18 -
"The fact that disclosure of investigations into other offences is not so severely restricted does not render the provisions of section 30(1) disproportionate or unnecessary. In many offences involving dishonesty there will be a party who suffers and who has an obvious interest to report the matter to the authorities with the result that the offender can expect that some investigation into the offence will take place. In cases of bribery, however, neither party to the transaction is likely to have any interest to report the matter rather the reverse, since both are likely to be satisfied with what has occurred. This means that bribery offences are particularly difficult to detect and the maintenance of secrecy as to an investigation is even more important in order not to put the suspect on his guard."
I am aware that the anti-corruption legislation of New South Wales contains the "likely to prejudice test". However, in February of this year the Australian Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service published an interim report, dealing with police corruption. The report concluded that the internal anti-corruption work of the New South Wales police service, and the anti-corruption work of the elements of the New South Wales ICAC that targeted the police, have failed. The report recommended that a new agency be established and that the agency be given "an appropriate secrecy provision". I trust that I have said enough to indicate how dangerous it is to point to a precedent from another jurisdiction and assume both that the precedent is effective in that jurisdiction and that it would be effective in Hong Kong.
In contrast to the position in New South Wales, the success of the anti- corruption work of the ICAC in Hong Kong is widely recognised. The Report of the ICAC Review Committee stated that -
"Almost all submissions acknowledged the success of the ICAC in combating corruption and bringing it under control. They perceived the danger of a significant increase in corruption during the run-up to 1997 and expressed a belief that the independence and effectiveness of the Commission remained crucial to the continued development and prosperity of the community."
One of the reasons for the ICAC's success, I believe, is the protection afforded to the integrity of investigations by section 30. At this crucial time in Hong Kong's history, we should not be putting the effectiveness of the ICAC at risk by weakening the main elements of section 30. The "likely to prejudice test" would do just that.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge members of this Council to vote against Mr Ho's amendment.
End
Page 40Page 41