Australia’s anti-corruption commissions have gone too far

With the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in 2023, anti-corruption commissions operate across all nine Australian jurisdictions.

Even the ACT and Northern Territory, our smallest administration, have these bodies.

Anti-corruption commissions were established in Australia to replace ad hoc, temporary royal commissions that governments previously appointed to investigate allegations of political wrongdoing and corruption.

It was thought anti-corruption commissions, armed with the same coercive powers, would provide a more ongoing and effective bulwark against corruption.

Experience, however, has shown that from the first established, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption formed in 1988, to the most recent, the NACC, there have been growing concerns about their costs, powers, effectiveness, delays, independence, accountability and weaponisation for political purposes. Indeed, the much-heralded NACC has disappointed many.

It was criticised for its initial rejection to investigate those who were referred to it for investigation by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. That had to be resolved by an independent inquiry into the NACC – odd to have inquiry into a body that was supposed to be a guardian of integrity.

Even then, the NACC disappointed in what it eventually delivered; only two of those persons referred to it were deemed "corrupt" and no prosecution followed. There have been com­plaints about the NACC's slowness in reporting and its rejection of many referrals about alleged corruption.

Then there was the recent shock resignation of its inaugural chairman, Paul Brereton, following findings of his own misconduct with other investigations pending – although these have since been dropped. All this, combined the NACC's focus on largely minor issues and its $100m a year cost, has prompted several submissions to the joint parliamentary committee reviewing the NACC to question its value and to call for its abolition.

There has been concern about the slowness of the ACT Integrity Commission's investigations, especially into political interference regarding the awarding of a building tender for the Campbell School Primary School. That review has taken four years to complete and still has not been released as it has been held up by court action by interested parties – a problem confronting other commissions too. Why have an anti-corruption commission if it takes years to release its reports?

Similarly, Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission's seven-year investigation into the Andrews Labor government has not been released because of court action. There also have been complaints about IBAC's lack of powers to follow the money trail, especially in relation to trade unions and criticisms of its membership.

Queensland's Crime and Corruption Commission, formed in the wake of the famous Fitzgerald inquiry, has undergone numerous incarnations, had several of its chairs forced to resign and has been accused of failing to investigate major issues.

The current commission of inquiry into the CFMEU, for instance, has revealed potential political and public service corruption concerning infrastructure projects that were never investigated by the CCC. Meanwhile, in 2024-25, out of 5000 complaints about possible corruption there was only one criminal persecution. Is this value for money?

Western Australia's Corruption and Crime Commission was once found to be suffering from "systematic, cultural, behavioural and managerial failings", with evidence of theft, false record keeping, bullying and discrimination.

Who needs an anti-corruption commission to investigate scandals when they can create their own?

While these problems have since been addressed, it highlights that it is not easy operationalising these bodies in Westminster systems.

The South Australian ICAC had its powers so reduced in 2021 that its commissioner resigned in protest in 2024, leaving it to be our weakest anti-corruption body and of questionable value.

Some argue anti-corruption commissions serve a useful role and should be strengthened; others believe it has all gone too far and their collective cost and undermining of civil liberties are too great. Instead of strengthening trust in government, their reports and errant behaviour have undermined it. They are a "solution" that too often has become the problem. Nor can these bodies prevent poor politically driven policy decisions, as some naively expected, which are necessarily affected in a democracy by compromise, negotiation and govern­ments necessarily seeking votes.

Australia is the only Westminster democracy with anti-corruption commissions. Perhaps after observing how they have operated in this country, Britain, Canada and New Zealand have wisely eschewed their adoption.