Rosalie Woodruff MP, Tasmanian Greens Leader:
Even with their integrity in tatters, the Liberal Government are shamelessly pushing off a key reform to the Integrity Commission – removing the ability of people being investigated by the Commission to refuse to provide evidence on the grounds it might incriminate them.
The Premier has admitted his MPs have used huge amounts of public money to take the Integrity Commission to court. As a result, misconduct investigations have been drawn out for years, hidden from the public by court suppression orders.
Under intense pressure to improve their government’s integrity, the Liberals have finally tabled a bill to implement recommendations of the ten-year-old Cox Review to the Integrity Commission Act. Strangely, it is absent a critical reform – to remove the section 92 right to claim privilege against self-incrimination.
In Parliament, the Attorney General made no commitment to delivering on the section 92 change. No other integrity or anti-corruption body in the country has such a provision in their founding legislation. Given the scrutiny on the government’s integrity, pushing this reform into the long grass is a damning sign of their lack of commitment to serious change.
Cassy O’Connor MLC, Greens Democracy and Integrity Spokesperson:
Late last year, the Attorney General released a consultation draft bill on changes to the Integrity Commission Act 2009. He committed to implementing the recommendations from the 2016 Cox Review.
The consultation draft removed the section 92 right to silence provision for public officers who are under misconduct investigations, as former Justice Cox recommended. In the bill tabled today, there is only one difference from the consultation draft – the removal of section 92. It has simply disappeared.
The privilege against providing evidence to the Integrity Commission, on the grounds it might incriminate a person under a misconduct investigation, means they can frustrate the Integrity Commission’s work by applying to the court to claim a right to silence.
No other jurisdiction allows people under investigation by an integrity body to refuse to answer questions because they might incriminate themselves. It is well understood by integrity bodies, commissions of inquiry and the courts that the evidence gathered in such investigations cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.
Tasmanians expect their integrity body to have the same powers as their mainland counterparts. They expect it to be able to do its job investigating misconduct and upholding ethical standards of conduct in public office.
With the Rockliff Government’s integrity in the spotlight over their handling of MPs’ cases against the Integrity Commission, now isn’t the time to squib this essential reform. Now, more than ever, Parliament needs to make sure the Integrity Commission is fully empowered to do its vital work identifying, investigating and preventing unethical conduct by public officers, including ministers of the Crown.
