Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say, like the member for Page, I was really interested in discussing a national integrity commission—the basis for it, the principles underlying it. And then for 15 minutes—add another 2½ minutes, because the member for Blaxland did actually make some valid comments at the beginning of his presentation. So we had about 17½ minutes of character assassination. As the member for Page pointed out—and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure made a comment earlier—there was clearly no intention of a discussion about a national integrity commission. I am in favour of a national integrity commission. This government is in favour of a national integrity commission. We need to establish the principles behind it, and we need to make sure that the body is just as appropriate. Character assassinations, allegations such as those that have been carried out in this House this afternoon, lead further to the conclusion that we need such a commission. That people can come in and make allegations without the person against whom they're made having the opportunity, with appropriate natural justice and appropriate representation, to defend themselves is inexcusable.

Something I also have to say is that the 17½ minutes that I sat through is why the Australian public has lost confidence in our parliament. There is a pandemic. The topic is meant to be about integrity, and it was 17½ minutes of character assassination. I don't think that the member who put forward the topic actually mentioned the words national integrity commission in his 10-minute address. That to me is an abuse of parliamentary time. It's a waste of government money.

I'm going to spend the next two minutes 46 talking about what should be in a national integrity commission. I know something about these bodies. I know that when these bodies are not done properly, they can ruin peoples' lives. They can drag innocent people into them and they can have their lives, their livelihoods, destroyed. I know people who've been caught up in false or untrue allegations through integrity commissions, and their lives were irredeemably changed for the worse.

When we set up a national integrity commission—and this is what our Attorney-General is doing and this is what our Prime Minister is committed to—it's got to be balanced. It's got to make sure that we are weeding out serious corruption and that corruption is properly defined. We have to have a body that actually tries to educate people about corruption and then has the power to properly investigate and enforce. But you've got to have the balance on the other side so that people who get drawn into this commission or these bodies are given natural justice and protections. That is why we have been spending time, that is why the Attorney-General has been consulting widely.

I'm really disappointed that members of the crossbench aren't here today, because I know the member for Indi is passionate about a national integrity commission. She and I have had a number of excellent discussions about what should be in it. She has been engaged with the Attorney-General, as have other members of the crossbench, to discuss the framework as to what should go in it. What is important are the hours that have gone into the consultation to set it up.

We know that corruption exists—I think the member for Blaxland said that. Anybody who thinks that corruption in public office doesn't exist is extremely naive. Corruption does exist, and it's something that must be stamped out. That is why we're going to set up an appropriately resourced body, $106 million put into the budget. That money has been committed. We are setting it up and we're going to set it up with an appropriate balance.

Again, I go back to my starting point, like the member for Page: this was an inexcusable waste of a Thursday afternoon of taxpayers' money and, if anything, this would fall within my definition of corruption. Thank you.

See this speech in context