The sentencing of Eddie Obeid to at least three years' jail was conducted in public. So was the refusal of bail pending his appeal. Justice was done – and seen to be done.
Citizens who rightly expect politicians to be honest and act in the community interest heard Justice Robert Beech-Jones say that Obeid had committed a "violation" of public trust. The former Labor minister had not taken responsibility, nor expressed remorse.
Eddie ObeidCredit: Daniel Munoz
The audience watching this watershed moment in NSW democracy could form their own opinion about the weighting Justice Beech-Jones gave to the jury's verdict, beyond reasonable doubt, that Obeid was guilty of wilful misconduct in public office. They heard the judge stress that deterrence, denunciation of corruption and the harm done to the community were crucial considerations in sentencing.
People were told what the prosecution had argued; about the Obeid team's plea for leniency on medical grounds; and even how media reporting was, in the judge's view, "consistent" with its obligations during the trial. Thereafter it focused largely on politics and corruption, "a topic of legitimate public debate".
Voters have followed with dismay Obeid's influence-peddling for almost two decades. The Labor party that allowed Obeid to fester rightly lost government in 2011.
The taxpayers who paid Obeid's salary have followed the Circular Quay licences scandal since May 2012 when the Herald's Kate McClymont and Linton Besser exposed nefarious business dealings. The Herald had to limit what it reported for fear of defamation actions.
For democracy's sake, there was the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
When the anti-corruption watchdog held public hearings into the Obeid family's mining interests, also exposed by the Herald, voters saw the process unfold, as accountability demands.
When the work of the ICAC and the Herald led to further scrutiny, including of Obeid's fateful phone call about the Circular Quay leases, the public was witness.
The ICAC moved on to Liberal MPs and rorting of donations laws. Public exposure of wrongdoing was possible without political interference.
Some of the ICAC's work produced criminal convictions, some did not. That is not the test of its importance.
The anti-corruption body exists to investigate allegations and to send a message of deterrence to anyone seeking to abuse public office. As Justice Beech-Jones said, "Corruption by elected representatives consumes democracies."
As such the ICAC must operate a transparent and, in all but extraordinary of cases, a public process. It must give those who have seen or been a victim of corruption the confidence to provide information. It must give the accused a chance to clear their name in public.
Most of all, the ICAC must be able to show the voters that politicians cannot be above the law.
Yet the Baird government has pushed through new laws that forced out commissioner Megan Latham. And the changes cast doubt over how many future corruption inquiries will be held in public.
The ICAC has always held private hearings for the commissioner to assess evidence and determine whether to hold public hearings. The presumption was that public was preferable due to deterrence and the need for justice to be done and seen to be done.
Under the new laws the presumption need not be for public hearings. The decision to hold a pubic hearing has to be made by the new commissioner and at least one of two assistant commissioners. If they cannot agree, hearings remain private.
It's fair to ask whether Obeid would have faced a public hearing under the new laws and whether, as a result, media coverage would have remained limited by anti-democratic libel laws. It's fair to ask whether the lack of public information about Obeid in that case would have allowed his wrongdoing to continue and others to follow suit. Under the new laws, it is possible that charges against Obeid would not have been laid because investigators would have had neither the time nor resources to conduct public, ICAC-style inquiries. And Labor would have been less likely to start fixing its undemocratic, faction-based structure.
The Obeid conviction and sentencing should remind every Australian that politicians are there to serve us, not them and theirs. As such voters should be concerned about the political changes to the ICAC. But rest assured that the Herald will keep holding public officials to account.