Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

Is it correct that the Morrison government hates the idea of being held accountable for its actions? I've got a few questions for the Attorney-General, which all concern the National Integrity Commission proposal that the government announced with incredible fanfare, perhaps sensing an election was coming on, in December last year. We have heard precisely nothing about this since the press conference by the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister in that December. Is it because the Morrison government hates the idea of being held accountable for its actions? Is that why the Morrison government has been slithering around on the issue of establishing a National Integrity Commission, trying to avoid any real commitments despite having said in December last year that they had been working on this since January of last year? That's a pretty extraordinary proposition given that 20 months have now lapsed since January of last year, when the government said it started working on this, and, perhaps one could add, despite public comments on the proposal that the government put forward in December, closing on 1 February of this year.

For years we heard from this Attorney-General that he saw no persuasive evidence that a National Integrity Commission was needed. Then he changed his tune and said that he was open-minded on the subject. But that doesn't quite square with the Prime Minister having called the National Integrity Commission a 'fringe issue' late last year—in fact, almost up to when he stood up with the Attorney-General and announced on 13 December that a National Integrity Commission was needed after all.

When the Attorney-General answers, or tries to answer, some of these questions, he might also like to answer this question: Why did the proposal that the government put forward in December last year amount to a sham of an integrity commission? That's not my description; that's a description that's been provided by a number of commentators—people who have studied, worked and provided legal advice on this subject for years. They think what the government put forward in December last year is a sham. It's a sham, of course, that it was only proposed by the Morrison government after they were dragged kicking and screaming to support a National Integrity Commission. They can't, of course, bring themselves to call it a National Integrity Commission because that's Labor's name, and it would never do for this government to adopt anything that the Labor Party had suggested.

The Morrison government has to wake up to reality on this subject. The Australian people want a National Integrity Commission. Absolutely, our country will benefit from having one, and when the Morrison government eventually gets around to legislating on this subject—there's no sign of it at the moment, because the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in its legislation listed to be introduced in this parliament through to the end of 2019, has not listed the National Integrity Commission as the subject of legislation—it needs to understand that the Australian people want a real National Integrity Commission, a commission which has the independence, powers and resources that are needed to stamp out corruption and serious misconduct in government and in the federal public sector. The Australian public want a watchdog with real teeth rather than some kind of obedient lapdog of the government, which seems to be what Mr Morrison and his team want.

The sorry fact is that trust in politics and politicians is at historic lows. It's made worse every day by the chaos and cover-ups that have become the hallmark of this government. What is the government doing about that? Why is it that the Morrison government is pretending—as it does on so many issues of vital importance to this nation, from the economy to climate change and the ever-rising cost of living—that there's no problem to deal with and that a slogan will do in place of a policy? Perhaps when the Attorney-General is answering some questions about when we're actually going to get, in some kind of form, a concrete proposal for a National Integrity Commission, he'll be able to explain how the National Integrity Commission might be able to help in dealing with some examples of questionable conduct, such as the au pair controversy involving the Minister for Home Affairs, the recent Crown Casino allegations or the Paladin and Canstruct contracts, both of which were issued by the Department of Home Affairs in closed tender arrangements. While he's explaining, he might also explain how his model in any way satisfies the demands that have been made for a real integrity commission.

See this speech in context