Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my desk in my office I have a little plaque which my husband made for me. Written on the plaque is a quote by Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher. It reads:

When you speak in the senate or to any individual, be straightforward, not pedantic. Use language which rings true.

In speaking today, I take guidance from another quote by Marcus Aurelius:

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.

Integrity is the word most often used to describe the aspiration that we as politicians have—indeed, it is a universal aspiration that all men and women seek to adhere to in their daily lives. But for those in public office, integrity is not just an aspiration; it is an obligation. Indeed, as I have said before, the higher the office, the greater the responsibility.

So what is integrity? Common definitions refer to the adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values, to incorruptibility, to honesty, trust and respect. At a time of far greater scrutiny of public officials, do we have in place the necessary frameworks to ensure that public officials do conform to principles of integrity and that, when they fail to do so, there are appropriate sanctions? As politicians we are the lawmakers and, as such, we should not be above those laws.

Politics is about perceptions, and regrettably the perception that the general public have about us is not good. Why is it not good? Because repeatedly politicians from local, state and federal ranks have acted without integrity and contributed to the ongoing and deteriorating perception of the body politic. In any survey about the most trusted professions in our society, politicians usually rank amongst the lowest. And why wouldn't this be the case, given the continued exposure of questionable activities over many years? Whether it's alleged lies in election campaigns, dodgy preselections, misappropriation of public moneys, personal benefits resulting from insider information, moneys sequestered in overseas tax havens, abuse of office for personal advantage, connections with foreign governments—the list goes on and on. Negative public perceptions are compounded when politicians dig their heels in, spin the story and fail to take responsibility for their actions. They rely on the fast-moving media cycle and wait for the next story to take the wrongdoing off the front page.

With perceptions of corruption in Australia increasing the erosion of public trust in institutions and the advent of an increasing number of political scandals, there are growing calls for a better National Integrity Commission than the one proposed by the government. Being from New South Wales, I'm conscious of the need to heed the lessons from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, which was used to settle factional scores and destroy careers. However, the role of such a body needs to uncover corruption and expose it publicly. As we have seen with state bodies, they have powers which the police and prosecuting authorities do not have, including the power to force people to answer questions which may incriminate them but which are often inadmissible in court. Public hearings with appropriate safeguards are important. In addition, there should be no special treatment for politicians and their staff.

Public trust will continue to be undermined unless members of parliament are subject to full and proper scrutiny. An article titled 'Integrity concerns' by Karen Middleton in The Saturday Paper on 12 December 2020, cites comments by a former High Court justice, Mary Gaudron QC. The article states that the only way a parliamentarian could be brought before the proposed commission would be if both that parliamentarian and the Attorney-General reasonably suspected a crime had been committed. Gaudron was absolutely correct when she said:

It's unlikely, let me tell you, that a parliamentarian is going to front up and say, 'I think on reasonable grounds, that I've committed a crime.'

In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 4 November 2020, titled ''Weak powers' to expose federal MPs: former judge blasts corruption watchdog plan,' Anthony Whealy QC, chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and a former Court of Appeal judge, said that the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission had 'fundamental deficiencies'. He said that the commission would be split into two divisions with 'completely different powers' with:

… the division responsible for investigating alleged corruption by federal MPs, their staff or departments unable to hold public hearings, make corruption findings, or act directly on tip-offs from the public.

In November 2020, Transparency International Australia in conjunction with Griffith University, Queensland released a paper titled Australia's national integrity system: the blueprint for action. The paper offered suggestions for a holistic, whole-of-government approach and it highlighted two salutary statistics. First, our score on Transparency International's 2019 corruption perception index is 77, down eight points since 2012. Second, in October 2020, 66 per cent of surveyed Australians thought corruption in government was 'a quite big or very big problem', up from 61 per cent in 2018.

I have previously raised the question of the vetting of politicians. Whilst this is a complex issue, nevertheless it warrants consideration in any discussion about integrity. I had the opportunity last year during a Senate inquiry to canvass with the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the issue of the vetting of politicians, especially in the context of foreign interference in our political system. He stated:

I personally think, or professionally think, that actually there is imperfection in our democratic system but actually it is right that it is members of political parties that pick their people who would run as candidates and it is right that the citizens vote those candidates in and therefore a government is elected and those people are the chosen people by the community and the parties in terms of ministerial positions. That might be imperfect, but actually I think that's still a very good system. Why do I say that? Because ultimately, even in that imperfection, if politicians or ministers do the wrong thing by the law, there are ways of capturing that.

I think the Director-General makes a very good point about the imperfection of our system. This is especially the case where there is a reliance on the political party machine to take action. Over many years, notwithstanding the increased internal vetting processes of the parties prior to preselection, the imperfection referred to by the Director-General has become real and problematic, given the many instances of politicians who have been less than truthful to their preselectors and have, in turn, been elected on the basis of falsehoods.

Following the pronouncements of the High Court regarding issues pertinent to dual citizenship, we saw a flurry of changes by the parliament in relation to disclosures and we saw tighter scrutiny by the political parties of candidates. This demonstrates that change can be effected, but it is in the intersection between the role of parliamentarian and politician that we have often seen the system protecting wrongdoing. Let me give you a practical example of the system being defective and not working when we leave issues of integrity to the party machines. One New South Wales MP who later became a minister is reported to have been involved in the altering of branch records for a meeting at which 10 new members were accepted into his conference. The minutes forwarded to the party headquarters recorded that the members were rejected; however, those in attendance asserted the contrary and they subsequently lodged statutory declarations to the party's state director. What is not in dispute is that the MP at the centre of the accusations will most certainly be challenged at his next preselection, so 10 new members could make all the difference. More than two years have passed since the formal complaints and statutory declarations were submitted to the party headquarters and to his Prime Minister. The allegations of record tampering and the MP's role are still to be resolved.

The party machine in this instance seems unable or unwilling to make a judgement as to integrity. This is an imperfection in the system, where the political/PR concerns outweigh the importance of openness, truth and integrity. Once elected, there is no vetting, notwithstanding the exposure that many politicians have to highly sensitive information. As a minister, my staff were all vetted yet I did not go through the process. Accordingly, at the very least, ministers should be vetted, and politicians who assume offices, especially those with exposure to sensitive and highly classified information, should also go through some vetting process.

I conclude by stating that I share the concerns that have been raised about the adequacy of the government's proposed National Integrity Commission. Restoring faith in the political class will require considerable effort, starting with at least a robust national integrity system with proper accountability, starting with the political class.