These notes made prior to doing a Stateline interview on the proposed Integrity Commission.
Integrity Commission some possible discussion points
Key Overview Points
Independent
· Appointment
· Operational decisions
· Review (3 yearly and of its determinations)
· Referral of determinations of misconduct
· Reporting
Adds to and improves substantially the current accountability/integrity arrangements
· Parliament
· Police
· DPP
· Ombudsman
· Auditor-General
· Right to Information bill
· Public Interest Disclosures
Multi-faceted and multi-tasked organisation
Allows for maximum co-ordination among key agencies
Avoids the default standard for behaviour being “if not criminal/corrupt then acceptable”
Joint Standing Committee
Tri-partisan lower house – raises issue again of parliamentary numbers
Independent – Committee chooses its Chair
Integrity Tribunal
Flexible composition
Right to counsel and cross examination
Range of inquiry types – full public hearing to full in private inquiry
Police misconduct – and supervision , monitoring of police complaints
Own motion capacity
Budget
2.5 million +
costs of inquiries, legal costs, compensation direct charge on Consolidated Fund.
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner
Conduct, ethics, conflicts of interest etc of members of parliament.
Contrast to UK Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards – set up by House of Commons, an Officer of Parliament.
Whether should be appointed by Chief Commissioner or by Joint Standing Committee Parliamentary Integrity Committee.
Powers
Extensive
· Enter public offices without warrant
· Search warrants
· Full range of powers while on premises (search, seize, operate)
· Surveillance/tracking devices (extended to commissions of inquiry)
Other benefits
· More robust oversight of police conduct
· Commissions of Inquiry Act improved
o Witnesses in prison, Ashley, Mental impairment act can be accessed
o Surveillance devices
- Allows unlimited retrospectivity - but highly unlikely unless new evidence/witnesses, information.
Safeguards
1. composition of Board
a. Ombudsman, Auditor General,State Services Commissioner, member local gov experience/expertise, member law enforcement experience, public member with expertise public administration, law
2. Appointment – Minister must consult Joint Committee
3. Joint Committee
a. Review after 3 years
4. Appeal to Supreme Court on finding of misconduct
5. Other entities have to put into operation determinations of misconduct
6. Approval needed for warrants, surveillance devices
7. Major focus of IC is on Integrity, education/prevention, tirage
Potential problems
· Damage to reputation
· Tribunal able to set its own procedures
· No rules on type/time of notice etc (need to accord procedural fairness)
What not done – at issue
Proclamation date
Appointment of Ombudsman, State Services Commissioner (consultation with Joint Committee) - this proposal not adopted. Would improve Ombudsman selection process.
Judicial misconduct
Test against previous problems
Integrity Commission would have addressed many of the major issues arising in previous sagas -
Major decision-making process political at times of greatest political/public controversy/heat
Carter Royal Commission
· Delay in calling
· Surveillance issues
· Recall of witnesses
· Issue of representation and costs
· Involvement of ministers/premier
Tas Compliance Corporation
· Appointment of party members, former MPs etc
· Deleted emails etc
· Concerns within agency
Shreddergate
· Administrative processes
· Appointment processes
· Recordkeeping activities
Gilewicz Inquiry
Delay in investigating (10 years)