Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australia is one of the six oldest continuous democracies in the world. We have multiple mechanisms for keeping power in check and preventing corruption. We pride ourselves in this country on an independent judiciary and the benefit, as we know, of fair, regular, free elections and a robust and searching media that holds both elected officials and agencies to account. We have independent authorities and independent regulators. We have good reason to celebrate the health of our democracy.

But the work on greater transparency is always ongoing. In the last few years there's been significant investment in a range of mechanisms to deal with the prevention of corruption and fraud. In 2015 our government announced $127.6 million to establish the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce. The following year we committed an additional $15 million to the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre within the Australian Federal Police. In December 2016 we released our first National Action Plan under the Open Government Partnership. In 2018 we endorsed the second action plan, which, among other things, will enhance the transparency of political donations and funding and expand open contracting and due diligence in procurement.

The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority was established in 2017, which strengthens public accountability about the expenses parliamentarians use. I think of the work that the intelligence and security committee has done in relation to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, which provides a mechanism for registering when foreign agents and so on want to have an influence on the political process in this country.

In December last year the government announced that it would establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. That commission will enhance the existing integrity arrangements across the federal public sector and Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. If we're committed to meaningful measures to ensure corruption can't take root in our federal institutions, we need to make sure that we get the design of this commission right.

I'm from New South Wales. The experience of my state demonstrates that we need to approach this issue cautiously. The Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales has, by any measure, a mixed history. Under ICAC's watch Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald were able to misuse their positions, as members of parliament and ministers of the Crown, to carry out numerous corrupt actions, and ultimately they both went to jail.

Labor was in office for 16 years. During their years in office this corrupt conduct went unchecked despite the presence of ICAC in New South Wales. It wasn't until they'd actually left office that these men were pursued. Yet ICAC, through its processes of public shaming, managed to destroy the careers of two honest and upright premiers in Barry O'Farrell and Nick Greiner.

If someone's broken the law and acted improperly it's absolutely right that the law should catch up with them, that they should be punished. We need to ensure that our agencies have the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute when appropriate. However, we have got to be very careful that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission doesn't repeat the mistakes of ICAC, which can destroy a person's reputation even if that person is never ever prosecuted. It risks shaming and destroying the careers of good people while missing the mark on those who are genuinely corrupt.

Before ICAC was introduced, a Labor icon, the former New South Wales Treasurer, Michael Egan, warned about exactly this. He said, 'The government has no mandate to set up a star chamber. It has no mandate to deprive the citizens of this state of basic civil liberties such as a right to natural justice. It has no right to invade the confidentiality of proper solicitor-client relationships… It has no right to set up an "Australian gestapo", as the

President of the New South Wales Bar Association has aptly described it.'

These same words of caution should sound regarding the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The motion that the member for Mayo has put forward suggests that a commission that has the potential to generate show trials, instead of doing the meaningful work of preventing corruption, risks undermining rather than enhancing public confidence in the process. A body with wideranging powers outlined by the member for Mayo would be a confused body and should pose very real questions about the separation of powers.

Public hearings do not enhance public confidence in our institutions in relation to these corruption commissions. Rather, they achieve the opposite. The suggestion of corruption when it's misplaced can undermine confidence in appropriately giving the public a belief that good leaders can't be trusted. A person's reputation built over a lifetime can be unfairly tarnished in an instant. Unfortunately, mud sticks. That's why in designing a new Commonwealth Integrity Commission it's important that we avoid the pitfalls of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.

See this speech in context