Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Indi from moving the following motion immediately—

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 8 September 2021 it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister made an election promise to establish a federal integrity commission;

(b) the Prime Minister has failed to introduce a bill to Parliament to do so; and,

(c) Parliament will rise in two days' time for a six-week break, during which the Prime Minister could call an election at any moment.

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) abandon its Commonwealth Integrity Commission proposal, which retired judges and academic experts have described as ineffective and unamendable;

(b) establish a strong, well-funded, wide-ranging, and independent integrity commission through the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill that I introduced to this House almost a year ago;

(c) admit it has deliberately stalled progress on a reform that over 80 per cent of Australians across the political spectrum have called for as a matter of urgency;

(d) admit is has failed to meet a key election commitment to the Australian people; and,

(e) acknowledge that their inaction has compounded falling trust in government at a time where trust in government is crucial to our safety and prosperity.

Next week it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised the Australian people an integrity commission. Australians are still waiting. It's blindingly obvious the Prime Minister will not deliver one. Right now, Australians are putting their faith in government in ways we've never seen before. From lockdown orders to the vaccine rollout, Australians are living up to their side of the bargain, and, in exchange, when it comes to integrity this government is taking them for fools. The Prime Minister knows his Commonwealth Integrity Commission is a dud. He's been pretending to consult on it for over three years. Of the 333 submissions in the latest round, almost a year ago, only two had anything positive to say and none supported it as a whole. It's dead in the water. It would never pass the Senate. From former High Court Justice Mary Baldwin to Tony Fitzgerald, it's been called 'toothless' and 'unamendable'. The government knows that, the opposition knows that, every Australian knows it.

Over eight in 10 Australians want a robust integrity commission. And, with respect to colleagues on both sides, a bill for an integrity commission would be ill-fated if it came from a major party. An important reform like this is best placed to come right through the middle, from the crossbench. That's why I introduced the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill over a decade ago. It's a consensus bill that has been regarded as the most robust model in the nation. It's learnt from the failures of state ICACs and it builds on over a decade of merry-go-round consultations and inquiries in this place. It's sensible, it's balanced and it's written in the public interest. It's sitting there right now, ready to be debated and voted on.

Questions of integrity have plagued this parliament. Australians do not want to head into another election without a robust federal integrity commission. There is no excuse for this anymore, Prime Minister. Introduce a robust bill or step aside and let the parliament vote on mine. With that in mind, I seek leave to table this document which lists the names of thousands of Australians calling on the Prime Minister to do the right thing or step out of the way.

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

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Is the motion seconded?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. The member for Indi has come before this chamber promoting a national integrity commission. Let me say this on behalf of the Australian Labor Party: we support a national anticorruption commission. We support a national anticorruption commission with teeth, a national anticorruption commission with independence and a national anticorruption commission that can deal with some of the travesties in the use of public funds that we've seen by those opposite over the last eight years—in particular, over this term of parliament.

When we have the abuse of taxpayers' funds that we've seen through the sports rorts program and through the abuse of the commuter car park program, where we have car parks for commuters where there are no train stations, we have—

An opposition member: In the Treasurer's electorate!

In the Treasurer's electorate, which received four separate grants. What we have from this government, when they decide where public funds are going to be used, is that they get out a colour-coded sheet based upon the marginality of electorates. Then, when the Senate has the temerity to ask for access to those documents, they say they're cabinet-in-confidence.

This is a government that has established structures to avoid transparency and public accountability. They have a cabinet committee with a membership of one, the Prime Minister, who then co-opts people onto any meeting which he has so that it becomes so-called cabinet-in-confidence. Remember that this is a Prime Minister who put his former chief of staff, and now head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in charge of inquiries, including into what his own office knew about a reported sexual assault just metres from his office. And then, of course, he says that they delayed that report for so long it can't be dealt with because the court case is already underway about that. All he had to do was ask his own staff what they knew—who knew what and when.

What we have from this government, when it comes to the use of public funds, is scandal after scandal. That's whether it be regional programs, whether it be sports rorts programs or whether it be the allocation of funds from the Urban Congestion Fund. It's a program of over $4 billion which is being allocated on the basis of political need, not on the basis of merit, which is why we do need a national integrity commission.

When the current Prime Minister knocked off Malcolm Turnbull—remember that; he wasn't ambitious for himself, he was ambitious for him! He wasn't ambitious to lead—well, that's the one thing he did get right, because we've seen no leadership from this Prime Minister. What we saw in terms of this government and their approach to these issues was that we do need a national integrity commission. In 2018—three years ago now—when he took office, the Prime Minister promised that we would have one. Three years later, he just hasn't got around to it. And it's no wonder, because of the stench that surrounds this government's commitments in the lead-up to the 2019 election. Quite frankly, they're on notice that the 21 separate slush funds that were allocated and set up in the budget this year will be the subject of integrity, having a good look at how those funds are allocated.

Taxpayers' funds are not the same as Liberal and National party funds. They shouldn't be using money from taxpayers for the interests of the Liberal and National parties. They even do, basically, polling with the same companies that do the polling for the Liberal and National parties. What we've seen from the member for Indi—and perhaps I don't agree with her exact model—is what we do need: a body of substance. What we do need is for this Prime Minister to be kept to his commitments. That's why we need some transparency and accountability.

Quite frankly, I sat in this chamber during the Howard government and, by and large, I disagreed with what ministers did, but there wasn't scandal after scandal in the way that this government operates. There weren't ministers being able just to keep going— (Time expired)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Regular surveys show that over 80 per cent of Australians support the establishment of a federal corruption watchdog. With the limited time left in this term of parliament we ought to be concentrating our efforts on things that need to be done now. I'm calling on the Prime Minister to make good on his 2018 promise to establish a federal integrity commission. All states and territories have an integrity commission, yet there is no proper body to investigate serious allegations of abuse of position or power at a federal level. The closest thing we have is the Australian National Audit Office. The Auditor-General is going above and beyond to investigate matters of misuse of funds, but the list keeps growing. Most recently the auditor revealed the car park rorts. There are now questions over donations made by Empire Energy and grants awarded to the company to explore for gas in the Beetaloo basin. Australians need to have confidence that this government is actually working and that their decisions are made properly and on merit. Despite the many scandals that have been revealed, there is little that can be done to investigate and prosecute those accused of wrongdoing because we don't have an integrity commission.

There are three things this government can do to clean up politics in this country, and that would be a great legacy for the Morrison government: to establish a federal integrity commission, to establish a code of conduct for all parliamentarians and to pass truth in political advertising legislation.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] We need a federal anti-corruption commission and we need it now. The Prime Minister promised about three years ago—a thousand days ago—that there was going to be one and there still isn't. Why? What has this government got to hide? Rort after rort, scandal after scandal from this government and it looks as if the government is just running a protection racket.

I was very pleased to introduce the first-ever anti-corruption bill into the House of Representatives. And I'm very pleased that other members, including the member who has moved this motion, the member for Indi, have brought forward their models as well. If the government wants legislation to pass for an anti-corruption commission, a bill has already passed the Senate. It's a bill that has widespread support across the political spectrum and independent experts backing it up because it works. That bill is now awaiting a vote in this House. The government could have an anti-corruption commission tomorrow but it is choosing not to. Instead, it's coming up with its own model that gives a free pass to politicians, that ensures that there won't be the kind of public hearings that the members of the public expect.

As we look around the country we see that anti-corruption commissions around the country have resulted in Liberal and Labor ministers, across the political spectrum, in many instances being taken to court and in some instances going to jail. They know that it restores a bit of integrity and a bit of trust in the political process. If anyone thinks that corruption stops at state borders, I've got a bridge to sell them. People know that an anti-corruption commission means that there's a hand on the shoulder of every minister who's making a decision about where to allocate money. And it reminds governments that it is not their own money, it is the public's money. We need it and we need it now. I commend the member for Indi for bringing this, and I urge the government to just support the Greens bill that has already passed the Senate.

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

The question is that the motion be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.