House debates

Wednesday, 23 November 2022

Bills

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022; Second Reading

5:00 pm

Photo of Dai LeDai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation currently before the house. Corruption has occurred in the past in all political parties, and, for this reason, the Australian public wants to see action now. To preserve the integrity of our democracy, it is important that we get it right. In a recent investigation by the New South Wales ICAC into political donations to the Labor Party, two men committed suicide because they were none the wiser about their involvement and could not fathom prosecution for a corrupt activity they believed they were innocent of.

One was a director at a building developer company, Wu International, who tragically took his own life prior to giving evidence at the inquiry. Based on a Sydney Morning Herald report, the deceased man was visited by two ICAC officers who delivered a summons for his compulsory private hearing on 25 June 2018. That visit, according to the suicide note he left his family, triggered memories of what happened to his father in China, who was interrogated by China's police and ended up in jail. According to the story, the man told his wife and daughter that he didn't want them to be associated with a criminal, even though he stated in his suicide note that he was not found guilty at the time of writing the letter to his family. He also seemed traumatised by the ICAC officers turning up on his doorstep, as well as by being told not to discuss his summons with any family member. As he stated in his suicide note:

They told me not to discuss it with any family member; in reality I have also chosen not to tell you either, to prevent you having to worry about it …

The note was translated into English in the report. A father and a husband, this director had no-one to turn to, no support to help him with his mental anguish, and I have no doubt of his feeling of shame and loss of face.

While I strongly support any measures that reduce corrupt conduct, the investigations cannot result in people feeling such pressure that it will lead them to take their own life. We need to be cognisant of the repercussions of such public investigations on the lives of people, especially when it comes to witnesses—and witnesses who are of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds—who are not the perpetrators but who come before the commission to provide their account and are there to assist with the inquiry. A cultural lens needs to be adopted because the issues of shame and loss of face weigh heavily in some communities.

The corruption inquiry into donations to the New South Wales Labor Party and those of other political parties put many faces to the corrupt conduct of those who donated and those who handled the money, and it damaged the reputations of those associated with the process. But who really were the guilty people? Who has been found to be really corrupt? Are they still in the system? We know all too well the name of Eddie Obeid, who's currently in jail serving time for his corrupt conduct during his time in the New South Wales parliament. But surely there are more. And what happened to the individual dubbed 'the $100,000 man', who provided the cash in an Aldi bag? How did he influence the Labor Party? Who benefited from the $100,000 donations? Who were the main beneficiaries of his donations? Who else did he influence? What happened to him and the people who donated to the major parties? Has this ICAC investigation fixed our political system? Has it made it any better?

Restoring trust in politics and politicians will take more than an ICAC inquiry, which brings with it huge sensationalist public scrutiny—as well as damaging reputations for decades to come—or, in the case of the two suicides connected to the New South Wales ICAC, leads to loss of life. We need our democratic institutions to operate effectively, with purpose, accountability and transparency, and to earn the trust and confidence of the Australian people. If you walk along the streets and talk to people, it has become general knowledge, unless of course you live under a rock, that among the professions least trusted by Australians are government ministers and politicians in general—just above used-car salespersons and lobbyists.

A study by the Australian National University in January 2022 found that a little more than three in 10 Australians, or 34.5 per cent, had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the federal government. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2019 Australian Election Study found trust in government reached its lowest level on record, with just one in four Australians saying they had confidence in their political leaders and institutions. ICAC in New South Wales and similar bodies have tried to bring back integrity and accountability to our political system and processes through public inquiries and scrutiny, but I doubt if it has restored the trust that many of us now holding public office desire.

There are high expectations of what the National Anti-Corruption Commission will achieve once it is established, and rightly so. Trust in our elected representatives is low with the Australian public. I hope what we're trying to achieve in this House with this bill is small steps towards restoring our public's faith in our political processes and people. This is why I will be proposing amendments to enhance the work of the commission in trying to weed out corruption within our political processes. Having a solid understanding of how to engage respectfully and effectively with our culturally diverse communities will enable the commission to eventually get to the bottom of finding out the real culprits involved in corrupt behaviour. Investigators need to be trained and mindful of how to engage with CALD communities to get the maximum benefit from their investigations, while ensuring we do not face future tragic outcomes.

I applaud the effort that has gone into constructing this bill, with the leadership of the member for Indi, and the consultation which has seen community groups and multiple sectors contribute to the committee's report on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The government should be commended for recognising the importance of this bill and for their willingness to cooperate with the crossbench to give this bill the robust debate it deserves and hear from all sides of the chamber. But I feel it is my duty to raise concerns about the potential harm the bill will cause in the lives of some multicultural communities and individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds across the country if we don't put in place measures to create a culture of inclusivity within the commission and assist people to participate in providing evidence or have dialogues with the commission and investigators, without resorting to self-harm.

You have heard my story, showed empathy about my struggles and welcomed me as a migrant and refugee who left war-torn Vietnam, dreaming of a better future. I stand in this House, the people's house, not just representing the diverse electorate of Fowler but also as a voice for multicultural Australia. I stand here in the chamber and can speak English. Unfortunately, not all migrants and not all Australians are afforded the same opportunity to the English language. There are many communities across the nation that primarily speak a language other than English, and it is because of these barriers that these communities are targeted by corrupt individuals looking to use them in their corrupt activities.

In recent years, to advance their own corrupt agenda, political parties have used and taken advantage of Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who do not understand our political system. The most widely known example is branch stacking. You saw it in Victoria; you've seen it in New South Wales; and, if you are a member of certain political parties, you probably have watched it unfold before you. It happens more often than not. It is something that happens all the time, but it is rarely spoken about because of the possible backlash, the bomb it could throw on one's career. In addition to branch stacking, political parties see multicultural communities as walking ATMs, and they are regularly used as fundraising tools during election campaigns. Some multicultural groups and communities feel that donating funds to political parties is the only way to have a say and make a contribution to the political process—a belief that's reinforced by corrupt individuals seeking to further their political agenda.

You may be wondering how this relates to vulnerable and marginalised communities and how it relates to this bill. It is multicultural communities who are targeted in these campaigns for power by individuals wishing to climb the political ladder, often at their expense. Often it involves some cash and signing on the dotted line to become a member of a party you do not believe in or really understand anything about. In my mind, undoubtedly this is a form of corruption as financial incentives are used to gain power. But in a cultural context maybe someone is only asking a relative for a favour. Is it a favour or is it corruption? Where do the lines cross? When summoned to a corruption investigation most people will not understand that they are simply participating in an investigation. It is almost as if you are being charged for a crime and you have no idea what the crime you committed was.

Since my election to office, I have had dozens of constituents walk into my office, with jury summons or government correspondence, to seek help to translate because they themselves cannot understand what is being asked of them. It is, therefore, in my proposed amendments that the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill include provisions for translation services, both in the process of summoning an individual and during the commission's process. This will reduce the risk of trauma caused by language barriers and allow linguistically diverse Australians to participate in the commission's processes in an efficient manner.

The job of the commission is to investigate corruption, but, from my perspective, we still live in a society that upholds the belief of innocence until proven guilty. The potential mental health impacts of being summoned before the commission can cause lasting trauma, especially if the person in question does not have a support network and is unable to speak about the investigation in public due to the confidential nature of the commission's work.

I urge both sides of the chamber to support my amendments, including providing mental health and support services to individuals who seek help through a qualified social support worker or a qualified health practitioner, along with provisions to protect the disclosure of any information discussed between a person and a support person to the commission. Over recent years, our nation has seen firsthand the impact of mental health and its long impacts on Australians.

I hope my amendments, which I will move in the consideration in detail stage, will be adopted by the House to ensure Australians can trust they will be supported during the commission's process by the commission offering the necessary support. It will reduce the trepidation a person, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, may experience. It may even encourage individuals to be more cooperative throughout the process.

Comments

No comments