Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

WOLAHAN () (): I have two questions for the Attorney-General, and noting the time, I won't use the full five minutes.

First, I note that I was one of the 12 members of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation and thank the chair, Senator White, and the deputy, the member for Indi. I also note the fact that so many members of that committee were actually from the class of 2022. Some maybe said, 'Where's the experience?', but I think, in hindsight, it was really good. It was a fresh move. It was people who didn't bring any baggage from a previous life in this place, and I thought that was good.

Senator Shoebridge made the following point to many witnesses. He meant it in a positive way, Attorney-General, when he said, 'When drafting or reviewing this bill, when looking at your powers to publish a report, should we assume the worst, Attorney-General?' And he would always qualify that by not labelling you as the worst Attorney-General. Many witnesses would agree, of course, that it's a prudent thing when you're looking at a bill to assume the worst.

The point should also be made for the commissioner, or the inspector. In the end, we'll have amendments. We'll have debates in the House and the Senate. The act will give enormous powers to that person, and, over the life of the NACC, which may be very long, one day there will be a bad commissioner. One day there will be a bad inspector. It would be a good thing if we had the same level of consultation and bipartisanship in the appointment of that person. So my first question is: will you commit to engaging with the same level of cooperation that the committee did in appointing the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspectors?

The second question relates to the consultation process and the time line we were given. When you look at the bill, the consequential bill and the explanatory memorandum, a lot of work went into those, and I commend those who were involved in the drafting, but it comes to 667 pages. When you look at the submissions—we had 140 submissions—they add up to 1,340 pages worth of submissions. A lot of effort went into many of them, and I thank those who made the submissions, but I reflect on the possibility that we might have had more time. Have we missed out on doing a more thorough job if we had been given through to the new year to do this task? So my second question is this: why did the government put a premium on a deadline, over making the bill the best that it could be?

See this speech in context