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

by leave—at the request of the member for Clark, I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the:

  (a) Government has failed to establish a strong independent federal integrity commission, and on 8 September 2021 it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised to pass legislation to create one; and

  (b) Government’s proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is half-baked, creating the weakest watchdog in the country with hearings for all politicians and public servants held behind closed doors, no transparency on findings and penalties for whistle-blowers; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

  (a) abandon its deeply unpopular Commonwealth Integrity Commission proposal which in its current form is beyond effective amendment and should be scrapped;

  (b) establish a strong, well-funded, wide-ranging and independent integrity commission through the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill put forward by the Member for Indi that can launch its own inquiries into criminal, corrupt and unethical behaviour by politicians and their staff, hold public hearings and make public findings; and

  (c) commit to passing such legislation as a matter of urgency.

It has now been well over 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised Australians a federal integrity commission. Parliament has just emerged from a six-week spring recess and we'd be mistaken in assuming that the corruption scandals which have plagued this government and the opposition would have taken a spring break too. But no; in a few short weeks we've seen fresh evidence emerge about the involvement of the member for Holt in the Victorian Labor branch-stacking scandal. The IBAC hearings revealed that the member deliberately misused taxpayer dollars to employ political staff to undertake factional work. Astonishingly, those staff didn't even turn up to the office. This is an insult to democracy and to the taxpayer.

We have also seen new evidence of pork-barrelling emerge across regional Australia through the $1.38 billion Building Better Regions Fund. Analysis shows that 72 per cent of the latest $300 million round went to Liberal and National Party electorates and that another 16 per cent went to marginal electorates. The analysis shows that this is disproportionate to the spread of government seats in regional Australia. The member for Mallee admitted that a colour-coded spreadsheet was circulated to government MPs, allowing them to push for projects that didn't make the first cut. That's simply unacceptable for the hardworking community groups and local councils who pored over applications. Without an integrity commission, regional Australians simply won't know how hijacked the BBRF is.

We've also seen fresh revelations about the former Attorney General's unacceptable blind trust arrangements. A sitting member of the House of Representatives who has acknowledged receipt of $1 million from anonymous donors refuses to admit that it creates a potential conflict of interest. It's no surprise, then, that the member who operates on such a loose definition of integrity and probity was the same member who drafted the government's completely inadequate Commonwealth Integrity Commission proposal, which would bury any allegations of corruption in political offices rather than air them in public. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which of the major parties are in government; these scandals still abound. The best way for Australia to achieve a robust federal integrity commission is to come through the middle, through a safe pair of Independent hands on the crossbench.

Earlier today I submitted paperwork to reintroduce my robust Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill to the House next Monday. Once it's introduced, I'll seek leave to move to suspend standing orders and bring on a debate and vote on my bill. If leave is granted, it would only need a simple majority. All eyes would then be on government backbenchers. In many of their electorates over 90 per cent of their constituents are calling for a robust federal integrity commission as soon as possible. Only two of them need to cross the floor to break the deadlock, and I know many of them are people of enormous integrity and want to see this happen. It's time for them to stand with me. If the Leader of the House does not grant leave for a suspension of standing orders it will be clear the government does not want its backbench to have their say on the floor of parliament.

Just last week the member for Curtin expressed her support for a sensible public hearing test and a commitment to make the findings of investigations public. I know the member for Curtin is well versed in the public hearings test in my bill, which is just that: sensible. I also welcome recent comments from the member for Wentworth, who I'll meet with this week, about the need for one set of rules for law enforcement and the public sector. That's a core tenet of my bill and one of the Beechworth principles upon which it's founded. As a former diplomat, I'll be pleased to discuss with the member for Wentworth how my bill would enhance Australia's position in the G20, APEC and United Nations working groups on anticorruption and transparency. I'll also be pleased to meet with member for Higgins, who I know has made her views very clear to the Attorney-General. Earlier today Senator Rex Patrick submitted paperwork to introduce my bill into the Senate this week. The whole Senate crossbench support my bill, which the Centre for Public Integrity has rated the best in the nation.

Before any MPs jump on this motion and start claiming that a robust integrity commission bill like mine would tarnish reputations or lead to reckless public hearings, I want them to admit whether they've actually even read the bill I introduced last year, because it's not the same as New South Wales ICAC, which the Prime Minister was so keen to condemn as a Star Chamber in the wake of the former premier's resignation. Where were the same criticisms about IBAC from the Prime Minister? Nowhere to be seen. The next election is set to be extraordinarily close. There's every chance that the crossbench could soon hold the balance of power in this place, and you can bet your bottom dollar that I am looking very closely at how honest both sides of politics are when they claim to talk about integrity.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Clark and acknowledge his longstanding interest in this matter, and I thank the member for Indi for her comments on his behalf.

Anyone who picks up the paper these days knows that public trust in governments and other institutions has eroded significantly over the last few decades. No-one really knows why that is, but we do know that trust in the integrity of our democracy is key to a democracy's success. The Economist's democracy index makes for an interesting read on this issue. It says that fewer than five per cent of the world's governments are fully functioning democracies. We are indeed fortunate that Australia is one of a handful of countries listed as a full democracy. It says much about how our country provides for basic clinical freedoms and that civil liberties are respected. The US was downgraded to a flawed democracy in 2016.

One of the most important aspects of our high democracy ranking is that we have a political culture conducive to the flourishing of a democracy. Integral to that is ensuring the integrity of those who make the decisions on our behalf, both the lawmakers and law enforcers of our nation. That is why I welcomed the Morrison government's commitment to the establishment of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission at the last election. It is a commitment that was made to the Australian people, and one that must be delivered on. This commission will help restore trust and integrity in our public sector, government and elected officials.

To this effect, the Morrison government has conducted a nationwide consultation process, drafting legislation for the implementation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The consultation has included civil society, academics and key experts across the government and non-government sector. We are determined to get this right. 333 written submissions were received and 47 consultation sessions have been held. The government is now considering this feedback and refining the draft legislation in order for it to be introduced into parliament, I understand, this year. It is anticipated that, following passage through the parliament, the commission will commence operation approximately six months later.

I want to see this commitment delivered in full this term and to have personally provided feedback on the draft bill to the Attorney-General. My constituents in Higgins have told me how important this [inaudible]. They also know how important this commitment is and understand the level of methodical and thorough consultation that is required to get this bill right. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission, I believe, should be able to initiate investigations. I also believe the definition of corruption and when referrals need to be made should be looked at more carefully so that there is clarity about when it is appropriate to initiate investigations.

I note that in the draft bill public officials and politicians are treated differently from law enforcement agencies. I want to see the gap between these entities either narrowed or eliminated. What I do not want to see is for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission to become a politicised body, a body that could be weaponised against elected officials for political gain. Safeguards are needed to prevent the Commonwealth Integrity Commission from becoming a political monster with unintended consequences. We most certainly need to get the balance right.

A crucial element of these reforms to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission is the ability for the commission to formally investigate past conduct and matters that occurred prior to its commencement. We have had an undertaking from the government that this will include over 145 criminal offences that currently exist in legislation, including bribing of an elected official, fraud, abuse of office and falsification of documents. The commission will have more power than a royal commission. This is in line with fundamental principles of our justice system.

It is worth mentioning that on this side of the House we know that in order to have an integrity commission that is powerful, independent and effective it must be properly funded. The government has already put in place the funding required for when the Commonwealth Integrity Commission legislation is passed. To this point, the Morrison government has already committed $106 million of new money to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission in last year's budget, in preparation for the CIC to be established.

It is so important that we get the balance right for Australians and for Australia, and for our democracy. It's so that we can have confidence that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will operate effectively. It is important to the ongoing integrity of Australia's democracy, and I welcome the debate that is currently taking place.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] The community has been calling for a strong and independent federal integrity body for years, and it's devastating that the one proposed by the federal government falls so short of what's so desperately needed. Indeed, I am so concerned by what's on the table that I would go so far as to say that the government's proposal will do nothing to promote integrity within government and, instead, foster corruption and facilitate its cover-up.

There is simply no denying that secrecy breeds corruption and that for any federal integrity agency to be effective it's vital that hearings are public, for all of the public sector. However, the government's proposal prevents public hearings into allegations of corruption involving most of the public sector—effectively creating a two-tiered system, one in which law enforcement officers are subject to public scrutiny but the majority, including politicians, are not. Surely there must be a common set of rules and procedures for all public officials, and this must include public hearings.

Moreover, the definition of corruption in the government's proposal is way too narrow. The integrity agency would be unable to investigate and pursue matters unless there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and this would mean that certain forms of corruption, such as undisclosed conflicts of interest, may quite simply go unchecked. Clearly, this is wrong. The scope of any integrity agency must extend beyond criminal offences to a range of corrupt and unethical behaviour, including donation-fuelled favouritism, cronyism and the rorting of parliamentary entitlement. The threshold in the government's proposal requiring a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed is way too high and would, effectively, paralyse the federal integrity agency as it would be restrained from investigating a matter which, on face value, may not meet the threshold. The proposed agency also fails to recognise that in most circumstances criminal conduct will only be revealed through a thorough investigation.

Furthermore, the government's integrity agency will also be prevented from launching its own investigations and, instead, can only act upon referrals from other agencies, including the Attorney-General, ministers, designated office holders and parliamentarians in certain circumstances. Public service whistleblowers and members of the public will be unable to make complaints regarding the public sector directly to the agency, which is obviously concerning, because corruption and wrongdoing are often facilitated by those in high-ranking positions.

All we have to do is look at the evidence to see the importance of direct referrals from the community: sports rorts, car parks, the Leppington triangle, the Jam Land scandal and the continual misuse of parliamentary entitlements, to name just a few. Moreover, history has shown us that high-ranking officials may disregard allegations brought to them, rather than pursue and investigate, a perfect example being the lack of effective action taken by high-ranking officials within the ADF in response to Major David McBride's internal reports about command failings and deliberate blindness to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. Alarmingly, the government's proposal would also prevent and deter whistleblowers from making disclosures about suspected wrongdoings within the public sector. Indeed, whistleblowers would even risk prosecution for making unwarranted allegations despite current whistleblower protections.

Australia already has unacceptably low protections for whistleblowers, and we should be working towards strengthening them, not eroding them. Any federal integrity agency must be able to act on its own accord and act on information provided by whistleblowers and members of the public. Preventing it from doing so will not instil public confidence in the system and will greatly restrict its ability to investigate wrongdoings. The Australian public's trust in politicians and the parliamentary process is obviously at an all-time low. It's up to all of us in this place to turn that around, starting with rebuilding a culture of integrity and creating the physical mechanism to restore the community's confidence in its political representatives. To that end, the government must either support the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020, introduced by the member for Indi, or the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), introduced by Senator Larissa Waters. Alternatively, the government must listen to the community and completely overhaul its dodgy integrity agency proposal. To do anything less would just go and make a dreadful situation even worse.

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

[by video link] Once again, I rise to speak on this issue for the third time in less than a year and my second time in less than three months. It's incredibly important to me personally that a bill be introduced as soon as possible, and I've sought assurances from the government that this legislation will come before parliament before the year is out. I thank Minister Cash for her continuing engagement with me on this critical bill. Again, I would like to thank both the member for Indi and the member for Clark for their considered work on this matter and for our ongoing constructive discussions on legislation that truly should and indeed must cross the political divide. I also certainly hope that the views I've expressed previously on this issue have made it clear that I want to see a robust integrity commission that will assist in restoring public confidence. The trust of our constituency is paramount. In the biggest health crisis that our country has faced, we have asked much of our communities across the country in order to keep everyone around us safe. Thankfully, with very few exceptions, those constituents have respected and complied with measures that we couldn't have imagined would be a reality less than two years ago. We cannot and must not take this trust for granted.

In recent years, the trust of our country in their elected officials has eroded. Although as a country we are ranked as one of the least-corrupt countries in the world, ranking equal 11th place with Canada, the UK and Austria, there are some worrying signs. A report from the Scanlon Foundation at the end of 2020 found that there was a temporary upswing in faith in the federal government last year due to handling of the pandemic. Transparency International Australia reported that Australians' faith in democracy has plummeted from 86 per cent in 2007 to 41 per cent in 2018. Alarmingly, 20 years ago, around 70 per cent of Australians felt that their vote made a difference, yet now only 58 per cent do. If this trend continues, by 2025 we would see fewer than 10 per cent of Australians trusting their politicians and political institutions. We shouldn't deem this satisfactory. It is clear that strong democratic reform is needed.

As I've also previously stated, 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. My fear is that the path to establishing a commission will become politicised. Let's be clear that, just like other issues of late, including discussions around women's safety, there is not one side of politics that has the moral high ground on this. The more political it becomes, the greater the risk of inertia, and we fall further away from creating what needs to be a robust institution that will be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials.

I sincerely hope that there is a willingness by all sides to truly put the politics aside and work together in the interests of all Australians. We must get this right. It is critical not only due to the scale of the reform needed but so that Australians can have confidence that the commission will operate effectively.

I fully support the government undertaking extensive consultation on the draft legislation, which included civil society academics and key experts across the government and non-government sectors. I too have consulted widely on this matter to ensure that we get this right. I understand that the feedback is still being considered in order to inform further refinement of the draft legislation. However, there are just four sitting weeks left for 2021. Once passed, the commission would commence operations approximately six months later. So we must end the year with upholding a promise made to the Australian people and present a draft bill that meets the expectations of those who put their trust in us. If this continues to be politicised we will end up in a dire situation where no model will be acceptable, and this is, frankly, unthinkable.

As with so many other issues that arise in parliament, I believe that there really is more that unites us than divides us. I urge everyone in our parliament to think about the role that they can and should play to ensure that the final legislation is what is best for reinforcing our democracy for years to come, instead of what may be best for individual, short-term political gain.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Clark and the member for Indi for bringing this motion to the parliament, but, I must say, I do ask myself what those on the government benches have to hide. The Prime Minister, a thousand days ago, said that he would bring a national integrity bill to the parliament. And we have had nothing—

An honourable member: There are only two jobs.

This is my third job. There are many more I can think of he should do right as well, including climate policy, but we won't go there.

Those opposite have deemed this unnecessary for reasons I don't understand. History teaches us, certainly coming from New South Wales, that politicians are human beings, and, like other human beings, they are prey to the frailties of the human race. We've seen this since the days of Paddy Crick, a New South Wales lands minister who accepted bribes for land parcels given to people of poor repute and other people in the community, and the days of Rex Jackson, a Labor member of parliament who ended up in jail for accepting bribes to get people out of jail quickly. I grew up in the Askin years in New South Wales, when Bob Askin let illegal casinos flourish by turning a blind eye for bribes. He was a bank teller, yet he left an estate of many millions of pounds when he died.

There's no doubt that we need a national integrity commission that has teeth and will work in a way that can restore confidence in the political process in Australia. We've had sports rorts, car park rorts, rorts of every kind, and the ex-New South Wales Premier thought pork-barrelling was fine; everyone could do it, and it was fine. After deliberately misleading the public in the last election, this government has done nothing to bring about transparency and stamp out the rorts that have been occurring. They blatantly refuse to be held to account. They blatantly refuse to bring forward a bill that would put in place an integrity commission with teeth. This place should have no tolerance for corruption, no tolerance for immoral actions and no tolerance for rorting.

There are many members of this chamber—on this side, on the cross bench and indeed in the government—who stand for integrity and transparency in government and want to have an integrity commission. If successful at the next election the Labor government will, as a priority, establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. It's time that we put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction and lack of transparency. We believe it is now long past time for a Commonwealth body to be established to tackle corruption in federal government and in federal politics. We need a national anticorruption commission that will operate with all the independence, powers and resources of a standing royal commission. It's no good having a body that has no teeth. It is no good having a body that doesn't have the independent power of investigation. We don't want the weak proposal that the government has put forward and failed to deliver. A successful commission will need to have a broad jurisdiction to investigate and hold to account Commonwealth ministers, senior public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, personal staff of politicians and other Commonwealth public officials.

We have seen so much money wasted on rorting and really questionable policies. After eight long years in office the Liberals have failed to take any action to tackle corruption, to tackle transparency in government policy. It has left the Commonwealth as the only Australian government without a body dedicated to tackling corruption by public officials. The Morrison Government's refusal to honour its election promise to establish an anticorruption commission is allowing government ministers to avoid being held to account and, indeed, allowing people of other political parties to be held to account. I quite agree with the member for Bass that this needs to be bipartisan and needs to have clear and full support across the parliament. If the government is going to be held to account for the scandals that they've produced, and if the opposition is to be held to account for what they do, we need an anticorruption commission with teeth and that will deliver policies that all Australians can see transparency and community justice from. It's time we put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction.

Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Indi and the member for Clark for putting this on the motion paper, and also recognise the work they have both done over many years during their time in parliament to advance this cause. I don't doubt their goodwill or the integrity with which they've pursued this, and their good intentions.

I've come slowly to accept the need to act in this space. I was a federal public servant for some 17 years before entering parliament. During my time in the federal Public Service I saw nothing but the highest standards of probity and good conduct; and where that was absent for any reason those matters were dealt with swiftly. So I can't say that I saw a pressing need upon entering the parliament to advance this agenda. But I have, over time, come to accept that there is a need to act—and as much as anything to restore or address at least the loss of public faith in our institutions and particularly in the federal parliament. What I have heard from constituents, but also the broader public, is reflected in polling and other data, which shows that distrust in our system of government is at a higher level than it has been in some time. That does worry me because I'm a believer in our system of government and our democracy; and if the people do not trust it to act in their best interests then ultimately it means that it's ripe for some sort of dramatic or revolutionary change, which I'd rather not see. I do accept that there is a need to act here and I accept that there is a need to establish a federal integrity commission or a Commonwealth integrity commission to reassure the public, or address concerns that the public might have, about the conduct and the behaviour of their federal elected representatives and the federal Public Service more broadly.

That said, though, I'm also cautious about the design because any time we introduce changes to our system of government you always have to be mindful of unintended consequences; changes in the balance of power, if you like, between competing institutions; and how it might change the very nature of government. And, not surprisingly, being from the conservative side of politics I tend to be an incrementalist when it comes to these things. I don't favour dramatic change. I tend to favour small and piecemeal change, and adjusting as needs be, to address concerns. With that caveat in mind, in my view it's important to make sure we have safeguards in any new integrity commission—a safeguard firstly to ensure protections for the accused, if you like, like we expect in all walks of life, that the rights of the innocent are protecte People are entitled to due process. People are entitled to see evidence presented against them and people are entitled to confront their accusers—the rule of law and due process that we expect elsewhere. We need to make sure that any new integrity commission has similar safeguards but be particularly mindful that we are playing with people's reputations. We need to recognise the damage that can be done with those things.

The other important safeguard or caveat I would put on there would be to make sure that decision-making in our democratic system of government resides where it's meant to reside—that is, that elected representatives, who are directly accountable to the public for decision-making at the ballot box, are able to continue to take those decisions. Provided they are done in good faith, in accordance with the law, then ultimately the voters should be deciding whether those decisions were the right ones and ones they will support rather than an elected body.

I'm also acutely aware that there is not one single model of integrity commission out there. Every state and territory jurisdiction that has one in Australia has quite a different model on offer, and they fall across the spectrum, from their ability to initiate prosecutions to the level of privacy or publicity afforded to hearings to protections for the accused. I do agree there's a number of elements to consider here in a Commonwealth integrity commission. We can draw wisdom from a number of the different state experiences and we also draw wisdom from the member for Indi's private member's bill that she has put forward on this and her own contribution to that.

Who is covered by this? I do accept all federal government members should be covered, including elected representatives, but I am of the view that I would prefer to see a single class of people rather than two different classes. I accept that law enforcement officials have unique powers under our constitutional and legal arrangements and they need to be held to a higher standard in the exercise of those powers because they are unique but it would be neater and more logical and coherent if we had a single coverage of all federal government and federal parliamentarians.

It's important that we recognise that corruption needs to be covered but I don't want to see a new commission of integrity second-guess the judgements of elected representatives. I want to make sure it's genuine corruption that is covered by this. I commend the member for Indi for moving the motion.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Clark and the member for Indi for moving this motion. But it is an absolute joke that more than a thousand days since the Prime Minister promised to pass legislation to create a strong and independent federal integrity commission, we are here yet again debating that very thing. The government have failed to act and now they are backtracking. Instead of creating a national anticorruption commission with teeth they are proposing the weakest watchdog in the country, with hearings for all politicians and public servants being held behind closed doors, no transparency on findings, and penalties for whistleblowers. It's no surprise, though, when the Deputy Prime Minister equated the New South Wales ICAC with the Spanish Inquisition and said politicians are basically terrified to do their job. I can confidently say that a fully funded and effective federal integrity watchdog doesn't scare me one bit. When I was the mayor of Bega Valley, council had and still has zero tolerance to fraud and corruption. There is a legislated code of conduct, and I was aware that complaints made against councillors or staff would be investigated thoroughly. If there was evidence of serious wrongdoing, it would be reported to the New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Ombudsman or the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. These investigative bodies don't scare people who do the right thing. Never while I was there was I worried that I would be investigated by ICAC. This government fear implementing a watchdog with teeth because they are frightened that they may be bitten by it.

Time and time again this government have abused taxpayers' money and now they are worried that a federal anti-corruption commission will mean they can no longer sweep things under the rug. Rather than moving on and hoping the Australian public would forget, they would actually need to be accountable, and we know accountability is something the Morrison government knows nothing about. Who was accountable for sports rorts? Who was accountable for commuter car park rorts, for water gate, for paying 10 times the value of airport land, for all of those colour-coded spreadsheets that treated taxpayers funds as the coalition's re-election slush fund. Sitting on the backbench we have the member for Pearce, who refuses to disclose who his donors are after having received up to a million dollars for a private legal matter. In fact, instead of investigating and holding his colleagues accountable, the Prime Minister simply promotes MPs with question marks over their heads. Just last month, the member for Hume was promoted, even though we still have no answers regarding the alleged forged documents in relation to Clover Moore and the City of Sydney.

I used to believe that our existing frameworks for accountability were sufficient. I don't think that anymore, and that's as a direct result of this Prime Minister's lack of leadership. The government has tarnished the conventions that underpin our democracy. The idea of parliamentary accountability is gone. Ministers are supposed to be accountable to the Australian people. Parliament is meant to ensure accountability. When there are huge questions about whether parliamentarians are operating with integrity, it is the Prime Minister's duty to investigate and appropriately deal with the situation, yet we have not seen that. The Australian public deserves to know that decisions over grant funding are made based on merit rather than the political interests of those in power, and the public needs to know that, when rorts are discovered, someone will be held accountable. You need to look at the Prime Minister's response to the former Premier of New South Wales's resignation, where he said that this demonstrates we shouldn't have a strong national Integrity Commission. It's no surprise that the government's proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is another half-baked idea, when you have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who go out of their way to criticise and demonise an independent body investigating corruption at the state level. The government should be committed to stamping out corruption at all levels.

When I meet with my constituents, time and time again people raise with me their strong desire to see a national, well-funded, wide-ranging, independent anticorruption commission, and every single time it is brought up they say they do not trust that the government is acting with integrity. They want truth in political advertising. They want a federal ICAC. They want to know that we have people working in parliament who are truly working in their best interests. It's a sad state of affairs when many Australians do not trust our politicians. An Integrity Commission will start to rebuild that trust. We need an anticorruption commission to do what Scott Morrison refuses to do—to make sure that politicians are serving in the interests of the people, not serving their own interests.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there's not another government speaker on this motion. What this government has failed to do over the course of this term and under this Prime Minister, in not legislating any form of federal anticorruption body, is embarrassing, and it lets down the people of Australia. This government went to the 2019 election promising they would do exactly that, and—while they might blame the member for Pearce, who promised it and then was unable to deliver it, even though he had a thousand days to do so—it is inexcusable that this government has failed to deliver any meaningful action.

It is not just about catching things after they happen. The point I want to make in my contribution to this debate is that a strong, powerful anticorruption body also has a very important education and prevention mandate. It is so often lost, when we talk about a body that will look in the rear-vision mirror and find out what happened in the past or say that it will scare people, that, actually, when these bodies are constructed well, they make sure that we educate and prevent corrupt activity from happening.

If you look at the recommendations of the OECD, who have published extensively about this, they say that it's essential, if you want to have a good, ethical government process, to have prevention, and they say:

Communicating standards within public organisations is necessary …

and they continue:

Education is essential for disseminating integrity standards and norms …

If we don't invest in that education, then we'll continue to see the sorts of sports rorts and failures to disclose, and people pretending that that is somehow a completely acceptable way of behaving, because it's all that people have seen; it's all that they know; it's the culture that is accepted within the political party known as the Liberal Party and in the National Party, who currently run our government.

I also want to commend the work that Griffith University and Transparency International have done when it comes to this question of making sure that any anticorruption body is one that takes their education and prevention role seriously. Their report on Australia's national integrity system, which showed that our national integrity system has far too many gaps, said:

Australian anti-corruption agencies, including the new federal agency can only fulfil their mandate as integrity commissions if properly equipped and required to fulfil a clear prevention mandate and coordinate prevention-focused activities.

If you look at the necessity of prevention focused activities, it is clear what this government does on a weekly and daily basis!

These bodies have different names around the place. There's the ICAC and the IBAC. We've got the CCC in Western Australia, a corruption and crime commission that, when the member for Pearce was the Attorney-General in Western Australia, he watered down. He has form on this. I would encourage anyone who is wondering why the member for Pearce failed to actually legislate for a corruption and crime commission or a federal anti-integrity body to look at his record. When he wasn't building up $40 billion of state debt, which was his record as Treasurer in Western Australia, when he was the state Attorney-General, the member for Pearce actually watered down the corruption and crime commission.

It's just very concerning for Western Australia when they think about the sorts of things that this body might look into. I've expressed in this place a number of times my concerns about this government's deep and close connections to Clive Palmer. We saw these deep and close connections that this government has with Clive Palmer expressed when it paid a million dollars for his legal bills because the former Attorney-General chose to support Clive Palmer's bid in the High Court to tear down the WA border in the peak of a global pandemic.

In relation to the recent challenges that we had have around the use of a blind trust, that is something I have had a number of constituents write to me about expressing concern, saying, 'Where do we go and what do we do with our concerns about this blind trust?' It's clear there isn't a body they, as a member of the general public, can appropriately refer their concerns to. It is completely disrespectful to the people of Australia that they have no federal anticorruption body. We've got one in every state and territory. As I often say to my local councillors—there are five local councils in the electorate of Perth—because of this government's failure, those local councillors are under more public scrutiny from anticorruption bodies than those of us in the federal parliament of Australia. (Time expired)

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired.