Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In December 2018, Mr Morrison stood next to Mr Porter and announced he would deliver a national integrity commission. But, more than a thousand days later, Mr Morrison has not introduced his own legislation and last week he defied the House of Representatives, which demanded an anticorruption commission. Why did Mr Morrison say he would create a national integrity commission when that just wasn't true?

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

I thank the senator for her question. Indeed, she is correct; the government did commit to build and establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. We not only committed to it, we funded some $150 million in budget proceedings for it—

We have consulted on it—correct, Senator Cash. We've consulted quite widely in relation to it. We've released draft legislation as part of our consultations. We have 349 pages of legislation to support the implementation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We released our bill with the full intentions that we would like to implement our bill. The problem lies in the fact that those opposite won't and don't support our bill. That's the problem. They won't agree to pass the Commonwealth Integrity Commission that the government has worked to develop, has released legislation for and has provided funding for. Those opposite aren't interested in a model that ensures integrity. They aren't interested in a model that focuses on weeding out corrupt conduct. What those opposite want is to make sure it's as politicised as possible. That seems to be the desire of those opposite. Their whole campaign tactics are about smear and sledging at present. We see that time and time again in the questions they bring into this place, in nature of their interviews—

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I flag that we would give you leave to table your legislation here and now, should you wish.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, is there a point of order? Minister, you have the call.

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

Those opposite are not happy with our model, but what's the alternative they've offered? They haven't actually provided a detailed alternative. All we can take is that they want a vehicle for smear and for politicisation, but they have only a two-page glossy, compared with the 349 pages of legislation.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you please sit down, Senator O'Neill. Those on my left calling time whilst interjecting to the point where I was dealing with the chamber are not helping. Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, New South Wales Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet said 'ICAC does a very important job—it gets rid of corruption from public life'. Why does Mr Morrison disagree with Premier Dominic Perrottet?

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

We are very happy to support a model for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that is focused on eliminating corrupt conduct. That is precisely what the legislation we have developed actually does. What it does not do is establish kangaroo court proceedings that operate in ways to destroy reputations, even when there is no finding, let alone ultimate prosecution in relation to corrupt conduct. That's where the line of distinction exists. In the home state of Senator Wong and me, I know there has been a different approach taken in relation to the role of ICAC. It's a model that is more closely analogous to the one that our government has released legislation for. It operates in a way that doesn't seek to destroy reputations in advance. There are different models that exist. We have presented one. We invite those opposite to publicly indicate they would support the passage of our legislation. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If only they were in government.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator O'Neill, you have the call.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, senators crossed the floor in defiance of Mr Morrison, and on Thursday a member of Mr Morrison's own government crossed the floor in the House because of his ongoing refusal to act. Hasn't Mr Morrison completely lost control of the House, his senators and his government?

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

The answer is no. The answer very clearly is no. But those opposite are entirely focused on internal political machinations, because that's all they know. It's certainly all that their leader, Mr Albanese, knows. All Mr Albanese knows are the politics of smear and the politics inside this parliament. What you don't hear them asking questions about, or pursuing policies on, are the things that matter to Australians.

Our government is clearly focused on the 700,000 jobs that we've created since COVID-19 struck at its deepest point. Our government is focused on the 133,000 apprenticeships that we have created as a result of our policies. Our government is focused on the delivery of tax cuts that are putting $1.5 billion a month back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. We're focused on a $110 billion infrastructure program and on national security, through the AUKUS partnership. They're the things we're focused on, not the politics of smear like those opposite. (Time expired)