Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog doesn't have enough teeth, says expert
|
Version 0 of 1. The Victorian government’s proposed strengthening of the state’s anti-corruption watchdog does not go far enough and it will remain weak compared with NSW’s Icac, a former judge says. Stephen Charles QC, a former court of appeals judge who advised the government on its anti-corruption regime before it was set up in 2012, says the government has made clear that the Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (Ibac) cannot use its coercive powers in preliminary investigations. He says that is a serious flaw given corruption is often hidden and complex, and Icac can use its full suite of powers, such as phone taps, at any stage of an investigation. “There is no question that it goes nowhere near the ability of Icac powers, which are virtually unlimited,” he told Guardian Australia. The comparative weakness of Ibac has been a long-running controversy in Victoria, with independent experts saying the government’s promise of an Icac-equivalent body had not been fulfilled. Icac hearings have exposed alleged illegal donations to the Liberal party in NSW and allegedly corrupt dealings by former Labor ministers over a coal-mining deal. The revelations have led to renewed calls for a federal watchdog, which the prime minister, Tony Abbott, believes is unnecessary. The Victorian amendments introduced this week go some way to address the concerns raised by Ibac in a report to Parliament in April. Commissioner Stephen O’Bryan said there were public concerns that the legislative threshold for Ibac starting an investigation were “vague, too high”. “There have been corrupt conduct allegations where Ibac has not felt able to commence investigations because of threshold restrictions,” he said. At the moment, Ibac can investigate only “serious corrupt conduct” and cannot act without evidence that an indictable offence may have occurred. Under the proposed new test, Ibac will no longer have to consider whether the facts would amount to an indictable offence at trial, but can investigate if it is satisfied that the conduct if proven would be be “serious corrupt conduct”. Charles says the threshold is still too high. “I regret that the definition of corruption and corrupt conduct has not been substantially broadened and I regret that in my view the threshold in place before an investigation can commence remains almost as high it was before,” he said. Charles welcomed the government’s decision to now allow Ibac to investigate “misconduct in public office”, something the commission had requested. But he said the most serious flaw was banning the use of coercive powers in preliminary investigations, before Ibac had decided whether a full probe was warranted. Because there is now no specific reference to preliminary investigations, Ibac had conducted them anyway without using its coercive powers. This should have been rectified by parliament, he said. In contrast, Icac had a “definition of corruption which is enormous”, Charles said. Under its legislation, Icac can probe “any allegation or complaint that, or any circumstances which, in the commissioner’s opinion imply that … corrupt conduct … may have occurred” or be about to occur. “They can start investigating and using all their powers which are for practical purposes unlimited,” Charles said. Labor has called for Ibac’s powers to be boosted for more than a year, although details are not yet known. It has criticised the government for introducing its amendments when there were just five parliamentary sitting days left before the November election. The premier, Denis Napthine, has said there was enough time to consider the changes. |