For those in NSW & VIC: both IBAC & ICAC are de facto inquisitions ala Roman Law. The commissioner & counsel assisting may go wherever the evidence leads. At the same time, people adversely reflected on (publicly!) may not have the same protections under common law. Caveat.
The ICAC problem in NSW is it is the closest body we have to a 4th branch - it is not a court & thus not part of the appellate hierarchy. It is part of the executive govt but not really responsive to any Minister. It is a body made necessary by NSW's endemic corruption problems.
The problem for anyone who lives in Sydney & New South Wales (and has grown up with our historic corruption problems) is that unless there is some public inquisitorial (in the Roman Law sense) body like ICAC threatening public officials, then NSW is back in the Askin & Wran years
The only legit reason we have ICAC hearings in public in NSW is that our politicians & senior public servants will not behave themselves unless there is a threat to them of public stigma. The fair criticism of ICAC is it works too slowly & has no means of exonerating the innocent
As long as a few people in State governments (whoever is in power) make large decisions around property, gambling, licensing, zoning, etal, then the obvious temptations for corruption exist. At the same time, Govts move all too slowly & too often no decisions (at all) are made
No one except the actual Commissioner, counsel assisting, and their investigators, know where a corruption probe is going. Anyone telling you that X or Y does or does not deserve their appointed time before the commission has no idea what the state of the evidence is or may be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
