Seriously flawed or just plain silly, ICAC idea is a gift for Turnbull

Bill Shorten’s promise to establish a federal ICAC has handed ­Malcolm Turnbull’s government the perfect opportunity to seize the high ground on human rights and expose Labor as incipient authoritarians.

The Opposition Leader needs to explain exactly what sort of ICAC he has in mind. Does he favour the NSW model, where an agency of the executive branch of government has established itself as a parallel system of justice?

Unless he provides some quick answers, the community is en­titled to assume that a federal Labor government would create a NSW-style star chamber where the rules of evidence do not apply, where the merits of its findings cannot be tested on appeal and where fundamental principles such as the presumption of innocence are abandoned.

This is no fantasy. The abrogation of internationally ­accepted human rights by ICAC in NSW is now before the UN Human Rights Committee in ­Geneva.

Even if Shorten walks away from the NSW model, his proposal still looks silly. The federal government already has plenty of agencies that have a role in fighting corruption and promoting a culture of integrity.

The submission of the ­Attorney-General’s Department to a Senate inquiry last year on a national integrity commission ­listed 10 federal organisations that have a key role in this area. It mentioned 16 others.

All these agencies have been established in a way that respects the integrity of the criminal justice system, human rights and the rule of law. If Shorten’s federal ICAC were to be established along the same lines, there would be an overlap of jurisdiction and therefore a waste of public money.

If the current 26 agencies are considered to be ineffective, the logical response should be to ­address their shortcomings and make them effective, instead of spending taxpayers’ money to create an entirely new body.

If a federal integrity agency were to be established, the only logical way to justify its existence would be if there were no duplication of jurisdiction. But that would mean going beyond the powers of the existing 26 statutory agencies, and that would give rise to a clear danger that the new body would infringe on fundamental rights — just like ICAC in NSW.

Shorten needs to explain which fundamental rights he plans to dump. Will it be the right to ­silence? What about the presumption of innocence? And don’t forget the right to a fair trial.

There is simply no room in the federal bureaucracy for a national integrity commission. If it is vested with orthodox powers that do not infringe upon human rights, it will amount to a waste of resources because it will cover the same ground as the 26 integrity agencies.

If, however, it is vested with unorthodox powers along the lines of those enjoyed by ICAC in NSW, it will erode the separation of powers by having an agency of the executive infringe on the role of the justice system by making findings on matters that really are questions of law.