The government is about to introduce its model for a federal corruption watchdog. Will it live up to expectations?

Politicians like to talk a big game about cleaning up politics and earning the trust of the electorate — but those pledges don’t always stand up to scrutiny. 

After years of intense wrangling and bickering over the merits of a national anti-corruption commission, the new federal government is about to unveil the model it believes is best placed to keep watch over Commonwealth officials, institutions and agencies.

What is it?

The idea of a national anti-corruption commission has been knocking around the halls of power for some time — particularly as politicians on Capital Hill watch on with a mixture of fascination and horror at the workings of state and territory-based commissions.

It’s meant to be a watchdog, putting things like government decisions, contracts and appointments under the microscope to ensure they aren’t dodgy.

As with any debate, there are differing views on what the definition of “corrupt conduct” actually is, and just how powerful the commission should be.

What was the Coalition’s model?

In December 2018, then-prime minister Scott Morrison and his attorney-general Christian Porter presented their plan to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC).

The body would not hold public hearings, was constrained in who could refer matters to it, and was unable to retrospectively investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct.

“They learn the lessons, I think, from many of the failed experiments we’ve seen at a state jurisdiction level,” Mr Morrison said at the time.

“I have no interest in establishing kangaroo courts that frankly have been used — sadly too often — for the pursuit of political, commercial or bureaucratic agendas in the public space.

“This is a real proposal, with real resources, real teeth.”

It was the first time Mr Morrison used the phrase “kangaroo court” — which would come to be the buzzword for his prosecution of the case against public hearings, after the appearance of former New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian in the state witness box.

Integrity experts were quick to pan the Coalition’s proposal, arguing it was weak and overly secretive.

“I thought it was worse than introducing nothing,” Geoffrey Watson SC from the Centre for Public Integrity said. 

Mr Morrison refused to bring the legislation on for debate in the House of Representatives without the express backing of Labor — despite it being common practice to introduce contentious legislation without bipartisan support.

How will Labor’s model differ?

Labor went to the 2022 election promising a vastly improved model, plugging the holes it argued were present in the Coalition’s proposal.

At a base level, the government’s model would allow for public hearings, as well as expanding the scope of who could refer matters to the commission for investigation.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus spent years arguing the commission must also have the ability to instigate its own inquiries, rather than waiting for the government of the day to trigger a probe.

What are the independents’ demands?

This is where it gets interesting.

One view regularly expressed during this debate is that the politicians with the most to lose from any anti-corruption watchdog are those from the major parties — after all, they’re more often than not the ones in government making the decisions being scrutinised.

And this is why the crossbench are demanding a raft of safeguards in the legislation to ensure the body isn’t weakened.

The standard bearer is the Member for Indi, Helen Haines. She’s had her own Private Member’s Bill for an anti-corruption commission before parliament for some time.