We don’t just need a federal integrity body. We must nix the Coalition’s proposed one

If the government introduced its so-called Commonwealth Integrity Commission, a body supposed to be its answer to a New South Wales-style Independent Commission Against Corruption, we may know even less about the alleged misuse of taxpayer funds by Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar than we do now.

Why? Because as Crikey has noted several times over the past year, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former attorney-general Christian Porter created a commission that is not just a toothless tiger but a dangerous shield for the politically corrupt. 

It was the same damning point made by former federal judge Michael Barker QC in last night’s 60 Minutes investigation that revealed allegations Sukkar was well aware of taxpayers’ dollars being used to pay his friend, younger brother and factional supporters for Liberal Party purposes.

When asked if the government’s proposed integrity commission would shield federal MPs from being investigated over allegations such as those levelled at Sukkar, Barker did not mince his words: “That is the way it has been designed.” 

It’s a blistering indictment of where we now stand: a government unashamedly proposing to introduce a body that would allow corrupt MPs to sweep their own rotten conduct under the rug, all under the guise of a “corruption watchdog”. 

How could Morrison’s proposed commission be misused in the case of the Sukkar allegations? 

Under the CIC bill, the only person who has the legal power to refer an allegation is that member of Parliament. So Sukkar — someone who made “strong representations” to block the release of a Finance Department report into his own conduct — would have to dob himself in. The CIC has no powers to institute an investigation; not even the attorney-general can step in and refer a matter. 

But let’s say that Sukkar did just that. Even then, the body would be required to investigate the conduct only if it believed the MP was committing an actual criminal offence. Mere corruption is not enough to warrant an inquiry, in direct contrast to state integrity commissions. Even then, the proposed commission would investigate everything behind closed doors and without any requirement to produce a final report. 

But Barker’s point shows that Morrison’s CIC is not just a laughable toothless tiger. It is a dangerous weapon for the corrupt.

As Crikey wrote more than a year ago, an MP accused of the same conduct as Sukkar could use the CIC to their benefit to evade scrutiny. In this scenario, the MP would refer themselves to the CIC but control exactly what was referred and how it was done, potentially restricting an inquiry to exactly what they want it confined to.

The latest federal government scandal not only boosts the case for a federal integrity commission, it shines a light on just how dangerous the government’s proposed body would be. Even if it’s never introduced, we should be asking how it came to be created.