NSW ICAC ‘needs mental health rules’

The NSW corruption watchdog should consider introducing mental health protocols to assist witnesses summoned to give evidence, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian is seen outside her electoral office in Sydney on Tuesday. Picture: Gaye Gerard

The NSW corruption watchdog should consider introducing mental health protocols to assist witnesses summoned to give evidence at public inquiries to protect them from the ongoing psychological damage caused by these appearances, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

A report into the Independent Commission Against Corruption tabled in NSW parliament on Thursday concluded that the agency generally provided appropriate safeguards to its witnesses and whistleblowers, although concerns were raised about enduring mental health impacts.

It also recommended the agency clearly demonstrated in its investigative reporting whether individuals who gave evidence at public inquiries were witnesses or subject to more serious findings.

The inquiry noted that mere association with an ICAC inquiry, even as a witness, was sometimes enough to cause reputational or economic damage to an individual. “Some stakeholders described the reputational impact extending to family members where their ability to find work is also affected; relationships have broken down; and the social stigma of being related to a person of interest in an ICAC investigation,” the inquiry’s report said. “While there were ICAC findings against some inquiry participants, the duration of the ongoing reputational impact, lasting several years after their respective cases, is distressing.”

The findings form part of a wider report into the unwarranted reputational impact faced by individuals named during ICAC investigations, although ICAC stake­holders told the inquiry current safeguards were adequate and no changes were necessary.

The inquiry’s chair, Tanya Davies, said the purpose of the report was not to re-examine individual cases or protect the reputations of people found to be corrupt but to balance the agency’s core functions against “unfair reputational damage” caused in some cases.

Media reporting of public hearings “heightens and prolongs” the impacts, the report found, but it also noted some reputational impact was unavoidable because of the nature of ICAC’s work to prevent and expose corruption.

Conversely, the committee noted the potential for reputational damage was in itself a deterrent for misconduct. “However, the committee heard evidence that an individual who had no adverse finding made by ICAC could also suffer from the impact of unwarranted reputational damage, including negative impacts on their family,” the report said.

Another finding stated that an exoneration protocol, which would allow affected parties to have corrupt findings overturned if a criminal court found them not guilty of alleged misconduct, was “misconceived and would be fundamentally inoperable”.

“Many persons found to have been corrupt are not subsequently prosecuted for any criminal offence,” Ms Davies wrote in the report’s foreword. “This is partly because of admissibility rules in court proceedings and partly because the definition of corruption in the ICAC legislation is much broader than offending against the criminal law.”

Submissions and evidence to the committee’s inquiry included testimony from individuals who had appeared as ICAC witnesses.

ICAC made its own submissions, pointing to existing safeguards to preserve the reputation of witnesses, including the use of private inquiries, closed hearings and non-publication orders.

Other reforms implemented since 2016 have sought to similarly preserve the standing of witnesses.