Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The bill doesn't refer to 'the public interest'. The bill refers to the commission having the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances. The bill also sets out factors which the commission may consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public. They include the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct, any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if the hearing were in public and the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. So if the commission considers that there are benefits in exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct, it has the power to decide to hold a public hearing if it wants to do so. It's not as if it is prevented from doing so. I'm sure this has been pointed out to all of the senators questioning us about this, but 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 national security information is protected from disclosure. It will be a matter for the commissioner to weigh up all of these considerations, but I would be surprised if any senator thought it would be a good idea to allow or force a corruption commission to hold a public hearing when that could prejudice an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings. That is the risk if the power is opened up more widely, as is being suggested. As I say, we think we've got the balance right in allowing the commission to hold those public hearings in exceptional circumstances—for instance, where it does think that there are benefits in exposing corrupt conduct to the public and where the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct justifies it.