Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the private senator's bill put forward by Senator Waters today, the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2). We've reached an important moment in this place. There is at the very least bipartisan support for a national integrity commission. Now that we've reached that bipartisan point, the Greens don't quite know what to do with themselves. They could choose to support the government's model, which was announced almost a year ago and addresses the heart of people's concerns, but that would be to acknowledge the work of the Morrison government in creating a model for advancing this issue. Importantly, this model has the prospect of standing the test of time. It's got the potential to get the kind of across-the-aisle support that means it could stand the test of time rather than becoming the kind of political football that the Australian Greens like so much. But with them it's always 'My way or the highway', without engaging with the merits of the CIC, the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or accepting the drawbacks of their proposed bill.

To more cynical minds it might seem like the Greens are using this bill as nothing more than yet another cheap shot at the government. In their dissenting report attached to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report into the national integrity package of bills, the Greens resort to nitpicking about the $104.5 million over the forward estimates and the approximately 93 staff allocated to it. While that was within the range of appropriate resources recommended by the department, it wasn't at the very top of the range. That's not good enough for them. When it comes to the Greens party, more is always more when it comes to money. With the $150 million that they propose should be allocated to their National Integrity Commission, they don't bother even for a moment saying what the source of that funding will be. As usual, the money just comes from the ether with the Australian Greens. But the taxpayers can't be treated like their pockets are bottomless pits, and, to his credit, Treasurer Frydenberg respects that. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will receive a total of $145.2 million in funding over its first three years, with $2.2 million worth of funding in the 2019-20 year to reconstitute the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity as the CIC's law enforcement integrity division, and a rolling-in of ACLEI's existing budget of $40.7 million.

What's great about the government's model for the CIC—and this is really important, Madam Deputy President—is that it learns the lessons of the flaws of the state anticorruption and integrity bodies, because they are deeply flawed in a way that has caused substantial harm in recent years. The new law enforcement integrity division will have a significantly expanded jurisdiction to that which ACLEI currently has. It will cover several additional agencies—those that exercise the most significant coercive powers and therefore present the most significant potential corruption risk. These agencies include the ACCC, APRA, ASIC, the ATO and the Department of Agriculture. All of these are in addition to the bodies that ACLEI and the Integrity Commissioner already cover, including the AFP, AUSTRAC and the Department of Home Affairs, including Border Force.

The law enforcement integrity division will have the same functions and powers as ACLEI, meaning it will have the discretion to hold public hearings where it thinks it's appropriate to do so. Labor and the Greens have made much of the CIC public sector integrity division's inability to hold public hearings. A survey conducted by the Australia Institute earlier this year found that the two statutory powers with the lowest public support that could be given to an anticorruption commission were (1) the power to compel people to provide evidence and (2) the power to hold public hearings.

A significant number of people in our community recognise the shortcomings of existing state based integrity bodies in relation to public hearings. Most significantly, New South Wales ICAC removes the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination. Witnesses there are forced to testify against their will under the threat of criminal sanction, and the risk of irreparable reputational damage, irrespective of whether or not there is a finding of wrongdoing, is alarmingly high. A political opponent or the media can, and do, use a witness's mere testimony before a public corruption hearing as a tool to discredit them, even if the evidence against that person was that they had done nothing wrong or, indeed, they had done things that would never ever reach the standards required to convict them in a criminal court.

There is no consideration in this bill given to providing due process to innocent witnesses who are brought before a commission to contribute their accounts. The protections afforded by the traditional justice system, like the right to silence, are valued because of their rigour, not because of the ease with which they allow convictions to be secured. They serve as a check on the inherent imbalance of power between the individual and the state, ensuring that the freedom of an individual accused of a crime can be compromised only if a case is actually proven against them.

Although anticorruption commissions can't put people in jail, the distinction between an adverse finding by a corruption agency and a court conviction is likely to be lost on many people in our community. In terms of reputational damage, a finding of corrupt conduct by a watchdog like the ICAC may well be career ending in circumstances where it simply isn't justified. Those who are brought before the New South Wales ICAC and other state integrity commissions are protected by fewer safeguards than a person who is undergoing a routine police interview. That can't be something that meets the pub test.

The government will not allow the CIC to devolve into a kangaroo court, subject to the whims of opportunistic individuals or organisations, as we have seen time and time again when it comes to state integrity commissions. Importantly, members of the public will still be able to make complaints relating to the public sector to existing integrity agencies, such as the Ombudsman, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, IPEA, and the AFP. These agencies will be able to refer any appropriate matters to the CIC. This is important because it enables the CIC to focus on legitimate complaints of corrupt conduct. Allowing direct public referrals, as is proposed in the Greens bill, risks an influx of vexatious or frivolous complaints, and that reflects ACLEI's current experience in 98 per cent of cases. So there is good justification for having that early filter process.

We will also not repeat another of the key flaws of state agencies by enabling the public sector integrity division to make public findings of corruption without having to follow fundamental justice processes. Instead, matters of potential criminal conduct will be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for proper assessment for prosecution by the courts. That's the right thing to do in terms of process, and it's also the right thing to do in making sure that those who have done the wrong thing face the full force of the law.

I've made no secret of my thoughts on the need for the proposed National Integrity Commission but, in doing so, we've got to remember that, while there's always room for improvement, Transparency International ranks Australia's government as among the least corrupt of any country in the world and it has been that way for many years. We're currently ranked 13th in the world in Transparency International's global rankings out of 180 countries. Would I like to see us higher in the rankings? Absolutely. But let's not forget that 13th is a significant achievement. It has remained consistent since 2015.

The first words of my maiden speech last year were:

Australians don't trust politicians.

And I still think that's true. Australians do have a healthy scepticism of politicians and of democracy generally. The Greens cite this lack of trust in their push for their version of the National Integrity Commission and I commend them for at least having an interest in restoring faith. But to do as Senator Water's bill proposes—to drag the people before the court of public opinion without many of the protections that we regard as basic to the protection of the individual from the state—would cause more harm than good when it comes to restoring Australian's trust and confidence in the political system.

To acknowledge that there might be a trust problem doesn't mean that the bill which has been proposed by the Greens is the answer to that problem. Indeed, it could very well intensify the problem. We need to be alive to that risk and consider it in light of both the potential for it to do good or the potential for it to do harm. There are many other ways by which we can work to address the trust deficit, not least through the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. This government has undertaken extensive public consultation on the proposed model. We received 78 submissions during the consultation process. We should also note that there are many existing government processes that give Australians a direct avenue to air their concerns and their grievances with the way public administration is operated to ensure its integrity. There are no less than 12 agencies at the Commonwealth level that currently have responsibility for ensuring integrity in the processes of government. In addition to that, we have a range of parliamentary committees whose job it is to scrutinise proposed laws, to hold government activities to account and to canvass public opinion on matters that are important to the Australian people. To establish yet another body with the power to be itself a tyrant, just as the ICAC in New South Wales has right to the point where the High Court of this country has reprimanded it for its abuse of power and its reckless tarnishing of reputations with nowhere near sufficient evidence, would not be the answer. Open and honest dialogue: that's how we rebuild our relationship with the Australian people. It's not by dragging out the debate on what a national integrity commission should look like—a debate that the longer we carry on about, the less faith, ironically, we can expect Australians to have in the final product.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to reject this bill and to support the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It is well-resourced, it is subject to proper processes and it will be effective in such a way as to ensure that all Australians can be confident in their elected representatives and in the public officials who are charged with the duty of giving effect to the work of this place.