“The small number of investigative reports against the large number of accusations of corruption does little to build trust in the ACT Integrity Commission,” writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.

Almost 300 allegations of corruption were lodged with the ACT Integrity Commission in the two years between July 2020 and the end of June 2022. 

Last year 80 per cent of these allegations were dismissed and close to 20 per cent considered by the commission.

There have been three special reports published since the Integrity Commission was established in December 2019. 

On December 2 of that year the first allegation was received and seven months later there had been another 76. Over this period just three full reports were published compared to 365 allegations.

As I pointed out in this column in October last year, “Operation Raven”, a “Special Report into the Sale of Block 30, Section 34, Dickson” found no corruption. The Integrity Commission determined to discontinue the investigation arguing “the commission is satisfied that the legal threshold for investigation was not met”. 

At the same time, I highlighted a similar story with regard to “Operation Lyrebird” regarding a land deal in Glebe Park. The report concluded “the evidence does not provide grounds for a reasonable suspicion… that would suggest any official acted corruptly in connection with the acquisition of Block 24”.

The third report also dismissed accusations of corruption and discontinued its investigation into the Suburban Land Agency. The issue being investigated was the sale of land in Throsby. Although no specific corruption was found, the Suburban Land Agency was reported as taking advice from the Integrity Commissioner regarding preventive measures.

These measures included confirming “the suitability of the process for its intended purpose” in order to ensure a sound and robust system. Finally, the Suburban Land Agency would identify “any further adjustments, controls or risk mitigants which could be adopted in future to ensure that the kinds of problems which have been identified do not occur”.

The Integrity Commission has a key role in preventing corruption. In each report the commission identified systemic weaknesses, although they did not specifically identify any direct corruption on the part of organisations or individuals. 

In that October column, I also argued royal commissions, Assembly committees, auditors-general and other instruments of government also have a key role in exposing corruption. To be trusted, all need to identify where no corruption occurs when issues are raised and to be able to appropriately reassure the general public where everything is actually above board.

However, regarding the ACT Integrity Commission, the small number of investigative reports against the large number of accusations of corruption does little to build trust. 

Its website has a section “Investigation Reports”. Under that heading is “Coming Soon”. By my recollection, from the first time I opened the website “Coming Soon” was used as the description. This does not enhance trust!

The Integrity Commissioner, Michael Adams KC, told an ACT Estimates Committee in November last year: “I am acutely conscious that a lack of public output, and in particular an absence of findings of corrupt conduct, may be perceived in the community as a lack of effectiveness of the commission”. 

He explained the importance of prevention, but added “the perception fails to recognise both the scale and complexity of the investigative process likely to be involved in adequately considering what is always a serious matter where corruption is an issue”.

The impact of the pandemic also created problems for the commission. “Despite these challenges”, he said, “the commission is making significant progress in its work and I look forward to increasing public engagement in and understanding of its vitally important functions.”

There was a public announcement of two other investigations regarding Campbell Primary School construction and the procurement of services for organisational change at the Canberra Institute of Technology. The Commission argued in its “2021-22 Annual Report” that “the number of witnesses and volume of documentation are much greater than is involved in the commission’s other current investigations.

“In recognition of this fact, the commission has reorganised its resources to progress these investigations.” 

The report points out that 17 preliminary inquiries were being ‘worked on’ along with ‘12 investigations’.

It is right that investigations be carried out with a great deal of care and that reputations are protected. However, the output of the ACT Integrity Commission does leave the public wondering.