The Baillieu government is at last delivering on its promise to create an anti-corruption commission.
The Baillieu government is at last delivering on its promise to create an anti-corruption commission. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission will have sweeping powers to investigate more than 250,000 people in public service, including politicians, their staff, judges, police, local government, consultants, the auditor-general and the governor. That is the good news. The bad news is that even as it is scraps constraints on investigating the tentacles of corruption wherever they lead, the government is seeking a way to keep some inquiries from the public.
As the government rushed through 100 pages of IBAC legislation on Parliament's last sitting day, Anti-Corruption Minister Andrew McIntosh told reporters: ''We were elected on a promise to shine a light on public corruption. I have a message for Victoria's public servants: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'' The government is not applying that message to itself. One clause creates an exemption from any obligation to disclose investigations. Rather than ''shine a light'' on corrupt conduct, the commission can make a ''private recommendation'' to the premier or a minister. If the IBAC commissioner is satisfied the government heeded the advice, no one else need ever know about the matter.
Publicity can derail some covert investigations. However, this clause could also be applicable to politically embarrassing or damaging findings. On the face of it, opposition spokeswoman Jill Hennessy is right in saying: ''Under this legislation, reports will be hidden and only the government will have access to investigations about itself. This piece of legislation has been written by the government for the government.''
If the commission finds the government's response unsatisfactory, it can release a public report. In this regard, another concern raised by Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews is relevant. The government broke an undertaking to give a bipartisan parliamentary committee the right of veto over the selection of the inaugural IBAC commissioner. ''We cannot have a situation in this state where the IBAC commissioner is the government's person,'' he said. This is especially so when the IBAC chief decides what complaints to pursue, what inquiries to initiate and whether the government can keep an investigation under wraps.
This newspaper regularly reports on matters that government would rather not be the subject of open inquiries. If, for instance, the special treatment accorded Premier Ted Baillieu's brother-in-law, Graeme Stoney, brought the secret return of cattle to the Alpine National Park before the IBAC, the public might never know. The same is true were the IBAC to follow up unresolved questions about the role of ministers and staff in the intrigues that forced police chief Simon Overland and his deputy, Ken Jones, to resign. There are questions about Business First's direct funding of Liberal candidates and what developers expected in return. Only after this newspaper's inquiries were disclosures made. If belated compliance with electoral law were to satisfy the IBAC, voters might remain ignorant of any inquiry into ''buying'' political influence.
The Coalition has taken a historic step in setting up this anti-corruption commission. We won't see how the IBAC performs until next July. But when Mr Baillieu castigated his predecessors for their lack of transparency and accountability, and for looking after Labor ''mates'', his promises of open administration were based on a premise of disclosure. Impropriety and wrongdoing flourish in secrecy transparency itself counters corruption. If any public official engages in corrupt conduct, the public has a right to see that justice is done. Unless the IBAC promotes that principle, efforts to clean up public administration in Victoria could fall well short of what is needed and was promised.
A man of many virtues'He was a master lawyer and ? he brought to his work and to the whole of his public life an unflagging and almost inexhaustible energy and a mind of great strength, power and range.'' This description could well have applied to Sir Zelman Cowen, Australia's 19th governor-general, who died this week at the age of 92. In fact, this adroit summary comes from The Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry on Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia's 9th viceroy. Its author: Sir Zelman Cowen.
Much has rightly been made of Sir Zelman's five-year term as governor-general, from 1977 to 1982, and of the key conciliatory role he played in restoring dignity to that office after the rancorous and messy aftermath following the dismissal. But there was much more to him than that, as his many colleagues and friends would attest. As former High Court judge Michael Kirby said, toasting Sir Zelman's 90th birthday, he was a man of many virtues: seven public ones and seven private ones, that resembled the twin arms of the menorah - or candlabrum sacred to the Jews. These included Sir Zelman's roles in academia, law reform, and media and communication (it should not be forgotten that, while chairman of Fairfax in the early 1990s and in the face of a proposed takeover by Kerry Packer, Sir Zelman helped draft, and was a signatory to, this newspaper's charter of independence). Less publicly, his other virtues included a loving nature, conversational expertise, courage, intellectualism and luck.
Sir Zelman remained active in public life long after his retirement and, indeed, while dealing with the onset of Parkinson's disease.
Next week, he will, entirely appropriately, be given a state funeral in Melbourne. Such a great and influential Australian deserves nothing less.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What is the IBAC (Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission) being set up in Victoria?
The IBAC is a new state anti‑corruption commission the Baillieu government established to investigate corrupt conduct across the public service. The article says it will have sweeping powers to look into conduct involving more than 250,000 people in public service roles — including politicians, their staff, judges, police, local government, consultants, the auditor‑general and the governor.
When will the IBAC become active and start investigating matters in Victoria?
According to the article, the commission has been set up under legislation and the public won’t really see how IBAC performs until next July, which is when it is expected to be operational and begin carrying out inquiries in practice.
What investigative powers does the IBAC have — and what limits were included in the legislation?
The legislation gives IBAC broad investigative powers over a wide range of public officials, but it also contains a clause that can exempt certain investigations from public disclosure. Specifically, the commission can make a 'private recommendation' to the premier or a minister and, if the commissioner is satisfied the government has heeded the advice, the matter may never be made public.
What is a 'private recommendation' and why do transparency advocates worry about it?
A 'private recommendation' is a power in the IBAC legislation allowing the commission to advise the premier or a minister privately rather than publishing a public report. Critics in the article warn this could keep politically embarrassing or damaging findings hidden from the public, undermining the promise of shining a light on corruption and reducing public accountability.
How was the inaugural IBAC commissioner chosen and are there concerns about commissioner independence?
The article says the government broke an undertaking to give a bipartisan parliamentary committee veto over the inaugural commissioner’s selection. Opposition figures argued this raises the risk that the IBAC commissioner could be seen as 'the government’s person,' which is a concern because the commissioner decides what complaints to pursue and whether to keep inquiries private.
Can IBAC release public reports, and under what circumstances would that happen?
Yes. The article notes that if the IBAC commissioner finds the government’s private response to a recommendation unsatisfactory, the commission can publish a public report. That is the statutory backstop if private handling fails to resolve issues to the commissioner’s satisfaction.
Are there examples of matters the article says might be affected by IBAC’s private reporting powers?
The article points to several examples where public disclosure mattered: special treatment of Premier Baillieu’s brother‑in‑law Graeme Stoney over a secret return of cattle to the Alpine National Park, unresolved questions around the resignations of police chief Simon Overland and deputy Ken Jones, and investigations into Business First’s direct funding of Liberal candidates and what developers expected in return. It suggests some of those matters might never be publicly known if handled privately.
Why should everyday investors care about Victoria’s anti‑corruption commission and transparency issues?
The article argues transparency counters corruption and that hidden impropriety can affect public administration and policy decisions. For everyday investors, that matters because questions about political influence, developer funding and decisions by public officials can affect planning outcomes, regulatory certainty and the broader investment environment. The piece suggests voters and investors have a stake in seeing justice and accountability made public.