Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission — Fifth Report — “Current Committee Confirmed: Clarifying the legal composition and powers of the Committee”

Resumed from 2 November.

Motion

Hon ALISON XAMON: I move —

That the report be noted.

I have already given a statement in this place on this report so members are aware that the committee undertook to clarify concerns that were raised around a Greens (WA) member being appointed to this committee. It was found that it is perfectly acceptable, as long as one member of the official opposition, in this case the Liberal Party, and one member of the government, in this case the Labor Party, are on the committee. Effectively, the committee’s other two members could come from a composition of any of the other parties. I want to make a comment because if members have read the report, they will have noted that the advice received indicated that when it comes to the appointment of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission, that is the only time—as the only member of the committee who is neither a member of the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party—I effectively have no say. I want to express my concerns around this. The legislation stipulates that —

Hon Nick Goiran: A second-class member.

Hon ALISON XAMON: I will get to that; I thank the member.

The legislation stipulates that it requires bipartisan support, so it effectively requires a consensus, but only between those who are members of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. I do not think that that is an appropriate provision to remain in the legislation. I think its intent is appropriate, which is to ensure that there is a consensus in that group on the appointment of the parliamentary inspector. It is a very good and appropriate provision because the one thing we want to ensure is that whoever is appointed as the parliamentary inspector is absolutely free of any partisan consideration and is clearly going to be the best person for the job. Reflecting on the discussions we have just had on the previous report, I think that highlights the important role that the parliamentary inspector plays within our democratic system. I think it is problematic that a member of the committee who has been duly elected by the Western Australian people in just the same way as every single other member in this place is somehow not able to be party to that discussion. I think it is an oversight from the way that the legislation was originally written. It is quite clear that contemplation was given that the original joint standing committee could potentially have members from outside the Liberal and Labor Parties, but no reason or rationale is given why any one member should be excluded from the consensus process.

I considered the discussions that we had many years ago when my former colleague Hon Giz Watson was in this place. Interestingly—but unsurprisingly, because she is a smart woman—she foresaw that some concerns may have been raised about the composition of the committee, and she questioned at the time whether there was any suggestion that the Greens or any other party would be excluded from being able to be on the committee. She was assured at the time—there is considerable commentary on the public record in Hansard on this—that this would not be the case and that of course it was not what was intended with regard to the make-up of the committee. The purpose was to ensure that there would be at least a bipartisan—by which I mean a cross-party—approach to this because it was recognised that the activities of the CCC, and particularly the committee oversighting the CCC, should never be politicised by any political party.

I really think that is something that could usefully be pursued at some point in the future. I understand that we will likely be getting a government response to these provisions, but I am not quite sure about that. I think it is really important, considering that in the other place there was a range of borderline hysterical responses to the idea that a Green might be on the committee, which was a little over the top. That was not the case in this place; in this place, everyone was fine. I have no problem with anyone here. Nevertheless, we have confirmed, once and for all, that the make-up of this committee is perfectly valid and perfectly legal but, as I say, it is concerning to note that in this one instance—this is to do with consensus on the appointment of the parliamentary inspector—my views do not matter; they are effectively excluded. I think that is problematic. I do not think that is reasonable. Given that the nature of our Parliament, particularly in the upper house, is changing quite markedly, that sort of approach is clearly becoming outdated.

With those comments, I want to say that I am pleased that the legal advice came back as it did. I was obviously fully prepared to stand down had it been otherwise, but I am pleased to know that this Legislative Council made the right decision in the first place and knew exactly what it was doing. It is a shame that people in the other place were perhaps more confused, but I think we need potentially to look at an amendment to the provision relating to bipartisanship on the appointment of the parliamentary inspector.

[speeches and comments of various members]

Consideration of report adjourned, on motion by Hon Simon O’Brien.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders.

 

Parliamentary Type: