L' ol wrs where l.IVl' .1 competi-• s.1id. 1s hl't.'n speak­ghout A~ia on 1ofBrl'Xil. wngrading of as a financial hl• a realloca -vii y that cou Id ncial centres esajd. l'nvironment in also might

lativdy more n investment changes asso-the EU would ect on British turned away

approach and ion. there would

sociated with firms in Brit­selvcs operat­t legal and nt

tart d before that istilli & Sim­

with Cliff­rs ago to form tralian prac­e partner in ng, stayed at

dis the new

he suspected services wa5

another peri-

me are non­rs like the r Pistilli said. dabitoftime t about what he more rel­

thc future." , however,

. high-lever-of large tra­il not be the efuture. ISMF.RRITf

1 Reputation victiills 1 seek ICAC reform

CHRh ~H:RRll I LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

Two former politicians who have been abandoned by their parties have urged the NSW government to prevent the state's Independent Commission Against Corruption from using public hearings to de­stroy the reputations of innocent people.

These calls for change have been made by Jeff Salvestro­Martin, who lost Labor Party pre­selection for the 2013 federal election due to an ICAC public hearing, and Marie Ficarra who lost Liberal Party endorsement after appearing before ICAC in 2014.

Despite facing accusations of wrongdoing by lCAC, no charges have ever been laid against them and ICAC informed Ms Ficarra last year - long after she had lost her political career - tha,t she would not be found corrupt.

In Mr Salvestro-Martin's case, serious doubts have now emerged about whether ICAC properly understood the law that it had ac­cused him ofbreaching.

The calls for change come soon after I CA C's independent inspec­tor David Levine urged the state government to abolish the com­mission's public hearings and in­troduce an "exoneration protocol" that would permit peo­ple to dear their names when ad­verse findings by TCAC fail to produce convictions .

TCAC Commissioner Megan Latham has criticised both pro­posals.

Mr Levine's report singles out

Mr Salvestro-Martin and says his experience shows how public hearings can have a significant negative impact on the repu­tation, career and family life of those involved.

He had been referred to ad­versely by ICAC in a press release, a "fa<.t sheet", at public hearings and in a final report that recom­mended consideration should be given to charging him with breaches of the NSW election funding laws.

ICAC continues to publish that material on its website.

The report released last week by Mr Levine reproduces corre­spondence from the Electoral Commission that indicates TCAC and the Electoral Commission have different views on how the electoral funding laws operate.

The Electoral Commission's assessment is in line with argu­ments from Mr Salvestro-Martin that were rejected by I CA C.

The correspondence, dated October 26 last year, came long after his eight-year-old daughter had been asked by her teacher

Fonner ALP politician Jeff Salvestro­Martin says the ICAC claims have had lasting impacts on his family

after the 2013 election if she had any objection to the class discuss­ing what had happened to her father.

"When they say JCAC has an impact on people, I don't think the level of that impact is understood by Megan Latham," Mr Salvestro­Martin said.

"My son said to me the other day 'Dad, when is this ICAC stuff going to disappear off the web? Whenever I look up my name, all your stuff comes up.'

"He rightly says that this is going to impact his future. I've got twoboysandtheyturnlSinJuly.

"Jf a prospective employer types in our name, which is pretty unusual, that rubbish is gomg to pop up. What is missing is what David Levine has said - that there was no corruption and wrongdoing. That stuff doesn't come up as No 1. What sits there is the salacious Sydney Morning Herald bile."

Mr Salvestro-Martin was stripped of ALP preselection for the seat of Bennelong on July 12, 2013, one day after a report in The

Sydney Morning Herald revealed that ICAC had ordered him to ap­pear at a public hearing.

Mr Salvestro-Martin had been a Labor member of Ryde City Council and on the day he lost preselection, ICAC issued a "media alert" saying he would be questioned a~ut undisclosed political donations in the form of advertising in a local newspaper, The Weekly Times.

Section 96E (3) of the NSW Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act says a banned indirect campaign contribution does not include anything worth less than $1000.

ICAC rejected submissions from Mr Salvestro-Martin and four other Ryde councillors that the cost of the advertising was $696.66 each, which was below the statutory limit.

ICAC believed they were liable because the aggregate cost ex­ceeded the $1000 limit

The letter from the Electoral Commission in Mr Levine's report says: "Each candidate or group is not required to disclose the full cost of the advertising but rather the amount of expenditure paid by the candidate or group.

"In this scenario no candidate or group is making or accepting an indirect campaign contribution ...,"the commission wrote.

Mr Salvestro-Martin has al­lowed his ALP membership to lapse and was "enormously disap­pointed" that the party had not upheld the rights of the individual that he once believed was one of its fundamental principles.

"They dropped me like the proverbial a hot potato," he said.

A design for tom by ultimate odd

The debate about the future of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption can be easily resolved. Why not compromise?

And when designing that com­promise, why not take up one of the best ideas ever put forward by ICAC's former counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson SC?

ICAC and its champions are clearly wedded to the idea that this government agency should be free to conduct public hearings. They are primarily motivated by the idea that public exposure is the most effective remedy for corrup­tion.

As far it goes, that idea is admir­able. It does, however, ignore the obvious fact that recent public hearings have destroyed careers without justification. This is where NSW PremierMikeBairdneedsto draw on the thinking of those op­posed to public hearings.

The opponents have one, broad concern: ICAC's declining stan­dards. The entire country now knows that this agency exceeded its jurisdiction to such an extent that it took the combined efforts of the High Court and a regrettable measure of retrospective legis­lation to put it back on track.

Its recent history also reveals a strong focus on theatrics, insuf­ficient rigour and a reckless disre­gard for the damage this is inflicting on itself and others.

Removing public hearings is

the neat moral h such slop the add ICACint able anti

It need public h agencies j used by

.which is agency. Western tralia an Queensla

When on this isS\ winner-ta\

If he dj ICAC int stream, h ceptable subjecting cedural the rules to call ex thatareu

Safegu sometime ties. But lack of ri ~ine-grabbl' mgs, a technicalit1 of restor· · this agen ably the ch

Butwh bracingG a merits sions?Wa 1CAC and

Tomorrc you by the David Le Watson.