|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:46:09
|
Title
Bills — National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Statement about witnesses and non-disclosure notations
Description
<p class="speaker">Dai Le</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) as circulated in my name together:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.53.6) to *disagree* with [amendments (4) and (5)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.51.1) introduced by Fowler MP [Dai Le](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fowler/dai_le) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Ms Le [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.51.1):
- > *My fourth amendment will seek to ensure that, when the commissioner plans to make a public statement about an investigation, they must consider the need to, firstly, provide the context in which a witness is called; and, secondly, provide support against the onslaught of public scrutiny that may arise throughout the investigation. The fifth amendment aims to sure that those who are facing an inquiry will be able to at least share the fact that they have been summoned with their spouse, unless the spouse is also under investigation, to alleviate pressures and provide support during a time that is no doubt stressful and, in some cultures, tremendously humiliating.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(4) Clause 73, page 69 (line 10), at the end of subclause (5), add:*
- >
- >> *; (c) the context in which the witness is appearing at the hearing;*
- >>
- >> *(d) the need for the public not to scrutinise a witness before the corruption investigation has been completed.*
- >
- > *(5) Clause 95, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(2) The notation must permit disclosure of information to:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons.*
<p class="italic">(4) Clause 73, page 69 (line 10), at the end of subclause (5), add:</p><p class="italic">; (c) the context in which the witness is appearing at the hearing;</p><p class="italic">(d) the need for the public not to scrutinise a witness before the corruption investigation has been completed.</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 95, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) The notation must permit disclosure of information to:</p><p class="italic">(a) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and</p><p class="italic">(b) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons.</p><p>My fourth amendment will seek to ensure that, when the commissioner plans to make a public statement about an investigation, they must consider the need to, firstly, provide the context in which a witness is called; and, secondly, provide support against the onslaught of public scrutiny that may arise throughout the investigation. The fifth amendment aims to sure that those who are facing an inquiry will be able to at least share the fact that they have been summoned with their spouse, unless the spouse is also under investigation, to alleviate pressures and provide support during a time that is no doubt stressful and, in some cultures, tremendously humiliating. These amendments tie in with amendments (1) to (3) to ensure that individuals who are called in to an inquiry will have the support they need, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds.</p><p>May I remind this House that one of our democratic cornerstones is the fact that people are innocent until found guilty. As I'm sure many in this House know, the 24/7 news cycle and social media can be the harshest of judges. They can be damaging to your reputation and mental health. Mental health awareness in Australia has been growing, particularly in the last few years due to COVID. However, for many CALD communities, mental health is often misunderstood and misrepresented due to language barriers. In my own language, the Vietnamese language, the direct translation of 'depression' is either 'mad' or 'sad'; there is not a word in the Vietnamese language that can properly convey the depths of despair one might feel if they were to go through a bad mental health spiral. For anyone caught in front of an inquiry, it's surely intimidating, but if English is not your first language—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Mike Freelander</p><p>Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.</p> <p class="speaker">Dai Le</p><p>If English is not your first language and if your own experience with authorities has been in your home country with less democratic procedures, it would be terrifying.</p><p>Such was the case for the deputy general manager of the company Wu International, who took his own life after being called as a witness for a New South Wales ICAC investigation. While he was named in the media, I have chosen to be respectful and not name him again, due to cultural sensitivity. In his suicide note to his wife and daughter he wrote that having ICAC officers fronting up at his doorstep to serve the summons reminded him of his father back in China when the CCP officers turned up at their home to arrest him. He was also informed by ICAC not to share that he had been summoned with any individuals, including family members. Yesterday I read an excerpt of his suicide note reported into the <i>Sydney Morning Herald</i> and today I will read another:</p><p class="italic">I have decided to leave this world, which is also my last hardest attempt to prevent you and our daughter from becoming family members of a criminal; this is because I am still innocent at the time I wrote this letter</p><p>he wrote in his suicide note, which was translated into English.</p><p>Whether it is a private or a public hearing, it is clear that these investigations take a toll on an individual, especially if they're called as a witness and have not been found guilty yet. It takes a mental toll, even if they are called simply as a witness. Corrupt conduct must always be investigated, and perpetrators must always be held accountable. But this should not be at the expense of someone taking their own life. In the case I've just painted, had the director known he wasn't alone, had he known he didn't have to shoulder the burden alone and that he could have spoken to his wife and another mental health professional, then maybe he would still be alive today. Maybe his daughter would not be growing up without a father.</p><p>It is our responsibility as lawmakers to ensure that legislation doesn't have adverse impacts on individuals and communities. It's my hope that this these amendments will protect those who may be called into a public or private hearing to provide an honest account without being unjustly scrutinised by the media and overall by the public. After all, we live in a democracy, and we have the right to have a fair trial before proven guilty. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Julian Leeser</p><p>The coalition supports the amendments moved by the member for Fowler. Being called before the National Anti-Corruption Commission would be a very stressful process for individuals. I think, in the public mind, many people think that this commission will be dealing only with members of parliament. The truth is that it will be dealing with a very wide range of Australians. For anybody, being summonsed for questioning is an extremely stressful occasion.</p><p>I note the good work of the joint committee on this point, extending the range of people you can consult to include psychologists and medical professionals. I think what the member for Fowler has done here in making it broader, to include any mental health professional, is a good thing, given the availability of psychologists in various parts of Australia; there is a real shortage. Many people who are feeling distraught would want to call an organisation like Lifeline or see a counsellor, and people should be able to do that. It's also particularly oppressive where you have a family member who is not the subject of an investigation and you can't even talk to them about this.</p><p>In the context of thinking about the corruption commission and preparing the coalition's position on this I met with people who'd been bereaved by suicide as a result of having family members appear before the commission. I heard stories of people who were not able to tell their family member when they needed to travel interstate to appear before a corruption commission that they had to appear before the commission, for fear of breaching these gag orders. I think these gag orders that have existed at places and the potential for a gag order of this sort to exist at the federal level is oppressive to people. I commend the member for Fowler for these very good amendments, which the coalition supports.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I thank the member for Fowler for her amendments. Just to deal with the existing provisions of the bill: where the commissioner holds a public hearing, the bill already provides that the commissioner will be able to make a statement about the circumstances and capacity in which a witness is giving evidence if the commissioner thinks it's appropriate to do so. This is an important reputational safeguard and would, for example, enable the commissioner to make a statement that a witness is appearing voluntarily and is not the subject of the corruption investigation—in other words, that a witness before the commission is just a witness of fact, that the witness is not being investigated. Clear statements from the commissioner is what we have in mind.</p><p>The commissioner could also make other public statements to avoid undue reputational damage. An example would be a statement that the investigation is not yet complete or, for example, making a statement that no finding of corruption has been made against a particular person. All of this will appropriately be left to the discretion of the commissioner and, in the view of the government, does not need to be specified in the legislation.</p><p>On the other matter that's raised by the member for Fowler's amendment, the bill already provides for the commissioner to include nondisclosure notations in a notice to produce information or a private hearing summons in certain circumstances, such as where not doing so might prejudice a person's safety or reputation or a fair trial. The notation may specify circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted. This would allow the commissioner to permit a person to disclose information about their participation in a corruption investigation to a spouse or a family member in appropriate circumstances. This will be appropriately left to the discretion of the commissioner and does not need to be specified in the legislation.</p><p>On the matter of disclosure to mental health professionals, the government does recognise the importance of ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who are the subject of, or otherwise involved in, corruption investigations. This includes ensuring that persons in that category are able to access support from a medical practitioner or psychologist or psychiatrist. The government has moved amendments to ensure that, where a person is issued a notice to produce or a summons with a nondisclosure notation, the person will be able to disclose information that's covered by the notation to a medical practitioner or a psychologist for the purpose of obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling, including psychological counselling. The government does not support this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendments (4) and (5) moved by the member for Fowler be disagreed.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|