Talk:Independent Commission Against Corruption (New South Wales)

Fair use rationale for Image:Icac.png

Image:Icac.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I don't think the criticism section belongs. Some people have criticised the organisation while others have praised its work. Its not neutral. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kennett called ICAC's methods "entrapment", and The Australian suggested counsel assisting should resign. Those are aside from the "star chamber" claims before the O'Farrell stuff. I don't think there's any harm in a small criticism section, well sourced of course. My only concern is that much of the criticism has focused on a particular employee rather than the organisation so we'd have to be careful about BLP issues. Stalwart111 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The four citations recently added to support the statement that "ICAC has received significant criticism in the wake of the Greiner and O'Farrell resignations" are inadequate. The first article does not claim there is significant criticism of ICAC. It does quote some anonymous ministers from the same party as the former NSW Premier. They are not happy one of their own team choose to resign. As the article explains they are angry and fearful. The second article or reference #8 is an opinion piece in the Australian and therefore has no credibility here. The same would apply to the next reference. I can't read the fourth artice because its behind a paywall. It is again from The Australian and is marked as a comment article rather than a more reliable news article. I haven't seen any widespread significant criticism except from the right-wing margins. I have seen calls for a federal body using a similar model to the ICAC because it is successful at fighting corruption. Vague assertions from Baird (again from the Liberal Party) and van Onselen regarding reputations are hardly valid critics for an anti-corruption body. Unless a reliable source is found to support the claim that there has been significant criticism of the ICAC it should be removed. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK there are plenty of references now to display widespread criticism of ICAC. These include criticisms from former Premier Wran (Labor) calling it a star chamber in 1992, a professor of politics (Onselen) calling it a star chamber, a widely respected (pls take my word on that) former federal and state Minister in Bruce Baird AM calling it a "star chamber" this is not a vague assertion - it is quite specific. I don't understand why Onselen who is a professor of politics at WA uni would not be a valid critic for an anti-corruption body, I would have thought that would make him a bit of an expert? If there are more references required let me know I am sure I can find some. I am concerned about your analysis giving the appearance of being based on the political associations of the critics.

I have put in references to Kate McClymont support and Richard Ackland. While there are always some who praise and some who criticise it is highly unusual for a public body to such criticism. I would be concerned an artificial balance may be created if the scale of the criticism is downplayed - it is highly unusual for a public body to receive such harsh criticism - it is important this is recorded and not whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.242.190 (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It still violates our no original research policy, specifically WP:SYNTH, unless a reference directly supports the statement it follows. The main problem I have is the use of the word significant. What makes these comments which amount to little more than labelling and disgruntled whines, significant? An explanation of what a "star chamber" is may be apt. Why aren't the current ministers who commented named in the Hatcher article? Goss really only expressed concerns not relevant and specific criticism of the organisation. Valid criticism should explain what exactly the organisation has done wrong as well as what it should have done or do in the future instead. I can't read the van Onselen article to see the details however you are correct in that his opinion has more credence since he is not a politician. Also please note that opinion articles are rarely reliable for statements of fact. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter van Onselen is best known as a journalist, but he has solid academic credentials in political science. I have read this article, however, and would classify it as highly opinionated. He holds the curious view that the ICAC would be less of a "star chamber" if it conducted its hearings in private: "the star chamber that is ICAC should conduct hearings behind closed doors, if they must go on, so that they retain some legal integrity rather than resemble a modern witch trial".

Concerns about ICAC hearings have been abroad since its foundation: Douglas and Jones's Administrative Law (6th edn 2009), 178. However, they have resulted in several amendments to the Act, some proposed by the ICAC itself. The ICAC is continually reviewed by a joint committee of the NSW parliament, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Committee, mainly through scrutiny of the ICAC's annual reports. The Committee's most recent report to the parliament, on the report for 2011-12, finds the ICAC to be operating "satisfactorily": <http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/a5e89f435f4d06d5ca257c14007c0d59/$FILE/Review%20of%20the%202011-12%20Annual%20Report%20of%20the%20ICAC.pdf>.

The O'Farrell story is cascading. Today it is also reported that, two weeks after receiving the wine, O'Farrell proposed that the donor be appointed to a well paid position on a government board and that a year later he was so appointed, principally by Mike Baird: <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/job-offer-after-wine-gift-20140418-36wg1.html>. This saga will run and run, through the eventual report on the AWH affair - which could recommend prosecutions - and beyond. Wikiain (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Cascading is right. It has a long way to play out. Shiftchange- yes I see the preference for secondary, but the policy does allow primary with care - as the deduction is an implication of "significant criticism" - access by a reasonable person to the listed sources may of course *not* be sufficient to enable them to determine the accuracy of the criticisms, but, it is or at least perhaps should be enough to allow them to determine that there *is* substantial criticism. So for mine it fits with the policy. Will add star chamber link as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.242.190 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think the issue now is one of WP:WEIGHT. The section relating to criticism now cites (4 times) are article by a single journalist who, arguably, derives most of her work and remuneration from reporting on ICAC investigations. Her calls for ICAC hearings to remain public (so she can report on them and continue to get paid) seem entirely self-interested under the circumstances. Allowing criticism of an institution only insofar as it is framed by one person's pro-institution self-interest is not WP:NPOV. Stalwart111 22:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty unfair: above that newspaper article, a click on the author finds a respectable pedigree. Moreover, the article cites some well informed sources. Nonetheless, the present paragraph could do with some more referencing to published scholarly discussion. Though with wariness about dates: the ICAC Act has been amended several times, particularly in 2005 and most recently last year. I think we need less of people sounding off in the general direction of a "star chamber" than specific attention to the allegedly offending provisions of the Act, which I take to be primarily section 17 (informal inquisitorial procedure, not bound by rules of evidence). Wikiain (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Because no reliable source was found to support the statement of fact that there has been significant criticism of the ICAC I have removed the word significant. We don't need links to article which "display widespread criticism", especially opinion pieces as its a simple statement. No deductions or implications need to be made. Even the two ministers quoted in the Hatcher article know their statements would be difficult to hold to account, hence their anonymity. The most reliable source for valid criticism would be the overseeing committee. The O'Farrell story is not cascading at all. His prompt resignation saw to that. It is not unusual for a corruption watchdog to be spoken of negatively in the same way a high profile referee at the State of Origin may be criticised. I am not sure which journalist you are reffering to however I would say she simply appears to be performing her role as a journalist. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "respectable" or not - she is described as the paper's "ICAC reporter". She obviously has an interest in the institution maintaining her capacity to do so. If they were to "cave" to the criticism (and I agree "significant" might not be the right word - it's perhaps considerable considering the comparative volume but the criticism has been equally spread between its powers, the Act, its staff and the institution which is the subject here) and stopped hearing things in public, she would be out of a job. That's not a comment on her pedigree, that's a plain reading of the facts. It would be the same (if we're going to use NRL analogies) if the NRL ceased issuing press passes for games. In this instance she has written an op-ed piece calling on them to keep issuing press passes. Her commentary should be seen in that light. I don't think it's right to suggest her one and only consideration is measured and educated praise of the institution. Stalwart111 05:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a silly proposition to suggest that a journalist who covers ICAC hearings (amongst other matters, ICAC does not sit permanently) would be "out of a job". Journalists can (and often do) move between areas of interest. WWGB (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but at the moment this is clearly a big part of what she does. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a criticism section (and I think we should have a small, well-sourced one) the "counter" to that, in the interests of NPOV, should be someone with a genuinely neutral view of the organisation. Otherwise it looks like we included criticism from a variety of sources and praise from someone with a vested interest. In one of the articles cited she includes mention of private lunches with counsel assisting. It just makes it look like we're only willing to include criticism viewed through rose-coloured glasses and that the only genuine "praise" is from someone non-neutral. I'm not saying she shouldn't be included, only that we should have a couple of good sources from either side of the argument. Stalwart111 06:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Shiftchange I do not agree with your parallel to criticism of a refereeing decision. It is the validity of the institution that is being questioned, not its decision or whether it is adequately meeting its requirements under the Act. This is an important and significant distinction. There should be scope to acknowledge significant public questioning of the validity of the institution. Similarly, opinion pieces are not supportive of facts about the opinions they profess - correct, i.e. an opinion that ICAC is a star chamber does not prove it is a star chamber in any way, however, opinion pages in large newspapers do prove that these opinions exist. Similarly editorials prove that a point of view (including criticism) exist. This is important to understand, there is a risk of misapplying the wiki rules on the use of opinion if they are not applied with this understanding. As such I am putting 'substantial' back in. If both national papers (fairfax and news) give significant space criticising a NSW institutions legitimacy this is significant criticism. We do not need to wait for a secondary source to note the existence of these criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.242.190 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User 124.170.242.190 please sign your comments - four tildes (~) will do it. Wikiain (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

History section

Drovers Wife You have provided no justification for the deletion of a significant development in ICAC - one that renders many of its actions until now illegal. What bigger development could there be? Also when the body's official overseer officially condemns its actions in relation to this development you wish to hide that from the public record as well. Again I note these are factual and you have yet to provide any explanation for your censorship of the entry for ICAC. I can only assume from your series of minor political biographies that this is somehow politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.3.137 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The content of the first paragraph is fine, but it's worded like an opinion piece from the Daily Telegraph, not an encyclopedia article. "however in the wake of the Cunneen decision the High Court found that ICAC was more generally not doing what is should" is not backed up in the sources cited or any other. Lee Rhiannon having been in a communist party forty years ago is in no way relevant to her opinions on ICAC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK agreed, I thought I left that out about Rhiannon, my error, still don't like her tho.03:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activity1234 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent Commission Against Corruption (New South Wales). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140120060358/http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2013/11/04/article/NSW-officially-names-Justice-Megan-Latham-as-new-ICAC/ADSRXXLCOJ to http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2013/11/04/article/NSW-officially-names-Justice-Megan-Latham-as-new-ICAC/ADSRXXLCOJ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)