Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the chair of the joint select committee which considered and reported on the National Anti-Corruption Commission bills, I've undertaken close consideration of the provisions of the legislation. This work was assisted by the contributions of more than 100 organisations and individuals.

The committee heard a wide range of views about certain elements of the proposed national anticorruption commission, including from unions, civil society organisations, government departments and academics. What was clear through their written submissions and their testimony is that this legislation has broad-based support in the community. This support was ultimately reflected in the committee's deliberations. The final report that was tabled contained no dissent about the core aspects of the legislation and the need for a robust and transparent national anticorruption commission.

Transparency and accountability formed a key issue in the last election. Over the last decade, Australians' faith in parliamentarians and public officials has been repeatedly undermined by decision-making that failed to prioritise the needs of the community, a point I also made in my first speech.

At a time when the actions of governments are critical to navigating a difficult set of global and local challenges, it's crucial that we restore the public's trust in their elected representatives and the institutions which deliver public services. I believe that the creation of the NACC is a critical piece of the integrity framework, which this government is improving across the board. It's the most important integrity reform in decades. The Attorney-General and the government should be commended for prioritising the introduction of this legislation and subjecting it to scrutiny through the joint select committee.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will have sweeping powers to compel individuals to attend hearings and produce documents. Legal privileges, including the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege, will not provide a basis for a person to refuse to answer the commission's questions. These measures are important in ensuring that the secrecy and evasive nature of serious and systemic corruption can be pierced.

Of course, not everyone who is called as a witness will be implicated in the corruption issues. As has been the experience of state and territory integrity bodies, it's often the case that a wide range of individuals may have knowledge that informs the commission's investigations. The joint select committee heard that the provisions of the NACC bills which prohibited the disclosure of information about attendance at a hearing could unduly impact persons who are called to give evidence. We therefore recommended that the legislation be amended to allow persons to disclose information about their engagement with the National Anti-Corruption Commission to a mental health professional or other medical practitioner. I am pleased that the government has proposed amendments to this effect.

Several of the witnesses who provided evidence to the committee considered that it was also important that exonerated persons—those investigated but ultimately found not to have engaged in serious or systemic corrupt conduct—be notified of that outcome. The committee therefore also recommended that the commissioner be required to notify such individuals where such a conclusion is reached, and the government's amendments reflect this.

Anyone can refer a matter to the commission, and heads of public agencies will have obligations to do so. The commissioner can also investigate matters on their own motion, a power which the committee recommended be made more explicit in the legislation and which is now enshrined in section 40(2).

A key feature of state and territory based integrity agencies is the existence of an inspector whose role is to oversee the corruption commission's work. Different models exist which define the scope of the inspector's role. The committee considered these examples and ultimately recommended that in addition to investigating corruption within the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and a reactive complaint review function, the inspector should also be tasked with a proactive audit function to look at the NACC's use of coercive powers. This approach is similar to that in the Victorian jurisdiction. The committee heard evidence that this oversight function ensures that the Victorian IBAC is undertaking investigations appropriately. The inspector will ultimately form one part of a broader suite of oversight bodies, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the parliamentary committee. The government's amendments enhance the power of the inspector regarding witness summonses and arrest warrants.

The committee also heard evidence from a number of media organisations, including Australia's Right to Know and the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance. This bill contains strong protections for journalist sources, but these organisations identify that such protection needs to extend to persons assisting a journalist in their work as a journalist, in addition to their employer. The government has amended the bill to ensure any individual who assists a journalist is covered by the protection in clause 31, including those employed by the same news organisation as the journalist.

The government has also taken on board the feedback that the committee received about the power to issue warrants. I welcome the amendment which requires surveillance and interception warrants to be issued by eligible judges of federal superior courts.

At its core, the NACC legislation strikes the right balance between giving the commission significant powers to identify and investigate corruption, while at the same time having due regard to the reputational damage that is a necessary consequence of a corruption investigation. The commission is empowered to hold public hearings, unlike in some jurisdictions—including South Australia and the Northern Territory—where hearings must be held in private. While the test for public hearings has been the subject of much debate, I consider that the exceptional circumstances threshold and the requirement that it must be in the public interest to hold a public hearing will give the commissioner the necessary discretion to undertake investigations appropriately and transparently.

I am confident that when the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences operations the public will see that it is an institution with serious teeth and that it has the necessary powers to ensure that serious and systemic corrupt conduct at the national level is uncovered. The existence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is also likely for us to foster a culture of greater accountability by setting standards of behaviour through its education and preventative functions.

The government is restoring public confidence in the parliament and public officials through the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and a broad integrity reform program, which includes offering greater protections for whistleblowers. I commend this legislation to the Senate.