Voters divided on party lines over public anti-corruption hearings: poll

A narrow majority of the electorate wants the nation’s new integrity watchdog to hold more public hearings to crack down on corruption, with only 27 per cent in favour of using open hearings when “exceptional circumstances” apply.

As Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus steps up the case for his draft law to create the new commission, a new Resolve Political Monitor survey shows that 50 per cent of Labor voters want it to hold more public hearings while only 43 per cent of Coalition voters take the same view.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus rejected the suggestion that the “exceptional circumstances” clause could leave hearings open to legal challenges. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

The exclusive results heighten the debate over the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) when Greens and some crossbench senators want changes to the government’s draft law to ensure public hearings whenever the agency believes it to be in the public interest.

Dreyfus signalled on Wednesday the commission could be legislated by the end of this year given the broad support from Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the welcome from most members of the Senate crossbench to the bulk of the plan despite the differences over public hearings.

The attorney-general also said he would “shortly” proceed with a related reform, an update to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, to protect whistleblowers who reveal wrongdoing.

Asked about the powers of the commission, 22 per cent said the NACC should have the power to decide what to investigate while 14 per cent said this should be decided by others and 43 per cent said it should be a combination of the two – an approach in line with the government bill.

On the conduct of public hearings, 51 per cent agreed with the proposition that more of the hearings should be open to the public, while 27 per cent believed they should be held in “exceptional circumstances” and 22 per cent were undecided.

The Centre for Public Integrity, a not-for-profit group led by former judges, found the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption held public hearings into 33 investigations from 2012 to 2022 and made findings of corrupt conduct or wrongdoing against at least one primary suspect in 32 of the matters.

This is only a small proportion of ICAC’s investigations over the 10-year period. Dreyfus estimates that only 5 per cent of the NSW commission’s inquiries were public.

The centre found this showed the claims of “reputational damage” were overstated because the open hearings helped to lead to corruption being exposed.

The only state commission with an “exceptional circumstances” rule is the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

“NSW ICAC can hold public hearings when it is in the public interest. They have used them to bring more evidence and witnesses forward, ultimately leading to corrupt people being found out,” said former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, KC, the chair of the Centre for Public Integrity.

Advocates for a federal watchdog have broadly welcomed the government plan to set up the NACC next year with powers to investigate “serious or systemic” corrupt conduct on its own initiative, from anonymous tip-offs and from referrals from other parts of the government.

The NACC would have the power to compel witnesses to produce evidence, could punish witnesses who provide misleading evidence and could send investigators into any federal agency without a search warrant, with the exceptions of Parliament, the offices of MPs, the courts, the ABC or SBS.

Section 73 of the bill says the commission “must” hold its hearings in private unless the commissioner decides to hold one in public, saying this could be done if the commissioner is satisfied there are “exceptional circumstances” and it is in the public interest to do so.

“The experience of state and territory commissions has been that not many hearings are conducted in public,” Dreyfus told the National Press Club on Wednesday when asked about the “exceptional circumstances” rule.

He rejected the idea that courts would have to rule on the issue because people would challenge a decision by the federal integrity commission to hold a public hearing.

“I don’t think it gives rise to litigation, it’s an open discretion to be exercised by the commissioner,” he said.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article