Page 5139 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
outline some of the relevant matters from the Criminal Code. The term “serious disciplinary offence” is included in the definition of corrupt conduct. “Serious disciplinary offence” uses the term “serious misconduct”, which is taken from the fair work regulations of 2009.
I appreciate some of the commentary made around where the government, in consultation with other parties and stakeholders, has set this threshold, but we are confident that we have got the threshold and scope at the right point. The new commission’s effectiveness would be at risk if it were inundated with very low-level complaints and misconduct matters. As I have previously made clear, such low-level misconduct is best dealt with by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner.
The amended definition of corrupt conduct is based on the New South Wales definition, with an emphasis on serious corrupt conduct and systemic corrupt conduct. This reflects the select committee’s view in 2017 that this definition should be focused on serious corrupt conduct and systemic corrupt conduct.
Unlike the ACT, New South Wales is not a human rights jurisdiction. When considering the definition, it was essential to consider the human rights implications and whether the bill would be in compliance with the territory’s Human Rights Act 2004. Why is this important? If the bill is not compliant with our Human Rights Act, then investigations by the commission may be at risk of legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
The bill provides for anyone to make a complaint to the commission about conduct that may be corrupt conduct. Complaints can be made orally or in writing. The commission is required to keep the complainant informed about the progress and outcome of their complaint, including where the commission has dismissed, referred, or investigated a complaint. These processes are based on provisions in the ACT Public Interest Disclosure Act 2012 and in another act that, as Mr Rattenbury indicated, we have drawn a lot of inspiration from: the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011.
The bill also provides that mandatory reporters have a duty to notify the integrity commission of any information or allegation that raises a corruption issue. The mandatory reporters are heads of public sector entities and senior executives, all members of the Legislative Assembly, ministers’ chiefs of staff, and the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff.
In addition to the commission’s education role, the commission will be required to develop guidelines to assist the mandatory reporters to identify the type of information that should be reported to the integrity commission. As I mentioned on Tuesday, the select committee recommended that an offence of failing to make a mandatory corruption notification be provided in the bill. Failure to notify the commission is an act of omission under the bill, which is an offence.
It is worth noting that no other jurisdiction in this nation has an offence of omission provision for mandatory corruption notification. In practice this will probably mean that reporters will err on the side of reporting, given the relatively broad nature of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video