This week, the ACT government will publish draft laws to create an anti-corruption agency to watch over the conduct of territory officials. It has taken some time to reach this point. All three main parties in the ACT pledged support for such a body before the 2016 election, though the governing Labor Party was the last to agree to back it.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Labor's coalition partner, the Greens, were the first to commit to an independent "anti-corruption and integrity commission" (as it's likely to be called). And, judging by what the government has put in the legislation, the Greens will receive most of what they sought. Notably, the body will have strong, royal commission-like powers to investigate covertly any ACT officials (including parliamentarians and their advisers) suspected of corrupt behaviour.
The government has also agreed, in principle at least, that the commission should be able to investigate allegations of serious misconduct by ACT Policing officers. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the debate over the future agency's powers. ACT Policing is part of the Australian Federal Police, over which the ACT government has neither ministerial control nor oversight. Rather, Canberra ratepayers buy community policing from the Commonwealth. There is, of course, a contract of sorts – the purchase agreement – but weaknesses and a lack of clarity in this agreement have, for many years, created frustration and tension between ACT officials (including ministers) and the AFP.
The federal police opposes strongly the creation of any ACT body that is authorised to investigate its staff or activities. It points out that there are already two means of investigating suspect conduct among its officers: its own professional standards unit and the separate Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
With due respect to the law-enforcement commission, it is a tiny watchdog with a massive jurisdiction: the commission's 50-odd staff oversee well over 15,000 people working in policing, intelligence, border control and biosecurity. It also acknowledges that it tends to work alongside the agencies it oversees – including during investigations – in part because of its limited resources.
No one suggests ACT Policing, or the AFP more broadly, is a hotbed of corruption or other types of misconduct. But the critical lesson from scandals in Queensland, NSW and Victoria is that only independent watchdogs with strong powers catch bent cops; internal investigatory units just don't cut it. The AFP faces no such oversight.
At present, the draft legislation is just that: a draft. It may be strengthened or weakened before it becomes law. The ACT government says it will take at least an extra year to negotiate with the Commonwealth over how to deal with allegations of police corruption. It is also yet to decide whether its commission will be able to investigate private-sector workers who are engaged to do government work.
Labor's intent will be judged on whether it yields ground on either of these fronts. The ACT's anti-corruption watchdog must have the ability to investigate both police and contractors. Anything less will ensure that this body is hobbled from the start.
