NACC circumstances questioned
Concern has been raised about changes to plans for a national corruption court.
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has reportedly requested that the national anti-corruption commission hold hearings in private unless there are “exceptional circumstances” for them to be made open to the public.
An independent commissioner would have the power to decide whether a hearing will be public, after considering the issue, any unfair risk to reputation or safety, and the benefits of public awareness.
Mr Dreyfus says the exceptional circumstances test can ensure the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) strikes the right balance. He noted that only five per cent of New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) hearings are public.
Deputy secretary of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Group, Sarah Chidgey, has rejected claims that the government has abandoned its initial design principles.
“I wouldn't describe it as a deviation. We have added to those design principles a further requirement of exceptional circumstances,” Ms Chidgey says.
But the Accountability Roundtable - a group of senior former politicians and lawyers - says the change is inconsistent with Labor's design principles outlined before the election.
“It is difficult to see what example would meet this test,” the group said in a submission.
“Not only is the phrase ambiguous, it will provide an avenue for well-funded objects of an investigation to take court proceedings to stop a public hearing, but investigations will be long-delayed and made less effective in consequence.”
Transparency International Australia says the exceptional circumstances clause is “simply unnecessary”.
“It poses dangers for the effective operation of the commission — whether through tactical litigation or inaccurate political expectations or both,” the group's chief executive said.
“This is due to its vagueness and uncertainty, as well as its underlying implication that specific but undefined extraordinary circumstances must exist to justify a public hearing.”