Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

As the opposition have always made clear, we support an anticorruption commission, consistent with our strong stand against corruption. People who break the law should face the law. It was, of course, the coalition which introduced Australia's first ICAC, in New South Wales, back in 1988.

While we support the establishment of a national anticorruption commission, as we've heard in this debate it is absolutely critical to get it right. The bill, after all, does confer extraordinary powers on the commission and also applies to a very broad range of Australians, not just parliamentarians and public servants here in Canberra but a wide range of people—those working for the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police and agencies such as the National Disability Insurance Agency, and aged-care workers, as well as any contractor or subcontractor, or any person exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. However, as we've also heard in this debate, somehow, conveniently, it doesn't apply to union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth, and I'll return to that point in a moment. With such a broad application and the commission having all the powers of a royal commission, it's critical that we get this bill right.

The bill isn't perfect, and I have to say there has been a lot of very good work in this parliament, addressing a range of shortfalls, including work by the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, which made six consensus recommendations. There have been many additional comments from coalition members of that committee, as well as coalition members and senators across the board, seeking to ensure that the bill gets the balance right between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of everyday people brought before the commission.

Extensive recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills highlighted concerns around a lack of a specific identification of things like definitions, and the use of coercive powers without adequate safeguards. They are all issues that have been raised through the committee process, as well as the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which noted concerns about the use of gag orders and the harm that those gag orders can cause, particularly to the mental health of people brought before the commission; and the broad use of contempt offences.

The coalition has gone about engaging with the government, with the crossbench and through the committee process in this parliament in good faith. That said, there are a number of amendments that the coalition is proposing. First, we'll introduce some amendments that would not allow union members to receive an exemption under the bill. As we've heard in this debate, disinfectant is the best form of sunlight. The government is talking a big game on integrity, but that goes out the window when unions are exempt from the operation of the commission.

My office is in Geelong, where the NDIA has its national headquarters. Just imagine the unfairness of and the lack of integrity in passing legislation which gives the commission the power to call before it any NDIS worker with the agency but not a union official exercising Commonwealth powers. That category of persons is let off scot-free. If it's good enough for NDIS contractors, for aged-care workers and for members of our Defence Force, it should be good enough for union officials. We just cannot have a bill pass which does a special deal for unions.

The coalition is proposing to introduce a number of other amendments, including amendments supported by eminent experts in this field, including the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties and the South Australian Bar Association. These include that the power to decide a public hearing not be vested in the commissioner alone. We think it's really important that all the appropriate safeguards are in this bill, including on this issue. It's critical that it's not just the commissioner who decides to commence a public hearing. We are concerned that that vests far too much power in one single person. This power needs to be shared between the commissioner and a deputy commissioner to, again, ensure greater integrity, transparency and proper governance.

We also think it should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider factors including whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation or whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as being under direct instruction or control of another person in determining whether a public hearing should be held. This was supported by the Queensland Law Society, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australia Institute. Again, we want to see these changes in the bill to make sure we have every possible safeguard.

The commission should also be required to commence an inquiry into matters which took place prior to the establishment of the commission only if it is in the public interest for them to do so. There must be a strong public interest test when determining whether a retrospective inquiry will be held. All decisions of the commission should be subject to review under the ADJR act. Significant aspects of the bill are not subject to this review. This was a very strong recommendation made by the Law Council of Australia and one that we strongly support.

The commission has the power to impose non-disclosure orders or gag orders on people that prevent them from disclosing that they have appeared before the commission. This is a very contentious issue. We think it's essential that there be very limited exceptions to this in the interests of the mental health of the people who come before the commission. People should be able to make a disclosure to an immediate family member, as long as they're not also a person of interest, and to a medical professional and a mental health professional . It's critical that we do not put people in this situation where they feel they have nowhere to turn. There was a shocking case in Victoria, a friend of mine who appeared before IBAC. Tragically, she committed suicide. No findings were made against her. We don't know all the inner details of what led to her death, other than that she was absolutely traumatised by what she was going through. So, when people are put under this extreme pressure, it is absolutely critical that they have the supports they need to get through what can obviously be a very difficult and traumatic set of circumstances. From all reports, a number of people who have been before various anticorruption commissions have committed suicide as a result of the trauma and the grief of what they have confronted.

We're also, as an opposition, concerned about the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. We are proposing to introduce amendments that ensure that these privileges are granted only when absolutely necessary because, again, this imposes very significant imposts on fundamental rights. This is another amendment supported by the Law Council. Geoffrey Watson SC, as we've heard in this debate, supports an amendment that investigations not go on indefinitely. Our amendment will propose a 12-month time limit on investigations. Time limits are also critical to justice. People cannot come before these anticorruption commissions and put their lives on hold indefinitely, year in, year out, without any sense of certainty as to the length of an investigation.

We also think it's absolutely critical that there is bipartisanship in the creation of a new body like the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's why it's very important that there's a three-quarter majority of the parliamentary committee overseeing the commission in relation to the appointments of the commissioner and the inspector. Without the support of all sides of parliament the commission risks losing the trust of the public. We don't want to face any sort of risk that any appointment like these, as important as these appointments are, could be politicised in any way. I emphasise that this is a very strong integrity measure. This bill must stand the test of time, not just in relation to this government but to future governments. Like excluding the unions, this bill cannot be clouded by questions of integrity. That's also why this amendment must be supported.