 How would you grade the coalition policies on the issue of a federal ICAC? Look, I'm very disappointed by the government's position on a federal ICAC and I've given them an F a fail. I would rank it as a fail. I've graded the coalition's policy as an E. At an E on the A to F scale. I give them a grade of E, better than nothing, but only just. Details of what the coalition's put forward would be worse than having nothing. Effectively, it would be set up to give the appearance of a federal anti-corruption commission, but not actually be able to do the full job that we expected to. I'm also deeply, deeply concerned by the 2020 draft bill, a almost complete lack of commitment to pursuing this reform as a matter of urgency or even as a matter of priority for the government. The proposed model is very watered down and weak. There are many deficiencies in the bill. There's a number of shortfalls, narrow definitions of corruption. The coalition's model also has a narrow focus on criminal conduct. It defines corruption very, very narrowly. The bar for investigation is too high, requiring a suspicion of criminality. They won't be able to investigate serious or systemic corruption risks because they may not fall under the definition of criminal conduct. They're saying they're producing an anti-corruption body, but in fact it's going to operate in such a way that public officials and particularly parliamentarians are actually going to be shielded from transparency. They're going to be shielded from accountability. An effective integrity commission must be public-facing. It should be able to act on tips and information from the public media and public officials, including whistleblowers. And there's no public reporting. And public hearings ensure that proceedings are not secret and it increases public trust as well. And also the post-integrity commissions can't receive complaints directly from the public. There is no avenue for a complaint by a public service whistleblower. There is no avenue complaint by a member of the public. There is no obligation on parliamentarians to report corruption into the body. There's no power for the commission to start its own investigations if it gets wind of a potential issue. And there's forced secrecy on the body. The current strict reporting lines of this model behind closed doors can actually breed mistrust. Please tell us what you graded Labour's policies for a federal ICAC and why. I gave Labour a grade of A. Well, Labour would only get a C, which is like a bare pass. I graded Labour's proposal on a federal ICAC, a B. I've given Labour a B. I would give it a pass mark, but a very, very low pass mark. What we've seen with the coalition policy is the promise, but then a lot of delays and it never came to fruition. Proposed anti-corruption commission by Labour is a promise that will happen within six months if Labour came into government. So there is a proposed timeline. The proposed anti-corruption commission can act in response to individual referrals, including whistleblowers and public complainants. The principles insofar as they go, they include things like the facility for public hearings, a broad definition of corruption, some of the fundamentals, that the coalition model suffers from badly. Labour's promised broader scope and powers, including discretion to commence inquiries into serious and systemic corruption on its own initiative. Labour's also promised a transparent commission with powers to hold public hearings and make findings of fact, including a finding of corrupt conduct. And that's important because we need a commission that is public-facing and that is transparent. So in summary, Labour proposes a robust anti-corruption commission with strong powers and coupled with checks and balances to ensure that it does not abuse those powers. I guess people want to see that any government or alternative government is putting its money where its mouth is. Both the coalition and the Labour platforms, they've been responding to a lead which has been taken by, initially by the Greens since 2010 and then more recently by independence of all parts of the political spectrum. It's only because the coalition actually then promised more for a weaker model that we ended up with Labour saying, oh, yes, well, we would match that for our stronger model. Well, you would hope that they would match that for a stronger model because a stronger model is likely to be more expensive. If you do it on aspirations alone, it looks pretty good. But you can't make judgments just on a set of statements saying basically, we'll do it better. Commission will be independent. It'll be able to hold public hearings. It'll have bipartisan support. It'll have procedural fairness and it'll be able to make findings of corrupt conduct and report those findings. The ALP appears to be on the path to a more robust anti-corruption commission than the government. But it's hard to know whether it's an A-ranked body we've got in our midst because we actually know relatively little about it. We don't have the same level of detail to compare when it comes to the Labour proposing. Questions, of course, remain over the design details because we just don't have that detail yet. We also wonder about the funding and the timing. These are the sorts of things that are still to be ironed out. If there are weaknesses in the detail or in the funding, a Labour government might need to strengthen their model to get the deal done. The Labour Party has put up a one-pager in contrast to the 347-page the government has put up. There's not enough information. A page isn't enough. But at the moment, we don't have a full draft of the proposal. We've got a list of design principles. They look promising. They appear to respond to most of the issues that have been raised with the government's model, particularly in relation to how narrowly corruption is defined, the ability to receive complaints from members of the public and whistleblowers, the ability for the commission to conduct its own inquiries and its own motion, the power to conduct public hearings in some circumstances. But these are all very technical, detailed things. I want to see the actual draft provisions that set things out like jurisdiction, the investigative bar, reporting requirements and avenues, and public hearing thresholds. I can't give an A away to a model that I don't have the detail as yet.