Anti-corruption commissions are necessary because they use a European inquisitorial (investigative) system, and hence are not hampered by rules which conceal evidence in the adversary system we got as a colony of England. That system is unique: it does not try to find the truth.

The "right" of silence is based on a lie by the first legal academic, William Blackstone.

Interesting opinion.

However, if a commision with unpalatable and intrusive powers to force evidence that then can't result in charges being laid, what is the point in spending all those multiple millions?

Corrupt official ,pollies corporate executives, need to answer for any crime that there's evidence of, however it is found!

If I had my druthers, their evidence would be tested with covertly deployed, inherently unbeatable space age lie detection technology, even as they take the stand to deny all allegations or fail to recall?

And given their lies are revealed, charged with both perjury and contempt!

Moreover, given the sentence for perjury/contempt could be significantly ramped up? Put these lying, cheating, stealing crims right where they belong, inside maximum security, or simply deported wherever possible!

It needs to be about long overdue justice mate, not your par for the course, winning and or losing, plus $600-1,000.00 per hr silks!

And in the money-go-round process, letting some very bad folks/crowing cocks lose to reoffend and reoffend, with virtual guaranteed impunity!

Thanks exclusively to the gold plated deep pocket justice system/winner takes all Amatuer theatre, the indignant/patently posturing Author seems to want to protect?
Rhrosty.

I'm backing the anti corruption enquiries. I am not interested in the 'rights' of the corrupt. Nobody has to front up to enquiries without good reason; and, anyone who objects to such enquiries has an axe to grind.

There are a few problems with these investigative commissions and their powers, firstly the power that ICAC has to coerce testimony has the consequence in that none of the testimony nor evidence discovered as a result of the testimony can be used against the person testifying in a subsequent trial.
The second main problem is that those conducting ICAC are pretty much unaccountable and above the law. Those appointed to these positions need to have the moral backbone to avoid abusing this power, which the NSW ICAC has clearly failed to do. The examples of this are:
1 The pursuit of Margret Cuneen even after it was clear that there was no case, and then vindictively leaking private conversations that were damaging to her.
2 Passing on dockets to the DPP that deliberately omitted evidence that favoured the defendant.
The result is that the very few cases of corruption that ICAC have uncovered are unlikely to ever result in a conviction.

The corrupt do not deserve a 'right' to silence
.

guilty until proved innocent then?