Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (15:46): I rise to take note of the answers today with reference to the electoral law amendments that are before this particular chamber. There are many bills before the parliament which have been drafted up in response to JSCEM inquiries or the inquiry into the last federal election. There is no question that, over the long run, the expectation that people wouldn't have to provide any sort of ID at a polling place is really out of date and out of touch. During this pandemic Australians have become so accustomed to providing some form of ID— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, I appreciate Senator Farrell did make reference to the electoral laws and he probably overstated that. I'm listening to where you're going with this but, if I might remind you, the questions asked by Labor Senators Marielle Smith, Wong and Grogan went to examples of where the Prime Minister has said one thing and later said another thing. That's really the characterisation of those three questions; Senator Farrell was using the voter laws as a reference. I appreciate he did go on a little, but, as he only had 30 seconds to go, I allowed that through. Senator BRAGG: Thank you, Deputy President. I was here for the last few minutes of the statement, and it was all about the electoral amendment. I'm happy to talk about any anything. In relation to integrity in government—I think that's where you're wanting to go—much has been said about these commissions and what sorts of arrangements we should have in Canberra. I don't think calling it an 'integrity commission' is the way to go. I'm much more of the view it should be focused on corruption. I would be minded to call it an anti-corruption commission. That's what I think it should be focused on—any form of corruption. I think people have different definitions of integrity. Integrity is important in government. There are institutions which are in operation all the time which ensure that there is scrutiny of government. In fact, the Senate plays a very important role here because the Senate runs the estimates process and it runs committees of inquiry. The Select Committee on COVID-19, although I haven't been a member, has done some important work over the course of this pandemic. It has brought to light matters of public interest—really material matters—through its public hearings and through its submission process, such as on the vaccination program and on border matters. I am of the view that the Victorian model would be a preferable model for us to have in Canberra, as opposed to the New South Wales model. But I wouldn't call it an integrity commission; I would be calling it an anticorruption commission. My understanding is that under the Victorian model there is a process whereby a brief of evidence needs to be established before coercive powers are deployed, and I think that is a reasonable proposition. I think a reasonable body of work should be done before anything else occurs. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but the three questions from Labor senators—from Senators Smith, Wong and Grogan—went to the Prime Minister; they were focused on the Prime Minister, and comments he had made and then later made a different comment about. So— Senator BRAGG: Okay. Well, as I said, I think you're talking about matters of integrity here, so I've— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it certainly is about integrity, and it was focused on the Prime Minister. Senator BRAGG: referred to integrity, whether it's voter integrity or whether it's matters of how we ensure that there is confidence in our system of government. I don't think that getting into personal attacks is the way to go, and I won't be engaging in that sort of business here. I think that only diminishes the public debate here. I don't think this is a partisan comment to make at all, but I think if you look at the way question time runs here or in the House, it really is low-rent stuff, and I think it is a poor reflection on us as an institution. It is way too scripted, and I don't think all this personal attack stuff does anything for anyone. I would say, though, that I've been very impressed with the work done by the Senate committees. I've been very impressed with the quality of the public servants who run these secretariats. In my experience, the Senate committees take the Senate and therefore the Australian people into places that other institutions don't go, and we are able to hear people's voices. So, I think we do incredible work here on behalf of the Australian people, but I don't think we are focusing on the right stuff when we are engaging in endless personal attacks. Of course there's a role to look at people's public records and what they say. But I don't think getting into personal attacks is the way to go, and I won't be engaging in that.