Thirty years ago, Northern Tasmanian media boss Edmund Rouse tried to bribe Labor politician Jim Cox with $110,000 to cross the floor of State Parliament and vote with the Liberal Party.

Key points: There are questions about whether the powers of Tasmania's Integrity Commission are strong enough to fight corruption

There are questions about whether the powers of Tasmania's Integrity Commission are strong enough to fight corruption The Integrity Commission has the power to conduct public hearings, but never has

The Integrity Commission has the power to conduct public hearings, but never has The Commissioner says resourcing is sufficient to handle complaints

Rouse was later jailed, and a royal commission was held.

In 1972, independent MP Kevin Lyons unexpectedly resigned as deputy premier, triggering the fall of the Bethune government. There have been questions ever since over whether Mr Lyons was offered inducements in exchange for his resignation.

Tasmania has a history of questionable dealings and perceptions of corruption. It prompted one anonymous inquirer to ask Curious Hobart to investigate whether Tasmania needs a "true" corruption commission with powers.

The questioner said they were interested in the topic because "Tasmania is no longer a 'backwater' state — it is a state with a booming economy and flourishing culture scene" and that it was "time to investigate".

At the time of the above incidents, Tasmania's Integrity Commission did not exist.

Questions have been raised over the strength of powers held by Tasmania's Integrity Commission. ( ABC )

But in 2009, the Bartlett Labor government sought to change that, passing the Integrity Commission Act, and establishing the body which operates today.

The Commission keeps much of its investigative work under wraps — investigations that are underway are described in broad terms on its website, and complainants, interviewees and those being investigated are generally told not to breathe a word until the Commission decides otherwise.

Completed investigation reports are sometimes, but not always, tabled in State Parliament so they can be made public.

In recent years, those reports have revealed allegations that former health boss Jane Holden engaged in nepotism and misconduct, made findings against former senior staff and a former mayor of the Glenorchy City Council, revealed a nepotism scandal inside TasTAFE, and investigated the conduct of state politicians including Jacquie Petrusma and Adam Brooks.

Where are the public proceedings?

But Sydney barrister Geoffrey Watson, SC, who has worked as counsel assisting the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), believes Tasmania's Integrity Commission is not doing enough to expose corruption in the state.

Geoffrey Watson says it's "disturbing" Tasmania's Integrity Commission has never held a public hearing. ( ABC News: Rhiana Whitson )

He argues the Commission should be more active in getting a message out to public officials that the organisation was "breathing down your neck" by conducting more of its operations in the public domain.

Tasmania's Integrity Commission has the power to conduct public hearings and convene a tribunal, similar to the way ICAC operates in NSW, but has never done so.

Mr Watson described that as "disturbing".

"One of the things about corruption is it's all done in the dark, and one of the things about anti-corruption bodies is it brings it out into the open. It's not working if it doesn't, it's failing you," he said.

"Unless Tasmania is pristine, and it's not, these sorts of things should be exposed, they should be brought to light, and there should be some pretty scary prosecutions conducted so that other people are deterred from going this path."

Mr Watson also criticised the Commission's recent decision not to make public a report into the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council's general manager, saying keeping it secret would undermine public confidence in the body.

Integrity Commission chief executive Richard Bingham said the use of public hearings in relation to misconduct was still a contested and hotly debated topic.

Richard Bingham is the chief executive of Tasmanian Integrity Commission. ( Supplied: Tasmanian Integrity Commission )

"We do have the power to conduct public hearings if we think it's necessary, but the circumstances in which it's necessary are very limited, and we haven't found that it's been necessary up to this point," Mr Bingham said.

"When you think of the possible damage to people's reputations, the view that the board of our Commission has taken is that it's better for us to complete the investigation in private, and then publish a report, rather than to conduct hearings in public when you don't know effectively what the outcome is going to be."

The Integrity Commission board is chaired by chief commissioner and barrister Greg Melick, with barrister Robert Winter, former public servant Phil Foulston and former assistant police commissioner Luppo Prins also members.

Mr Bingham said the decision not to table some reports in Parliament could be made by the Commission's board when a minor mistake had been made, but the private interests of a person involved could be significantly harmed by publication.

He pointed out the word "corruption" did not feature in the legislation passed by State Parliament.

Rather, the Integrity Commission had been directed to focus on misconduct — a broader responsibility which did not always mean looking at criminality.

"If we just focused on criminal offences we wouldn't be doing the job that the Parliament has asked us to do," Mr Bingham said.

Does the Commission have the powers it needs?

Mr Watson argued the Integrity Commission needed its powers increased in order to adequately address corruption, and should have the power to override privileges such as the privilege against self incrimination, and legal professional privilege.

He said the NSW ICAC had benefited from obtaining lawyers notes in some cases, and privileges could be restored if the matter went on to criminal proceedings.

Mr Watson said the requirement in Tasmania for complaints to be made in writing should also be removed — an anonymous tip by phone to the NSW ICAC sparked the investigation into politician Eddie Obeid, who was later jailed for misconduct.

"The politicians will not do this until they're forced to do it, because they do not want anti-corruption bodies looking at them," Mr Watson said.

Mr Bingham said while some smaller changes around the edges of the legislation would help, the powers already held by the Integrity Commission were broadly comparable to those in other states.

"The Integrity Commission has got extensive powers of search, it's got powers to require people to answer questions and to provide evidence and documents.

"I think the recent reports which we have tabled, including the one on Adam Brooks where we accessed people's emails ... demonstrates that the powers the Commission has got are adequate to do the job it needs to do under the legislation."

Former mining minister Adam Brooks was the subject of an Integrity Commission investigation. ( Facebook: Adam Brooks )

Mr Bingham said the Integrity Commission could apply to the courts to override privileges, and although complaints do need to be made in writing, they can be made anonymously.

He said information provided by means other than in writing would still be followed up.

Does the Commission have adequate resources?

According to the Integrity Commission's 2017-18 annual report, complaint numbers increased by 53 per cent on the previous year to 193, up from 126 in 2016-17.

Complaints were up 60 per cent on the four-year average, but roughly the same percentage were dismissed in the initial stages or referred to a different public authority for follow up.

Mr Bingham said despite the increase in complaints, the Integrity Commission had been able to perform investigations with the resources available.

In 2017-18 it had a budget of $2.46m, and 14.2 full-time-equivalent staff.

Almost 200 complaints were made to the Integrity Commission in 2017-18. ( ABC Graphics )

Mr Bingham said resources were on par with those provided to the NSW ICAC on a per capita basis, and the Integrity Commission could ask for additional funding if it decided to hold a tribunal.

The Tasmanian Government was asked whether it was satisfied with the way the Integrity Commission was functioning, whether it believed the Commission had sufficient resources to deal with the number of complaints coming in, and whether the Government believed any changes were required.

In 2014, the Government suggested to a Parliamentary Committee that the Integrity Commission's investigative and law enforcement functions should be scrapped.

A Government spokeswoman said it valued the work of the Commission and respected its independence, and had every confidence in its ability to undertake its duties and its educative role.

Greens leader Cassy O'Connor said she was concerned the Integrity Commission may not have the necessary powers to take on evidence of corruption, cronyism and malfeasance.

"While the legislation that established the Commission gives it considerable powers, it is a matter of concern to us and other key stakeholders that these powers do not seem to be being exercised to their full, necessary extent," Ms O'Connor said.

Ms O'Connor said the Greens believe it is necessary to strengthen the Integrity Commission and increase its resources.

Labor Shadow Attorney-General Ella Haddad said the Integrity Commission had been under-resourced by the State Government.

She said Tasmanians could not expect a truly open government until transparency mechanisms such as the Integrity Commission were adequately funded.

Editor's note (08/03/19): This story has been amended to remove a reference to proceedings unrelated to Tasmania's Integrity Commission.