Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and a related bill. The coalition supports the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Let me be clear: corruption is wrong. It is corrosive of public trust. It undermines the very public confidence on which all of our institutions depend. The public should know that those who break the law should face the consequences, and the standards in public office should be high.

The passage of bills to establish this commission will mean that every jurisdiction in Australia will have an anticorruption commission. In participating in this debate, the coalition has sought to draw on the over 30 years of Australian experience of corruption commissions to make sure that this commission is effective and has appropriate safeguards built in. Anticorruption commissions have extraordinary powers to deal with corruption, a civil wrong—more powers than the police have in investigating crimes of murder or terrorism. Let me reiterate: the coalition supports the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The government has the balance right on several matters, but there is further work to do. The government has adopted the bipartisan recommendations of the joint select committee, but some additional measures are required. The coalition intends to bring forward amendments to deal with these measures. Our amendments are designed to implement safeguards to ensure that this very important bill gets the balance right.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has a very broad scope. It applies to parliamentarians and their staff and to every Canberra public servant. What many perhaps do not know is that it also applies to our Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, our diplomats and embassies around the world, and every cook, cleaner, gardener, Comcar driver, and contractor or subcontractor that the Commonwealth engages with. It applies to almost every person exercising power under a law of the Commonwealth: pharmacists, NDIS workers, aged-care workers and Indigenous rangers. In fact, it is estimated that probably around one million Australians are brought within reach of this commission.

We will be moving amendments to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to enhance the way the commission operates and to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected. This commission will have extraordinary powers, and with extraordinary powers should come greater accountability. While it's important that serious corruption be identified and dealt with, a terrorism suspect prosecuted in a criminal court has more rights than a person brought before this commission. The words of the South Australian Bar Association are particularly worth noting:

Corruption is wrong, but in our zeal to see corrupt public officials dealt with appropriately, we must not discard the protections of the rights and liberties that are central to our legal system.

I want to turn to the issue of public versus private hearings which has consumed so much of the debate in relation to the commission. The default of private hearings is one important aspect of ensuring that the commission's focus is where it ought to be. A balance has been struck with section 73(2), which allows for a hearing to be held in public if exceptional circumstances justify holding the hearing or part of the hearing in public and it is in the public interest to do so. This balances the important investigative power of the commission whilst also protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that any future prosecutions that may follow from an investigation are not unduly prejudiced. As the Queensland Law Society has said:

In our view, in order to preserve prosecutions, in order to maintain that prosecutorial authority with those bodies, as opposed to investigative bodies, and not unfairly damage reputations of people coming before the NACC, it's imperative that the default position be that private hearings are held, and obviously with the test of exceptional circumstances being employed.

We would like to see that test further strengthened. While the legislation presently lists a number of factors in section 73(3) that 'in deciding whether to hold a hearing or part of a hearing in public the Commissioner may have regard to', the word 'may' is insufficient. We believe that the commissioner should be required to have regard to those factors, which include the extent of corruption, the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and also, importantly, any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if the hearing or part of the hearing were to be held in public. The need for section 73(3) to be strengthened in this way was endorsed by various submissions to the joint committee, including by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Let me now turn to the definition of 'corruption'. We will move amendments to section 8(1)(a) to remove the vague and superfluous phrase 'or that could adversely affect', consistent with the Law Council's submission that such a phrase is unnecessary, given that conspiracy is included in section 8(10). The phrase 'or that could adversely affect' introduces uncertainty to the definition of 'corrupt conduct'.

We're also concerned that section 9(1)(c) defines a corruption issue not just as something that someone has done or is doing but also as something that a person will engage in in the future. This would see the commission investigate possible future conduct that has not actually been carried out. This provision should be removed. A person cannot be investigated and punished for actions they have not taken. We'll also move amendments to delete section 9(1)(c). Again, this view is consistent with the views of the Queensland Law Society and the Law Council.

Another issue in the public debate about the powers of the commission has been whether it should be retrospectively able to investigate conduct. The basic principle is that people should be able to know what the law is before they act so they can comply with it. Section 8(4) gives the legislation completely unbounded retrospective reach. We believe that an additional public interest test is needed if the commission decides to investigate conduct that occurred before the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Law Council suggested including an additional threshold that will allow the National Anti-Corruption Commission to conduct investigations into past conduct only where there is an identifiable public interest in doing so. This would bring the National Anti-Corruption Commission into line with similar provisions under the Victorian IBAC act.

The Prime Minister has said that this legislation is not designed to duplicate existing processes but instead is intended to fill gaps. Under section 45 the commission has the power to reinvestigate matters that have previously been investigated by another integrity agency. Section 45(3) lists the matters the commissioner may have regard to when deciding to commence an investigation into a matter previously investigated by a Commonwealth integrity agency. As with the decision to have public hearings, we believe that in exercising this power the commissioner and a deputy commissioner should be required to jointly sign off on decisions to reinvestigate matters that have already been considered by another integrity body.

I now turn to the application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to this bill. The bill has limited the application of the ADJR act to a small number of matters. We believe that judicial review under the ADJR act should be available to all decisions under this bill, and we will move amendments to this effect. This is consistent, again, with the recommendations made by the Law Council. We believe that judicial review under the ADJR act, as I said, should be available to all decisions under this bill. The application of a gag order for people under investigation by the commission can present a real threat to a person's mental health. Not being able to talk to a mental health professional or to a family member can mean that, at a very stressful time, the usual supports that a person may rely on are not available. As the Australian Psychological Society told the committee:

Individuals involved in corruption commission inquiries are likely to be appearing in a professional capacity … For many people, their professional persona is core to their self-identity and any damage or threat to it is therefore amplified.

Gag orders therefore need to be balanced to ensure that people can access appropriate support.

I now come to the important issue of privileges. Rule of law principles exist for an important reason. They ensure that robust systems of justice are balanced with concern for individual rights. The bill abrogates a number of privileges that would exist in a criminal process, like the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. Because the rights of a person under investigation are waived, it is very important that material elicited by the corruption commission, in a scenario under which a person doesn't have the right they would usually have in a criminal process, must then not be used either directly or derivatively in a criminal process.

A body with the extraordinary powers of this commission must itself be held to account. At present, the inspector's powers are insufficient. As the bill stands, the inspector is due to be the national anticorruption commission of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We believe the inspector's role should be broader, and we will move amendments to strengthen the role of the inspector.

We also believe there should be time limits on investigations so that the commission is required to conclude investigations within a definite period. I note one of the foremost advocates for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Geoffrey Watson SC, has argued for time limits on investigations. Time limits could be extended by application to a court, but we need to see investigations not remain open indefinitely. Our amendments seek to do this.

Finally, in relation to amendments, we believe the appointments of the commissioner and inspector must be completely above politics. To that end, the appointment of these roles should be subject to a supermajority of nine of the 12 members of the joint standing committee. It must be above politics. This ensures that those who fulfil these significant roles have bipartisan support. We will move amendments to this effect.

In conclusion, whilst we believe there are numerous measures that would strengthen this body and provide safeguards for individuals, I want to reiterate the coalition's support for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The support for this body across the parliament is clear. It is a clear message to the Australian people that corruption is wrong and that the parliament is dealing with corruption seriously.

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

I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. Finally, finally, we are going to get a national anticorruption commission. After years of delay and broken promises in parliament after parliament, we are now going to get, in just a matter of a few days, a national anticorruption commission to fill the gap in oversighting corruption that's been there staring everybody in the face at the federal level. The Northern Territory's got one. Victoria's got one. New South Wales has had one for decades—and haven't they needed it! Finally, we're going to have that torch of anticorruption, that powerful independent NACC, focusing on the workings of this place, the workings of the federal government and all those corporates and others who seek to corrupt this institution and federal politics.

The Greens made an election commitment to the people of Australia and those millions of people who voted for the Greens that we would do everything in our power to pass a national anticorruption commission bill and to make it the most powerful and independent version we could. We have been delivering on that. I'm proud to be part of a record 12 Greens senators in this place who have given the support necessary to deliver a powerful national anticorruption commission. If it was left just to the major parties to bounce between themselves and cut deals, there is no way we would be getting the Anti-Corruption Commission we've got now. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Senator Waters for having done so much heavy lifting in this space and for having passed, I would say, a stronger anticorruption commission bill in a previous parliament and having navigated that through the Senate, only for it to run aground on the rocky shores of a Morrison-Dutton coalition-dominated chamber downstairs. Thank goodness we got rid of those rocky shoals with the last election.

I want to pay tribute as well to the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, and the work she has done. And to the civil society groups as well, who have for years been working with politicians—Greens and others—to try to get this parliament to pass not just any anticorruption bill but the best possible one. There are too many to mention, but I note particularly the Centre for Public Integrity, the Human Rights Law Centre, Transparency International and so many others.

While we are getting a powerful bill, there is a glaring gap in it. That glaring gap is about public hearings. The now Labor government went to the election with a promise on that. They had the seven elements and they had shiny brochures. They handed them out and they said, 'If you vote for us, this is the kind of NACC you'll get.' Tragically, they have betrayed one of those key elements with this bill. They said in black and white that they supported a national anticorruption commission where the test for having a public hearing would be what's in the public interest. There it is, laid out in their brochures in black and white: that's what the test would be. And yet what do we see with this bill? We see a test negotiated with we don't know who that puts in place the need for the commission to find 'exceptional' circumstances before a public hearing can be held.

Public hearings bring other witnesses out. They hold anticorruption commissions to account and they provide a necessary cautionary example to other politicians, bureaucrats or entities which are trying to corrupt the Commonwealth government. We know that they have worked extremely well at a state level and we know, from the evidence we got at the inquiry, that those state based anticorruption commissions that have a test for public hearings based solely on public interest, and which don't have exceptional circumstances, think that's extremely valuable. We also know that those anticorruption commissions that have an exceptional circumstances test want to get rid of it as quickly as they can.

At the inquiry we heard, for example, from the current New South Wales ICAC commissioner. What did he say? He said:

The other issue that has been raised is public hearings versus private hearings. I'm a strong supporter of public hearings. I believe that they're important because they make the organisation accountable and they provide an opportunity for other people to come forward. We've had investigations which have commenced in public, and as a result of that information other people have come forward and we've been able to go into other areas which have raised significant issues of corruption. It also, I think, ensures transparency and accountability for the agency and justifies the purpose if the case, ultimately, is made for change.

That's three decades of experience in the New South Wales ICAC there. I can think of multiple inquiries—one, for example, into corruption in a very major council, Canterbury-Bankstown council in Sydney—where the holding of public hearings and the exposure of what some of those corrupt council officials and councillors were doing brought out additional witnesses, who saw people lying in public hearings and then came and gave their version to the ICAC. Ultimately, they were essential for changing and exposing the corruption in those councils, producing the most powerful reports and the recommendations needed to clean up corruption. It was public hearings that produced those.

The Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission officers suffer under an act which requires them to find exceptional circumstances before they can hold a public hearing. That has already tied them up in legal challenges and it has also limited the ability of IBAC to do its job. We just had a state election in Victoria in circumstances where there have been multiple secret inquiries undertaken by IBAC involving the current government in Victoria. But most voters in Victoria don't know what the content is. They don't know what their government had been accused of and they voted without that information. Compare that to New South Wales, where the public hearings have led to a contest of ideas. People know what the former Premier and other senior members have been up to in New South Wales. In New South Wales, voters will be exercising their rights at the ballot box far more informed than voters were in Victoria. What did the Victorian IBAC say? They said this:

A crucial way in which any anti-corruption agency exposes corrupt conduct is through the public examination of witnesses. Examining witnesses in public can make investigations more transparent and can increase public awareness of, and confidence in, the integrity system.

The nature of serious or systemic corruption is that many people may have knowledge of isolated pieces of information that may be relevant to a particular investigation. By holding a public examination, awareness and understanding of the matter under investigation is raised and witnesses can be prompted to come forward with relevant information that they had not previously understood the potential significance of.

The Bill currently only permits public hearings if the Commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the holding of the hearing in public and that it is in the public interest to do so.

They go on to say:

… the IBAC does not consider that the existence of exceptional circumstances ought to be a decisive factor in determining whether a public hearing should proceed.

I quoted from the current commissioner of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, and the former commissioner, as well, gave the same evidence. The New South Wales ICAC don't have the exceptional circumstances test, and they've told everyone in this chamber, 'Don't put it in, because it will cripple the ability of the NACC to work.' On the flipside, we have the Victorian IBAC, where they do have the exceptional circumstances test and they've laboured under it for years, and they say: 'Don't repeat the Victorian mistake. Don't put in place exceptional circumstances.'

It seems there is a collective will amongst the major parties to have such a high threshold for public hearings that, basically, politicians will continue to be a protected class at a federal level. What's so special about federal politicians that they should be shielded from public scrutiny and from having to answer, in public, allegations of corruption? What's so special? The only thing special about the Commonwealth level is there's more money and more funds and more opportunity to corrupt. Of course it should be subject to at least the same level of scrutiny as we have in New South Wales. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and this bill does not provide sufficient sunlight. We will be moving amendments to seek to correct that error in the committee stage.

Can I finish on this point. We've had multiple concerns raised in the committee hearings, and I'm sure many members have had concerns raised, about when anti-corruption commissions have gone off the rails and been unfair to witnesses and produced unfair results. Almost uniformly, those concerns have come about from private hearings—private hearings that have gone on for months or years, where witnesses have been gagged and can't speak in public, where they've been unable to tell their spouse or key people in their life what's been happening to them, because it's all been happening in secrecy. And it's in secrecy where anticorruption commissions can veer into substantial and real unfairness against witnesses, where they cannot be providing the kind of natural justice that you would expect. One of the best cures for that is to have the hearings in public, where the corruption commission needs to justify its work and needs to justify its processes to the broader public.

We recognise that there have been some improvements made to the bill in the other place. There have been greater protections for journalists, but there's still more to be done in that regard. We recognise also that there have been some minor improvements to other aspects of the bill. But we went backwards in one key regard in the amendments that happened downstairs. That was narrowing the definition of 'corruption' to remove a generalised jurisdiction for tracking down corruption within the NACC. We don't understand the rationale for that. We simply ask this—and we'll ask it in committee when we try and reinstate that: exactly what corruption is it that the Labor Party and the coalition don't want the NACC to look at? If there's corruption, however defined, the NACC needs to have the ability to investigate it.

In terms of other unfinished business, one of the aspects that we have concern about is the oversight committee. From the day this legislation was tabled, the government was on notice that a government controlled oversight committee does not have the independence required to do its job properly. The best solution to that is for the government to adopt the Greens amendment which requires a non-government chair of the committee, therefore ensuring that the government doesn't have complete control and the opposition doesn't have a veto on key questions, like the appointment of a commissioner.

I've got to be clear. If we don't get the numbers to support that very rational Greens amendment, which is supported by integrity experts across the country, then we're going to be looking very genuinely to any other amendment that seeks to remove complete executive control from that committee. One of those would be to have a supermajority when the committee votes to appoint commissioners in order to remove the government's complete control, because we're not just making a NACC for the current government; we're protecting it against a more noxious government in the future that may want to impose the worst of commissioners on the NACC. And, of course, it shouldn't just be at the whim of the government of the day in a committee completely controlled by the government of the day.

We know as well that more work needs to be done on oversight. The current inspector is basically a mini-NACC of NACC, looking for serious or systemic corruption in NACC. We hope that there will be none of that work to do or, at best, a tiny amount to do. At state and territory levels the inspectors have a far broader role, basically to be a permanent ombudsman oversighting the NACC. We will be moving amendments to implement that based largely on the excellent recommendations of Bruce McClintock SC, the current inspector of the New South Wales and Northern Territory anticorruption commissions.

We will also be looking to improve the protections for journalists to ensure that where warrants are being sought against journalists those warrants are contestable. We know that works in the UK, and it can work here as well.

Finally, as Greens, we are focused on the outcome. We want the best, the most independent and the most transparent NACC that we can achieve. We will work across this parliament to get the numbers to achieve that. I think we've got a lot of work to do in committee, but I can say this clearly: in just a few short days we will finally have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, and it's well past time.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes patience pays off in politics. It's been three years since my private member's bill for a strong, independent anticorruption watchdog with the ability to hold public hearings passed this chamber. It's been 14 years since the Greens first moved for there to be a federal corruption body. So here we are—this week we will finally see the passage of legislation to set up a federal corruption watchdog and, boy, it has been a long time coming. The Commonwealth has been the only jurisdiction that has not had such a body. All of the states and territories now have their version of a corruption watchdog, and it's not like the Commonwealth has been free of corruption, so this is a very happy and long-awaited day.

There are few things the Australian community is more unified on than the need for a strong, independent, transparent and effective corruption watchdog. Public confidence in the integrity of Australian politicians has plummeted in recent years. It's no mystery why. Scandal after scandal, with no consequence; watching donor mates feather their nests while so many ordinary Australians struggle to make ends meet; and former government ministers almost immediately popping up to spruik mining companies or banks or gambling interests after they've left parliament.

When Transparency International gave Australia its lowest score ever on its Corruption Perception Index last year it was clear that lack of progress on an integrity commissioner was a key factor in that terrible ranking. At the election, people voted clearly and en masse for more transparency, for more integrity and for better representation. People want an independent and powerful watchdog that can root out corruption that runs so rife in this place and continues to undermine our democracy, and they want that work to be done with transparency and without politicisation. Australians need to have confidence that there will be consequences when corrupt conduct is identified and there won't be a protection racket for politicians.

As my colleague Senator Shoebridge has outlined, the Greens have been pushing to get the federal corruption watchdog for 14 years now. As I mentioned, my bill passed this chamber more than three years ago. For 10 years we were in the wilderness advocating for this idea. It was described, if my memory serves me correctly, as a niche issue by then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. It was laughed at by both of the big parties. Then, 10 years after we first suggested it, it was first Labor that finally agreed that this was something that needed to happen, and then it took another year for the Liberal and National parties to do a 180 and say, 'Alright, we agree that we need a federal corruption watchdog.' We're happy when people get there in the end; it's just a shame it took so long.

However, we then saw three years of obfuscation and inaction from the then Morrison government. We saw three rounds of public consultation on a draft consultation paper that miraculously didn't change from consultation to consultation. It was the absolute definition of tokenistic consultation, because they weren't listening to what people were saying when they were consulted on the bill. That was a somewhat amusing walk through history that was desperately frustrating to all involved at the time.

I want to pay enormous gratitude and tribute to former Greens senators Bob Brown and Lee Rhiannon, who drove this issue before I took over the portfolio in 2015. Of course I also want to acknowledge former Independent MP Cathy McGowan, who also had an excellent draft bill, and now Helen Haines. They have collectively got us to where we are today.

The previous government fought tooth and nail against an effective corruption watchdog. I wonder if that's because they knew half their cabinet would have been implicated by it. I've done multiple speeches in this chamber—and I ran out of time every time—in which I would list all of the scandals, all of the integrity fracas, all of the embarrassment that so typified the previous government. It's no wonder that the government at the time deprioritised this. It was delayed, and then it was finally printed and entered into in a form that made it the clear that the government continued to not listen to the expert contributions and what anyone with an interest in this had been saying for years.

What those experts had been crystal clear on were the key features of a strong, independent anticorruption commission. They are: a broad definition of corrupt conduct; a broad scope that captures parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders and employees of government entities and contractors; strong investigative powers; the ability to act on referrals, to act on public complaints, including anonymous tipoffs, and to act on the commission's own initiative; reasonable thresholds for commencing an investigation; the power to hold public hearings; the power to make findings of fact and findings of corrupt conduct; the power to report publicly; oversight by an inspector and a cross-parliamentary committee; and retrospective application. They were the key features the experts said a corruption watchdog needed to have in order to be an effective watchdog and not one that was toothless or asleep in the kennel.

In opposition, the Labor government acknowledged those features, so we were hopeful when the Albanese government made integrity a key election commitment. There is no doubt that this bill is a huge leap forward, with many of those necessary features. It builds on the good work done by Greens and Independents over many years. But we remain incredulous and deeply disappointed that Labor has walked back its previous commitment to public hearings, making them the exception rather than the rule. When it comes to integrity, the experience in all other jurisdictions has been that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Public hearings build public confidence in the outcomes. They act as a clear deterrent to those who think they can get away with corrupt conduct, and they provide a forum that can tease out new angles, new witnesses and new evidence that might not come to light without public attention.

The vast majority of work done by integrity commissions is done in evidence gathering and analysis, and with a clear view to balancing the public interest in transparency against the risk of disclosing compromising things to do with an investigation, and balancing that risk of undue representational damage. Public hearings happen only after a significant body of work hack has been done to satisfy the commission that there is a case to answer. Commissioners are well placed to make the assessment about what is in the public interest, but the presumption should be one of transparency.

We'll be moving amendments, as my colleague Senator Shoebridge has mentioned, to give the government another chance to get this right and to provide for public hearings. It's the worst kept secret in this place that a deal was done with the LNP on this matter in order to secure their support for this. There's some belief that somehow this will make it a longer lasting body. How can you create this otherwise fantastic body that's got so much work to do and then nobble it from having public hearings? It's just unfathomable. I urge the government to support the amendments that we will move to ensure that public hearings can be had without a fetter on the discretion of the commissioners to make that decision.

We also need to make sure that the resources that the NACC needs to do its job are determined by an independent body. Leaving funding decisions to government risks the body being starved by a government who would benefit from an Anti-Corruption Commission that's totally broke and has no teeth. An Anti-Corruption Commission that cannot do its job is, in many ways, worse than none at all.

The cross-party committee established under this bill is welcome, but it's not sufficiently independent of the executive. It can make budget recommendations, but funding decisions ultimately rest with government. Another key feature that is missing from this bill is clear protection for whistleblowers. My bill for a national integrity commission included a dedicated whistleblower protection commissioner, recognising that those who expose corruption and maladministration can face, and often do face, considerable personal risks. The Attorney-General has committed to acting on the Moss review and strengthening the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which we welcome, but it is a missed opportunity to not establish a whistleblower commissioner as part of NACC to ensure appropriate support, advice, representation and protection for people disclosing misconduct.

Finally, I want to talk about cleaning up politics. Of course, we need a federal anti-corruption watchdog and we will be supporting this bill, but a federal NACC is not enough. The NACC won't stop pork-barrelling or break the stranglehold of corporate influence on politics. It won't stop the revolving door between industry and political parties. It won't be enough on its own to give the community confidence that politicians are acting in the public interest, not their own interests. We need a comprehensive plan to clean up politics from the start, not just to deter corruption at the very end. We need to get the influence of big money out of politics.

Last week, I reintroduced my bill to ban donations from dirty industries and to cap all other political donations to $1,000 per year. We also need to lower the donation disclosure thresholds and make donations public in real time, so people can see who is seeking to influence decisions. We also need election spending caps, so elections aren't bought by those with the deepest pockets. We desperately need to lift parliamentary standards with a strong code of conduct for all MPs and senior staff, which we're making some progress on. We need to strengthen the lobbying code. We need to publish ministers' diaries. We need to make sure that freedom of information laws actually disclose information affordably and meaningfully. We need to stop the revolving doors and the golden escalators by extending the cooling-off period for former ministers taking on cushy roles in industries they used to allegedly regulate to five years, not the unenforced 12 to 18 months that it currently is. We desperately need a more diverse parliament that represents our community. We also need to remove barriers to public servants and dual citizens running for election. We need increased public engagement in parliamentary debate. We need strong support for protest and public advocacy.

Everyone benefits from honesty, transparency and accountability in politics—everyone except Aussie politicians. The community deserves a genuinely representative parliament with integrity, one that acts in the public interest, not just the interests of politicians, big corporations and the super rich.

I welcome this bill as a huge step towards that role. I look forward to working with the government on getting the rest of the way there. Whilst I began this speech saying that patience pays off, I'm running out of patience for reform on those other elements.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a young person, I appreciate that learning about life and its challenges is tough enough, let alone having to question the integrity of the people you are supposed to trust, the people who are meant to think of the collective good and the people who create legislation that will benefit everyone in our society. When I hit the 2020 campaign trail in Western Australia, both doorknocking and phone banking, I heard from young people first-hand, from all walks of life, who were put off by politics and the voting process altogether. I heard them say things like 'government can't be trusted', 'they're all crooks', 'they're good for nothing', 'they're self-interested and corrupt', 'they don't listen' and 'they do nothing'. All they heard about on the news in the past nine years were countless numbers of rorts, cases of misconduct and corruption and a lack of transparency when the previous Prime Minister secretly appointed himself to five ministries. So you can imagine how disappointed and in despair young people felt, the same young people who will one day be the pioneers and leaders of our tomorrow, the same young people who are full of ideas that could potentially hold the key to the issues we currently face. Labor listened and committed.

Before the election Labor promised we would be a government that Australians could be proud of, both nationally and globally, a government committed to integrity, honesty and accountability, unlike those who came before us. Our priority since been elected has been to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent national anti-corruption commission by the end of the year. This is an essential step to fulfil our promise to the Australian people.

The Albanese government's National Anti-corruption Commission will be built on the following six design principles. The commission will have a broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector by ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and government contractors. The commission will operate independent of government with discretion to commence inquiries into serious or systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers and public oversight. The commission will be overseen by a statutory parliamentary joint committee empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work. The commission will have power to investigate allegations of serious or systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment. The commission will have power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and where it is in the public interest to do so. The commission will be empowered to make findings of fact, including findings of corrupt conduct, and refer findings that could constitute criminal conduct to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Finally, the commission will operate with procedural fairness, and its findings will be subject to judicial review.

This legislation also provides strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of their sources. This is the level of accountability the Australian people expect, what they voted for and what they deserve. For so long Australians have felt their trust in the conduct and discourse of the federal government crumble and they remain scarred, but I stand here today proud to be a Labor senator, a part of the Albanese Labor government committed to healing and restoring the public's faith in our political system.

I remind the Senate of the wise words of William H Hastie, which are displayed on the wall of Old Parliament House. He eloquently said:

Democracy is a process, not a static condition. It is becoming, rather than being. It can be easily lost, but is never finally won.

To uphold our duty to the true essence of democracy we first need to ensure integrity and transparency is established so that people feel confident in the legitimacy and accountability of the government and its intentions of serving the best interests of all Australians. I thank Senator Waters and all of my other colleagues here in the Senate for their advocacy and effects in striving to see the establishment of this National Anti-corruption Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. This bill has been a long time coming—a very, very long time. The Greens wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of a federal anticorruption commission, something that we have been calling for, campaigning for and advocating for loudly and consistently for decades. Of course, we would prefer for it to meet fully the community expectations of having public hearings and stronger protections for journalists. I know that the Greens will move amendments to try to ensure that we do get the best possible anticorruption commission this week. Sadly, corruption has become part and parcel of Australian politics. And no wonder—Australia recorded its worst-ever score on the Corruption Perceptions Index, behind New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific.

One of the reasons that my husband and I left Pakistan was the political corruption that had set in over there. By the time I reached my 20s, corruption was taking hold in Pakistan. It was deep-seated and it was widespread. It became entrenched in politics, bureaucracy and institutions. I often remember my elders reminiscing about the good old days of statesmanlike politicians who dedicated their lives to the good of people and country. There was also this notion that trickled down to me that, while politics in Pakistan had become corrupt, things were very different in Western democracies. I was told that politicians there were public servants who had honesty and integrity. I had high hopes for Australian politicians and of the political system itself.

Soon after I joined politics in Australia, my belief in corruption-free, selfless politicians came crashing down. I've seen the worst of it in New South Wales politics. In my first year in the New South Wales parliament a staggering 10 state Liberal MPs resigned from the party or from their positions, under the shadow of corruption. I was really was shattered by these revelations, especially since I was hoping for things to be quite different in Australia. But the reality is that power corrupts, no matter where you are. That's why we need strong systems to hold power to account. New South Wales politics is notorious for its corruption scandals and dirty deals, many of which have only seen the light of day, and had perpetrators held to account, because of the existence of the strong, Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales—and because of brave whistleblowers, investigators and journalists who act in the public interest. But corruption is not confined within the borders of New South Wales. The longer I spend in politics, the more I see the omnipresence of corruption. Even worse, it is often denied, covered up and defended.

Some of the outright corruption is of course largely legal. The very concept of political donations is about buying influence and purchasing favour. Political donations are dangerous because they distort political decision-making, favouring vested interests above good policy. This ultimately results in the abuse of power and of taxpayers' money.

Political donations and the wider capture of both parties by fossil fuel interests is perhaps the most egregious example in recent years. The fossil fuel industry is a substantial donor to both of the major parties through direct contributions and through industry associations. An ACF analysis of the donation receipts for 2020-2021, a non-federal election year, revealed the coalition received $1.3 million and the ALP received nearly $800,000 from fossil fuel companies, both significantly higher sums than those of the previous year. Donations from the fossil fuel lobby had the coalition so beholden to them that, embarrassingly, Australia was ranked dead last out of 193 countries for lack of action on climate change last year. While Labor is definitely better than the coalition on climate, their refusal to put an end to coal and gas—effectively a refusal to stop pouring fuel over the fire—as well as a refusal to rule out giving public money to these industries, is a pretty clear reflection that they too are in the pockets of dirty, morally bankrupt fossil fuel corporations.

Political donations serve to protect other industries whose social licences are under threat. Donations to the Liberals, Nationals and the Labor Party from betting companies, for instance, went some way to ensuring that the cruelty of horse racing and greyhound racing would go on unfettered. Then there's the use of public money to shore up a political party's chances of winning elections. We are all familiar with the sports rorts, the carpark rorts and the regional grants rorts. This immoral and corrupt pork-barrelling, with little recrimination from governments, has become just an accepted part of Australian politics, with some politicians excusing or even openly defending it. But we know pork-barrelling wastes taxpayers' money, undermines public trust in political leaders and institutions, and does promote a corrupt culture.

When ministers leave parliament, this is another way that corruption festers. When ministers leave parliament, they often swing straight into lucrative positions in companies they once regulated, or they swing right back into politics as lobbyists and are paid obscene amounts of money by corporations to influence decisions using their well-established political networks. This revolving door has become normalised across a range of industries, particularly in the fossil fuel industry and in the fields of defence and security, where former officials and public figures move seamlessly into highly paid positions without any apparent concern about conflicts of interest.

I must say that I remain really astounded by the depth and breadth of this corruption. It is so normalised that it goes on right under our noses. If it ever gets brought to light—there have been repercussions, resignations and even jail for some—so much of it is sanctioned by our lax laws and the well-established web of privileged connections that no-one is held accountable for much of it.

So it is no wonder that public trust in politics and politicians is low, and it is our job to re-establish that trust. An independent corruption watchdog at the federal level is a big step towards this, and I commend the government for acting quickly on this much-needed reform after coming into power—admittedly, after many, many years of hard campaigning by the Greens. But there is so much more to do. Let's ban dirty donations from industries like gambling, fossil fuels, alcohol and tobacco. Let's stop the revolving door between politics and industrial lobbyists. Let's end pork-barrelling. After all, a corruption watchdog is only as powerful as the rules that define corruption.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate today on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Author William Gaddis famously said, 'Power doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt power.' Establishing a federal corruption commission is our chance to show Australians that people who break the law must face the law. We all agree corruption is wrong and should be stamped out. Indeed, the coalition introduced Australia's first ICAC in 1988. However, we should take the time we need and the care we need to get this right because this commission, once established, will have extraordinary powers. These powers will be the same as a royal commission, which is why it's so important we get it right.

The proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission applies to a vast range of people within Australia, not just parliamentarians and public servants. This commission also covers our defence forces, Federal Police, NDIS and aged-care workers, and any contractor or subcontractor who exercises power under Commonwealth law. What it doesn't cover, however, is union officials who are exercising power under Commonwealth law.

While there is much that is good in this bill, it isn't perfect. Coalition members and senators have engaged at length with the legislation, which has helped to shape what we are debating here today, but other aspects discussed by my colleagues during the preparation and writing stage of the bill have not been included. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation put forward six consensus recommendations. Coalition committee members presented many additional comments to ensure this bill gets the balance right between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of the everyday people brought before the body.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also suggested extensive recommendations, which highlighted members' concerns around definitions lacking specificity and how coercive powers could be used improperly and without adequate safeguards. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted its concerns about how gag orders could be used and their potential impact on the mental health of people brought before the commission, as well as the broad use of contempt offences. Additionally, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's inquiry into the NACC's proposed telecommunications surveillance has not yet concluded. At this point, we do not even understand all the implications that will arise from this bill.

As I said, the coalition has approached engaging with this bill in good faith within parliament and through the various committee processes, but we still have concerns over some of the measures contained in the bill. To this end, the coalition proposes amendments that work to balance the extraordinary powers that the NACC will have with fairness and reason.

We propose to close the loophole that allows the unions to be above these anticorruption measures. While the Labor government talks itself up about integrity, allowing the union bosses a free pass when it comes to corruption is, frankly, corrupt. I don't see how someone like CFMMEU Victoria secretary John Setka should have different standards to adhere to than, say, the NDIS workers who look after the needs of the constituents in my home state of Tasmania. If this legislation is good enough for our defence forces and Federal Police to be guided by, it's more than good enough for the likes of the union officials who are threatening subcontractors on building sites.

We want this bill to have adequate protections for all within its purview, as do experts in this field, like the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, the South Australian Bar Association, the Australia Institute and the Victorian Inspectorate. These organisations support the coalition's efforts to balance the powers in this bill, such as sharing the power to commence a public hearing into a person or organisation between a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. Spreading the power between more than a single official is good governance.

We think it should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider certain factors before commencing an investigation. These factors should include considering whether confidential information is involved, whether a person's reputation would be unfairly prejudiced and whether someone giving evidence is vulnerable, for example, being under direct control of another, when determining whether public hearings should be held. We already know the damage being called before a corruption commission can do to someone's reputation, whether they are guilty of corruption or not. We've seen it across the country. We can do better than this.

Further, and as highlighted earlier by Senator Henderson, the commission proposed in this bill has the power to impose gag orders on those appearing before the body, to stop them disclosing that they appeared. In the interest of promoting the health and wellbeing of the people who appear before the commission, particularly their mental health, there should be limited exceptions to this order. These could include the ability to disclose information to an immediate family member, as long as they are not a person of interest in a case, or a medical or mental health professional. We need to ensure that those who appear before the commission are not left without a support system and feeling they'll have nowhere to turn.

We also proposed a further amendment regarding the repeal of privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege for those who appear. We want to ensure that this comes into effect only when absolutely necessary, because the removal of this privilege significantly impacts fundamental rights. The commission's decisions should all be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Again, this is good governance, but there are significant aspects in this bill that are not subject to review. Commission investigations cannot go on indefinitely, so we propose a 12-month time limit on investigations. The coalition also believes that the commission should commence an inquiry into matters that happened before it was established only if it is in the public interest to do so. Otherwise we're opening up the opportunity for a never-ending line of unfounded witch hunts.

Finally, if we're talking about integrity we must consider how important bipartisanship is when forming a new body like the proposed NACC. We suggest that a three-quarters majority of the parliamentary committee be required for all appointments of commissioner and inspector, keeping in mind that such a body must be supported by all sides of government. Without this support the public we represent will have no faith in the NACC. The proposed changes will make the NACC a fairer and more just body, which is exactly what is needed when making decisions around corruption.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a momentous moment, to have a National Anti-Corruption Commission being legislated in Australia. I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for his leadership on this, for the way he has engaged, from very early on after the election, on the principles for the NACC and, as more details have been added, his further engagement. I also want to acknowledge the Greens, who first introduced the Federal Integrity Commission Bill to the Senate in 2010. I'd like to acknowledge Senator Shoebridge and his work through the committee stages and the way he's been pushing to ensure that we get the very best possible NACC we can. I acknowledge the former and current members for Indi, Cathy McGowan and Helen Haines, and their unwavering work to represent their community and to push for more transparency, more integrity and ultimately more accountability for the people who make big decisions that affect all Australians. I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Clark, Andrew Willkie, a whistleblower himself who has lived experience of what whistleblowers face when they come forward with information that is in the public interest. He has consistently talked about the need for more accountability and transparency.

Clearly integrity infrastructure in Australia is far from perfect. Recent examples of questionable spending decisions that we've seen in the news and that Australians have been concerned about include the commuter car parks, sports rorts, security contractors at offshore detention centres and water purchases, to name just a few. While members of our communities across the country are struggling, we're seeing decisions on how to spend public money made without transparency or accountability. Communities across this country deserve a strong federal integrity body. They deserve a world-class and world-leading NACC. Integrity was a key issue at the election. When I was doorknocking, or meeting people across the ACT for Politics in the Park, integrity came up again and again.

People want to have faith in decision-makers. They want to have faith in politicians and the political processes and the Public Service that are making all these decisions that affect every part our lives. It's not just here in the ACT. Across the country Australians overwhelmingly support a strong integrity commission. Transparency International's corruption perception index shows that Australia slipped by four places, from 14th to 18th internationally, between 2020 and 2021.

Corruption is clearly not new, nor is the need for an integrity commission. In the face of people seeing what they perceive as a widening gulf between them and elected representatives, this is urgent. New South Wales established their ICAC in 1988 and the federal jurisdiction will be the last to establish an equivalent body in Australia. The delay we've seen has created urgency, but urgency is no excuse for getting parts of this bill wrong. As many before me have highlighted, I would like to stress the importance of having public hearings when it's in the public interest for them to take place. Public hearings are an important part of transparency and integrity. They encourage new witnesses to come forward, they offer a strong deterrent and they increase public trust; people can see that there is a process underway.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission fact sheet from Labor at the recent election sets out what the now government promised Australians before the election. There are a number of dot points, all of them powerful and good. One of them does speak about public hearings. It explains that the NACC will:

… have the power to hold public hearings where the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so …

An honourable senator: What did it say?

It said the NACC will:

… have the power to hold public hearings where the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so …

Exceptional circumstances are too high a threshold. To put this into context: in Victoria, where the IBAC has an exceptional circumstances clause, between 2012 and 2021 the IBAC held just five public hearings. In New South Wales, where they aren't limited by exceptional circumstances, they held 45 public hearings. If exceptional circumstances do not exist there will be no public hearing, even if it is in the public interest for there to be one.

I really don't understand why we are putting the private interests of politicians and officials over the public interest in transparency and accountability. We are now in a situation where Australians have voted for more transparency. The now Labor government promised a national anticorruption commission, which we are seeing, but there is the very crucial element about giving an independent commission against corruption the ability to decide for itself if it's in the public interest to have public hearings. The government is hamstringing them due to a deal with the now opposition. We have the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, doing a deal with the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, to stitch this up. It provides more protections for politicians which aren't afforded to people in our community when they are found to be corrupt.

I understand the desire for consensus, but I really believe on this point that integrity is too important. We have to get this right. We have to ensure that an independent commission can decide for itself when it's in the public interest and not add this really high hurdle for them to get over. Many integrity experts, as we heard during the committee process, agree that exceptional circumstances should be removed. The National Integrity Committee, the Accountability Round Table, the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International and leading academics, like Professor Anne Twomey, have also raised concerns. She says that as 'exceptional circumstances' is a 'very high hurdle', 'it can confidently be predicted that almost all hearings will be in private'. As pointed out earlier, we even heard from the Victorian IBAC commissioner, the Hon. Robert Redlich AM:

The NACC must be permitted to hold public examinations without a requirement for exceptional circumstances, so long as there is a specific provision that the Commissioner cannot call a witness unless satisfied that there is no unreasonable damage to reputation and that there will be no damage to the witness's welfare.

In surveying people in the ACT about the NACC and what they would like to see, I received a response from Laurie Dunn. Laurie was a public servant for more than 30 years and describes declining standards of integrity and an erosion of community trust in politicians and the political process across his 30-year career. To quote Laurie Dunn: 'A federal anticorruption commission is essential to have any hope of re-establishing trust in the federal political process. The current model proposed is acceptable, except in relations to public hearings. This should be based on a public interest test and not on an exceptions basis. Corruption thrives when no-one is looking.' I support an amendment to remove 'exceptional circumstances'.

I also believe that parliamentary oversight of the commission should be strengthened. I note that there are a number of amendments that speak to that. To have an independent NACC, we need an impartial parliamentary committee. As I it stands, the government chair will have the casting vote on the joint standing committee on the NACC. That means it will be less effective in ensuring that the right commissioner is appointed. It is a really important job and clearly important that the government of the day cannot just put who they want, if the rest of the parliament doesn't think that they are the best person for the job.

There are other concerns which I will raise in the committee stage, and I will move amendments, as Helen Haines moved in the House. The definition of 'corruption' should include pork barrelling; third parties should be able to be investigated where they act to corrupt public officials who have no knowledge of the attempt, be that through tenders or the way that they present information; and safeguards need to be in there to ensure that the NACC is adequately resourced. There needs to be real transparency around what the NACC is requesting to perform optimally and what is being given to them.

The Attorney-General has said that whistleblower protection will be dealt with separately, but I want to highlight just how crucial this is. Whistleblower protections are fundamental to ensuring integrity. I welcome the whistleblower reforms to be introduced at the end of this week and call on the government to act as quickly as possible to establish a whistleblower protection commissioner and provide whistleblowers with the protection they deserve. There should be really clear processes and pathways for people in public service and in the private sector to come forward with information that may well be politically inconvenient and that may be, frankly, embarrassing for Australians but is crucial if we are to continue to improve the open democracy we have and to have all the benefits of living in such a system.

This National Anti-Corruption Commission is a huge step in the right direction. Australians have wanted it for some time. I really welcome the introduction of this legislation. Clearly there's more work to be done. This is a start. This is ideally a safety net that doesn't get used much. There's much work to do in terms of cultural change and driving the right behaviours, and there's clearly more work to be done to restore public trust in government. We need whistleblower law reform, we need electoral law reform and we need truth in political advertising laws. I urge the government to amend the bill to strengthen this and make it a world-leading anticorruption commission and the anticorruption commission that Australians have asked for and deserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

RA POCOCK () (): I rise today to speak in favour of this very important bill, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. During my election campaign, I spoke with thousands of South Australians across the state and two issues were most often raised: a need for urgent action on climate change and a lack of trust in politicians and political institutions. South Australians are sick of seeing politicians making decisions based on corporate or personal interests, instead of for the benefit of the people who elected them. This is undermining political integrity and causing a crisis in our democracy.

We need a National Anti-Corruption Commission, a strong Anti-Corruption Commission, with teeth, serious teeth, as we've just heard Senator White say. We need it to restore the health of our democracy and the future of our country. The South Australian community, and all Australians, must be able to trust our elected representatives, but they can only do this if there is a truly independent, accountable and empowered commission that can get to the bottom of integrity matters, including pork-barrelling and dodgy donations.

The Greens have strongly advocated for a federal corruption watchdog for over a decade. I thank my colleague Senator Larissa Waters for introducing landmark legislation to establish a national anti-corruption commission last year, which passed in the Senate but not in the House. Alongside Senator Waters, I note the important advocacy of former senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, and my colleagues Senator David Shoebridge and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who have all pushed to achieve action in this space.

The South Australian community and I are glad to finally see a substantial move to establish and restore integrity in politics. This bill represents a first, important, good step. It creates a national commission with power to investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the federal public sector, including parliament and ministers. The commission will be able to refer evidence of corrupt criminal conduct for prosecution and undertake education and prevention activities.

The Greens welcome the establishment and powers of the commission generally, and particularly support its retrospective capacity. However, we have some concerns with the final model that my colleagues will seek to address through amendments. A key concern includes that the bar for public hearings is too high and should not be limited to extraordinary circumstances. Everyday Australians deserve transparency. There are many circumstances where public hearings are appropriate, as so many experts have pointed out. Concern about this issue is shared by many South Australians and was a recurring theme amongst stakeholders who submitted evidence to the inquiry into the bill.

We need to go further than this bill permits. While this bill represents a long-overdue first step, it is not a silver bullet to restoring democracy. The government must go further to rebuild South Australians' and Australians' faith in our political institutions, starting with getting corporate money out of politics. Big corporations and billionaires wield too much power over our parliaments and our politicians.

Take, for example, the fossil fuel industry. In recent years, fossil fuel companies have donated millions of dollars to both major parties, including $670,000 to the coalition and $470,000 to Labor in 2020-21. Meanwhile, the latest State of the climate report released by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology shows Australia's climate has warmed by 1.7 degrees on average since 1910. People across Australia are already feeling the impact of this warming and the associated changing weather patterns. We've had floods, storms, bushfires and increasing heatwaves. This is threatening our farmers, our food production, the Murray-Darling Basin and our livelihoods. At the same time, the government continues to provide millions of dollars in taxpayer funded handouts to the fossil fuel industry, continues to approve new climate change accelerating gas projects, and continues to invest billions of dollars of our own money into fossil fuel companies through Australia's sovereign wealth fund, the ironically named Future Fund.

These are signs of a captive state. Coal and gas companies are above all motivated by profit. Time and time again we have seen them prioritise profit over the protection of First Nations cultural heritage, over the health of the environment and over the future of everyday Australians and the kids to come. Just last week my colleague in the House Mr Andrew Wilkie uncovered documents indicating that people in the coal industry had lied about the quality of Australian coal exports by using fraudulent testing. Until we ban political donations from fossil fuel companies and other big corporations, it is impossible to discount the influence they have over government decisions.

In sum, this bill to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission is an important first step—one that has come about based on the relentless advocacy of many, including many Greens MPs, as well as mounting community pressure that is too big for the government to ignore. South Australians elected me with a clear mandate: they want to see politics cleaned up. We must go further to restore the community's faith in our political system. We need to ban all political donations from coal and gas companies and we need to cap other donations to $1,000 a year. We must end the revolving door between politicians and big business by stopping ministers from taking cushy industry jobs directly after leaving parliament. We need to reform political advertising laws. We need to fund the Australian National Audit Office to audit all government programs to stop the rorting of our public funds. It is essential that our elected representatives and political institutions work for the benefit of the people and not the profit of big corporations and billionaires. This bill is a first and important step along that path, and it will go a long way towards reassuring Australians about the integrity of politics. We need to start there, and we need to go further.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Shoddy governance is Australia's greatest problem and biggest threat. The absence of data in making policies and legislation—some parties go to great lengths to avoid data and substitute emotion. That is partly corruption, but this bill that we are discussing today goes to real corruption, illegal corruption.

Initially I thought parliament contained the procedures for self-accountability. After two years, I realised I was wrong. Then I started participating enthusiastically in presentations and discussions in this building and outside, around a national crime and corruption commission. I thank that many people I listened to—lawyers, judges, former judges and everyday Australians concerned about corruption. I appreciate the conversations that I had with former senator Bill Heffernan. I realised when I spoke out about the fact that we need to have a commission in place to provide oversight of four main groups: federal members of parliament, federal bureaucrats and public servants, federal judges and federal police.

Now I turn to the government's proposal. For too long corruption in government has been almost impossible to deal with because current protections are totally inadequate. Each state has a body to deal with corruption at the state level of government. All the state bodies, however, face jurisdictional and evidential hurdles. Whistleblower protections, particularly for private-sector whistleblowers, have failed to provide assumed protections. In recent years, many whistleblowers have had their lives and/or careers publicly and privately trashed—destroyed. Some have faced criminal charges or been destroyed financially through civil actions.

Integrity as an expected attribute of those in public office has been invisible and left to chance. That lack of integrity destroys the people's trust in the governance of this country. This bill, when passed with appropriate amendments, will go a long way towards setting up a workable scheme, ensuring that integrity becomes a fundamental feature of our legislative and executive arms of government.

To get this bill right, a number of issues need to be addressed through internal or external amendment. One thing this bill does not address is third-party corrupt conduct, where the person being dealt with is an otherwise innocent public official dragged unknowingly into a circle of corruption. This is a scenario included within the jurisdictions of most state anticorruption bodies, except those of Tasmania and Western Australia. To be comprehensive, the bill must include this scenario to ensure that corruption, even involving innocent public officers, can still be investigated for corruption.

It's important to understand that this bill is not designed to be purely or only punitive. It's much more than that. It's designed to get to the root cause of corrupt processes, practices and systems, to rectify, eliminate and prevent corruption and to systematically do that and systematically prevent corruption. This provision will assist in identifying relationships vulnerable to abuse and exploitation so that processes may be introduced to provide effective risk management, oversight and accountability. This will be an alternative to relying on the ability to satisfy the restrictive requirements of proving crime beyond reasonable doubt. That's highly restrictive. We need better than that. Another power that should be clarified in the bill is the commission's power to commence investigation of its own volition, without being reliant on external referrals from other agencies and individuals. This clarification would ensure that the source of complaints or information did not limit the full ambit of justification for investigations.

The issue of public hearings has challenged those in favour generally of establishing this commission. It has been suggested that holding public hearings may expose a person to vilification of their reputation, and potentially there may be insufficient evidence to establish an offence. People are worried that this will be used as a mechanism to turn into unjustifiable political witch-hunts, as we've seen in some of the states. This was one of my concerns, and it was the reason for my rejection of the bill in its earlier form. To address this, the bill indicates that hearings may be held in private unless the commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances—exceptional circumstances, as it says in the bill—justify holding the hearing in public and it's in the public interest to do so. The phrase 'exceptional circumstances', if included in the bill, would make it virtually impossible to hold public hearings, as it would require a court to determine whether circumstances are in fact exceptional. That's a lawyer fest for sure. The removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances is essential, and there are proposed amendments before the Senate that will fix this problem. I support these amendments. It would be appropriate that, if a public hearing were held, the commissioner or a deputy commissioner preside, because they are legally qualified to deal with the more obvious legal issues.

Another concern raised with me is the composition of the proposed parliamentary joint committee, where the chair is required to be a member of the government. This raises questions on the independence of the joint committee. A better solution may be that the chair should not be a member of a political party forming government or should at least be a person enjoying bipartisan support of the committee. It's important that an extensive whistleblower protection authority be established to ensure protection for genuine disclosures. The government assures me that the introduction of such an authority is imminent and an essential supportive element of this bill's operation.

Next, I raise what Senator Bill Heffernan has raised with me in extensive personal discussions, as well as senior judges and practitioners of the law. What's missing from this bill is the jurisdiction to overview the misconduct and actions of the judiciary. This option is desperately needed, and there is information showing that this jurisdiction has been overlooked for far too long. It needs to be included—it must be included. It would be welcome to think that our judges are all free from human weaknesses, but they're human. In practice, it's not a realistic conclusion that they are free from human weaknesses. Judges are human and susceptible to the human frailties that may lead to misconduct in their offices. We know that. The judiciary must have a mechanism that provides independent review of the conduct of its members.

I look forward to the development of a bill to cover judges and senior police and associated amendments to strengthen the safeguards designed to protect our society from evildoers hiding behind public office—a bill the government has flagged with us. The Australian public deserves protection and reassurance. The people deserve integrity. To be effective, government must be trusted. We do not have trust in governance at the moment, but that's what we need. We have one flag above this building, one flag for the nation. We are one community. We are one nation. And we support the integrity of our political representatives and public officers whose duty is one of service to the people.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is something the Greens have been campaigning for for a very, very long time, and we welcome the adoption of that proposal by this parliament. I want to particularly thank the tireless work of my colleague Senator Waters in campaigning for a National Anti-Corruption Commission, a watchdog with teeth. Her bill establishing a federal anticorruption body was the first one to pass one of our houses of parliament, and it sets an important precedent for the bill that is before us today. The Greens, as well as pushing for a national anticorruption body, had been pushing for greater scrutiny and accountability across the parliament on integrity, transparency and appropriate expenditure of government funds, which is why we will continue to push for political donations reform. We will continue to push for greater transparency and stronger limits on donations so that fossil fuel donations can't buy more fossil fuel subsidies and destructive industries like gambling can't buy policy outcomes that reap them profits and increase misery for so many for so long.

It's also why, in my role at various points as Greens spokesperson for sport and for infrastructure, I pushed for greater transparency around the community sports infrastructure program—the so-called sports rorts—and around the Urban Congestion Fund. Let me note that in talking about this tonight I'm not in any way wanting to pre-empt the important work of the NACC but simply to say that we Greens think it's important because the last parliament showed both the power of the Senate in scrutinising these programs as well as the limitations.

As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on the Administration of Sports Grants I saw firsthand the important evidence that the committee exposed. The committee found that:

Overwhelming evidence shows that Senator (Bridget) McKenzie, and her office, in consultation with the Prime Minister's office, used the program as a vehicle for gaining political advantage for coalition candidates in the 2019 federal election by favouring applicants located in marginal and 'targeted' electorates.

The evidence available to the committee indicates clearly that the Prime Minister's office, and likely the Prime Minister, were aware of the use of electorate information to identify projects in marginal and targeted electorates well before the first grant recipient was announced.

We saw through that inquiry that, despite attempts by former prime minister Scott Morrison to place all the blame on then minister McKenzie, the reality was that his office was very aware of the decision-making process, if not deeply involved in it.

The committee also heard clear evidence about the impact of that decision-making process. We heard from community groups across the country who had spent hours, days and weeks preparing their applications, only to find that their intense work didn't matter as much as the postcode lottery—whether they fell in a marginal electorate. These were groups that, after the department had judged their application, were right there at the top of the list in terms of how appropriate it was that they get grant funding. They scored extremely high but missed out because of that postcode lottery favouring marginal and targeted electorates. I know from my time in local government as a councillor and mayor how heartbreaking it can be to see your community missing out on crucial infrastructure because you're a safe seat. Nobody is showing largesse and throwing dollars at you. You're a safe seat, taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other.

Importantly, during the sports rorts inquiry, there was information that we were not able to obtain through the Senate process because, on crucial points, conservative crossbenchers voted with the Liberal-National party government to deny access to critical information. And we are still waiting on some of that information—for the Information Commissioner to process long-overdue freedom-of-information appeals.

As I said, we showed the power of the Senate but also its limitations and why we need to have an anticorruption commission that won't have those limitations. The select committee noted in its final report:

The committee has faced significant obstruction in its attempts to gather evidence that would explain who was involved and responsible for grant decisions (including the extent of involvement of the Prime Minister and others), what were the reasons for decisions, and whether those decisions were made in accordance with the law.

That was important work by that committee, but my experience and that experience really highlighted and underlined the importance of an anticorruption body and how desperately we need one. So I commend this bill and echo the support of my colleagues for this important reform. It has been a long time coming, and we are glad to see it finally being done.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very significant development in the chamber now, reaching the conclusion of the second reading debate. I do remember the last government being dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that it should introduce a federal integrity commission, and I remember how long it took. It took a series of absolutely extraordinary perversions of the role of ministers and others in public office. It took the sports rorts affair, where the government used public moneys, grant moneys, in a way that was clearly and shamelessly political. It used public moneys in a way that was utterly in the partisan interest. There were other examples during the Morrison period.

Of course, it fit with a prime minister who centralised power in his office to the extent that he had cabinet committees of one, to ensure that information was kept secret, covered up—an extraordinary development. At no time in the history of Federation did we ever have cabinet committees that consisted of one person. We had a Prime Minister who engaged in conduct where, in order to pervert the processes of government, he had himself appointed secretly to at least five ministerial positions. So it's no wonder there is out there in the community a deep distrust of political institutions. At this period, more than in any other period in our history, we need to take steps in terms of our own conduct as parliamentarians and as public officials, and also in terms of the framework that we set out, to deliver a federal integrity commission that supports the proper administration of public affairs in this country and which assists to restore confidence by the public in the operations of this parliament and in the operations of the Commonwealth government.

The last government promised to deliver a commission. In fact, some of the aspects of the bill that they are currently opposing they proposed themselves the last time around. I'm sure that in the committee stage tomorrow we'll hear much more about that. What the last government patently failed to do was to actually bring legislation before the parliament. What the last government failed to do was to deliver on the commitment that they had made to the Australian people to deliver the legislation that they had made a commitment to do. It was a central issue in the last election. Whether members of the House of Representatives were returned to the parliament on the Labor side, or in some of the electorates where members returned were Independents, one of the factors that drove voters was a requirement that they knew they could have confidence that a new Albanese Labor government would deliver and would implement an integrity commission with teeth, and would implement an integrity commission that would do its job.

What we're seeing today is a government that has done two things. It has delivered upon the commitment that it made, but it's also a government that has resolved to work across the parliament with goodwill to try to make sure that in working across the parliament we're delivering a national anticorruption commission that is fit for purpose; has broad support; is durable and effective; and can do its job.

Some political commentators and some members of the public have asked questions—some of them very well motivated—about what kinds of matters the commission will investigate. What kinds of hearings will it conduct?

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

You've got some ideas?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, those matters will be guided by two things, as my friend from the Greens Senator Shoebridge has indicated. He has some views. But it will be delivered by two things: one is the framework, but the second, and most important, is the independence of the commissioner himself. If you give me a moment, I will just consult with the advisers—

Honourable senators interjecting—

This has been one of the delights of my week—this opportunity to contribute, unsolicited, to this debate! I'm sure the Senate has been delighted to get the benefit of my views on this over the course of the last nine minutes. I understand that there are now other senators who may wish to contribute, and on that basis I'll happily take my seat.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has summed up, but, with the concurrence of the Senate, I will go to Senator Lambie.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imagine that: the speaker's list falling. It wouldn't have anything to do with those exceptional circumstances! I thought all 76 of us would be running in here, happy to speak about this, throwing out there how great it is. How disappointing! I can tell you, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 have been a long time coming. Thank you, Helen Haines. What a wonderful job you've done.

The bills are far from perfect. When Senator Tyrrell and I had a look at them, we said to each other: 'They are not perfect. They could be better.' But is there any way in the world we would vote them down? It is not a question that even needs asking. That's the thing about these bills, and it's the thing about being on the crossbench: most of the time we don't get to decide between the perfect and the imperfect. We deal in shades of grey. I can assure you that 50 Shades of Grey is nothing compared to what dealing with shades of grey in here looks like. There's a whole lot of grey here, and this isn't everything it could be. You could say it's not everything it should be. But it's something, and that's a hell of a lot more than what we'd have if we voted this down. Governments don't like changing their own bills if they can avoid it, even if it means making them better. When you have an opposition that are shivering in their boots about what this bill would end up looking like if the crossbench had their way with it, you have the recipe for a free kick. That's what we have here.

The Liberals and Nationals don't want a strong National Anti-Corruption Commission, because they don't want a strong National Anti-Corruption Commission coming after them. That's what's happening here. They're so terrified that they're going to vote to defang this thing before it even gets out of the kennel. That is why they're voting with the government to make it harder for the commission to do anything. This is what the public needs to understand about this anticorruption commission. We only hear about anticorruption commissions when they're in the process of busting corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. If you're corrupt, you should be busted.

It's good that state anticorruption commissions are onto them, but actually the real value in these commissions isn't what they do to politicians; it's what they do to the public. You see, it's what the public thinks about politicians that matters to politicians. You can say, 'Of course it is; they're all as bad as each other,' but politicians care about what the public thinks in good times and in bad, and, believe it or not, you should care as well. Whenever there's a big problem, one that requires politicians to fix, it's hard to fix it when the public thinks politicians are all a pack of so-and-sos. If nobody trusts politicians but we're relying upon politicians to fix things, what do we do when one of them comes up with a fix? We say, 'It sounds way good to be true.' We say, 'What's in it for them?' We say, 'They can't be trusted, so we shouldn't support it.'

If you can't trust politicians you don't get solutions from politicians, because politicians can't do anything if you don't trust them to get the job done. There's a certain degree of trust that's required to make big reforms. You need to trust that, when things look a bit uncertain, there's a plan in place. Sometimes, reforms break things. Sometimes, you have to break a few things to get to a better place. Life was never meant to be easy. Welcome to the real world.

There's always that bit mid-jump when you're not rising and you're not falling; you're just hanging in mid-air, at a standstill, and it's not clear whether you're going to land it. It's right then that you need the confidence that comes from knowing that you're in good hands. Politicians rely on that trust when they want to make a big change. It's the trust that made the gun buyback possible. The GST, the NDIS, the Prices and Incomes Accord—you don't get big changes without trust that the people making those changes have your best interests at heart.

That's what we have lost, like a trickle out of the bottom of a leaky bucket, slow and steady. Slowly but surely, it's drained out of this place and the people who sit in it. People think we're all corrupt, by the way. They think we're all up to our necks in the gravy train, and we're just lapping up the donations and the dodgy deals. Sometimes they have a great point. But most people aren't crooks. Most people are just here to try and have an honest crack at making people's lives better. And when we lose trust in them, my word, we lose out ourselves. That's why we need anticorruption commissions—because just knowing there's a cop on the beat is supposed to make us safer, even if we never need them. And, by the way, they are a deterrent to make you think twice. Seeing them haul in a bad politician every now and then reminds us that they're out there doing their job. But the rest of the time we've got to have confidence that if there's something dodgy going on it will be sniffed out and caught and punished.

That's what the point of an anticorruption commission is supposed to be: not just putting bad politicians up in the docks but actually reassuring the rest of us that the ones who aren't doing anything wrong are actually doing a decent job and giving it a go. Any anticorruption commission which is focused just on catching dodgy politicians misses the point, because if all we see is a conga line of dodgy pollies getting hauled into the National Anti-Corruption Commission we don't have any confidence that politicians are in it for the right reason at all. That's what can happen as well. After a while the public loses track of which politician is corrupt and which one isn't. After a while the whole brand just goes sour, and just being in the same building tars all of us with the same brush.

A really important part of the Anti-Corruption Commission has to be the ability for the commission to promote trust. It has to have a role to play in putting itself out of business. We all know we need a federal ICAC, and what we want is a world where we'd never need one. It'd be a perfect world, wouldn't it? That might be hard to imagine. Even I find it difficult, believe you me. But that's the position we want to be in. We want a parliament filled with politicians who aren't afraid of an anticorruption commission because they have—would you guess it—absolutely nothing to hide.

I think we need to be brutally honest with ourselves that we are miles away from that when it comes to public trust. We've got a parliament where the two major parties are terrified of an anticorruption commission. They've both been effectively bullied into supporting one by the public, who are sick and tired of both of them. And now they've got the chance to actually deliver it, what do they do? A little deal behind closed doors—which is not helping with trust—to make the NACC do its business behind closed doors as well. Seriously? Not off to a good start. You know why? They're worried about their reputations, apparently, and I don't know why if they've got nothing to hide. Here's an idea. If you're worried about what sort of damage to your reputation a public hearing might do, maybe make sure you don't give the NACC a reason to pull you in front of it in the first place. There's a plan of attack. How about that?

So we've got the crossbench backing an integrity commission that works, and we've got the major parties voting together to prevent it. In spite of that, I'm going to vote for it, because I will take a bad NACC over what we've had in the past few years. We've had the former prime minister put his former chief of staff in charge of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and then ask his old chief of staff to investigate any accusations of corruption that are hanging around the necks of his ministers. I think we need a better set-up than that. We need a better anticorruption system than just having the Prime Minister's former staffer doing a little report into how everything's fine and dandy and there's nothing to see here. A flawed NACC is better than no NACC. It's the NACC that's been knackered, let's be honest, but it can be fixed. It will have to wait to be fixed, but you can build a foundation, and at least we've got that. You have to start somewhere, and I want to start here.

We've got two major parties with the most to fear from a NACC, who are both voting to make it a bit less frightening—to remove its fangs, as I've already said. I'm not sure it's quite the jaws that the A-G promised. I'm telling you now that that won't last. It'll get stronger—that's my prediction—and we'll get a decent NACC sooner or later, because the public do not trust you.

The public will demand it be strengthened. It's as simple as that. You hiding behind closed doors will not satisfy the appetite of the Australian public. It will not satisfy it at all; it won't even get to the entree! You will promise to strengthen it because you'll have no choice because you'll need their votes. This is how we work. It's going to be a very, very slow process here, but we will get there. I just know it. Cute little arguments like the one you've done on this are not helping the situation, I'll be brutally honest with you. It has not helped reinstate public trust. Throwing things behind closed doors when politicians are being corrupt will not help the situation either. As a matter of fact, in building the trust of the public—because apparently none of us have got anything to hide in here—what is the problem? Can't you defend yourselves? Seriously? It has got to this.

Anyway, Senator Tyrrell and I took a look at the amendments, and we'll back the ones that make sense. But I can tell you, at the end of this debate, when we're asked to vote yes or no, we'll vote yes. No matter if all the amendments get up or if none of them get up, we'll vote yes, because we are done talking about this. Seriously, at least there's a foundation there. The only thing left remaining is for you to build the house that goes on it—roof, chimney and all. Only then will public trust return to politicians. Only then will that happen. I can only hope that the NACC will use its ability, when it requires 'exceptional circumstances' for a hearing to be in public, to make everything fall under exceptional circumstances. If there is corruption here, I can assure you that the 'exceptional circumstances' clause needs to be used to let it play out in the public arena. It needs to be used as a deterrent, and people need to be held responsible for their actions. That is grassroots. That is the Australian way. That is the way things should be done. So, as much as we are grateful to get something, which is better than nothing, I can tell you now that it is a long way off from being satisfactory.

Once again, I very much look forward to finding out who those commissioners are. I'm hoping and putting trust in them that they know what I know—to build back public trust and the reputation of politicians. Those who deserve to be hauled out in front by the NACC deserve to be pulled in and have it played out in the public arena, because that is in the public interest. It is in the public interest to build back public trust in this country's politicians. That's where I want to see it going.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. For too long, politicians have done dodgy things in this place and gotten away with it. Politicians have raked in money from private businesses while serving as ministers; politicians and their families have benefited from insider knowledge for their own gain; politicians have given jobs to their mates who later made decisions in their favour; politicians have pork-barrelled marginal communities for votes; and politicians have thrown whistleblowers under the bus to protect their own behinds. These things don't pass the pub test. Not only that, they could be corrupt conduct. The people who are deciding the future of this country could be engaging in conduct that benefits themselves and their mates rather than the country. That's risky business. It's not in the national interest. Of course, we have to do something to change this. Until now, we haven't held people who work in the federal public sector to account for what could be corrupt conduct. Well, time's up.

One of the messages that the voters of Australia sent in May was to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The voters of Australia wanted their elected representatives to establish a strong and transparent integrity body. Why? Because the voters of Australia want to know when their elected representatives are doing dodgy things. They don't want their elected representatives to get away with it anymore.

The voters of Australia also want to know when the public servants who work for the government of the day are doing dodgy things. That's hard-earned taxpayer dollars that public officials could be misusing. Engaging in corrupt conduct doesn't cut the mustard in the voters' workplace. Why should we be any different? I'm happy this government is acting on the message the electorates have sent. I'm happy this government has moved quickly to introduce this legislation.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission the government has proposed looks pretty good, but I think it could be better. There are a few things I'd like to see changed. One of those things is the fact that hearings would be held in public only in exceptional circumstances. What does that even mean? The bill doesn't define it, and at the moment the bill says that public hearings will only be held if the commissioner thinks there are exceptional circumstances to justify it and it's in the public interest. You know what? I don't think that's good enough. What's there to hide? Like I said before, the voters of Australia want to know when their elected representatives and the public servants that carry out their work are doing dodgy things. How are they going to know this if a hearing is held in private? Don't get me wrong—I don't think all hearings should be public. Sometimes it's appropriate to have private hearings, like when a person has been charged with an offence or when a person is likely to incriminate themselves or if giving evidence in public would prejudice a fair trial or where there'd be undue damage to a person's career or reputation. That all makes sense, but the bar for public hearings that the bill sets at the moment is way too high.

Prof. Anne Twomey told the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation that under the bill in its current form almost all hearings will be in private. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what people voted for. I reckon that's more like what the coalition promised, and I don't see them in government anymore. What the government has forgotten is that people voted for an integrity body that was open, transparent and had teeth. That's why we put forward some amendments to remove the high exceptional-circumstances bar.

We aren't moving our amendments because the Greens have their own which are similar, and we support them. The Greens have done a lot of work on this issue, and they've put forward some other amendments. Their amendments would make the commission stronger and more transparent. One of their amendments is to specify that the commission be independent, and that's a bit of a no-brainer. I'm happy to support amendments like this.

Senator Pocock has also put forward some amendments that strengthen the commission, and this is what people voted for. We support those as well.

Finally, I just want to say that I'm happy to be part of a parliament that is doing something about corruption in the federal public sector. I may be a new senator, but I've been around Parliament House for a while now and I've seen some questionable things that should have gone under the microscope—some things that were pretty obvious too. The establishment of an integrity body was one of my priorities going into this election, and I'm proud to be part of a parliament that's doing something about it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on these bills. A number of senators have made the point that they are supportive of this legislation and supportive of the establishment of a national anti-corruption commission, regardless of views they may hold about particular amendments that have been foreshadowed in this debate.

I welcome the fact that there is such a broad level of support for a national anti-corruption commission. I don't think that there's any doubt that this is something the Australian public has been wanting to see happen for a very long time. It is unfortunate that it has taken as long as it has to see a government prepared to step up and introduce legislation into a parliament that will establish a strong national anti-corruption commission to deliver on that community expectation of the way we conduct politics. There have been too many events in recent years that have not passed the pub test as far as the community is concerned, and the fact that we haven't had a national anti-corruption commission has allowed bad behaviour, wrong behaviour and, indeed, corrupt behaviour to go on for far too long at the national level in this country. So I'm pleased to be part of a government that is finally stepping up to the plate and delivering a strong national anti-corruption commission in response to that community sentiment. As I say, the government is pleased to support the passage of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022.

This legislation will establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. These bills incorporate the design principles the government announced before the election, which were developed with some of Australia's leading integrity advocates. I pay tribute to the people who have been advocating this cause of establishing a national anticorruption commission for so long—people like Professor Anne Twomey, who recognises that, in her words, this bill:

… appears to be well-considered and applies appropriate powers and protections.

People like the Accountability Round Table:

The Bill creates the NACC, an important proactive reform of existing integrity mechanisms worthy of widespread support.

Groups like Transparency International Australia, which:

… congratulates the Government on proposing a definition of corrupt conduct, to define the Commission's investigative jurisdiction, which is simpler, broader, more flexible and less technical than most previous Australian precedents.

There are so many more that I could name who have been campaigning for the establishment of a national anticorruption commission for many years. Again, I pay tribute to their efforts.

The commission will operate independently of government and have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone, including members of the public and whistleblowers. Referrals can be anonymous. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. It will have the power to hold public hearings. It will also have a mandate to prevent corruption and educate Australians about corruption.

In a number of respects, the model the government is putting forward for a national anticorruption commission goes well beyond any other proposal we have seen from a federal government in our country, having much wider power as to the range of people whose behaviour can be investigated and much wider power to initiate inquiries on its own initiative. I always thought it was farcical that the proposal we saw from the former government would only allow investigations of matters referred to a commission by the government of the day—as if any government would refer matters it didn't want investigated to an anticorruption commission! It's important, therefore, that the model we're putting forward and that this parliament will support allows the National Anti-Corruption Commission to commence inquiries on its own initiative.

A parliamentary joint committee will oversee the commission and will be empowered to require the commission to provide information about its performance. These bills have been further refined with the benefit of the public inquiry and the unanimous report of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. On that note, I thank the chair, Senator Linda White; the deputy chair, the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines; members of the committee; and all those who made submissions and gave evidence to the committee's inquiry. Not having played a role in that inquiry myself, I was really impressed that that joint select committee was able to come to unanimous recommendations, given it spanned all sides of this parliament—major parties and independents as well. For such a contentious issue that has not been acted on previously in this parliament, for that committee to come to a unanimous report was a tremendous effort. I commend the members of the committee for the work they did there. The committee has made six unanimous recommendations, which the government welcomes. We have moved amendments to implement those recommendations. The House of Representatives has passed this bill with those amendments.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will operate independently of government and have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power, as I've said, to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and contractors.

As I said, it goes further than any model we have seen previously in having the discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. This is something that has attracted some public debate, whether it is right to have a corruption commission with retrospective powers. I think it is important that a National Anti-Corruption Commission does so. Just as it's important that a National Anti-Corruption Commission has the power to commence inquiries on its own initiative, to not be constrained by the government of the day as to what it can investigate but to be truly independent of government and to have the capacity to make its own decisions about what it would investigate, it is equally important that we have a National Anti-Corruption Commission that has retrospective powers to look at things that've occurred in the past, as well as right now and in the future.

The whole principle of this National Anti-Corruption Commission is that it operates independently of government. It shouldn't be tied by the government of the day as to what it can and can't investigate, or who it can and can't investigate, or the time period that it can or can't investigate. The important principle that underpins this National Anti-Corruption Commission is that it will have the power to investigate serious and systemic corrupt conduct. That's the linchpin. If behaviour, in the commission's view, amounts to that then it should have the power to investigate, regardless of who it involves—provided they're, obviously, connected to the Commonwealth—regardless of when it occurred and regardless of whether people like whether it's investigating it or not. I've heard the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, asked many times in the media whether the commission should investigate this or should investigate that, and he's rightly made the point that these are all matters for the independent Anti-Corruption Commission.

Establishing this Anti-Corruption Commission is a very important step in trying to restore public confidence in our system of government and in what happens in this building. I think we all know, and even members of the opposition will acknowledge privately, that public trust politics and public trust in the Australian government was eroded over the last few years by a series of scandals that we saw, with no public agency in existence at a federal government level with the capacity to investigate those matters. So the very worst thing that we could do, now that this parliament is finally creating a National Anti-Corruption Commission, is tie its hands as to the type of conduct which could be investigated, the people who could be investigated, or the time period that could be investigated. Leaving these things open for the commission to make its own mind up is important as a way of maintaining and rebuilding public confidence in how politics works in this country and how governments work in this country.

The bill will ensure appropriate oversight of the commission by a parliamentary joint committee and an inspector. The parliamentary joint committee will be empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work. The committee will also be responsible for approving the appointments of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector. This inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission, and will review and determine the extent of compliance with the law by the commission when exercising the power to issue a summons or arrest warrant.

I know from the activities of state anticorruption commissions that they do have a very extensive powers, and that is only right. These are important issues that we need a strong independent commission to have the power properly investigate. But it is important that those powers themselves aren't misused by an anticorruption commission, and that's why this bill also provides for the position of an inspector who will have the ability to review the activities of the commission and ensure that it's not overstepping its boundaries.

The legislation ensures that there are appropriate safeguards against undue reputational damage and provides robust protection for whistleblowers, journalists and persons assisting a journalist. It is of course important that people who want to make complaints to a national anticorruption commission do have protection for doing so, but, equally, that there are safeguards against undue reputational damage when it comes to the publication of information concerning the commission's activities.

The government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for this commission, and this funding will ensure that the commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to perform its important functions.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth statute book to support the establishment of the commission. The consequential bill will ensure the commission has key investigative powers and has the ability to share and receive information for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The consequential bill will also repeal the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and provide transitional arrangements for the continuation of investigations and inquiries being conducted by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, following the establishment of the commission.

Australians rightly expect honesty, accountability and integrity in government, and, sadly, those qualities have been lacking from Australian politics and the Commonwealth government for far too long. It's time that we restored honesty in politics, it's time that we restored accountability in Australian politics and it's time that we restored integrity in Australian politics, and this bill creating a national anticorruption commission will go a long way towards that.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will form an essential part of Australia's broader integrity framework. We have established robust codes of conduct for ministers and ministerial staff, and we are working across the parliament to implement the Set the standard report from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. We are committed to enhancing transparency and integrity of political donations. The government is developing reforms to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 to require agencies to take measures to prevent, detect and deal with corruption, which will complement the establishment of the commission. The Attorney-General has also announced that the government will be introducing priority reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to improve whistleblower protections, with the aim of having these reforms in place when the commission commences operation.

With these bills to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission, the government is delivering on its promise to tackle corruption and to restore trust and integrity to public institutions. There have been too many scandals. There have been too many rorts. There have been too many things that Australians have just shaken their heads at when it comes to the use of Commonwealth funds and the behaviour of certain Commonwealth officials. This bill, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, is the start of turning around that tawdry episode in Australian politics. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on the second reading of the bills has concluded. The vote on the second reading will take place tomorrow.

Senate adj o u r ned at 20:23