The CIC plan was "like a colander – it would be really good to make rice in it, it's got so many holes". Unlike ICAC, the CIC would not have the power to hold public hearings into alleged corruption by federal politicians, their staff or departments, and whistleblowers and members of the public could not refer a matter to the CIC for investigation. A really good example is the Obeid case, where we started off with an anonymous phone tip-off David Ipp Before commencing an investigation into a politician and other public sector figures, the proposed CIC must also have a "reasonable suspicion" that corruption in the form of a specific criminal offence has taken place. Mr Ipp said "quite a lot of corruption does not constitute a criminal offence, or it's just about impossible to prove criminality", such as misconduct relating to political donations.

An anti-corruption commission with proper powers could expose such conduct, Mr Ipp said. Loading The CIC plan also "negates the power of whistleblowers", Mr Ipp said, because only government agencies had the power to report alleged public sector corruption that must be investigated by the commission. "No whistleblower acting alone can make a report," Mr Ipp said. It meant a person working in an agency who wanted to reveal alleged misconduct in the ranks would have to ask the agency to report itself.

"You can extend that from whistleblowers to the general public," Mr Ipp said. "A really good example is the Obeid case, where we started off with an anonymous phone tip-off." Mr Ipp said that under the Morrison government's plan there were at least "two complete barriers to the investigation of a report like that: one is that it doesn't come from an agency, and the other is that [the tip-off] ... alone does not create a 'reasonable suspicion' of a criminal offence". "You can't investigate unless the report to you is sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence," Mr Ipp said. "I don't think in all my time as ICAC commissioner did we ever get in one report enough evidence to create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence. You get a sense of something wrong and you investigate it: that's what the whole purpose of the commission is." Sydney barrister Geoffrey Watson, SC, who was counsel assisting ICAC during the Obeid inquiries, said he did not believe any of the inquiries on which he had worked could have been initiated under the Morrison government's CIC model.

Former ICAC counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson SC. Credit:Rob Homer "The net effect of that is a large array of criminal matters will never be exposed," Mr Watson said. "Without commencing an investigation you can't know whether there is anything to the allegation. It's obviously circular and self-defeating." Without the broad powers given to ICAC to investigate and expose corruption, "Eddie Obeid might still be wielding power in Macquarie Street", Mr Watson said. Mr Ipp said public hearings were also "terribly important" in exposing corruption.

Loading "The Obeid report was over 150 pages with very many findings. No ordinary member of the public would read that report; very few lawyers would read it," he said. "We depended on the media to report on a daily basis what was happening." Mr Ipp said applying the same strict rules of evidence to the CIC as apply in courts defeated the purpose of having an anti-corruption commission and was "another method of ensuring that it just doesn't have the teeth to do its job". "What do you need a commission for? You've got the police and you've got the courts," Mr Ipp said. "This isn't a trial. It's an investigation. It's like saying the police have to apply the rules of evidence when they're investigating a murder. That's absolutely absurd."