Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (11:03): I thank the member for moving this motion, but I want to speak to why the government will not be supporting a suspension of standing orders. The issue does not go to the merits of or the need for a serious and well-considered body to deal with the risk of serious criminal corruption at the Commonwealth level, because I want to be very clear that the government has developed such a model: the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, which is intended to be the lead body in Australia's successful multiagency anticorruption framework. We've gone through a very detailed consultation process—333 written submissions received, 46 consultation meetings and round tables—and we stand ready to introduce that legislation. We've done the detailed work. We've committed almost $150 million of funding to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We project it will have around 172 staff. And we've already implemented phase 1 of our plans by expanding the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I want to make a couple of things clear, because there have been some misleading claims made about the government's proposal. In the model we are proposing, the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be able to investigate past conduct and matters that occurred prior to its commencement. The Integrity Commission will be able to look into past conduct that falls within the scope of its jurisdiction. This will include over 145 criminal offences that presently exist in legislation, including, for example, under the Criminal Code Act, under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act and under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The government will also, under our proposal, create new offences relating to corrupt conduct, including concealing corruption and repeated public sector corruption. I want to make this point very clear as well, because there have been some misleading claims. The model we are proposing will have— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I interrupt the minister for a moment. The member seeks to make a point of order? Mr Wilkie: A point of order: the minister is misleading the House and misleading the Australian community by what he is describing. It is going to be a farce, this so-called integrity commission— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can't debate the point of order. I thank the member for his point of order, but it can be dealt with in other ways. Mr FLETCHER: I am seeking to inform the House of the details of the model that the Morrison government has developed and consulted on extensively, because there have been some misleading claims made by a number of parties. The facts are that the model we have developed for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission sees that body having the same— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a moment. The member seeks to take a point of order? Dr Haines: On relevance: this motion is about debate. It's about suspending standing orders to bring on debate. It is not about the government's bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. The minister should address the substance of the motion. Mr FLETCHER: I'm doing precisely that. I'm explaining why there is not a need, in the government's view, for a suspension of standing orders so as to allow debate in relation to the member's bill, because the government has a detailed proposal in relation to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. There have been some misleading claims made about the government's model, so I am seeking to make sure the House— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the minister to resume his seat for a moment. I give the call to the member for Kennedy. Mr Katter: I have great respect for the minister, but the issue that is being debated— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you just indicate to the chair what the point of order is? Mr Katter: I am going to do that—please. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need you to indicate it to me first up. Mr Katter: The issue being debated is whether we have the right to an emergency motion. It's not whether his idea is better than our idea; it is whether it should be an emergency motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Kennedy. Mr Katter: He isn't addressing the issue. That's not the issue. The issue is emergency. The DEPUTY SPEA KER: The member for Kennedy has made his point. The point of order is that the minister needs to address the substance of the motion. I have made it clear to the minister that he needs to address the substance of the motion before us. Mr FLETCHER: Can I respond to the point the member for Kennedy has made, because he's absolutely right; the question before the House right now is whether standing orders should be suspended so that this matter can be dealt with. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the debate concludes very shortly. Is there anybody who wants 30 seconds? I thank the House. The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be disagreed to.