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

My question is to the Attorney-General. There has been extensive criticism of the government's Integrity Commission model—judged to be the weakest in Australia. We've been told repeatedly that the department and the Attorney have been considering feedback received during multiple rounds of consultation. At estimates in March this year both the department and Assistant Minister Stoker said of the draft exposure bill: 'We've identified some ways in which it could be improved. We're quite sincere in our desire to reflect that feedback in the next version.' Yet this week the Prime Minister and several other ministers have said that the government's proposal remains unchanged from the exposure draft. Why hasn't feedback been taken into account? Was it always just sham consultation to allow you to delay tabling your bill?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, no, the consultation was genuine consultation. Certainly the issue we have is this: we have a bill to deliver a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, that is a bill that we have. It is a bill that has been out there. Not only do we have a bill, we have actually committed funding of $150 million to fund the body when it gets up. We have consulted widely on its structure. What our proposed model will do will build on the already strong anticorruption arrangements that exist at the Commonwealth level. We have released our bill to the public. In fact, if you were to join us, we could forget about the Labor Party, because they just want a political witch-hunt. They just want a political witch-hunt when it comes to a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. They are not interested in a model that ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which—

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

Senator Waters on a point of order?

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

Yes, a point of order on relevance. My question went to whether or not feedback from the consultation has been reflected in the draft. Nobody wants to hear a lecture about the politics.

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

Senator Waters, I was listening to the minister. There was also a long preamble and, as you know, direct relevance is judged on the whole question, not merely the last part of the question. Attorney-General, you have the call.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. You see, Senator Waters, unfortunately from that comment I'm going to assume that you also do not want to support the Commonwealth government's Integrity Commission. The fact of the matter is we have a model. The bill is out there. We have funded the model. We have released our bill to implement it. This should be something that is not just bipartisan. It should be a multipartisan approach to putting in place a model that ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which respects due process and democracy. Clearly from your comments, Senator Waters, you are also not interested in doing that. If you are interested in a political witch-hunt, nothing more and nothing less, then that is not something we are going to agree on.

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

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

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

At the National Press Club today Geoffrey Watson SC said: 'Public hearings, where the ICAC has determined that they're in the public interest'—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting

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

Are you going to make some more interjections—I dare you!—or can I ask my question?

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

Order!

An honourable senator interjecting

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

Yes, this is question time. I do get to ask you questions. That is how this works.

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

Order! This is not a time for discussion across the chamber. Senator Waters, resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! On my right. The questioner and the person answering the question should both be heard in silence. Senator Waters, please continue your question.

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

Thank you, President. As I was saying, Geoffrey Watson SC said: 'Public hearings, where the ICAC has determined that they are in the public interest, are essential to deter maladministration, expose corruption, earn public trust and allow ICAC findings and process to be interrogated.' Yet members of this government have described it a witch-hunt, a kangaroo court and the Spanish inquisition. Why does the government continue to demonise transparency and continue the protection racket it's been running for years?

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

Senator Waters, I allowed you to continue there, as you were interrupted during your question. But I believe, to be honest, that the question would have gone over time regardless. I will give the Attorney-General the call.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I'm glad you actually allowed Senator Waters to run over time, because I didn't hear everything she said but I did catch the words 'spanish inquisition'. Senator Waters, that is exactly what we are not going to pursue: a spanish inquisition. That's because, at the end of the day, this needs to be a body which ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which respects both due process and democracy.

Senator Waters seems to forget, and the Labor Party seems to forget as well, that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission is to investigate corruption—serious corruption. It is not a tool that is to be used for vexatious and politically motivated claims. They want a spanish inquisition, and that's not something which we're going to support.

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

Senator Waters, a second supplementary question?

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

At the Press Club today, former chair of the Law Council of Australia and now president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Pauline Wright said that the threshold set by the government's model would prevent most matters from even being investigated. She described that as 'unconscionable'. Why is the government proposing an integrity commission that would not be able to investigate most breaches of integrity?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely disagree with what Senator Waters has just quoted. The government's model which we have put forward builds on the already strong anticorruption arrangements which exist at the Commonwealth level. The body that we've put forward would be a specialised investigation body for the most serious forms of corruption, with the resources and powers necessary to fulfil that role.

At the same time, for some reason, the Australian Greens don't seem to agree with this. The body will have appropriate safeguards, Senator Waters, to protect the rights and reputations of the people it investigates, and will also have robust oversight through an independent inspector-general and a dedicated parliamentary committee. The telling words from everything that you have said, Senator Waters, are 'spanish inquisition'.