While the bill for a federal anti-corruption body won’t be introduced into Parliament until tomorrow, its design principles are becoming clearer, and it seems the government is committed to an effective body.
In response to a question from independent Zoe Daniel yesterday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the commission would be able to pursue “conduct by any person that could adversely affect the honesty or impartiality of a public official’s conduct”.
And in response to a question from independent Allegra Spender, Dreyfus settled the matter of public hearings: “Public hearings must be available to this commission because the experience of the eight existing state and territory commissions has shown us that in order for an anti-corruption commission such as we proposing to be effective, there must be the possibility of public hearings.”
That’s exactly right — the effectiveness of an anti-corruption body requires public hearings.
In doing so, Dreyfus contradicted Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who had claimed the government had conceded public hearings could amount to “show trials”, a position held only by the Coalition, News Corp and the ranks of the corrupt.
The remaining concern about the federal body is the definition of the conduct that would fall within its jurisdiction: “serious or systemic corruption”. The systemic part is straightforward; “serious” is more complicated.
The NSW ICAC approach has an expansive definition of corrupt conduct that includes adversely affecting the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, dishonest or partial exercise of official functions, a breach of public trust, or the misuse of information. But that definition is then caveated: it must be conduct that is a criminal offence, a disciplinary offence, conduct that would be reasonable grounds for dismissing a public official, or for ministers and MPs a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.
Note terms like “reasonable grounds” and “substantial” — the NSW legislation requires ICAC commissioners to exercise some judgment about what might justify an investigation. It appears the Labor model will rely more heavily on commissioners’ discretion to determine what “serious” might amount to, without limiting it in the way the NSW act does.
The threshold must be set somewhere; allowing the body itself to set the limits might work better than Parliament attempting to prescribe it. The benefit of that approach is that a future Coalition government will have less capacity to narrow the remit of the body by dictating what conduct should be examined.
One more thing: probably the most absurd argument against an effective federal ICAC came on the weekend from Liberal Senator Jane Hume. It’s worth quoting her words on the ABC’s Sunday morning circle-jerk in full:
We want the best and the brightest to join, but if the risk to your professional reputation, if the risk to your bank balance, if the risk to your life and your livelihood is there just because you can politicise a corruption charge, well, why would anybody enter public life?
The idea that an effective anti-corruption body would deter good people from entering public life is remarkable. Is the quality of federal MPs an indicator of the “good” people who have entered public life undeterred because there’s no federal ICAC?
Let’s have a look. Scott Morrison, who led the most corrupt government in federal history, who secretly swore himself into ministries and told the Murdoch press but not his own ministers, who misled Parliament, whose office smeared critics and led the partisan misuse of taxpayer funding across the government? Angus Taylor, whose office was embroiled in a police investigation involving forged documents attacking political opponents? Alan Tudge? Christian Porter? Michaelia Cash? Bridget McKenzie?
And perhaps Hume hasn’t checked Hansard lately, but the idea that the lack of a federal ICAC prevents people from making corruption charges doesn’t exactly hold up. It’s only a couple of months since Dutton opened his first question time by asking if the prime minister had been consorting with rapists.
The lack of a federal ICAC hasn’t stopped mud-throwing. But once it’s established, it will require politicians wanting to throw mud to put up or shut up.
“The idea that an effective anti-corruption body would deter good people from entering public life is remarkable.”
Let’s say that this is true – so what? It’s not like the only people who feel they can make a difference honestly are those who would worry about an anti-corruption body. There are plenty of capable people who could run for parliament, and if a few run scared because they worry about an ICAC, there’s plenty more out there. And even if we drive away everyone of substance, we’d still probably be better off because we have the means to limit those who abuse their power.
There’s a great meritocratic myth that only those who are in power now are deserving of it, and that all those other people who aren’t in power wouldn’t be capable of doing the job well. So any rules that make it harder for those at the top to exercise their deserved power is a hindrance. Aside from being complete bull, it underestimates the capacity of a lot of people. We have some 25 million people in this country, yet the privileged few who happen to occupy positions of power are the only capable among us? Give me a break! It’s not taking anything away from those at the top to say others are also capable, even if it’s a bruise to their egos.
Totally agree. My experience is good people don’t run for parliament because of the current state of affairs with respect to power imbalance, and the dread of the personal toll of dealing with hostile mainstream media with scant respect for truth.
Why would ‘good people’ want to rub shoulders with the scum & dross that makes up the majority of MPs?
I always try to remind myself that there are plenty of good people in politics already, whose hard work makes a difference yet often goes unsung, but they’re the ones you don’t normally hear much from because they fail to make headlines or get a reputation.
In 40yrs of mingling and dealing with politicians, federal & state, the only ones I’ve found to not be thick, incompetent, corrupt or self serving – or combinations thereof – were real Independents.
Who were almost as rare as hen’s teeth.
“Serious or Systemic” – where’s the line? Jobs for mates? Neutering regulators via defunding? A bottle of scotch? A new car? A new house? A new house for your mistress? Lying and smearing?
My guess is “the line” will be a wide grey band with pollies just the same as business people (and annoying toddlers) seeing how far they can push it.
My preference is there’s no grey area. Plus strong penalties for smearing and bringing false allegations. Whether that’s workable is another question.
Why is Labor so keen to get the corrupt LNP on board and voting for a federal ICAC? Labor only have to negotiate with the Greens and teals and David Pocock- all of whom have taken a strong stance on the need for a federal ICAC. Now we hear that there will be a very high bar for public hearings and that most investigation could be held in camera. Well, that is not an ICAC. This latest development seems to be at the behest of that feckless Queensland cop Dutton.
The basis for your claim that Labor “is keen to get the LNP on board” is? Yesterdays’ Crikey? Dutton? various Greens/Teals? For pity’s sake wait a day or so and have a look at the bill.
Just go on the Guardian coverage from Canberra and see Dreyfuss dodging and diving, on exceptional circumstances for public hearings. Mark my words this will be the price paid for the support of the LNP. Labor are utterly untrustworthy and heaven forbid that the independents and Greens influence policy- that really would threaten the rotten duopoly.
I guess we’re going to find out tomorrow,,,
Definitely a mystery – almost as if terrified of a body with teeth & power to really find those ‘bad apples’ which seem so ubiquitous.
Perhaps it is so that when, not IF, they strive & struggle and finally produce a limp lettuce leaf they can whine “Look what the Opposition made us do!”
Hear Hear
Glad to see yesterday’s concerns were baseless. I hope Peter Dutton’s claims are not mistaken for Labor’s actual position again. It is a shame for our political discourse that the new Liberal leader is as trustworthy as the last.
Cut from the same cloth.
Another article speculating about a bill we will all get to see TOMORROW. Deep breathes and you’ll make it through that one more sleep 😉