Page 5135 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
journey, parties have had different positions on different issues. The important part is that at the end of the day we are going to have a bill that will do the job we need it to.
I know that today we will be discussing a series of amendments that go to the finer details of the bill. This is where there are still a few differences. These are all important, but I think we have managed to reach agreement on the key components of the bill, and that will put the commission in a strong position, from day one, to do the job we want it to do.
From my perspective, the key features include who is covered by the commission. The bill outlines that all MLAs, their staff, public servants, judges and anyone who is an employee or contractor of a public sector entity is included. The inclusion of police is an important aspect, and one that I think all three parties support, but we are constrained by the limits of the self-government act at this time. It is good to see exposure draft legislation before the Assembly to enact this provision once we have commonwealth agreement. I encourage the government to continue to progress these negotiations so that we can give the integrity commission its full scope as quickly as possible.
Another key feature is the ability for the commission to hold public examinations when it deems it necessary. The legislation before us today provides for that option, with a public interest test to be applied to determine if a public examination is warranted. There is also consideration of the human rights impacts of such a decision, an important feature in a human rights jurisdiction. I think that this section meets the right balance between allowing for adequate public scrutiny to shine a light on corruption when it occurs and protecting against the potential for reputational damage for those involved, who may subsequently be found to not have been involved in corrupt conduct. That is the balance that needs to be struck, and one that will be considered through that public interest test.
Retrospectivity is another key issue which this bill provides for, ensuring that the commission can look back into historical incidents where there is evidence to do so. The commission will have scope to look back at incidents from the start of self-government, and while its focus will be on current and future cases, the community should have confidence that it is not restricted in this respect.
The bill gives the commission strong powers to undertake investigations, including the ability to request documents, require witnesses to answer questions, issue search warrants and use coercive powers such as surveillance if and when required. Many of these powers are based on those provided for in the New South Wales ICAC and the Victorian IBAC, two strong examples which have formed a guide through this process. We have attempted to take the best aspects of models in other jurisdictions when developing the model for the ACT’s commission.
Finally, the bill also includes an important oversight mechanism with the creation of an inspector role to monitor the commission’s use of its powers. The inspector can require information from the commission and can be an avenue for complaints for anyone concerned about the commission’s conduct. Again, this is in line with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video