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

I would like to thank the member for Isaacs for raising the need for a national integrity commission. I completely agree with him, and after listening to the litany of bad behaviour that has been put forward by all of the previous speakers on this motion I don't think that anybody would disagree with the need for a national anticorruption commission. One thing I would say—and this might sound a bit flippant, but I actually think it's true—is that the sooner we get one the sooner we stop having motions like this, which are set up so that people can just attack each other from across each side of the benches; it's not a part of the political world that I particularly favour. I also want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Indi, who, as an Independent, came in on a platform pushing for a national integrity commission and hasn't relented throughout her time here.

The people of Australia rightly expect that our government and all our agencies act in good faith—that they act with transparency and with complete integrity. I actually believe—it is my belief—that the majority of people working in government and for government, and members within this place and senators within this place, do actually try to act with the utmost good faith. But of course there are people who don't. There are people who do not act with the integrity that we would expect—for some reason, they don't. And there are always going to be people who look to exploit the system for their own benefit.

At this point in time we don't actually know the size of fraud against the Commonwealth, but we do know that fraud has serious consequences. It negatively impacts our public resources, which are, after all, Australians' money. It's all of our money. When money is misused, when resources are misused, they could have otherwise been directed to key services such as health, education, welfare, infrastructure. It also impacts upon the integrity of government and its capacity to do things efficiently and effectively, and it impacts upon people's trust in government. We, as servants of the people, must take steps to combat fraud against the government. After all, when it's fraud against the government, it is fraud against each and every Australian.

At the same time, we must ensure that our steps are appropriate and balanced. We do not want innocent, decent and good people caught up in frivolous and vexatious actions or allegations, nor do we want to unnecessarily interfere with efficient and effective operations of government and its agencies. The member for Isaacs noted correctly that each and every state and territory has a dedicated integrity commission and they have proven their worth time and time again, to which I agree, but I agree with some reservations. Each and every one of them has also had their issues. Each and every one of them has had instances where innocent people have been dragged into what can be soul-destroying, life-destroying consequences. And, in conversations I've had with the member for Indi over the last two years on the need for a national integrity commission, this has been the point that I have stressed time and time again. We want an integrity commission and we want one with teeth, but we also want one that has the correct balance, the correct mix, and doesn't drag in innocent people. I'm not talking about people who sit in this place. As the previous member said, we are all privileged to serve here. It's the people who work for us who occasionally get dragged into these things because of the things they do for us, perhaps because we tell them to, perhaps because they believe that that's the expectation. So it's about getting the balance right in a national integrity model, which holds people to account but also has the right threshold so it does not drag innocent people into its wake.

I would like it to have been enacted by now—I'm not going to hide from that. Yes, it has been a long time, but we are going through a consultation process. There have been 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations. Would we like it to be quicker? Yes, we would like it to be quicker. Do we want it to be right? Yes, and we want the right to prevail over the speed. So the process that is being gone through now I am confident will produce something at the end. It may not satisfy everybody. It may not be the model that the member for Indi has been wanting all this time. But we will get a model that we are confident and comfortable will deliver the level of integrity that we need in this country. Thank you.

See this speech in context