Public officials make decisions that affect everyday Australians constantly, from how public money is spent to how government contracts are awarded. So who actually keeps an eye on whether those decisions are made honestly and fairly? The answer involves a surprising number of agencies working at both the federal and state level.
This article walks through the main bodies responsible for monitoring the ethics and conduct of public officials in Australia, what each one actually does, and how they fit together. Understanding this system helps explain how accountability works in practice, not just in theory.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission
At the federal level, the main body responsible for investigating corrupt conduct is the National Anti-Corruption Commission, generally known as the NACC. It began operating on 1 July 2023, following legislation passed by federal Parliament in late 2022.
According to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, its role is to enhance integrity in the Commonwealth public sector by deterring, detecting, and preventing corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials, through education, monitoring, investigation, reporting, and referral.
Who Falls Under Its Jurisdiction
The Attorney-General’s Department confirms that public officials covered by the NACC include members and senators of the Commonwealth Parliament, ministers, their staff, employees of Commonwealth agencies, statutory office holders, and government contractors. It can also investigate any person who tries to corrupt a public official, even if they are not a public official themselves.
Its Powers Are Significant
The NACC has coercive powers roughly equivalent to those of a royal commission, including the ability to compel documents and witnesses. As at mid-2026, the Commission has reported dozens of preliminary and full corruption investigations underway, along with several matters before the courts, including the high-profile Robodebt-related referrals.
Who Keeps an Eye on the NACC Itself?
A body with this much power needs its own oversight, and the NACC is no exception. A Parliamentary Joint Committee reviews the Commission’s performance and budget, and approves the appointment of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, and an independent Inspector.
The Inspector’s job is specifically to investigate corruption issues and complaints about the NACC itself, and to monitor how it uses its considerable powers. This layered approach, oversight of the overseer, is a recurring theme across Australia’s integrity system.
State and Territory Anti-Corruption Bodies
Each Australian state and territory also runs its own integrity body, and they do not all work exactly the same way. Two of the longest established and most frequently compared are in New South Wales and Victoria.
ICAC in New South Wales
The Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, has broad powers to investigate any allegation upon suspicion of corruption, including alleged substantial breaches of the ministerial and MP codes of conduct. It also has coercive powers to run preliminary investigations before deciding whether a matter warrants a full examination.
IBAC in Victoria
Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, known as IBAC, has a somewhat narrower jurisdiction than ICAC. While its powers were expanded in 2016 to cover misconduct in public office and to remove the requirement that corrupt conduct be “serious” before IBAC could investigate, it still lacks some of the coercive preliminary investigation powers that ICAC holds.
ICAC and the Office for Public Integrity in South Australia
South Australia takes a slightly different structural approach. The ICAC SA explains that the Office for Public Integrity acts as the central gateway for complaints, which are then triaged out to either the ICAC for corruption matters or the Ombudsman for misconduct and maladministration matters.
Ombudsman Offices and Their Role
Anti-corruption commissions are not the only piece of the puzzle. Ombudsman offices, both at the federal and state level, play a complementary role by investigating maladministration, meaning poor or unfair administrative decision-making, rather than corruption specifically.
- Complaints about how an agency handled a decision, even without any suggestion of corruption, can often be raised with the relevant Ombudsman.
- Ombudsman offices generally have broad jurisdiction over public administration, local government, and complaint handling more generally.
- Unlike anti-corruption commissions, Ombudsman investigations typically focus on fairness and proper process rather than criminal conduct.
Codes of Conduct and Day-to-Day Standards
Beyond formal investigative bodies, public officials are also bound by codes of conduct that set out expected standards of behaviour before any wrongdoing even occurs. At the federal level, this includes a dedicated code of conduct for ministers and ministerial staff.
In New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has even published an annotated guide to the state’s Ministerial Code of Conduct, designed to help ministers understand what behaviour could amount to a finding of serious corrupt conduct before it happens, rather than only addressing problems after the fact.
Why So Many Different Bodies?
It might seem inefficient to have separate commissions, ombudsman offices, inspectors, and parliamentary committees all working on integrity. In reality, this overlapping structure exists deliberately, as a way of avoiding any single point of failure.
Anti-corruption commissions, ombudsman offices, and auditor-general offices form what is often described as an interlocking integrity framework. Each agency monitors a different angle of executive action, and several of them monitor each other as well, which makes it harder for any one weak link to undermine the entire system.
Conclusion
Monitoring the ethics of public officials in Australia is not the job of a single watchdog but a coordinated network. The National Anti-Corruption Commission leads at the federal level, state bodies like ICAC and IBAC take the lead in their own jurisdictions, and ombudsman offices catch the administrative issues that fall outside strict definitions of corruption.
Codes of conduct and parliamentary oversight committees round out the system, each adding another layer of accountability.
Knowing how this network fits together can help you understand exactly where to direct a concern if you ever need to. For more plain-English breakdowns of how Australia’s legal and government systems actually function, take a look through the other articles available on lawyer.com.au.
FAQs
1. What is the difference between the NACC and a state anti-corruption commission?
The NACC investigates corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials, including federal politicians, ministers, and government contractors. State bodies like ICAC in New South Wales or IBAC in Victoria handle corruption matters within their own state government systems. They operate independently of one another, each with their own legislation and jurisdiction.
2. Can ordinary members of the public report suspected corruption?
Yes. Anyone can submit a report to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and state-based bodies generally accept complaints or referrals from the public as well. Reporting frameworks typically include protections for the person making the report, including protection from certain forms of liability.
3. What is the role of an Ombudsman compared to an anti-corruption commission?
An Ombudsman generally investigates maladministration and unfair or improper decision-making by government agencies, rather than corruption specifically. Anti-corruption commissions focus on conduct suspected of involving criminal corrupt behaviour. Both play complementary roles in keeping public administration accountable.
4. Who oversees Australia’s anti-corruption commissions themselves?
Oversight varies by jurisdiction, but commonly includes a parliamentary committee that reviews performance and budgets, along with an independent Inspector whose specific role is to investigate complaints about the commission and monitor how its powers are used. This is designed to prevent any single body from operating without its own checks.
5. Do all Australian states and territories have an anti-corruption commission?
Most states have established dedicated anti-corruption bodies, though their names, powers, and jurisdictions differ. New South Wales has ICAC, Victoria has IBAC, and South Australia has its own ICAC alongside the Office for Public Integrity. It is worth checking the specific arrangements in your state or territory, as the details can vary.