Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The government does not support Senator Patrick's attempt to interrupt and vary the order of government business and business in the Senate. The government has a schedule of legislation, and the Senate has a program before it that would ordinarily have seen us and otherwise see us proceeding to debate the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill and then the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill and other legislation scheduled for today, as outlined. We do not support this move to interrupt that consideration of other government legislation.

It often seems that, when those opposite and those on the crossbench speak about matters in relation to the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or other names that others seek to give such entities, they do so with some belief that there is a void that exists in relation to accountability, to process, to oversight, when in fact that is quite clearly not the case. Indeed, in Australia we have already a robust, multifaceted approach to combating corruption. We have a range of existing entities in place, from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. Each of these entities exists in a manner where we are all held accountable equally to the law of the land, subject to investigation under the operations of these different entities and bodies.

Our government has been working to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that looks to build upon this existing framework that others seem to pretend does not actually exist. That existing framework already does provide very important protections for Australians in relation to the operations and conduct of all public officials, of all law enforcement officials, of all those who are subject, as I say, to the laws of the land and to investigation by the range of entities that currently exists. Those opposite can attempt some sort of smear process out of these things. What we have said is that we want to go through the proper process.

The Attorney-General has released draft legislation and has received feedback on that draft legislation and is working through that feedback to ensure that any future construct in Australia builds upon the effective existing arrangements that we have in place and does so in ways that guarantee due process, proper process, for any individuals and that don't create the type of kangaroo court regimes that have been seen to operate elsewhere that destroy reputations before proper process has occurred.

We want to make sure, given we have such sound and robust and so many existing Commonwealth entities in place, that we build upon that legacy and that framework, we do so in a way that preserves the best elements of how they operate in terms of the thoroughness and the diligence they apply to accountability across all aspects of Commonwealth activity and we do so in a manner that ensures due and proper process is followed in relation to any matters that are considered.

We have boosted funding for the different agencies and indeed budgeted funding for the additional structures that are proposed to be developed and put in place. But we are not going to suggest that we should simply adopt, as Senator Patrick's motion seeks to do, in the space of an hour and a half, a model that has not been subject to the same type of rigour and thoroughness of analysis that the Attorney-General has been working through. We are going to stand very clearly by a process that ensures that something as significant as this—something which will have long-lasting implications and consequences for the way in which public officials work—has all of the appropriate safeguards and thoroughness to make sure it works as effectively as it should. (Time expired)