There are two different things here.
Good old Dan. He’s up there with the most controlling, secretive politicians of recent times. Not Scomo levels but no transparency.
The first is whether media should be able to report preliminary findings. To me the answer is a very obvious no. How can natural justice be served by reporting something in public when individual(s) haven’t had a chance to respond? I have been peripheries of two IBAC reports ( nothing to do with politics btw) and my only comment on those is that if the original reports had been published without a response they would have been extremely unfair. That response is incredibly important
The second issue is public hearings. To be honest I am not a fan but not for any reason of secrecy. I don’t trust our media to be balanced in the reporting. I don’t trust them to not have people unfairly found guilty on the front page.
I like that our hearings are overwhelmingly not public because I think it is much more balanced to get a report with a response rather than a blow by blow media circus.