Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020.

I will quickly address a concern that Senator Ruston will no doubt raise in her response to my short contribution here. She will say this is a stunt, brought on to waste government business time, but it's not.

One of the roles of the Senate is to make sure that we oversee the government, to make sure that the government does its work properly and to make sure that the government meets the commitments it has made to the Australian public. I draw the Senate's attention back to 13 December 2018, when the Prime Minister promised the Australian public that, were he to be given the opportunity to govern again, he would introduce a federal integrity commission bill. I don't know whether that was a 'core' promise; I don't know whether it was a promise. I don't know whether it was a commitment or an undertaking. I don't know which one of those it was or how the Prime Minister may consider each of those sorts of commitments. But I know that the Australian public would expect that, prima facie, if the Prime Minister says that then the Prime Minister will do that. But he hasn't. Either he was lying to the public or he has simply misled them. It's not like we're at the start of the 46th Parliament; we're at the end. There was a commitment by the Prime Minister to deal with a federal integrity commission, and it has not been met. That's why this is urgent and that's why this must be dealt with today, otherwise we'll have run out of time.

We don't have a bill that the government has brought to the chamber, so there's a bill that I've tabled which has been worked up by eminent experts in this area, former judicial officers included—and thanks to the member for Indi, Helen Haines—and we need to deal with it. We need to deal with this urgently. We have a situation where a government went into the last election, knowing full well that there's no federal integrity commission, engaging in car park rorting. I say that with the backing of the Auditor-General. We find that in the Treasurer's own seat four car parks were allocated. One of those car parks came in at a cost of $220,000 per car park.

Let me explain how this principle works. We are supposed to take taxpayers' money and spend it on the basis of need and on the basis of merit. That's what we're supposed to do. Yet, against the rules, against the objectives of the grant program, the Treasurer announced grants to his own electorate. If you are a public official and you subvert process and give money for the purposes of personal benefit—that being getting re-elected—that is corruption, and we have to be able to deal with that. We've seen sports rorts, where people or communities were given a grant not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a colour coded spreadsheet. That is wrong. We've seen water purchases that well exceed market values. We find that, in one instance, the department seemed not able to understand a valuation properly.

We've got blind trust, where ministers are getting paid a million dollars from unknown contributors and the government is not standing tall and saying, 'That's wrong.' There are so many issues that we need to have addressed, in relation to corruption, so that people can regain confidence in this place and in the other place. That's why we need to urgently deal with this bill. I ask that senators support my motion to suspend.

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

The government does not support Senator Patrick's motion to suspend. The government does not support it—on the basis that we have a well-developed draft legislation established, published, in relation to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission.

There are many misconceptions peddled by some in relation to these debates and they're peddled in the context of, seemingly, wanting to create an impression that there is no anticorruption framework in Australia, which is patently untrue. We have existing frameworks that tackle corruption, clearly, already. Under the frameworks, multiple agencies across the Commonwealth government have responsibilities for preventing, detecting and responding to corruption.

These agencies, such as the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, bring specialist skills to address corruption across law enforcement agencies. The Australian Federal Police have the power, and work across partner agencies right across the Commonwealth, to leverage their expertise and capabilities, information and data collection capabilities, to respond to serious and complex corruption offences, including any allegations of fraud or bribery or the like, under existing corruption laws. The Commonwealth Ombudsman considers and investigates complaints where people believe they've been treated unfairly by an Australian government department. Even in relation to matters such as our own expenses, we have the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority that advises and reports on expenses of parliamentarians and their staff. This is set within laws, clearly enabled and established, that deal with corrupt conduct and all of the other elements of scrutiny applied within this parliament and a free media across our democracy. But we have seen benefit in acknowledging that having greater consolidation, greater coordination, across those different entities and efforts for handling corruption matters would be a positive.

That's why we've gone through an extensive process in relation to developing the legislation around the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The integrity commission that we propose, backed by several hundred pages of legislation, detailed modelling, will investigate the most serious forms of criminal corruption that threaten good public administration; however, it won't duplicate the roles of existing bodies that already investigate corruption.

The arrangement we're proposing reflects the different nature of the corruption risks that exist across law enforcement bodies as opposed to those that exist in the public sector. When we talk about the public sector, we mean of course across the public sector from office holders at ministerial level right through the Public Service and public sector. Where the public sector division of our proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission found evidence of a criminal offence, it would refer a matter, rightly, to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ensuring that the courts remain the relevant arbiter of whether someone is innocent or guilty of a corrupt offence.

We have put in place funding arrangements for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission: the 2019-20 budget committed more than $106 million of support for that in addition to more than $40 million for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The substantial investment that we've made is in stark contrast to the very low levels of budgeting and support that had been provided under previous governments for anti-corruption and related activities and enforcement.

We've already implemented phase one of our Commonwealth Integrity Commission by expanding the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to cover additional agencies: the ATO, ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. The work is there; the legislation has been developed. What we're very clear about is that we're not interested in establishing Star Chamber type processes. We're not interested in establishing processes that are simply there as political playthings. So, the invitation stands to the crossbench, the Greens, the Labor Party: make clear your support for the model the government has developed for an integrity commission. That will clearly bring together the elements of being able to further strengthen and uphold Australia's anti-corruption framework and we will see that legislation passed. We're not interested in entertaining a model that simply creates opportunities for more political grandstanding that becomes a kangaroo court or a show trial model. This has got to be done in the proper way that our government has proposed.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the suspension of standing orders this morning, and we certainly support the motion being moved by Senator Patrick, should the suspension get up. We have been calling for an anti-corruption commission for some time. The government promised a national anti-corruption commission 1,154 days ago. Then today we hear from the Leader of the Government in the Senate all the reasons we're not in a position to debate a government bill.

The reality is: over 1,154 days ago this was a promise, a promise by the Prime Minister. It was a promise by a Prime Minister under pressure because of the scandals, the failings and the lack of integrity in his government and the lack of trust and public trust in his government. He had to politically manage a situation at the time, so he promised an anti-corruption commission, he promised he would bring in legislation and then the government spent three years ensuring that they don't deliver on that promise. This has been a conscious decision by the government, because a government without integrity doesn't want an integrity commission. That is a fundamental problem for a government without integrity, for a government with ministerial scandal after ministerial scandal, where, after you do a bit of time on the backbench, on the bleachers, you get forgiven and brought back in. All of the sins that were committed and the standards of ministerial accountability that used to exist in every other government of both political colours, which have been kicked to the curb, have been rewritten under this government. You can be rehabilitated. Everyone's guaranteed a spot in the cabinet room, regardless of what offence they commit. That's the standard this government has set. So why on Earth would they want to bring in an integrity commission, when they fundamentally have a massive problem with integrity? They don't want scrutiny.

And when they did work out their draft bill, it was a model that had no teeth, that set a lower standard for ministers and politicians—what a surprise!—and was universally rejected by every organisation and every expert who understands anything about anticorruption commissions. That was a big achievement! And I think it was a conscious decision by the government. They wanted to ensure that they had a work plan for the past 1,154 days that ultimately didn't deliver an anticorruption commission in this country, and they have systematically and comprehensively gone about their business making sure that never happens—and they've achieved it. I think in every sitting week for the past year or so, when someone in this place has brought forward a motion and had the numbers on a bill that had passed in this place for debate on another bill, the government has opposed it and then tried to point the finger at everybody else, who were actually arguing for a stronger anticorruption commission.

Let's make no mistake about why this government's in this position. We have had scandal after scandal, with ministers like Minister Taylor—remember the forged documents? Remember that old chestnut? Remember 'grassgate'? That was also in his portfolio. And we had 'watergate'. We've seen all these rorts and the funds that have been established, where the government doesn't even pretend that they're trying to do the right thing—billions of dollars hidden in the budget to splash out on seats they either need to hold or want to win. We know that in the last midyear update $16 billion of our money was hidden in the budget for more election gift-giving to certain seats. We've got a Treasurer in this country who appropriated money for all of us through the budget and then went and awarded himself, his own seat, four car parks; I don't think any of them have been built. That is the standard, by which the Treasurer, the Prime Minister—senior ministers—conduct themselves, without integrity, doing everything they can to resist the bringing on of debate for an anticorruption commission. The Senate should stand up and support the suspension of standing orders and the motion Senator Patrick has brought in today.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will of course support this suspension of standing orders. We've been trying to get a corruption watchdog federally for 13 years now. We don't care whose name is on the bill; we just want this done. It's no surprise that this government once again wants to shut down debate on setting up an effective corruption watchdog, because half of their cabinet have been implicated in integrity scandals—half! It has been 1,154 days since the Prime Minister made a promise that he would introduce an integrity commission. It was long overdue even then, but it was a welcome commitment.

Since that time we've seen a draft outline that was rubbished by every expert who reviewed it. Nearly 18 months after that there was a much-maligned draft bill that failed to address any of the earlier criticisms by experts. There was some more obfuscation in there. We then had multiple estimates hearings where we were told that more consultation was happening and amendments were being drafted. But then the Prime Minister said there'd be no changes from the earlier draft and that if Labor and the crossbench wanted an integrity commission then we'd just have to take the pathetic version on offer—and then nothing happened. Then, this week, the Attorney-General said an integrity commission was not a priority before the election—they're so busy discriminating against gay kids that they just can't get on with their actual job. Then the Prime Minister said, 'Oh no, we'll see.' But he continues to prioritise legislation that promotes bigotry in our community. So, one really has to wonder: can you trust a single word this Prime Minister and this government says? I think we all know the answer to that question.

There are few things that the Australian community is more unified on than the need for a strong corruption watchdog. Nearly 90 per cent of Australians want this, and it's an absolute disgrace that this government is using every trick in the book to try and delay doing it. Public confidence in the integrity of Australian politicians is plummeting, and rightly so. The latest Transparency International corruption perceptions index gives Australia its lowest ever ranking. Lack of progress on the Integrity Commission was a key factor in that lowest ever score. We need a strong, independent and powerful corruption watchdog with powers to root out the corruption that runs rife in this place and continues to undermine our democracy.

We have been pushing for this for 13 years, and two years ago this Senate passed the Greens bill for a strong independent corruption watchdog with teeth. Now, that was two years ago, and the government's refused to bring that on for a vote in the House. It's running scared of integrity. We support Senator Patrick's bill, which is a replica of Dr Haines's bill in the other place. We don't care whose name is on the bill; we just want it done.

Without a federal ICAC, Australians have to rely on a patchwork of other bodies to try and find out about the dodgy dealings of this government. We've got the ANAO, Senate inquiries, OPDs, FOI challenges, state and territory corruption bodies, AEC disclosures and investigative journalism. Even with that schema, which the government contends is adequate—it's clearly not—we've revealed a litany of scandals. The list is long and unedifying: sports rorts, 'pork and ride', the Urban Congestion Fund, the Leppington Triangle, 'watergate' and 'grassgate'. There are millions of dollars being handed to polluting gas companies headed up by Liberal donors. Last week's AEC disclosures revealed that Empire Energy made some sizeable donations before they got a government grant of public money to frack the Beetaloo basin, against the wishes of First Nations communities. Every single one of the grant programs that the ANAO has audited since 2009, to the tune of $10 billion—every single one of them—was found to be flawed, with problems identified ranging from minor improvements to serious maladministration.

This patchwork of integrity measures is clearly not enough, because corruption is rife. It's allowing far too many things to slip through the cracks, and the Australian public can't understand the full scale of corruption, fraud and dishonesty without a strong, independent corruption watchdog. Nor can we deter such behaviour without a strong watchdog.

As Australians head back to the polls—and that can't come soon enough—voters need to have confidence that a new government will be overseen by a corruption watchdog with broad powers. They need to have confidence that there will be consequences when corrupt conduct is identified and that there won't be a protection racket for politicians, which is the short version of what this government is proposing. We support bringing this bill on and giving Australians what they need to start rebuilding that confidence in our democracy and that confidence that the people they elect will work in the public interest. But it's no surprise that a government without integrity doesn't want to bring on a bill to set up an integrity commission.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation has always supported an integrity commission being established for the federal parliament—once we realised the parliament could not look after itself. We do, though, oppose Senator Patrick's motion to suspend standing orders, and I'll explain why.

Corruption of federal taxpayer money to the tune of billions of dollars was a subject that we moved a motion to have a Senate inquiry into. The Liberal Party opposed it, after initially supporting it. The Labor Party opposed it. The Greens opposed it. Senator Patrick opposed it. That was billions of dollars at stake.

Secondly—water trading. It's a breach of the Water Act, and the Liberals and Nationals have allowed it to continue. We moved a motion in this parliament to get it fixed. It went to the lower house, where the Labor Party opposed it, the Liberal Party opposed it and the National Party opposed it—billions of dollars, again, there, and unfairness destroying regional communities.

We also have a list of 28 people, which is supposed to be a watch list or a list with regard to paedophilia. I contacted the person who raised that in an earlier parliament. A barrister, on my behalf, read that list. That list has no complainant—no identification as to who put forward that list. It also has no formal complaint and no evidence. But, in the process of that, the barrister I used found extensive need for cleaning up parliament, with regard to supporting paedophiles and other criminals. We need to extend it properly, from parliamentarians to judges, to police and to bureaucrats. We need to do a good job. The government's bill for an integrity commission is hopeless. It is not sincere, in my view.

Helen Haines's bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, which is what Senator Patrick is supporting, has much to commend it. We support it in principle. However, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of some details, because it leaves people vulnerable and open to being besmirched—as we've seen happen in New South Wales—without evidence. That we cannot support. Such a bill must be debated extensively and not rushed through parliament. We cannot do that in a morning.

Senator Patrick himself said that we are now at the end of the 46th Parliament—exactly. Let the people judge in an election within the next three months. Let the people judge, because the Liberal-National coalition has not delivered on its promise. The Prime Minister has told furphies about vaccine mandates not existing in this country. Tell that to the 25 million people in this country. That is a lie. Yet we now have the breaching of his promise. The people can judge him in three months. Each party should have a policy on this, and let the people judge each party on it. It seems to me that we need to assess people by their actions, their deeds, not by their words.

I think this is a stunt—trying to get media attention before a flagging election campaign. Regardless of my opinion, one thing is for sure: this parliament serves the major parties and their donors and vested interests, some of whom are outside this country. We need to end that. We need to regain the people's confidence in the parliament. We need to do that by making sure that the parliament returns to serving the people. We need the parliament to serve the people. That's its job. We need to change the parliament, and to do that we need to change the way Australians vote. We, as voters, as Australians, need to change the way we vote. Put the majors last; remember that in the coming election. Put the majors last.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion to suspend standing orders should be absolutely rejected. One Nation is right about one thing: this is a stunt. We saw one yesterday and we're going to see rolling stunts in this parliament, rather than allowing the parliament to get on with the business of governing in the interests of the Australian people.

I'm going to start my contribution by reminding those opposite of the dangers of implementing the model that they are advocating for. Amanda Stapledon committed suicide, tragically, after facing allegations by IBAC in Victoria. This has been reported in the Australian:

A parliamentary committee has called urgent talks to consider complaints about the conduct of Victorian anti-corruption agencies after the suicide of a former mayor.

Parliament's integrity and oversight committee has ordered a special meeting on Wednesday to discuss complaints from witnesses involved in the marathon investigation into allegedly corrupt land deals involving Casey councillors and a property developer.

In formal complaints to the committee, several witnesses have accused the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Victorian Inspectorate — the body charged with monitoring IBAC — of having blood on their hands over the death of Amanda Stapledon.

This is because of the fact that the model in Victoria, like in New South Wales, is akin to a star chamber. There is not adequate natural justice. The model we put forward provides proper justice. Shame on those opposite for not recognising that natural justice in an integrity commission is important. These are the consequences of the star chamber that we see in Victoria. This woman had a disabled son, who's now been left on his own. You think about the consequences of—

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

Order!

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You think about the consequences of putting someone into a star chamber under the most extraordinary pressure, arguably false allegations—driving this woman to the brink. Shame on you. So what we have put forward, which is not supported by Labor, not supported by you, Senator Patrick, not supported by the Greens or the crossbench, is a model which provides natural justice. It will hold the entire public sector, including parliamentarians and their officers, to account. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission is to investigate corruption; it is not some tool used to air vexatious and politically motivated claims.

I just consider what I have gone through in the last few months from the likes of Fairfax and TheNew Daily. I have been accused of corruption because I delivered an election commitment to support the Torquay Bowls Club. Honestly, this is out of control. Politics in this country, courtesy of the crossbench and Greens and Labor, have become so toxic that you can't even deliver a community supported grant without being accused of corruption. It is no wonder that this government is taking this issue responsibly, and I say, as a tribute to Amanda Stapleton and all those other victims of anticorruption commissions who have been subjected to false allegations, whose lives have been destroyed, we are not going to follow that model. We are not going to have blood on our hands. We are not going to embrace your model.

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

Senator Gallagher on a point of order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator should be making a contribution through the chair and not directly at other senators.

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

Senator Henderson, I'm sorry but this is actually a time-limited debate.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still have 58 seconds left.

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

No, the time of the debate is limited to half an hour, and sometimes a speaker is still on their feet when half an hour ends, so I'm afraid we are actually at the end of the debate. The question is on the motion to suspend standing orders.