Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Indi and the member for Clark for putting this on the motion paper, and also recognise the work they have both done over many years during their time in parliament to advance this cause. I don't doubt their goodwill or the integrity with which they've pursued this, and their good intentions.

I've come slowly to accept the need to act in this space. I was a federal public servant for some 17 years before entering parliament. During my time in the federal Public Service I saw nothing but the highest standards of probity and good conduct; and where that was absent for any reason those matters were dealt with swiftly. So I can't say that I saw a pressing need upon entering the parliament to advance this agenda. But I have, over time, come to accept that there is a need to act—and as much as anything to restore or address at least the loss of public faith in our institutions and particularly in the federal parliament. What I have heard from constituents, but also the broader public, is reflected in polling and other data, which shows that distrust in our system of government is at a higher level than it has been in some time. That does worry me because I'm a believer in our system of government and our democracy; and if the people do not trust it to act in their best interests then ultimately it means that it's ripe for some sort of dramatic or revolutionary change, which I'd rather not see. I do accept that there is a need to act here and I accept that there is a need to establish a federal integrity commission or a Commonwealth integrity commission to reassure the public, or address concerns that the public might have, about the conduct and the behaviour of their federal elected representatives and the federal Public Service more broadly.

That said, though, I'm also cautious about the design because any time we introduce changes to our system of government you always have to be mindful of unintended consequences; changes in the balance of power, if you like, between competing institutions; and how it might change the very nature of government. And, not surprisingly, being from the conservative side of politics I tend to be an incrementalist when it comes to these things. I don't favour dramatic change. I tend to favour small and piecemeal change, and adjusting as needs be, to address concerns. With that caveat in mind, in my view it's important to make sure we have safeguards in any new integrity commission—a safeguard firstly to ensure protections for the accused, if you like, like we expect in all walks of life, that the rights of the innocent are protecte People are entitled to due process. People are entitled to see evidence presented against them and people are entitled to confront their accusers—the rule of law and due process that we expect elsewhere. We need to make sure that any new integrity commission has similar safeguards but be particularly mindful that we are playing with people's reputations. We need to recognise the damage that can be done with those things.

The other important safeguard or caveat I would put on there would be to make sure that decision-making in our democratic system of government resides where it's meant to reside—that is, that elected representatives, who are directly accountable to the public for decision-making at the ballot box, are able to continue to take those decisions. Provided they are done in good faith, in accordance with the law, then ultimately the voters should be deciding whether those decisions were the right ones and ones they will support rather than an elected body.

I'm also acutely aware that there is not one single model of integrity commission out there. Every state and territory jurisdiction that has one in Australia has quite a different model on offer, and they fall across the spectrum, from their ability to initiate prosecutions to the level of privacy or publicity afforded to hearings to protections for the accused. I do agree there's a number of elements to consider here in a Commonwealth integrity commission. We can draw wisdom from a number of the different state experiences and we also draw wisdom from the member for Indi's private member's bill that she has put forward on this and her own contribution to that.

Who is covered by this? I do accept all federal government members should be covered, including elected representatives, but I am of the view that I would prefer to see a single class of people rather than two different classes. I accept that law enforcement officials have unique powers under our constitutional and legal arrangements and they need to be held to a higher standard in the exercise of those powers because they are unique but it would be neater and more logical and coherent if we had a single coverage of all federal government and federal parliamentarians.

It's important that we recognise that corruption needs to be covered but I don't want to see a new commission of integrity second-guess the judgements of elected representatives. I want to make sure it's genuine corruption that is covered by this. I commend the member for Indi for moving the motion.

See this speech in context