Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate today on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Author William Gaddis famously said, 'Power doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt power.' Establishing a federal corruption commission is our chance to show Australians that people who break the law must face the law. We all agree corruption is wrong and should be stamped out. Indeed, the coalition introduced Australia's first ICAC in 1988. However, we should take the time we need and the care we need to get this right because this commission, once established, will have extraordinary powers. These powers will be the same as a royal commission, which is why it's so important we get it right.

The proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission applies to a vast range of people within Australia, not just parliamentarians and public servants. This commission also covers our defence forces, Federal Police, NDIS and aged-care workers, and any contractor or subcontractor who exercises power under Commonwealth law. What it doesn't cover, however, is union officials who are exercising power under Commonwealth law.

While there is much that is good in this bill, it isn't perfect. Coalition members and senators have engaged at length with the legislation, which has helped to shape what we are debating here today, but other aspects discussed by my colleagues during the preparation and writing stage of the bill have not been included. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation put forward six consensus recommendations. Coalition committee members presented many additional comments to ensure this bill gets the balance right between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of the everyday people brought before the body.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also suggested extensive recommendations, which highlighted members' concerns around definitions lacking specificity and how coercive powers could be used improperly and without adequate safeguards. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted its concerns about how gag orders could be used and their potential impact on the mental health of people brought before the commission, as well as the broad use of contempt offences. Additionally, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's inquiry into the NACC's proposed telecommunications surveillance has not yet concluded. At this point, we do not even understand all the implications that will arise from this bill.

As I said, the coalition has approached engaging with this bill in good faith within parliament and through the various committee processes, but we still have concerns over some of the measures contained in the bill. To this end, the coalition proposes amendments that work to balance the extraordinary powers that the NACC will have with fairness and reason.

We propose to close the loophole that allows the unions to be above these anticorruption measures. While the Labor government talks itself up about integrity, allowing the union bosses a free pass when it comes to corruption is, frankly, corrupt. I don't see how someone like CFMMEU Victoria secretary John Setka should have different standards to adhere to than, say, the NDIS workers who look after the needs of the constituents in my home state of Tasmania. If this legislation is good enough for our defence forces and Federal Police to be guided by, it's more than good enough for the likes of the union officials who are threatening subcontractors on building sites.

We want this bill to have adequate protections for all within its purview, as do experts in this field, like the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, the South Australian Bar Association, the Australia Institute and the Victorian Inspectorate. These organisations support the coalition's efforts to balance the powers in this bill, such as sharing the power to commence a public hearing into a person or organisation between a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. Spreading the power between more than a single official is good governance.

We think it should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider certain factors before commencing an investigation. These factors should include considering whether confidential information is involved, whether a person's reputation would be unfairly prejudiced and whether someone giving evidence is vulnerable, for example, being under direct control of another, when determining whether public hearings should be held. We already know the damage being called before a corruption commission can do to someone's reputation, whether they are guilty of corruption or not. We've seen it across the country. We can do better than this.

Further, and as highlighted earlier by Senator Henderson, the commission proposed in this bill has the power to impose gag orders on those appearing before the body, to stop them disclosing that they appeared. In the interest of promoting the health and wellbeing of the people who appear before the commission, particularly their mental health, there should be limited exceptions to this order. These could include the ability to disclose information to an immediate family member, as long as they are not a person of interest in a case, or a medical or mental health professional. We need to ensure that those who appear before the commission are not left without a support system and feeling they'll have nowhere to turn.

We also proposed a further amendment regarding the repeal of privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege for those who appear. We want to ensure that this comes into effect only when absolutely necessary, because the removal of this privilege significantly impacts fundamental rights. The commission's decisions should all be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Again, this is good governance, but there are significant aspects in this bill that are not subject to review. Commission investigations cannot go on indefinitely, so we propose a 12-month time limit on investigations. The coalition also believes that the commission should commence an inquiry into matters that happened before it was established only if it is in the public interest to do so. Otherwise we're opening up the opportunity for a never-ending line of unfounded witch hunts.

Finally, if we're talking about integrity we must consider how important bipartisanship is when forming a new body like the proposed NACC. We suggest that a three-quarters majority of the parliamentary committee be required for all appointments of commissioner and inspector, keeping in mind that such a body must be supported by all sides of government. Without this support the public we represent will have no faith in the NACC. The proposed changes will make the NACC a fairer and more just body, which is exactly what is needed when making decisions around corruption.