The Canberra Institute of Technology would not have been prevented from sacking a chief executive who was the subject of a corruption investigation while the probe was underway, the Integrity Commissioner has indicated.
A further report from the investigation into the institute's $8.5 million worth of contracts awarded to a "complexity and systems thinker" may also be released in two to three months.
And the Integrity Commissioner's "wish list" includes an investigation into lobbying in the ACT, but he does not currently have the resources needed.
Leanne Cover, the former institute chief executive, was found to have engaged in serious corrupt conduct and resigned shortly before the report was made public on June 27.
Ms Cover received a payout of more than $465,200 to cover her entitlements, which would have been paid whether or not Ms Cover's employment had been terminated. The figure was revealed on Friday.
Integrity Commissioner Michael Adams KC said there was no reason why the the institute's board could not have come back to the commission and asked whether its preferred course of action would have affected the corruption investigation.
"I'm not suggesting their decision to delay was wrong. All I'm saying is from my perspective, I did what I could to let them know I saw no problem, from the commissioner's point of view, then it was a matter for them to make a decision," Mr Adams said.
Mr Adams said that he had informed the institute he did not see an impediment to them acting on any particular aspect during the investigation.
"I was looking at a particular aspect. They may well have had other issues relating to Ms Cover which were of a different kind, which they wished to have settled and thought would be settled, for example, by my ultimate report. But I never engaged at that level with the board," he said.
But the institute said it had sought legal advice and was waiting until a report from the corruption inquiry before making a decision.
Canberra Institute of Technology deputy board chair Natalie Howson told Legislative Assembly estimates the board's priority had been to uphold the principles of fairness and natural justice.
"Most importantly, we have tested our ability to take action, I would say monthly, since the issue became apparent to the board. On occasion, maybe every two months," Ms Howson said.
Ms Howson said the board was waiting on the outcomes of the Integrity Commission report.
"I don't think anybody understood that it would take two years at the outset of the Integrity Commission's investigation," she said.
Ms Howson said the preliminary finding made by the board against Ms Cover was reached on the basis of the draft special report when it was understood to be in its final form.
Mr Adams said there were still really serious matters being considered by the commission in relation to the institute.
"My exploration of the problem at CIT is no matter of idle curiosity. There are real issues," he said.
Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee said it was disgraceful Ms Cover had been paid more than $1.2 million, which included two years of pay while she was on directed leave.
"Canberrans have every right to be absolutely outraged by this; whilst at the same time [Skills Minister Chris Steel] has thrown his hands in the air and said he and his government have no accountability," Ms Lee said in a statement.
"No one has taken any accountability for the massive waste of taxpayers' money and erosion of public trust - not the minister, not the CIT board, and certainly not Ms Cover who was allowed to remain on fully paid leave and then received a massive payout, all funded by ACT taxpayers."
Mr Adams also revealed if he had more resources he would launch an inquiry into lobbying in the ACT, following the revelations about the activities of the CFMEU around the country.
"I don't have the resources at present. It's on my wish list to undertake," Mr Adams told the Legislative Assembly's budget estimates inquiry on Friday.
The Integrity Commissioner said while he would make the case for more resources, "throwing bodies at the investigation does not always make for efficient, timely conclusions".
"The problem with dividing up large branches of evidence is that team or person A doesn't know what person B is looking at. And person B doesn't know what person C is looking at," he said.
"Ultimately, it all has to come together in one mind, one way or another, so that merely having 10 people, look at a very large range of evidence, you might find is far less efficient than having three or four."
