Human nature suggests otherwise. The vast majority of public servants are not corrupt, but the occasional royal commission is a reminder that money and power have the capacity to corrupt.

In any review of an anti-corruption watchdog, a cost-benefit exercise should not determine the extent of its investigative powers. The statutory powers and financial or administrative efficiency of the body are separate issues.

The commission must have powers to investigate, tap phones, subpoena witnesses and documents, and monitor activity. These powers should be upheld and even strengthened.

Reassurances that Tasmania is free of the corruption experienced in NSW should be ignored. If no investigative body exists, we would never know. Governments want to hide bad news and bad practice. They will hide anything that may tarnish their reputation and chances of re-election.

Just as the church has hidden cases of child abuse and protected clergy for the sake of its own survival, so will governments stoop to concealing corruption, even for the sake of survival.

Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin says there is a greater role to be played by the Integrity Commission in educating public servants about misconduct.

No, minister, the commission's brief must be more than that. The Integrity Commission's primary role must be to investigate allegations of maladministration or worse. An investigating authority must be an independent body.

The Liberals moved as early as 2006 for an anti-corruption watchdog to be established.

As Liberal leader, Will Hodgman said before the establishment of the Integrity Commission: "We felt from the outset that it was an absolutely essential characteristic of a body such as this, that for it to have real validity and effect, it should have investigative powers."