As the National Anti-Corruption Commission muscles up, HUGH SELBY remembers the largely forgotten Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which after 17 silent years is going down fighting…

FELLOW mourners, we are here to reflect upon the life and works of a body set up to address corruption among national public servants.

For 17 years the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) has stood as our first line of defence against nefarious activities by those who are expected to be dedicated to clean national law enforcement, be that by way of border monitoring activities, national policing, tax investigations or watching the movement of funds in and out of our country.

Today we mourn not the tangible product of its efforts – because that’s shrouded in the mists, but the demise of this taxpayer-funded institution. It never quite reached adulthood, never reached, perhaps never even aspired to reach, the maturity of the NSW ICAC. 

Which doesn’t mean that it was pointless. After all, a few people were successfully prosecuted. 

Our sponsorship was generous – increasing year after year – and the results of that investment can be found by earnestly searching the stats in its annual reports on the website, where no one bothers to go. 

That which was out of sight and mind to we the funding public has been found (SMH, April 8), albeit only in time for this memorial service, as ACLEI’s mortal remains are being transferred to the new MegaTransformer, the NACC, otherwise known as the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Now there’s a body already attracting lots of attention, even before it has got to work. It has a big, big budget, a high-profile, recently appointed leader, and the media can’t look away.

But I digress. Turning our attention to today’s tribute, our ACLEI was created in 2006 with less than 10 staff. Its gestation was under the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who left his onerous duties for nearly nine months to ensure a successful birth. Thereafter, there have been three commissioners. The annual budget has risen from a couple of million to 10-plus, and staffing is now around 40.

What did it do? Mostly it was a clearing house to receive, monitor, and report on alleged corrupt activities by employees of listed Commonwealth agencies. 

At first there were just two – of which the AFP was one – but over the years the list grew and grew. The vast majority of complaints came directly from the subject agencies. At worst the pesky public made up to 10 complaints in a year. They were committed folk because ACLEI didn’t promote its existence.

It’s awe inspiring, as good as the “Yes Minister” episode of the empty hospital – a full complement of admin staff, but no medical staff, and no patients. Yes, the ACLEI is a long running anti-corruption body that is all about the look. That’s perfection. 

It’s never had to investigate complaints, but it’s done a few. Most complaints received by it – if not quickly resolved – were investigated by its subject agencies. Moreover, it doesn’t have to duplicate inquiries being done elsewhere.

Which makes it all the more surprising that it suddenly raised a hand from its coffin and doubled up on key parts of the Sofronoff Inquiry, established by the ACT government to examine how police, prosecutors and a victim support service handled the allegations made by Brittany Higgins against her former colleague Bruce Lehrmann. 

This wave from the grave was prompted, first, by the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold’s too-clever-by-half complaint to ACLEI last year when he went after the AFP for some of its members daring to say, “not enough evidence to take the Brittany Higgins’ allegations to trial”.

It was too clever because while the ACLEI couldn’t investigate his actions (as he is not a national body), the Canberra Liberals then asked for an inquiry that did encompass his actions. The Barr government obliged because they have nothing to fear and much public entertainment to gain.

There is apparently also a complaint to ACLEI from Ms Higgins about “the potential leaking [by AFP members] of documents and photos to the media”. That complaint, too, can best be dealt with by the Sofronoff Inquiry, as the scope of its investigations are more comprehensive than is possible for the ACLEI.

Whatever plaudits and criticisms are directed at ACLEI, its most impressive outcome is its longevity. The history of anti-corruption bodies in Australia is that they are attacked both by politicians and those bodies they are intended to investigate.

Let us salute the ACLEI stalwarts. They played the game, not for a mere few, but for 17 years. That’s extraordinary staying power when so many anti-corruption bodies around Australia have been abolished or neutered in much less time. We paid their way. Vale.

Hugh Selby is the “CityNews” legal affairs commentator. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.