David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The difficulty, of course, with the opposition's proposition—and I think it's one of the concerns we have about their approach to the NACC—is to treat the NACC as just any government agency. It clearly isn't. Integrity agencies, whether the Audit Office or the NACC, are not just any government agencies that can either be starved of funds or not by the government of the day. These are agencies that we really should see as an extended fourth arm of government. We have the legislature, we have the executive, we have the judiciary and, given the complexity of modern government, we should also see integrity agencies effectively as a fourth arm of government that needs to have secure, independent funding.

Simply to say, as the opposition does, that they should be treated as any other government agency—able to be starved of funds by the government of the day at a whim—I think highlights a real concern we have about the approach that might be taken in the future to the finances and funding of the NACC. In fact, if ever there were a powerful reason to support the amendments that we have put here, it was the contribution we just heard, which seeks to treat the NACC as just any government agency. That is downright dangerous for the future operations of the NACC.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 1714 as revised in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.