Is the ministerial standards system broken? Bernard Keane noted that the standards are “almost impossible” to breach and seemingly unenforcable. Crikey readers added a few suggestions for how to prevent former ministers from parachuting into high-paying industry roles that directly benefit from their portfolios. Elsewhere, readers discussed the visa scams that the government chooses to overlook.
On fixing ministerial standards
Alex McKean writes: As with so many other things, there is no silver bullet remedy. Change the content of the statement of ministerial standards: the fact that Pyne and Bishop are not caught by the current casting of the standards does not mean that what they have done is OK, it means the standards have to be changed to prevent such conduct getting a green light. As they currently stand they do not pass the pub test. There is precedent in legal profession regulation for avoiding conflicts in situations where a lawyer has formerly acted for a client who is now the opposition. Even “soft” areas of knowledge can be reason for disqualifying the lawyer who is found to be conflicted. Secondly, make the standards enforceable. One measure which has been introduced in Queensland is the publication of ministerial diaries. Transparency measures like this can be effective in allowing people (mostly journalists I suspect) a line of sight into who a minister is meeting with, where and on behalf of whom.
Amy Huva writes: Surely the simple solution to the unbreachable ministerial standards would be to require all outgoing ministers to spend 18 months on Newstart payments to ensure no conflicts?
Kym Smith writes: How about government procurement or purchasing or contracting be forbidden with firms who engage, directly or through typically “liberal” employment means, former ministers of any departmental responsibility. These politicians already receive generous for-life super. They should not be allowed anywhere near another dollar of taxpayers money.
John Richardson writes: The only way to establish and enforce meaningful standards of behaviour for anyone is to legislate them, include meaningful penalties for those who breach them and make someone other than a politician responsible for vigilant oversight and determining if a prosecution should be pursued. There is absolutely no point creating codes of conduct that rely on individual honesty and integrity, Ministerial or otherwise, as politicians are devoid of any ethical or moral principles.
On visa scams
Mark Dunstone writes: Unfortunately, because a lot of visa scams are to do with agricultural enterprises wanting to pay extreme low wages to workers, I wouldn’t expect any action from this government, except tougher penalties on people exposing the scams. Remember we have lots of proposals at the moment to enable farmers to conceal crimes on animal cruelty dressed up with the lies and falsehoods about biosecurity and “vegan activists”.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
Zero Tolerance is the Right’s favourite, so let’s use that. Simply state whenever an offender’s name appears that we believe that in
[insert breach here – ]
-moving to a private sector/government job in a related field //
-potentially lobbying decision-maker contacts //
-receiving benefits that could cause them to act otherwise than in accordance with their duty to do the greatest good for the greatest number with minimum oppression //
they have breached what we regard as the high standard of Ministerial conduct that we expect of well-paid, well-informed decision-makers in important positions. They know full well the customary favours and rewards.
We further call for:
(1) their immediate resignation from that position.
(2) further, that their replacement should be chosen in accordance with the Principles of the UK 1995 Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life.
(3) further, that they should repay all Parliamentary pay and entitlements (including superannuation and Retirement Allowance) paid from the time that they receive from their new employer any income greater than that from Newstart.
Exposure they will hate. Turning the spotlight on them will focus attention on their old-boy network and their cushy arrangements. Until the law is changed, it is hard to do more. But now, we don’t even criticise them in passing!
Something like this:
“I believe that in moving to a private sector/government job in a related field former Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop has breached the high standard of conduct that we expect of well-paid, well-informed decision-makers in important positions. Such people after all constantly promote themselves as meeting such standards.
I further call for:
(1) all parts of government to be instructed to have no official dealings with her for five years;
(2) further, that she should repay all Parliamentary pay and entitlements (including superannuation and Retirement Allowance) paid from the time of her appointment, given that she will be receiving from her new employer an income greater than that from Newstart.
I and everyone else are entitled to assume that she is exploiting her taxpayer-funded connections and expertise to assist her employer’s corporate interests, unconstrained by the higher standards expected in public life. It matters. I deplore this occurrence.”
We just recently had Phillip Dalidakis here in Melbourne resign from his Ministerial position and get a corporate gig with Australia Post ..I find that pretty dubious and just confirms that they are using the mechanisms of government for corporate interests.