Division Description Changes — Business — Consideration of Legislation — 23rd Nov 2021

Change	Division
senate vote 2021-11-23#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-08-26 10:35:31	Title ~~Business — Consideration of Legislation~~ Business - Consideration of Legislation - Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 Description ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ <p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, as circulated.</p> The same number of senators voted for and against the [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-11-23.7.2), which means it failed because it did not reach majority. ### Motion text *> That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the** Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.* ~~<p>Leave not granted.</p>~~ ~~<p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.</p> <p>It has been 1,077 days since the coalition announced that they were going to bring ICAC legislation to the parliament. We've waited and waited and waited, and nothing has come. Whilst it's not normal to want to interrupt the normal running of Senate business, you reach a point where you say: 'Enough is enough. The wait has been too long.'</p> <p>There are a number of allegations in relation to the coalition. I stress that they're allegations—I'm not going to impugn anyone—but I will just put on the record that the Australian public have had a number of concerns in respect of coalition members and ministers. There has been Mr Taylor in relation to the $80 million sale of strategic water purchases, Senator McKenzie in relation to sports rorts and Mr Dutton in relation to au pairs. We've seen Mr Joyce also involved in controversy over water purchases. We've seen Mr Frydenberg in relation to 'grassgate', Mr Fletcher in relation to a $10 million grant, Mr Sukkar in relation to issues of expenditure of public money and Mr Tudge in relation to the car park rorts. There is a whole range of affairs. We have seen the situation where Mr Porter has received money through a blind trust. That's almost unfathomable in a situation where we have openness and transparency.</p> <p>From an integrity perspective and a confidence perspective, it's really important to make sure that the public are able to see our transactions and how we might be influenced in terms of our votes. All of that has to be on the table for people to see. Until such time as we get some form of independent commission against corruption, an Australian federal integrity commission, these concerns will linger.</p> <p>I know there are people on the other side of the chamber who object to the various different models. They don't want public hearings. They don't want particular people included in the scope of a federal ICAC, or, indeed, certain matters relating to corruption excluded from the definition. These are all things we can debate. These are all things we can talk about and debate, but we haven't had the opportunity. It has been 1,077 days and we've not had the opportunity to do that. The Australian public have been waiting for this, so there is now urgency. There is urgency, in that we basically have to force the government to comply with their own promise.</p> <p>To satisfy the demands of the Australian public, they said that they would introduce ICAC legislation. They made that a promise as they went into the last election. You get to a point where you say, 'Sorry, you can't have us wait any longer.' We know the difficulties and the complexities associated with these sorts of bills. Indeed, we know that these sorts of bills need to be fleshed out in committees. We've already had one, through the Greens, fleshed out in a committee. The government is basically absent without leave on this.</p> <p>The test that an integrity commission is strong enough is that you have no referrals because no-one would dare do anything that looked like misfeasance or malfeasance or corruption or misuse of funds and those sorts of things. That's what happens when you have a really strong ICAC. If you have a weak ICAC, people still try to play at the fringes. It still allows and permits corruption, political corruption, to occur. That's why it's important that we deal with this bill today, to get the whole thing kicking along—a comprehensive bill that is endorsed by judicial officers and eminent professionals in the integrity field. I ask that the Senate support my motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>The government does not support Senator Patrick's attempt to interrupt and vary the order of government business and business in the Senate. The government has a schedule of legislation, and the Senate has a program before it that would ordinarily have seen us and otherwise see us proceeding to debate the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill and then the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill and other legislation scheduled for today, as outlined. We do not support this move to interrupt that consideration of other government legislation.</p> <p>It often seems that, when those opposite and those on the crossbench speak about matters in relation to the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or other names that others seek to give such entities, they do so with some belief that there is a void that exists in relation to accountability, to process, to oversight, when in fact that is quite clearly not the case. Indeed, in Australia we have already a robust, multifaceted approach to combating corruption. We have a range of existing entities in place, from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. Each of these entities exists in a manner where we are all held accountable equally to the law of the land, subject to investigation under the operations of these different entities and bodies.</p> <p>Our government has been working to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that looks to build upon this existing framework that others seem to pretend does not actually exist. That existing framework already does provide very important protections for Australians in relation to the operations and conduct of all public officials, of all law enforcement officials, of all those who are subject, as I say, to the laws of the land and to investigation by the range of entities that currently exists. Those opposite can attempt some sort of smear process out of these things. What we have said is that we want to go through the proper process.</p> <p>The Attorney-General has released draft legislation and has received feedback on that draft legislation and is working through that feedback to ensure that any future construct in Australia builds upon the effective existing arrangements that we have in place and does so in ways that guarantee due process, proper process, for any individuals and that don't create the type of kangaroo court regimes that have been seen to operate elsewhere that destroy reputations before proper process has occurred.</p> <p>We want to make sure, given we have such sound and robust and so many existing Commonwealth entities in place, that we build upon that legacy and that framework, we do so in a way that preserves the best elements of how they operate in terms of the thoroughness and the diligence they apply to accountability across all aspects of Commonwealth activity and we do so in a manner that ensures due and proper process is followed in relation to any matters that are considered.</p> <p>We have boosted funding for the different agencies and indeed budgeted funding for the additional structures that are proposed to be developed and put in place. But we are not going to suggest that we should simply adopt, as Senator Patrick's motion seeks to do, in the space of an hour and a half, a model that has not been subject to the same type of rigour and thoroughness of analysis that the Attorney-General has been working through. We are going to stand very clearly by a process that ensures that something as significant as this—something which will have long-lasting implications and consequences for the way in which public officials work—has all of the appropriate safeguards and thoroughness to make sure it works as effectively as it should. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>~~ <p>Labor will support the suspension of standing orders motion that Senator Patrick has moved today, and indeed we would welcome a debate around establishing a national anticorruption commission. Labor is supporting this motion for the simple reason that the Senate needs to take charge of this issue—because the government isn't going to. We have had over 1,000 days since the Prime Minister made the promise that a national anticorruption commission would be put in place. The Senate and the people of Australia have waited 1,000 days, and we haven't had a response from the government other than an explanation that they're going through their processes and that they're putting some focus on the detail. Well, plenty of people have done the work, and it's in the shape of the bill that Senator Patrick is seeking to bring on today.</p> <p>There are plenty of reasons that this eight-year-old, tired government don't want to get to a debate around a national anticorruption body today or any day leading up to the next election. It's because of the litany of scandals, rorts, waste and mismanagement that this government has presided over and because it would make them vulnerable. That's why we don't have one. We can list them. There's the Western Sydney airport land rip-off. There's the 'pork and ride' scheme. Remember that? Money appropriated by this parliament through a budget was funnelled into seats that the Treasurer held. The Treasurer of Australia gave himself four car parks after telling the people of Australia that this program was for all of them. What a load of rubbish! That's the Treasurer. We know the Prime Minister had his hands all over sports rorts, car park rorts, the Urban Congestion Fund and the Building Better Regions Fund. He's crafted the way that this money gets used for political purposes—money appropriated for public purposes and then used for political purposes.</p> <p>When a government has its Prime Minister leading the charge, where ministers are rewarded for the misuse of money like this, is it any wonder there is no desire to bring forward a debate about a national anticorruption body? What a surprise! When ministers sacked amid scandal get recycled back into the cabinet, is it any wonder they don't want a debate about a national anticorruption body? The Leader of the Government in the Senate said, 'We've got a set program and we've got all these bills to get to.' The government's filibustering its own bills! Everyone in this place knows that. We dealt with two bills yesterday—and the government added government members to the speakers list long into the night last night—so don't come in here and say you've got all these urgent bills. You don't have a program. You're trying to cut deals left, right and centre because you're losing your own people. You lost five of your own yesterday. They left you because they don't like what's going on in the government. So don't sit here and pretend that you have a long program that we are now interfering with. What an absolute load of rubbish! If that were the case, we would be moving through the bills with the time that has been allocated for them.</p> <p>This tired, eight-year-old government are going to an election where they are going to be asking for their second decade in power. They have no plans to govern in the national interest. They are now only governing in their own political interest, in their narrow political interest. They exist only for their own political interest, and so the Senate should allow this debate. We have to stand up for ourselves. This government doesn't comply with orders for the production of documents, doesn't answer questions on notice, refuses to be accountable, refuses to be transparent. They treat this Senate with disrespect, and at some time the Senate has to stand up for itself and go, 'You know what, if the government's not going to do its job then we will.' The people of Australia want a national anti-corruption body. They don't trust us. We have to put in place something that responds to the concerns the Australian public have. A thousand and seventy-seven days ago this Prime Minister promised—and we know he's not very good at telling the truth—to put one in place, and we are still waiting. We have the opportunity today for the Senate to take charge and to have that debate, because these guys aren't going to do it. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Rex Patrick~~
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, as circulated.
The same number of senators voted for and against the [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-11-23.7.2), which means it failed because it did not reach majority.
### Motion text
> *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.*
~~Leave not granted.~~
~~Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:~~
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.
It has been 1,077 days since the coalition announced that they were going to bring ICAC legislation to the parliament. We've waited and waited and waited, and nothing has come. Whilst it's not normal to want to interrupt the normal running of Senate business, you reach a point where you say: 'Enough is enough. The wait has been too long.'
There are a number of allegations in relation to the coalition. I stress that they're allegations—I'm not going to impugn anyone—but I will just put on the record that the Australian public have had a number of concerns in respect of coalition members and ministers. There has been Mr Taylor in relation to the $80 million sale of strategic water purchases, Senator McKenzie in relation to sports rorts and Mr Dutton in relation to au pairs. We've seen Mr Joyce also involved in controversy over water purchases. We've seen Mr Frydenberg in relation to 'grassgate', Mr Fletcher in relation to a $10 million grant, Mr Sukkar in relation to issues of expenditure of public money and Mr Tudge in relation to the car park rorts. There is a whole range of affairs. We have seen the situation where Mr Porter has received money through a blind trust. That's almost unfathomable in a situation where we have openness and transparency.
From an integrity perspective and a confidence perspective, it's really important to make sure that the public are able to see our transactions and how we might be influenced in terms of our votes. All of that has to be on the table for people to see. Until such time as we get some form of independent commission against corruption, an Australian federal integrity commission, these concerns will linger.
I know there are people on the other side of the chamber who object to the various different models. They don't want public hearings. They don't want particular people included in the scope of a federal ICAC, or, indeed, certain matters relating to corruption excluded from the definition. These are all things we can debate. These are all things we can talk about and debate, but we haven't had the opportunity. It has been 1,077 days and we've not had the opportunity to do that. The Australian public have been waiting for this, so there is now urgency. There is urgency, in that we basically have to force the government to comply with their own promise.
To satisfy the demands of the Australian public, they said that they would introduce ICAC legislation. They made that a promise as they went into the last election. You get to a point where you say, 'Sorry, you can't have us wait any longer.' We know the difficulties and the complexities associated with these sorts of bills. Indeed, we know that these sorts of bills need to be fleshed out in committees. We've already had one, through the Greens, fleshed out in a committee. The government is basically absent without leave on this.
The test that an integrity commission is strong enough is that you have no referrals because no-one would dare do anything that looked like misfeasance or malfeasance or corruption or misuse of funds and those sorts of things. That's what happens when you have a really strong ICAC. If you have a weak ICAC, people still try to play at the fringes. It still allows and permits corruption, political corruption, to occur. That's why it's important that we deal with this bill today, to get the whole thing kicking along—a comprehensive bill that is endorsed by judicial officers and eminent professionals in the integrity field. I ask that the Senate support my motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
The government does not support Senator Patrick's attempt to interrupt and vary the order of government business and business in the Senate. The government has a schedule of legislation, and the Senate has a program before it that would ordinarily have seen us and otherwise see us proceeding to debate the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill and then the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill and other legislation scheduled for today, as outlined. We do not support this move to interrupt that consideration of other government legislation.
It often seems that, when those opposite and those on the crossbench speak about matters in relation to the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or other names that others seek to give such entities, they do so with some belief that there is a void that exists in relation to accountability, to process, to oversight, when in fact that is quite clearly not the case. Indeed, in Australia we have already a robust, multifaceted approach to combating corruption. We have a range of existing entities in place, from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. Each of these entities exists in a manner where we are all held accountable equally to the law of the land, subject to investigation under the operations of these different entities and bodies.
Our government has been working to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that looks to build upon this existing framework that others seem to pretend does not actually exist. That existing framework already does provide very important protections for Australians in relation to the operations and conduct of all public officials, of all law enforcement officials, of all those who are subject, as I say, to the laws of the land and to investigation by the range of entities that currently exists. Those opposite can attempt some sort of smear process out of these things. What we have said is that we want to go through the proper process.
The Attorney-General has released draft legislation and has received feedback on that draft legislation and is working through that feedback to ensure that any future construct in Australia builds upon the effective existing arrangements that we have in place and does so in ways that guarantee due process, proper process, for any individuals and that don't create the type of kangaroo court regimes that have been seen to operate elsewhere that destroy reputations before proper process has occurred.
We want to make sure, given we have such sound and robust and so many existing Commonwealth entities in place, that we build upon that legacy and that framework, we do so in a way that preserves the best elements of how they operate in terms of the thoroughness and the diligence they apply to accountability across all aspects of Commonwealth activity and we do so in a manner that ensures due and proper process is followed in relation to any matters that are considered.
We have boosted funding for the different agencies and indeed budgeted funding for the additional structures that are proposed to be developed and put in place. But we are not going to suggest that we should simply adopt, as Senator Patrick's motion seeks to do, in the space of an hour and a half, a model that has not been subject to the same type of rigour and thoroughness of analysis that the Attorney-General has been working through. We are going to stand very clearly by a process that ensures that something as significant as this—something which will have long-lasting implications and consequences for the way in which public officials work—has all of the appropriate safeguards and thoroughness to make sure it works as effectively as it should. (Time expired)
~~Katy Gallagher~~
Labor will support the suspension of standing orders motion that Senator Patrick has moved today, and indeed we would welcome a debate around establishing a national anticorruption commission. Labor is supporting this motion for the simple reason that the Senate needs to take charge of this issue—because the government isn't going to. We have had over 1,000 days since the Prime Minister made the promise that a national anticorruption commission would be put in place. The Senate and the people of Australia have waited 1,000 days, and we haven't had a response from the government other than an explanation that they're going through their processes and that they're putting some focus on the detail. Well, plenty of people have done the work, and it's in the shape of the bill that Senator Patrick is seeking to bring on today.
There are plenty of reasons that this eight-year-old, tired government don't want to get to a debate around a national anticorruption body today or any day leading up to the next election. It's because of the litany of scandals, rorts, waste and mismanagement that this government has presided over and because it would make them vulnerable. That's why we don't have one. We can list them. There's the Western Sydney airport land rip-off. There's the 'pork and ride' scheme. Remember that? Money appropriated by this parliament through a budget was funnelled into seats that the Treasurer held. The Treasurer of Australia gave himself four car parks after telling the people of Australia that this program was for all of them. What a load of rubbish! That's the Treasurer. We know the Prime Minister had his hands all over sports rorts, car park rorts, the Urban Congestion Fund and the Building Better Regions Fund. He's crafted the way that this money gets used for political purposes—money appropriated for public purposes and then used for political purposes.
When a government has its Prime Minister leading the charge, where ministers are rewarded for the misuse of money like this, is it any wonder there is no desire to bring forward a debate about a national anticorruption body? What a surprise! When ministers sacked amid scandal get recycled back into the cabinet, is it any wonder they don't want a debate about a national anticorruption body? The Leader of the Government in the Senate said, 'We've got a set program and we've got all these bills to get to.' The government's filibustering its own bills! Everyone in this place knows that. We dealt with two bills yesterday—and the government added government members to the speakers list long into the night last night—so don't come in here and say you've got all these urgent bills. You don't have a program. You're trying to cut deals left, right and centre because you're losing your own people. You lost five of your own yesterday. They left you because they don't like what's going on in the government. So don't sit here and pretend that you have a long program that we are now interfering with. What an absolute load of rubbish! If that were the case, we would be moving through the bills with the time that has been allocated for them.
This tired, eight-year-old government are going to an election where they are going to be asking for their second decade in power. They have no plans to govern in the national interest. They are now only governing in their own political interest, in their narrow political interest. They exist only for their own political interest, and so the Senate should allow this debate. We have to stand up for ourselves. This government doesn't comply with orders for the production of documents, doesn't answer questions on notice, refuses to be accountable, refuses to be transparent. They treat this Senate with disrespect, and at some time the Senate has to stand up for itself and go, 'You know what, if the government's not going to do its job then we will.' The people of Australia want a national anti-corruption body. They don't trust us. We have to put in place something that responds to the concerns the Australian public have. A thousand and seventy-seven days ago this Prime Minister promised—and we know he's not very good at telling the truth—to put one in place, and we are still waiting. We have the opportunity today for the Senate to take charge and to have that debate, because these guys aren't going to do it. (Time expired)
~~Long debate text truncated.~~