The Coalition’s proposed Commonwealth integrity commission has also drawn criticism for its lack of public hearings and treatment of politicians

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The funding of the Coalition’s proposed integrity commission falls $80m per year short of what experts say is needed for a powerful, broad-ranging agency, and is below the amount given to Victoria’s state commission.

The government’s proposed commonwealth integrity commission has drawn significant criticism for its lack of public hearings, its treatment of politicians, and the high criminal suspicion threshold required to commence an investigation.

The Coalition is only likely to give the commission roughly $30m a year in operating costs. That falls well below what experts say is needed.

A blueprint produced by leading anti-corruption experts in August found a broad, powerful, best-practice integrity commission would cost at least $110.8m per year in both staffing and capital costs. That would lift federal funding of core public integrity agencies from a notional 0.033% to 0.07% of total expenditure, and would begin to put Australia close to the level of spending of New Zealand (0.111%).

Even the Victorian independent broad-based commission against corruption (Ibac) would have greater funding ($39m last financial year) than the federal proposal.

Morrison government announces new federal anti-corruption commission Read more

The Griffith University academic and Transparency International Australia board member Prof AJ Brown said the $30m funding estimate reflected the narrow focus of the government’s model.

“You could very plausibly say, well, even a basic anti-corruption agency should have no less resources than Victoria’s does,” Brown told Guardian Australia.

Brown remains hopeful the model can be improved upon when it reaches parliament.

But Brown said what has been proposed by the government is, in effect, no different to a new, specialised police agency, because it is solely focused on criminal-level corruption.

The attorney general, Christian Porter, defended the resourcing of the commission on Friday, saying: “$125m to investigate corruption at a federal level across the public service. I mean, again, is anyone seriously suggesting that that’s inadequate?

“That is a larger budget than what Labor were proposing would be necessary.”

A key criticism of the current model is the way it treats politicians and the public sector. Public hearings would not be held for public sector corruption, but would be possible for instances of law enforcement corruption. Former New South Wales integrity commissioner and appeal court judge, David Ipp, told Guardian Australia on Thursday that the lack of public hearings was “very weak”.

“It reduces significantly the commission’s ability to expose public corruption and gain the trust of the people,” he said.

Labor’s shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, also slammed the lack of public hearings, saying they were a “really essential part” of any integrity commission.

“Without public hearings you don’t get the educative effect of being able to teach the public about anti-corruption measures and importantly you don’t get witnesses coming forward,” Dreyfus said. “If you hold public hearings the public are aware of what’s happening – they are aware of the process. I don’t think that the Australian people who want to see a national anti-corruption commission established want a secret tribunal.”

But the prime minister, Scott Morrison, was strongly opposed to modelling the federal body on NSW’s independent commission against corruption (Icac), which holds public hearings.

“I have lived through what has been the farce of the NSW Icac,” he told reporters in Brisbane on Friday.

He said his home state’s anti-corruption body became a vehicle for corporations, bureaucrats and politicians to sling mud.

“That wasn’t elevating or doing anything about improving public administration,” Morrison said.

Ministers, politicians and their staff would only be investigated for corruption if a referral was made from a public sector agency. Complaints made by members of the public against politicians would not be considered.

Porter defended that position. He said members of the public would be able to complain to an agency like the Australian federal police, who could then refer it to the integrity commission.

“Politicians would be able to investigated and scrutinised by this body, just like any other single public servant,” he said. “This body would have serious investigative powers. It would be able to receive referrals from all the bodies that already investigate politicians.”

Concerns also emerged on Thursday that the integrity commission would be unable to investigate instances of corruption that have occurred prior to its establishment. But Porter on Friday clarified that issue, saying the lack of retrospectivity only applied to the new criminal offences that were being created alongside the commission, including an offence of failing to report corruption, and aggravated corruption.