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

I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission on proposed recommendations for appointments to the commission. I seek leave to make a statement of not more than three minutes relating to the report.

Leave granted.

I rise as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission to speak about the committee's report on proposed appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The committee was recently established to provide parliamentary oversight of the forthcoming commission.

Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, one of the committee's roles is to consider the Attorney-General's proposed recommendations for the appointment of commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector of the commission. On 10 March 2023 the Attorney-General referred to the committee proposed recommendations for the appointment of the Hon. Justice Paul Brereton AM RFD as Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years, Ms Nicole Rose PSM as Deputy Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years, Dr Ben Gauntlett as Deputy Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years and Ms Gail Furness SC as Inspector on a part-time basis for a period of seven years. I'm pleased to report the committee has unanimously approved each of these proposed recommendations. This enables the Attorney-General to recommend each of these appointments to the Governor-General. This is indeed momentous, as these are the inaugural appointments to these positions.

Earlier today, the committee wrote to the Attorney-General to inform him of this decision and I am now tabling this report for the benefit of all senators. The committee's task, which was to approve or reject the minister's proposed recommendations for certain appointments, is uncommon among parliamentary committees. I thank committee members for approaching the task thoughtfully. The committee undertook significant due diligence to assure itself of the suitability of the candidates. This included consideration of the qualifications for an appointment that are set out in the act.

To allow committee members to properly carry out their due diligence, the committee notified the Attorney-General that it required additional time to consider his proposed recommendations. Considering the government's intention to ensure the commission commences operation by mid-2023, I'm pleased that the committee members worked promptly to conclude their deliberations without using all of the available time.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank the candidates for putting themselves forward to lead the commission when it is established later this year. This is indeed a momentous task, given the crucial role the commission will perform in Australia's integrity framework. I also wish to thank the Attorney-General and his department for providing information to support the committee's deliberations. The committee looks forward to the commencement of the commission later this year and to providing ongoing oversight in accordance with the act.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement for three minutes—I don't think I'll need that time!—on the same matter.

Leave granted.

I start by thanking all the members of the NACC committee but particularly the chair of the NACC committee, Senator White. Setting up a new committee in a space such as this is not necessarily the easiest process, and there are always matters that need to be ironed out until committees—to use a very poor sporting analogy—find their line and length, particularly when you are in a quite unique relationship, as Senator White pointed out, with a member of the executive—in this case, the Attorney-General.

There are a number of committees in this place, but the one that I am closest to, as the chair, is the Privileges Committee. It is so important that these committees act in a collegiate fashion and, more than that, in a nonpartisan fashion. Matters such as privilege, such as the operations and oversight of the Anti-Corruption Commission, will fail if they become partisan playthings. It's very important that such committees operate in a collegiate manner. There were some matters that we discussed internally. I won't talk about what they were; they were more matters of process, and they certainly had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the candidates. But there were some issues that needed to be considered by the committee. That was done in a very timely way, and I think, in the end, we have reached a very positive position, and I think the committee has shown it can work very well together.

Like Senator White, I thank all those who put their names forward for positions on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These roles are going to be vitally important going forward, and they have a huge challenge ahead of them. We thank all those who put their names forward and congratulate those who have been appointed today.

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

I, too, seek leave to make a short statement in relation to that matter.

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

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

First of all, I thank and commend the chair and the members of the committee for the process we undertook over the last two-and-a-bit weeks. I particularly want to note the leadership of the chair, who, I think, brought the committee to what was ultimately a consensus position to confirm all the appointees to these four important positions in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It was essential that we had this as a consensus position, because we need to ensure that the NACC is established and starts with as broad political support and consensus as we can have. It's a credit to the committee—at least the other members of the committee, as well as the chair—that we eventually arrived at a consensus position, and that reflects the quality of the candidates who were put forward before the committee.

But, as has been touched upon in an earlier contribution, there are lessons to be learned from the process we went through. The committee required an extension of time to enable it to get appropriate information. At times I don't think I was the only member of the committee who was frustrated about the timeliness of the information and the provision of the necessary information for us to do our statutory task, under section 178. But I would note that, from my observation, each member of the committee, regardless of where their politics lies—government, opposition, crossbench—understood we had an important obligation to fulfil under section 178 of the act. I think we worked through those issues together in a collegiate manner to get the information we needed to exercise that function and scrutinise the appointments. But I do want to stress that I think there are lessons to be learnt. I think a mutual respect between the executive and the parliament, when these statutory functions cross between the executive and the parliament, is necessary. At times, I felt that relationship was a little strained in the exercise of the committee's powers and its roles and functions. I hope those lessons have been learnt.

I end on this: it was a consensus position amongst all members. Again, I think the chair helped map the pathway to that over the course of two and a bit weeks. I hope that this is an indication that when the NACC opens its doors it has, I hope, unanimous or near unanimous support for its functions, its roles and for the officers who undertake those important functions.