Commonwealth Integrity Commission

CHOICE Campaigns The Policy Forge
,
61

A lot of the discussion about Ipecac amounts to “I disagree with it” or “I don’t like it” - and “I’m going to fix that” by calling it “corruption” and then hoping I can catch a politician out.

I totally get that MPs collectively have done enough bad or annoying or whatever stuff over the years so that they are never going to get much sympathy.

I get your point … if you don’t go looking for something then you are less likely to find it.

However we’ve seen an awful lot of BS legislation along the lines of “Pedos are everywhere”, “Terrorists are everywhere”, “Only criminals use encryption”, … and politicians never had to demonstrate the truth of these propositions that are used as the basis of giving agencies extreme powers. So why would I want to create yet another agency with extreme powers? created on the basis of something that only might exist.

Surely it isn’t too much to ask for just one example of an MP at a Federal level who is even suspected of corruption?

We could change the voting system to eliminate the very idea of a marginal seat.

It’s not entirely a question of trying or not trying to delineate - because if you truly accepted the proposition that pork barrelling is corruption then it would only be judged in hindsight potentially years after the election.

If found to be corruption, would you invalidate the election result? (if it’s not after the next election)

You mean like spending $1.5 billion on a submarine contract and then terminating it? I’m sure that is vastly more wasteful than the entire cost of car parks built (which at least have some value). Heck, we’re even wasting vaccine doses.

Waste is not good but it’s not corruption.

I don’t know that pork barrelling is necessarily wasteful. (Let’s say every electorate needs an X but only marginal electorates get one.) It may well be inequitable.

I really do think we are getting away from what corruption is, in my opinion - which is that the fact of or the manner of the spending of public money involved personal financial gain of the MP making the decision (where financial gain includes any goods or services received which could reasonably be ascribed a benefit-in-kind financial value). Hence key things to look for would be bribes received by an MP or related-party deals.

I do think we have been terribly poorly served and seriously let down by our MPs over a very long period of time - but not on account of any corruption.

A problem in this area is that the guidelines are often found to be ambiguous as to what is a valid claim and what is not a valid claim. Often the money is repaid because of the “optics”, not because of any legal requirement to do so. So it’s a political problem, not a legal problem.

Or we could get rid of all MP allowances? MPs are well paid. They don’t need allowances at all.

62

On the balance of probability, is ‘only might’ an appropriate word/phrase?

Is ignoring departmental advice and using ministerial power to override just good old boys doing what good old boys (and good old girls as the case may be) do?

My take is the discussion is now about what ‘corruption’ is or is not, with disagreement.

2 Likes
63

There’s an open invitation for someone to suggest an example of an MP at a Federal level who is even suspected of corruption.

If we can’t even get over that hurdle then I would call Ipecac itself further waste.

64

Yes, that is fair.

But if you are going to put someone in jail on the basis of being “corrupt” I do think we need to be very clear about what “corruption” is.

65

You seem of the opinion corruption is congruent with illegal according to law. Pollies are generally more clever than that. There is a necessity IMO to have some oversight of them, which is currently only the ballot box, and voters behave as they do regardless of what is or is not in front of them.

I suggest this is going to be a stalemate of opinion that will not come together, so perhaps this topic could be closed?

2 Likes
66

If that is indeed the only role or purpose?

If we consider accountability, the parliament of today seems to have found many ways to evade disclosure. ‘Operational - on water matters’ is an example of but one well trod path. ‘Commercial in Confidence’ is another.

What we don’t know we will never be able to judge. IMHO with integrity comes a responsibility to be transparent and ensure all matters are disclosed to public scrutiny. There seems to be in too many examples, no pathway other than improper disclosure by insiders.

Are there corrupt politicians? There have been therefore there are. Whether current policing and legislation is adequate the three largest states have all decided they need more than what the Commonwealth has been putting off for the previous 3 years.

1 Like
67

and 'Cabinet-in-confidence- and assertions everything was done transparently to the book, but a FOI for the process documents is usually denied as not being in the public interests (trust us). Would a reasonable person accept that at face value?

1 Like
68

On the contrary, if an Integrity Commission (see no dreaded ‘corruption’ involved) with a decent set of powers and scope concluded after 5 years there was nothing to see I would be very pleased. I would happily spend millions of public money to be told our leaders are as good as gold and actually have some evidence to think so.

I would give long odds that outcome will not happen. What will happen is something like the present government proposes will be implemented and as intended find nothing. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when the talking head of the day says ‘we told you so, nothing to see here’. Mission accomplished.

2 Likes
69

In a ‘nut shell’!
Open to interpretation if there are any nuts involved. :wink:

Michelle Grattan’s opinion reflects many of the points we’ve raised in this topic. Does the current proposal by government address all concerns? It’s certainly in her opinion lacking.

3 Likes
70

Corruption comes in many forms not always called ‘corruption’. Yet there is currently about zero accountability or oversight except themselves determining they themselves have done nothing wrong.

2 Likes
71

Exactly. There are many public speakers who rage on about the weaknesses of any particular independent oversight scheme that may be suggested. When you have read all their appeals and quibbles they do not propose any effective alternative, what they want is to do nothing or to have a Clayton’s Commission.

The broader problem of bad behaviour in public life becoming normalised will not be reversed entirely by any Commission but it will help to move things in the right direction.

1 Like
72

An interesting revelation. Obviously nothing to see because those responsible say so?

Nobody to watch such things but the press? Who some vilify for reporting.

3 Likes
73

Corruption concerns prompt 31 judges to make rare election intervention

“There must be conferred upon that commission a broad jurisdiction and strong investigative powers, including the power to hold public hearings, and respond to bona fide complaints from the public, so that serious or systemic corruption and misconduct can be adequately investigated and exposed.”

These are retired high court judges, chief justices, supreme court judges and other judges. These men and woman have been the custodians of law and justice in our society. That society will ignore them at its peril.

1 Like
74

There is nothing like an independent inquiry with legal minded leadership and 238 days of public hearings to improve one’s mind. There’s a vague recollection some of the hearings were even broadcast.

There were no references to native fauna. The only endangered species was a mob of corrupt politicians and officials in public office. It also trashed the brand of the political party they had lead for a long time. It no longer exists in QLD.

1 Like