The prime minister has repeatedly rejected the idea of establishing a national corruption body. Attorney general, Senator Brandis, went so far as to suggest that Australian federal politics is “remarkably free of corruption” when rejecting the need for such a body.

Yet, this is a government who’s cabinet secretary, Arthur Sinodinos, remains under investigation in the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac). Senator Sinodinos was also recently found by the NSW Electoral Commission to have been involved in a scheme to “channel and disguise” illegal donations to the NSW Liberal party prior to the 2011 state election. Yet, he retains the confidence of the prime minister.

Until recently, the government also had Mal Brough as its special minister of state. Brough remains under investigation by the Australian federal police over his role in the James Ashby affair.

In November last year, the AFP raided his home as part of its investigation. At the time, the prime minister publicly expressed confidence in his then minister, despite the police investigation and raid. This was an extraordinary state of affairs within a Westminster parliamentary system, to say the least. Brough has since resigned.

As for the attorney general, he is personally involved in allegations surrounding the illegal bugging of the East Timorese cabinet by Australian intelligence operatives in 2004.

It has also been suggested that a 2015 job offer he made to Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs in the weeks prior to the commission’s release of a damning report into children in detention constituted an unlawful inducement, although the AFP ultimately decided not to investigate the matter.

So when the government says there is no need for a federal corruption body, well, they would say that wouldn’t they?

For the record, I am opposed to re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Corruption and misconduct must be tackled wherever it is occurring. These are not issues unique to the building industry and therefore, there is no justification for the government’s exclusive focus on that industry. If the government were fair dinkum, it would be looking to tackle corruption across the board.

Every effort needs to be made to stamp out corruption and misconduct in the building industry, and wherever else it is occurring. However, where at all possible, this should not be at the expense of core democratic values. Any proposal to legislate in a manner inconsistent with these values must therefore demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. The government has not even come close to meeting this standard in present case.

Its case for the bringing back the ABCC relies on an assumption that the building industry, which is a key driver of the Australian economy, is uniquely prone to corruption and misconduct. The ABCC is advanced as an effective solution to this problem, and therefore a driver of productivity.

There is plenty of evidence of corruption and misconduct in the building industry, some of it serious. However, there is evidence of high-level corruption in numerous sectors of society, including politics. Perhaps the most prominent example is the financial services sector which is currently in crisis following a run of scandals so long that it is now facing the prospect of a royal commission.

As for the productivity argument, a number of studies have considered whether the previous manifestation of the ABCC brought about productivity gains. While an early study found this to be the case, subsequent studies have shown its methodology was seriously flawed, while finding there was no such improvement. At best, the issue is contested.

On the other side of the argument, the unions say that re-introducing the ABCC will compromise workplace safety. There is some evidence that workplace injuries and deaths increased when we last had an ABCC, and as a general rule, weaker unions mean less safe workplaces. In the construction industry, where the risk of workplace injuries and deaths is a very real one, this issue cannot be ignored.

I first raised the idea of a federal corruption body in 2014 during negotiations over the ABCC with the minister for employment, Eric Abetz. During these discussions, I repeatedly expressed reservations about the ABCC’s unique focus on the building sector and the draconian nature of some of its coercive powers.

These aspects of the bill render it inconsistent with fundamental democratic principles, such as the idea of equality before the law, the presumption of innocence and the right to silence. My personal view is that the parliament should be very reluctant to pass legislation that offends these principles.

The point I made to Abetz, and have continued to make ever since, is that while I recognise there are problems with corruption and misconduct in the building industry, this is not unique. If coercive powers of the type proposed are genuinely needed, which I seriously question, they should apply to all people, no matter what industry they work in.

On 24 February, the Senate passed a motion moved by Senator Dio Wang and myself, resolving to hold an inquiry into the establishment of a federal corruption body, to be known as the National Integrity Commission (NIC).

The inquiry will consider the adequacy of Australia’s existing legislative, institutional and policy framework in addressing corruption and misconduct, wherever it is occurring. It will also consider the nature and extent of coercive powers possessed by various statutory agencies, whether these are consistent with democratic principles and if not, whether they are strictly necessary to each agency’s ability to carry out its work.

It has been reported in the media on numerous occasions that I support the creation of a federal Icac. While this is presumably a reference to the establishment of an national integrity commission, it is misleading. Icac (NSW) is a body exclusively focused on investigating corruption in the public sector. There is no suggestion the NIC would be limited in this way, although the scope of its coverage is a matter to be considered by the inquiry.

I remain committed to the process I helped establish by way of the NIC inquiry. If pursued in good faith, this process would be likely to produce the best policy outcome. Of course, this would not be in keeping with the government’s political agenda, and if there is one thing you can be sure of in Australian politics, it is that politics always trumps policy.

The NIC inquiry is accepting public submissions until 20 April. Hearings will follow, the first of these scheduled for 21 April here in Canberra, before the Committee reports on 22 September.

However, if the government calls a double dissolution election next month the inquiry will not be completed. If I am re-elected, I intend to move a motion to re-establish the inquiry in the first week of the new parliament. If not, I will be urging those who take my place to do the same. For those interested in current inquiry, its webpage can be accessed here.