Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size It can be hard to be a famous politician at a state level, competing with federal colleagues who rub shoulders with presidents and enjoy the Canberra spotlight. But there is one path to fame that is almost guaranteed: appear before the anti-corruption body in your state. Ernest Wong went from an obscure former backbencher to an oft-mentioned political figure during the current Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into dubious donations to the NSW Labor Party. He is far from the only one. Premiers, police officers, university staff and managers on state railway lines have all been hauled before anti-corruption bodies around the country over the years. But it is the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC – Australia's oldest broad, independent anti-corruption body – that has grabbed far more headlines for rooting out rotten wheeler-dealers than other states' corruption busters. So where did Australia's anti-corruption bodies come from? What makes the NSW ICAC different, and what's next? Former Labor MP Ernest Wong arrives at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Credit:Louise Kennerley


Why do we have dedicated anti-corruption bodies? Corruption is hardly new in Australia, but particularly lurid examples surfaced in the late 1980s. Investigative journalist Chris Masters' 1987 groundbreaking expose of systematic corruption in the Queensland police force, Moonlight State, helped spark the long-running Fitzgerald inquiry, which uncovered pay-offs and cronyism galore and ultimately led to a police commissioner and four ministers being jailed. In 1989, the year the Fitzgerald inquiry ended, the Queensland government established the Criminal Justice Commission to help restore confidence in the state's badly tarnished public institutions. South of the border, the reformist Liberal government led by premier Nick Greiner established the Independent Commission Against Corruption about the same time: it was legislated in 1988 and began operating the next year. Where previous efforts to stamp out corruption had relied on traditional criminal offences such as fraud to bring dodgy operators to heel, ICAC was empowered to go after corruption in a broader sense. It could force people to answer questions and it could hold public hearings that exposed the powerful to real scrutiny. Some evidence that would not be admitted to a court could be used freely at ICAC.


Then-premier Greiner outlined the case for these exceptional powers: "Corruption is, by its nature, secretive and difficult to elicit. It is a crime of the powerful. It is consensual crime with no obvious victim willing to complain. "The bottom line is simply this: the people of this state are fed up with half-hearted and cosmetic approaches to preventing public sector corruption." And while ICAC has not been perfect (in 1992 the NSW Court of Appeal overturned an ICAC finding that Mr Greiner himself was found to have engaged in "technically corrupt" conduct), other states have followed NSW and Queensland by creating their own equivalent bodies. Queensland police commissioner Terence Lewis, here at the Fitzgerald inquiry in 1988, was jailed for corruption. Credit:SN How do those integrity organisations work? Other states have organisations similar to ICAC but there are some crucial differences. Other anti-corruption bodies hold far fewer public hearings than ICAC, they cannot make findings of corruption and some can make their findings public only in limited circumstances. Professor A.J. Brown, a corruption and integrity expert at Griffith University, says public hearings are perceived to be the most important weapon in the anti-corruption toolkit, even though more subtle means may yield equally useful results.


What's the corruption body in your state? Victoria's body is called the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. It was established in 2012 and can hold public hearings, but only in "exceptional circumstances" where it is in the "public interest" to do so. So far, six sets of public hearings have been held.

The Northern Territory ICAC was established in late 2018. It can hold public hearings but has not done so yet.

The South Australia ICAC was established in 2013 and is very different to the NSW body of the same name. It can investigate only corruption that would be a criminal offence and it cannot hold public hearings, though this is under review.

Western Australia's Corruption and Crime Commission started operations in 2004 and "generally" does not hold public hearings, though it can if doing so would be in the public interest.

The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission was established in 2001 although it has its roots in the post-Fitzgerald Criminal Justice Commission. It can hold public hearings but only where it is in the "public interest" to do so – a test that involves weighing the benefits of the public seeing the hearing against the damage to the reputations of people on the stand. There is a presumption against doing so.

The ACT Integrity Commission was established in the middle of this year. It is still in the set-up phase and will begin receiving complaints from December 1. It can hold public hearings but, as with other states and territories, must pass a public interest test to do so.

The Tasmanian Integrity Commission has the power to conduct public hearings where there is a "likely factual basis to support a finding of serious misconduct ... or systemic misconduct" and there is significant public concern or an investigation is being prevented from uncovering all the facts of the matter. To date, no public hearings have been held. A common, core feature of an anti-corruption body is that it is not a court and can't apply criminal sanctions, so anti-corruption commissions tend to make findings of conduct and then refer cases to other bodies for legal action. Former NSW Labor boss Jamie Clements outside the ICAC hearing into cash payments into the NSW branch of the Labor Party in October. Credit:Peter Rae What about at a federal level? According to the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International, Australians' trust in politicians and government is dropping. Australia has fallen from seventh place in 2012 in the organisation's annual Corruption Perceptions Index of nations to 13th in the 2018 edition.


And while all the states and territories have established ICAC-equivalent bodies, the federal government is only now in the process of drafting the legislation to do so. The government's proposed model, for which full draft legislation is expected by the end of the year, would have two divisions: one for investigating law enforcement and the other for the rest of the public service. The public service division would have weaker investigative powers and would be unable to conduct public hearings. There would be no division to investigate misconduct by politicians. It would not be able to make findings of corruption. Loading The government says its model avoids tarnishing the reputation of those on the stand without the protections of a court and that it properly preserves the ability to make findings with the weight of "corruption" for judges. "The whole raison d'etre of ICAC is the exposure of corruption," former ICAC commissioner David Ipp said in 2014. "The idea of exposing corruption behind closed doors is oxymoronic." Professor A.J. Brown says the government's model has deep weaknesses. "The proposal announced in December was worded so that it wouldn’t normally take information from public servants, whistleblowers or members of the public," says Professor Brown.


"It would have to have complaints and tips-offs referred by other bodies before it would investigate it. That is highly impractical. That is highly unlikely to be achieved in practice." A committee of former senior judges, including Mr Ipp along with Anthony Whealy, David Harper, Stephen Charles and Paul Stein also excoriated the model in a submission on the legislation earlier this year. "The government model falls disastrously short of providing an effective body to counter and expose corruption at a federal level," the former judges wrote. An alternative model submitted by former independent MP Cathy McGowan would much more closely mirror the NSW model, with public hearings and investigations into politicians. It would also strengthen protections for whistleblowers at a time when they have increasingly come under attack, says Professor Brown, who was involved in drafting Ms McGowan's bill as part of his work as a board member for Transparency international.