Colleen Lewis, member of Accountability Round Table, has penned an article for the Canberra Times calling for a similar level of scrutiny of the public sector as applies to the banks through the Banking Royal Commission.
Find the original article here.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/banking-fallout-shows-desperate-need-for-anti-corruption-body-20180503-p4zd8e.html
Banking fallout shows desperate need for anti-corruption body
Colleen Lewis
For far too long the federal governments failed to act on allegations of serious misconduct and corruption in the banking, superannuation and financial sectors.
As a result, it has placed itself in a politically damaging situation. It is having to make excuses for why it did not act much sooner to establish a royal commission, while at the same time pretending that delaying the inevitable did not constitute a severe error of judgment. Surely, it is not going to repeat the same mistake in terms of the public sector.
The banks took a hammering in the Royal Commission. Now, the government is having to make excuses for why it did not act much sooner.
Photo: AAP
The government cannot realistically expect the Australian people to believe that corruption only exists in the private sector, or that where it does occur in the public sector it is quarantined to state-based departments, statutory authorities and public servants (elected and appointed).
The federal government knows very well about the growth in public-private partnerships and the corruption risks they pose. It is also aware of the concerns expressed about the “failure in anti-corruption due diligence” in respect of the $50 billion contract it recently awarded for the building of 12 new diesel electric submarines. In addition it knows of the damaging findings in an internal Department of Defence audit, which found, among other things, examples of “non-compliance with procurement policy requirements, a lack of transparency in decision making and poor records management”.
Does the federal government not want increased transparency and accountability in relation to these and other public sector matters? Does it not accept that Australia needs a body with the ability to use own motions powers so it can initiate investigations? Is it not interested in creating an anti-corruption commission that can work with its investigators to prevent corruption from occurring and recurring? Would not any government concerned about protecting the public interest be championing the creation of a reactive and proactive anti-corruption body and moving quickly to establish one?
The argument heard from successive governments over the years is that we have a relatively clean public sector at the federal level. How do Australians know this to be true? Quite simply, because that is what federal governments have told us and continue to tell us; not withstanding repeated public sector scandals. But does the community trust their words?
There is compelling evidence that the level of trust in parliamentarians is very low. If the federal government is to take the lead in restoring trust in members of the profession to which they belong, they must announce the establishment of a permanent anti-corruption body, and do so now. Every state has one and they repeatedly expose examples of public sector corruption.
There is no justifiable reason for using the tired excuse that they need to further examine the matter. Several models already exist for an effective anti-corruption body. Examples include NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, before the recent politically motivated changes and Queensland’s Criminal Justice Commission before, for political reasons, it was morphed into the Crime and Misconduct Commission and now the Crime and Corruption Commission – a poor cousin to the original Fitzgerald-inspired model. There is also the very recent blueprint put forward by six highly distinguished former judges, who with the public interest firmly in mind combined their considerable skills and extensive experience to present a compelling argument why Australia must have a federal anti-corruption commission.
For many years we have heard governments proclaim that if people have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear from transparency and accountability? The same argument can be applied to the establishment of a federal anti-corruption body. If our elected representatives, and the appointed public servants who often advise ministers on such matters, have nothing to fear from effective transparency and accountability, they have nothing to worry about. Assuming this is the case, why doesn’t the federal government just get on with it?
The overwhelming majority of the Australian community has made it abundantly clear that they want a federal anti-corruption body established and the government has the political support needed to ensure the legislation is passed through both Houses of the federal parliament. Why the delay?
The government cannot realistically expect the Australian people to believe that corruption only exists in the private sector.
Of course any anti-corruption body must have the powers and resources needed to be effective. This includes the ability to hold public hearings. To establish a body that is unable to do so, or that must navigate unnecessary barriers before it can, is to create a body that fits comfortably into the category of symbolic politics. The original NSW ICAC, Criminal Justice Commission and the model put forward by the former judges all advocate for public hearings. It should be at the discretion of the Commissioner heading the anti-corruption body to decide. If governments do not think such a person is capable of making the correct decision they should not have appointed her or him in the first place.
Public hearings are central to the primary reason anti-corruption bodies exist, which is to act in the public interest, to inform the public about what is happening in the institutions they fund and by the people whose wages they pay. Would the public have learnt about the unconscionable conduct of some members of the NSW Parliament (from both sides of politics) without ICAC holding public hearings? How would Australians have learnt about the shocking conduct of the banks and other financial institutions without the public hearings of the Hayne Royal Commission?
Clearly, the public office-public trust principle, which demands that the public interest take precedence in all decisions parliamentarians make on behalf of the people, is being ignored in relation to the establishment of a federal anti-corruption commission. How much longer will this continue?
Further government delays in establishing such a body only increases the community’s suspicion that the government fears an anti-corruption, especially its ability to discover and expose serious misconduct and corruption in the public sector.
It is in the government’s best interest to join with the opposition and the cross bench and decide now to establish an independent, powerful and well-resourced federal anti-corruption commission, because whether they want it or not, this country will soon have such a body.
Dr Colleen Lewis is an adjunct research professor in the National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/banking-fallout-shows-desperate-need-for-anti-corruption-body-20180503-p4zd8e.html