The federal government’s draft anti-corruption commission legislation lacks any credibility, and would create a weak, ineffective body that would actually degrade part of Australia’s existing integrity framework, Transparency International has warned.
The government is currently consulting with key stakeholders on draft legislation for its proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission, after years of delay and missed deadlines.
Prior to releasing the draft legislation, the proposed model was already subject to scathing criticism, particularly for its lack of public hearings, the high threshold it requires to investigate matters, its inability to act directly on public tip-offs, and the favourable way it treats politicians and public servants compared to law enforcement officials.
Transparency International Australia’s submission, which is yet to be published, says the draft legislation not only lacks credibility, it actually creates a “retrograde” system in critical areas.
The current system, Transparency International argued, allows for public hearings of corruption matters through the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
“The ability to hold public hearings in certain circumstances is essential,” the submission said. “The CIC would be a retrograde step as it winds back existing (ACLEI) powers to hold public hearings in respect of the bulk of the agency’s operations.”
It says the commission’s differing treatment of politicians and law enforcement is a fundamental failing, and warns the “commission must be fair and equitable in its treatment of all federal public officials irrespective of status or role”.
“The proposed CIC model does not yet meet the necessary criteria to render it effective and credible,” the submission says. “The two-division model is a fundamental flaw that predicates other significant shortcomings.”
Transparency International said, however, that the CIC model could be saved with significant changes. It also said the proposed funding levels were a good starting point.
Its criticisms have been echoed by other thinktanks and anti-corruption groups.
Earlier this week, the National Integrity Committee, a group of retired judges, said the legislation as drafted could leave ministers exempt from investigation.
The judges also warned that the requirement for “reasonable suspicion” before a corruption investigation begins would prevent preliminary investigation being carried out.
Anthony Whealy, a former New South Wales supreme court judge and member of the committee, said the shortcomings left the body “disastrously short” of being effective. “The government has fought for years against any proposal for a federal anti-corruption body,” he said. “Now it has put forward a proposal essentially designed to protect themselves, and to shield the public sector from proper scrutiny.”
The Centre for Public Integrity has also warned against the proposed model. In a November briefing paper, the Centre for Public Integrity warned the draft legislation prevented the CIC from conducting own-motion investigations of law enforcement corruption and did not allow it to make findings of corrupt conduct for parliamentarians or public servants. The legislation also would not operate retrospectively.
“We look forward to seeing the Bill modified as required over the next six months so that the objective of creating a serious Commonwealth Integrity Commission can be achieved,” the briefing paper said.
