Former corruption busters have questioned if Victoria's anti-corruption commission has the necessary bite to fully investigate corruption and abuse of power.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
George Brouwer, former Victorian Ombudsman, said the narrow definition of 'corrupt conduct' to criminal conduct for Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, "fails to recognise that corruption involves abuse of power in a variety of ways that often do not involve criminal offending as such (e.g. serious conflicts of interest, nepotism, undue influence).
"One undesirable consequence of this is that IBAC cannot be seen to be tackling corruption in all its forms and Victoria's anti corruption arrangements will face ongoing criticism as lacking bite," Mr Brouwer wrote in his January submission to a parliamentary committee.
Former Tasmanian Integrity Commissioner Murray Kellam QC said "my experience in Tasmania was that serious misconduct could arise in circumstances whereby there was no breach of criminal law. Non-disclosure of serious conflicts of interest or of close relationships with a contractor, or providing preferential treatment to friends or relatives in employment by the provision of questions to be asked at interview, which questions are not provided to other applicants, are examples of serious misconduct by senior members of a department which may not be in breach of the criminal law, but which on any view are clear examples of misconduct deserving of the description of being corrupt".
The comments are made in submissions to the Parliament of Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission Committee, which tabled its first report on Wednesday.
The report also noted that while most protected disclosures must be sent to IBAC for assessment, "if a potential protected disclosure relates to a member of parliament, the allegation must be referred to the presiding officers of parliament (the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, or the President of the Legislative Council). There is no requirement obliging the Presiding Officers to refer the allegations to IBAC for assessment".
The Law Institute of Victoria is quoted in the report arguing "the Government's purported aim to establish an anti-corruption commission applying to a broad range of public officers is significantly undermined by this discretion".
The committee recommended consideration be given to "whether any additional criminal offences'" should be covered by IBAC, it said the protected disclosure regime should be reviewed as a priority and consideration should be given to providing "follow the dollar power to IBAC".
