Sure. I think it could be similar to what is envisaged for the Auditor General.
The argument that I think counts here is that if one does not provide the Public Service Integrity Commissioner with the ability to follow the trail of evidence about public service wrongdoing, there is a limitation imposed that would potentially interfere with the investigation and would typically result in an incomplete investigation. It could be that the responsibility for the activity is a shared one between, say, a department or an individual public servant and, on the other hand, someone outside the public service. So if one cannot follow the evidence, one would be forced to say, “We've got to end the investigation because it would be unfair to come to a conclusion.”
We're talking here, of course, only about instances where there has been a disclosure of wrongdoing, either within the department or from outside the public sector. The difficulty, as I say, is that if one does not have that ability, one can envisage investigations having to be essentially ended without a firm conclusion.