Given Scott Morrison now has to rely on the kindness of strangers to legislate, one would have expected a more substantial proposal than the one presented this week.

It isn't good enough to make a distinction between parliamentarians, their staffers and most public servants and everybody else.

Under the Morrison plan politicians and their staffers would not be arrested or made to face public hearings if they came under the scrutiny of the CIC.

Individuals working for the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Tax Office, Border Force and Biosecurity Australia and the like wouldn't enjoy those exemptions. They could have their phones tapped, be arrested and be hauled before public hearings.

Morrison, and his Attorney General, Christian Porter, must believe people working in law enforcement are more likely to be corrupt than the average politician or political staffer.

That is an interesting position given the track record of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption which initiated the inquiries that saw Eddie Obeid and other corrupt politicians sent to jail.

The fact Morrison went to great lengths to single out the NSW ICAC as an example of "what not to do" struck an odd note given the regard in which it is held and the results it has achieved.

Ian Temby, the original NSW ICAC commissioner, neatly turned the tables in an opinion piece criticising the CIC proposal on Friday.

"There is a single anti-corruption body in Australia that is highly effective and enjoys strong public support," Temby said. "It is the NSW ICAC. Two matters are fundamental to its success. It can and does conduct public hearings. It can, and does, provide reports to Parliament, including findings of corruption, which are made public.

"The CIC, as proposed... falls well short of these essential characteristics. If it came into existence as he [Morrison] proposes it would be a failure. This is not the right model."

While Temby is not alone in this view, it must be conceded there have been times in the past 34 years when the NSW ICAC has come close to what could be considered to be overreach.

Guidelines would have to be set to ensure an equivalent federal body maintained a very clear sense of direction.

It would also be necessary to determine if the federal body took precedence over a state-based integrity agency in the event of parallel investigations. Then there is the issue of whether or not the CIC could investigate the judiciary, an area where the NSW ICAC has risked breaching the separation of powers on occasion.

None of these problems are unsolvable. The challenges must be balanced against the ability of an empowered and well constituted federal anti-corruption body to act as a deterrent.

Those campaigning to pull the teeth of the CIC before it even comes into being should not be surprised if, in the coming months, they find their motives for doing so being publicly questioned.