“What is the consequence of concentration of government around a leader? ... What it means is that in the area of what I call soft or grey corruption,there are much greater risks today than ever before,” he said.

The Age has previously reported about thecentralisation of power in the premier’s department under this government,how thepremier’s private office has grown from 20 people under the former Liberal government to 90 now,with a further 287 ministerial advisers across the government.

Age readers surveyed as part of ourVictoria’s Agenda project have expressed concern about the state’s anti-corruption regime. “This is a critical question. It is clear that IBAC is not as powerful or well resourced as the NSW ICAC. It needs to be,” said one reader,while another said:“Can you ensure we have an adequate and vigorous anti- corruption body which is independent from government”?

Andrews has spent the weekbatting away questions about Operation Daintree,the probe into pledges made to the Health Workers Union shortly before the 2018 election. IBAC last week won aSupreme Court injunction to prohibitThe Age publishing information about IBAC’s draft findings in Operation Daintree.

However,sources with knowledge of events have said IBAC closely scrutinised the actions of a group of government officials,including Andrews,during the investigation,and that a key focus of events was a meeting between Andrews and the union leader,at which the premier is alleged to have promised a $2.2 million election commitment. In the three other integrity inquiries in which Andrews has been questioned he was not a central figure.

The Supreme Court agreed with IBAC’s argument that the public interest in reporting on the investigation before Victorians voted in the state election was outweighed by the need to allow witnesses,including Andrews,to respond to preliminary findings.

Asked byThe Age this week whether the threshold for public inquiries should be lowered,Andrews said:“it’s not binary – there’s a fair bit of room for interpretation[by IBAC on whether to hold a public hearing].” His office did not respond to further emailed questions late on Friday.

However,a government spokesperson told The Age:“We’re undertaking the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country,including strengthening lobbying rules to stamp out influence.”

“IBAC has broad powers to effectively conduct its investigations and the resources it needs to undertake that work,” the spokesperson said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy,who has faced a series of his own scandals,promised to allow more public hearings if elected.

Former Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles – who also spoke at the Centre for Public Integrity and Melbourne University forum – said fewer than 10 public hearings had been held in Victoria compared with more than 45 at NSW’s corruption commission over the same period.

The NSW body has been criticised by some politicians and commentators for conducting hearings that unfairly damaged innocent people,but Charles said Victoria’s laws “severely limited” its ability to fight corruption.

Redlich and Charles argued that the need for IBAC to suspect criminality before launching an investigation inhibited its ability to examine other misuses of power that did not involve criminality,including conflicts of interest,improper quid pro quos and pork-barelling. These forms of wrongdoing were elevated onto the national stage during the Morrison government’s term in office andfuelled the rise of progressive campaigns on “integrity”.

Redlich also addressed the growing view of some involved in politics who question the power of corruption agencies. One of the few politicians to air this view publicly was retiring Labor minister Martin Pakula who,inhis valedictory speech in September,lamented the “seemingly relentless trend toward expanding the definition of what is considered improper and simultaneously narrowing the prerogative of the electorate to be the arbiters of such conduct.”

He warned against “lawyers and judges[becoming] the final arbiters of the appropriateness of political decisions” and encouraged MPs to “guard your sovereignty jealously[and] never forget that it is this arm of government that is formed by the will of voters.”

Redlich said that the1987 Fitzgerald Inquiry into Queensland police corruption’s focus on criminality was limiting.

“We all know what black,or crime corruption,is;when someone receives money in a paper bag when one is engaging in fraudulent activity. And one might ask:do we need integrity agencies if all we are going to pursue is criminal activity,why aren’t our police forces capable of discharging that role?

“The short answer is:they are. So,what is the real purpose of integrity agencies? It is,I venture to suggest,that we must have the capacity to fully explore the range of soft of grey corruption.”