All valid concerns from our viewpoint but not necessarily at the Govt level if they can see any benefit for them.
Yes it absolves them (in their view)
What should or shouldn’t be a Govt service? It depends on what we value, eg I see a Federally owned Bank similar to the old CBA as an important service (others don’t), I think Telecommunications eg NBN or Telstra as important to be in Govt hands.
Yes selling shares risks foreign ownership. In fact a proven outcome.
While Govts can get the best Credit Rating and lowest interest, not always do they want that debt raised to be on their books. Often as a Govt owned Corporation the business can get the same or similar rates as the Govt, but even aside from this the debt does not sit on the Govt books and they can pull the money into the Govt coffers, Qld Govt did so with their Power Generation businesses.
I obviously enjoy the dialogue but will pull my head in considering the topic is a federal ICAC, and as is often the case interesting issues were presented.
Would it not have been much easier to make the Ombudsman an actual legal “force” with investigative powers?
It seems that the limitations of the Ombudsman is what creates this issue.
A stronger Ombudsman’s office with the ability to investigate almost anything would do the trick as well.
Other countries have effective Ombudsmen that can relate virtually anything to the court directly. I know of at least one case where a minister was evicted in a European country as a result of an Ombudsman investigation.
I don’t see that. In the states that have a corruption commission some (all? I haven’t checked) have an ombudsman as well. They have different purposes, one is to be a powerful voice for those who have been treated poorly by officialdom, the other is to investigate officialdom in case of corruption. There may be some overlap in a few cases but not many. The size and scope of investigations and the skills and resources needed to carry them out are not comparable. For example the ombudsman hardly needs the power to arrest people or tap phones.
That is what I meant by limitations. The Ombudsman is there to investigate, not arrest. In the case of tapping phones, I find that should be referred to a judge before happening anyway, and probably not by the Ombudsman’s office.
I do not know what powers the ICAC has in terms of arresting and tapping phones. There just seems to be a lot of overlap between the two offices.
Staffers and ex/failed pollies remain at the troughs courtesy of old boy appointments. No conflict of interest? ‘Our’ pollies’ standards of ‘integrity’ seem laughable as often as not.
Nothing short of an inspector general role who can independently review politicians as well as public servants is worth the effort. Pollies ‘look over there not over here’ is an affront to our intelligence as they do everything they can to produce pretty window dressing, protecting themselves, and changing as little as they can…
Ah ha,
The cat is out of the bag now “Having been through one of the state corruption commissions, I support that there are no public hearings as they can (or often) used for political purposes to tarnish the name of those who have misconduct allegations made against them.”
The NSW ICAC model, as originally legislated and funded, is the best model. The only person that has “beaten” them is a criminal lawyer. I am not talking here about those who have had a finding of corruption overturned in the courts - the higher courts operate differently and even people like Pell have beaten the rap.
When I was elected to Marrickville Council in 1991 many many criminals didn’t stand, both in Marrickville and in councils all over the state, because they were frightened of ICAC.
Unless and until governments start to take ministerial responsibility and ministerial codes of conduct seriously we can expect that nothing serious will be done to fix endemic problems.
That would not be at all surprising. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
Reading some of the current news with charges and defences being bandied about it is not clear if a federal integrity commission would be designed to seek the rare demonstration of non-partisan integrity and award a badge, or to seek out those who have gone ‘off the rails’ and do nothing about it.
Only those in opposition, whoever they are from time to time, seem to want one with a broad scope and teeth.
The Guardian is a little late to the party or adding more data in support of known problems, whichever way you like to look at it. The narrow and unnecessary constraints in the proposals on the way that investigations can be initiated and their scope has been noted for some time. What is more significant is that in the time since this problem has been raised nothing has been done to fix it. As you say, its bubbling along nicely.
Perhaps though setting the threshold high enough that “car parks” are out of scope is absolutely right.
What is your definition of corruption?
What do you want a Federal ICAC to focus on?
If you set the threshold low enough, there will always be plenty of corruption and there will be plenty of salacious headlines for the media and no doubt more MPs falling on their sword (with consequences) but it is not clear that it would be in the interests of society.
I am not sure that I want some bureaucrat in ICAC assessing the validity and reasonableness of a spreadsheet.
Voters are of course free to ensure that pork barrelling does not attract their vote. Voters are free to call out obvious and repeated pork barrelling and take their vote to a party that is not offering pork.
A component would be overriding ‘qualification’ or ‘need’ as assessed by the related public service or agency and distributing largesses to seats where ducks can be heard quacking in excitement for what they have earned by supporting ‘the party’.
Please help. I am now lost. Once leaving the world of theoretical cause and effect maybe we are all lost? Perhaps a more economical serve is the best we can attain under current ‘go for it’ norms.
The problem is systemic.
In the 19th century electors pressured their local member for the railways to be extended to their townships. Likely to take the pork to market along with other needs. Careers were built on successes, ahead of any allegiances on the floor.
It’s also systemic in the system of government and that government is self regulating. The system and rules favour a choice of two, despite being open to the many. Any reform is most likely an accident or unintended consequence if history is to be consulted.
It would seem an unlikely outcome that a Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have any more power to question government spending than the Auditor General?
Do I think the average vote is made based upon the issues of the day? Ha. Ha. Ha.
The reality is that our voting system is better than some and worse than some. Does it mean ‘one person one vote’? Not a chance. Do we get a choice of the best possible candidates? Not last time I looked. Do our politicians even represent the people who elected them? Generally not - party comes first.
So do I think that voters will toss out any government that consistently performs poorly? History gives the answer to that.
Do I think politicians will police themselves, or allow themselves to be policed adequately, without being pushed hard? Well, the currently proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission answers that. So does history, in the form of the state corruption investigators and the histories in each affected state that led to their establishment. In other words, Commonwealth governments will have to do a lot worse than they have yet done to persuade voters that proper accountability is required.
The Coalition has been promising Australia a federal integrity commission for nearly three years, and Christian Porter (when attorney-general) produced an exposure draft for a commission over 12 months ago.
The Coalition alone opposes reform of political donations. Recent High Court decisions show that it would be possible to control such donations by reducing the reporting threshold, capping individual and aggregated donations, and requiring donations to be disclosed immediately.
The very strength of the law enforcement half underlines the rank hypocrisy shown in the weak second. Why are law enforcement officers of any seniority to be exposed in public investigations, but never parliamentarians or ministers?
Here is the explanation for the Coalition’s delay, and why we do not now have a national integrity commission. The Coalition will not establish an effective integrity commission before the coming election.
And the Coalition’s exposure draft for a CIC is a fraud and a sham.
Stephen Charles QC,
former Court of Appeal judge,
Board member for the Centre for Public Integrity
I am not sure that Mr Charles (QC) is entirely correct in stating that only one side of politics opposes reform of political donations. The ALP has a long history of shady donation activities, whether bags of cash or pokie money, but probably gains more than it loses from having a decent federal integrity body.
MP’s “terrified to do their jobs”
Whether it’s a well informed opinion, does it depend on which job description is being referenced?
That provided by the party room, or what the electors might suggest.
I’d expect any future functional and effective Commonwealth CIC would be able see the inside of all parliamentarians dealings, including for business and deep into the party rooms when appropriate. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Apologies, the ghosts of Premiers past loom large. It’s difficult to accept that politicians from the same state party organisations are any less likely to transgress.
Barnaby Joyce and ‘integrity’ are strange bedfellows - they also seem to sleep in separate rooms.
With his track record in his personal life, is there more to his public life beyond him seeing nothing wrong doing a staffer since it is only his business, it is not surprising he gets concerned with the prospect of being held accountable for what he does.
