It is corruption and the potential exists everywhere for it to establish itself and begin spreading.

No government or political system is immune, but there are measures that can be put in place to help protect against it.

So it is to be welcomed that the territory government has been finally willing to start the discussion on an anti-corruption body, if somewhat lacking in initial enthusiasm.

After both major parties joined the Greens' push for such a body in last year's election campaign, a parliamentary inquiry has now begun considering the options.

A 112-page 'options paper' was released on Monday, examining in the inquiry's broad remit the powers that could be given to such a body and how wide its net is to be cast.

It traverses wide ground, from potential "integrity testing" sting-style operations to the use of search warrants, powers to compel witnesses and conduct own-motion investigations, as well as how the agency would relate to the existing roles of the police and judiciary.

Also among the issues being explored is whether or not it should be able to hold public hearings and what independent oversight should be installed over the anti-corruption body to ensure, in Mr Rattenbury's words, that "it doesn't become a law unto itself".

On public hearings, The Canberra Times will always lean towards greater transparency in such matters.

But it is also well understood a balance must be sought between the public interest in exposing misconduct and criminal behaviour and the need to protect against the unnecessary slurring of good people's reputations.

While it is disappointing it has taken so long for the territory to consider such a body, if the government takes the task seriously - and wants to instil confidence in its own activities and the relationships of some of its senior figures - it should heed the debates surrounding the existing bodies in six other Australian jurisdictions.

It could take the best measures from all the models in place, and be able to tread carefully around those that have brought anti-corruption bodies into disrepute, creating a leading example of what such an agency should be.

The agency also needs sufficient power to be able to investigate major crimes where they relate to corruption, misconduct, and related criminal activity, not simply political malfeasance.

Such powers could cross lines with the federal police contracted to the territory - an issue that will likely ruffle some feathers in coming months - but they are essential if the agency is to deter those looking to line their own pockets with illgotten gains.

The debate around the proposal will continue for much of this year, and the inquiry is seeking input.

But this issue is not just about exposing potential misconduct or corruption that is not already being investigating - it goes to the very integrity of the politicians who sit in the legislative assembly.

Some may be tempted to put an end to the prospect of such an agency altogether perhaps letting it drag on into the next parliamentary period, where it could be dropped altogether.

Others may be tempted to allow the creation of yet another toothless tiger - an anti-corruption or integrity agency in name, if little else.

Let us hope our territory elected representatives show the integrity that seems to be lacking among many in the federal sphere.