Libs up the ante on corruption commission public hearings

Phillip CooreyPolitical editor

Oct 3, 2022 – 4.40pm

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

The Coalition has upped the ante over the proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission by demanding a high-ranking judge make the final decision whether hearings should be public.

Under the model proposed last week by the Albanese government and to which the Coalition gave its in-principle support, the commissioner could hold a hearing in public if he or she determined there were “exceptional circumstances” and it was “in the public interest”.

Liberal MP and shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser. Alex Ellinghausen

This threshold, which is consistent with Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), was criticised by legal and integrity experts, and the Greens and independents, as too low.

They want to bring the NACC in line with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, which holds public hearings if deemed in the public interest.

But after initially saying the government’s proposed NACC had struck the right balance, the opposition now wants the threshold lifted so a superior court judge acting independently of the NACC has the final say over public hearings.

“They would be divorced from the necessity the commission may feel to demonstrate it’s doing it’s job by having public hearings,” shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser said.

Mr Leeser said the track record of state-based commissions over the past 30 years had demonstrated the need for extra safeguards to protect innocent officials from being besmirched.

“We have seen the way in which public hearings can impact people over the past 30 years,” he said. “We think exceptional circumstances is a good start.”

Mr Leeser said the extra demand should not be mistaken for a softening of support for the NACC.

“None of this takes away from our support for a corruption commission,” he said.

He said the Coalition would push the extra safeguard in its submission to the parliamentary committee now scrutinising the legislation before parliament votes at the end of the year.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus declined to say whether he supported the extra safeguard, only that all suggestions would be considered.

“The committee process is designed to make sure all concerns and views on the NACC are considered,” he said.

While legal and integrity experts such as Geoffrey Watson SC would oppose the extra threshold for public hearings, Mr Leeser said he agreed with Mr Watson’s suggestion that the NACC be given a three-month timeline for inquiries to be dealt with in the name of procedural fairness.

On the weekend, Mr Dreyfus said there could be timelines but not one size fits all.

“It’s going to depend on the actual investigation. I think it’s very difficult, given the immense variety of the types of corruption, for a piece of legislation to set a hard and fast rule that it’s got to be done within a particular time,” he said.

“It’s undesirable that inquiries drag on and on, but I can point to instances, for example, where … you wouldn’t want to bring to an end investigations, where you’re still pursuing inquiries for a whole range of reasons, where you know someone’s about to be charged.”

The government can pass the legislation through the Senate with the support of the opposition. The alternative is garnering the support of the Greens and one independent.

Tasmanian independent Senator Jacqui Lambie said on Monday that although she was concerned at the proposed threshold for public hearings, that alone was not enough to stop its passage through parliament.

Phillip Coorey is the political editor based in Canberra. He is a two-time winner of the Paul Lyneham award for press gallery excellence. Connect with Phillip on Facebook and Twitter. Email Phillip at pcoorey@afr.com