australian Financial Review, the chair's role in this regard characterised as 'sit and steer'. I'm left to reflect that, far from being 'sit and steer', it was more 'chair and coalesce'. We did coalesce. We came together. All the members of the committee came together and made a unanimous report. There is great significance in the fact that everyone—members of the government; members of the opposition; Senator Shoebridge, representing the Greens, who also made an outstanding contribution to the conduct of the committee; and Dr Helen Haines from the other place—came together and made a unanimous report. There is great significance in that, and I think the NACC legislation is far better for the work of the committee than it otherwise would have been. As Senator White said, this is parliament at its best.

I would like to make one further acknowledgement before I raise a number of substantive points, and that is an acknowledgement of the wonderful work of the secretariat. It was outstanding. We had a very, very tight timetable, and the secretariat performed above and beyond. My heartfelt congratulations go to them in that regard.

There are three points I'd like to make, which I think need to be reflected upon as we continue on this journey. The first is the importance of the inspector. It was the Roman poet Juvenal who coined the phrase 'Who is to watch the watchman?' In the context of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, which has extraordinary powers—coercive powers—in situations where privileges, such as the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege surrounding communications between a person and their lawyers, are, to some extent, abrogated, it is extremely important that the inspector have considerable ambit to audit the exercise of coercive powers by the NACC but also the resources to conduct that oversight role. That's something I think we need to look at as we progress down this path.

The second point I would like to make is in relation to appointments. Many of us on the committee came to the view that, whilst the legislation can say one thing, of great importance is who is actually appointed to the key roles at the NACC: who is going to be the commissioner, who is going to be the inspector, who are going to be the deputy commissioners and who is going to be the chief executive officer? The people who fill those roles will have extraordinary powers and it is very, very important that the right people are selected to those roles. In that respect, personally I am of the view that the joint standing committee which is going to be established under the bill to supervise the NACC should actually achieve a supermajority in terms of selecting who those individuals are. It's not good enough, from my personal perspective, for it to be a simple majority in circumstances where the parliamentary joint standing committee is chaired by a government member who has a casting vote. I think that is something which needs to be considered. I actually believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the parliamentary joint standing committee will act in a collegiate fashion. It is most likely that, in the vast majority of cases, unanimous decisions will be made with respect to accepting recommendations which are made with respect to appointments. But I think it's a perception issue as much as anything. It is important that there's a perception that the government can't necessarily carry the day on its own with respect to the appointment of these important positions.

The third point I would like to make is in relation to whistleblowers. We heard some very strong testimony that there needs to be reform with respect to the management of whistleblowers, in particular, so that whistleblowers, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, are given the support and guidance they need in order to effectively discharge the important role which they conduct and carry out in our civic society. I think the evidence is there that, at this point in time, there's a maze of laws that need to be navigated by whistleblowers. As someone who used to be a whistleblower officer for a major company in the private sector, I think it's absolutely important that whistleblowers have the courage to put up the red flag with respect to issues and should be given support and should be able to get the guidance they need to discharge their important role in our civic society. With that, I look forward to making further contributions during the debate on the bill.