Australia got a brand-new National Anti-Corruption Commission, last Monday. And, by a strange coincidence, the very next day it had a tailor-made parliamentary financial scandal to look into.
Handing out public money in breach of the rules fits the definition of a financial scandal.
Which is allegedly what happened when the government slipped up to $3m of public money into the pockets of Brittany Higgins.
The rules governing financial settlements and claims against the government are outlined in the Legal Services Directions.
Consider the facts of the payout and the “process” that led to it:
- No-one was found guilty of any wrongdoing.
- The alleged incident that led to the payout has never been proven in a court of law, there is no physical evidence to prove it ever happened, and of the two people at the centre of it, one has consistently and vehemently denied it ever happened, while the other has contradicted herself and changed her story.
- Two senior opposition politicians accused of wrongdoing were financially coerced by the government to prevent them contesting the allegations.
- The payout was made after a single day of negotiation, with many lawyers astonished at its speed.
It is now known that the Albanese government threatened to tear up an agreement to pay Reynolds’ legal fees and costs unless she agreed not to attend that mediation.
Just consider that for a moment: a former minister was subjected to financial coercion which prevented her from testing accusations that had been made against her by Higgins.
The NACC legislation defines “corruption” as a breach of public trust, abuse of office or any conduct that could adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of a public official’s powers or duties.
Those duties would include complying with Appendix C of the Legal Services Directions, which requires “fully and firmly” acting in the Commonwealth’s financial interest by defending claims brought against the Commonwealth when a defence is properly available. The government was also required to obtain a legal opinion that the settlement meets legal principles and standard practice.
The only loophole in that requirement is for the Attorney-General to directly intervene and declare that the normal rules shouldn’t apply to the claimant.
It is difficult to see how the Higgins settlement complies with the longstanding rules governing the way the federal government is supposed to deal with monetary claims.
It is also difficult to see how those responsible for this settlement could not perceive that outlaying taxpayers’ money in breach of those rules might trigger the interest of regulators – including the National Anti-Corruption Commission […]
As things stand now, it looks like persons unknown decided to nobble the Higgins mediation and make it impossible for the officials running that process to properly discharge their duty to protect the financial interests of the Commonwealth.
That seems to meet the definition of corrupt conduct under section 8 of the NACC Act – in which case the payout to Higgins was the result of a corrupt process and should be repaid.
The Australian
You can bet, of course, that Labor will fight tooth and nail against ever having to defend what on the face of things looks like nothing so much as a payoff for political services rendered.
But then, historically in Australia, anti-corruption bodies have a way of turning on their creators.