Posts

Will the new Corruption Commission cover the voice?

,

I asked the ACLEI if the new National Anti-Corruption Commission would have oversight of the workings of the Voice if it is established. The response was that the Voice would be purely advisory and not provide services or programmes.

The Commission did not provide a clear answer to the question and this runs parallel with the government position of providing as little as possible detail about the voice prior to the referendum.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here again tonight. My questions are to do with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations on 1 July 2023.  Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred some time prior to the commencement of the commission? There was some controversy about retrospectivity.  I’d like some detail.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll hand that over to the department.

Mr Newnham: Could you just repeat your question for me, please?

Senator Roberts: The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations from 1 July. Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred sometime prior to the commencement of the commission?

Mr Newnham: Yes, it can.

Senator Roberts: That was very clear.  Are there limits as to how far back the alleged corrupt activity may be investigated?

Mr Newnham: There are no formal limits. There has been reference, obviously, to the fact that the commission would have to have regard to the length of time that has elapsed, the nature of the conduct that is being suggested and the extent to which materials are still available. So, it would take into account a range of circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but there are no formal limits that I’m aware of.

Senator Roberts: Another clear one. Are there plans to include the judiciary as an entity that may be investigated for alleged corrupt conduct?

Ms Jones: I may be able to assist with that. No, it is not intended that the judiciary would fall within the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But the Attorney-General has directed the department to prepare work on a national judicial commission. That will be established as a separate entity, to have jurisdiction over federal judiciary.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. Minister, I must say that I compliment the government for doing that, because I mentioned it to the Attorney-General’s staff some time ago and they said that they would definitely consider it.  It looks like they are.  So, thank you for that.  I think it’s extremely important.

Under the existing legislation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is designed to cover federal agencies, politicians and public officials, under a broad definition.  Would those working under the Voice, should it become a reality, be included in the commission’s current, or imminent, jurisdiction?

Ms Jones: In answering that, obviously at the moment the issue of the Voice is subject to the referendum process and the outcome of the referendum. Then there will be consideration of the development of the model.

The current design principles that have been set out in relation to the Voice envisage a range of governance and accountability mechanisms that would be developed. But the final form of that will be subject to the Voice legislation being developed and passed by the parliament, following the outcome of the referendum.

Senator Roberts: This is not a criticism of you, but that’s yet another area where we don’t have the detail.  Okay, I understand that. It depends on the referendum and also on the subsequent legislation.

Ms Jones: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Former New South Wales Court of Appeal judge Mr Anthony Whealy has publicly raised his concerns about this issue, if you’d note that.  We’re concerned about the Voice because its predecessor, ATSIC, had a terrible reputation for—

Chair: Senator Roberts, is this a question that relates to ACLEI?  That’s the agency we’re referring to today.  We did deal with some similar questions yesterday in Attorney-General’s.

Senator Roberts:  I’ve just got two quick questions left, Chair. Ms Jones, I know you just said there’s uncertainty; it would depend on the legislation. The chances of corrupt conduct occurring will become statistically higher because the Voice will have hundreds if not thousands of people across Australia. Would the commission be able to scope out corruption in this area?

Ms Jones: I would make the point that the Voice is intended as a mechanism for advising the parliament. It will not have responsibility for programs and it will not have decision-making over funding. It is a mechanism for providing representation and information to the parliament, and it is not intended that it would itself manage any programs or make any funding decisions.

Senator Roberts: So, it would be difficult to say then, until the Voice is defined—if it passes—and the participants are defined, how the NACC will operate in regard to it.

Ms Jones: I think that is accurate. But I would draw a very strong distinction between bodies in the past, such as ATSIC, and what the design principles for the Voice are currently proposing, which is an advisory body, not a body that itself would manage programs or funding.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Federal ICAC must investigate all corruption

I once said that this parliament is a crime scene and our new government doesn’t look any better. Both major parties are rife with undeclared conflicts of interest and cronyism. A Federal ICAC must be able to investigate all of the lobbying and cronyism happening in Australia’s Parliament.

Transcript

I’m meeting this week with Attorney-General Dreyfus to review the planned national anticorruption commission. I’ll be taking One Nation’s position to the Attorney-General—that checks and balances must be in place to preclude witch-hunts. The terms of reference must allow for all outside influence on our decision-making to be identified and removed. Outside influences are driving lucrative subsidies for unreliable solar and wind energy. These subsidies are lining the pockets of donors and sponsors of members of parliament in both chambers—cronyism worth tens of billions of dollars.

In my speech entitled ‘This parliament is a crime scene‘, I detailed the cronyism that infected the previous Liberal-National government. Crikey (Queensland ALP has a conflict of interest) has now detailed similar cronyism and conflicts of interest in the Labor Party and their affiliated fundraising entities. Running government for the benefit of oneself or one’s party’s finances is a betrayal of the trust the Australian people have placed in us. It is corruption and it destroys confidence in government and governance. A government without the confidence of the people must rely on authoritarian measures to maintain control.

This is the path the state and federal governments chose to take during COVID, and those powers have now become permanent. Freedoms stolen are never willingly surrendered. A federal ICAC must investigate the many conflicts of interest and tainted decision-making in governments’ COVID responses—questions of complicity, cover-ups and cronyism. A royal commission, though, is the only way to deal with the wider illegal issues that arose during COVID. Constitutional questions about federal and state roles, the legal standing of the National Cabinet, vaccine mandates in the public and private sectors, the use of troops against law-abiding citizens, criminal harm from medical procedures conducted under duress and police use of excessive force must all be reviewed before we can move on, or we will be there again.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation founded on freedom and personal responsibility.

/by

Integrity Commission needs to include judicial conduct

, ,

Last year the government unveiled their totally lacking plan for a toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Important powers and jurisdictions were completely missing from their proposal, including oversight of the conduct of judges.

When there are complaints about the judges, it is essentially up to the judiciary to investigate itself.

This type of self-regulation does not work, it always fails. That’s why a well-resourced, powerful, independent external agency is needed and would only increase confidence in the judiciary.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] And today. My question’s too are in regard to establishing Federal Integrity Commission. First question. Is it the intention of the government to consider adding to the duties of such a Federal Integrity Commission, the overview of the judiciary and other officers of the court?

I think the former Attorney General had indicated that the coverage of the judiciary was an issue under consideration, but not necessarily within the integrity commission, because of constitutional complexities, but also looking at the possibility of a separate judicial commission.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s true, isn’t it, that there is currently virtually no authority with jurisdiction to overview the conduct and actions of the judiciary, many of whom are appointed for life?

So the federal judges are appointed to the age of 70 and then they have to retire. The current process is that if someone has a concern about a serving judge, they raise that with the Chief Justice or chief judge of that jurisdiction. The Chief Justice or Chief Judge is empowered to either appoint a conduct committee to investigate allegations made against a sitting judge or, alternatively, the Chief Justice or Chief Judge can refer the matter directly to the Attorney General, and there’s a process of where both houses of parliament can be asked whether they wish to make an address to the government general seeking to have the removal of a sitting judge on grounds of, for example, misbehaviour. So there is that process, but the conduct committee, appointed by the Chief Justice or chief judge is the first step.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there is… thank you. There is wide support for a commission with the jurisdiction to overview the conduct of the judiciary, coming out of the recent inquiry into family law, from retired judges, from academics, from constituents, and from the legal profession itself. So at the moment the errant judge’s conduct is not addressed under an independent system. Correct? You’ve just outlined that system.

That’s correct. Well, it’s an independent conduct committee, so it’s appointed by a Chief Justice or chief judge. It’s not composed of people from that court, so it’s independent to that extent, but they make a report to the Chief Justice of that court. So, no, it’s not a standing independent commission at the moment.

[Malcolm Roberts] And to trigger it requires someone from within the system?

It requires a person to make a complaint. So that might be a litigant, who has been disappointed with how a sitting judge has behaved. It could be someone who is a staff member, an observer, it could be anyone. Anyone who has a concern about a sitting judge can make a complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] They can make a complaint, but whether or not it goes anywhere, it still depends on someone within the system?

It will then depend upon the relevant Chief Justice and what they wish to do with that complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, who heads up that independent conduct committee?

So it’s a matter for the respective chief general Chief Justice.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s one for each court?

They can appoint one per court. So for example, if it was a complaint, Senator Roberts mentioned a family law. For example, if there was a complaint about a sitting family court or federal circuit court judge practising in family law that’d be a matter for the Chief Justice of that family court or the chief judge of the federal circuit court to appoint a conduct committee to look into that particular allegation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I just listed some of the areas we’ve had complaints from. So given the increasing number of complaints being level of judges based on their conduct, is it not time to ensure such complaints can be examined and addressed in a timely, reasonably costed way ensuring that there are real consequences if necessary?

So wait, my colleague, Ms. noted before that the previous attorney acknowledged there is certainly a question there about whether there should be a body, an integrity body that is able to look at complaints against sitting judges. That is something that the department is continuing to work on, but there are a range of complex constitutional and other legal issues that we’re working through. Attorney General Porter had said it’s perhaps a second order issue in terms of looking at integrity commission first, and then simply look at a judicial integrity type commission but it’s something we’re continuing to work on.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. So let’s change tact just for a minute for two short questions. What is being done in the way of suicide prevention for judges as well as for the victims of poor judicial behaviour?

So suicide prevention for judges is particularly a matter to address to the courts themselves in terms of what what measures they’re actually taking to looking after the wellbeing of judges sitting in the courts because things such as the allocation of work to judges and the allocation of support mechanisms are within the control of the chief judge or chief judge of each jurisdiction.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I imagine being a judge in certain circumstances would be very taxing emotionally. So it’s recognised that the stresses on judges may lead to a need for professional help for these judges. Is this assistance being provided at the moment at an adequate level?

So that would be a question better directed to to the federal courts. And I note that the family court and circuit court are appearing tomorrow, tomorrow at five o’clock.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. And thank you chair. That’s all I have.

[Chair] Thank you very much Senator Roberts. Just as a followup question, in relation to where an independent conduct committee is appointed by Chief Justice about a complaint, a serious complaint in relation to a judge’s conduct what sanctions are available to that committee and ultimately to the Chief Justice?

It’s an excellent question To some extent there are measures that can be put into place by the head of a jurisdiction in terms of for example, does a judge require retraining or should a judge be moved from a particular court and practise in a different court. Things like that, are steps that are available to a judge. But if the concern of the head of that jurisdiction is that that judge should in fact no longer be a judge then they need to refer that to the Attorney General, who would then consider whether the matter should be brought to parliament again, for consideration of whether they should have been addressed by both houses of parliament and to seeking the removal of that sitting judge.

[Chair] Ultimately the power to remove a judge is in the hands of the parliament and the people…

In the hands of Governor General, ultimately

[Chair] Yes, but that’s obviously a very serious matter,

Extremely serious.

/by

Commonwealth Corruption Commission a toothless tiger

Marcus Paul and I discussed the proposed Commonwealth Corruption Commission which is long overdue and designed to be a toothless tiger.

Transcript

[Marcus] Retired Victorian Supreme Court Judge, Stephen Charles said, “This is not a corruption commission. It’s designed to protect parliamentarians and senior public servants from investigation. After two years of waiting, this is a tremendous disappointment. An annual budget of $42 million when fully operational. And of course it will file in its current form of how it’s you know being sold. It will fail to hold people to account. It won’t be anything like a new South Wales, independent commission against corruption.

[Malcolm] The early indications, from what we can see is there will be no public hearings for public sector and, and members of parliament corruption.

[Marcus] Well, that’s right. And we won’t have yeah.

[Malcolm] That’s the place where you need it. That’s gotta be out in front and transparent. The prime minister, the attorney general have dragged their feet on this for a couple of years now. And they now produce something that falls short of the mark. And, you know, so how can we do public hearings for law enforcement and police, but not for members of parliament, and for public sector employees, this is wrong.

[Marcus] Yeah

[Malcolm] And then we’ve gotta have the names out there, and yet people are entitled to make sure that the government that they elect are working for the people. And that’s what we need to get. We need to make sure that there is pressure on politicians to be clean at all times.

[Marcus] Absolutely. You know, under its current proposed format, you won’t see people like, you know, I mean, look, what’s happened in new South Wales in the last couple of months, we’ve had a premiere drag before the independent commission of corruption and grill to within a nature of a personal life. And that won’t happen under this proposed federal CIC. And that’s an issue for me.

[Malcolm] Yes. And the attorney general has the power to limit information that can be considered by the Commonwealth integrity commission. There are also the bars for referral are way too high. Someone approaches the institution with reasonable suspicions of corruption breaches, but no actual evidence. It can be ignored. And then with retrospectivity, which means a sport rots and the Murray-Darling basin quarterbacks, they won’t be investigated because they were in the past. This is, this is just way way too short of where we need to be.

[Marcus] All right now . I’m glad to have you on we’ll chat soon, mate. Thank you again as always.

[Malcolm] Thanks Marcus.

/by