Page 5046 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
commission is dissatisfied with the investigation of a complaint, whereas the ACT committee may report to the Public Accounts Committee or submit a report to the Assembly.
The experience in Western Australia indicates how dangerous it is to introduce a body without teeth. A cosmetic device called a corruption commission which has no powers is more dangerous than none at all because it may lull the community, as seems to have occurred in Western Australia, into a false sense of security. Unlike the Western Australian situation, the ACT committee will be overseen by a committee of this parliament.
Finally, and most importantly, the ACT Bill has extensive whistle blower protection which we believe is essential, together with a free and confident media to encourage people to come forward with information regarding corruption.
I now need to acknowledge that the New South Wales Independent Committee Against Corruption Act 1988 has far more powers than the ACT Bill provides. It has a wide investigative scope and can conduct hearings, summon witnesses and fine persons for contempt. There has been recent litigation in the New South Wales Court of Appeal setting limits and parameters to this power. I draw members' attention to that. I also draw members' attention to the first and second reports in November 1990 and February 1991 by the committee of the New South Wales Parliament overseeing the ICAC. Its process was to conduct an inquiry into commission procedures and the rights of witnesses following concerns expressed about that issue. At this juncture, it is important to acknowledge the civil liberty issues that always have to be balanced in the establishment of committees of this nature.
Whilst the concerns raised and the balancing required at law are not as acute under the ACT legislation as they were in New South Wales, there are some similarities between the New South Wales Act and the ACT Bill which I should allude to. Firstly, our definitions of corrupt conduct and public officials are very similar. I accept that both those terms are evolving through litigation, hearings and community consciousness.
Both New South Wales and the ACT have offences of knowingly giving false or misleading evidence; but they do not have offences of malicious or vexatious allegations, such offences being deemed to unnecessarily deter whistle blowers and those persons with allegations which they themselves are unable to fully document. The ACT protection for whistle blowers goes further than the New South Wales legislation as it includes threatened as well as actual dismissal and includes such action not only where a person has actually given information but also where he or she has proposed to give information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .