Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Isaacs proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government's failure to establish a national anti-corruption commission.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why Australia needs a powerful and independent anticorruption commission and why the Prime Minister and his colleagues continue to do everything they can to stop one from being established. Every Australian state and both territories have had an anticorruption commission for years. Only the Commonwealth still does not have one. Why? Why is that? It's because the members of the Morrison government know that, if a national anticorruption commission is established—a real anticorruption commission with the powers, independence and resources to investigate politicians—there's a good chance a significant number of them might appear before it.

The Prime Minister claimed his 2019 election win was a miracle. But what we are now discovering is not so much a miracle as an election bought with vast sums of taxpayers' money, used as the property of the Liberal Party to be sprayed around whenever the Liberal Party thought that it could buy them votes. The Prime Minister's fond of quoting the former Chief of Army's statement that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the standard that he accepts is not only to walk past any scandal in his government but also to ensure that no-one is ever held accountable for it, least of all him. There's an old saying that the fish rots from the head, and this Liberal government is now rotting from the Prime Minister down. That's why former Liberal Party luminaries and leaders—people who do have standards and are loyal to the standards of Menzies—are appalled at what they see our Commonwealth government becoming under this Prime Minister. Just two weeks ago Dr John Hewson wrote:

Morrison simply doesn't understand leadership. It involves strategic thinking, being proactive, and acceptance of responsibility with integrity and accountability.

On Dr Hewson's test of leadership, the Prime Minister fails most disastrously.

When Australia was burning and Australians were dying, this Prime Minister fled the country for a holiday in Hawaii. When he was shamed into returning to Australia, he shrugged it off with a sentence that will forever define his prime ministership, and you all know it: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' No words better define this Prime Minister's character and his attitude to personal responsibility than these six words: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.'

When the COVID-19 crisis hit the country, we once again saw this Prime Minister avoid responsibility at every opportunity. The federal government had two key responsibilities in responding to this global pandemic: national quarantine and a vaccine rollout. This Prime Minister's desperate avoidance of responsibility for both has meant our nation is still relying on tourist hotels to provide the medical quarantine that only dedicated quarantine facilities can safely and reliably provide, and we are 35th out of 38 OECD nations in our vaccine rollout. Is it any surprise that half the nation is back in lockdown? And yet this Prime Minister still doesn't have even the sense of personal responsibility, the basic integrity or the willingness to be accountable for his actions to say sorry to the Australian people.

Responsibility, integrity, accountability: these are the basic requirements of character a nation's leader must have for the nation and its people to prosper, and that's why this Prime Minister is so terrified of a national anticorruption commission. As scandal after scandal unfolds, he never takes responsibility and never holds anyone accountable. Scandal after scandal demonstrate what a government without integrity will do, hoping that the public will just accept that corruption is synonymous with the federal government rather than its mortal enemy.

Former Victorian supreme court judge David Harper QC said of the most recent scandal, the car parks rort:

On any appropriate definition of corruption, this is an instance of it; and it should be called out as such.

Eminent law professor Professor Anne Twomey, who's opinions are often relied upon by this government, has pointed out that section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act requires ministers to make sure spending is 'efficient, effective, economical and ethical'. Professor Twomey says of the car parks rort:

It is screamingly obvious, when you look at the Auditor-General's report, that the grants did not fall within the category …

…   …   …

Ministers were under an obligation to make sufficient inquiries to be able to satisfy themselves of those things and clearly have failed to do so. So there is certainly breaches of the law.

There are so many other rorts and examples of maladministration that are as bad or even more egregious than the Prime Minister's pork-and-ride scheme that I can only mention them now. We've had the sports rorts affair, we've had the Western Sydney Airport land rip-off; we've had the brutal, unlawful and shockingly expensive robodebt fiasco; we've had senior ministers repeatedly breaching the standards of ministerial conduct, knowing that the Prime Minister will not enforce standards of integrity he himself shows contempt for on a daily basis; and we've had the handing out of untold numbers of highly paid taxpayer funded jobs to former Liberal Party members, failed Liberal Party candidates and former Liberal Party staffers.

The ongoing work of parliamentary committees, investigative journalists, whistleblowers, the independent Auditor-General and ordinary citizens has exposed these rorts and corruption scandals. But in the absence of a dedicated national anticorruption commission, we've only been able to scratch the surface of the scandals that have so far come to light, because, using all of the resources of government, from concocted claims of cabinet confidentiality to secret inquiries by political mates that are never concluded, the Prime Minister has done everything he can to stymie any rigorous and independent investigation of these matters and done his best to cover up each and every scandal.

Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. Australians know that these bodies, while not perfect, have proved their worth time and time again. Most notably in the Prime Minister's home state of New South Wales, the ICAC has demonstrated its importance in fighting corruption in government in every party and by any politician. Every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united against the Morrison government in demanding a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission—an anticorruption commission with teeth. The only politicians preventing a national anticorruption commission from being established are the Prime Minister and the members of his government, and they are doing this because they know what it will uncover and reveal to the Australian people about what this government has secretly been up to these past years.

I am not saying that Labor governments in Australia have been without blemish, but, unlike the Morrison government, we in Labor recognise that corruption in the federal government is a serious problem and that bold and urgent action must now be taken to combat it. After eight long years in office, the Liberals have failed to take any action to tackle corruption, leaving the Commonwealth the only Australian government without a body dedicated to tackling corruption by politicians and government officials.

An Albanese Labor government will put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction by establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. I say again: this Prime Minister's conduct has demonstrated the opposite of qualities of character and leadership a Prime Minister must have, the opposite of acceptance of responsibility, the opposite of integrity and the opposite of accountability. These rorts and scandals that have come to light—and who knows what other disgraces we don't yet know about—are why the government has failed to deliver the national anticorruption commission it promised way back in December 2018. We're coming up for a thousand days, on 8 September, from when Mr Morrison and his former Attorney-General promised to deliver that national anticorruption commission, and we haven't seen it yet. These rorts and scandals that we do know about tell us why the Morrison government is so terrified of a national anticorruption commission.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to follow the member for Isaacs and that quite remarkable collection of non sequiturs and understatements. I call the attention of the House to quite an extraordinary understatement: 'I am not saying that Labor governments in Australia have been without blemish.' Well may he say that. That is a very delicate understatement indeed.

The first proposition I want to put before the House this afternoon is that our government has a thorough and comprehensive process in place to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. It will be the lead body in a successful multiagency anticorruption framework. It will enhance accountability across the public sector. We've had a nationwide consultation process on legislation to establish this commission, with 333 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and round tables. We're now carefully and methodically considering that feedback.

We've set aside funding for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission of $106.7 million in the 2019-20 budget in addition to $40.7 million of funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which will also transfer across to the new commission. There'll be 172 staff. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will receive referrals from all of the existing integrity agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman, and will be able to investigate a matter on its own motion where it discovers suspected criminal conduct in the course of an existing investigation. The law enforcement division will be able to take direct referrals from the public. We have a well-established, well-developed scheme. We are working through a thorough and methodical process to implement and legislate it, and the Attorney-General is leading that work. It is, frankly, disappointing that the shadow Attorney-General failed to make reference to what he well knows to be our comprehensive and well-developed policy in this area.

That brings me to my second proposition, which is that you'd be extremely naive to take the opposition at face value in their high-minded claims in relation to fighting corruption, because this is the same party which is promising to abolish the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, two organisations which are on the front line in dealing with dishonest conduct. Why are they doing that? Because, as usual, they are dancing to the tune of their union masters.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission has been successful in 78 out of 87 cases decided since December 2016, and more than $26 million in penalties have been awarded. But Labor is root-and-branch opposed to it. Why? Because the CFMMEU is root-and-branch opposed to it—and what a shining beacon of integrity that organisation is! Labor are jumping to its tune and then claiming straight-facedly that they've got a disinterested commitment to reducing corruption in the public sector. They've made a series of inaccurate statements about the carefully designed and developed model that we're advancing through a thorough legislative process. Our Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have jurisdiction across a wide range of persons and entities. It will be able to exercise own motion powers in relation to law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to conduct public hearings into law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to look into conduct that occurred prior to its establishment, if the offence existed at the time the conduct occurred. So do not believe the misstatements and inaccuracies perpetuated by the other side of the House in relation to our well-developed plans for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission.

One would be particularly naive to take at face value these claims from the opposition, because of the rich irony in the Labor Party seeking to present itself in some way as a champion of purity and probity in public administration. They jump up and down, for example, in relation to particular programs that the government has on foot to deliver commuter car parks—of course, a policy objective identical to the policy objective that was the purpose of the Park and Ride Fund taken by the Labor Party to the last election. Yet, for some reason which has still not been adequately explained by those opposite, if a commuter car park is committed to by the Labor Party, it's good; if a commuter car park is committed to by the Liberal and National parties, it's bad. There is no explanation at all.

We hear them quoting at length from Auditor-General's report's, and yet it is clear that, for example, the member for Ballarat has been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Auditor-General. In Auditor-General report No. 9 of 2014-15, Performance audit: the design and conduct of the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund, what did the Auditor-General say:

It is a clear instance of the member, at the time discharging her ministerial responsibilities, systematically overriding the recommendations of an independent panel to prefer funding of projects located in ALP electorates. And they stand up and protest about probity in public administration!

It doesn't stop with the member for Ballarat, I say to the House. Let's look at another performance audit by the Australian National Audit Office, Auditor-General report No. 3 of 2010-11, Performance audit: the establishment, implementation and administration of the strategic projects component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Who was the responsible minister at the time? It was the member for Grayndler, now the Leader of the Opposition. And what did the Australian National Audit Office say:

The awarding of funding to projects also disproportionately favoured ALP held seats …

This is very interesting:

… the Minister's Office provided the department with a list of 137 projects with an aggregate program cost of $549.72 million. … Two additional worksheets had been created after the spreadsheet had been completed by the department … :

  …   …   …

That's the kind of conduct that the member for Grayndler was engaging in and overseeing when he had ministerial responsibility.

We heard the shadow Attorney-General huffing and puffing and grandly quoting statements like 'the standard you walk by is the standard you accept'. I invite the Labor Party to engage in just a moment of self-examination, because what we will see is a very sharp contrast between this purported claim to be disinterested champions of public administration and the actual record. This is from the party of Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi and Craig Thomson. Here they are claiming to be disinterested champions of public administration.

The Labor shadow minister with purported responsibility for government accountability is the former Labor Premier of New South Wales, who presided over the last rotting days of the Obeid-Tripodi-Macdonald era. When she was Premier of New South Wales, Senator Keneally's first action was to return Ian Macdonald, Eddie Obeid and mate No. 1 Joe Tripodi to the ministry; subsequently, of course, he has been charged and convicted. The kind of conduct that we have seen exposed is quite extraordinary, and we have these claims from the Labor Party that they are disinterested champions of public administration.

In particular, we had in comments by the shadow Attorney-General criticisms of the Prime Minister's administration of the vaccine rollout. You could not find a more extraordinary non-sequitur being presented as an argument for an anticorruption commission. We see that the shadow Attorney-General is really seeking to bundle up every politicised complaint or attack on this government and link it to Labor's purported disinterested claim to advance good public administration. The facts are: we have a thorough, well-developed, well-researched plan for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission; we are prosecuting it methodically; and we will bring legislation forward.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the minister doth protest too much! There's a bit of sensitivity over this and over the rorts we have seen on his watch particularly as minister but on the Morrison government's watch overall.

It's been almost a thousand days since the Morrison government promised the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Look at some of the legislation they've managed to pass in this place, in my own portfolio, and rushed into the House, like legislation on superyachts. Yet a thousand days, and they cannot legislate a national integrity commission. It's a thousand days of delays, excuses and scandal.

If you've ever wondered why the Prime Minister in particular has been so reluctant to institute a real anticorruption commission, you just have to look at the last few weeks alone to see a clue. Maybe it's because of car park rorts, where the Prime Minister and the minister for urban infrastructure—admittedly not the one we just heard speak, although he's had his own scandals—allocated $660 million of funding according to a list of top 20 marginal seats. Or maybe it's to do with the purchase of the Leppington Triangle, where the Morrison government spent $30 million on land later valued by its department at $3 million—something the minister who was at the table speaking previously thought was a very sensible idea. Maybe it's to do with sports rorts, safer communities rorts or regional rorts—we haven't heard a lot about that one; it is the regional jobs and investment program and the Audit Office's current investigation of the Building Better Regions Fund. Of course there's robodebt. We've had the minister when he was Minister for Home Affairs and au pairs. We've had the energy minister's use of forged documents. We've had the then Minister for Industrial Relations refusing to cooperate with an AFP investigation into how her office made an unlawful tip-off to a police raid.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now she's the first law officer, as members behind me have pointed out. There is a stink in this place, and it comes from the ever-growing list of Morrison government scandals. There is a way of getting rid of this, of cleaning up this mess. The first and most important step is to vote this mob out. The second step is to institute, under a Labor government, a proper anticorruption commission. This government will never do it themselves. We know that, because they're worried about what might be uncovered. They are so terrified of being held to account for those and other scandals that they refuse to even allow the need for a national anticorruption commission to be properly debated in this House. They're so scared of scrutiny over car park rorts and others that they are trying to hide relevant documents for about 20 years, claiming public interest immunity.

They're like a vampire: happy to drink down on taxpayer funds but terrified of a bit of sunlight. There is nothing that scares this government more than transparency. They know it would be the end of many of their ministers on the front bench. They're increasingly out of step with the wider community but also with the parliament. As the member for Isaacs pointed out, every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united in demanding a powerful independent national anticorruption commission. Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. It was weird hearing the minister talk about scandals in New South Wales which were only uncovered because there was a corruption commission in New South Wales. That's why we know about those and why those people were held to account, as they should have been.

What is this government so afraid of? We know that the proposal they have put forward is not adequate. Everybody in the country who knows anything about the establishment of corruption commissions is telling them that. This is not the model to pursue. Yet this is the model this government is continuing to debate and talk about and somehow try and pretend it has got something when, in fact, it's actually doing nothing. At best, the government can offer some sort of political fix.

We know that only a Labor government would be committed to establishing an anticorruption commission. We know the only way we can get that is to vote this mob out, to ensure that we have an Albanese government. Only then can Australians have the government they deserve, a government they can actually trust.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really welcome the opportunity to talk about this important issue of the establishment of an integrity commission, anticorruption commission, for the Commonwealth. I do so because members on this side of the chamber were elected on a platform to deliver one in this term of parliament, and unless I'm mistaken we're still in this term of parliament. Critically, what we're seeking to do is develop an anticorruption commission that actually has integrity. This is an important point. One of the reasons we need to make sure we consider it very carefully and make sure the legislation is right is the sponsor of this motion: the member for Isaacs.

The member for Isaacs has many, shall we say, tricks. These tricks can involve making baseless allegations in this parliament in the hope of attracting a headline. They can include tricks like getting out his pad of allegations and making referrals of members in this place to the Australian Federal Police with virtually no evidence whatsoever. In fact, I've previously described the member for Isaacs as addicted to an AFP referral pad like a dodgy doctor is to the issuing of medications to drug addicts. The reality is, the member for Isaacs has consistently sought to abuse referrals to the Australian Federal Police for political gain, wasted the time of the Australian Federal Police, wasted public resources, for naked and pathetic political gain. It's not really surprising, because he is on the last hurrah of his time in this parliament. I understand he has already been advised about the fact that he will be dumped from the shadow ministry in the next term of parliament should he be re-elected because he no longer carries the support of the Victorian right. So I do understand trying to draw attention to his performance matters now because he is applying for his job, even though he has been denied in the next parliament. But let's leave aside the member for Isaacs' failed future to him.

Let's talk about what we want to do with an anticorruption body and an integrity commission. What we want to do is get referrals from proper agencies who have competency and capacity to judge what is in the best interests of Australians and what matters should progress through to being considered by such anticorruption agencies, not simply the political whims of the failed member for Isaacs. That is what we are doing. We have put out a consultation paper that is looking at exactly how we develop an anticorruption framework that will enhance accountability across the public sector.

This consultation process on legislation to establish a commission has recently been completed, with 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring during the consultation period. That is the difference between drawing up a post-it note policy like the opposition and a comprehensive consultative legislative reform under a competent Commonwealth Morrison government.

I do realise that this pains members of the opposition because, with respect to the minister who gave the first speech in this debate in response to the MPI, he forgot someone. I notice the member for Ballarat also forgot someone in her rebuke of the minister. Of course, it was the corrupt former Senator Sam Dastyari, caught taking brown paper bags, having debts wiped out by Chinese national interests against the interests of our nation. So that didn't go through an anticorruption commission but, yes, there definitely has been a Labor senator who has been caught red-handed betraying his nation while serving in this parliament. And I notice the silence—

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein is sailing very close to the wind now in terms of the standing orders. I would counsel him not to continue down that track of, in particular, reflecting on a former senator in the way in which he has and in the characterisation he made.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is noted. I note the silence of the members of the opposition.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We should all be so lucky to find someone who looks at us the way the member for Goldstein regards himself! That would be a wonderful thing—I think an impossibility. What we have seen are two quite extraordinary contributions from the government speakers, both very pleased with their sense of their own debating skills but both making clear the case that this side of politics and, indeed, as the member for Ballarat has made clear, that every member of this place and the other place outside the government knows is unarguable—that Australia needs a real national anticorruption commission and we need it now. We need it now.

In the Prime Minister, we see a national leader who has been slow to act and quick to blame at every turn, a person who has been incapable of distinguishing public funds and public responsibility from the electoral prospects of Liberal and National parties, someone who is incapable of taking responsibility and incapable of accepting accountability. He is utterly shameless and so is the government that he leads. They are contemptuous of democratic institutions and that is demonstrated with their disingenuousness over this issue.

We are nearly at the thousand-day mark since the promise was made for a national integrity commission and we are no closer to seeing action—action on their inadequate terms or action at all. This contempt for our democratic institutions, this contempt for accountability in this place, is really contempt for Australians. This is a government that should be serving the Australian people but it stands and stares down at them. It refuses its responsibilities, even through this time where it has never been more important for the Australian people to have a government on their side and a government they can rely on.

I think that the shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Ballarat, and the shadow Attorney-General, have gone through the litany of sorrow. Time here does not permit it, but the scandals speak for themselves: change room rorts, robodebt—perhaps the greatest scandal of all, actually—regional rorts, sports rorts and car park rorts most recently. I think the worst thing about the car park rorts scandal is that the government saw sports rorts, where they were caught red-handed, and they made a decision about it. The decision seems to have been this: they got caught out under Senator McKenzie because there was a process. So, somehow, when it came to allocating $660 million of taxpayer funds, turning that $660 million into an LNP slush fund, the decision was made to remove any criteria for project assessment—any criteria, none at all!—and to deny any process for application.

Of course, what we don't know is who came up with this. I'm very interested that the minister for urban infrastructure doesn't seem interested in sharing his views with the Australian people in this place or in the media. I'm very interested that the minister then responsible, the member for Aston, says that he never saw the critical document that was the basis for all this. He never saw it! He was the minister at the time and yet a public interest immunity claim has been advanced in support of it. This is astonishing! The minister is admitting to not reading his own briefs. Well, perhaps that is credible but the defence is not—in particular, the defence of the Prime Minister. We see it in his anger, we see it in how he hides and we see it even in the small things, like him cutting the questions on car park rorts from his Facebook page. And he probably should have done that, because his answers were risible.

I said before that he leads a government that is shameless. That's the characterisation of Katherine Murphy of the Guardian. I think it's a really important one because it cuts to the bone: they are shameless in every respect. We see that every day when he stands at a dispatch box that he is unworthy to stand before. But we see it profoundly in his refusal, and the refusal of every member opposite, to accept their responsibility. It is such a privilege to serve in this place and in the other place. It's hard to imagine a greater privilege than to serve in government, and yet these people are demonstrating themselves, with every action—and, in particular, through this inaction—that they aren't up to it. They aren't up to it when it comes to competence. Australians have seen that through the failure in the rollout and national quarantine. But, more profoundly, they fail on character—no-one more so than the person who should be leading Australia. That's why we need a national anticorruption commission now.

Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Kingsford Smith. The member for Kingsford Smith may be on mute, because we can't hear him at the moment. I am wondering whether the member for Paterson might speak now whilst the member for Kingsford Smith's technical issues are being sorted out.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today's MPI is the government's failure to establish a national anticorruption commission. This is generous, as I feel as though the topic could have been truncated at failure. But I fear a thousand MPI speeches wouldn't be enough to cover that broad topic nor shield this government from the fact that on 8 September it will be 1,000 days since the Morrison government promised an integrity commission. That's 1,000 days—about as long as a week feels in lockdown—and it's 1,000 days of thumbing their noses at the Australian people.

This Prime Minister accepts the low standards his ministers have set and is doing nothing about corruption in his own government, despite growing public outrage at the scandal. This Prime Minister, despite promising legislation before the end of 2019, has continued to demonstrate his lack of commitment to integrity. The government's proposed model is weak at best. Although they say they're having consultations and taking written submissions—seriously, how long does it take? As with many other important issues, the Prime Minister ducks, dives and says, 'It's not my responsibility.' I stand in this place today with the support of my community, who so desperately want to see an integrity commission put in place. They want to say to the Prime Minister, through you, Deputy Speaker, that this is his responsibility.

The buck stops with him, but sadly in some cases it seems to start with him, too—the rorts and the rots, it seems, as well. We've had the car park rorts; the sports rorts affair; the Western Sydney airport land rip-off, otherwise known as the Leppington Triangle; the horrendous robodebt; the now first law officer of the land, when she was Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, refusing to cooperate with an Australian Federal Police investigation into an unlawful tip-off of a police raid from within her office; the appointment of dozens of former Liberal Party members, staffers and failed candidates to highly paid government jobs without proper process; forged documents 'Taylor-ed' to do over Clover; the then home affairs minister and the au pairs—look, the list really does go on. The Morrison government is so terrified of being held to account for these and other scandals that it refuses to even allow the need for an anticorruption commission to be debated in this very House.

Why not bring on a debate? Why not flesh out the good, the bad and the ugly ideas? It truly beggars belief. Every single Australian knows why it's being stalled. Every single non-government member and senator in this parliament is united in the call for demanding a powerful, independent national anticorruption commission—everyone here except the government. All of our states and territories have dedicated anticorruption commissions. When all the members of the public see from their government is a lack of transparency and continued delays on a national integrity commission, how can they be expected to have faith in the life-changing decisions that are currently being made by their federal and state governments?

The federal and state governments say every day: 'Stay at home. Get vaccinated. Don't go to work. If you're sick, get tested. Do the right thing.' Australians, by and large, are doing the right thing every day, and they want a government that does the right thing. They want a government that's happy to face the test that they are doing the right thing. My office constantly hears from locals asking with integrity about and seeking the right advice on whether they can go to work and what they should be doing. That's what integrity is. This Prime Minister has to do the right thing and govern with integrity. In Australia we've got this long-held tradition of mateship, from our diggers to our Indigenous brothers and sisters and the migrants who have made it so unique. Yet I hear the member for Dawson whining about his individual freedom. I say to you: COVID is a war. Why are you supporting the enemy? Why is this government not getting on with governing with integrity and honesty for the Australian people at this time?

Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to rise today to make my contribution regarding this debate about the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission. I'll start with a brief story from some time ago—in fact, it was a little over 20 years ago—when I was stationed here in Canberra. I'd just left school. I was here at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Over the first couple of years, we were instructed on a great many things, some of which was how to clean things incessantly and bring your room up to standard for inspection. But we were also taught a great deal about leadership, lessons that others who have gone before us have forged, often through incredibly difficult combat situations.

There were a few principles of leadership that we were taught, and we were also taught about the qualities of leadership. Some of those include good, sound, rational decision-making, which is, of course, incredibly important, particularly if you're in a position where you are a leader of Australian men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We were taught about other qualities of leadership, such as courage, and that included physical courage but also moral courage to really stand up for the things that you know to be right.

Unfailingly, one of the other qualities of leadership that was always referred to was integrity, sometimes also referred to as honesty. It was certainly drilled into us quite endlessly. But, for quite some time, it just seemed to blend in with the other qualities until we got to a point in second year, when we were out in the field training range at Majura here, up in the hills of Canberra, on a very, very cold winter's night in the freezing cold air—in fact, it got to minus 12 that night, and I remember because I'd forgotten my wimp mat, so it was incredibly freezing!—and a major came up to us. We were still wide-eyed cadets, so a major was pretty intimidating. He gathered us up and said: 'Righto, guys. Let's have a chat.' This gentleman was what was referred to as the leadership instructor. He said to us, 'Guys, when you hear the word 'integrity', what does it mean?' We faffed around for a while and tried a few different answers, and it was all very clearly unconvincing to this major, who was standing there having a chat with us. He said: 'Guys, it's really, really simple. There are just three things: don't lie, cheat or steal.' That really stuck with me, because it gave me a much easier code to follow than just a single term. I raise that today because it's exactly the sort of thing that, rightly, all Australians expect of their political leaders, and all of us in this House, and in the Senate as well, are absolutely charged with that responsibility to be men and women of integrity as we lead our nation.

The second brief story I'll use is that of what my wife referred to when our children were growing up. When they were very small, if my wife thought they might have told a fib, she would say, 'Stick out your tongue.' I don't know if anyone else in the chamber has come across this before. She would say, 'Stick out your tongue.' They'd stick out their tongue. And she would say, 'Because, if you've told a lie, there will be a little black mark on your tongue, and I will know that you've told a fib.' I hadn't heard that one growing up, but it turns out it's quite effective. If they start blabbering and they don't want to stick their tongue out, it turns out they're probably telling a fib.

So there are different ways in which we can conduct ourselves and different rules and social codes that we try to implement. In this case, I absolutely support the government's firm commitment to do what we said we would do and establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. In fact, Australia's democratic system of representative government, professional and independent judiciary, free media and active civil society all play really important roles in protecting against corruption by enabling and encouraging scrutiny of the public and the private sectors.

This government have committed quite some sizeable funds already—in fact, $106 million of new money in the most recent budget—to establish this commission. We have undertaken a nationwide consultation—because, frankly, we need to get this right—and that included 333 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and round tables. This commission will further enhance some of the robust processes which are already in place. We have acknowledged across both sides of this chamber today the need for this commission, and we will see it come to light in quick order.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] A fundamental principle of democracy is that our elected representatives are accountable to the people who elect them. There have been a large number of decisions involving the expenditure of public money by the Morrison government which have not been based on merit, based on independent assessments or in the interests of the Australian people but have been for purposes which suit the personal and political interests of government members of parliament. These decisions would certainly meet the average Australian's definition of alleged corruption and, in any other place, would be investigated by one of the state independent commissions. Yet, at a federal level, these types of decisions go uninvestigated. They are not investigated by an ICAC because this government refuses to establish one, and, in that respect, it is breaching that fundamental tenet of democracy—accountability to the people for the decisions that are being made.

The Australian people are asking why. Why are the government refusing to deliver their commitment on a federal ICAC? One could only guess that it is because those opposite know that they've been involved in decisions which amount to rorting of taxpayer dollars that they know would amount to alleged corruption under the state regimes, and they know that they potentially could lose their jobs if they were found to be corrupt. They are putting their personal interests ahead of proper accountability to and transparency for the Australian people, and that is unacceptable. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve accountability. They deserve a federal ICAC with proper powers.

What is this government hiding? That's what many Australians are asking. The list is a litany of abuse of taxpayers' funds. First, we've got the car park rorts—$600 million worth of funds that the ANAO said the Morrison government awarded to marginal coalition-held seats, based on a list of the top 20 marginals. Seventy-seven per cent of that funding went to coalition held seats. In one case, funding has gone to a car park next to a train station that's not even going to be a train station anymore. Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very, very proud of a decision like that!

Then we've got sports rorts. Of the $45 million under this fund, 80 per cent went to marginal coalition-held electorates, or seats that were targeted by the Liberal and National parties at the last election. A list was compiled by the sports minister's office that was signed off on by the Prime Minister's office that went completely against the independent assessments that had been made by the Australian Sports Commission.

Then we've got, of course, Western Sydney Airport, where you've got a plot of land that the government paid 10 times the amount it was worth—not exactly value for the taxpayer—to a person who was a donor to the Liberal Party.

We've even got individual circumstances of ministers being involved in inappropriate conduct. The minister for energy and his company that he part-owned with his brother illegally poisoned endangered grasslands, according to the environment department. The minister sought meetings with those department representatives, and the now Treasurer sought advice about whether the laws could be changed so that the minister and his brother would avoid prosecution for their actions.

There is a litany of examples, from this Morrison government, of abuse of taxpayer dollars, of abuse of the privilege of office and of decision-making to benefit individual members and their political interests, and it is using underhanded tactics to avoid scrutiny and to avoid accountability. The Australian people deserve better than that. In a democracy, the people deserve accountability and transparency. They're not getting that from this Morrison government. Only the Labor Party has a fair dinkum proposal for a federal ICAC that has teeth and can get to the bottom of alleged rorting.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the past 18 months, amidst a global pandemic, we have seen political leaders and public health officials across the country asking the public to do all kinds of things to obey COVID-19 rules and restrictions in order to keep our community safe. The Australian community has, largely, responded positively by listening to, respecting and complying with these requests.

The pandemic has many lessons for us on why governments at state and federal levels must effectively communicate with communities, and highlights why integrity matters in politics and in public life. It is a matter of trust and confidence. It is so important that the community has trust in elected officials and public servants. In the case of disaster or emergency, it can be the difference between life and death. We, as elected representatives, cannot take this trust for granted, and nor should we ever be above reproach. Generally, I believe there has been a good level of trust shown in governments through this global pandemic; however, we must continue to be accountable and transparent as elected representatives, as there is evidence across the world that there has been a decline in trust in public officials over time.

I've previously said on the record in this place that I believe establishing a robust federal integrity commission is essential to arresting that decline in public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in our democratic system. At that time, draft legislation had been released for consultation and, as we've heard, there has been a significant amount of feedback received, with more than 330 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring throughout this consultation period. It is essential for the functioning of Australia's government that we are methodical, consultative and thorough in our approach to developing this legislation, and the government is considering the feedback received through that consultation process to refine the draft legislation before it is introduced to parliament.

I have been researching and consulting very widely on this matter, including with the Centre for Public Integrity, as part of my own commitment to ensuring that we, as a government, get this right. I've also had ongoing discussions with the member for Indi, and I thank her for her ongoing commitment to the establishment of an integrity commission. After all, once established, this will be an agency that will be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials. As such, we must have a powerful integrity commission that promotes and educates about principles of integrity and good governance, and that incorporates procedural fairness. I recently met with the new Attorney-General, where I expressed this very view, and also stressed that the establishment of such a commission is needed as a matter of importance. I thank Minister Cash for her positive engagement with me on this matter.

It is my hope that the government and the member for Indi, who has done commendable work in this space, can continue to work together and find the common ground so that the final legislation put before the members of this House is one that will assist in restoring declining public confidence. This is significant legislation that we must get right, and I believe that the establishment of a solid integrity commission is one that requires a bipartisan approach. Anything less is, in my view, counterintuitive to enhancing trust and confidence. Indeed, it is very unfortunate to see and hear the politically charged exchanges in this place today on this issue, because, in my view, that will be the greatest impediment to actually advancing this important issue. I sincerely hope there is a willingness by all sides to put the politics aside and work together on this in the interest of all Australians. I'd like to point out that, as a country, Australia has a solid anticorruption reputation and is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, including in the most recent Corruption Perceptions Index, where we're ranked equal eleventh with Canada, the UK and Austria.

While anticorruption should of course be a focus of any final legislation, there should also be a focus on actively promoting integrity. Our government has committed to delivering on its promise of an integrity commission, and to doing the work to get it right. I personally feel very strongly that we need to deliver on this commitment, and I'll be working very closely with the government to ensure that this happens, and happens as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. This debate has concluded.