Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Again, Labor recommendation 1.20 in 2020 says, 'Schedules 2 and 3 should be deleted from the bill,' and schedule 2 was actually the deferred prosecution agreement scheme. We didn't have the numbers, so I find those words a little disingenuous.

The problem I have with the position of the government and the position of the Attorney-General is, as I have already stated, that we know that foreign bribery cases take years to prosecute. The figure that is usually quoted is about 7.3 years. Even if this bill passes this week, the commencement provisions mean it most likely won't fully come into force until, say, next year. Then, if we're generous and assume that the offences can be prosecuted in, say—I don't know—five years, as opposed to 7.3 years, then the soonest we would be able to know if these offences actually work is going to be in the 2030s, when you could accept an amendment which the body of evidence shows is already working well in other parts of the world in comparable jurisdictions. The Attorney-General's Department itself when we were in government supported it. The AFP supported it. The body of submitters to the inquiries over time have supported it. If we take the Attorney's words at face value, what Labor will have effectively voted for today is that they won't even entertain a DPA scheme until the 2030s. Guess what, Australia? You will continue to lag behind like-minded jurisdictions.

In 2023 another government agency, Austrade, also backed in a scheme like a DPA scheme. It said:

Whilst prosecution may be an instructive and inevitable consequence of a broadened interpretation of bribery of a foreign official, business could be encouraged to better engage and self-report, seek guidance and legal advice and find the resources to implement effective risk management of their risk of bribery, if given incentive to comply and co-operate.

Do you agree with the advice from Austrade?