Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges — Motion
HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [7.31 pm] — without notice: I move —
That the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill 2017 be discharged and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges for consideration and report by no later than Tuesday, 10 April 2018.
HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [7.32 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Nationals WA to indicate our support for this motion ………….
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [7.36 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we are also supportive of the discharge and referral of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill 2017 to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I am very pleased that this bill will be referred to that committee. I note that in the other place, the motion to refer this bill to that committee was lost. However, there was an assumption that this house would scrutinise that bill very closely. That is probably an accurate assumption, because that is what we do.
I want to put a few brief points on the record that I hope the committee will take into account when it considers this legislation. Clearly, we are trying to balance the tension between parliamentary privilege—which is to ensure that the people’s representatives are not impeded in carrying out their duties—and the reasonable expectation that crime and corruption will be investigated and prosecuted appropriately. We need to look at the necessity for this bill. There is a reason that Parliament is given powers, privileges and immunities and has had a history of self-regulation. It is to protect the constitutional functions of the Parliament, not those of members of Parliament per se. I hope that will be looked at. The value had resided in the exclusivity of the Parliament. It is important that we look at examples in the past when we have not had a tripartite system of power.
The Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill 2017 will deliver new powers of investigation to the Corruption and Crime Commission in relation to members of Parliament in cases in which parliamentary jurisdiction does not apply. Parliament already has some wide investigative powers. Obviously, Parliament cannot conduct clandestine investigations, but it can make findings, impose penalties and do a range of other things.
I really hope that we can review the committee’s procedures, because I am aware that the Chief Justice has made some important points and criticisms around procedural unfairness in the way that those investigations can be unpicked. It is useful to explore that. Where Parliament has already exceeded its exclusive jurisdiction, I note that the police and the courts already have their usual powers. I hope the committee can look at the practical effect of the bill on Parliament’s functions, because the Greens are concerned that seizure and compelling attendance for an investigation could affect parliamentary functions, especially the seizure of hard drives and papers of a member of Parliament, Clerk or committee; or we could have a situation in which the Corruption and Crime Commission has premature access to evidence that has been taken by the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. One of the things that I am particularly concerned about is that it may hinder the information flow to MPs, including from whistleblowers or potential whistleblowers. I have also put on the notice paper a proposed amendment around oversight of the CCC in relation to these functions and I would welcome the committee looking at that particular amendment or at least the policy behind why I have put that amendment forward.
The act has always contained a system of checks and balances because of the extraordinary powers of the CCC, and Parliament is one of those that traditionally had the capacity to oversight the CCC. Already within the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003, section 27 contains safeguards for other oversight bodies like the Corruption and Crime Commissioner, the parliamentary inspector and judicial office holders. I note that in previous versions of the act, when the CCC had the power to investigate MPs, the act also contained safeguards in regard to members of Parliament. Those were sections 27A and 27B, which have now been repealed. The first part of my proposed amendment does not restrict the CCC in any way. It provides a capacity to shine a light on it if there is any chance that the CCC is overstepping its jurisdiction. I would welcome the committee looking at that and indicating whether it thinks it is a path that is worthwhile going down. It does not have to be my amendment of course, but something that at least addresses the issue of oversight.
I hope that the CCC can look at what is going to happen with information that is obtained incidentally in the course of investigating an MP, for example if a public servant is heard making an unrelated or unauthorised disclosure to a member of Parliament. What does it mean for parliamentary immunity to continue to apply in respect of an MP or a whistleblower whose disclosure is closely connected to the MP’s work, such as if they have asked questions in Parliament or motions for inquiry? We need to remember that the CCC’s core function is meant to be fighting organised crime by the oversight of the police not as an alternative to police, but I recognise that over time it seems to have become muddied. There needs to be some examination about whether this is further directing CCC resources away from the oversight of police. Those are just a few comments that I wanted to make. It is really good that the committee will be looking at this and I look forward to getting the report.
HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.43 pm]: The opposition supports this move ……………..
Question put and passed.