Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm grateful that the member for Wentworth is here, because I want to refer to the former member for Wentworth. It might not surprise people in this place that the former member for Wentworth and I didn't agree on much. But I've got to say I agreed with his assessment of the member for Isaacs. I remember the member for Wentworth came into the place regularly, and he'd say, 'The Member for Isaacs gives weight to the maxim that, with the right lawyer, anyone can go to jail.' I refer particularly to the 10 or 11 referrals we have had to the AFP. By the way, all of those referrals have been met with a variation between, 'Not today, Charlie,' and complete scorn. In any event, none of them have gone anywhere. But those opposite want me to come into this place and accept the member for Isaacs when he says, 'I've got a better ICAC model than you.'

While we're on the topic of contrasting and comparing, I am not going to stand here and be lectured by those opposite about integrity. Those opposite are the party of Craig Thomson, Sam Dastyari, Eddie Obeid—the list keeps going, buddy. There's Ian Macdonald. What about the red shirts affair that's happening right now, for those who might want to say these are not contemporary matters? The reality is those opposite better get their house in order before they come into this House and try to lecture those of us on this side of the chamber about questions of integrity. They would do well to stop being led on legal matters by the member for Isaac.

I come from SA, and I have watched up close and personal what I think is one of the better models in Australia for these corruption commissions. That's not to say that I think it's a particularly good model. In fact, that's not to say that the South Australian parliament thought it was a particular good model. They've recently stripped the powers of ICAC, because they've watched individual after individual be targeted by ICAC in an attempt to land a big fish where there were no fish to land. And each and every one of those individuals has been put to immeasurable expense and has had their career either truncated or quashed. These are super serious matters. They are complex and they're delicate. For those opposite to say: 'We only want our model. We couldn't possibly consider your model. There is nothing to be gained from your model,' is complete bunkum. The reality here is that the model we need is one that treads the fine line. There are already statutes across this country that deal with issues of dishonesty in public office and other places. But those opposite want to come in here and say, 'Look at what we say; don't look at what we do.'

There are a myriad of things where they want us to do that at the moment. In defence spending, they want to say, 'We are strong on questions around defence; we will maintain funding on defence,' but in fact the last time they came to government they cut defence spending to its lowest level since the 1930s. They come in here now and say, 'Believe us when we say that this time we will be strong on borders.' That's what they say: 'Believe us, because we say it.' Well, the Australian people can see through that stuff. Quite frankly, they saw it in 2007. They saw you completely capitulate on borders, because the likes of the member for Melbourne said you had to, if you wanted to govern.

I'm from an agricultural electorate and we haven't forgotten about your stance in relation to live exports. You came into this parliament and said, 'Trust us on live exports; we've got farmers' backs,' and you are saying that consistently now in terms of all things agricultural. But, you know what, we saw what you did to the live export trade.

All I say to the people of Australia in the lead-up to this election is: don't listen to what this mob say; look at what they do. They are the party of Craig Thomson, Sam Dastyari, Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. Integrity is not their gig.

See this speech in context