Section 37 ICAC Act/ Senator Doug Cameron

This is the NSW Corruption Act.

 The Australian Federal Government has failed to  implement  a similar institution. 

Senator Xenaphon called on the  Federal Government  create something similar.

It is clearly obvious why the labor Government would not appreciate  a similar corruption watchdog.

Last week it was exposed  by  ICAC that Senator Doug Cameron ensured that the corrupt Ian Macdonald was reselected. Senator Cameron was clearly made aware the Ian Mcdonald was corrupt.

The Federal Government relies on the Commonwealth Ombudsman  and Australian Public Service Commission to expose  corruption.  Clearly the statistics  demonstrate that  instead of exposing this, they  are in fact covering it up

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT 1988 - SECT 37

Privilege as regards answers, documents etc

37 Privilege as regards answers, documents etc

(1) A witness summoned to attend or appearing before the Commission at a compulsory examination or public inquiry is not entitled to refuse:

(a) to be sworn or to make an affirmation, or

(b) to answer any question relevant to an investigation put to the witness by the Commissioner or other person presiding at a compulsory examination or public inquiry, or

(c) to produce any document or other thing in the witness’s custody or control which the witness is required by the summons or by the person presiding to produce.

(2) A witness summoned to attend or appearing before the Commission at a compulsory examination or public inquiry is not excused from answering any question or producing any document or other thing on the ground that the answer or production may incriminate or tend to incriminate the witness, or on any other ground of privilege, or on the ground of a duty of secrecy or other restriction on disclosure, or on any other ground.

(3) An answer made, or document or other thing produced, by a witness at a compulsory examination or public inquiry before the Commission or in accordance with a direction given by theCommissioner under section 35 (4A) is not (except as otherwise provided in this section) admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings or in any disciplinary proceedings.

(4) Nothing in this section makes inadmissible:

(a) any answer, document or other thing in proceedings for an offence against this Act or in proceedings for contempt under this Act, or

(b) any answer, document or other thing in any civil or criminal proceedings or in any disciplinary proceedings if the witness does not object to giving the answer or producing the document or other thing irrespective of the provisions of subsection (2), or

(c) any document in any civil proceedings for or in respect of any right or liability conferred or imposed by the document or other thing.

(5) Where:

(a) an Australian legal practitioner or other person is required to answer a question or produce a document or other thing at a compulsory examination or public inquiry before theCommission or in accordance with a direction given by the Commissioner under section 35 (4A), and

(b) the answer to the question would disclose, or the document or other thing contains, a privileged communication passing between an Australian legal practitioner (in his or her capacity as an Australian legal practitioner) and a person for the purpose of providing or receiving legal professional services in relation to the appearance, or reasonably anticipated appearance, of a person at a compulsory examination or public inquiry before the Commission,

the Australian legal practitioner or other person is entitled to refuse to comply with the requirement, unless the privilege is waived by a person having authority to do so.

---

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback