Skip navigation

AGAINST – National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Public hearings and mandatory considerations

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (5) and (6) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.


Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

Amendment (5) will strike out the unnecessary and alarming exceptional circumstances requirement. In my mind, this is the single most important change to this bill. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe.

... amendment (6) will make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider certain factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing caused by a public hearing. This amendment boosts the protection of people who would be affected by the decision to hold a hearing in public.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

(6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must".


Date and time: 9:55 AM on 2022-11-24
Allegra Spender's vote: No
Total number of "aye" votes: 77
Total number of "no" votes: 14
Total number of abstentions: 60
Related bill: National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

Adapted from information made available by

Continue Reading