Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (15:33): That was one of the greatest abuses of parliamentary privilege that I have witnessed in my time in this parliament. For five or 10 minutes the member for Whitlam said claim after claim after claim against the member for Deakin which he does not have the courage to say outside of this place. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left! Mr TUDGE: If this member has the courage of his convictions, if he actually believes the things that he said in that statement, he should step outside of the chamber— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will pause for a minute. Members on my left, the interjection is far, far too loud. Members will be warned if it continues. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Continue, Minister. Mr TUDGE: It's an absolute disgrace, the conduct of the member for Whitlam right now. Mr Conroy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland is warned! Mr TUDGE: I have never seen an abuse of parliamentary privilege like this in my entire 10 years in the federal parliament. If the member for Whitlam has a centimetre of courage and decency, and conviction in relation to the things that he claimed, he should step outside of this chamber and make exactly the same claims outside of this chamber. He should say the same, directly outside of this chamber, about rorting, about abuse, about directly using taxpayers funds for inappropriate purposes. But he won't. He's deliberately using this process to smear a very good minister of the Morrison government, a minister who designed the HomeBuilder program, which the member for Whitlam claims has been an absolute farce— Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brand! Mr TUDGE: Yet the Master Builders Association said it was the single best stimulus measure that they have ever seen. And we know that the housing and construction industry, more generally, has been saying that this has been keeping up the demand for construction and keeping tradies employed, which is just so important at this particular time. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bruce is warned! Mr TUDGE: He has designed other home incentive packages as well. And, yes, he had a contribution to make towards the early access to superannuation scheme and we all should be very proud of that contribution—as did the assistant financial services minister also. It was a scheme where people could access their own money in these very desperate times, whereas the Labor Party, of course, thinks that that money belongs to something else. I'm disgusted in the member for Whitlam—I'm disgusted in him! I expected more from this member. I thought he was a more decent individual than he has shown himself to be today. These were serious allegations. I again ask him to step outside of this chamber and say exactly the same thing. But he will not, and that says everything about this individual and everything about the claims he has been making. But if you want to talk about the difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, you don't need to go very far. He said that these instances were exactly the same. Well, go back and have a look at the TV footage on what occurred in the member for Holt's electorate office, under camera, on footage, about people admitting what they had done. That's what occurred and, quite rightly, those ministers, those state ministers, were sacked immediately, and quite rightly. The federal intervention of the Labor Party over the Victorian branch of the Labor Party was put into place to deal with that sort of behaviour, which was rotten to the core. We know this party, the Labor Party, is the party of Eddie Obeid. It is the party of Craig Thomson. It's the party of Sam Dastyari. It's the party of Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly. That's what this party is standing up for. Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Whitlam! Mr TUDGE: They use this place to smear good ministers, and it is disgraceful. Their normal tactic—and I see the member for Isaacs on the screen back there—when they want to smear good, hardworking ministers, is to refer them to the Australian Federal Police. The member Isaacs, sitting up there on the screen in the back corner, has done that 10 times now. He refers to the Federal Police, quickly puts the press release out there that this person has been referred for criminal activity and therefore warrants an investigation. Of course, when the shadow Attorney-General issues such a referral, the Federal Police, quite rightly, take account of that referral and look into it. But do you know what the results have been from each of those 10 referrals to the Federal Police? How many do you think have actually been followed up and the Australian Federal Police have said, 'Yes, there's a matter to deal with here'? Was it nine out of 10 or 10 out of 10? Not a single one of the member for Isaacs' referrals to the Australian Federal Police has even been followed up and decided that there should be charges laid by the Australian Federal Police. Not a single one! That's the type of thing the Labor Party does to our hardworking ministers who are in the government right now, working around the clock, creating jobs, as the member for Deakin, the Assistant Treasurer, has been doing. And now today they come in and say the worst of all smears that I've heard in my 10 years here. The actual MPI today is about a crime and misconduct commission, a Commonwealth integrity commission, something which this government has committed to, something which this government has taken its time to establish, to ensure accountability across the public sector. I can inform the House that the draft legislation establishing the Commonwealth Integrity Commission— Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Bruce has been warned! The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a). The member for Bruce then left the chamber. Mr TUDGE: I am one of the happiest men, certainly in this chamber, that one of those state ministers has been dismissed. I can inform the House that there is draft legislation established for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It's ready and will be released at an appropriate time, after more immediate priorities concerning the management of the COVID recovery have been dealt with. There is $106.6 million which has been allocated towards this commission. There has been tremendous consultation work undertaken by the Attorney-General. This is a difficult piece of legal work to put into place, but I believe that the Attorney-General has managed to draft good legislation which will have very significant powers. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have investigatory powers that are greater than a royal commission, including the ability to hold hearings and compel witnesses to testify. The Labor Party, on the other hand, have been calling for a Commonwealth integrity commission for many, many years, but do you know how far they've got in designing theirs? They've got seven principles, I believe. That's it. That's all they've got. The Greens have developed a bill. Ms Murphy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dunkley is warned! Mr TUDGE: Guess where the Labor Party are now leaning? They've decided, 'We can't develop our own and put it into the parliament, so we'll just grab the Greens one and back theirs in.' I know what Joel Fitzgibbon would say in relation to that. It's another perfect example of letting the Greens do the work and jumping onto the Greens bandwagon, despite all of the flaws in theirs. We won't be supporting the Greens bill. There are serious flaws in that bill. But we will be introducing a Commonwealth integrity commission at the appropriate time, after full consultation, as has been occurring, and it will have full powers to be able to investigate. It will be a very important agency. In bringing this MPI, the member for Whitlam was never serious about the crime and misconduct commission. This MPI wasn't actually about that. If it were, he would have spoken about it. He would have laid out Labor's principles, rather than just adopting the Greens one. Rather, it was a desperate ploy, a disgraceful ploy, to smear a good minister of this government.