“The efficiency and timeliness of the current appointment process for Commissioners and Parliamentary Inspectors of the CCC”
Motion
Resumed from 29 November 2017 on the following motion moved by Hon Jim Chown — That the report be noted.
Hon JIM CHOWN: This is the first report to the house from the current Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. It was carried over from the previous joint standing committee, which was chaired by Hon Nick Goiran in the last term of government. Due to the prorogation of Parliament, it fell to the floor but such was its importance, the committee felt that it needed to be re-presented. The report regards the appointment of the parliamentary inspector and the process that needs to be undergone to ensure that a parliamentary inspector is put in place in a timely manner. [Further comments]
Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise to make some comments on the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission as well. I wish to firstly place on the record my thanks to the previous joint standing committee for having put together the report that we are discussing today. As was mentioned by Hon Jim Chown, the reason this report is back in front of the fortieth Parliament is that it was felt the recommendations arising from it were important enough to require us to discuss them. I want to discuss some of the findings that arose because I have a different opinion on some of the matters. I would be particularly interested if any former members of that committee wish to respond; I would be really keen to hear from them.
I will particularly draw members’ attention—probably unsurprisingly—to finding 2. Bearing in mind that this report is from the thirty-ninth Parliament’s incarnation of this committee, finding 2 states —
The definition of ‘bipartisan support’ in the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 has not proved to be of concern to the current Committee.
I will say that I am not surprised because all four members of that committee would have been able to have input into the appointment of the parliamentary inspector. I am not remotely surprised to read that that finding was the case for the members of that committee. However, I am not sure that a similar finding would necessarily achieve consensus within the committee’s current incarnation. The reason for that is, of course, that it has been previously determined in advice that was tabled and discussed in this place that “bipartisan” involves only members of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party or, if a coalition is in place, the Liberal or the National Parties. That means that as a member of the Greens, and an equally elected member of Parliament in this place—just as much elected as every single other member—I am effectively a lesser member of this committee for the purposes of participating in bipartisan support to appoint a parliamentary inspector. As I have said previously, I think this area needs to be reviewed in the act because I think it is really critical that every single member of the appointed committee is able to fully participate in every single decision that comes before that committee.
Hon Adele Farina: Are you saying that you could not participate in a decision of the appointment?
Hon ALISON XAMON: I am happy to take that interjection from Hon Adele Farina. The way that the current legislation is constructed means that there is nothing that requires me to be excluded from the meeting room; discussions around the appointment of a parliamentary inspector are not a secret. But if I held a different view from the other three members of the committee, it would not be taken into account for the purposes of meeting bipartisan support. I think that is problematic. There is nothing precluding me from being in the room but, effectively, I could have an entirely different view and it would be of no regard—it is of no consequence.
Having said that, I will say for the record that I am really happy with the appointment of the parliamentary inspector, of course being Michael Murray, QC. My observations are that he has done an excellent job. I want to make it very clear that in no way should my comments be misconstrued as any sort of slight on his performance, because I think he has been excellent and I have no doubt he will continue to be excellent in the role. I am talking about the process and I am responding to a particular finding of the previous committee. I have a different view and I think it is going to be very important in the future that we do ensure that every single member of the committee is able to participate on equal terms. I also think that when we do have a really important committee, such as the joint standing committee oversighting the Corruption and Crime Commission, playing the role that it does around integrity of government, there is absolute merit in having more than two of the seven political parties that are represented in this Parliament being able to sit on that committee because integrity of government should be absolutely everybody’s business. When we are talking about the appointment of people like parliamentary inspectors, it reinforces, if we like, the authority of the appointment if even more political parties are able to contribute towards the consensus of the particular appointment. My appointment to this committee was not without controversy because I am a member of the Greens. However, I believe I need to respond to that finding, because it has thrown important light on the construction of this committee and the role that every member of this committee should be able to play within the Parliament.
I also want to make some comments about the general process of appointment. I note that the committee looked at the way in which parliamentary inspectors are appointed in other jurisdictions. I was particularly interested in the fact that in some jurisdictions, the final appointment is made not by the Premier, but by the Governor. That is very interesting and worthy of being looked at further.
I would like to ensure that the activities of our corruption and crime bodies are, as far as possible, removed from the parliamentary process. That will be part of the broader discussion when we debate the piece of legislation that will come up shortly. It is important to ensure that there is no capacity for these bodies, which have been given particular powers, to be politicised in any way. I am not suggesting that this has happened in this instance. The current parliamentary inspector was appointed with bipartisan support, as is clear from the committee report. However, that reinforces the need to ensure that the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission plays a clear role in contributing to the appointment of the parliamentary inspector. That is a role that the committee should not lose.
I note the suggestion that we change the current process in which the names of multiple candidates for appointment are presented. I am not sure I agree with that. It is useful for people to get an idea of the breadth of skills and background of the people who are considered for this critical role. It is useful that there has been an overall review of the current process for appointment. I also accept that the current process is fairly onerous. However, it is important that we break it down to some fundamental principles to ensure that the most appropriate people are appointed to these roles.
I also note the recommendation to establish a deputy or assistant commissioner to assist the commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission in their day-to-day activities. That is a very good recommendation, particularly as the scope of the CCC continues to be expanded. It is a good idea to ensure that multiple eyes are overseeing what is happening internally in the CCC, and also to share the workload. The Attorney General said in the government’s response that he will consider the committee’s proposal to amend the Corruption, Crime and
Misconduct Act 2003 to enable the appointment of a deputy. I look forward to that. I am aware that we have been making piecemeal amendments to this act since its inception. I wonder when we will look at a wholesale review of the Corruption and Crime Commission and its structures and powers. We will shortly be dealing with the second report from the previous Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, “The ability of the Corruption and Crime Commission to charge and prosecute”. It is, therefore, timely for us to talk about a wholesale review of the act and about whether it is useful to have one Corruption and Crime Commission or whether we should have different bodies that can undertake different functions, as is starting to emerge in other states.
Those are the general comments that I want to make on this report. I thank the members of the previous committee for their diligence in producing this report. I found it very interesting reading. Although I have reached some different conclusions based on my experiences in the short time I have been a member of this committee, I recognise that there is a lot in the recommendations that is worthy of further consideration.
[Speeches and comments from several members]
Hon ALISON XAMON: Obviously, I have already risen in this session to speak about finding 2, but I want to make something very clear. As I have said already, I am really pleased that I am on the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I think it is a better committee if there are more than two political parties on it, so I think a diversity of parties on that committee is particularly good. Of course, the concerns that have been raised are exactly what I have been saying; that is, it is problematic when not every single member of the committee has the full equal rights and responsibilities that come with being on the committee. I think the issue is around addressing the part of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act that refers to bipartisan support. Probably a better way to go, without wishing to get into wordsmithing legislation while I am standing on my feet, would be to talk about “unanimous support” on the committee. That is what was intended by the use of “bipartisan support” when it was envisaged that this committee would comprise two people from the Labor Party and two people from the Liberal Party. As I say, we have moved on from that, and that is good because the Parliament has changed significantly and more parties are being elected to this place and, as a result, our committee system should reflect that diversity. But the issue is that this provision applies only when we are talking about the appointment of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission. As I said in my previous contribution, it is useful for the committee to play a role in contributing towards ensuring that there is agreement about who is best placed to undertake this very important role. The way we resolve the issue of a “second-class member”—I concur with Hon Nick Goiran, that that is effectively what has happened in this instance in relation to this role of the committee—is perhaps to look at a simple amendment to the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act to allow every member of that committee to contribute towards the consensus of who the parliamentary inspector is. As I say, I am not suggesting that had I been able to formally participate in those proceedings, I would have reached any different conclusion whatsoever from what the majority of my colleagues clearly put forward— I can say that because it would not have proceeded otherwise—but I think it is an oversight and the time has come for it to be rectified.
[Speeches and comments from several members]
The CHAIR: Members, I am reminded that the last sitting week in which we considered committee reports is a very, very long time ago. We did start consideration of this report then. That is why debate has been for slightly less than the hour today, which has caused the hour to now conclude. Consideration of that report now stands adjourned and will fall to the bottom of our committee reports list.
Consideration of report postponed, pursuant to standing orders.