The Centre for Public Integrity, a not-for-profit group led by former judges, found the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption held public hearings into 33 investigations from 2012 to 2022 and made findings of corrupt conduct or wrongdoing against at least one primary suspect in 32 of the matters.
Loading
This is only a small proportion of ICAC’s investigations over the 10-year period. Dreyfus estimates that only 5 per cent of the NSW commission’s inquiries were public.
The centre found this showed the claims of “reputational damage” were overstated because the open hearings helped to lead to corruption being exposed.
The only state commission with an “exceptional circumstances” rule is the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.
“NSW ICAC can hold public hearings when it is in the public interest. They have used them to bring more evidence and witnesses forward, ultimately leading to corrupt people being found out,” said former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, KC, the chair of the Centre for Public Integrity.
Loading
Advocates for a federal watchdog have broadly welcomed the government plan to set up the NACC next year with powers to investigate “serious or systemic” corrupt conduct on its own initiative, from anonymous tip-offs and from referrals from other parts of the government.
The NACC would have the power to compel witnesses to produce evidence, could punish witnesses who provide misleading evidence and could send investigators into any federal agency without a search warrant, with the exceptions of Parliament, the offices of MPs, the courts, the ABC or SBS.
Section 73 of the bill says the commission “must” hold its hearings in private unless the commissioner decides to hold one in public, saying this could be done if the commissioner is satisfied there are “exceptional circumstances” and it is in the public interest to do so.
“The experience of state and territory commissions has been that not many hearings are conducted in public,” Dreyfus told the National Press Club on Wednesday when asked about the “exceptional circumstances” rule.
He rejected the idea that courts would have to rule on the issue because people would challenge a decision by the federal integrity commission to hold a public hearing.
“I don’t think it gives rise to litigation, it’s an open discretion to be exercised by the commissioner,” he said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
Source link
