The national anti-corruption commission inquiry has recommended parliament pass the government’s bill, paving the way for Labor’s model for the integrity body to be legislated in the final parliamentary sitting fortnight of 2022.
The joint select committee delivered its unanimous report on Thursday, underscoring support across the political spectrum for the integrity body, although the crossbench immediately signalled it will attempt to toughen the bill by easing the bar for public hearings.
In September the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, copped backlash from the crossbench and transparency campaigners for the bill, which requires “exceptional circumstances” before the Nacc can hold public hearings.
That move won a tick of approval from the Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, although the Liberals have continued to advocate publicly for further safeguards to be added to the bill.
The bill has been reviewed by a joint select committee, chaired by the Labor senator Linda White and deputy chaired by the independent MP Helen Haines, the architect of the crossbench integrity commission bill in the last parliament.
In its report, the committee recommended minor changes including extending the protection of journalists’ sources to all staff within the relevant news organisation, and informing people under investigation if they are found not to have engaged in corrupt conduct.
On Thursday Haines told told reporters in Canberra the bill was a “good” one that deserves to pass both houses of parliament “but of course it could be better”.
Haines confirmed she would move amendments to remove the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” from the test for public hearings, and to change the factors the Nacc commissioner can consider when judging the public interest to a mandatory list.
Haines said the test “came as a surprise” when Dreyfus released the bill and noted the attorney had blocked his department from revealing to the inquiry when federal Labor added the bar for public hearings to its anti-corruption bill, claiming that to do so “would be detrimental to the public interest”.
The test was criticised in submissions to the inquiry by transparency experts and by Victoria’s anti-corruption body, which warned it was an “unnecessary” hurdle to public hearings.
The Greens justice spokesman, senator David Shoebridge, said despite “powerful evidence” in favour of removing the “exceptional circumstances” test, the committee had not done so.
“I can assure you – we will be fighting in the Senate, for the next few weeks … to corral the public support we know is there for public hearings and try and achieve that outcome so we have full public hearings when this bill finally passes.”
But the Greens, whose Senate votes are vital to Labor when the Coalition opposes legislation, can be sidelined if the Coalition votes with the government against such an amendment.
Dreyfus told reporters in Canberra the government would “give complete consideration” to all recommendations of the committee and other “suggestions that have been made”.
Asked if Labor had already committed to a deal with the Coalition not to remove “exceptional circumstances”, Dreyfus said: “I can say very directly, there have been no deals done anywhere in the parliament for the passage of this legislation.”
Dreyfus said he accepts “minds may differ” on the test but he still considers the Labor bill the “best possible model”.
The shadow attorney general, Julian Leeser, has advocated for an independent judge to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to hold a public hearing, rather than the Nacc itself.
The Liberals have also called for the range of legal officers who can approve Nacc warrants to be narrowed, arguing Administrative Appeals Tribunal members are not senior enough for the task.
On 4 October, Leeser told Sky News the Nacc would have “extraordinary powers”. “They can basically take people off the street,” he said.
“The right to silence doesn’t apply to people. The privilege against self-incrimination is removed. Legal professional privilege is abrogated.”
The opposition is considering an amendment to the bill to broaden the scope of legal professional privilege which would allow witnesses to refuse to provide material to the Nacc based on communications with legal advisers.
The Coalition has also continued to raise concern about a carve-out that specifies union officials are not automatically within the scope of the Nacc merely because they exercise functions conferred by federal law, such as the right of entry on worksites.
In question time on Wednesday Anthony Albanese said “union officials, if they act corruptly in engagement with government agencies, are treated like any other third party and are covered.”
