The point of ICAC when it was set up was to root out corruption within the public service. To this end it was given powers far beyond that of any criminal court. It can coerce people to testify, hearsay is accepted as evidence, and generally the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window.

To quote ICAC commissioner Megan Latham:

“On a concluding note, can I say that if any of you get tired of adversarial litigation, inquisitorial litigation is fantastic,” Ms Latham says. “You are not confined by the rules of evidence. You have a free kick. You can go anywhere you want to go and it’s a lot of fun.” Because witnesses had already been questioned in private, she said, the role of counsel assisting was like “pulling wings off butterflies”. ICAC does not have to follow the rules of evidence of courts, can compel witnesses to answer questions and does not recognize legal professional privilege.

The first and major flaw with ICAC is one that most people don't realise, is that because of the coercive factor, most of the evidence produced or testimony made in the ICAC can be used in a criminal court with the result that while ICAC can destroy reputations, it often effectively grants immunity from criminal prosecution to those it accuses.

Recently, however, ICAC has chosen to pursue investigations far beyond its original remit, choosing to broadly define corruption within the public service, to any illegal act that infringes on public service, and as admitted by council for ICAC can extend as far as the tax returns of the man in the street. The decision by the high court has reinforced the original definitions of ICACs remit leading to it facing huge liabilities for legal costs of the cases it pursued outside its jurisdiction.

For all those that are calling for ICACs powers to be extended, just look back in your past to tax returns or speeding tickets and consider yourself forced to testify in the dock with no assumption of innocence.

If to attempt anecdotally that democracy is real, being that people in powerful influential positions, must on occasions prove the democratic system is honest, must prove to the public that money directed towards favoured people's favourable outcomes aren't being carried out behind closed doors. To me these news media stories are no more than propaganda. The problem with democracies in real life is that people running for political office would be most likely to have corrupt intentions. Once in political office they would seek out politicians with similar intentions. Eventually a collective group of politicians would set up a birth right ruling class, allowing a limited number of families to occupy key positions, controlling the media and money. To achieve population compliance, media performances of exposing corruption would be performed. No one goes to jail. The problem with human behaviours are that humans will believe almost anything they're told by authority figures and nice looking smiling news presenters.

The people of New South Wales can be thankful for the job the ICAC has done in exposing the corruption in both the Labor and Liberal Parties. The challenge now is to enact retrospective legislation to give the act the necessary legal authority to make sure the corruption findings against business people and union leaders stick, these friends of the political elite, like their corrupt political cronies they too must be held to account for their behavior. Retrospective legislation must be enacted to ensure these people are unable to appeal and have those corrupt finding overturned.
The acid is now on the Baird Government to do the right thing and take the necessary action to see justice is served. The people of NSW demand it.

I should have known that the first person to display an unlimited ignorance of the law would be a green, as their ignorance is also unlimited.

The requirement to:
"to enact retrospective legislation to give the act the necessary legal authority to make sure the corruption findings against business people and union leaders stick ... Retrospective legislation must be enacted to ensure these people are unable to appeal".

Would require scrapping the constitutional separation between the judiciary and the state, to allow chucking out all the rules of evidence and allowing the investigators, the prosecutors, and the judges to be all from the same organisation.

How about instituting the old style kangaroo courts where the accused are arrested, tried and executed within the same day without any pesky defense.

So Paul, for your edification, and for other left whingers who wish to trample civil rights for political gain, the reason that the decisions of these "independent" bodies such as ICAC and ASADA are being tossed out like confetti are:

1) The right of access to a court to appeal a decision is a constitutional right, not a whimsy,
2) When the courts review any decision they use the normal rules of evidence and the hearsay and coerced testimony is inadmissible.

In fact the inquiry process merely by ignoring the rules of evidence may make a criminal case against a corrupt individual that was viable to prosecute before the inquiry impossible after the inquiry.

I should have known Shadow as a Liberal, you would want to don the wig and gown, and make yourself out to be the forums answer to "Rumpole of the Bailey" and use an oversight within the law to protect certain types within and without of the party who have been found to have acted corruptly by the ICAC.
The likes of Nick Greiner an elder statesman of Liberal Party in NSW, who as Primer was himself found to have acted corruptly by the Commission. Mr Greiner told the Herald in 2010 it was impractical to look at restricting what the ICAC investigates. "I think it's a bit easy to say that they shouldn't investigate small things. It's about trying to change culture and attitude. It's not whether this is a venal or mortal sin." So Greiner said in relation to the ICAC investigation into corruption by Labor MP Angela D'Amore. Today however, Mr Greiner sings a different tune, saying that even if ICAC had the power to investigate Ms Cunneen (the ICAC case brought before the High Court) – which the High Court found it did not – "no sensible organisation could have made a decision to pursue that matter". No doubt Greiner, like the good Liberal he is, has an eye on the ICAC corruption findings against a swag of businessmen being overturned.
cont.