Crossbench fury at corrupt ‘deal’

The Albanese government is facing a backlash over its national anti-corruption commission’s new test for public hearings.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie says the tougher public hearings threshold was news to her Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Albanese government is facing a backlash from crucial Senate crossbenchers over its national anti-corruption commission’s new test for public hearings to be limited to “exceptional circumstances and where it is in the public interest to do so”.

The higher threshold, which was unveiled by Attorney-­General Mark Dreyfus on Tuesday after caucus approved the legislation, was criticised by crossbenchers from both houses but received support from some Coalition MPs.

With the bill to be introduced to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Mr Dreyfus declared “people should be afraid if they’ve been engaged in corrupt activities” as he announced $262m for the establishment and ongoing operation of the NACC.

He confirmed the commission would be able to investigate conduct that occurred at any time past and present and expected most hearings would be in private – as they are at state level.

“Where there are exceptional circumstances and the commission determines that it’s in the public interest that a hearing be in public, then it’s going to be in public,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“Public hearings, as we have seen, are more difficult to conduct. They raise questions about reputational harm, which are not faced when you hold private hearings. And that’s why most of these commissions’ work has been done in private.”

Asked by teal MP Kate Chaney in question time under what exceptional circumstances a ­public hearing could occur, Mr Dreyfus instead focused on when a private hearing might take place – such as if the matter was before a current or projected criminal trial or ­involved national security ­information.

Teal independent Kate Chaney is the member for Curtin. Picture: Facebook

Greens justice spokesman David Shoebridge said it was “too high a bar and ignores the fact that sunshine is a great disinfectant”, while Ms Chaney responded that “the public want public hearings whenever it’s in the public interest”.

Senator Shoebridge, whose party Labor will need to win over if it does not gain the support of the Coalition, added: “This ­last-minute move by Labor to restrict public hearings only to exceptional cases is exceptionally unhelpful. It has all the hallmarks of a side deal between Labor and the Coalition designed to shield politicians and their powerful friends from public scrutiny.”

ACT independent senator David Pocock, who like the Greens could have a critical vote to pass the bill through the Senate, said the independent commission should be able to make hearings public if it believed it was in the public interest and “not be constrained to do so in ‘exceptional’ circumstances”.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie said the tougher public hearings threshold was news to her and Senate colleague Tammy Tyrrell, and it “caused a raised eyebrow or two”.

“We’ve asked the government to explain this and they haven’t given an answer as yet,” she said. “The ball is in their court to say why they think this is necessary.”

Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey says she was ‘pleased to hear public hearings will be the exception rather than the rule’. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Independent MP Zali Steggall said the new test was a “major red flag” and could result in very few public hearings.

Peter Dutton declined to respond before the Coalition had seen the legislation, but Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey said she was “pleased to hear public hearings will be the exception rather than the rule … What we are seeing is the ­reality of governing. It is very easy to promise things when you are not responsible for delivery.”

Nationals frontbencher Barnaby Joyce also said he supported the higher threshold because it was the “much lesser of two evils”.

“It’s better than where it would go if the teals and the Greens ran away with it,” he said.

“We’ve seen through the process in NSW, especially with Gladys Berejiklian, there were a lot of things asked that were just nobody’s business.

The scope of the commission has also been broadened compared to what it was in June, when it had the power to investigate allegations of “serious and systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment”.

Following consultations with the crossbench, that has been changed to “serious or systemic corruption”.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said this had the potential to “significantly expand the scope of what may be investigated” and called for a stricter definition.

Independent MP Helen Haines said it was hard to know whether pork-barrelling would be pursued as much as people first thought but pointed out the commission could undertake its own investigation of a discretional grants program without a referral, providing it met the “serious or systemic corruption” threshold.

“Pork-barrelling may come into this area where the commission decides we need to take a look at discretional grants; there may not be a direct referral, but we need to take a look at it, make investigations and see if there’s recommendations that should be made to improve the administration of public funds so they are in the public interest and not for political gains,” she told Sky News.

While Mr Dreyfus in opposition repeatedly referred to scandals that embroiled the former Morrison government when advocating for a national integrity commission, he said it was not appropriate for him as the responsible minister to make referrals to the NACC but the commission would be able to receive referrals “from any source”.

The NACC legislation, which includes whistleblower protections and exemptions for journalists and their sources, establishes a statutory parliamentary joint committee to regularly review and publicly report on the ­sufficiency of its budget.