In a submission to the parliamentary committee reviewing the government’s amendments to the CMC legislation, former part-time commissioners Julie Cork, David Gow, Ann Gummow, Judith Bell and Philip Nase, whose experience at the CMC spans 2004 to 2013, wrote of their concerns with the bill.

Chief among them was the CMC’s independence from the government of the day and the impact of removing the need for bipartisan support for the appointment of commissioners.

“It is of critical importance to understand that when it is said the government wants a strong and independent CMC, what is meant by independent from executive government,” they wrote.

“We observe that is the bill is enacted in its present form, it will not be possible for executive government, or anyone else, to credibly claim the CMC (or CCC) is independent of government.”

The former commissioners, who make a point of stating their appointment was bipartisan, follows former chair Robert Needham expressing similar concerns through his submission.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has repeatedly said the reforms were designed to strengthen the CMC following recommendations from various reviews of the commission, including the Callinan and Aroney report.

When introducing the bill to parliament, Mr Bleijie said the amendments “pave the way for the Crime and Corruption Commission to focus on major crime and serious corruption; and to become a highly efficient and effective major crime-fighting and serious corrupt conduct investigating organisation for the 21^st century”.

In addressing why bipartisan support for the appointment of commissioners was not needed,  Mr Bleijie has said that judges do not require bipartisan support, but in their submission, the commissioners argued the “analogy ... is not valid”.

“Judges’ independence flows from the nature of judicial tenure and the constitutional position of the courts in our system of government.  Once appointed, a judge enjoys life tenure and is not otherwise dependent upon political favour,” they wrote.

“By way of contrast, a CMC commissioner’s independence under the CM Act, flows primarily from the process of appointment (that is, the process of bipartisan appointment) and not from the nature of the position. While the position of CMC commissioner is a statutory appointment, unlike a judge, a commissioner does not enjoy life tenure.”

If the government chooses not to amend the bill before passing it, Queensland will join just Tasmania in not requiring bipartisan support for the appointment of its corruption commissioner.

While other parts of the bill - including the legislative change of chairperson to chair man, the change of the commission’s focus and the new governance structure - have raised concerns, it is the removal of the need for bipartisan support which has captured the attention of most commentators, including Tony Fitzgerald.

The former commissioners wrote that in “downgrading the CMC’s mandate to identify and investigate public sector corruption, our fear is that the government has places its own self-interest in avoiding scrutiny above the public interest”.

But they said the removal of the bipartisan support clause “is inconsistent with the declared position of the government that it wants a strong and independent CMC”.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the removal of the safeguard will create an opportunity for the government of the day to place people identified with the government into the key positions of power in the CMC.”

The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee will hold a public hearing to hear from invited witnesses on Wednesday.

The committee is due to report back to parliament on April 30.