Regarding the unveiling of the government’s legislation for a federal anti-corruption body, and the possibility that Labor has done a deal with the Coalition to avoid Senate amendments, it’s wise to remember that Labor came late to the idea of a federal ICAC. It wasn’t until early 2018 that Bill Shorten finally signed Labor up for such a body, but the Greens and crossbenchers had been calling for one for years.
As the torrent of scandals, abuse of power, misconduct and rorting that characterised the Morrison years went by, Labor’s support hardened — especially in the face of the deliberately weak, secretive model that Morrison and Christian Porter wanted, which would actually have helped the corrupt cover up their crimes.
But it pays to remember that the transition from opposition to government can perform an almost alchemical transformation in attitudes to transparency, integrity and accountability.
According to Peter Dutton, Labor has been busy discussing a federal ICAC model with the Coalition, despite the deep antipathy toward accountability and integrity modelled by the Liberals and Nationals when in government. Dutton says that public hearings for an anti-corruption body are “problematic” and “the government concedes that point”.
The opposition may be verballing Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, but if true, it could represent a major watering-down of the power of a federal ICAC.
Put simply, public hearings are crucial to the effectiveness of an anti-corruption body. It is terror of the “perp walk” in the minds of politicians, public officials and those who have tried to suborn them that will focus officials on whether particular conduct might lead to a trip in for a public hearing. And taxpayers have an absolute right to find out what their officials — elected and otherwise — have been doing.
The only people who don’t think public hearings are a good idea are politicians themselves, crooks who’ve been exposed, and News Corp, which hates the NSW ICAC with a passion.
Dutton also claims “we’re working constructively with the government” on the “breadth” of the body, suggesting it will be narrower than needed.
The idea of Labor working “constructively” with the Coalition on a federal ICAC should be ringing loud alarm bells about the prospect of a major party stitch-up. Certainly the crossbenchers suspect one is afoot.
This morning, all the House of Reps crossbenchers, including Bob Katter, David Pocock and the Greens, released a statement noting that “we have been raising our detailed concerns with the government for many months now in a good faith attempt to have them addressed in a timely way”.
They want whistleblower protections, oversight mechanisms that will protect the independence of the body (including secure funding), and the ability to self-initiate investigations, including into “grey” corruption — pork-barrelling, rorting, appointments of mates and other abuses of office that might not amount to criminal conduct.
The statement also calls for “jurisdiction over third parties who seek to improperly influence government decisions and funding”.
The word “improperly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Arguably, anyone who pays a political donation to get access to decision-makers is “improperly” trying to influence decisions, because the great bulk of us don’t have that kind of access.
A lobbyist who is a former MP, party powerbroker or political strategist who knows their calls will be returned and their meeting requests promptly acknowledged as “improperly” trying to influence decisions. But these kinds of influence are legal under our current, woefully inadequate donation and lobbying laws. Far better to regulate the problem at the source rather than wait for an egregious case to appear before a federal body.
Labor will argue that an anti-corruption body that isn’t supported by the opposition risks charges of illegitimacy and abolition at the next change of government. Well and good — if the Coalition wants to go to the next election promising to abolish a federal ICAC, let them knock themselves out. Labor would do far better to be seen to negotiate with the teal independents and David Pocock, strengthening their case to voters at the next election to keep their seats.
Tomorrow has become a significant test for Labor: once the legislation for a federal ICAC is unveiled, we can see whether Labor is serious about integrity, or has indeed been preparing a major party stitch-up.
Are you concerned Labor is losing its enthusiasm for a strong federal ICAC now it’s in government? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
This is not Labor “losing its enthusiasm for a strong federal ICAC now it’s in government”. It never had any such enthusiasm. This is just Labor no longer pretending. I posted here several times before the last election that Labor, should it win, would get together with the Liberals to make sure its federal integrity commission is a suitably tame, well-behaved and domesticated watch-dog: half-blind, rather deaf and equipped with a full set of rubber teeth. The cross-bench minor parties and independents are being stitched up. Of course they are. It is exactly as predicted. Labor and the Liberals fight about some things, but when it comes to preserving their privileges, looking after their dodgy mates and their access to corrupt money they are in full agreement.
Perhaps, but watch how Twitter will light up if Labor tries it on…the protests will be mammoth.
The twitterati absolutely will light up, but that won’t factor in the ALP’s decision-making one way or another. Twitter is great for energising people, but doesn’t change a lot of mainstream opinion. ALP’s strategy seems to be “Do 1% more than the LNP”. The problem is that the strategy of being the marginally better ice cream shop on the beach only works when there’s just 2 ice cream shops.
Hopefully Labor will see sense on this.
The third shop has already opened and painted in the fashionable Teal colour. The Liberal Party have already come to understand that people will not be taken for suckers.
Teals won safe lib seats. Like Barnaby Joyce, who rabbits on about his fab appeal to ordinary folks (and who sought a series of ultra safe seats in Qld before going for New England) the teals will never, never seek to run in battler country. Which is why Dai Lee is no teal.
Unless, by Dai Lee, you mean someone else, I was not aware that Dai Le was ever thought to be a teal.
She won Fowler because the ALP Right Machine insisted on parachuting in 4 time loser KK to displace Tu Le, an excellent, highly qualified and locally endorsed candidate.
The next election slogan for indies everywhere should be Labor NEVER Learns!.
A Teal nearly won in COWPER.
Unlikely from past experience – some people continue to eat crap because they always have done so.
So what?
How do you know Labor is doing anything of the sort?
The only source for this article is Peter Dutton.
Bernard, have you asked Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to respond to Dutton’s claim?
Exactly. The Anti-Labor stance on this masthead is disappointing.
All Crikey does is post a couple of short articles every few days and it is not worth the annual subscription.
The Labor is Racist article did it for me, I won’t be renewing.
If only the previous government had maintained order, we would not now be living in a time where the best we can do for outrage, is speculate on an integrity bill.
Fair enough! Who would be silly enough to trust Dutton!
In Question Time Dreyfus confirmed hearings will be public.
And would look into malfeasance in the allocation of funding public officials, past, present & future.
Buy shares in popcorn, IF true.
Alas, given Labor’s too often demonstrated lack of probity, courage and spine, that is one very big IF.
Indeed. For Bernard Keane, a Dutton claim in a Four Corners interview that “we’re working with the government” in the matter of the ICAC is an opportunity for him to suggest that Labor isn’t serious about creating an effective ICAC. Assuming Dutton has actually talked to Dreyfus, does Bernard think that Dreyfus should have refused to talk to him?
I recall reading that Tony Blair regretted creating Britain’s FOI legislation. He said it was as though he’d handed all and sundry a mallet with which to hit him on the head. But I expect that an honest politician would be in favour of an effective ICAC, just like an honest professional cyclist would be in favour of an effective anti-doping campaign.
At least Keane wears his prejudice on his sleeve.
Bernard is still demonstrating a loyalty to a party which in reality no longer exists.
Well said. This is rubbish journalism.
Off you go, jumping on a claim by Dutton. Dutton will have no effect on the Federal ICAC. It doesn’t matter how many times you posted otherwise, you are just wrong.
No, it’s not just Dutton making up things. For example, The New Daily reports today:
Has the government made any denial that it is working with the Coalition?
The Labor partisans commenting here are of course embarrassed, which accounts for their howls of protest about any reporting of this shameful and cynical bipartisan collaboration, but as Dylan put it, you don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
There is no source for the claim in your quote. It’s just a passive voice statement.
Right. proposing a solid federal ICAC thing is clear evidence of a lack of interest in the subject.
The people of Australia are heavily invested in the establishment of a federal Icac that is notwithstanding the cynical claim by many on the right that people are more concerned about the cost of living than this anti-corruption body. There is no doubt that the Berejiklian spectacle and the revelations of NSW skullduggery and the water and sports rorts played out in the Federal election and whether people are paying attention or not this affects every aspect of life everyday. However it is again very interesting to see the Liberals split in their messaging. On one hand Dutton feigning sweetness and light about Liberals supporting Labor’s plan for the Icac then Jane Hume on Insiders running the same old objection about public hearings insisting it would deter good people from entering politics. Couldn’t be any worse than the line-up we had in the last government. Hume was one of the few who silently allowed a megalomaniac to lead the country. She has no integrity or credibility whatsoever and is in no position to advise anyone what amounts to good governance.
My thoughts exactly.
I read that as watersports rorts.
Now that’s heading into Trumpian territory.
One of the leading reasons that people voted for the Independents Greens and Labor was that the proposed Federal ICAC act proposed be strong formidable and retrospective. If it doesn’t incorporate all those ideals there will be a massive blow back on the Albanese Government.
One of the reasons that so many of us voted for the Independents and Greens first, before preferencing Labor, was that we didn’t really trust Labor to be all that different to the Coalition.
Many other people did give Labor their first preference. Labor appears to be working hard to make sure that those people don’t make the same mistake next time.
I’ve noticed that all the claims on Labor working with the LNP on this have come from either Liberal Party sources, or Phil Coorey – which is the same thing.
It may be true, but it would be a long term suicide note for any major party to water down antiCorruption legislation. There are Labor seats as well as LNP seats that will be vulnerable to independents or Greens next election and this is is just the issue they could campaign on.
I’ve noticed that all the denials have been coming from… actually, there doesn’t appear to have been a denial.
Once again,
Labor/Albo have rocks in their heads by not engaging constructively with the cross benchers. Why would you engage in any way with the LNP rump left there. Insiders yesterday showed they haven’t seen the light and have no wish to see the light – born to rule attitude and our way or the highway carries on.
I agree. If the ALP wants to increase their primary vote at the next election they will engage with the independents, not isolate them. Otherwise they will see that tactical voting can hit them as well as the LNP. You would think this is a relatively straightforward concept for them to understand. Fingers-crossed til we see the Bill…