Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Of course it's a different bill. I'll take that interjection. Of course it's a different bill. The principle remains the same. You either believe in integrity or you don't, and, where you profess the importance of integrity, you can't stand up on the same dais and say that the most recidivist organisation in Australian history should not be under the same rules and should not have some form of integrity commission. Those members opposite should reflect on that very fact.

Interestingly, this bill effectively provides a carve-out for unions. Those members opposite will quibble with that. The Attorney-General will quibble with that, but sections 12 and 14 make it very clear that the unions are getting a carve-out. So the CFMMEU are getting not only a free ride here, through the abolition of the ABCC, but also a carve-out of this bill. For the life of me, I don't understand how the media and the crossbench are not jumping up and down about this very point. Whilst Australians want integrity, they want integrity across the board, not some sort of a la carte integrity.

One of my other concerns about this bill is in relation to gag orders. This place has just gone through a torturous process about acknowledging people's mental health and the wellbeing of workplaces, yet this bill, in my view, does not appropriately provide for the care and the wellbeing of individuals who may be the subject of investigations. I note that the Attorney-General put out a press release today about making some amendments in that regard. I haven't had an opportunity to go through that point in any great detail, but, if someone is the subject of an investigation, surely, for goodness sake, that person should be able to share the fact that they are the subject of an investigation with their doctor or their psychiatrist or a psychologist. If their partner is not also the subject of a similar inquiry, they should be able to share it with them as well. Otherwise, that individual is left totally exposed on their own. Think about the sorts of pressures that would be brought to bear on you as an individual if you were the subject of an investigation and you could not tell a soul. Have a think about what sort of impact that would have on you.

Some of the amendments that we are looking at, as a constructive opposition, are in relation to public hearings. We believe that it should be compulsory—not optional—for the commissioner, when considering whether it should be a public hearing, to consider factors including whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation or whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as being under direct instruction or control of another person.

When it comes to telecommunications warrants, I've seen that the Attorney-General has also put out an amendment today in relation to making the decision-maker of those warrants a judge of a federal superior court. That's common sense and is preferable to having decisions about the issue of warrants being made by AAT members. With no disrespect to AAT members intended, warrants are very, very serious things to issue, potentially in relation to politicians. It could be the Prime Minister, for example. It could be the Chief of the Army or the Chief of the Defence Force. It is very important that that issue be considered by a very senior judge. And, I'm sorry, but an AAT member—particularly given they don't have security of tenure—is not, in my view, properly equipped to make those decisions. I'll leave it there. I could go on for hours, but I won't.

See this speech in context