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.