The federal anti-corruption body proposed by the government would be blocked from deciding if public hearings were warranted under an extreme proposal put forward by opposition spokesman on legal matters Julian Leeser, in a further attempt by the federal Coalition to weaken the body.
Leeser wants a ban on the national anti-corruption commission (NACC) from deciding if exceptional circumstances warrant public hearings, instead requiring a judge to make a determination.
Regarding public hearings, the “exceptional circumstances” requirement is already significantly tighter than the rules for the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, but not as difficult as the politician-friendly rules applying to Victoria’s Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission.
Apart from preventing the NACC from deciding how it conducts its inquiries, the change would enable targets of investigations to appeal decisions to hold public hearings to higher courts, giving well-resourced crooks the capacity to delay and block hearings until all appeal processes have been exhausted. This would impose potentially massive delays on inquiries. It’s unclear whether Leeser would also allow the NACC to appeal rulings blocking it from holding public inquiries.
Ironically, one of the complaints from right-wingers about existing anti-corruption bodies is the length of time inquiries currently take, usually because the bodies have not been funded adequately by governments of both sides of politics.
Leeser’s proposal comes from the same legal approach that Christian Porter and Scott Morrison took to their toothless pro-corruption corruption body: prevent it from making its own decisions about corruption investigations. Porter and Morrison — presumably with the full support of then backbencher Leeser, given he failed to object to any of its features — wanted to block the body from holding public hearings, conducting its own investigations, receiving complaints, and making findings of corruption by MPs.
When the government unveiled its model for the NACC, Leeser complained that the body had “extraordinary powers”, despite the fact they are exactly the same powers the Coalition wanted to give the discredited Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), which was reestablished in an effort to destroy the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) via a series of sham prosecutions that have been repeatedly thrown out of court.
As the ABCC case demonstrates, the Coalition’s concern for overmighty regulators and protecting the rights of those being investigated is far from universal. That didn’t merely apply to union officials — the Coalition wanted Australian Federal Police officers to have fewer protections than MPs under its anti-corruption model too.
Remember also that Leeser has refused to rule out relaunching the prosecution of Bernard Collaery in the event the Coalition returns to government, giving some insight into the standards he would bring to the role of first law officer.
Will the Coalition be so stupid to try to de-claw the NACC? 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.
If Labor wants any credibility or credit for its integrity commission it should reject all attempts by the Coalition to obstruct public hearings. It already conceded too much with the proposal to require exceptional circumstances before any public hearings. The NSW ICAC holds public hearings if it is in the public interest. This apparently results in a little fewer than one in twenty investigations being held in public. That looks very reasonable and proper. Restricting the NACC further with the rule requiring the matter to be exceptional as well must, by definition, result in some hearings being kept private when that is against the public interest. Why would Labor set up the NACC to operate in a way that works against the public interest?
Leeser’s proposed further restrictions, in additional to the exceptional rule, are just outrageous and would make the whole thing an expensive bad joke. Labor must stop taking the Coalition seriously and pass its legislation without them. I am reminded somewhat of the way Kevin Rudd as PM began with a good model for reducing carbon emissions but then kept modifying and weakening the proposal until it carried so much compensation for polluters it would have actually subsidised and encouraged carbon emissions. Then he blamed the Greens when they said they could no longer support a proposal that was worse than useless.
Yes there are some eerie parallels with 2009. Will Julian Leeser play a role like Ian Mcfarlane or Andrew Robb? Fortunately the success or otherwise of the bill in the Senate does not depend on the vote of a Family First crossbencher.
Also, the Government does not need the support of the Opposition to get the bill through the Senate. If the Opposition pushes too hard the Government (or the party room) can give up on bipartisanship – attack the LNP for being destructive and duplicitous and seek to accommodate the Independents. This does not have to be a rerun of 2009. The electorate won’t be so easily fooled this time. In any event this is a real test for Leeser who is in many ways is a lot like Dreyfus but without the charm.
Exactly. It’s the perfect opportunity to wedge the Opposition.
No point in wedging the opposition, they already have their knickers in a knot.
Not fall for the ‘libertarian trap’ that allows plausible arguments and excuses to drown out expertise, at the expense of ethics and morals; ‘whatever it takes’.
The classic modus operandi has been learnt round climate science denial then delay and obstruction, ditto Covid and before was the gay marriage plebiscite.
According to a conservative ‘libertarian’ think tank type on the latter ‘if it’s no, then everyone has to move on, if yes, it needs to be discussed (& delayed) further’.
That is well presented as yet another fallacy of the soi disant conservative/libertarian soi disant POV
“if it’s no, then everyone has to move on, if yes, it needs to be discussed (& delayed) further’.”
Same base argument or glib one liner was doing the rounds in comment sections of The Guardian post Brexit, by trolls from the Daily Torygraph telling everyone to shut up, while complaining their freedom of speech was constrained as they needed a subscription to comment 🙂
The LNP opposition to any form of NACC or part thereof stems from self preservation rather than any worthwhile issue of principle. Their leader (Dutton) will be one of the early referees to the NACC in respect of the contracts he let and there is a plethora of other former Ministers who will be in the firing line.
A thing which I see never mentioned is that if any of these investigations lead to criminal convictions with a potential term of imprisonment of one year or longer the member will become ineligible to sit in Parliament. There will not need to be expelled, their right to sit will simply cease to exist. No wonder they are fighting against the legislation.
The really vexing question is why is Albanese toying with accepting Dutton’s attempts to water down the legislation. Dreyfus seems to have done a good job with the legislation as far as it goes but has baulked at public hearings and protections for whistleblowers. It is one of several areas where Albanese has opted to go along with the opposition instead of asserting himself. We voted for him to be better than this. He has no need to be frightened of issues; he might need to be frightened more of avoiding addressing them.
Hear, Hear!
Albanese can let the senate cross bench make the call on any problem they see.
Exceptional circumstances won’t make it through the senate and nor will any of the other rubbish being generated by the opposition.
Put it and Medicare funding to a referendum!
How to say guilty of corruption without saying it
Who cares what Leeser & Dutton want, they are irrelevant if Albanese looks to the Greens & independents to pass the bill. Either establish a high standard for the NACC or don’t bother. A half-baked cake is inedible.
Correct Albo needs to ignore the LNP. Many current and former LNP members will be referred to the new ICAC when it is finally born so they are not disinterested parties. They want it to be a harmless dud. Me, I want them in jail.
Ignore the LNP, make public hearings the default and get it through with the cross benches.