³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾

Trust in politicians is at an all-time low, not only in Australia but across the world. Now more than ever, people are demanding a higher standard for our elected officials.

The row over flight upgrades and the Qantas lounge has reinforced distrust.

So has the strong criticism of the head of the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Anti-Corruption Commission, Paul Brereton, in his conduct over referrals from the Robodebt royal commission. The Inspector of the NACC found Brereton, who had a conflict of interest because he knew one of the people, had not properly recused himself from the consideration of whether the NACC should investigate the referrals.

Independent MP Helen Haines, who holds the Victorian seat of Indi, has long focused on integrity issues, and she joined us on the podcast.

Haines, who is deputy chair of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the NACC, says the new body – which she strongly believes is surrounded by too much secrecy – has not started well:

We are just over one year in, but I’d have to say that the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Anti-Corruption Commission has got off to a disappointing start, given the Robodebt incident and the subsequent inquiry by the Inspector.

The [parliamentary] oversight committee will have the opportunity very soon – in a public hearing on the 22nd of November, when the Commissioner comes before us in regard to the annual report of the NACC – to ask him questions. And I certainly will be giving full consideration to what line of questioning needs to happen in that committee in order to unpack the events of the past year.

Will that committee make a decision on whether Commissioner Brereton should be asked to resign?

I think what happens next will be determined by what the committee unpacks in that public hearing. But I think, to be clear, that under the legislation, our committee has powers to review the performance of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners. So that’s what we’ll be doing.

On grant programs, Haines says the Albanese government is pork barrelling, just as the Coalition did:

It’s a really strong example of the two major parties and the duopoly they hold. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work. But there are ways that we can remedy this. I’ve put forward twice in the parliament now a piece of private member’s legislation that would bring an end to pork barrelling. It would mean that eligibility criteria and guidelines by legislation must be published before grant moneys are allocated.

It would re-institute parliamentary oversight of these grant programs. And it would make sure that in circumstances where the department had recommended particular projects but a minister wished to make a different decision to override that, which may be quite legitimate, but that the minister would need to come into the House and explain that.

When she is reminded one argument for a vote for an independent in her seat of Indi, when her predecessor Cathy McGowan ran, had been to make it more competitive in attracting promises, she says:

Now I think that’s regrettable. I think, though, it’s a symptom of the cynicism that everyday citizens feel when the major parties have what they consider safe seats and what they consider marginal seats.

I think that what I’ve learnt as a member of parliament is that we never fix the system if we remain that cynical. I think we need to say, what’s the problem here? The problem is that the major parties are using taxpayer dollars for political purposes and that, yes, you can feel angry, disappointed and, in fact, so cynical that you take the approaches, as we did in Indi, to say, well, we need to change our representation.

I’m saying it’s no wonder people buy into that when there’s no remedy. I want to see a remedy.

On her decision to this week to cancel her membership of the Qantas chairman’s lounge and its Virgin equivalent:

For me, the potential or perceived conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest that may arise from holding such a membership when I’m a legislator is a risk that I’m not willing to take now.