Clearing house to take heat off CCC

A clearing house for all complaints would be set-up to allow the Crime and Corruption Commission to focus only on the most serious instances of criminal misconduct, under a key recommendation of the Coaldrake integrity review.

A clearing house for all complaints would be set-up to allow the Crime and Corruption Commission to focus only on the most serious instances of criminal misconduct, under a key recommendation of the Coaldrake integrity review.

The report found such a system would look to “clear up confusion” about the multiple integrity bodies, by creating a single, technology-enabled clearing house to “triage, assess and direct complaints”.

“The clearing house would be a ‘single door to Government’ where members of the public and public servants alike can bring their grievances and complaints about alleged corruption, administrative decisions and other customer complaints,” the report said.
“Having a one-stop-shop takes the obligation away from the complainant to navigate the complex and overlapping integrity system, at the same time reducing the incidence of complaints being rebuffed as ‘out of jurisdiction’ because the clearing house would direct complaints to the correct integrity body in the first instance.”

As well as the recommendation for the establishment of a clearing house, the report also specifically recommended the “CCC avail itself of the opportunity provided by the clearing house and the other cultural changes prompted by this Review to redouble its attention on serious corruption and major crime”.

“The CCC needs to protect itself against suggestions that it embarks on speculative and trivial inquiries at the expense of more serious cases,” the report said.

“The proposal for a clearing house can be a valuable asset, both to assisting the CCC achieve the necessary focus and removing lack of clarity over how the integrity process is handled.”

Noting this “proposal is likely to be strongly resisted”, it went on to say allowing particular bodies unchecked authority over what matters they will deal with “can lead to the perception, which has been shared with the Review, that integrity bodies selectively choose the matters they accept”.