Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I am speaking to the first two amendments moved by the member for Indi. I thank the member for Indi for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation throughout. On the exceptional-circumstances point, throughout this debate and indeed throughout the development of these bills and the joint select committee process we've heard differing views on the circumstances in which the commission should be able to hold public hearings. This is a matter on which reasonable minds may differ.

The commissioner will have the discretion to hold public hearings if they're satisfied that it's in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. This is an appropriate threshold which reflects the significant nature of the power to compel a person to answer questions at a public hearing and the sensitivities involved in holding public hearings—for example, the risk of prejudicing a future criminal investigation or trial and of course the risk of reputational harm that may arise. It will often be appropriate that hearings be conducted in private—for example, to avoid prejudicing an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings, to protect the privacy of witnesses or to ensure that national security information is protected from disclosure. It will be a matter for the commissioner to weigh up these considerations.

The threshold involving exceptional circumstances and consideration of the public interest will enable the commissioner to effectively investigate corruption issues. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

On the other amendment, which deals with mandatory considerations, the bill already sets out a number of factors which the commissioner may consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public. The government does not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to require the commissioner to consider each of these factors in all cases. The commissioner will have the discretion to determine which factors are relevant to the question of whether or not it would be in the public interest to hold a public hearing and whether exceptional circumstances exist in the context of a specific investigation. There would be limited value in mandating consideration of a particular factor in circumstances where the factor is not relevant. The government does not support that proposed amendment.

See this speech in context