QCCL Submission on NACC
On 14 October the QCCL made its submission[1] to the Parliamentary Committee inquiring into the NACC.
“The committee has been given just six weeks to inquire into what has been described as the most significant change in the administrative architecture of the Commonwealth government in 40 years. The inquiry’s time frame is so restricted that it can only give 24 hours notice to proposed witnesses. This is a time frame that even organisations with paid staff must struggle to comply with let alone voluntary organisations like QCCL. In our view there is no justification for this rushed inquiry.” says QCCL President Michael Cope.
“In its submission the QCCL accepted that the detection and prevention of serious and systemic corruption is a legitimate and important objective. But stated that it is clear that the pursuit of the legitimate objectives of this body might imperil a number of other important civil liberties - most obviously, the right to reputation and privacy, and the right to a fair trial”
It is the protection of the fundamental rights to privacy and to a fair trial which has led the Council to support the section which prohibits the Commission from holding public hearings except in exceptional circumstances.
The Commission is not a court. It cannot decide the guilt or innocence of those who appear before it. It is therefore indistinguishable from the police and we do not allow the police to publicly identify suspects as such until they charge them.
Contrary to the views of many, the concept of exceptional circumstance is most certain, from the point of view of the person whose reputation may be destroyed because it gives them confidence that a public hearing is unlikely.
We note that Tony Fitzgerald in his report[2] in 1989 recommended that there be a right of review before a judge of the Supreme Court of a decision by the proposed Criminal Justice Commission to hold a public hearing.
Our submission also argues that the concept of “serious“ corruption should be defined along the lines that it is defined in New South Wales by reference to whether the conduct would be a criminal offence, or be grounds for a person to be dismissed or disciplined or amounts to a substantial breach of a code of ministerial conduct.
“We argue that the definition of corruption must be more clearly defined so that people can have some idea of whether what they’re doing might get them before the Commission at the time they are doing it rather than on the basis of a subsequent decision by the Commission that some conduct should be categorised as serious corruption. It is absolutely vital that this Commission is not given an unrestrained roving commission to enforce vague notions of integrity.”said Mr Cope
For further information contact Michael Cope President QCCL on 07 3223 5939 during office hours and at all times on 0432 847 154
21 October 2022
[1] Found here https://www.qccl.org.au/newsblog/submission-on-the-national-anti-corruption-commission-bill-2022
[2] para 10.4