Australia’s integrity paradox: Criminal suspects may stay silent while public servants can be compelled to speak

This Comment examines the widening gap between criminal procedure protections against compelled self-incrimination and the compulsory fact-finding powers exercised by Australian integrity and anti-corruption bodies. It argues that while such regimes are justified by different institutional purposes, coercive examinations and secrecy directions can create prolonged reputational and procedural harm if not governed by clear thresholds, time discipline and transparent safeguards. The work proposes tighter legislative and policy guardrails, including regular review of secrecy, improved public reporting and stronger procedural fairness architecture around compulsory questioning.