Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the honourable member for Reid's salient contribution to the House. The opposition stand steadfast in stamping out any corruption that exists in this place, and we are in lock step with that end goal. It was comforting to hear, in the member for Reid's speech, that she so eloquently detailed the failings of both parties, including the one that she so proudly represents here. As a member of considerably more years in this place, I have seen members from state jurisdictions or political parties prosecuted and sentenced to lengthy periods of time. I can understand that the state that the member for Reid comes from would be much more exposed to criminal activities that have transpired. Our federal parliament, in the Senate particularly, has also had members or parties retire disgracefully. And that behaviour, whatever colour jersey you wear here, must be stamped out.

I just want to follow on—I know there will be a place and a time as the ICAC legislation is introduced to the House—and share with the House and the member for Reid some particular concerns from my electorate. I have a local council, Logan City Council, where, it's well known, that allegations of corruption and fraud were laid. The council was disbanded and an administrator was appointed. The blanket charge on all the councillors was fraud, and the fraud had to do with the appointment of a CEO. I won't detain the House with the granular detail of it. Nevertheless, there were innocent people involved, and one of the tenets that I will stand in this place and defend is the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. If we abandon those principles in this place, then we should be labelled corrupt. 'Innocent until proven guilty' must always be the fundamental foundation of how we move forward in this place.

There were councillors, and charges of fraud were laid against them. Their reputations were trashed. Their children were bullied at school. They were driven from their community and they lost their livelihoods. They were gone. Their reputations were impugned. Medical attention was sought. They were on antidepressants to get through those traumatic times. They were unable to run for local government elections because the state ICAC-equivalent body sat over them while charges were still being investigated. To cut a long story short, after the election, when these councillors had left, their reputations were such that they were virtually unemployable. These people weren't friends of my party, but I will defend their rights because they were unjustly dealt with through an ICAC-equivalent in Queensland that lost sight of the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. They ended up leaving the district. They applied for Public Service positions, and, on the applications, they had to answer the question, 'Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence?' They said, 'Yes, fraud.' What do you think are the chances of these people being picked up by the Public Service? Zero. Months later, the ICAC-equivalent body comes out and says, 'Nothing to see here,' but the damage was already done. If it had been a civil case, there would have been opportunities for damages to be awarded against those personnel or for a class action, but, because of the nature of the body and its terms of reference, that sort of remedy is not available to them.

So, whilst the member for Reid is leaving the chamber at the moment, this issue will not leave the chamber and I would ask all members on the other side as they introduce bills into the House to make sure that, as we step forward to stamp out corruption, we are in lock step. We should be in absolute lock step to stamp out every inch of corruption, and in doing so, we need to understand the definition of corruption. I say that because, as elected officials, our job is to secure as much funding for our region as possible. If, in doing so, we derive the benefit from it that we are elected at the next election, are we, by definition, all corrupt? The answer is 'clearly not', because we don't have a real definition for what corruption is. At the periphery we know what it is; it's personal financial gain. But it will be a different matter when the lawyers get hold of this, I can assure you, unless there is definitive understanding. Journalists and the fourth estate are now debating what the definition of corruption looks like.

I can share with the parliament my enthusiasm for representing my people to the best of my ability and to ensure that I secure as much funding for my region as I can. That's what I get out of bed every day for; that's what I'm elected to do. The member for Monash came into the chamber before me, and he spoke about how his people elected him to make decisions on their behalf. My people elected me to make decisions on their behalf, to fight on their behalf and to be their voice, and I'll continue to do that. I haven't seen the ICAC bill. I haven't seen the granular detail of the bill before the House, but I welcome the Senate inquiry that will follow, and I hope that it's wide and broad and goes around the country. I hope it takes evidence from the very characters that I spoke of earlier, and I hope it hears evidence from them of how their lives were destroyed. It has to do its job. ICAC has to catch those corrupt beings, but it cannot crucify innocent public officials. It cannot be allowed to leave this kind of collateral damage in its wake. If it does, there must be the opportunity for remedial damages to prevent frivolous cases. Too many times at local government, I see frivolous legal action taken against councillors, just out of spite. It clogs up their systems in Queensland.

I know the Attorney-General to be an honourable man. He and I have had discussions on this, and we will have more discussions as the debate ensues. But I remind members that this issue has similarities to the Australian Building and Construction Commission provisions that were abolished by the government when they came to office. The position that was argued by government officials at that particular time was that the law is there to protect, the law is there for everyone and, if there are problems on building sites, they should be referred to the police. Why is it one rule for one side of politics and another rule for the other side? Why is it that we would not share those same learnings when it comes to this debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be amused to hear that I had no intention of speaking on the ICAC debate tonight in my grievance. I actually had a fully prepared speech about Labor keeping their hands off regional funding in my area. But, when I hear those on the other side—and I understand members are given their speaking points; they come into the chamber loyal to their parties—debate this issue with little regard for the collateral damage and the wake of destruction that can ensue if we do not handle this very carefully, I must address it, and I hope tonight I've made a few points that will find their way into people's subconscious so that, as we move forward in this debate, we will always hold true to the tenet of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

See this speech in context