Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill. The trappings of power are dangerous. The more successful and powerful a politician is, the bigger the trap. Without an equally powerful institution to keep all of us in line, even well-intentioned politicians could get tempted by the power of their office. Everywhere you look there are questions asked about conflicts of interest between decision-makers and backers of major projects that require government funding or approval. This is just one way that problems can arise for politicians.

Many law and politics experts have noted policy trajectories favouring vested interests and have joined the call for a national anticorruption agency. The time for such an agency is long overdue. Our state parliaments worked on this, in some cases, many decades ago, and we are still dragging the chain. We are dragging the chain because Labor, Liberal and the Nationals too often unite together to stop the introduction of a commission that is well overdue.

A national anticorruption commission would be an independent statutory agency. The Greens proposal outlines the need for a National Integrity Commissioner, a Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and an Independent Parliamentary Advisor. Surely we all know that the public interest is best served by a clear separation between politics and business. I would hope that that would be a starting point in how all politicians of whatever persuasion operate when they are elected. But we see that there are so many cases where politicians not only do not leave their business behind but also foster new practices or get into bed with businesses that have an interest in fleecing the public purse.

Recent revelations by state corruption watchdogs make it clear that there are corruption practices across Australia. They do not stop at state borders and they certainly are not ring fenced out of national politics. We know that confidence in the political process is low. We have seen that around the world with repeated examples, and we are not immune from it. We know that the public is increasingly cynical about politicians, whatever party they are from. When there are bad practices, it impacts on all of us and is a reminder of why we need greater accountability, and that means the need for a national corruption watchdog. So on behalf of the Greens I again put on record the urgent need for a national anticorruption commission to oversee anticorruption measures at a federal level in the same way that such commissions do at a state level.

At the recent federal election there were a number of incidents that reminded us of why such a commission was needed—examples which, if we had a commission, could have been referred there, good have been dealt with quickly, could have helped to give confidence to the public in terms of the politicians who put themselves forward for office. We saw Sophie Mirabella claim that the Indi electorate was denied hospital funding due to her 2013 election loss. At a candidates forum, Mrs Mirabella claimed that $10 million for a local hospital had been secured by her but the Abbott government pulled the plug when she was not elected. Is that how politics is done? Are those the deals that go down? That was a clear example that could have been investigated if we had a national anticorruption commission.

And then we heard of the possible fraud of Joe Hockey's Cabcharge account. Several questionable hire car rides were charged to Mr Hockey's Cabcharge account amounting to $10,000, according to research undertaken by Fairfax Media. And then it was alleged that the Liberal Democrats were offered a seat in return for $500,000 in donations. A written agreement shows that Roostam Sadri offered to donate to the Liberal Democratic Party in return for a position as the party's lead Senate candidate in South Australia. Significant evidence has also been uncovered that the Liberal Party used its own software company, Parakeelia, to recycle parliamentary entitlements into political donations. Questions were also raised over the role of a staffer who was employed at the coalition advisory service but was also allegedly doing work for Parakeelia. It is extraordinary using allowances in that way. It is a story that has fallen out of the headlines and, from what we know, is not being pursued. Certainly, it is a very clear example of what should have been investigated further so that we can ensure allowances—public money—are being used properly and the politicians in this place learn, and abide by, the standards that the public expects.

Evidence also came to light that the federal government removed Dr Lynn Simpson after she exposed cruelty and horrific conditions aboard live export ships. The then First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture's Animal Division, Karen Schneider, admitted the removal was because the live export industry expressed dissatisfaction with Dr Simpson. So here we have Dr Simpson, who is employed to carry out work on the ships, work that the government requires, and an external body, a business that is making money out of how the shipping of live exports is conducted, puts pressure on the government, which in turn sack somebody who is carrying out the work they are employed to do. There was no explanation and no investigation. Again, that is really unacceptable.

Now that we are considering the bill, it is worthy to put on record a scandal that Senator Bob Day has been caught up in that is relevant to this debate. As we know, there are many scandals associated with Mr Day, but the one that is relevant to this debate is the $2 million in funding granted to the North East Vocational College. The college was chaired by Mr Day. The grant equalled $90,000 per student. By comparison, the equivalent certificate IV in construction and building at TAFE costs just $12,000 per student. The money did not even go towards a student's tuition. The students were still forced to take out loans under the discredited VET FEE-HELP scheme. I understand that Minister Birmingham has denied any knowledge of this. But then a photo came out of him with Mr Day at the college. Clearly he has more information about that, so it would be useful to hear from him. But that will probably not occur because there is no central body to investigate these types of breakdowns in standards.

Just to add a little more on that case: we understand that, really, Mr Day was triple dipping. As well as getting this $2 million grant from the government, and as well as requiring the students to apply for VET-FEE HELP, he was also requiring employers to pay for the apprentices that were taken into the college he was associated with. The Electrical Trades Union has claimed that the money that came in from the government was tied to Mr Day's support for government bills while he was a senator. Again, we do not know of any discussions that went on behind closed doors, so it is understandable that people will speculate about these types of arrangements.

Again, this is very serious. Are votes being bought because of deals that are done and money that is exchanged? It is not something that people associate with Australia—that level of corruption. But we are starting to find some disturbing examples, and to say that it does not happen at the federal level is ludicrous.

These allegations, whether true or not, damage the reputation of all involved. I cannot emphasise that enough, and I do believe that all politicians in this place must recognise that. When we are out talking to the public we have those conversations with people who have become deeply cynical about how politics works and about our own individual activities as politicians. I am sure we all try to explain how the situation works, but it underlines the unhealthy aspect that is now occurring at the federal level because we do not have this national commission.

As former Labor senator John Faulkner noted, the perception of corruption can be just as bad as actual corruption. That is so important to reflect on. The public is wondering increasingly what the point is of participating in our democratic processes if they are rigged against them. This is particularly so in New South Wales, because we have had such a big problem with donations from developers of millions of dollars at the same time as the laws were being changed. Labor, Liberals and Nationals voted together to weaken the planning laws in New South Wales. People in communities were just fighting for a fair go and fighting for some decency—at least to be consulted. A lot of them would just say to me, seriously, 'We just want our turn—to be able to put our position and for there to be a fair judgement here.' The result so often was that they just became deeply cynical about politics.

One comment that was said to me on a number of occasions is, 'What's the point of engaging? I don't have the money that the developers have. Politicians won't listen to me, because I can't donate money. They're not going to pick up the phone when I ring, and I know they pick up the phone when the developers ring.' This is how things are playing out in our society because of this very serious failure at the national level to introduce a national corruption watchdog.

I believe that a federal anticorruption watchdog would give the public some confidence that their representatives are actually representing them fairly—that it is not loaded against them and that there are not other people in the room who have more power because they have money, they have influence or they have something over somebody. Transparency International supports a national anticorruption watchdog, as does the Law Council of Australia, the Accountability Round Table, the Governance Risk Compliance Institute and an associated investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.

When you consider the very impressive line-up of organisations supporting a national anticorruption watchdog, the big question is: why do the major parties—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Nationals—not support one? You have to ask the question: is it because they have interests that prevent them from making that step? This is 2016—why do they keep holding out on it? I believe it would be in the interests of the major parties in terms of improving their own standing, as well as doing something for the democratic process across Australia. I also argue it is in their interest to cooperate and weed out the corrupt people that damage the credibility of everyone, and those closest to that corruption are damaged most. We need a federal anticorruption body for both corrupt politicians, and those trying to do the right thing, to tackle real corruption and the perception of corruption. We need this body most urgently.

A national anticorruption commission would have extensive roles—and I will just finish up with some of the aspects of what it could undertake. It would investigate and work to prevent misconduct and corruption in all federal departments and agencies and corrupt behaviour by federal parliamentarians and their staff. The commission would deal with corruption in relation to public officials and federal agencies. It would have full investigative powers, including conducting public and private hearings, summoning any person or agency to produce documents and appear before the commission.

I congratulate our former leader, former senator Christine Milne, who did a great deal of work in this area. She was very passionate about it and she continues to advocate for it. It is something that the Greens feel very strongly about, and certainly we will continue to put it forward. But it really is about time that we had a combined position in this Senate. How can you keep saying no to a national anticorruption watchdog? The time to introduce it should be now. We are already running late on it. There are so many things that should have been investigated. It needs to happen now, and I look forward to the debate.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013. Labor abhors corruption in all its forms, whether that be in politics, business, banking or unions. Over the last 30 years we have seen several of Australia's states established anticorruption bodies, with a number of high-profile cases in recent years. Senator Rhiannon mentioned a couple, but I thought I would throw in a few more. They include the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption.

These bodies have at times been tremendously successful in highlighting accountability issues in government and bringing corrupt politicians, party members and business people to task—for example, in recent years New South Wales ICAC has heard allegations that illegal political donations had been funnelled to the New South Wales Liberal Party via various slush funds. That saw the resignation of 11 New South Wales Liberal state politicians—an extraordinary number. That investigation was known as Operation Spicer. Through its years-long investigation it found that enormous sums of money, including from property developers banned from making political donations under New South Wales law, were laundered through sham organisations Eightbyfive and the Free Enterprise Foundation before being passed on to the New South Wales Liberal Party.

These revelations, which came to light through ICAC, were so explosive that they forced the resignations of former New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell and two New South Wales Liberal cabinet ministers. Also it caused federal Liberal senator and former Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos to be stood aside by the Prime Minister. We heard the evidence and we now know that there was an investigation. It was found his evidence was 'difficult to accept', but he has since been returned to the frontbench as Cabinet Secretary. The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission is also active, currently investigating the member for Fadden for his alleged involvement in property development donations funnelled to candidates in the Gold Coast council city elections. These state-based anticorruption organisations have been operating effectively, in some cases for decades.

Contrary to Senator Rhiannon's statements, Labor is open to considering a federal ICAC. Labor has never objected to a federal anticorruption body in principle. The calls for such a body to be established are not new. They have in fact existed since the 1980s when the first state bodies were being established. In particular, a report in 2005 by Transparency International and Griffith University called for a comprehensive, independent anticorruption agency which would operate across the Commonwealth. In 2011 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity recommended the Australian government conduct a review of the existing Commonwealth integrity system, with an examination of the merits of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. The Labor Party's concern has always been that the case for one overarching body to exist, over and above the network of existing agencies, has not yet been proven. Australia does have federal integrity agencies which have been effective in capturing instances of potential corruption at the federal level. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity works to counter corruption in federal law enforcement bodies such as the Australian Federal Police. The Ombudsman and the Auditor-General have broad oversight over federal administration and expenditure, while specialist bodies such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversee particular parts of the federal bureaucracy such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct in government. We cannot discount the work that these agencies already do. If we are to consider another separate body, we must have a strong case as to why it is necessary on top of these existing agencies. We must also consider in detail how they would interact with any new body and which would have supremacy.

Labor took important steps to improve government integrity when we were last in government. Labor created a new statement of ministerial standards, introduced a lobbying code of conduct and a federal lobbyist register and implemented a code of conduct for ministerial staff. We expanded the powers of ACLEI, introduced whistleblower protections for public servants and sought to improve transparency over political donations, something that we are still trying to achieve despite the intransigence of the current government.

There was a former select committee in the 44th Parliament, and we actually supported the establishment of a special select committee to inquire into a national integrity commission—essentially a federal ICAC—initiated by former Senator Dio Wang in February 2016. The committee was established to inquire into the adequacy of the Australian government's legislative, institutional and policy framework in addressing corruption and misconduct and whether a national integrity body should be established. There were a series of detailed terms of reference which looked at the role and, importantly, whether a national integrity commission should be established, looking at the scope of coverage, the powers and the advantages and disadvantages associated with domestic and international models of integrity and anticorruption commissions. It also looked at whether there should be broader powers and the necessity for privacy or secrecy provisions. It also looked at budgetary and resourcing issues and—that very important one—any other related matter.

This committee considered the various arguments in favour of and against the establishment of such a commission and received 29 submissions from key advocacy organisations, academics, industry and unions. It found in its interim report that there was a significant difference of opinion across these bodies about whether such a body should be established—again, contrary to some of the statements made by Senator Rhiannon. A number of submitters argued that a NIC—a national integrity commission—is not the best way to deal with any problems of corruption that may exist. These arguments can be broadly grouped into two categories: firstly, that there is a lower risk and a lower level of corruption at the federal level which reduces the need for an overarching anticorruption body; and, secondly, that there is already a strong anticorruption framework in place that has proved successful at preventing and revealing corruption in the limited cases where it has occurred. It also argued that there are costs that would be associated with a dedicated anticorruption agency, including the diminution of legal rights and financial costs. For example, the Rule of Law Institute expressed concerns that a national integrity commission creates a new system of justice without the legal protections embedded in the current system. On the other hand, a number of submitters expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of the current system. They argue that it cannot be said to be working in light of the scandals that have emerged in recent years. They question the underlying assumption that there is a reduced risk of corruption at the federal level, and they argue that a multiagency approach creates holes that may facilitate corruption.

There were also, however, a number of arguments made in favour. It was proposed that the establishment of a national integrity commission would improve policy coordination, provide leadership and education services, reduce potential jurisdictional gaps, increase administrative efficiency, send an unambiguous signal that the issue of corruption is being taken seriously and provide that necessary confidence to the public that corruption is minimised at the highest level of government. It was suggested that anticorruption bodies at the state level play a significant educative role and that the mere existence of a federal anticorruption body would send a strong and positive signal to the public. The report quotes Associate Professor Gabrielle Appleby as follows:

One of the main purposes of these types of bodies is to promote public confidence in the integrity of government administration. The establishment, in and of itself, is one way of demonstrating that.

Other witnesses to the select committee inquiry suggested that there were gaps in the current coverage of federal bodies which had anticorruption responsibilities. Professor AJ Brown of Griffith University, always a strong contributor to these arguments, said:

Currently there are very large areas of important Commonwealth public administration which are not subject to effective review and oversight in relation to the management of integrity risks and breaches. While it is valid and sensible for the Commonwealth Parliament to prioritise those areas of activity which should be subject to closer scrutiny and oversight than others, the fact is that all agencies and departments should be included in these elements of the Commonwealth's overall integrity system.

Additionally, a single body would provide one point of contact for tips and complaints from individuals and would remove the conflict of interest where a body may end up having to investigate itself in cases of alleged corruption. An NIC, it was suggested, would have no incentive as an independent agency to cover up any corrupt activities which may have occurred.

But there was by no means a unified conclusion found by the committee in its interim report. We are still a long way from consensus on what such a body, if it were proposed, should look like. For example, Transparency International Australia, in its submission, proposed a two-phased approach of establishment of a serious fraud and corruption office and a separate process to improve measures to address non-criminal corruption and serious misconduct. That included examining options for a national integrity commission and a parliamentary integrity commissioner. The Law Council of Australia, which previously had supported a national integrity commission, also suggested instead a staged approach comprising the development of a national anticorruption strategy for the Council of Australian Governments, the completion of an updated national integrity system assessment and, on the basis of that assessment, consideration of whether the Australian government should establish a national integrity commission or an anticorruption council. Accordingly, the majority on that committee recommended in its interim report that the government support research into potential anticorruption systems which would be appropriate for Australia and did not come up with a clear conclusion on the need for a national integrity commission. That committee lapsed at the prorogation of parliament earlier this year and has not been revived in the 45th Parliament.

Labor's position on the bill before the chamber today is that we are open, in principle, to looking at a federal corruption body but we believe that this particular bill is premature. If the Greens actually were dedicated to establishing a federal corruption body, as opposed to making points and grandstanding, they would not have brought this bill on for debate today when it is so clear that there is still much work to do to determine how such a body would function.

The National Integrity Commission Bill 2013 is similar to others that the Greens party has introduced: the original National Integrity Commissioner Bill, which was introduced by Senator Bob Brown in June 2010 and reintroduced when parliament reconvened after the August 2010 election; and the National Integrity Commissioner Bill 2012, introduced by Adam Bandt MP. There are serious problems with the current bill, which the Greens party knows very well. As it stands, this bill has three components: a federal ICAC body based on the New South Wales model, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in its present form, and an independent parliamentary adviser to advise MPs on ethics and entitlements and to develop a parliamentary code of conduct.

The creation of an independent parliamentary adviser is not necessarily good policy. For example, the former New South Wales Parliamentary Ethics Adviser was not consulted by any MP during the last New South Wales parliament. We are yet to hear an argument as to how the federal version would be any different. There are also open questions about how a number of existing federal integrity bodies, including ACLEI, ought to be integrated with or situated alongside any federal ICAC body. These are very difficult questions which the select committee found it could not answer without further research.

Labor has never ruled out supporting a federal anticorruption body, but if we choose to pursue this it must be done correctly and should not be rushed, because that would not be the appropriate message. It cannot be done with this bill without the proper consultation and without the further research recommended by the select committee. Labor supports a broad approach to anticorruption consistent with our longstanding policy. We will continue to explore the idea of a federal anticorruption body, particularly when so many federal Liberal MPs have demonstrated that corruption is an issue that cannot be ignored at the federal level. While Labor does not support this bill, we know that this is a conversation which is not yet over and should not be over.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013, and I note that Senator Moore has just indicated that the Greens have a long track record of introducing bills dealing with integrity and the establishment of a national anticorruption watchdog. That is absolutely correct, Senator Moore. It is absolutely true. In fact, in 2010, my predecessor Bob Brown introduced a similar bill, and it was introduced again by Senator Christine Milne in 2013, and here we are in 2016 with the Greens again championing a national anticorruption watchdog. We have been consistent. We have absolutely championed the cause of more transparency and accountability in our parliament.

In 2010 this bill was introduced at the same time as a private member's bill for Senate voting reform. One of those policies has already passed into law, and my view is that it is only a matter of time before we see this change pass through the parliament. It has a sense of inevitability about it. Let's just look at what is happening right around the world. We saw the election of Donald Trump. I have made my views on Donald Trump very clear, but his platform was ostensibly one arguing that corruption was endemic within the political process, positioning himself as an outsider within that process and suggesting that the establishment was rotten. We see similar trends coming from different directions in other parts of the world. We saw, for example, during the US election the emergence of Bernie Sanders, another candidate criticising the lack of accountability and transparency in Washington. In the UK there is Jeremy Corbyn. We are seeing these trends right around the world: people not part of the political establishment gaining support because the public is sick and tired of what they perceive as a system that is stacked in favour of big corporate political interests, with their politicians doing their bidding rather than the bidding of the community, and they have had enough. They have absolutely had enough.

So a national anticorruption watchdog is a case of when, not if. It has the same inevitability about it as the cause for marriage equality, something the Greens have also fought long and hard for. No matter how much people in this chamber push back on it, they will be worn down. I make a prediction now: given where the political winds are blowing, what you will see is either the government or the opposition, within the next year or so, taking to the next election a proposal for a national anticorruption watchdog, and we welcome that. We absolutely welcome that.

Senator Moore says this is backed in principle. Well, 'in principle' is not enough, Senator Moore. We want to see it in action. We want to see a national anticorruption watchdog established here in Australia. What is most curious is that Senator Moore says that the Labor Party back this in principle but she has concerns about specific elements of this bill. Well, talk to us. We are prepared to work with you to address the concerns that you may have so that we get this bill into the parliament. The invitation is there, I am more than happy. My door is open. Come and talk to us. Tell us what your concerns are and let us introduce this change through the parliament. Let me also say that we have again seen the Labor Party support our call for a royal commission. They opposed it when it was introduced as a motion here in the chamber and then took the issue to an election campaign. Here is your opportunity. Work with the parliament you have, those people and those members of the crossbench who have been driving this change now for close to a decade, and let us get this thing done. Let us not play petty politics. This can be something that we all own and what we will do is ensure we restore some faith with the Australian community. I suspect that had they had the courage to back the Greens on this leading into the last election, it might be that the Labor Party would be in government right now.

Some the things might been prevented if we had had an anticorruption watchdog established in the last parliament. Senator Day might have been warned that his actions would give rise to a perception of conflict. We might not have seen that debacle play out in the way that it has. The Department of Finance might have been more forceful in making it clear to the government that the leasing of an office that the senator had a proprietary interest in should not proceed. Most importantly, an anticorruption commission might have influenced the decisions of the Special Minister of State, who overrode the Department of Finance's advice and decided to give the supporting vote of Senator Day a helping hand. That is the sort of thing that an anticorruption watchdog can address.

Let us look again to the US for a moment and reflect on what has just happened there. The irony of course, is that President-elect Trump, who positioned himself as an anti-establishment candidate despite being the epitome of the establishment and who criticised the media despite being a product of it, is somebody who pays no tax. He has a business model of bankruptcy as his risk management strategy and a long line of creditors, contractors and employees who have gone unpaid from his shonky businesses. He uses his charitable foundation as a personal piggy bank. He has refused to release details of his tax returns and financial arrangements. That is a living, breathing example of why we need to have those transparency mechanisms in our parliaments. We are starting to become much closer to that US model of politics, with big dollars and high stakes and a high risk of corruption. That is what is at stake. We have an opportunity to chart our own course, one that responds to the public distrust that is developing around politics, by opening up the box of tricks and shining a light on it.

The political winds are blowing in this direction. This is a case of being not just good public policy but now good politics. It is the Australian community who are saying: 'We are fed up. We have lost faith with our democratic institutions. We need more transparency and more accountability.' They do it because they have seen evidence of MPs who know that if there is a good chance they might be able to get away with something they will do it. If something is in the grey zone, they will give it a go. When they do not have the threat of a regulator looking over their shoulder, they will not dot every i and cross every t.

Month by month another scandal arises. It was Senator Day recently. Of course, there is the evidence of MPs abusing their entitlements, people travelling on helicopters for short trips and people travelling across to the other part of the country to check out their investment properties. That is the reason we need to get these transparency mechanisms into the parliament.

Let us look specifically at what the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013 does. The bill establishes a National Integrity Commission as an independent statutory agency, which will consist of a National Integrity Commissioner, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and an Independent Parliamentary Adviser. It will provide for the investigation and prevention of misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments and agencies and by federal parliamentarians and their staff, provide for the investigation and prevention of corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and provide independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of propriety, including use of entitlements. So it seeks not just to expose corruption but, more importantly, to prevent it. This is both through its functions of advising MPs and also in its ability to investigate cases where corrupt conduct is feasible and where it can provide advice, making the office proactive in addressing potential issues of corruption.

Again I say to Senator Moore, who outlined that the Labor Party support this proposal in principle: work with us. If there are specific elements of this legislation that you have issues with, talk to us. We are happy to have a conversation that ensures that we get a national anticorruption watchdog introduced through this parliament.

Let's not pretend for a moment that the federal parliament is somehow immune to the influence of corruption. Every state in Australia now has some kind of anticorruption commission. The federal government is the only exception, and that must stop. At a state level we have seen the work they have done. We have seen what has been uncovered. Corruption at the state level has already been established.

Let me give you some examples. Last year in South Australia the chief executive of a state government agency was charged with two accounts of abuse of public office. In Victoria we had the likes of the education department financial manager, who funnelled $2.5 million from schools into his pocket and into the pockets of his relatives and senior departmental officials. Some of the money was spent on overseas trips and on lavish parties. Last month IBAC charged nine people, including two mid-level public servants, for allegedly funnelling $25 million from Victoria's public transport department into various family linked businesses over seven years. The money was spent on real estate and luxury goods, including jetskis and a grand piano. IBAC, the anticorruption body in Victoria, is now turning its attention to revelations of a fraud of up to $1 million involving the botched school computer program, Ultranet, amid calls for its powers to be ramped up.

Of course, let's not forget the now infamous revelations of the New South Wales ICAC, charging with corruption offences former state Labor ministers Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, along with exposing illegal donations from property developers to several state Liberal MPs. It is remarkable that in that context of the work that the New South Wales ICAC has done they have been criticised for uncovering the stench of corruption in New South Wales leading to very serious charges.

Again I say that the federal jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction that is unchecked against the very real threat of corruption and maladministration across the federal Public Service. Federal parliament is not immune. We are not immune to the same sort of activities of those individuals who would choose to exploit the public purse for their personal gain. It is clear, given the widely established corruption charges that have been dealt with at the state level, we need the same oversight at the federal level.

Let me quote from some esteemed legal professionals. Let me quote the counsel assisting New South Wales ICAC, Geoffrey Watson QC, who said:

I have seen things that show that federal politicians are not immune from temptation.

That was very, very pointed. He was saying very clearly that there is a need to do something in the federal parliament. Information gathered by the New South Wales corruption body left him 'convinced of the need for a federal ICAC'. That says to me that if one were to be established it would need to get to work straightaway and it would have clear cases in mind where we would see evidence of corruption uncovered.

It is not just people within the legal community. Those accountability monitors responsible for addressing issues of transparency have said for many years that Australia is lagging behind the back of the pack. We have got Neville Tiffen, Transparency International Australia director, who said:

… it is almost unbelievable that the Commonwealth does not have an ICAC. Detractors say that there is no need for a federal ICAC because there is no evidence that corruption exists at the federal level. This is a nonsense. They must believe behaviour changes as you board a plane for Canberra. Without a federal ICAC, we simply do not know the level of corruption that exists.

Transparency International have criticised Australia for our low and ineffective penalties for corruption. A 2009 reports highlights that Australia 'made little or no effort to enforce the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Our reputation is not good. In late 2014 Transparency international released a report which said that Australia had dropped for the second consecutive year in its annual corruption perceptions index, slipping outside the top 10 countries for the first time.

We need to address this issue. The Australian community—indeed, the global community—are saying to politicians of all colours, all stripes: 'We have had enough. We have lost faith in the people who are elected to lead us.' Globally, we are slipping in our standing. We are slipping in the standards that the Australian people expect. The political winds are blowing and they are blowing hard. It is the Greens who will continue to lead the charge in helping to win back trust from the public. If we do not, we leave it to demagogues like Donald Trump who will ensure that they prey on fear, on division, on the politics of hate. They look to enemies to blame for the problems that lie before us.

The critical challenge here is that we restore faith in our democratic institutions. We do that by establishing a federal anticorruption watchdog. We need an ICAC that has the powers to hold all Commonwealth departments, agencies, federal parliamentarians and their staff to high standards of transparency. We need investigation and prevention of corruption in the Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. We need independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of propriety, including the use of entitlements.

We can have these reforms right now if either the government or the opposition support this bill. If they have concerns with this bill, talk to us and we are prepared to look at ensuring that we take their concerns into consideration. Learn the lessons from what is going on right around the world and do not think that what is happening in many of those other nations cannot happen here.

We Greens, having a long track record from my predecessors Bob Brown and Christine Milne, will continue taking this fight into this parliament. We will not rest until the Australian parliament has a national anticorruption watchdog that ensures that politicians and public officials are held to account.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to participate in this debate and I thank the Greens for bringing it before the Senate. In my view there are a number of good arguments against an anticorruption commission, but I am going to focus in my contribution today on one which I would have thought or would have hoped would appeal to the Greens as sympathetic to their way of thinking. That is, of course, the issue in the area of civil liberties and legal rights and the way in which anticorruption commissions have, sadly but, I think, because of their very nature inevitably, trampled upon them. I am indebted to Senator Di Natale, who mentioned the New South Wales ICAC, and I intend to come back to that in a moment and talk about some of the ways in which that body has abused its powers, trampled on people's legal rights and trampled on their civil liberties. There has been a very grave threat to people's individual freedoms in the state of New South Wales.

Before I do so, I wanted to begin with a general, broad philosophical point here. Of course corruption is a terrible thing. We all want to see corruption-free government, and Australia has a remarkably good, clean record on this. It is not a perfect record, but by world standards it is an outstanding record on corruption. We achieved that without an anticorruption commission at the federal level and with anticorruption commissions only at the state level in recent years. It is not because of the existence of anticorruption bodies that Australia is a relatively corruption-free country; there are many other reasons for that, which we can come to in a minute.

The prospects for corruption in government inevitably increase the bigger government gets, the more weight it places on society, the more it intervenes in people's lives and the more it intervenes in the economy. A big government, a government which lords it over everything, which has its fingers in every single pie, is a government which is extremely prone to corruption, because when people are subject to the force and influence of government they have an interest in influencing that government. If a regulation or a subsidy is going to make or break their business, of course they are going to go, in some cases, to extreme lengths to ensure that that regulation is favourable, that that subsidy exists, that their competitor is disadvantaged. So the Greens have an inconsistency here. They say they are going against corruption but the very philosophy that they promote in this place of government playing a greater role in the economy and a greater role in people's lives gives the incentive that is necessary for people to seek corrupt means to influence government. A government which treaded much more lightly on the economy and much more lightly on people's lives would be a government that people would have much less interest in influencing. They would spend much less time thinking about what we do in Canberra, because it would be of much less consequence to them and their lives, leaving people to run their own businesses and to live their own lives. To not interfere with them is the best method, if we want to discourage interest in corruption.

I turn now to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, because I think it provides a very salutary lesson on why we should be concerned about setting up these bodies in perpetuity, with extraordinary legal powers, and what the natural consequences are that flow from that. It is not because the people running the New South Wales ICAC in themselves are necessarily bad but because of the very nature of setting up a corruption body, giving it powers, giving it a budget and allowing it to exist in perpetuity inevitably leads to a culture and a behaviour which is going to trample on the legal rights of its suspects. The reason for that is that all of these bodies exist, once they are created, to perpetuate themselves, to justify their own existence. If there were no corruption in New South Wales, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption would have to find corruption in order to justify its own existence, in order to perpetuate the salaries of its employees and in order to justify its purpose. Although I certainly would not argue that there is no corruption in New South Wales, even with the corruption that has existed in New South Wales we have seen the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption pursue many unjust cases, trample on people's legal rights and behave, in my view, in an appalling manner.

I am going to quote a number of newspaper articles on the New South Wales ICAC, because I think it provides a salutary lesson for us at the federal level. I will flag in advance that many of them are from TheAustralian newspaper. I want to congratulate them on the great level of scrutiny they have focused on this issue, because bodies with great power deserve great scrutiny. It is a tribute to The Australian that they have taken this issue so seriously. I am going to quote now from an article published in The Australian on 12 September 2016. It was by Anthony Klan, and it is about a case against the Kazal family. The headline is 'ICAC hid evidence against Kazal family'. It begins:

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption hid key evidence that supported the case of people it was seeking to label as corrupt in another of its operations.

The Australian has obtained a sworn statement provided to ICAC’s Operation Vesta—well before it held public examinations or handed down its findings—that seriously undermined the watchdog’s case but which never saw the light of day.

Operation Vesta, launched after ICAC received one complaint and following a series of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald, focused on allegations that Sydney's Kazal family had bribed a government employee.

The Kazals operate a string of businesses in Sydney's The Rocks from buildings they lease from the government's Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

The allegations were that Charif Kazal had paid for a business trip for then authority employee Andrew Kelly in return for favourable treatment on lease deals on buildings, in particular 100 George Street.

ICAC interviewed and took a statement from Paul Neilsen, who worked as the foreshore authority's manager of property services when Mr Kelly gave the alleged favourable treatment.

In contrast to the thrust of ICAC's thesis, Mr Neilsen told ICAC that Mr Kelly had had "no direct involvement" in the 100 George Street lease. It was in fact Mr Neilsen who had dealt with the Kazals in the negotiations.

Further, Mr Neilsen said the outcome at the site was the "best outcome" for the authority and the NSW government.

But ICAC did not submit any of this evidence to the Operation Vesta public inquiry into the Kazals, nor did it provide Mr Neilsen's affidavit to the legal teams handling the case.

I make no judgement about the guilt or innocence of any of the people in this case, but I do make a judgement about the way in which ICAC handled this case. They found evidence which appeared to be contradictory to their case and they did not provide it to the relevant public inquiry, which would have assisted the inquiry in its work but might not have assisted ICAC in its case.

I want to turn to another article published in The Australian. This one is by Chris Merritt, the crusading legal affairs editor of The Australian and, might I say, someone who has a great appreciation for the legal rights and freedoms of Australians and has been a terrific advocate for them. In this article, entitled 'ICAC raids given go-ahead despite lack of protocol', he writes:

The NSW government's anti-corruption agency spent years obtaining search warrants from the same court official before the practice was authorised by formal guidelines.

A protocol was issued only in April 2014, requiring the Independent Commission Against Corruption and other agencies to approach deputy registrar Stephen Lister when they wanted permission to conduct raids.

But documents obtained by The Australian show that, in the three years before the protocol came into effect, Mr Lister had authorised eight of the agency's most high-profile raids. Before April 2014, he had given ICAC permission to conduct raids on businessman Charif Kazal, the family of former NSW politician Eddie Obeid, former NSW politicians Darren Webber, Chris Spence and Chris Hartcher, businessman Nick Di Girolamo, and former emergency services commissioner Murray Kear and his deputy Steve Pearce.

ICAC Commissioner Megan Latham has supplied a copy of the protocol to a committee of the NSW parliament after being asked about Mr Lister's role in ICAC's failed investigation of prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC.

Three months after the protocol was issued he approved an ICAC raid of Ms Cunneen's home in July 2014, and the seizure of her mobile phone despite the fact that it was already in ICAC's possession.

The search warrant gave ICAC permission to "break open any receptacle in or on the premises"—

Which is a pretty extraordinary allowance. It goes on:

Ms Latham told a public hearing of the committee last month that the search warrant to seize Ms Cunneen's phone had been granted by "a judicial officer independent of the commission who was satisfied of the legitimacy of the grounds for the warrant".

Mr Lister had issued other search warrants for ICAC because "he is the nominated registrar at the Downing Centre for the purposes of agencies like us when we apply for search warrants".

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. This may seem, on the face of it, to be a small matter, but it is one of many matters that ICAC has been found to be engaging in in unorthodox ways.

I will move to another article by Mr Merritt, this time concerning one of the star barristers, as Mr Merritt calls him, Geoffrey Watson SC. This article was published on 23 June 2016:

The star barrister of the NSW anti-corruption agency, Geoffrey Watson SC, has been found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct because of statements he made in a newspaper about "the bloody Liberal Party".

The NSW Bar Council, the governing body of the Bar Association, has issued a caution to Mr Watson, the public face of the Independent Commission Against Corruption during a series of spectacular hearings.

It goes on to say:

The Bar Council found that Mr Watson, while ICAC's counsel assisting, had breached a rule that prohibits barristers from taking "any step" towards having the media publish material about their current cases. The ruling, which covers just more than five pages, indicates that Mr Watson has persuaded the Bar to drop an earlier proposal to refer his conduct to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That proposal, from the Bar's professional conduct committee, could have exposed him to the risk of penalties ranging from a fine to the cancellation of his practising certificate.

Again, perhaps in the view of some this is a minor matter, but it is certainly one which contributes to a general perception in New South Wales that ICAC has acted as a law unto itself.

There was a very substantial and important article published by Sharri Markson in The Australian in August this year. It was about Mike Gallacher, someone who has been relentlessly pursued by ICAC, and, in the end, unsuccessfully. But it has had an enormous impact on his life and on his career, and it seems to me on the available evidence that he is one of the clear victims of ICAC and its behaviour. I will quote from this article, which quotes Mr Gallacher about the impact that this commission has had on his life:

“It’s like that nightmare that you have, that we’ve all had, where you feel you’re being chased and you want to scream but nothing’s coming out and no one is listening to you and no one really wants to listen to you.”

Mike Gallacher, former NSW police minister, is speaking at a cafe in Sydney’s Hyde Park, detailing for the first time the futility of trying to clear your name once the Independent Commission Against Corruption has you in its claws.

Gallacher, a former policeman, had been expecting to be entirely exonerated yesterday. ICAC had advised him there would be no corruption findings against him in its investigation into whether the NSW Liberal Party and MPs had been funnelling illegal donations from property developers.

And there weren’t. But while the thick ICAC report cleared him of corruption, it found he had intended to evade laws that banned donations from property developers in NSW.

That is an interesting view of a future crime. I think there was a movie about that. The article continues:

ICAC ruled Gallacher, along with former energy and resources minister Chris Hartcher and others, were parties to an arrangement where property developers made payments of $66,000 and $53,000 for the NSW election campaign. The report also says Gallacher sought a $7000 political donation from a property developer for a New Year’s Eve fundraiser. And, it claims his evidence was “untruthful”.

The damage to his reputation was so great. Premier Mike Baird declared Gallacher would not return to cabinet, nor to the Liberal Party. Gallacher has enjoyed an esteemed career. He was awarded a police commendation in 2010 …

I am sorry—my article has been cut off there so I will have to jump across:

He spent a large part of his career in internal affairs exposing corrupt police officers and even took on the appearance of a junkie in Kings Cross, which resulted in the smashing of a major drug ring involving a senior police officer.

Now his career is in tatters. Worse. “It’s destroyed, it’s gone now,” Gallacher says. He is a man without a portfolio, without a party.

Later in the article he goes on to talk more about how this has affected his life:

“We’d go to the shops, and I’d assist Judy with the shopping, people would look at you, and you knew what they were thinking because the allegation was this guy took money in exchange for developers getting developments through. You knew it wasn’t true but you couldn’t defend yourself.”

I will not go on with Mr Gallacher's case. It is pretty clear that he is a victim of an organisation which does great damage to the people it pursues—sometimes without any successful outcome, as it was in this case.

There are many more, and I could go on, but this is just a small snapshot of the way in which these independent commissions against corruption, whether they be at the state level or, as the Greens propose, at the federal level, can really seriously breach people's legal rights and freedoms, and damage their reputations. And for no good aim—most spectacularly, I think, in the Cunneen case, which I think is very well-known.

I think that is a really salutary lesson for us here in federal parliament to consider very seriously. If we were to establish a federal anticorruption body it could very easily—and I would not be at all surprised if it did—go down the same road as the New South Wales body against corruption. Although it may have had some success, it has come at a very high price for some people who are, obviously now, clearly innocent.

I would urge all senators to consider that very sincerely as they contemplate this Greens proposal for a federal anticorruption body.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013. My understanding is that this is not the first time this bill has sought to establish a national integrity commission, or an organisation somewhat similar in style to various state bodies. The one I am most familiar with is the work of the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. I stand here today talking about this issue on the second anniversary of the death of Wayne Goss, the former Premier of Queensland. No politician has done more in Queensland to stamp out corruption than Wayne Goss, and I pay tribute to him today.

The forerunner to the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission was the Criminal Justice Commission, which was formed following the revelations of the Fitzgerald inquiry into corruption of the police force and the Bjelke-Petersen National Party government in the seventies and eighties. These were the days of brown paper bags, illegal casinos and when politicians in the highest offices of Queensland were prepared to look away. These were dark days for Queensland, and reflect some of my earliest political memories. 'The joke', as it was known amongst those who were coordinating this corruption in the highest offices of the police and government in my state, damaged Queensland's reputation on the national stage and amongst other Australians.

The large-scale corruption uncovered in Queensland was done by the great work of journalists; media organisations; politicians, including the Labor opposition; and numerous community groups and concerned individuals. They really put a spotlight on what was going on. As we know it now, the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission has become an institution in Queensland that people have great faith in. Those dark days of the seventies and eighties seem so long ago, but for many Queenslanders they remain etched in our minds. So much so that, for the most part, the Crime and Corruption Commission has been an untouchable element of Queensland democracy.

It has been very rare for governments to attempt to weaken or interfere with the CCC, but on any occasion when a government has tried this they have certainly suffered the consequences. The most recent example occurred under the Newman government between 2012 and 2015. This arrogant government made many errors—attacking the judiciary, sacking public servants, cutting health and education funding—but few hurt Queenslanders more than undermining the Crime and Corruption Commission.

I think back to the by-election in Stafford, which was caused by the resignation of Dr Chris Davis. In 2012, he was elected as the LNP member for Stafford. Frustrated by the lack of accountability and integrity in the Newman government, Dr Davis quit, causing a by-election. The undermining of the Crime and Corruption Commission was a key element of his frustration; it formed a key part of discussions and debates within that by-election. What we saw in that by-election was a record swing to Labor and the election of Dr Anthony Lynham, who has since gone on to be a cabinet minister in the Queensland government. This history lesson is important because despite only having one house of parliament in Queensland, the status that the Crime and Corruption Commission has in Queensland has meant that if any government tries to undermine it, or nobble it, they suffer the consequences. The election of the Annastacia Palaszczuk government is the most recent example of that in Queensland. It was only after the widespread revelations of corruption that there was a public mood and understanding of the importance of an anticorruption body in Queensland.

Another important asset in the fight against corruption is openness. For me, it is vitally important that that openness starts with our political parties. I believe that includes openness with regard to preselections, with public scrutiny; open party conferences, again with public and media scrutiny; openness about ballots for party leadership. These are real, important tenements that our political parties say they operate on, but too often, particularly with the Greens, we see them fail this test of public accountability. Greens preselections are all done behind closed doors. Their party conferences are not open to scrutiny from the public or the media. And too often we have seen that with any ballots for the leadership we find out what has gone on sometimes days later. This is clearly not good enough. On our side, the Labor side, we are actually moving the other way, towards more openness, and there has been none more important than allowing branch members to have a say in electing our leaders at state and federal levels. That shows you what we have done.

Another important and transparent accountability mechanism that needs urgent attention is around donation reform. We cannot ignore the public cynicism in this regard. The LNP have an appalling track record at the state and federal level. At a time when the public want greater accountability and transparency, all we see from the LNP is they have gone the other way. They increased declaration thresholds and they have done nothing to change the long lag time before donations are declared.

I think it is pretty easy when you ask yourself, 'Why are the LNP opposed to such basic reform, particularly given what the technology allows us to do in terms of real time donations?' We have to look no further than who the Prime Minister is at the moment and what he did to fund his own election campaign. It is outrageous that four months after the federal election we still do not know whether it was $1 million, $2 million or $3 million that the Prime Minister put into his own campaign. This is something that should have been known before election day, not something we still are waiting to find out some four months later. This is completely unacceptable, and donation and declaration reform is a task that needs urgent attention.

There are serious problems with the current bill. It has three components: a federal ICAC body based on the New South Wales model, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in its present form, and an independent parliamentary adviser to advise MPs on ethics and entitlements and to develop a parliamentary code of conduct. The creation of an independent parliamentary advisor is not necessarily good policy in general and, in any case, is open to question about whether such an office should be housed within a watchdog body. There are other open questions about how a number of federal integrity bodies ought to be integrated or where they sit alongside each other in some form of federal body.

Labor have a broad approach to anticorruption consistent with our longstanding Labor policy. Given the present scandal infecting the federal branch of the Liberal Party, there clearly needs to be a focus on campaign finance. I thought Senator Paterson did an admirable job of trying to whitewash ICAC's finding in regard to the New South Wales Liberal Party. I am sure the Liberal executive will be very happy with him, but the work that ICAC did in exposing the New South Wales Liberal Party is absolutely vital.

This bill is a rehashed proposal from the Greens, but sadly in its six-odd years of different iterations they still have not ironed out the details, which goes to show you the political stunt that this is. There are valid reasons why this keeps getting knocked back, as I have indicated. But perhaps the Greens wanted this to fail in parliament so they can continue to campaign against it. Similar to their grandstanding in question time today on the US alliance, the Greens do not actually want to provide a workable policy here; they just want to be appealing to their base.

Why are we opposed? The National Integrity Commission Bill is similar to others the Greens party have introduced again and again in the past. The National Integrity Commission Bill was first introduced by Senator Bob Brown in June 2010 and reintroduced when parliament reconvened after the 2010 election. The National Integrity Commissioner Bill 2012 was introduced by Adam Bandt. These bills lapsed without having been debated when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued and were not considered in substance by a committee.

The Senate Select Committee on the Establishment of a National Integrity Commission was established in February 2016 to consider this very issue. The committee considered the various arguments in favour and against the establishment of such a commission, and received 29 submissions from key advocacy organisations, academics, industry and unions.

The committee found, in its interim report, that there was a significant difference of opinion across these bodies about whether such a body should be established; there was no established need given the interlocking oversight given by a multitude of agencies was present; there were no answers given as to how the number of federal integrity bodies ought to be integrated or situated alongside any federal ICAC body; that there was potential for gaps to arise when starting from scratch with a new system; and that potential for a federal ICAC needs more consultation in an integrated manner.

Labor remains open-minded about a national corruption body. But I believe the circumstances I spoke about—how this came to be in Queensland and how this body is best formed—are really important. The effort by the Greens is high on politics but lacks the substance that is needed for such an important reform. Again, I go back to how these bodies were formed in Queensland. It really is important to understand the historical context and the public mood at the time. These are some of my first political memories. My family had a background in Tasmania. In coming to Queensland, they were really astonished by the lack of transparency and accountability in our political system. Yes, in Queensland, as I mentioned before, there is a unicameral system—a one chamber parliament—so the importance around integrity and accountability measures is heightened. The mood, and the thought that was established in 1989 on the election of the Goss government, is something that has prevailed until today. I reiterate that any government that tries to attack or undermine that accountability gets found out.

In terms of how this body would be looked at and established in our system, the Greens bill before us lacks the detail that is required. Labor remains open-minded on this but cannot support the bill as it stands.

(Quorum formed)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure and privilege to speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013, which is before us this afternoon.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator O'Neill. A point of order, Senator Bilyk?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a whole lot of noise on the other side, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am finding it hard to hear, even though Senator O'Neill is standing nearly next to me.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage those senators who are not staying to listen to the debate to leave the chamber quietly.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Integrity Commission Bill 2013, which is being considered this afternoon, is an important conversation that Australians have been having and that they have resolved in a range of different ways in different contexts across the country. If we look at the history of the development of bodies to deal with integrity in public office we can see that over the past 30 years there have been a significant number of anti-corruption bodies established throughout the states of Australia. Being a senator for New South Wales, I can certainly attest to the impact of and interest in the ICAC when it was established in New South Wales. The New South Wales ICAC is just one of the august bodies examining corrupt practices in this country. There is also the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission and, just to prove that it is not confined to the eastern states, there is the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission. In Tasmania there is the Integrity Commission, in Victoria there is the IBAC and in South Australia there is the ICAC. These bodies give rise to an increasing understanding in the community about the importance of holding government in all its forms, and government officials, to account. We would have to say that overall these bodies have been tremendously successful in highlighting accountability issues that relate to good governance.

I know that in my great home state of New South Wales we have had significant activity from the state ICAC with regard to political donations. I live in a hotbed of the drivers of that activity, on the Central Coast, where we had an extraordinary set of circumstances emerge around the washing of money funnelled to the Liberal Party through the Free Enterprise Foundation. Many of those who would be perhaps listening to the parliamentary broadcast or watching us on digital TV would remember the many permutations of the way in which money was taken to support state campaigns but channelled through the federal Liberal Party to prevent it being considered illegal. In fact, the whole set-up of the structure was illegal, and that was all revealed.

What I want to point out is that, while these bodies aspire to sorting out issues of corruption and lack of integrity, there are challenges in establishing bodies that are truly effective. Sadly, in the case of the New South Wales member for Terrigal, Mr Hartcher, and the washing of money through the federal party to avoid the scrutiny of state legislation around electoral donations, there was such a delay in the interrogation and the report that, even though the whole sorry saga and the dirty laundry were revealed in the papers over the course of time, the statute of limitations kicked in and the matter could not be dealt with. I know that, because people on the coast who speak to me are quite disgusted at the way in which the manipulation of this process occurred. They are very concerned that what they thought was going to be an excellent body, the New South Wales ICAC, has been stymied. They feel the ICAC has been played with in a way that has not allowed what the community thinks is justice to be done—in other words, having the conversation with the people who have broken community standards, bringing these things into the public place to have a full and proper discussion and having appropriate action in response, such as having the illegal activities dealt with in a court. That is, sadly, a failing that is very much still alive in the minds and conversations of people on the Central Coast, who ask, 'Why do we have to be tarred, from all the experiences we have had, as a place of corruption?'

We know that, in that context, there was a longstanding Liberal staffer who actually confessed to the independent corruption commission that enormous sums of money donors were being donated, including by prohibited donors—property developers who were right across the coast—in the full knowledge that they were breaking New South Wales law, laundering them through a sham organisation that was called Eightbyfive and the Free Enterprise Foundation before they were passed on to the New South Wales Liberal Party.

The scale of this, despite the fact that the Independent Commission Against Corruption existed, was such that there were 11 state New South Wales Liberal politicians who were forced to resign. Now, those opposite like to point to corruption—and I will call it wherever I see it in any context, whether it is in any political party, in any corporate organisation, in any non-corporate organisation. Wherever corruption happens it should be called.

There is a very important purpose for these bodies that are established to raise awareness about it—to respond to it—but they are not perfectly formed. Sometimes, in their haste to advance a political cause, we have seen legislation advanced by the Greens that just does not have the desired outcome that they articulate here in this place. That is because there has been a failure to consider the unintended consequences of the legislation they bring forward. That is why we cannot really support this legislation. I do think that it is flawed and I think it does not deal with the complex realities of establishing a national body.

We know that there has been a significant embarrassment to one of our colleagues here in the chamber, the federal Liberal senator and former Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos, who was stood aside by the Prime Minister in the course of this Eightbyfive-Free Enterprise Foundation fiasco that was considered by the ICAC. Indeed, in reports there were damning comments. I refer in particular to an article by Neil Chenoweth in The Fin Review who said:

Any investigation of NSW state finances inevitably involves some scrutiny of federal fund-raising. It's done by the same people, the same structures, there are constant crossovers.

Given the fact that we have these bodies that I have referred to—the New South Wales ICAC, the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, the Victorian IBAC, and the South Australian ICAC—one has to question: what is the purpose of a duplication of these bodies, which are at a level that is closer to the political activity of the people of those states, and an unnecessary impost of another layer of regulation over the top of those state bodies? That is not to say that Labor will not at any point in time consider a federal independent commission against corruption. In principle Labor has never objected to such a body. But the question remains as to the case for such a body and also, as I alluded to just a little while ago, the outcome of making a decision to establish such a body without sufficient consideration of unintended outcomes from such a body.

We have a series of protections that are already in place, which include a number of federal integrity agencies. People would be familiar with the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, who have the task of working to counter corruption in federal law enforcement bodies, and they do that work very seriously. They are funded to achieve those outcomes, and their hard work is a matter of public record now. We also have the ombudsmen structures and the Auditor-General. The ombudsman, which is perhaps more familiar to ordinary Australians, who might not have anything to do with the federal parliament, is a critical set of checks and balances that sit outside the court system—but in partnership with it to a degree—to provide a place for people who have important matters that need to be resolved but who do not have either the will, the desire, the financial capacity to have matters dealt with by a court, or for people who just want to deal with them on a more human-interaction level by going to the ombudsman and getting matters resolved. The ombudsman also deals with the reports of people who have been exploited, and they become points of awareness-raising for the whole of that state body about points of pressure in the system, and there can be a response at that state level. So ombudsmen, federal and state, do exist.

When I first came to the parliament in my role in the House of Representatives as the member for Robertson, I felt extremely privileged to sit on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. In the course of my work through the 43rd Parliament, I was able to see the work of the Auditor-General in action. What an amazing contribution the Auditor-General makes to our public life here. The care and independence of that body is really important in enabling us to have clear oversight of the expenditure of government moneys. I believe that the vital role that the Auditor-General plays is something that needs to be considered as part of any suggestion for a federal ICAC. The two bodies that I have just been speaking a little about—the ombudsman and the Auditor-General—clearly have very significant oversight over federal administration and expenditure, but they are complemented by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which oversees the federal bureaucracy. There are three significant bodies that are already reporting frequently, certainly annually, on what they find, and that gives the capacity for this place—the chamber opposite and the Senate—to respond to matters of concern that they raise.

Of course, here in Canberra we see slightly different police cars from those over the border in New South Wales. The AFP, the Australian Federal Police—our national police—and the Commonwealth DPP investigate criminal misconduct in government. They are more agencies that are dedicated to the task of carefully monitoring and responding to any corruption or matters that reveal a lack of integrity in the federal space. While we have those bodies, I guess we could always say there is more work to do. The Australian Labor Party, when in government, certainly looked to enhance the integrity of the work that is done at the federal level. When we were last in government, we took important steps to make sure that we did do that work of enhancement. There was a change to the ministerial standards under Labor to more explicitly articulate not just the behaviours of the ministers but an ethical standard that goes to a principle based model of making sure that people choose in the interests of whom they serve, in a way that exists not just within the boundary of the law. That is, a predisposition to choose ethical behaviours over behaviours that lack integrity. That is really what the Australian people expect of us.

One of the concerns that I have is that bodies such as ICAC and other bodies that gather evidence about observed behaviours deal with the consequences of bad behaviours, but we need to invest not just in the cleaning up of bad behaviours but in the preparation of people for public life, in public office and in service, through the Public Service—to choose ethnically, to discern ethically, not just to live within the boundaries of rules that are articulated. There has been some debate this week. My colleague who has taken her place in the Senate—and I expect she may speak after me—Senator Pratt, in her questioning of Senator Brandis, asked about interpretations of the word 'consultation'. In the conversation that happened in this place this week, we can see a miserly mess of a view of what ethical behaviour should look like and a determination to play word games, trying to stay within boundaries that were arbitrarily constructed after the fact, just to excuse what we would consider on this side absolutely unethical behaviours.

In addition to establishing ministerial standards, Labor in government introduced a lobbying code of conduct and a federal lobbyist register. We saw in the papers just last week concerns about former ministers of the Abbott-Turnbull government who, too quickly for public taste it would seem, have gone to lobbying roles that were clearly linked to their previous ministerial responsibilities. These are things that go to the heart of people's decision-making about what they think is fair and just. I question whether the threat of a federal ICAC body would be enough to prevent somebody who is of such a mind from going ahead and undertaking behaviours that, for most Australians, would be considered inappropriate or, further along the scale, actually misconduct.

While in government at a federal level, the Labor Party expanded the powers of ACLEI, we introduced whistleblower protections for those who were disclosing government wrongdoing, and we sought—and we continue to seek—to improve transparency over political donations. As I said in my opening comments, coming from the state of New South Wales and seeing the nature of outrageous behaviour that was characterised by Mr Chris Hartcher, the former member for Terrigal, and people on his staff who actively went out to construct a really aberrant model of cleaning up money to get back into their campaigns for the Central Coast and the Hunter Region, I sincerely wonder if we can see the impact of a federal ICAC body in preventing such behaviour.

The reality is that there are people for whom there are no boundaries and who will take any advantage that will suit themselves and their immediate purposes, and they are in every sphere of life. Serious questions of significant corruption in the federal sphere are, of course, open to the full suite of measures that we might need to restore public trust. As I said, Labor is not averse to the consideration of an anticorruption body, but it needs to be very well considered, it needs to be carefully constructed, and it needs to be something about which there would be general and generous agreement right across this chamber.

I believe that this bill that is being put forward by the Greens party is premature, for some of the reasons that I have just outlined, not because corruption has never been part of the fabric of our society and not because it will not come into the future. But, if we are genuinely going to deal with this issue, we need to, as I said, have a greater agreement about what it actually should look like to prevent unintended outcomes. We also need to have a much more careful look, with the states, at how some integrated body might be established that would give sufficient space, power and status to those bodies that already exist at state level and to learn from the failures of state bodies. I described the work of ICAC in New South Wales a little earlier. It is one thing to document the Eightbyfive scam, the Free Enterprise Foundation and the laundering of so much money for the Liberal Party, through the national office back to the state, that the scale and the audacity of it really take your breath away. Having an ICAC body does not necessarily prevent those behaviours, and we need to attend to that reality.

In closing, can I say that there are serious problems with the current bill as it is constructed. There are three elements to this bill. One is a federal ICAC body based on the New South Wales model, and I hope my comments this afternoon have highlighted that the existence of such a body, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that it can do the work that the community asks it to do. What it achieves in terms of criminal conviction of people who break the law is something that is very much still in question for the people of the Central Coast, who have seen a damning ICAC finding yet a failure of the capacity to implement any penalties for those who perpetrated that great misuse of public office and the power and authority that it has.

The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, in its present form is part of this bill, as is the independent parliamentary adviser to advise MPs on ethics and entitlements and to develop a parliamentary code of conduct. But, just like the establishment of an ICAC, the creation of an independent parliamentary adviser is not necessary good policy in general. In New South Wales, there was an ethics adviser who was in fact employed to undertake that role. Notionally, what a wonderful idea that is. But the reality was that they were never consulted. That goes to what I was saying about the need for an induction into a deep understanding of the place of an ethical disposition in the principles based management and responsible use of public office. I do not believe that this bill deals with that.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the National Integrity Commission Bill. The Labor Party has in the past supported, and currently does support, the principle of an ICAC type of body. But I do not believe the bill that is before us meets the kinds of objectives that Labor would like to see. The bill has a number of key components—a federal ICAC body based on the New South Wales model. I think that is problematic. Very diverse types of models operate in very different ways around the states, and what is before us does not give due consideration to the different models around the country and how they operate. I notice that the Australian Commission For Law Enforcement Integrity would be brought into this, but I have not been convinced that that needs to happen in terms of its current capacity to stand alone.

To me, like Senator O'Neill, the question of an independent parliamentary adviser to advise MPs on ethics and entitlements and to develop a parliamentary code of conduct seems problematic given the high level of debate and control that we have on those questions within the parliament and that sense of collective accountability, noting that the parliament itself is the highest authority on these questions. To my mind, the level of scrutiny we give each other will always be more successful and more important than a simple code of conduct. I do not necessarily object to the idea of codes of conduct, but I do believe that the idea of an adviser on ethics and entitlements within this bill would need further consideration.

Perhaps if some members of this place sat down and asked someone a few questions about their interests and the way they have disclosed them, they might not get themselves into as much trouble as they have done. But I do not think it necessarily requires legislation to see something like that happen. On the face of it, given that a number of recent decisions by a few members of this parliament have fallen short of public standards and indeed our own standards, it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that we might need a body like this. But can such poor decisions be conflated with corruption and unethical behaviour? I do not necessarily believe they always can; they were simply poor decisions. Even after all of that—we have all played our roles in political theatre—the truth is that these matters have been dealt with openly and played out publicly, and the punishment and accountability comes out through public debate to the satisfaction of most people. We have seen ministers come and go because of that kind of scrutiny.

But when it comes to more serious matters too many cases, both now and in recent times, have been brought to the attention of the law and the public. By that, I specifically mean the New South Wales ICAC. But there are of course cases before other state commissions. For example, the ICAC in New South Wales heard allegations that illegal political donations had been funnelled to the New South Wales Liberal Party via various slush funds. I also note that a longstanding Liberal staffer confessed to ICAC that enormous sums of money, including from property developers—who under New South Wales law are banned from making political donations—were laundered through sham organisations, including Eight by Five and the Free Enterprise Foundation, before being passed on to the New South Wales Liberal Party. Eleven New South Wales Liberal politicians were forced to resign, including Premier O'Farrell. Most damningly, it caused federal Liberal senator and former Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos to be stood aside by the Prime Minister. These are all examples, in terms of the pub test, that show the DPP that the current agencies are indeed working.

Federally, we already have the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, and these agencies have very broad oversight of federal administration and expenditure. We have specialist bodies, such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and they oversee particular parts of the federal bureaucracy. What is most important here, because our bureaucracy is so diverse, is that the agencies that are responsible for their own management have internal accountability processes that are embedded throughout the agencies. That is why connecting, for example, security and intelligence agencies is important. Of course, we have the Australian Federal Police, who have a very important role in investigating corruption. We have seen recent examples of them coming to collect parliamentary documents, for example, so we need to be very considered about issues of parliamentary privilege. We also have the Commonwealth DPP.

Along with all of that—and at the risk of being somewhat repetitive in this debate—we have also created a new Statement of ministerial standards. We have introduced the Lobbying code of conduct and a federal lobbyist register, and we have implemented the Code of conduct for ministerial staff. We have also expanded the powers of ACLEI, introduced whistleblower protections for those disclosing government wrongdoing and sought to improve transparency over political donations. At a state level, Labor governments have been seen to introduce the New South Wales ICAC, the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, the West Australian Corruption and Crime Commission, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, the Victorian IBAC and the South Australian ICAC.

Like my colleagues, I do not dismiss the objects of this bill, but we already have a proliferation of agencies designed to deal with accountability and corruption in our country. If you are going to put together an overall Australian type ICAC body, the extent to which it becomes just another one of those agencies or the extent to which it relates to those other bodies are really critical questions, and I do not think they have been properly resolved in this bill. In that context, I worry about the unintended consequences of legislation like this: jurisdiction demarcation and duplication. In addition to looking at existing powers, we should be looking for opportunities to integrate functions between existing agencies. These are some of the examples we need to consider. With more time I think I could come up with a few more.

Reflecting on what Senator Lee Rhiannon had as examples to justify the bill, I return to my earlier comments that many existing agencies can—and indeed do—very successfully investigate these matters. I do not accept that we work in a system that is dominantly corrupt in any way. In fact in global ratings, when you look at corruption and accountability indexes, Australia rates highly in terms of the existing accountabilities in our political and bureaucratic systems and the accountability that they exercise over companies and other parts of the community.

In conclusion, the Labor Party and I support a broad approach to anticorruption, consistent with a longstanding tradition of Labor policy. That means it needs to be embedded in a wide variety of agencies, because accountability is something that needs to rest with each of us as individuals and with every government institution, every parliamentary institution and every company, school or other agency.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 6 pm, the time for the debate has expired.