The government told a parliamentary inquiry into the commission’s performance that the body was inefficient and expensive.

Rather than investigate complaints, it should triage them and forward them on to other agencies, the government argued.

The Liberals supported the establishment of the Integrity Commission and its investigative powers when in opposition.

To wind back that support now they are in power is not a good look.

There is some merit in the suggestion that the commission duplicates investigative bodies such as police, the Ombudsman or Auditor General.

However, the recent investigation into alleged misconduct in the Health Department, although strongly denied by those named in the report, shows the value of a body that can dedicate time and resources into complicated complaints.

Particularly when other states with bodies with more robust powers are having such big wins against collusion, nepotism and corruption.

The commission is not perfect.

It is relatively secretive itself; being exempt from Right to Information laws and not revealing what investigations it is or has, for the most part, conducted.

The Law Society has also raised valid concerns about witnesses having access to proper legal representation and being able to remain silent, as is their right in criminal proceedings.

Compelling a witness to give evidence that might later be used in court against them inverts the onus of proof put on the prosecutor of allegations and puts it on the accused.

The government is right to argue the commission should work with government agencies to raise standards and educate and support public servants.

But to strip it of investigative and law enforcement powers and make it a complaints handling body does not serve the interests of open and accountable governance.