A Commonwealth Integrity Commission in line with the government's proposal would only "breed further suspicion" among Australians about corruption in the public sector, an analyst says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Grattan Institute senior associate, Kate Griffiths, describes the model as weak compared with state-based integrity commissions; namely because of its limitations on reporting, "behind closed doors" design, and limited scope for investigation.
Ms Griffiths is speaking to the merits and flaws of the proposal at a public sector governance forum hosted by the Australian Institute of Company Directors at Canberra's Hyatt Hotel on Thursday.
"If they want an integrity commission with some form of purpose in rebuilding trust with the public and in reassuring people that public resources are not being wasted and that corruption isn't necessarily rife then ... it's [not] going to achieve those goals [under the current model]," Ms Griffiths said.
"In many ways it's not a strong model for an integrity commission; it's a very weak model [based on] the initial proposal.
"But there is still time [to fix it]."
Ms Griffiths takes issue with the fact that matters would only be referred to the commission by agency heads and existing integrity agencies in the law-enforcement division, and by agency heads in the general public sector division - not by members of the public, media, or public servants themselves.
"If it has to come through third, fourth, and tenth hands before it can be referred [to the commission], then there's a lot of risks along that pathway that it doesn't get referred, or that it gets referred in a different form from the direct experience," she said.
Both tiers would be able to force agencies and individuals to produce documents, to question people, to enter and search premises, and hold private hearings.
But only the law enforcement division would be able to hold public hearings, make arrests, seize evidence and undertake controlled operations as well as integrity testing.
The public sector would investigate matters of corruption that the commissioner believes could be a criminal offence. Findings, if necessary, would be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Attorney-General Christian Porter said this approach ensured courts made decisions about criminal conduct.
"A court of law makes a judgement about criminal conduct, but [the commission] could make a finding of fact that money changed hands on this occasion and it has referred that to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions," Ms Griffiths said.
"This should be a public facing body - it's the public who are calling for it - and it should be responding to that need, otherwise it is potentially helping to further breed suspicion about what we don't know is going on behind closed doors."
The law enforcement tier would investigate "serious and systemic" corruption under the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act's existing standards.
Mr Porter was looking to finalise a bill on the commission by the end of 2019. It was better to have the right model than the wrong model within a given timeframe, Ms Griffiths said.
Funding for the commission was small compared with those that were state-based, as it rolled in the budget for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
READ MORE:
"The [public sector] arm looks like it has probably got a budget of half what many of the other state agencies have," Ms Griffiths said.
Mr Porter said the commission had $106.7 million of new money allocated to it in the current budget over forward estimates, as well as the $40.7 million in existing funding for the law enforcement integrity commission.
"The experience at the state level has been that this is the worst possible area in which to engage in policy on the run," he said.
"This is one area where the hard detailed work must come before the headlines."
With Sally White