Federal ICAC shapes as first big test

Operate with fairness

Suspected criminal conduct could be referred to the Australian Federal Police. It would “operate with procedural fairness”, its findings would be subject to judicial review, and it would be overseen by Joint Standing Committee of the Parliament,

A key issue will be how corruption is defined, with three teals – Monique Ryan (Kooyong), Allegra Spender (Wentworth) and Zoe Daniel (Goldstein) – saying it could include alleged instances of pork barrelling such as the “sports rorts” and commuter car park grants. Labor has a similar view.

Ms Spender said a federal ICAC should “consider any allegations of misuse of public money”.

“This includes spending programs, tendering of contracts, employment practices, and transparency around the process and outcomes of public spending.”

Dr Ryan said it could cover “the use of taxpayers’ money to improve the government’s electoral prospects rather than advancing community interests”.

Mr Dreyfus said last week the Labor model – unlike the Coalition’s – would not have different rules, or divisions for law enforcement and public sector corruption.

He said there would “safeguards in the legislation” for those who might be accused of corruption only to be later cleared.

Protect reputations

“I’m also concerned to protect the reputations of those who are simply assisting an anti corruption commission.

“The fact that there does not mean that you’ve done anything wrong, or that you are in any way associated with the wrongdoing.

“Indeed, it might be the complete reverse – you might be there as a whistleblower.”

On public hearings, he said Labor would leave it to the discretion of the commission, but pointed out that only 5 per cent of NSW ICAC hearing are held in public.

“It has to be able to decide for itself whether or not a matter should be dealt with in a public hearing, or dealt with in a private hearing.., but overwhelmingly these [state]′ commissions conduct their work in private hearings.”

Mr Dreyfus said that “all well-designed, anti corruption commissions answer the criteria of being powerful, and independent”.

He said there was a key reason he did not bring his own private member’s bill forward from opposition. “It’s necessary to have the Attorney General’s Department work with the existing integrity agencies at the Commonwealth level, to make sure that the legislation that we bring to the parliament properly meshes with all of those existing integrity agencies. It’s a feature of the Commonwealth system that is not shared at the state level.

“There are already existing a number of integrity agencies at the Commonwealth level, and it’s very important that we get referrals and across referrals that will be necessary, right, that we let this slide correctly. And that’s why I haven’t wanted to do it from opposition. It’s very much a job to be done from government.”

On Saturday night, Coalition ministers said the South Australian model should be the template should Labor proceed with a federal ICAC. It is the weakest in the nation after changes made in 2021, such as excluding dishonesty from the definition of corruption.

“I don’t want to single out any of the state bodies as better than another. I think that we do have the advantage that we’re able to take the best features of all of them,” Mr Dreyfus said.