Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. For too long, politicians have done dodgy things in this place and gotten away with it. Politicians have raked in money from private businesses while serving as ministers; politicians and their families have benefited from insider knowledge for their own gain; politicians have given jobs to their mates who later made decisions in their favour; politicians have pork-barrelled marginal communities for votes; and politicians have thrown whistleblowers under the bus to protect their own behinds. These things don't pass the pub test. Not only that, they could be corrupt conduct. The people who are deciding the future of this country could be engaging in conduct that benefits themselves and their mates rather than the country. That's risky business. It's not in the national interest. Of course, we have to do something to change this. Until now, we haven't held people who work in the federal public sector to account for what could be corrupt conduct. Well, time's up.

One of the messages that the voters of Australia sent in May was to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The voters of Australia wanted their elected representatives to establish a strong and transparent integrity body. Why? Because the voters of Australia want to know when their elected representatives are doing dodgy things. They don't want their elected representatives to get away with it anymore.

The voters of Australia also want to know when the public servants who work for the government of the day are doing dodgy things. That's hard-earned taxpayer dollars that public officials could be misusing. Engaging in corrupt conduct doesn't cut the mustard in the voters' workplace. Why should we be any different? I'm happy this government is acting on the message the electorates have sent. I'm happy this government has moved quickly to introduce this legislation.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission the government has proposed looks pretty good, but I think it could be better. There are a few things I'd like to see changed. One of those things is the fact that hearings would be held in public only in exceptional circumstances. What does that even mean? The bill doesn't define it, and at the moment the bill says that public hearings will only be held if the commissioner thinks there are exceptional circumstances to justify it and it's in the public interest. You know what? I don't think that's good enough. What's there to hide? Like I said before, the voters of Australia want to know when their elected representatives and the public servants that carry out their work are doing dodgy things. How are they going to know this if a hearing is held in private? Don't get me wrong—I don't think all hearings should be public. Sometimes it's appropriate to have private hearings, like when a person has been charged with an offence or when a person is likely to incriminate themselves or if giving evidence in public would prejudice a fair trial or where there'd be undue damage to a person's career or reputation. That all makes sense, but the bar for public hearings that the bill sets at the moment is way too high.

Prof. Anne Twomey told the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation that under the bill in its current form almost all hearings will be in private. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what people voted for. I reckon that's more like what the coalition promised, and I don't see them in government anymore. What the government has forgotten is that people voted for an integrity body that was open, transparent and had teeth. That's why we put forward some amendments to remove the high exceptional-circumstances bar.

We aren't moving our amendments because the Greens have their own which are similar, and we support them. The Greens have done a lot of work on this issue, and they've put forward some other amendments. Their amendments would make the commission stronger and more transparent. One of their amendments is to specify that the commission be independent, and that's a bit of a no-brainer. I'm happy to support amendments like this.

Senator Pocock has also put forward some amendments that strengthen the commission, and this is what people voted for. We support those as well.

Finally, I just want to say that I'm happy to be part of a parliament that is doing something about corruption in the federal public sector. I may be a new senator, but I've been around Parliament House for a while now and I've seen some questionable things that should have gone under the microscope—some things that were pretty obvious too. The establishment of an integrity body was one of my priorities going into this election, and I'm proud to be part of a parliament that's doing something about it.