Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I say at the outset that Senator Waters, from my home state of Queensland, undermines a lot of what she says when she is so gratuitous in her use of terms and overblown in her rhetoric. I will give an example. She tried to draw an analogy between Australia's offshore detention facilities and gulags. If she really wants to understand what a gulag is, she should read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's TheGulag Archipelago. I've got the three volumes of it in my Brisbane office and in my Canberra office. If she really wants to understand what a gulag is, she should read someone who spent 10 years in a gulag and spoke the truth to the world about what was happening in the Soviet Union at that point in time. It really does undermine Senator Waters' substantive points when she draws such weak and despicable analogies.

With respect to Senator Gallagher, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that she was talking about so many things that are actually in the public domain, that are in our newspapers, that are the subject of debate in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, with respect to policy decisions and processes undertaken by the government. It completely undermines her argument that we need a Commonwealth integrity commission when the existing checks and balances that we have in place, including the National Audit Office, are picking up on a lot of these issues and the opposition are discharging their responsibility in terms of drawing attention to them and shining a bright light on them. Where are these things in the murky underworld that aren't attracting government light? Where are these issues? The fact of the matter is Transparency International, in its latest ranking of countries across the world, ranked Australia 11 out of 180 in its corruption index.

As someone who has lived and worked in countries at the other end of the spectrum, Australia at a federal level and indeed at state levels does not have a material corruption issue. I come into this chamber and look at all of my fellow senators. I don't have any expectation that any of them would ever engage in any corrupt conduct. I believe every single one of them is serving in this place because they want to do their best for this country and they're not doing it out of personal self-interest. That's my firm view. It doesn't help the Australian people's perception of the political class and our political institution for members in this place to run our own institutions down and to tar everyone with a thickly-tarred brush. It really does not assist. Australia is incredibly fortunate that it does not suffer from the scourge of corruption to the extent that many countries around the world do. Corruption is insidious, absolutely insidious. It hurts the weakest in society, it undermines institutions and it frays the social contract.

I want to quote from an article on a New South Wales ICAC case to shine a bright light on the concerns that many of us have of the need for the legislation related to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission to be carefully drafted and carefully calibrated. I'm going to quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Michaela Whitbourn dated 16 March 2016 and it's entitled: Criminal charges dismissed against former SES Commissioner Murray Kear following ICAC probe. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald said:

Former State Emergency Service Commissioner Murray Kear has accused the state's corruption watchdog of "ruining his life" after he was cleared of criminal charges following a high-profile inquiry.

Mr Kear was charged under whistleblower protection laws with sacking his former deputy … as a "reprisal" after she made misconduct allegations …

But in another blow to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has come under sustained fire over its handling of the ill-fated inquiry into Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, Local Court Magistrate Greg Grogin dismissed the charges on Wednesday.

There was "no element of revenge, payback or reprisal" in Mr Kear's dismissal of Ms McCarthy in May 2013, Mr Grogin said.

Mr Kear said outside court that the watchdog had "ruined my life" and "caused immense angst to my family and my friends".

He said the Inspector of the ICAC, former Supreme Court judge David Levine, QC, who has launched a blistering attack on the watchdog over the Cunneen inquiry, had "said some sensible things" about the agency.

"I think the government does have to do something [about ICAC]; it can't continue the way it's gone. I just hope logic prevails at the end of the day and that the Premier does do something with ICAC," Mr Kear said.

I will read this as well from the same article because I think this is important, absolutely important.

Asked if he wanted his job back, Mr Kear said: "I'd really love to contribute in some way to the community; if that's back in emergency services, it's too early [to say]."

That is why there are legitimate concerns. We have to ensure that we get the legislation in relation to Commonwealth Integrity Commission right. People's reputations are at stake. Through the rambling dissertation of Senator Gallagher, I'm not sure what her definition of corruption is. I'm not sure what Senator Gallagher would be referring to a Commonwealth integrity commission. Is she going to be referring political decisions? Is she going to be referring matters of political process? Is she going to be referring matters with respect to whether or not funds have been wisely spent? What is it exactly that those opposite intend to be referred to the Commonwealth integrity commission.

I must say, I'm not instilled with confidence by the actions of the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Mark Dreyfus, in the other place, who's referred nine matters to the Australian Federal Police, none of which have gone anywhere. Those opposite are not instilling confidence in those of us on this side of the chamber with respect to what they hope to achieve through the establishment of a Commonwealth integrity commission. I do hope that when a Commonwealth integrity commission is established those opposite treat it with the respect that the institution will deserve and do not abuse the institution and its processes for base political gains. I dearly hope that is the case, but I must say the rhetoric which I've heard during the course of this debate doesn't instil me with any confidence whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that the Morrison government has committed to establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. There were hundreds of submissions received with respect to the legislation relating to the Commonwealth integrity commission and to many of the points which have been canvassed in this debate. It takes time to give those matters sober consideration. In the meantime, ACLEI, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, is dealing very professionally and efficiently with an expanded jurisdiction which includes the ACCC, ASIC, APRA and the ATO. It has been provided with substantial additional funding in order to undertake those processes, and that funding means that it's able to undertake more investigations.

In the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act the touchstone before any investigation is to commence is whether or not there is serious or systemic corruption. So again I say to those opposite: will they reflect on what the purpose of this Commonwealth integrity commission is? Will the referrals they think should be made to the commission fall within the bailiwick of allegations of serious and systemic corruption or will its time be wasted? Will its resources be wasted in the pursuit of a political agenda? All of us in this place need to consider seriously the ramifications of such an entity being used for base political processes. All of us need to consider that very, very carefully.

The issue of public versus private hearings is one on which reasonable people can disagree. ACLEI has the power to undertake public hearings. It hasn't done so once in its whole history, because in putting the test as to whether or not it is in the public interest to hold a public hearing—considering the impact on the reputation of those who are the subject of a complaint and in soberly considering the tests and whether or not it would assist with progressing an investigation or, indeed, hamper one—it has never found the need to conduct a public hearing in 10 years. I deeply respect the integrity of all the officers and the commissioners who have served at ACLEI since its establishment, but we should seriously reflect on the fact that in its entire history it has never seen the need to conduct a single public hearing. It has the power under certain conditions to initiate a public hearing, and that is a matter on which reasonable people can have a debate, but in 10 years of serious investigations—dozens and dozens of investigations, many of which have led to public prosecutions—it has never once seen the need to undertake a public hearing. That should give everyone cause for reflection.

When this issue of public versus private hearings was considered by a select committee, which included senators from this place, there were arguments in favour of both public hearings and private hearings. Ultimately, a consensus view seemed to emerge that perhaps, yes, you could have public hearings but they must be subject to a number of tests and controls to protect against the politicisation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Nothing I've heard during the course of this debate gives me any comfort whatsoever that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will not be used for base political reasons. In fact, all of the rhetoric I've heard is to the contrary.

I go back to that case of the SES commissioner in New South Wales whose life was destroyed through the ICAC process. He had to take early retirement at the age of 55. He had to spend tens and tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs just to go through a process of public humiliation, and then be vindicated at the end of the day. Is that the sort of process those opposite are seeking to impose upon our public servants and our bureaucracy? Is it really? Can I tell you that, as chair of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, it actually has given me a lot of comfort in terms of the level of issues of corruption in the Australian government. Whilst ACLI only deals with law enforcement officers or members of the ATO, ACCC, APRA and ASIC who deal with law enforcement issues, the number of actual offences committed is quite minimal. And it's been quite a successful process in terms of, where those issues have occurred, shining a bright light on them and holding people to account.

So let's not run down our political institutions; there are plenty of people outside this place who will do that for us. Let's keep it in context. If we're going to have a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, which I believe we should, please do not politicise it. People's reputations and lives are at stake, and we've seen that at a state level. Nothing I've heard in the rhetoric from those opposite gives me any comfort whatsoever.