Share

New research released today by The Australia Institute identifies significant gaps in federal anti-corruption measures, as calls grow for a federal anti-corruption commission.

The report [full report see PDF below] finds that:

There are significant gaps in the jurisdiction and investigative powers of the federal agencies responsible for scrutinising the public sector and government
No agency has the power to investigate corrupt conduct as defined by our state based commissions
No agency can investigate misconduct of MPs, ministers or the judiciary
The only agencies that have strong investigative powers can only use them when investigating criminal charges
No agency holds regular public hearings, meaning that corruption and misconduct is not properly exposed to the public
To fill these gaps, a federal anti-corruption commission will need strong investigative powers and broad jurisdiction similar to NSW ICAC and other successful state-based commissions

“We already know that 80% of people want a federal ICAC, and our research shows that in fact this is critical to filling the gaps in our integrity system,” Executive Director of The Australia Institute said.

“The types of corruption being revealed in NSW ICAC are currently falling through the gaps of our federal anti-corruption measures. Corruption doesn’t stop at the border, and a federal ICAC is needed to make sure it is investigated and exposed.”

“A federal ICAC must have strong powers and broad jurisdiction to make sure it can expose corruption in the highest levels of government. This means it needs to be able to investigate politicians, and it must have the ability to call public hearings.”

“A time growing electoral disillusionment, a federal ICAC would be good not just for accountability but could help restore some faith in politics overall,” Oquist said.

On Wednesday August 17, experts from across legal and academic fields will gather at Parliament House for the Accountability & the Law Conference to discuss the weaknesses in the current federal accountability system and suggest mechanisms for reform, including the establishment of a federal anti-corruption commission.

Table 1: Comparison of jurisdiction of integrity bodies

Body	Core Function	Criminal corruption	Corrupt conduct*	Govt Depts	Govt contractors	MPs	Ministers	Ministerial staff	Judiciary
Auditor General	Audit financial statements	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
ACIC	Federal crime	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
ACLEI	Integrity of law enforcement agencies	Yes	No	Only law enforcement agencies	No	No	No	No	No
AFP	Federal crime	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
APSC	APS standards	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Comm Omb	Audit administrative processes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No – Parli privilege	No	No	No
IPEA	Audit MP expenses	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No

Sources: Law Enforcement Integrity Act 2006, Auditor General Act 1997, ACC Act 2002, AFP Act 1979, Public Service Act 1999, Auditor General Act 1997, Ombudsman Act 1976
* This refers to corrupt conduct as defined by state based anti-corruption commissions. For full definition see Appendix 1.