ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020

Published on: May 2021

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-117050


ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020

Second Reading Speech

Mrs HELEN DALTON (Murray) (11:07:22):

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is my pleasure to introduce the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020 to the Legislative Assembly. Corruption is rampant across New South Wales and Australia. Governments are using taxpayers' money as their personal slush fund. Sports rorts, dodgy dams, dodgy Daryl, Watergate, bushfire relief pork barrelling, council grant scandals, icare, pipeline rorts, foreign corporates using government water accounts, secret emails from government officials favouring irrigator groups—a new scandal emerges every single day. But the Government survives and thrives, with no consequences, no apologies, no resignations. If we do not address this issue now, we will descend into a banana republic. That is no exaggeration. Having proper rules and accountability over how taxpayers' money is spent is what separates First World democracies from Third World dictatorships. We need to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. We must protect our democracy. This bill is the perfect start.

There is one reason the Government gets away with repeated corruption scandals: lack of oversight. When politicians do not have anyone looking over them, they get up to no good. When there are no consequences, there is ample crime. Under this Government, our watchdogs have become lapdogs. They are terrified of losing their funding and thus are unable to do their job properly. Nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them. Over the past year I have reported numerous scandals to ICAC and the Ombudsman. I have provided clear evidence of councils misusing ratepayers' money and bureaucrats favouring certain groups and excluding others. But I keep getting the same response. "Yes, that sounds bad, but we've decided not to investigate." How can ICAC investigate when it is hampered by a $4 million funding shortfall due to Government cutbacks? The Premier should not be allowed to cut funding to a body that is investigating her Ministers or her boyfriend, hypothetically speaking.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the bodies entrusted to oversee government are independently and properly funded, so that ICAC staff can do their jobs without worrying about losing them. The bill will mean that ICAC will no longer be reliant on the whims of the Liberal and National parties for its funding. It provides clear oversight on the adequacy of funding for ICAC, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, the NSW Electoral Commission and the NSW Ombudsman. That is a good thing. It does that by allowing the annual funding to those bodies to be allocated separately from funding to other agencies and free from political interference. It is such a no‑brainer.

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption Special Report

Much like my previous bill—which forced members of Parliament to declare their water interests—the upper House passed this bill in a landslide victory. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, Labor, The Greens, One Nation and the Independents all supported the bill. But, of course, the Liberals and The Nationals voted against it. They have the chance to right that wrong in this Chamber and vote for measures that I am sure have overwhelming support amongst the public. My party, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, asked for the bill to be drafted on the basis of the four recommendations that were made in the . This bill gives effect to each of those four recommendations.

Recommendation 1 proposes that the parliamentary oversight committee for ICAC, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, the NSW Ombudsman and the NSW Electoral Commission make recommendations on funding priorities. It states a parliamentary committee, not Cabinet. Recommendation 2 proposes that the annual budgets for the abovementioned oversight bodies include a set contingency fund to address unbudgeted financial demands, with access to the funds governed by prescribed criteria and the approval of the relevant parliamentary oversight committee. Recommendation 3 proposes that the abovementioned oversight bodies be directly allocated their annual funding through appropriate legislation rather than funding being allocated to the relevant Minister, so that they are not subject to reductions in funding during the financial year. The last recommendation, recommendation 4, which is probably the most important recommendation, proposes that the New South Wales Government remove those oversight bodies from the dreaded Premier and Cabinet cluster.

Ms Gabrielle Upton:

Dreaded?

Mrs HELEN DALTON:

Yes. Implementing those recommendations will allow our oversight bodies to do their jobs in a frank and fearless way, and that is what we want. This is absolutely essential to democracy. It is the first step in curtailing the scourge of corruption that is undermining our society and economy. I therefore urge all members to support the bill.

Second Reading Debate

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse) (11:12:50):

The Government opposes the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020, which was introduced by the Hon. Robert Borsak in the other place late last year. It is good to see the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party doing some work but the bill is misguided and misdirected. I make the point that the platitudes that were offered up by the member for Murray were stultifying. If that is the best that she can rustle up in support of the bill, it deserves to never be seen again in this Chamber. I will go through some of the provisions in the bill and, on behalf of the Government, provide argument as to why the Government strongly opposes the bill.

The bill before the House seeks to amend the Government Sector Finance Act 2018. It has three objectives: first, to require that appropriations made by the annual Appropriation Act to certain integrity agencies are to be paid directly to those agencies; secondly, to require a contingency fund for four integrity agencies, equal to 25 per cent of their respective appropriations; and thirdly, to require the Treasurer to authorise the payment of a requested sum out of the contingency fund for one of those integrity agencies if their appropriation has been exhausted and if certain other conditions are met.

The bill seeks to amend the Electoral Act 2017, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 and the Ombudsman Act 1974 by requiring that each agency refer any requests for contingency fund payments to the parliamentary joint committee and that the parliamentary joint committee for each agency review information prepared by the relevant agency for use in budget preparations and by making recommendations to the Treasurer on budget priorities, having regard to that information. Lastly, the bill seeks to amend the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 to include the ICAC as a separate public service agency.

As I said before, the Government strongly opposes the bill. I will provide some background to the bill and make clear why it is unnecessary. In November 2019 the Government requested that the Auditor‑General undertake an independent review of the effectiveness of the financial arrangements and management practices of all integrity agencies, including the ICAC. The Auditor‑General, Margaret Crawford, has tabled her report. I thank her for that important work and for all the work that she conducts on behalf of the community of New South Wales.

The Commissioner of ICAC also made a special report regarding funding arrangements on 6 November 2020. The Government is carefully considering both the Auditor‑General's recommendations and the complex matters that were raised in that report. Lastly, I note that the Public Accountability Committee of the Legislative Council has conducted its inquiry into the budget process for independent oversight bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales and has tabled its reports. The Government is considering a number of pieces of considered, thoughtful work from parliamentary oversight bodies, and we thank them for their work. The Government will finalise its position on the matters that were raised in those reports after due consideration. I imagine that position will be finalised shortly. It would be totally inappropriate to fail to give those matters the due consideration they deserve, given that we have such a body of reports from respected oversight bodies. I emphasise that the Government is committed to ensuring that the funding of the State's integrity agencies continue to be based on three key principles: transparency, accountability and independence.

In relation to the proposal in the bill that the office of the ICAC become a separate public service agency, I note that the ICAC is actually afforded greater independence under current staffing arrangements. Specifically, under section 104 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, the Chief Commissioner of ICAC may appoint a chief executive officer and such other staff of the commission as may be necessary to enable the commission to exercise its functions. Therefore, the Chief Commissioner has the authority to make those appointments if he considers that the work that must be conducted requires extra resourcing. The authority is already there.

In evidence before the Public Accountability Committee on 12 December 2019, the Chief Commissioner of ICAC said that no ICAC employees were covered by public service regulations and he personally did not raise a concern about those arrangements. I note that establishing ICAC as a separate public service agency would position its employees as public service employees and subject them to the legislative arrangements that apply to public service agencies. That may not be appropriate. The Government is always open to the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC saying he has concern about the current arrangements. But the Government's view is that the latitude to create the transparency, accountability and independence that is so important on the part of ICAC is protected in the current process.

The shooters' bill pre‑empts the outcome of a series of complex issues that require careful consideration. The Government is daily alive to the concerns of the integrity agencies, and we will address those concerns in the usual and appropriate ways. I also note that the Government is preparing its budget for the coming financial year and we are only a couple of weeks away. It is currently on foot and being worked through. That is a process that all integrity bodies are involved in. The passage of new legislation so close to a budget process, which is what the bill before the House proposes—quite dramatically, I must say—alters integral funding arrangements for the integrity agencies, particularly ICAC, and would be highly disruptive and cause a great deal of confusion. So there is also a practical issue that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers has failed to take into consideration.

The current system of providing funding and supplementary funding to the ICAC is working. The ICAC has been provided with an increase in its funding last year in the 2020‑21 budget. It was announced that the budget envelope for that agency was $32.3 million, comprising $30.9 million in recurrent expenditure plus $1.4 million in capital expenditure—just under $31 million in recurrent expenses. That is a 60.7 per cent—let us not forget the 0.7 per cent—increase in the level of expenditure from the final budget of the previous Labor Government in 2010‑11, which had an allocation of only $20.1 million for the ICAC—just two‑thirds of its current budget. The Government is providing more than $114 million in funding to the ICAC over four years. The 2019‑20 budget allocated $26.6 million plus an additional $3.5 million in supplementary funding.

With that solid base of funding given to ICAC, it is consistent with previous practice that the need for any additional funding is assessed throughout the financial year to ensure that the ICAC continues to be fully equipped to investigate, expose and prevent corruption at all times. Of course, that is consistent with the important role it has in relation to the principles transparency, accountability and independence. The Government has provided supplementary funding to the ICAC on every occasion that it has requested it over the past 10 years. For example, in 2018‑19 supplementary funding of $1.72 million was provided to the ICAC and in 2017‑18 the supplementary funding was $1.68 million. It is clear by way of action and example that the New South Wales Government has been providing the ICAC with the funds it needs to conduct its important work. The Government is always open to hearing from the commissioner and the agency as to whether more is required and will take the case put forward on its merits. We have acted on those requests from the ICAC as recently as the 2018‑19 supplementary funding in the budget.

To cope with a surge of work between 2011 and 2016, the Department of Premier and Cabinet provided additional grants to enable the ICAC to hire additional staff to handle the special investigations it was undertaking. As members would be aware—and I would have thought the member for Murray would be aware—I am referring to the investigations into two former members of this House: the Hon. Eddie Obeid and the Hon. Ian Macdonald, or not so honourable. Those investigations required resourcing because they led to serious criminal findings and legal proceedings. The Government provided the supplementary funding for those special investigations, which was required during a period of intensive work on the part of ICAC and led to the serious outcomes that we see daily prosecuted in the papers in relation to members opposite. But I digress. I want to come to the central principle, which is that the ICAC is properly funded at this point. The work of several agencies, including the Auditor‑General, is before the Government and it must be considered with respect and thoughtfulness. The Government is to consider a report from the Parliament's own committee—which will be done, as I said, with the respect it deserves, given the important role of ICAC.

The bill before the House may be goodly intended by a member of the other place and goodly proposed with lots of aphorisms—I have not heard so many in one speech in this place in ages. The member for Murray is well intentioned, I might give her that. Maybe it is just that. But the bill is not fit for purpose. It dabbles in some complex matters raised by the integrity bodies in our State as to their own funding arrangements. For the reasons I have outlined, there is no need for the bill. The Government will assist the ICAC if it has issues that we are convinced should be supported by way of funding or other resourcing. We are open to reform wherever that is required. The Government recognises that for agencies such as the ICAC to be able to exercise their principle functions, it must ensure that these bodies have the resourcing and powers to ensure transparency, accountability and independence of their functions to protect our community in New South Wales. For those many reasons and the fact that no good reasons were articulated by the member for Murray in support of the bill, the Government does not believe the bill is necessary and thoroughly opposes it.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) (11:26:25):

I speak in support of the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020. I thank the member for Murray and her colleagues in the other place for bringing this important legislation to the Parliament. It is not the first time the member for Murray has done so. She works extremely well as a parliamentarian in this place and is a strong advocate for the people whom she represents in rural and regional New South Wales. I witness that firsthand as the rural health inquiry moves around this State and hears explosive evidence from communities, many of which she represents.

The bill will see the ICAC, the NSW Electoral Commission, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Ombudsman's office all move to an independent funding model rather than their funding being decided by the government of the day. It is a simple principle: Agencies designed to police corruption should not have their funding decided by those they are policing. We have seen the most stark example of why the bill is needed over the past 12 months in relation to the former member for Wagga Wagga. This reform is not just something politicians are calling for. The ICAC Commissioner, who was appointed by the Premier, has repeatedly called for ICAC to receive independent funding.

When the Premier has been asked questions about her involvement in and knowledge of Daryl Maguire's corruption and the House has debated motions referring the Premier to ICAC, the Premier has responded by saying that we should all trust those integrity agencies and let them do their job. We agree with the Premier that they should be able to do their jobs, but to do their jobs they must be properly funded, and that means having their funding determined in a way that is independent of the government of the day. This is an important issue and one that I thought all sides of politics would have supported. We need strong, robust, independent watchdogs to make sure that those who are doing the wrong thing are identified and the behaviour is stopped in order to, as much as possible, prevent corruption in all of our institutions. I commend the member for Murray on this important bill. I wish it had the bipartisan support it deserves. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (11:29:10):I make a contribution to the debate on the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment(Independent Funding) Bill 2020, which was introduced by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in the other place. As has already been canvassed, there has been quite a bit of discussion already on this bill. The bill seeks to amend theGovernment Sector Finance Act and makes a number of miscellaneous amendments. Key among the amendments is the new requirement that appropriations made under the budget to four bodies we commonly refer to as the integrity agencies are to be paid directly to those agencies. Currently they are paid through the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which then passes on the funding.

The bill will also provide for a contingency fund, which would be structured in such a way that each of the integrity bodies might access additional funds up to 25 per cent of the appropriation that they received. This will, in effect, be a top-up if the integrity bodies spend their allocated sum. To access this additional sum the bill provides that the Treasurer is to authorise the payment out of the contingency fund from one of those integrity agencies, if theirappropriation has been exhausted and certain other conditions are met.The bill also seeks to amend the governing Acts of the other pieces of legislation that underpin the integrity framework in this State. This includes the Electoral Act, the Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption Act, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act and theOmbudsman Act.

The pathways established under the bill mean that the integrity body will need to go to its regular oversight committee here in this place—many of us here are members of these committees—and essentially request the additional funding. This means that the Auditor-General will need to go the Public Accounts Committee—a committee that I sit on, as do you, Mr Temporary Speaker—the ICAC would need to go to the Committee on the ICAC and the Ombudsman and Law Enforcement Conduct Commission will need to go to the Committee on the Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Crime Commission. These committees would be charged with the additional responsibility of reviewing the bid by the integrity bodies and making an assessment as to their worth and validity. Once the committee has made its assessment it would then refer to the Treasurer its recommendation about whether or not that body should access the additional funding—presumably either to accept that request, reject the request or vary the request.

Lastly, the bill seeks to amend the Government Sector Employment Act to reconstitute the ICAC as a separate public service agency. What this bill does not do is determine the way in which all sides of politics in this place view our integrity agencies and want to see them be able to fulfil their roles and continue to receive the funding that they need. The first thing I wanted to reflect on in my comments on the member's bill is the suggestion that we just heard from the member for Keira in representing the Opposition, that we as all members of this place, in a bipartisan sense, should support our integrity agencies. There is nothing about this bill that suggests that any member of this place does not support the integrity agencies, but there is the implication in the contributions made by those opposite that the Government does not.

I want to be clear about our approach to our integrity agencies, and the Premier has made statements about this quite regularly. We respect our integrity agencies; we want them to be able to do their job; we do not interfere in their work; and we expect them do their job fiercely and independently of government. But key to this suggestion from those opposite that the integrity agencies need this additional funding model in order to do their jobs is the imputation that the Government does not currently fund them appropriately. However, the facts do not suggest that. The facts show that the Government has provided supplementary funding to the ICAC on every occasion on which it has requested additional funding—

Ms Lynda Voltz:

After you cut it.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

—for at least the past 10 years.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

After you cut it.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

So when they request funding, on every single occasion—

Ms Lynda Voltz:

After you cut it by 20 per cent.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

—on which it has been requested, supplementary funding has been provided to the ICAC.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Yes, but you cut this funding.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

We argue that the current system of providing funding and supplementary funding, because this bill does talk about supplementary funding as well—and if the member opposite wants to debate funding and supplementary funding she can listen to my contributions about supplementary funding—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The member for Auburn will cease interjecting.

Ms FELICITY WILSON: The ICAC has been provided with an increase in its funding in the budget for the 2020-21 year. It was announced that the budget for the ICAC is $32.3 million, comprising $30.9 million in recurrent expenses and $1.4 million in capital expenses.That is a 60.7 per cent increase in the level of expenditure from the final budget of theprevious Labor Government in 2010-11, which had an allocation of $20.1 millionfor the ICAC.

—because it is core to this bill, and she can listen if she would like to. It is our contention that the current system of providing funding and supplementary funding to the ICAC is working.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

A decade ago.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

I note the interjection of the member for Auburn, who keeps saying "after you cut it". I am not sure whether the member for Auburn can comprehend that a 60.7 per cent increase from the last time Labor had a budget is an increase, not a cut.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The member for Auburn will cease interjecting. The member for North Shore will address her comments through the Chair.

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

Let us make sure that our assessments of this bill and the funding of the ICAC are based upon fact. A 60.7 per cent increase: As I said, $32.3 million compared with $20.1 million, which was the Labor Government's last budget in 2010-11. Those are the facts; they are publicly available. There is no reason to debate the facts. Members can debate their own interpretations of those facts, but the facts are on the table.

The Government is providing more than $114 million in funding to the ICAC over four years. The 2019-20 budget allocated $26.6 million, plus an additional $3.5 million in supplementary funding. As I have already said, when supplementary funding has been requested it has been provided. Consistent with previous practice, we assess additional funding requests throughout the financial year. We assess those requests to ensure that the ICAC continues to be fully equipped to investigate, expose and prevent corruption at all times, because that is our goal. Our goal is to ensure that our integrity agencies can do the job that we as a Parliament and the people of New South Wales so fundamentally rely on them to do. So this suggestion, this imputation, the slur from those opposite is, frankly, offensive and is not borne out by the facts. In 2018-19, supplementary funding of $1.72 million was provided to the ICAC and in 2017-18 the supplementary funding was $1.68 million. It is clear, based upon the facts, that the Government has been providing the ICAC with the funds that it needs to conduct its incredibly important work.

There has been a surge of work between 2011 and 2016—I will not go into why, but we know that there were a number of instances of corruption by members of the party that now forms the Opposition—and the Department of Premier and Cabinet provided additional grants in that time to enable the ICAC to hire additional staff and to make sure that it could fund the special investigations it was undertaking. Once those investigations ended, the Government provided the ICAC with temporary supplementary funding in 2015-16 to specifically fund redundancy payments. When requests are made, the contention from those opposite is that the funding might be inadequate, that the ICAC needs more funding and is not receiving it, and that the way in which it seeks funding is inadequate.

Extension of time

What the facts bear out is that, first, funding is adequate because the ICAC has done a significant amount of work in the past 10 years. The second contention about whether or not it can receive additional funding when required is inaccurate because, as we have shown, over those 10 years requests have been met and supplementary funding has been provided. Thirdly, in relation to this question about the process, the way in which funding is requested currently goes through a system that is not ad hoc: it goes through a system and a process that the integrity agencies already work through successfully to receive funding. It does not go through members of Parliament picking through what the integrity agencies are seeking and making a judgement call on whether that is acceptable or appropriate. We have a lot of question marks about whether that is the right model for funding integrity agencies: whether members of Parliament in this place and committees should be questioning these agencies to ascertain whether or not it is appropriate for them to undertake the work they are undertaking when we already have a system that is at arm's length. I seek an extension of time. []

While we on the Government side of the House believe that there are good contentions behind this bill—there is no question of the intentions of the member for Murray in putting forward this bill—it is not a fit-for-purpose bill. It does not address the complex matters raised by the integrity bodies as to their own funding arrangements. For these reasons and others raised, the Government is not supporting the bill because it does not believe it is necessary, and I will also be opposing the bill.

I will talk through what we as a government are doing to hear from these integrity agencies and ensure we are enacting what their expertise suggests we need to do to ensure we provide them with fit-for-purpose funding and appropriate processes to access their funding over time. Members are probably aware that in November 2019 the Government requested the Auditor-General undertake an independent review of the effectiveness of the financial arrangements and management practices of all integrity agencies, including the ICAC. The Auditor‑General has now tabled her report and we thank her for her work. On 6 November 2020 the ICAC Commissioner also completed a special report relating to funding arrangements. As the Government has said many times, it is carefully considering the Auditor-General's recommendations and the ICAC Commissioner's report. We on this side also note that the Legislative Council's Public Accountability Committee undertook an inquiry into the budget process for independent oversight bodies. That committee's report has been tabled in Parliament and the Government is finalising its position on all the matters raised in these reports.

The Government is committed to ensuring the funding of the integrity agencies, that they continue, that they be based on principles of transparency, that they be accountable and that they be independent. These three principles are core. Unfortunately this bill does not ensure that those funding principles are maintained. One of the suggestions in the bill is to create an office of the ICAC as a separate public agency. In evidence given by the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC to the Public Accountability Committee on 12 December 2019, he referred to the fact that none of the ICAC's employees are covered by public service regulations and he did not raise concerns for these arrangements. So the suggestion from those opposite that this is a necessary bill has not been borne out by the expert evidence provided by those who work in these integrity agencies and have the weighty responsibility of ensuring integrity in our public offices.

If the ICAC were to become a separate public agency, its employees would become public service employees. They would be subject to all the legislative requirements of public service agencies. Many integrity agencies have concerns about the way in which that would apply to them. At the moment this legislation is pre‑emptive. It does not take into consideration the advice and expertise provided by our integrity agencies. It either misunderstands or misrepresents the way in which funding has been allocated and is allocated. It pre-empts a budget that is only weeks away, a budget that in and of itself is the appropriate form of legislation to involve the consideration of funding for all of our integrity bodies.

This legislation—which we know is quite dramatic sledgehammer legislation—by altering those funding arrangements would be incredibly disruptive and during this period of time would have significant impacts. What the Government is going to do is take the five reports which it has to consider—the two reports from the Public Accountability Committee, two from the ICAC and the report commissioned from the Auditor-General. The Government is going to undertake an assessment of those reports and recommendations, some of which are inconsistent with each other. It will carefully comb through those and provide considered and nuanced responses to those. The bill is quite simply a blunt instrument response that does not address the myriad of complex issues raised by the various reports. Even if the bill is well intended, what it will not do is improve the quality or capacity of our integrity agencies to do their job. What we as a government want to do is always ensure that the principles for our integrity agencies remain paramount. That is what the Government will do in any response to these reports and recommendations. The Government and I oppose the bill.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (11:44:04):

I make a fairly brief contribution to the ICAC and Other Independent Commission Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2021. I note that the matter of ICAC has been one of great interest to those opposite over the last little while. In fact, members were here last night debating yet again another trumped up referral that has been cooked up, imaginatively conjured up, by those opposite. This goes to the heart of some of the challenges with this particular bill. If you strip away a lot of what has been put by those opposite, at the foundations of the bill is a political attempt to continue to make this an issue that is debated and discussed at the expense of discussing the issues that matter to people in this State.

Only this morning we have experienced an additional community transmission of COVID. This is in addition to other important matters throughout New South Wales in electorates across the State where there is investment taking place, good projects underway and a strong record of delivery by this Government for the community. Nonetheless, those opposite seek to deflect from that and want members to concentrate and waste our time on matters such as this. Some of the issues in this bill have been incredibly well canvassed. Many of those have been mentioned this morning, but it is timely to make a few additional remarks.

I begin by acknowledging the complexity of this particular issue. Right now the Government has up to five different reports relating to this matter which it needs to consider. The complicating factor is that some of the recommendations in those various reports are in conflict with each other. Therein lies a challenge and a concern that, if those opposite want us to vote on a bill, it has been presented without giving due consideration to five other reports that are in play at the moment, and those recommendations contain differences of opinion and view. Also, we on this side are not aware—and I have no idea whether those in the Labor Party are aware either—of the process by which the shooters undertook to consult with key stakeholders in preparing the bill.

To what extent did the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party sit down and speak with those bodies that have input, with peak associations and with various stakeholder groups whose views should be sought from the outset? There is no clarity as to what extent that has taken place, if it has taken place at all. By stakeholders, I refer to four integrity bodies that the bill relates to that would have liked to have had input and some consideration: the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the NSW Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Electoral Commission. The scope and the scale of those four bodies and the work that they do is far reaching and important. Undoubtedly they would have liked to have had some input and been able to provide their views on the mechanics of the bill. They could also have provided some serious and worthwhile views on how the bill could be improved, the worthiness of it and the extent to which it muddies the five other reports that are being considered at the moment. But we have no idea of the extent to which consultation took place or whether indeed any consultation with various stakeholders took place in relation to this bill.

Therefore it is entirely plausible that these bodies—one or all of them—have not been asked their views on the bill. We are not aware—and the shooters have certainly not provided any information to deliver any clarity around that—of the opinion of these bodies on this bill. We could be in a position today where each of us in this place is being asked to vote on this important piece of legislation, in the broader context, without having a view or an understanding from these bodies. The bill would seek us to adopt a statutory mandate for new funding arrangements of these bodies without their concurrence.

I do not think that is a particularly good way to go about creating and implementing legislation. I am sure members of the public equally would not want to see that take place. Members are being asked to make decisions and deliver a statutory mandate for the funding of those bodies when we are not aware and have not been advised of the extent to which those organisations have been considered. In the absence of proper consultation and advice from the ICAC, the Ombudsman, the Electoral Commission and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, it would be absolutely improper, imprudent, reckless, inconsiderate and completely inconceivable to pass such legislation.

Thirdly, I note that a number of provisions in the legislation will render it inappropriate for passage. Key amongst them is a new provision which will amend the Government Sector Employment Act to make the ICAC a public service agency. That will make the ICAC comparable to government agencies such as Investment NSW, which is doing a fantastic job. I encourage those opposite and the Shooters to turn their attention to the good work that Investment NSW is doing. That is the sort of thing that we should be talking about in the Chamber. That is where those opposite should be turning their minds in terms of what is next for New South Wales as we have made our way through the COVID pandemic. What does the vision look like? What does the future of the State look like?

Instead they are creating political sideshows, if I may be straight about what this is, and trying to divert the public's attention from what really matters. The bill would seek to make the ICAC comparable to government agencies such as Investment NSW or Resilience NSW, which is headed by Shane Fitzsimmons and does wonderful and important work. It also fundamentally means that the Minister of the day would be able to choose the CEO. I think that is an unintended consequence of this particular piece of legislation. We are unsure if that was by accident or by design. We do not know if the view of the agencies has been sought on whether that is appropriate. The bill is now before the House and there is no clarity as to whether that has been appropriately considered.

I am not sure the ICAC would be satisfied if the Government adopted a provision which gave it even less independence than the current employment arrangement provides. I am sure many members in this place—and indeed those opposite because they have such a focus on, and are very interested in, the matters and the business of the ICAC—would agree. Those opposite are about to talk about why we should pass the bill when in fact they are arguing against what it is they are proposing we do. To be very clear, the bill would give the Minister of the day the ability to choose the ICAC's chief executive officer, thereby diluting and diminishing the independence of the agency that the current employment arrangement provides.

Extension of time

There it is: The bill is deficient for the two reasons I have listed, but there are many more. I go back to the important point that we are simply not aware of what consultation, if any—and I labour that point—was undertaken by the Shooters to arrive at this position. I am sure members opposite would expect and no doubt are equally as surprised that consultation has not taken place. I find it difficult to accept that members are asked to support the bill when we have no idea to what extent consultation, if any, was undertaken by the Shooters to arrive at this position. I am sure the public would equally find it difficult and absurd. If indeed it is the case that the Shooters have arrived at the bill simply off the back of the reports that are publicly available— []

This is very important. Members are being asked to vote. We are going to hear from those opposite about why we should do that. But the questions that they will not answer and cannot provide insight into are: To what extent has consultation taken place? For example, do they seek to strike or amend the bill to challenge the position that the CEO can be appointed by the Minister of the day? Is that something they are willing to discuss? Is that going to be raised by members opposite? We are unsure. Before the Parliament adopts what would be a fundamental reform into funding arrangements for those particular bodies, the Parliament should be given the courtesy of understanding what the integrity bodies think of this dramatic piece of legislation.

If those opposite cannot elaborate on that, then it is simply far too premature to adopt the bill or any bill of that nature. When it comes to the House considering the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020, there are some significant concerns and serious flaws, and it should consider the political nature of the bill that has been introduced. Last night members were in the Chamber dealing with a trumped‑up referral to ICAC. Again this morning we are dealing with a matter of ICAC. It is a point of obsession and fascination for those opposite because they do not want to talk about how well the State is doing. They do not want to talk about any policy ideas that they potentially have, because there are none. They are tired. They are sluggish. They are old. They have no energy or get up and go, so here we are, wasting time on this matter.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Oh, diddums. That's so mean of you. That's just terrible. I'm going to go home and cry now. I'm going to get my hankies out.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN:

I note the interjection.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

I'm going to get my tissues out and have a little cry in the corner.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN:

I know it hurts and I note the interjection. As I said, if those opposite could elaborate on those three matters that were raised earlier, that would be wonderful. I have no doubt that they will not be capable of doing that, because the bill has been incredibly poorly considered. It does not take into account the views of our four major integrity bodies. The view of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Electoral Commission was not sought. They are missing in action because the Shooters have conducted absolutely no appropriate consultation. For those reasons and the others I have articulated, the Government does not believe the bill is necessary; therefore, it opposes it. Anybody with any common sense would equally oppose the bill.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Castle Hill) (11:57:39):

I make a contribution on behalf of the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020, which the Government and I will be opposing for various reasons that have already been cited by members of the Government, for reasons I will put forward and for reasons that learned colleagues on this side of the House will put forward in the future. The inference by the mover of the motion is that the Liberal‑Nationals Government does not treat corruption seriously. I find that absurd, ludicrous and quite frankly offensive, especially as I have repeatedly supported amendments to strengthen and give greater powers to the ICAC and to provide it with more funding so it can oversee and stamp out corruption, whether it is in the Government, the public service or across the public authorities in New South Wales.

The reason I also find it absurd is that it was indeed a Liberal‑Nationals Government that introduced the ICAC in 1988 under the then Hon. Nick Greiner. He took it upon himself, once in government, to introduce the ICAC because of the 12 years of the previous Labor Government that have been labelled some of the most corrupt and worst in the history of this nation. However, one would struggle to find a period, in the 16 years prior to this Government, that could be compared as better than that period of government. To add a bit of support and weight to the comment that I make, it is ironic that in the press at this point in time a request has been made to review, of all things, the Luna Park fire, which happened under the Wran Government's 12‑year term. Inferences have been made to the collegial friendship between the then Labor Premier Neville Wran and one Abe Saffron. When one talks about Abe Saffron, one really is starting to scrape the murky bottom of the barrel of sleazy, corrupt people who have been involved in New South Wales. To suggest that there has not only been a relationship between Labor members and Abe Saffron but rather a friendly, collegial relationship, I think everybody in this State would say, "Why would we not investigate—

Ms Lynda Voltz:

There were three royal commissions. Not one of them put them in the same room.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

Order! The member for Auburn will come to order.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

It is a shame that the only contribution of the member for Auburn is to interject rather than stand up here—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

To the best of my ability I will manage the member for Auburn without the assistance of the member for Castle Hill.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

I would greatly appreciate the Chair's assistance in that.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

I ask the member to continue his contribution through the Chair. The member for Auburn had been so helpful to the Chair earlier. I ask her to adopt that demeanour.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

Only unintelligent comments and contribution by the member for Auburn come by way of interjection—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The comments of the member for Castle Hill were most unhelpful.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Point of order: As you would be aware, during debate people are required to speak to the long title of the bill that is before the House. The member has veered way off that now. Chucking insults on the other side of the Chamber is fine but I ask that you bring him back to the long title of the bill.

Mr Adam Crouch:

To the point of order: I remind the member opposite of Standing Order 52—that a member should be heard in silence. She has failed to do that. With regard to the conduct of the member for Castle Hill, I remind her that under Standing Order 52 members should be heard in silence.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

To the point of order: When someone gets up to speak to a point of order that is before the House, they should restrict themselves to that point of order—as the member who is speaking should restrict themselves to the long title of the bill that is before the House.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

Have you got a point of order?

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

Order! The member for Castle Hill and the member for Dubbo will come to order. The member for Auburn will resume her seat.

Mr Alister Henskens:

To the point of order: I speak in support of the response by the member for Terrigal and Government Whip to the point of order. There was repeated interjection. The member who was speaking did not even get to the fact that the Hon. Neville Wran was found guilty of contempt of court by the New South Wales—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

We do not need to go further down this particular rabbit hole. The member for Ku-ring-gai will resume his seat. I think we all understand where the point of the debate is. The member for Castle Hill will perhaps tune the rest of his contribution more closely to the actual bill. The member for Auburn will resist interjecting. The member for Castle Hill will resist inviting interjections. We will all get through this as best we can.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

Far be it for me to ever invite interjections. I can absolutely guarantee I will not be inviting anything of the sort but will be very keen to go back and establish the reasons for our opposition to this bill. But when we are discussing issues about corruption I do take that on board. I thank my learned colleague for once again enlightening us on a little bit of history. Contempt of court by Neville Wran had slipped my mind. One of the other reasons that this Government, I believe—

Mr Alister Henskens:

Contempt of the Lionel Murphy trial, in fact.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

Order! The member for Ku-ring-gai will cease interjecting from the backbench.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Point of order: My point of order is again the long title of the bill. Unless the member has made a reference to the ICAC, or the Government has made a reference to the ICAC, in regard to the Luna Park fire or, indeed, has started an investigation, it has no relevance to the bill before the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

My considered ruling is that the discussion and contribution is in the broadest terms in accordance with the debate that I would anticipate on this bill. I have asked the member to come closer to the intention of the bill, which he has indicated he will do. The member for Castle Hill will continue.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS:

Absolutely. The bill pertains to giving weight to strengthening provisions around the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I merely stated that the Independent Commission Against Corruption was originally undertaken and implemented by Nick Greiner because of those issues that were stated previously. It was within the remit of this bill to state them. I believe that an investigation of some type will be pursued in regard to that horrific fire in Luna Park all those years ago when lives were taken—as it should. If there was corruption in any way, shape or form, it should be investigated.

Extension of time

I support the fact that the ICAC was introduced and still continues to this day to expose corruption when it should; that it will continue to expose corruption and drag those—whether it be members of Parliament or public officials—to account; and, whether that needs to be done publicly or in closed session, it is undertaken so that our State and the people of New South Wales have the greatest certainty that our governments and the people who act within them are not corrupt and, if they are, that they are exposed. I make one point in regard to the ICAC and the inference, as I have said before, by the mover of this bill that that this Government in some way does not support strengthening or funding ICAC. I request an extension of time. []

I appreciate the indulgence of the House. Going back to what I said before in regard to this Government's support for strengthening ICAC, I will cast the minds of members back to 2016, when the Independent Commission Against Corruption amendment bill was brought into this House. That followed on from a parliamentary committee that was established. Various members in this House and in the other place were involved in that on behalf of the committee. That amendment bill was put forward in 2016. I was more than happy to support and speak on it, given that I was on a backbench committee overseeing the framing of the new amendment from the parliamentary committee. No less than 35 recommendations were contained within that amendment. The ironic thing about it is that, whilst the Labor Party has not had too much to say—although the member for Wollongong has spoken on behalf of the Opposition in support of these changes—it opposed that amendment in 2016. When one looks at some of the proposals from the committee, and especially one where it is seen in last year's budget that ICAC would receive $32.3 million comprising $30.9 million in recurrent expenditure plus $1.4 million in capital expenses, that gives one an idea of the size of the funding from this Government that goes towards ICAC each and every year. It represents an amazing 61 per cent increase in the level of expenditure from the final budget of the previous Labor Government in 2010‑11. When one looks at that massive increase in funding, it is quite hypocritical for Labor members not to support that amendment in 2016 and now to cry a few crocodile tears in support of this private member's bill that could in some way be seen to support a strengthening of the ICAC.

As I said, that bill in 2016 introduced other amendments to improve the structure and governance of the ICAC. It would also promote fairness in the exercise of ICAC's powers and provide enhanced evidence-gathering powers for criminal prosecutions and improved oversight arrangements for the ICAC. The bill also introduced amendments to improve the ICAC's structure of governance by restructuring ICAC as a panel of three commissioners. The restructured ICAC would then consist of a full-time commissioner appointed by the Governor and two part-time commissioners appointed by the Governor after consultation with the chief commissioner. At all times this Government has gone out of its way to do whatever it could to improve oversight by ICAC, not only through funding but by altering the structure of that particular body, to ensure that corruption is stamped out across New South Wales. Restructuring the ICAC as a three-member commission has strengthened its decision-making process and brought a more diverse set of skills and experience to bear on the ICAC's deliberations.

Time expired.

I also stated at that particular time and I remind members today that the only politicians, members of Parliament and Ministers found guilty of corrupt conduct by the ICAC to this day have been Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Ian Macdonald. Previous Ministers of the Labor Party are the only people who have been found guilty by the ICAC. Who can forget Operation Napier and Currawong, when Tony Kelly and Warwick Watkins were found to be corrupt? Operation Jarilo found the famous luncher Ian Macdonald and Ron Medich to be corrupt. Operation Jasper, about the Mount Penny exploration licences, found Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald to be corrupt for a second time. Who can forget Operation Acacia, relating to the Doyles Creek line and involving John Maitland and Ian Macdonald? The list goes on but it all pertains to Labor members and Labor Ministers who have been found guilty of corruption. That is why the Liberal-Nationals Government will do everything in its power to ensure the strength of the ICAC in the future and to make sure that we do not see any more corrupt Labor politicians and Labor Ministers. []

Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (12:13:03):

I make a contribution regarding the ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2021. I start by acknowledging the excellent and very detailed contributions by the member for Vaucluse, the member for North Shore, the member for Manly and most recently my colleague the member for Castle Hill. It was very illuminating indeed, especially the last part that he articulated with regard to those members of Parliament who have actually been found guilty of corruption by the ICAC. That was very interesting indeed. As a new member who was elected to this place in 2015 I look at this with a bit of dismay, to be honest. As the member for Castle Hill outlined before, the only members of Parliament who have been found guilty of corruption were Obeid, Macdonald, Tripodi and Kelly. They are the only members of Parliament that have actually been found guilty of corruption under the ICAC, which is very illuminating and very telling indeed.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

So you think acting with the intention to overturn laws is not corruption, do you? Is that what you think? He was found guilty of acting to overturn the donation laws.

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

I draw your attention to Standing Order 52, Mr Temporary Speaker, which states that a member should be heard in silence. The member for Auburn keeps interjecting, which is very disorderly.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

If you keep getting up and lying, what do you reckon?

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

That is unparliamentary, Mr Temporary Speaker. I ask you to ask the member for Auburn to withdraw that comment.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The member for Terrigal has asked that the member for Auburn withdraw the comment that he was lying.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

I withdraw.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The comment has been withdrawn. I appreciate that a certain amount of ambience is provided by the interjections.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Try sticking to the truth.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

I will thank the member for Auburn for not interjecting on me. I note that it has come from both sides, but Standing Order 52 should be applied equally, notwithstanding the fact that there is some form of invitation for interjections from time to time—or possibly seeking them accidentally. I ask that the member for Terrigal be mindful of that as well.

Mr Alister Henskens:

Point of order: I am concerned about two things. The first is that the member for Auburn called the member for Terrigal a liar.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

It has been immediately withdrawn.

Mr Alister Henskens:

The second thing—and it was something that I observed yesterday—is the disrespect for the Chair. When you were speaking and giving a ruling, Mr Temporary Speaker, the member for Auburn continue to interject and speak over you. The House is becoming undignified. We also saw it in the other place the other night. It was disgraceful, and I would not want that sort of conduct to be creeping into our House.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

To the point of order: Normally when members stand up in this Chamber they identify which point of order they are taking, which the member has not done. You made the point yourself, Mr Temporary Speaker, that people invite some comments. To get up here and bald-facedly say that no Liberal has ever been found guilty at ICAC will obviously prompt a response when it is completely untrue and the members have continued to make those points.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

I thank the member for Auburn. That is not further to the point of order. I will not allow it to go down this path. It is unnecessary. I appreciate the defence of the honour of the Chair by the member for Ku-ring-gai. The Chair was quite unmoved and unperturbed by the comment from the member for Auburn, all in the heat of a moment. Let us proceed with the debate. The member for Terrigal has the call.

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

I also acknowledge the fact that as I articulated before, not one Liberal member of Parliament has been found guilty of corruption through the ICAC. That is on the record; I am happy to stand by that record. The member for Auburn misrepresented the truth a minute ago when saying that was not the case.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Point of order: If the member wants to accuse me of improper motives, he can do so by way of substantive motion. The reality is that Liberal members have been found guilty by ICAC.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The member of Auburn will resume her seat. There is no point of order. I shall deal with that issue after this debate. I believe that can be very clearly confirmed one way or the other.

Mr Alister Henskens:

Read the report. You don't know what you're talking about.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The interjections will cease. I ask the member for Auburn to be careful on that particular allegation. I shall seek clarification of that later for my own purpose, but I do not believe that is necessarily the case. It is not necessarily germane to this debate. The member for Terrigal has the call.

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

As I said, I acknowledge the great contributions that we have heard this morning from the member for Vaucluse, a former Attorney General; the member for North Shore, who gave a very illuminating and detailed account of why the Government is not supporting this piece of legislation; my colleague the member for Manly, who was able to articulate very clearly the shortfalls and the lack of consultation with the agencies that would actually be impacted—including the ICAC and others—by this piece of legislation; and also most recently the member for Castle Hill and Parliamentary Secretary.

I now make my contribution. This bill, quite frankly, is far too premature to consider. We are still only a few months into having received a number of complex reports that deal with this exact issue. The member for North Shore also repeated those reasons earlier. Without overemphasising what has already been debated in this House, the Government is well progressed and is considering these issues at hand. It was this Government that requested the Auditor-General Margaret Crawford to undertake a review of the effectiveness, the financial arrangements and the management practices of integrity bodies. Her report was tabled in Parliament in October 2020.

I acknowledge the great work done by the Auditor-General Margaret Crawford, an outstanding public servant of the highest magnitude. The report took a little while to produce, obviously. It is wide ranging. Again, Margaret Crawford's team has done a very good job. It took a bit longer than the Government would have expected it to. This is not in any way criticising the Auditor-General. As I said before, her team does an amazing job. I have had the privilege of working with Margaret Crawford as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I know you are the chair, Mr Temporary Speaker, and I hold the Auditor-General in the highest possible regard.

The point I am trying to make is that the Auditor-General recognised the enormous complexity of these issues at hand. She needed more time to develop her recommendations. It therefore stands to reason that the Government needs more time to consider her recommendations in detail as well. The Auditor-General recognised that it needed time to go carefully and forensically through the financial arrangements of each of these integrity bodies, and particularly its relationship to the Executive. This bill was introduced just a month later in the other place. I find it very hard to believe that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party was able to consider all of the recommendations put forward by the Auditor-General, consult with all of the relevant stakeholders, especially the integrity bodies directly affected by this bill, and draft this bill within that time frame.

This bill is a knee jerk reaction. It is dog whistling. It is ill-thought out and ill-considered. I cannot be satisfied that this bill addresses the issues raised by the Auditor-General. As the member for Murray was scant on the details in her second reading speech, what I can be satisfied of is the lack of cogent thought and detail that has gone into this bill. As others have said before, this bill is just a stunt. Even the Opposition only had one speaker come in and speak on this. This was the member for Keira. While I hold him in very high regard, his summary of this literally consisted of a couple of minutes and that is it. The Opposition has not had any other speakers come in and support this piece of legislation other than a couple of minutes thrown out by the member for Keira.

Extension of time

Actions speak louder than words. There has been little discussion in this Chamber other than from the Government with regards to this bill and the concerns that the Government has about the lack of detail, the lack of engagement and the lack of general thoughtfulness that has been put into drafting this piece of legislation. To say it is shoddy would be an overstatement, but to say it is light on detail and light on consultation is absolutely appropriate. I think that has been made very clear by the number of the speakers on this. I seek an extension of time. []

This bill seeks to amend the Government Sector Finance Act to require that appropriations made to certain integrity agencies under the annual Appropriation Act are to be paid directly to those agencies. It also would require a contingency fund for four integrity agencies, equal to 25 per cent of their respective appropriations. In addition to this, it would require the Treasurer to authorise the payment of any requested sum out of the contingency fund to one of those integrity agencies, if their appropriation has been exhausted and certain other conditions are met.

The bill also seeks to amend the Electoral Act, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act and the Ombudsman Act. It would require each agency to refer any requests for contingency fund payments to their respective parliamentary joint committee. It would require each parliamentary joint committee to review information prepared by the relevant agency for use in budget preparations and use this information to make recommendations to the Treasurer on budget priorities. Lastly, the bill seeks to amend the Government Sector Employment Act to include the ICAC as a separate public service agency.

The reason the Government is so concerned and opposes this is that in November 2019 the Government requested that the Auditor-General undertake—as I said, with the fantastic efforts of Margaret Crawford—an independent review of the effectiveness of the financial arrangements and management practices of all of these integrity agencies, including the ICAC. The Auditor-General has now tabled her report and I deeply thank her for all of the hard work that she and her exceptionally qualified and talented staff have done. On 6 November 2020 the ICAC Commissioner also completed a special report regarding funding arrangements.

The Government is carefully considering both the Auditor-General's recommendations and the report. We also note that the Public Accountability Committee of the Legislative Council has conducted its inquiry into the budget process for independent oversight bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales, and has consequently tabled its reports. The Government will finalise its position on the matters raised in all of these reports shortly, as has been outlined by other speakers. The Government is committed to ensuring that the funding of the State's integrity agencies continues to be based on principles of transparency, accountability and, of course, independence.

I note that the ICAC is actually afforded greater independence under current staffing arrangements as well. Specifically, under section 104 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC may appoint a chief executive officer and other staff of the commission as necessary to enable the commission to exercise its functions. In addition, in evidence before the Public Accountability Committee on 12 December 2019, the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC referred to the fact that none of the ICAC's employees are covered by public service regulations, and he did not raise concerns about these arrangements.

In addition, establishing the ICAC as a separate public service agency would position its employees as public service employees. They would then be subject to the legislative arrangements as they apply to public service agencies. The Government is alive and very well attuned to the concerns of the integrity agencies and will address these concerns in the appropriate and usual ways. I also note that we are weeks away from the budget and there is a budget process that appropriately involves all of those integrity agencies that I have mentioned before, and more. Passage of legislation that quite dramatically alters the funding arrangements would be highly disruptive and confusing at this time.

The current system of providing funding and supplementary funding to the ICAC is working. The ICAC has been provided with an increase in its funding for the 2020-2021 year in the budget, unlike some of the spurious claims mentioned by other members earlier. It was announced that the budget for the ICAC was $32.3 million, comprising almost $31 million—$30.9 million—in recurrent expenses and $1.4 million in capital expenses. As outlined by the member for Castle Hill, that is a 60.7 per cent increase in the level of expenditure from the final budget of the previous Labor Government in 2010-2011, which had an allocation of a measly $20.1 million for the ICAC. The Government is providing more than $114 million in funding to the ICAC over the forward estimates of four years. This 2019-20 budget is allocating $26.6 million plus an additional $3.5 million in supplementary funding. This is one of the many reasons that the Government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Ku-ring-gai) (12:28:27):The Effectiveness of the Financial arrangements and management practices in four integrity agenciesBudget Process for Independent Oversight Bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales–First Report

I speak in debate on the ICAC and Other Independent Commission Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2020. The private member's bill seeks to pre-empt the proper processes not only of the Government but also of the Parliament. The Government announced that it was considering independent funding models for various agencies. It is in the process of considering a number of reports, including the Auditor-General's report entitled , the Public Accountability Committee's first report entitled , and the second and final report of the Public Accountability Committee's inquiry, which was tabled on Friday. The process that was put in place with the ICAC, which was established under the 1988 Act, section 63 constitutes a joint committee of Parliament to be an ICAC committee, which under section 64 of that Act has the following functions:

(a)to monitor and to review the exercise by the Commission and the Inspector of the Commission's and Inspector's functions,

(b)to report to both Houses of Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matter appertaining to the Commission or the Inspector or connected with the exercise of its functions to which, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, the attention of Parliament should be directed,

(c)to examine each annual and other report of the Commission and of the Inspector and report to both Houses of Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such report,

(d)to examine trends and changes in corrupt conduct, and practices and methods relating to corrupt conduct, and report to both Houses of Parliament any change which the Joint Committee thinks desirable to the functions, structures and procedures of the Commission and the Inspector,

(e)to inquire into any question in connection with its functions which is referred to it by both Houses of Parliament, and report to both Houses on that question.

The functions of the joint parliamentary committee are extensive and operate within the territory of this private member's bill. Notwithstanding that, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has chosen to depart from all the usual processes of the Parliament and to put in place a private member's bill on the very subject matter that traverses parliamentary committees and what the Executive Government has commissioned by way of report. The bill does not incorporate any recommendations of those parliamentary committees. Some people have perhaps unkindly described the bill as a bit of a stunt and is grandstanding, but it properly accords with a more generous but similar description.

It is important to put on record that corruption is obviously a pox on the body politic and it is important to have independent agencies that will ensure proper and corruption-free processes by government. But after listening to the member for Murray speak on this private member's bill and reading the second reading speech in the other place, one might think that we live in a country and a State that we do not actually live in. It is undeniably the case that Australia—and New South Wales is one-third of Australia—has incredibly low levels of corruption of its political processes and that we are, on international measures, a country which has good and transparent processes that are rarely interfered with by corrupt conduct.

One need only look at the various international agencies that monitor such things. As I mentioned yesterday in my condolence speech for Prince Philip, one such agency is Freedom House. It is an independent non‑government body based in New York that looks at those matters. It looks at how a country adheres to United Nations covenants on political rights and civil liberties. Guess what? Contrary to what the member for Murray would have betrayed in her speech, we are in the top 10 free countries in the world by reason of our adherence to those United Nations covenants. We are not a country or a State that is racked by corruption and poor process. We are in fact doing very well and that is a matter that needs to be considered and put front of mind when considering this private member's bill.

I did something that is novel for members of this place: I read the bill. I will make some comments on the bill because there will be people like you, Mr Speaker, who will consider the bill independently and what it achieves as a matter of legislation. Schedule 1 to the bill makes the chief executive officer of the ICAC subject to the Government Sector Employment Act. The effect of that provision is to take away independence from the ICAC.

Debate interrupted.

Stay updated about North Shore

North Shore Skyline