The ACT's Integrity Commission does not support limiting its scope to investigating only serious or systemic corruption, saying it is best placed to determine the seriousness of the matter.
The corruption watchdog has responded to a review of its legislation, which had suggested the commission could be limited to investigating only serious or systemic corruption.
But the commission disagreed and said it was best placed to decide the seriousness of the matter and this could hinder other work it does.
"The commission is of the view that it is not appropriate to limit the remit of the commission in this way," the response said.
"This is particularly important when, as previously discussed, the remit of the commission extends well beyond the investigation of corrupt conduct and includes activities such as prevention and educative activities."
The review is being conducted by Ian Govey, a former senior federal public servant and government solicitor. Mr Govey released a series of discussion papers as part of the review.
"Limiting investigations to serious and/or systemic corrupt conduct may make other proposals for additional powers and investigative tools more appropriate and compatible with human rights as they would only be used in investigation of serious matters," a discussion paper released as part of the review said.
The Integrity Commission released its response to the review on Wednesday.
Under the current scheme senior executives and heads of services have a mandatory requirement to report any matters they consider could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct.
"The current framework for mandatory reporting of corruption allegations should be maintained," the commission's response said.
The commission wants this to remain but has some concerns with the current provision, which says the reporter of the corruption should "stand in the shoes of the commission" when determining whether a matter is serious or systemic.
"Inconsistency in what is reported is thus virtually guaranteed. An additional problem is that the uncertainty is likely to result in underreporting of matters that ought to be reported to the commission," the commission said.
"It is the commissioner who is best placed to determine whether the matter falls within the definitions of serious and systemic, not those who report the matter."
The commission would also like a mandatory requirement to keep third party complainants informed about investigations to be removed.
The commission has been pushing for the ability to seek telecommunication interception warrants, seek stored communication warrants and directly approach telecommunication companies to request metadata, such as call records and logs.
The watchdog was established in December 2019. The commission's chief executive Judy Lind said last month there had been staffing issues which had affected its ability to examine cases.
The commission has only released three investigation reports over the three years but Ms Lind has indicated a number of reports are expected to be handed down over the next year.
There are currently 12 corruption investigations, including into a series of contracts totalling $8.5 million awarded by the Canberra Institute of Technology and the procurement for the construction of an expansion of Campbell Primary School.
