I was immediately taken aback when I read that the Opposition was negotiating “in good faith” with the Government for their support in introducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Good faith sounds more like bargaining for an exemption from the obvious.
At first, I thought I was mistaken.
Negotiating in good faith with an Opposition so full of corruption that it was at the top of the list for reasons to vote against it.
Just what are they negotiating; a tit-for-tat clause by clause? We won’t remind the Commission of this if you don’t insert that. Or if you do, then remember when.
If that’s what it means, we will likely end up with a “watered-down” version of what was promised.
The Prime Minister must remember that any variation from what was promised to what is legislated will be taken as a broken promise and will carry over into the next election.
An excuse like losing time with the Queen’s death is no excuse. Let me remind Albo that he pledged to introduce a federal integrity body this year.
Before and during the election, both Albanese and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, committed to the integrity body.
Question time today. Goldstein voted for integrity, and today I asked @MarkDreyfusKCMP if the NACC would include a provision for third parties to be investigated. Here's what happened next. #auspol pic.twitter.com/Oft093m3aF
— Zoe Daniel MP (she/her) (@zdaniel) September 26, 2022
They had various ideas and said they were in discussion with all interested parties. Still, now we find them negotiating with the very party that originated the corruption alleged to have taken place.
One sticking point with the independents is that the new body can investigate third parties.
Independent David Pocock has noted that:
“We know that a lot of corruption starts with people potentially getting in touch with politicians, whether they’re business people, unions, developers … This body needs to be able to actually investigate them and bring them before the integrity commission.”
The sticking point seems to be just how much power the Commission should have. Well, given the record of the Coalition over the past decade, I would suggest a lot, but at the same time, I concede there may be a danger if its power is too far-reaching. But it must have teeth.
Other points of contention are protection for whistle-blowers and the size of the Commission’s budget, but they can be overcome.
Labor pledged an Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) that would:
“… serve the public by uncovering corruption and ensuring that members of a government, including politicians, are held to account if they engage in corrupt conduct.”
In both Labor’s election policy and media releases, a NACC was promised by the end of 2022. Anything less will be considered a backflip. We believed in good faith.
The NACC would:
- Have broad jurisdiction to investigate Commonwealth ministers, public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, and personal staff of politicians;
- Carry out its functions independently of Government, with discretion to commence inquiries into serious and systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistle-blowers and complaints from the public. To ensure the Commission’s independence, the Commissioner and any Deputy Commissioner would serve for a single fixed term and have security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge;
- Be overseen by a statutory bipartisan Joint Standing Committee of the Parliament, empowered to require the Commission to provide information about its work. To ensure bipartisan support for the Commission’s work, that Committee would be responsible for confirming the Commissioners nominated by the Government;
- Have the power to investigate allegations of serious and systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment;
- Have the power to hold public hearings where the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so;
- Be empowered to make findings of fact, including a finding of corrupt conduct, but not to make determinations of criminal liability. Findings that could constitute criminal conduct would be referred to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for further consideration; and
- Operate with procedural fairness, and its findings would be subject to judicial review.
It’s all nakedly laid out on the Labor Party website, so you cannot misunderstand its legislation or intent.
The passing of Queen Elizabeth II has set back this session of Parliament, and the resumption of Parliament this week will serve as a reminder of how things can quickly change in politics, but there doesn’t appear to be a question the Opposition can ask of the Government that in some way won’t rebound on them most negatively.
Big week ahead, delivering on our promises. pic.twitter.com/4GVDYabxbB
— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) September 25, 2022
Official grieving passes quickly, but politicians cannot avoid it. Until it occurred, Albanese was enjoying popularity only surpassed by Bob Hawke, but it may well be stalled if he cannot get his legislation through the Parliament.
Including the National Anti-Corruption Commission and other important legislation, Albanese will be expected to offload it all before Christmas to make way for a clear run into the New Year.
In politics, a clear run into a new year is essential, especially for a reformist party intent on making changes to improve the common good.
Jim Chalmers will present a new budget in October, and it will surely get a good going over. I, for one, expect something exceptional, given the time spent on it. What might happen to the billions in subsidies given to mining?
In the face of a crisis for democratic governments around the globe, the Albanese government is preparing to table legislation to create a federal integrity commission.
If there is a need for a NACC, then it needs to be demonstrated why this is so. If the Opposition believes it needs to be boiled down so much as to be ineffective, then Dutton needs to spell out why.
If the object of the exercise is to restore trust in the political system, then let me remind you that:
“Findings in this week’s Guardian Essential report show about half of the respondents see Scott Morrison as a diminished figure who should resign from parliament.”
Wouldn’t that be a fitting end?
[textblock style=”4″]
My thought for the day
The danger in looking back to often is that we lose the will to go forward.”
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
