Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. This legislation has been a long time coming. Like so many in the House, I had the issue of integrity in government as a key platform during my campaign, and it was one that our electorates believed in strongly enough to vote for change. A majority of voters surveyed in my electorate indicated that it was one of their main drivers in deciding how to vote. Curtin constituents told me they were fed up with politicians not being subject to the same level of scrutiny and accountability as other professions. This lack of transparency has created deep mistrust in politicians and the Canberra ecosystem. So this bill should be celebrated as the first integrity commission model introduced into our federal parliament by a major party.

I want to acknowledge the many years of advocacy, and the introduction of legislation, by Independents on the crossbench, including Cathy McGowan, Helen Haines, Zali Steggall and Andrew Wilkie. It was their tireless efforts to demand that politicians should lead by example and embed best practice in what we do that brought this issue front and centre. They paved the way for this bill, and I thank them for their efforts.

While a national anticorruption commission is only part of the solution to rebuild trust in our government, it is a significant component, and my community and I commend the current government for its introduction. Finding the right model requires a balancing of interests—protecting the rights of individuals while recognising the need for open investigation to shine a light on how our governments operate and continually improve our systems to guard against corruption and to safeguard our democracy. I think this bill goes most of the way to finding this balance.

I want to take this opportunity to reflect the views of my electorate, the Curtin community. Engaging with my community about the NACC Bill has been both rewarding and a privilege. I live in an electorate where so many people are enthusiastic and engaged and are willing to have the conversation about what's best for Australia and the world rather than just what will benefit their own interests. I'm very proud to represent Curtin. I had hundreds of informal conversations with constituents throughout the election campaign. The desire for a national anticorruption commission was consistently one of the top three issues raised.

Since the election, members of the Curtin community have made their views heard through two public events. Soon after the election, on 12 July, we held a public integrity forum, which was open to anyone who was interested in the proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission. On a cold and dark Tuesday night, more than 130 Curtin constituents attended this forum to hear about key aspects of an anticorruption commission and the required balancing of interests, from the former President of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of WA, Carmel McClure AC, and then-barrister Sam Vandongen, just before his appointment to the Supreme Court of WA. From this conversation, we created a summary of my constituents' key concerns, which we shared with the Attorney-General. I thank the Attorney-General for his engagement on this issue and his willingness to listen to the views of the Curtin community.

On 13 October we also held a public interactive policy workshop, with an open invitation to the Curtin community to attend. We ended up with more than 50 Curtin constituents participating in the policy workshop, which was facilitated by eight lawyers, to learn more about the model proposed by the government and share what they liked and what raised concerns in relation to key aspects of the bill. This was an opportunity for participants to delve into the details of the NACC Bill rather than just deal in the rhetoric. It also gave constituents the opportunity to listen to and understand contrary points of view and find compromises in real time that considered multiple interests. We summarised these issues and concerns into a submission to the Joint Select Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation.

I want to thank all members of the Curtin community who participated in these events and the lawyers who volunteered their time to help my constituents build a deeper understanding of how the legislation would work. I'd also like to thank those who have contacted me outside of these events and given their time and their efforts to convey their views on the bill.

Based on input from my community through these events, as well as consultation with experts and with my fellow parliamentarians, I will be supporting a number of amendments to the bill during consideration in detail, but I'd like to take this opportunity to outline the main areas that I think could be improved.

The ability to hold public hearings is an important design principle for an effective anticorruption commission, and I'm pleased to see that public hearings are part of this legislation. But I'm concerned that, with the current drafting, public hearings will be few and far between. Section 73(2) says that hearings should be held privately unless there are exceptional circumstances and it is in the national interest for a public hearing. I believe that this test is too high and does not take into account the role of public hearings as an investigative, preventative and educative tool against corruption and misconduct. I believe that applying the exceptional circumstances test is an unhelpful barrier to inquiry. If we want to deter people from engaging in corrupt behaviour and encourage witnesses to come forward, to create a culture of public integrity, then public hearings should not only be in exceptional circumstances. Public hearings should be held whenever it is in the national interest, at the discretion of the commissioner, taking into account the relevant factors listed. I believe that the commissioner will be able to make sensible decisions on this issue, balancing the competing interests of public trust and individual rights, without the additional constraint of an exceptional circumstances test.

Another issue my community raised is the need to ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission and its officers are set up to be completely independent and autonomous. For this body to be successful, it needs to carry out its functions independently of government and removed from any third-party influence. I hope that this and future governments will be open and transparent about the funding of the NACC, and I recommend that the NACC budget be tabled annually so that it can be scrutinised. I also urge the government to do everything possible to ensure that senior office holders appointed to the NACC have bipartisan support. This commission will not work in restoring public trust if it's run by the friends of the government of the day, rather than impartial judges.

To have an impartial NACC, we also need an impartial parliamentary committee. Appointing an Independent crossbench member, Helen Haines, as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation has helped build public trust in the current review process. My community and I would like to see this approach continued. In the ongoing operation of the committee, this could be done in a variety of ways—for example, through appointment decisions requiring multipartisan support, or the committee could even have a non-governmental chair. At the very least, the minister should respond publicly to any recommendations made by the committee if he or she overrules them.

The crossbench has repeatedly called for stronger whistleblower protection in the NACC legislation. Strong whistleblower protection is fundamental to ensure integrity and to encourage witnesses to corruption and misconduct to come forward. I note that the government's response to crossbench concerns about enshrining whistleblower protection has been to propose introducing a new bill to deliver improvements to whistleblower laws, ahead of a fuller review in 2023. While this is welcome news, I think there is still merit in including the whistleblower protections in the NACC Bill. Whistleblower provisions need to be strong, comprehensive and fit for purpose. I'm concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach applied through separate legislation may not be sufficient. But, if this is not an option, the priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act need to be substantive and work together with later amendments to support disclosure of relevant information with necessary protection.

As a parliament we need to do more to protect people who've stood up to expose wrongdoing and misconduct from prosecution—brave people like Bernard Collaery, a lawyer exposing the Timor-Leste bugging; David McBride, a military lawyer, exposing alleged Australian war crimes; and Richard Boyle, who's exposed alleged aggressive tactics by the tax department.

In its current form, the bill requires a review to be undertaken after five years, with a response to the review from the government due a year after that. Given the significance of this new body in rebuilding trust in government, this seems a long time to wait to make improvements. I accept that it will take a while before the commission is fully operating, but I'd like to see a review three years after full operation commences, which is probably about four years after the bill commences. I believe this would allow an adequate period of operation for the reviewer to assess the commission's success and allow the reviewer to assess the impact of things like the exceptional circumstances test for public hearings and the impartiality of the committee and appointments process. Critically examining and regularly improving the performance of our institutions is part of holding government to account, and I'll be moving an amendment in the consideration-in-detail debate on this issue.

In conclusion, I commend the Attorney-General on the introduction of this bill and thank him for his consultation and measured consideration of feedback in the lead-up to its introduction. I think this bill will go a long way to restoring some of the public trust in government that's been destroyed over the last few terms. I look forward to the establishment of the NACC, and I'll continue to play my role in scrutinising the activities of the commission to make sure it's operating independently and fairly.

See this speech in context