How to pick a new, better anti‑corruption commissioner |
The abrupt resignation of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner Paul Brereton is a pivotal moment for the federal watchdog. For years, questions over the commissioner’s leadership, arising from concerns about his ability to manage conflicts of interest, had undermined public confidence and trust in a key Australian integrity institution.
The Federal Government has committed to a “merit-based process” to appoint the next commissioner.
But can we trust the government to do that and rebuild trust in our national anti-corruption commission? Research finds governments often abuse their power to appoint, fund and oversee integrity agencies in order to avoid serious oversight.
How do we avoid this abuse and safeguard the independence of our integrity agencies? A new report from the Centre for Public Integrity outlines three key ways to ensure these agencies are truly independent.
These reforms should guide the appointment of a new national anti-corruption commissioner.
To do their job, integrity agencies must be independent from the government. This means they must be able to investigate and criticise governments and public officials without fear of political retaliation.
But in practice there are a few problems with this idea.
Unlike the courts and parliament, these agencies are not protected in the Constitution. Instead, they are often created by the government through an act of parliament.
This creates a foundational tension: integrity agencies are designed by government, to hold the government to account.
The government has a vested interest in these institutions being weak. Governments have been accused of establishing weak........