Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I saw the consequences of government corruption early in life. I remember travelling overseas with my parents on holiday. We arrived at the border immigration office and presented our passports. The advertised price for an entry visa was US$50, but my mum ended up handing over US$55. I asked her what the extra US$5 was for, and she told me it was for the immigration officer to pocket. That was my first introduction to government corruption. In every interaction, there was potential for corruption, bribery and fraud. People living in that country knew that, in order to get things done with the government, money had to be exchanged.

I distinctly remember seeing a sealed tar road leading up to a huge estate. The road stood out to me because all the roads in that town had been bumpy dirt tracks, so I asked our family friend if the estate was some sort of government building or a place of national significance. She simply replied that the owners of the estate were wealthy and had paid off the local government officials with bribes to build the public road leading up to their house. This is what happens when corruption permeates and becomes the norm in a country. It undermines trust in government, it increases inequality and it means growth and progress stagnate. And, critically, it undermines democracy. Democracy only flourishes when decisions are made openly and transparently. Governments need to be held accountable. Their decisions need to be scrutinised and they need to be made in the public interest.

Corruption in Australia might not have been quite as obvious, but we have never been immune to it. Over the last decade, according to Transparency International, we have come down the rankings of the Corruption Perceptions Index. On a scale out of 100, Australia's score in 2012 was 85. In 2021 that had dropped to 73, a 12-point drop. Alongside Hungary, Australia experienced the biggest drop of all OECD countries. Not only does this drop in perception have a consequence for our democracy; it also has an economic consequence. Corruption has a corrosive economic impact. It builds distrust between corporations and governments. It has an impact on long-term investment decisions.

In every state and territory in Australia, there's an anticorruption body. In my home state of New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has exposed the presence of corrupt activities in the state—corrupt activities that have meant interests of individuals were placed over the public's and community's interests. These activities have been committed by representatives at both levels of government, local and state, by both major political parties, including the party that I am a part of, the Labor Party. It saddens me to say that, but I'm grateful to the Sydney Morning Herald's investigative reporter Kate McClymont for exposing this corrupt behaviour, and I'm grateful to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for its thorough investigation. I'm grateful because I don't want to be part of a party with corrupt representatives. I want their behaviour exposed, investigated and prosecuted.

Currently, the only jurisdiction that does not have an anticorruption body is the federal level. It's just extraordinary, isn't it, given the magnitude of the decisions made in this place? In response to the former government's contention that there was no corruption at a federal level, Geoffrey Watson SC, a former counsel assisting the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, said:

This argument is not only absurd, it is circular.

Without a federal agency armed with the appropriate investigative tools, it is unlikely that corruption will be detected, much less exposed.

Integrity in parliament was an issue raised with me during the election campaign. Time after time, doorknock after doorknock, the people of Reid raised their concerns about lack of integrity in our parliament. That's why I'm so proud to be part of a Labor government that is establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. And that is happening this week.

The commission will be tasked with investigating serious and systemic corrupt conduct across the entire federal public sector and will have the following design principles: it will have broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth by ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, and across the Public Service; it will be independent of government, with the discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative; it will be overseen by a statutory parliamentary joint committee; it will have retrospective powers; it will have the power to hold public hearings; it will have the power to refer matters to the AFP or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions; and it will have procedural fairness and be subject to judicial review.

Importantly, too, the legislation that will seek to enshrine the National Anti-Corruption Commission will provide strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of their sources. Both of these elements are fundamental to the orderly administration of a democracy like ours.

A great feature of the debate around integrity and the Anti-Corruption Commission so far has been the degree of collaboration and consultation across the parliament. While it's early days in terms of its passage through parliament, I'm glad to see that the Independents, the Greens and, more recently, the opposition have been constructively working on this important policy. It sends a signal that integrity, accountability and transparency are important in this parliament.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be a policy that we look back on in years to come and ask ourselves how we ever managed without it. It's a body that will help to build trust in our government, trust in our politics and trust in our democracy. And, while that may sound abstract, it's a policy that's fundamentally about ensuring better government and better policy outcomes for citizens across this country, including my own constituents of Reid, who I'm so proud to serve. It's about ensuring that people have faith that government is serving those whom it is supposed to serve, not those who might seek to unduly influence it. It's about ensuring integrity in government, not just for integrity's sake but because it will materially improve people's lives. So, while it's tempting to think of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in big, bold but somewhat abstract terms, its real impact will be felt in better policy for people's day-to-day lives.

A national anti-corruption commission is long overdue, so let's get this done.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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'.