On Thursday, the Attorney-General’s department organised a consultation process in Melbourne about the proposed CIC. During the meeting two senior bureaucrats stated that the government planned to have the CIC bill before Parliament in the first sitting week of the year and that Attorney-General Christian Porter was unlikely to change the government's previously stated position. Attorney-General Christian Porter. Credit:Dominic Lorrimer For instance, there would be no public hearings for corruption involving public servants or politicians due to concerns about “show trials” and smeared reputations. There would also be no ability to make public findings. Former Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen. Credit:Wolter Peeters The government’s three-person advisory committee, former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty, long-time West Australian public servant Mal Wauchope and former senior NSW prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, a fierce opponent of the NSW anti-corruption body, participated via a phone hook-up but remained largely silent during the discussions, said two people who attended the meeting.

In their written submission, the National Integrity Committee, an independent group of retired judges, several of them former anti-corruption commissioners, expressed their frustration at the government’s proposed model. Former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen The committee of former senior judges' submission was also critical of the plan to have two different divisions within the CIC, one to look at corruption within law enforcement and another to look at the public sector group. “We submit that public sector corruption is more insidious, more pervasive and more difficult to detect than the corrupt conduct of police or border officials,” the paper said. The submission also noted that the absence of proper investigatory powers in the public sector division “is deliberately designed to make corruption in this area more difficult to detect and intended to protect politicians and other public officers.”

Also coming in for stinging criticism was the fact that only serious criminal conduct could be investigated under the government’s proposed model. Corruption is not always criminal, for example, nepotism and favouritism in appointments and the granting of contracts as well as the misuse of confidential information, said their submissions. Donations or financial favours to a political party or a politician, followed by a favourable decision to the donor are “are among the worst and most prevalent form of corruption” and “disturbingly far reaching in their consequences,” the NIC submitted. It was also a “massive failing” not to hold public hearings. There was also no justification for refusing to investigate complaints from members of the public or whistleblowers about ministers, members of Parliament or their staff. “This restriction is totally unacceptable and will be so regarded by the Australian public,” submitted the former judges. “The government model falls disastrously short of providing an effective body to counter and expose corruption at a Federal level.

“It is better to have no anti-corruption agency than one that is designed to be ineffective.” Independent member for Wentworth Kerryn Phelps said the government's proposed model "will meet resistance in the lower house if presented in its current form as it has a narrow focus and inadequate powers". "I think a National Integrity Commission needs to be able to properly investigate the role of lobbyists, donors and big business and their intersection with politicians and departmental officials," Dr Phelps said. "The public is outraged by the so-called management of the Murray-Darling Basin where it is estimated that one million native fish up to 100-years-old died earlier this month near Menindee. "This could be covered by a National Integrity Commission or a stand-alone royal commission and needs to be properly investigated."