A parliamentary inquiry into an ACT corruption commission is considering how wide its powers should go, and whether it should be able to compel witnesses, search properties, conduct covert surveillance and impose penalties.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The inquiry, chaired by the Greens' Shane Rattenbury, releases an options paper on Monday and has called for public submissions until May 19.
The ACT is the only jurisdiction without a corruption commission except the Northern Territory, which will introduce legislation this year. The paper details corruption bodies in other states, which Mr Rattenbury said shared common features, including the power to compel.
But there were differences, such as whether the commission should hold public hearings. One option was to hold meetings in private until a certain threshold of proof had been reached, since "the sheer act of being investigated by an ICAC can leave a lasting impression on someone's reputation", Mr Rattenbury said.
Another question is whether the commission should have the power to run "sting" operations to test people's integrity. Mr Rattenbury said the idea might "give some people a degree of discomfort" but it wouldn't concern the law-abiding.
The commission would investigate politicians and public officials, which would normally extend to the police, but Mr Rattenbury said the inquiry would consider inclusion of the police, given the ACT contracts policing from the Australian Federal Police, which already had an oversight body.
The inquiry had taken no view on the options, but wanted input from other jurisdictions and academics, as well as the public, he said.
"Its clear that we need a body with sufficient power to do its job and to give the community confidence that it can investigate as thoroughly as it needs to, but it needs to have enough oversight that it doesn't become a law unto itself," he said. "We want the most modern and up-to-date version of an integrity commission."
Among powers being considered for the ACT corruption body are:
- The power to conduct own-motion investigations, rather than waiting for complaints or having investigations referred to it - a power shared by commissions elsewhere.
- The power to compel witness and answers - again a power that other state bodies have.
- The power to hold public hearings, which the paper comments would ensure public confidence in the body, and also adds a "moral dimension", contributing to "the respect and perhaps dread that people engaged in misconduct would feel". Other states allow public hearings, although some appear to prefer hearings in private.
- The power to apply for search warrants and carry them out, or to issue its own search warrants, which commissions have in NSW and South Australia.
- The power to use listening devices surveillance, undercover agents and "sting" operations to test people. The options paper says the Queensland and Western Australian bodies have wide powers in surveillance and stings, and the power to investigate major crime that goes beyond corruption and misconduct. It is less clear in other states whether powers extend beyond surveillance to undercover operations or "integrity testing".
- The power to take action against people, such as imposing fines or making findings of unethical conduct, or to order mediation instead of prosecution. The approach varies between the states; in NSW the commission makes findings and recommendations, but action is up to other bodies.
- The power to prosecute complainants who are "purely vexatious", to protect against people using the commission maliciously.
The options paper points to the Victorian body where officers are allowed use firearms, which it comments could encourage a perception that the commission "has been elevated into a kind of second police force". In Queensland, officers have quasi-police powers to engage in otherwise illegal conduct, including sting operations.
Some commissions go further than corruption and misconduct, to also cover organised crime and major crime. While restricting a commission to misconduct and corruption could enhance its work in those areas, it could also limit its ability to investigate when major crime was part of a corruption or misconduct investigation. "Not to provide a comprehensive power to a commission could reduce its effectiveness, either by running the risk that matters could be investigated by two bodies (such as the commission and the police force) at the same time ... or by creating a situation where work is to be duplicated and the distinctive role of the integrity commission is unclear," the paper says.
Earlier moves for a corruption body in Canberra have stalled. The options paper refers to a call in the ACT in 1989 for a committee against corruption, which went as far as a Public Corruption Bill being introduced to the ACT parliament in 1991. However that bill lapsed. In 2001, a parliamentary committee concluded that a proposed Commission for Integrity in Government would be complex and not cost effective.
