Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is something the Greens have been campaigning for for a very, very long time, and we welcome the adoption of that proposal by this parliament. I want to particularly thank the tireless work of my colleague Senator Waters in campaigning for a National Anti-Corruption Commission, a watchdog with teeth. Her bill establishing a federal anticorruption body was the first one to pass one of our houses of parliament, and it sets an important precedent for the bill that is before us today. The Greens, as well as pushing for a national anticorruption body, had been pushing for greater scrutiny and accountability across the parliament on integrity, transparency and appropriate expenditure of government funds, which is why we will continue to push for political donations reform. We will continue to push for greater transparency and stronger limits on donations so that fossil fuel donations can't buy more fossil fuel subsidies and destructive industries like gambling can't buy policy outcomes that reap them profits and increase misery for so many for so long.

It's also why, in my role at various points as Greens spokesperson for sport and for infrastructure, I pushed for greater transparency around the community sports infrastructure program—the so-called sports rorts—and around the Urban Congestion Fund. Let me note that in talking about this tonight I'm not in any way wanting to pre-empt the important work of the NACC but simply to say that we Greens think it's important because the last parliament showed both the power of the Senate in scrutinising these programs as well as the limitations.

As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on the Administration of Sports Grants I saw firsthand the important evidence that the committee exposed. The committee found that:

Overwhelming evidence shows that Senator (Bridget) McKenzie, and her office, in consultation with the Prime Minister's office, used the program as a vehicle for gaining political advantage for coalition candidates in the 2019 federal election by favouring applicants located in marginal and 'targeted' electorates.

The evidence available to the committee indicates clearly that the Prime Minister's office, and likely the Prime Minister, were aware of the use of electorate information to identify projects in marginal and targeted electorates well before the first grant recipient was announced.

We saw through that inquiry that, despite attempts by former prime minister Scott Morrison to place all the blame on then minister McKenzie, the reality was that his office was very aware of the decision-making process, if not deeply involved in it.

The committee also heard clear evidence about the impact of that decision-making process. We heard from community groups across the country who had spent hours, days and weeks preparing their applications, only to find that their intense work didn't matter as much as the postcode lottery—whether they fell in a marginal electorate. These were groups that, after the department had judged their application, were right there at the top of the list in terms of how appropriate it was that they get grant funding. They scored extremely high but missed out because of that postcode lottery favouring marginal and targeted electorates. I know from my time in local government as a councillor and mayor how heartbreaking it can be to see your community missing out on crucial infrastructure because you're a safe seat. Nobody is showing largesse and throwing dollars at you. You're a safe seat, taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other.

Importantly, during the sports rorts inquiry, there was information that we were not able to obtain through the Senate process because, on crucial points, conservative crossbenchers voted with the Liberal-National party government to deny access to critical information. And we are still waiting on some of that information—for the Information Commissioner to process long-overdue freedom-of-information appeals.

As I said, we showed the power of the Senate but also its limitations and why we need to have an anticorruption commission that won't have those limitations. The select committee noted in its final report:

The committee has faced significant obstruction in its attempts to gather evidence that would explain who was involved and responsible for grant decisions (including the extent of involvement of the Prime Minister and others), what were the reasons for decisions, and whether those decisions were made in accordance with the law.

That was important work by that committee, but my experience and that experience really highlighted and underlined the importance of an anticorruption body and how desperately we need one. So I commend this bill and echo the support of my colleagues for this important reform. It has been a long time coming, and we are glad to see it finally being done.