Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:46): I thank the member for his question. The debate around the integrity commission, as evidenced by that question, should be—but never is when the opposition is involved—dealing with facts. They just cannot bring themselves to deal with actual facts, not even in talking about something as important as an integrity commission. The question goes to the time line of the government's development and consultation for an integrity commission, and I can explain that time line for the House. The first time that this really became an issue was when members opposite were previously in government. The opposition's previous position was stated by the shadow Attorney-General when they were last in government. That was, in his words, 'I am not convinced that there is a need for yet another integrity officer.' That statement can be found in an article entitled 'Expenses critic Mark Dreyfus embarrassed over taxpayers ski trip to— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, the question didn't ask about alternatives. It asked about the national integrity commission, which both sides of parliament say they support. The SPEAKER: Can I also say, with respect to that, I was listening closely to the Attorney, because, certainly, the question mentioned the concept of a national integrity commission, which the Attorney is addressing, but it had other elements there as well. I call the Attorney. Mr PORTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The time line for that commission was such that Labor supported, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the Commonwealth integrity commission before the last election. They said that they would need a 12-month period after that election to ready a bill, so that would have been May of 2020 this year. They further noted—in fact, the shadow AG went on to note—that as well as drafting they'd need time for consultation. Eminently sensible. The shadow AG said: … we also acknowledge that designing a body as complex and as significant as this is properly the work of government, with all the resources available to government. So, whether Labor, had they been in government, would have devoted all of the resources of government in May this year at the height of a global pandemic to a complicated, significant, complex, intensive consultation period on an integrity commission, or whether they would have applied all of the resources available to government to dealing with the pandemic, is, thankfully, something we will not find out, but it would have been a very strange decision. It is also true that the government received its first draft of the bill in December of last year, which I might note is much earlier than their time line of 12 months. One of the things that I have been doing is looking at ways in which you can improve that draft bill, and one thing that I am absolutely convinced that that draft must have is a mechanism to prevent vexatious, baseless, politically motivated time-wasting referrals. And why is that? That's because of the shadow Attorney-General, who has an Australian record of 10 baseless— Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I just say to the Attorney that he needs to confine himself to the question to be directly relevant. Mr PORTER: They're the types of referrals this bill has to deal with. They are the types of referrals that the New South Wales Police commissioner described as 'a great diverter of my time'. Perhaps if I close with the words of the shadow Attorney-General— The SPEAKER: No, the Attorney-General needs to resume his seat. Mr PORTER: I've completed my answer. The SPEAKER: That's good. We reached the same position at exactly the same time!