Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on what I feel are arguably some of the most important pieces of legislation that I have spoken on during my relatively short time here in this, the 47th Parliament. I am, of course, referring to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 alongside the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022.

We all know that this legislation, in one form or another, has been several years in the making. This legislation is of vital importance. The debate surrounding the establishment of such a body has been one that I followed closely long before my election to this place.

It is of vital importance because the National Anti-Corruption Commission gives us, as members of this place—the parliament, the legislature, a pillar of our constitutional democracy in Australia—the best chance we have of restoring public faith and confidence in those institutions and others across the entire Australian government, the Australian Public Service and other key public institutions.

The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been an election commitment of the Australian Labor Party since the lead up to the 2019 election. Now the Albanese Labor government is once again fulfilling these commitments in a concerted fashion. Being a part of an Albanese Labor government that is coming to this place and introducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation makes me extremely proud. This is a truly historic moment in the lead up to what I hope will be this parliament coming together to pass these bills and bring some integrity into our system.

I am cautiously optimistic. This cautious optimism stems from the knowledge that, although in this place we may have some differing views on the margins regarding this legislation, we are mostly on a unity ticket on the principle that underpins this legislation. In fact, the constructive nature of this debate in this place so far provides more ammunition for this cautious optimism. It makes you wonder just what we as a parliament can accomplish together when we lead with common goals and find ourselves in lockstep to turn these common goals into tangible outcomes.

This bill has received numerous submissions, many of those from the same people, the same organisations that lamented previous governments' attempt at this, the national integrity commission. But this government listens. Much work was undertaken to get the balance right, as this debate drew even closer, whether it be by the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Joint Select Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, which produced an informative report, one that I have keenly paid attention to and I believe this government has done too. These are all very important steps, ones that need not cause undue delay to the process but will help to draw all sides of this parliament towards a model for the commission and an outcome we can all be proud of, one that we can go back to our electorates and to our families with our heads held high.

I mentioned earlier the Labor Party's position on a National Anti-Corruption Commission dating to before the 2019 election. Without looking at events that led up to this in the federal sphere, for a moment it is worth examining the actions of state and territory governments over the years. These commissions go by many varied names and varied means across the country, but all seek the same ends—to investigate and weed out corruption where it is suspected to exist within public institutions. In New South Wales, the Northern Territory and in my home state of South Australia, they are called an Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, often used as a rallying cry for this debate federal ICAC. Well, we are pretty close to it now. In Queensland, we have the Crime and Corruption Commission. This is mirrored by Western Australia's Corruption and Crime Commission. In Victoria, it is the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC. And lastly, in Tasmania and the ACT, they have their integrity commissions. The first of these bodies to be established was the ICAC in New South Wales back in 1989, and the last of these were the integrity commissions in the ACT and Northern Territory in 2019 and 2018 respectively. Now, in 2022, we still are yet to have one covering the federal government. I can't wait to restate the obvious and outline why.

It may be true that the National Anti-Corruption Commission may not be called what we might be familiar with in our home states, but an ICAC by any other name would smell as sweet. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is no less broad-based, no less independent and no less a safeguard to the integrity that underpins our institutions. Having our democratically elected representatives attempting to protect our democracy is a manifestation of democracy itself. This is especially true when it goes about its core business to eliminate the stench of corruption and impropriety where it sees and suspects it. That stench can be a strong one, whether it be perceived or actual. It is one that lingers if not taken care of swiftly. We owe it to the public to make every effort to have a mechanism to investigate and weed out serious and systemic corruption where it exists, and to deter it from occurring in the first place.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has aims beyond investigating corruption. Its broader aim includes reducing the likelihood of corruption festering and metastasising unchecked. I am pleased to see that it aims to educate the public sector to better identify suspect behaviours and help to correct certain attitudes in people that might, one day, lead to someone crossing that line of no return, and aims to teach scores of staff across departments, ministerial and electoral offices that, if they see something, they should say something.

Though I have used a fairly conciliatory and fair tone over the course of debate thus far, it would be remiss of me not to provide some much needed context to the House as to why an Albanese Labor government took office with an election commitment to introduce a National Anti-Corruption Commission. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the actions of the previous government or, more astutely, the omissions of the previous government in this space.

The average person over the last couple of years would see the former Liberal-National government go through cycles of action. By action we mean an announcement, statements to the effect of supporting an anti-corruption commission and then radio silence—dead air. This occurred as a pattern. Each instance lasted until someone managed to have the grit and perseverance to force it back onto the agenda. Then there would be another pithy gesture, an exposure draft to nowhere, one reviled by the many eminent organisations and academics that took the time to make a submission in the hope that the benefit of their expertise would be taken into account. They certainly got their hopes up a little too high, considering who was at the helm at the time.

The leading figures in this game of policy hide-and-seek were, of course, the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, and the now former member for Pearce, who at the time was the Attorney. As we know, the member for Cook had the gall to blame the Labor opposition for why the government at the time's bill was not introduced to the House. Of course, they expected everyone in this place to support it without amendments. The former government never introduced legislation if it knew that Labor opposed it. At least by this time nobody was buying it, even from within their own ranks. In the end the exposure draft of the federal integrity commission died of exposure.

If we had to go by the former Prime Minister's statements, he was all for an Anti-Corruption Commission. However, he opted to use the cover of the New South Wales ICAC investigations, which were exactly what the doctor ordered, to undermine what was needed for an Anti-Corruption Commission. But at the start, like I said, he seemed to be eager to get this done. If only the member for Cook was secretly the Attorney-General at the time, he could have pushed this through the chamber personally. But the rest is history. It's now time to look forward.

Now we have a new Attorney-General, one who cares about integrity in government and about fulfilling our election promises to the Australian people. We also have a new member for Pearce, who was elected to this place for the first time alongside the likes of me. I'm sure the new member for Pearce has a much less tolerant view of corrupt conduct and thus I am sure that she will be joining me to support this bill. Now, we are almost there. We will, hopefully, soon have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, one with safeguards yet with teeth that will gnash at those suspected of involvement in serious or systemic corruption but ,to all others and to the public at large, those teeth will look like a broad smile.

Sadly, some people out there, in an attempt to diminish the importance and necessity of the National Anti-Corruption Commission being established, will say that this isn't the typical issue that the average punter cares about. If that's true, that is a glaring indictment of us as an institution. It means that too many out there think that we as an institution are beyond redemption. As a parliament, we need to start passing the pub test again. I can't allow this to be the status quo that I walk into as a member of this place.

From the tone and course of the debate over the past day or so—and one rather late night last night—it was quite comforting to see many of my fellow class of '22 members who sit across all parts of the chamber making active contributions to furthering this debate. There is nothing wrong with wanting to restore some of the shine that has been lost in where you work. Now that I and my classmates have joined this place, we are stepping up and stepping forward to be part of the solution.

Lastly, I do lament somewhat that the National Anti-Corruption Commission is something that has to be introduced and that there are people out there, whether elected as public officials or working within the public sector, who don't exhibit strong values such as the need to have their probity above reproach. But, alas, we must introduce the commission. We know this—or at least most of us here do, in one form or another. I have opted not to repeat the statistics that many others have over the course of the debate, but those numbers need to start moving in another direction. Whether it is Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index or a poll put out in the field by a research firm or a university, perception matters so much. I know I'm addressing a room full of politicians who know this self-evident truth all too well.

So I commend this bill. Lastly, I say that I hope this commission gets the support it deserves so this profession of ours can have a modicum of mobility restored to it. We have all put our hands up to serve. Let's show the people who put us here that we are serious about winning back their trust.

See this speech in context