• Barbara Etter: Six Weeks On – My Commitment to the Palmer United Party
I refer to my earlier article on Tasmanian Times “Why I’m Standing for Denison” which was posted on 23 January 2014 ( here ).
I note that people are still questioning the fact that I chose to run for the Palmer United Party. With only days to go to the election, I thought it would be useful to answer a few of the queries that have been put to me personally in recent weeks or raised in the media. I must say that I am puzzled about the strength of the attack that has been made by the various parties, particularly Liberals, against Palmer United. I can only think that we must be looming as a real threat to the other mainstream parties.
I did think about running as an Independent but it would have been very difficult to succeed from a “cold start” and without significant support. I certainly carried out due diligence as best as I could before I committed to Palmer United.
The Palmer United Party campaign to date has been an interesting one. Six weeks in, I remain firmly committed to the Party as we head into the election. I believe that we simply cannot afford to do more of the same here in Tasmania. Something has to change and radically. I believe that there are real dangers and risks with a majority government in this State.
The Palmer United Party, if supported at the election, could be a real “game changer” for Tasmania. The Party is keen to take off the economic “handbrake” and to “turbo charge” or stimulate our economy to create necessary jobs and address issues of unemployment and under employment (including through the removal of dead taxes such as payroll tax and stamp duty). Tasmania needs to be self-sufficient once again. We believe our Bass Strait policy, launched on 1 March 2014 in Launceston, is critical to future economic prosperity and unifying the nation. The Bass Strait should be treated as part of the national highway. A fast ferry service for cars, people and freight, that is competitively priced, should also significantly boost tourism and business (including small business) and generate much needed employment.
The Palmer United Party is strongly pro-development but will also adopt a triple bottom line approach here in Tasmania and consider economic, social and environmental issues. We do not support the tearing up of the Forestry Agreement. We also do not support the Pulp Mill in the Tamar Valley, as currently approved, due to the failure to follow due process (although there also appear to be health and environmental issues as well as concerns regarding economic viability). But we are certainly not GREEN.
I also believe that Tasmania needs fundamental cultural change, as espoused by highly respected academics like Jonathan West. Tasmania needs to rid itself of a culture of dependency and entitlement that has built up over generations. We need strategies that go to the very heart of our problems here in Tasmania such as the failure of many to value education, leading to our totally unacceptable literacy and numeracy rates. We need to work together to ensure that our young people can choose to stay here in Tasmania. We need to do something too about preventing the shocking health problems here in Tasmania to reduce demands on our health system. We also need to address the very important issue of mental health. There is certainly a challenge ahead that requires long term solutions.
The Palmer United Party importantly provides me with the ability to make my own decisions on key moral issues. I am able to have a conscience vote on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage. If elected, I would canvass the views of the electorate but would not just adopt populist views. Principles, values, evidence and reasonable arguments would be critical determining factors. I would very carefully consider each of these issues and would respect the rights of individuals whilst also considering the broader public interest.
Clearly, on other matters, as a member of a political party, I need to consider party policy, as does any other politician who is not an Independent. That does not mean that I would ever involve myself in anything that I considered corrupt or clearly inappropriate. If elected, I will work tirelessly to ensure honesty and integrity in my dealings in Parliament and to enhance the standards of conduct in Parliament more generally.
Clive Palmer has featured prominently to date in our campaign. Clive is the founder of the Palmer United Party (which was originally not even intended to feature his name). Palmer United is a new and emerging party with a publicly available Constitution (see the Australian Electoral Commission website at http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/applications/files/2013/palmer-united-party-constitution.pdf). I read this foundational document very carefully before committing to the party. In due course, the Palmer United Party will have all the necessary party structures here in Tasmania to ensure enhanced autonomy and well considered and more participative policy and decision-making. Kevin Morgan is a very capable leader here in Tasmania and I have a lot of respect for him.
At the moment, Cliveis providing significant leadership, energy and vision for the party. He has encouraged us, as candidates, to speak out on matters. I was very heartened in an early meeting with him here in Hobart to see him encourage candidates to speak out whilst acknowledging and accepting that we might well make mistakes.
Clive has said over and over again that history will be his reward. With his mother having been born in Penguin, he has an emotional attachment to Tasmania and would love to make a positive difference to our State.
Clive obviously has a strong interest in policy development for Tasmania at the present time given the emergent nature of the party. A number of us, including myself, are, nevertheless, having significant input into policy decisions. The Palmer United Party is very supportive of me pushing a platform of honest and accountable government and a fair and just society for all, for instance. As you are well aware, I am also keen to seen an effective and truly independent and effective Anti-Corruption Authority here in Tasmania, with a strong investigative focus, and have just posted a concept paper to stimulate debate and discussion on an enhanced model for Tasmania. I am personally interested too in community safety and the protection of vulnerable persons, the elderly and minority groups in our society. I released a media release yesterday outlining policies in this area but it has not been picked up by the media.
I strongly believe in a fair go for all. I am also urging Palmer United to take a keen interest in protecting our significant cultural and built heritage here in Tasmania, promoting culture and the arts and fostering further technological innovation. This State is unique and has just so much to offer.
I am keen to support our police and emergency services. I am also keen to see criminal justice reform and improvements to ensure that we prevent miscarriages of justice and address possible miscarriages of justice in an effective and timely way. As a lawyer, I believe there is room for improvement in our current criminal justice system so it more closely aligns to “rule of law” principles (see http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/index.php/divisions/international-division/rule-of-law). Policies in this area need to be evidence-based and not just knee jerk reactions to populist demands. We do not support the abolition of suspended sentences or mandatory minimum sentencing at this time given available advice, evidence and research. Palmer United is going to be “smart” on crime as opposed to the worn-out and ineffective “tough” on crime.
Unfortunately, the Palmer United Party hasn’t had the same degree of media coverage afforded to the major parties to enable us to articulate our views on some of the key issues impacting on Tasmania. I would love the opportunity to share more of my views and opinions with the public. I believe that I can bring a range of life experiences, a host of relevant tertiary qualifications, strong personal values and admirable personal qualities (including moral courage, empathy and compassion) to such a privileged position (see http://www.betterconsult.com.au/about). My well-publicised end values are integrity, justice and humanity. It is just so important to take a humanitarian approach to issues that confront us today. That is why I made a point of recently attending the rally on the Manus Island issue and the tragic death of Reza Berati on the lawns of Parliament House.
The Palmer United Party has unfortunately not been included in some of the high profile public debates. Nevertheless, we have responded as best we could to many of the surveys from community service organisations and interest groups expressing our views on important issues affecting Tasmanians. We have also participated in several rallies and many community forums (but have not been invited or advised of quite a few fora). I have also met personally with a number of key stakeholders, including community service organisations. I have tried to respond as best as I could to individual queries. The Palmer United Party has tried to act responsibly and we have not made outlandish financial commitments when Tasmania clearly does not have the financial resources to follow through. Whilst we have undertaken to cut certain revenue-raising measures, such as payroll tax and stamp duty, we believe that the benefits in stimulating the broader economy will,in due course, counteract such measures and grow the economy.
It should also be noted that the Palmer United Party holds the balance of power in the Senate post 1 July 2014 so there is real scope to pursue additional and much needed funding for Tasmania or to block changes to the existing laws which may impact adversely on this State.
Most people would be well aware of my values and my track record when it comes to speaking up and pursuing matters of justice and integrity, as has been evidenced by my involvement in trying to get the Sue Neill-Fraser matter back before the courts.
I hope to capably represent the Denison electorate in Parliament post 15 March and be instrumental in bringing about much needed change here in Tasmania.
Authorised by Barbara Etter APM for the Palmer United Party, 145 King Street, Sandy Bay
• PUP Concept Paper on an anti-corruption authority in Tasmania
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this concept paper is to stimulate discussion about the current Palmer United Party position in relation to the establishment of a fiercely independent and properly structured, resourced and empowered Anti-Corruption Authority (ACA) in Tasmania to deal with public sector misconduct and corruption.
The paper advocates for a body in Tasmania more akin to an Independent Commission Against Corruption (such as currently exists in NSW). An ACA in Tasmania would engage appropriately with complainants and all stakeholders, be highly effective, particularly in its investigative role, and achieve the right balance between confidentiality (or secrecy) and transparency.
It is essential that the existence of corruption in its various forms be acknowledged in order that a proper anti-corruption strategy can be developed and implemented in Tasmania. A key component of a holistic anti-corruption strategy and a strategy to achieve honest and accountable government is the existence of an effective, independentand trusted ACA.
An honest and accountable government which does not tolerate corruption (in its various forms) is necessary to stimulate appropriate development and attract investors to Tasmania. Moreover, it is essential that the Tasmanian community have trust and confidence in Government and its institutions and processes.
BACKGROUND:
The Tasmanian Integrity Commission was established in 2010 in Hobart pursuant to the Integrity Commission Act 2009 (‘the Act’). The Commission has now been in operation for over 3 years and is currently the subject of a review by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Integrity (with the closing dates for submissions being 17 January 2014).
Pursuant to section 24(1)(e) of the Integrity Commission Act 2009, the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity is required to review “the functions, powers and operations of the Integrity Commission” after three years of the commencement of its operation.
In recent years, there has been a distinct reluctance in Tasmania by government officials to acknowledge that “corruption” exists in Tasmania.“Corruption” does exist in Tasmania (as in all jurisdictions) although it is acknowledged that the definition of this term is essential to correctly labelling any conduct or behaviour in this way. It is also appreciated that great care needs to be taken in using such a term in order to protect reputations of individuals and the public perception of, and confidence in, public authorities and organisations.
It is recognised that there does not currently appear to be a high level of organised crime in Tasmania. However, this does not detract from the clear need for an effective ACA.
Prevention of corrupt behaviour is equally as important, or even more essential, than its investigation. The establishment of a proper ACA in Tasmania could act as a strong deterrent to expanding organised crime whose members are known to infiltrate government organisations.
This concept paper also expands upon point 1 of the Tasmanians for Transparency 12 Point Plan for Honest Government in Tasmania which states:
Establish an Independent Commission Against Corruption that is transparent, and properly resourced, structured, and empowered, and based on a proven model, to replace the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.
A POSSIBLE NEW MODEL:
Whilst it will be important to consider the outcomes of the review by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Integrity, the current position on an ACA for Tasmania is as follows:
• Any model should clearly ensure natural justice/procedural fairness at all stages of an investigation.
• Any model should regard the public interest as paramount (Section 12 of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 states “In exercising its functions, the Commission shall regard the protection of the public interest and the prevention of breaches of public trust as its paramount concerns”).
• Whilst education and prevention are clearly very important, the ACA must be structured, resourced and committed to detecting and effectively investigating misconduct, particularly serious misconduct, by public officers.
• The ACA should not just be complaints driven and should have workable “own motion” investigation provisions which can be engaged in a timely way.
• There should be an independent “Parliamentary Inspector” or “Inspector”to monitor the internal activities of the agency and to deal with complaints about the ACA (as occurs in WA and NSW. The Tasmanian Integrity Commission is one of the few ACA’s in Australia with no separately appointed Inspector).
• There should be mandatory and timely written notification of serious misconduct matters and misconduct by “Designated Public Officers” to the ACA.
• An ACA should be accorded “law enforcement agency” status, subject to appropriate checks and safeguards. (An ACA in Tasmania cannot afford to be a poor cousin to Tasmania Police, one of the major sources of complaints to the current Integrity Commission. The Tasmanian Integrity Commission is the only ACA in Australia that is not able to access telecommunications data to assist in its investigations).
• There should be a review of what agencies or bodies are caught by the definition of “public authorities” within the Act.
• An ACA should be able to table reports in both houses of Parliament outside of sitting periods.
• There should be clear guidelines on the interaction between the ACA and public authorities’ investigations of breaches of the Code of Conduct, particularly Employment Direction 5.
• There should be clear protections for “whistleblowers”, informants and witnesses within the relevant Act or other related legislation (which is designed to appropriately interface with the founding legislation of the ACA) (See for example ss. 156, 173 &175 of the WA Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003). This measure is particularly important in such a small and close-knit community.
• There should be clear powers to enable an ACA to compel answers to questions in appropriate circumstances. Consequently, there should be a review of the broad range of privileges available under the current Act in relation to the answering of questions.
• There should be clear guidelines as to the subsequent use of any information obtained after a person has been compelled to answer.
• The ACA should have clear independence and administrative and operational separation from any host Government department, such as the Department of Justice.
• The ACA should be able to engage appropriate legal services independent of the Crown.
• The ACA should be subjected to independent external review at specified times and effective and frequent review by the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity.
• There should be a range of Key Performance Indicators developed for the ACA including regular surveys of complainants and other key stakeholders.
CONCLUSION:
This concept paper is a starting point only and is intended to generate discussion and debate. The document is subject to further enhancement and development following consultation with key stakeholders and the outcomes of the current review by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Integrity.
Authorised by Barbara Etter for Palmer United Party 145 King Street Sandy Bay.
