Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Thursday, 15 August 2024]
p3812c-3813a
Hon Dr Steve Thomas
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
Thirteenth Report — A lower standard: Information the Premier provides to the committee when undertaking its role in an appointment process on behalf of the Parliament — Tabling
HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [10.02 am]: I am directed to present the thirteenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission titled A lower standard: Information the Premier provides to the committee when undertaking its role in an appointment process on behalf of the Parliament.
[See paper 3381.]
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: This report advises the house of a concerning development that, if continued, will diminish the role of the committee and the Parliament, in oversighting appointments under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003. The CCM act sets out the process for appointing the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission and acting commissioners, and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission and acting parliamentary inspectors. It provides that a nominating committee, chaired by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, must submit to the Premier a list of three persons qualified and eligible for appointment, and the Premier must give the committee notice of his recommendation to appoint a particular person. The committee’s role in oversighting proposed appointments reflects the constitutional role of Parliament as the branch of government that holds the executive to account and the committee’s role in oversighting the commission and the parliamentary inspector, who report to Parliament and this committee. Commissioners and parliamentary inspectors are accountable to Parliament and the people of Western Australia, not the executive. The appointment process should ensure that the commission and office of the parliamentary inspector remain trusted public institutions and their leadership is beyond reproach.
In May 2024, the committee was surprised when the Premier, Hon Roger Cook, provided it with only the name of the recommended person and their curriculum vitae when he gave notice of his recommendation that Hon Michael Corboy, SC, be appointed the first deputy commissioner of the commission. By convention, past practice has been for Premiers to voluntarily provide the report of the nominating committee when referring the recommendation. Those reports have contained the names of the three candidates, a brief curriculum vitae of each candidate and the reasoning for why the nominating committee commends a particular candidate to the Premier. The Premier refused repeated committee requests to provide the report and the three names, despite the committee giving an undertaking not to release or publish this information. The Premier advised that the Attorney General, Hon John Quigley, gave the Chief Justice a “binding undertaking” to ensure that the names of the unsuccessful nominees would remain confidential. The Premier advised that persons in the potential pool of candidates did not want their names to be considered if there was any chance of their names being leaked as unsuccessful applicants due to, and I quote, “the likely damage to their reputation”, which I also do not believe. The committee does not leak candidate information. This is a highly professional, competent committee, and it does not leak any information.
There were other ways to address confidentiality concerns that did not involve restricting the information provided to the committee. The Premier said that the committee does not require the names of the other two candidates or the report. The committee strongly disagrees. It is extremely important that the committee is provided with the information required to properly inform itself and undertake its statutory role. This report explains why this is important. Members may recall that the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Act 2024 changed how the committee votes on an appointment. It went from requiring it to give majority and bipartisan support to the recommended person to the having the right to veto the appointment. No doubt the committee’s role remains pivotal in the process. The CCM act did not, and post the amendment act still does not, prescribe or limit what information the Premier may provide the committee. The law in this regard has not changed. Choosing to provide only one name and curriculum vitae to the committee significantly diminishes its ability to oversight the appointment process. We hope that this is a one-off event.
The committee recommends that the Premier assures Parliament that his government will provide future committees with the report of the nominating committee and the names of the three candidates. The committee also recommends that the Premier and Attorney General, if concerned about future committees publishing information, consider amending the CCM act to insert confidentiality provisions, as there are in other jurisdictions.
Finally, I note that the committee took issue with the process, not the person recommended. In this instance, the committee unanimously resolved not to veto the appointment and Hon Michael Corboy, SC, has been appointed deputy commissioner. The committee wishes the appointee well.
This is a committee that functions to a high degree. It has not leaked. It has not done anything but undertaken the task given to it by this Parliament, this house and the other house. It is absolutely essential that future committees be given the information that they require to do their job properly.
