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.
