Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, almost nine years ago, the Greens introduced the first bill to establish a broad based independent anticorruption body. We've had legislation before the last three parliaments, not to mention a number of motions put before the Senate. In January this year, the Labor Party reversed their opposition. We welcomed that. They now support our position for an anticorruption watchdog. Indeed, all of the members of the crossbench in the House support an anticorruption watchdog. Just today, the government supported Senator Waters's motion in the House for the establishment of an anticorruption watchdog. So my question to you, Minister, is: will you now legislate for a broad based anticorruption authority in this term of parliament?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me firstly point out that Australia does have very robust anticorruption arrangements in place at a federal level. We have a robust multifaceted approach to combatting corruption. But, having said that and as we have said for some time, we continue to consider and to assess what improvements can be made to further strengthen that system. But, with these sorts of suggestions, the devil is always in the detail. For example, on the bill that's been put forward by crossbenchers in the other place, our advice is that, if that were legislated in its current form, a journalist with the ABC or SBS, because these are taxpayer funded organisations, could find themselves compelled to answer questions, to reveal sources and, indeed, to release legal advice that they have obtained in the context of various stories that they might run from time to time. I suspect that across this chamber there would be broad consensus that that would be an entirely undesirable situation.

The broader point I'm making here is that I think we all agree that there ought to be anticorruption arrangements in place that are as effective as possible. Australia has a very good track record internationally when it comes to anticorruption frameworks and measures. Indeed, we are recognised internationally as one of the least corrupt jurisdictions in the world. But there's also room for improvement. The initiatives that you might want to pursue to improve the current framework ought to actually genuinely make things better rather than lead to all sorts of undesirable and unintended consequences. That is the process that needs to be undertaken always by the parliament: to carefully consider whether proposals that are on the table actually would make things better rather than make things worse.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand you have some criticism of the legislation that is before the House, so I want to ask this very directly: Minister, will you legislate for your own version of a national anticorruption watchdog in this term of parliament?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't give you a blanket answer to that question, because it depends on whether or not we are able to get the detail of any proposed improvements right, and there is a process of consultation to be gone through. I would just point out that Labor announced support for a national integrity commission about 12 months ago, saying at the time that they had gone through 12 months of consultation, yet to date we haven't seen a single proposal on the table anywhere. We haven't seen any proposed legislation from the Labor Party at all. All we get from the Labor Party is the occasional stunt in pursuit of the occasional headline; there's actually no substance. In fact, all we've got from the Labor Party is one stunt after another, without any substance. These are very complex matters of the law, and it's very important that the strong anti-corruption arrangements that are in place now are not inadvertently weakened by insufficiently considered proposals that might come up from time to time. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in your previous answer you said that Australia has a good record when it comes to corruption. Indeed, we dropped in ranking in the annual corruption index. Today we've seen 32 former judges sign an open letter for the establishment of an anti-corruption watchdog. Minister, can you tell us why these judges are wrong, why our ranking has slid and why you refuse to make a commitment for a national anti-corruption watchdog in this term of parliament?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I maintain that by any measure Australia's record in this area is strong by international standards, that we are always focused on pursuing opportunities to make a very good system even better. But of course I can't pre-empt processes that are yet to take place. I can't pre-empt what complications or what legal issues might need to be resolved through the consultative processes that are yet to take place. So, I'm not going to lock us into the sort of black-and-white position that Senator Di Natale is inviting me to lock ourselves into. What I can say is that this government has continued to do everything we can to ensure that our anti-corruption arrangements and the framework to fight corruption are as robust and as strong as possible.