Public hearings by Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog will be restricted to only the most serious investigations of major public importance, with experts warning the changes will further limit its powers to investigate.

Key points: Former Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles says public hearings inform people of corruption risks

Former Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles says public hearings inform people of corruption risks The Government argues new restrictions will protect the rights and welfare of individuals

The Government argues new restrictions will protect the rights and welfare of individuals IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich warns the only reason to curb public hearings is to appease interest groups

The Andrews Government has introduced laws that it says will improve public examinations for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC).

To do this it will raise the threshold for holding public hearings to ensure that the "conduct to be investigated is serious or systemic corrupt conduct or serious or systemic police personnel misconduct".

Labor argues that the new requirement will better protect the rights and welfare of individuals so that people who appear and are innocent do not have their reputation damaged.

Currently IBAC can hold public examinations if there are exceptional circumstances; if it is in the public interest to hold a public examination; and if a public examination would not cause unreasonable damage to a person's reputation, safety or wellbeing.

At a parliamentary committee hearing last year, IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich warned against additional limitations for public examinations and called for exceptional circumstances rules to be eased.

"The only reason I can see why anyone would want to impose this level of limitation is to appease a particular interest group — a powerful interest group," he told a committee hearing in May.

Commissioner Redlich has previously argued in favour of public hearings as an important tool of raising awareness of corruption.

The changes have passed the Lower House where the Opposition tried to move amendments over the issue. It is due to be debated in the Upper House — where Labor only commands 18 out of 40 votes — this week.

'This is about gagging the integrity watchdog'

Opposition Leader Michael O'Brien questioned the Government's motives for the crackdown and argued the exposure of corruption was an important educational tool.

"Is this something Labor is worried about for themselves?'' Mr O'Brien asked on ABC Radio Melbourne.

"This is about gagging the integrity watchdog, it is about making it harder for it do its job.

"And I don't see why the government, any government, should be me making it harder for the anti-corruption commission to be able to do its job."

Mr O'Brien said there was no evidence IBAC had abused its powers.

"You have to ask who benefits from making it harder for the corruption watchdog to hold public hearings into corruption, I would say that the only people who benefit from that are people who have got something to worry about," he said.

The Greens' spokesperson for integrity Tim Read said the party shared concerns that the changes would make it harder for IBAC to hold public hearings.

Transport Infrastructure Minister Jacinta Allan defended the changes as "reasonable".

"It is adding that reasonable grounds test to ensure that when people are being called before IBAC, it is for serious illegal behaviour," she said.

Former judge warns of 'obstacles' to public hearings

Already Victoria lags behind NSW's anti-corruption body in holding public hearings.

Former Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles is part of the Accountability Roundtable, an organisation that has serious issue with the changes, especially given it was already very difficult to hold a public examination in Victoria.

"What this is doing it is providing additional obstacles for a public hearing, IBAC already holds fewer public hearings than others," he said.

Suspects, he warned, would be able to go to court to argue against a hearing that would require IBAC to show that the case was serious or systemic conduct.

This would require evidence to be produced that would give the suspects an opportunity to delay and hide other evidence.

"This is a serious intrusion on IBAC's ability to investigate," Mr Charles told the ABC.

Public hearings were critical to inform people about corruption risks, he said.

IBAC threshold 'already too high'

One of IBAC's most high-profile probes, Operation Ord, examined corruption among education bureaucrats.

As a result of the public examinations a wave of complaints to authorities was triggered and the Education Department changed its systems so that such behaviour could not happen again.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has been accused of leading a government "very keen on secrecy". ( ABC News: Stephanie Anderson )

Monash University adjunct professor Colleen Lewis said to date IBAC had used its public hearing powers responsibly.

"There's no cases of people's reputation being unnecessary sullied," she said.

Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings told the Parliament earlier this month that following consultation, it became "abundantly clear" that there was a need to strike a balance between:

"The extraordinary powers of IBAC.

"The extraordinary powers of IBAC. "IBAC's power to conduct public examinations.

"IBAC's power to conduct public examinations. "The greater potential for an IBAC investigation to unreasonably harm a person's reputation."

Mr Charles, a long-time critic of the legislation establishing IBAC, said the threshold to investigate was already too high.

He said the high-profile Eddie Obeid corruption scandal in NSW would not have occurred in Victoria because it started with a low-level tip off.

He said it was part of a worrying trend from the Andrews Government towards integrity bodies, including taking the Ombudsman to the High Court to challenge her jurisdiction during the red shirts probe.

Mr Charles said the Andrews Government had been "very keen on secrecy" and that Victoria had "an extremely unsatisfactory situation" in regard to the Government attitude to integrity bodies.