Prominent barrister Geoffrey Watson SC has criticised Australia's failure to establish a federal anti-corruption watchdog, telling ABC's RN Breakfast that it puts us "out of step with our international obligations".
Mr Watson's claim that Australia is in breach of its treaty obligations is debatable. But the convention allows nations to use whatever system best suits their particular circumstances, and their approaches can be wide and varied. In Australia's case, our "multi-agency" integrity system relies on a variety of state and Commonwealth bodies to investigate corruption in the public sector. Included among these agencies is the national watchdog for investigating Commonwealth public sector corruption — the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Experts and advocates are divided on whether this system is sufficient for Australia to comply with its treaty obligations, the result of their different interpretations of the convention's requirements. Some argue that we will not be meeting our obligations until our system is made to be effective by being comprehensive. For the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to meet this expectation, its funding would need to be increased and its jurisdiction expanded. Others say that simply by having federal law enforcement officials who are not subject to political interference could get Australia across the line. And while they argue that a single, national watchdog might be desirable, it may not be necessary for meeting our obligations. Most countries considered "cleaner" than Australia in terms of corruption do not have such a body.
Fact check: Is Australia in breach of its UN anti-corruption obligations?
['Australia']