Review of Victoria's integrity and anti-corruption system - IPAA Victoria

Each of the members of VIACC should have powers necessary to identify and investigate seriousmisconduct and corruption. They should have powers to summons witnesses, compel witnessesto answer questions, override privileges (eg. self-incrimination), enter premises occupied by apublic authority, and conduct searches and seizures (upon application to a Supreme Court judgefor a warrant). However, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and Chief Municipal Inspector’spowers should not extend to holding public hearings given the potential for significant reputationdamage to witnesses. The checks and balances, including oversight arrangements, for theexercise of these powers should be outlined in legislation. The exercise of powers would besubject to principles of procedural fairness that could be abrogated only insofar as necessary andappropriate for VIACC’s effective functioning.The Director, Police Integrity should retain additional powers that may not be independentlyexercised by the other two members of VIACC, reflecting the distinct challenges of investigatingcorrupt police. This includes powers to apply to a magistrate to enter private premises or a vehicle;apply to a Supreme Court judge to use a surveillance device; apply to a federal judicial officer touse telephone interception; authorise controlled operations; possess and use defensive equipmentand firearms; and hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances, defined by a public interesttest. Each of these powers should continue to have strict use and monitoring requirements. Exceptfor the power to possess and use defensive weapons and firearms, these powers should apply toinvestigations involving sworn officers or unsworn employees of Victoria Police. The use ofdefensive weapons, including firearms, should be restricted to operations involving sworn officers.The exercise of stronger powers, including covert powers, should be restricted to extraordinarysituations that justify the abrogation of individual liberties. In rare circumstances the Public SectorIntegrity Commissioner or the Chief Municipal Inspector may require access to powers otherwiserestricted to the Director, Police Integrity. In these circumstances they should be able to refer aninvestigation to the Director, Police Integrity; conduct a joint investigation with the Director, PoliceIntegrity; or draw on the expertise of the Director, Police Integrity’s investigators. Additionalrequirements would need to be satisfied to access stronger powers. The proposed requirementsare outlined in section 4.3 of the Review report.modernising the Ombudsman ActModernising the Ombudsman Act would provide an opportunity to establish a clear locus ofresponsibility for the Office of the Ombudsman within a broader integrity system. This would enablethe Ombudsman to focus on investigating citizen complaints and concerns (including own motionenquiries) into administrative actions. With Ombudsman investigations focused onmaladministration and misconduct and VIACC investigations focused on serious misconduct andcorruption, each integrity body can tailor its investigations practice in accordance with the type ofbehaviour concerned. Coordination between bodies would be required to address potentialoverlap.Modernising the Ombudsman Act should encompass:• clarifying the locus of responsibility for Ombudsman within the integrity system;• explicitly codifying principles of procedural fairness to apply during Ombudsmaninvestigations;• specifying oversight arrangements for the Ombudsman. Oversight of the Ombudsman shouldrespect the Ombudsman’s status as a constitutionally enshrined independent officer of theParliament; and• considering whether to codify in the Act the Ombudsman’s current practice of using patternsof complaints to trigger own motion enquiries and investigations.xvi | Review of Victoria’s integrity and anti-corruption system