National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (8) and (9) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

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:

These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

... This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget.

... My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".

(9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If:

(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and

(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;

then:

(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and

(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.