Integrity in Government
[2.28 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I thank the opposition for bringing this important matter of public importance to the House. We all have a part to play in strengthening integrity and proper scrutiny. When we discuss integrity in government we cannot avoid discussing the Integrity Commission Act and, in particular, the secrecy provisions that sit at its heart. My contention is that those provisions have been increasingly unworkable and are now producing outcomes that undermine rather than strengthen public confidence in our democratic institutions.
We're confronted with a situation where allegations involving sitting ministers appear to have remained unresolved for years. Legal costs are approaching half a million dollars paid by Tasmanian taxpayers, yet the taxpayers funding these processes are told virtually nothing about them. That's not a healthy position for a democracy to find itself in. The secrecy surrounding these matters casts a shadow over every minister, every member of parliament and, indeed, the institutions of government themselves.
When the public is aware that lengthy investigations are underway but is unable to access even the most basic information about them, speculation inevitably fills the vacuum, rumour replaces fact, assumption replaces evidence, confidence in the political system declines, and at a time when trust in democratic institutions is already fragile, we should be very cautious about maintaining arrangements that further erode public faith.
The Premier himself appeared to acknowledge some of these difficulties in his responses to media questions over the past week. Likewise, the Integrity Commission's chief commissioner appeared deeply constrained during his interview on ABC radio. Listeners heard senior statutory officer repeatedly unable to answer questions because of the legislative secrecy provisions governing his work. That exchange highlighted a fundamental problem: The public can see that investigations exist, they can see that significant sums of public money are being spent by ministers possibly defending themselves against those allegations; they can see that matters remain unresolved years later. Yet the law prevents meaningful explanation or scrutiny. It's not transparency; this is secrecy.
It was this veil of secrecy that arguably contributed to minister Ogilvie misrepresenting the existence of court proceedings she had commenced. It was the same veil that enabled questions about those proceedings to be avoided for months and the stonewalling at Budget Estimates.
Similarly, minister Howlett has refused to answer questions about a legal bill now exceeding $400,000. Such a system can only function if public confidence in those administering it remains strong, but when the trust is breached, as occurred when minister Ogilvie failed to accurately disclose the existence of legal proceedings, and when the government subsequently stonewalled then minimised or defended that conduct, the foundation upon which the secrecy rests begins to crumble, and at that point it becomes entirely legitimate to ask whether the balance struck by the legislation remains appropriate.
I'm not arguing for the abandonment of confidentiality protections. There are sound reasons why integrity investigation should not become a political circus. There are sound reasons why individuals should not be publicly condemned before findings are made. The challenge before us is to strike a better balance, which bodies that uphold integrity and allow scrutiny, one that protects procedural fairness while also recognising the public's legitimate interest in understanding what is occurring when allegations concern elected representatives, public resources and the conduct of government. That's why I've asked the Premier to support a referral of this issue to the Joint Standing Committee on integrity. If the Premier is serious about strengthening integrity and rebuilding public confidence, he should welcome a review of these provisions. Having this as a ministerial statement from the Premier would be the most welcome and a clear sign of integrity and shouldering responsibility.