Gladys Berejiklian’s resignation in the face of an ICAC investigation has bolstered calls for a federal anti-corruption watchdog.
On the one hand, the dramatic downfall of a popular New South Wales leader provides the perfect example of the need for such a body to bring transparency and accountability to federal politics. But it has also highlighted the growing resistance to an integrity commission with the powers to forensically rake over the decisions of Australia’s most powerful lawmakers.
Some predictable ICAC critics have already come out to protest against the NSW ICAC for essentially doing its job.
Barnaby Joyce compared the NSW watchdog with the “Spanish inquisition”, telling Channel Seven it was making politicians “terrified to do their job”.
NSW Liberal Party president and former attorney-general Philip Ruddock said the ICAC model showed that people’s reputations were able to be “damaged through innuendo” — despite the fact that it was Berejiklian’s decision to resign from politics instead of stepping aside.
And while Labor has committed to introducing a national integrity body, it has also hedged on the need to protect politicians’ reputations.
“One of the problems we’ve seen from NSW ICAC public hearings in the past is that innocent people who are simply assisting the commission with a particular inquiry were the subject of smears and completely unwarranted criticism,” shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus told the ABC. “I think you can write something into the legislation that helps guard against that feature.”
It’s all about reputation
ICAC’s extraordinary powers have always been a lightning rod for a debate about reputational damage. But the idea that politicians’ reputations need to be protected is curious, given their job is to be held accountable.
As Geoffrey Watson QC points out, Berejiklian could have chosen to stand aside.
And reputational damage imposed on politicians has as much to do with their own alleged actions and how the media reports them as it does with the actual work of the body designed to interrogate them.
“All [ICAC] did was announce the terms of reference of an inquiry starting in two weeks’ time,” Watson told RN Breakfast. “Nobody’s made any judgements at ICAC.”
One could also question whether ICAC does ruin reputations. Former NSW premier Nick Greiner, who famously introduced ICAC and became the first premier to resign due to an impending ICAC investigation, went on to overturn on appeal accusations made against him. He is now Australia’s consul-general in New York.
“I’ve got no idea why the premier thought she should resign from Parliament,” Watson said. “All that’s going to do is subject us to an unnecessary byelection. They are very expensive,”
What happened to the government’s proposal?
The government still claims it intends to introduce its so-called Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) by the end of the year, even after letting it languish for more than 1000 days, saying it is still taking feedback on the model it should take.
But the body, designed by the then attorney-general Christian Porter, was always a toothless tiger, and as Crikey has pointed out, could even act as a safe harbour for crooked politicians.
This was perhaps Porter’s intention all along, given he consulted notorious ICAC critic Margaret Cunneen to help design it.
South Australia goes backwards
At the end of the day, an anti-corruption watchdog’s job should not be to protect the reputations of those it is charged to investigate, or be steered by the politics of the day.
But what’s happening in South Australia shows that even when an anti-corruption body is introduced, it can have its powers reversed. A unanimous decision in SA’s Parliament last week saw its ICAC torn apart, its powers vastly limited to initiate investigations rather than relying on people coming to it.
Commissioner Ann Vanstone slammed the proposal, saying politicians had a self-interest in covering up their bad behaviour.
State anti-corruption watchdogs also run the risk of being starved of funding by the very politicians they are investigating.
So will Berejiklian’s resignation move the dial in terms of introducing a federal integrity body? Hopefully. A federal anti-corruption watchdog would give the public much-needed assurance that their elected officials are behaving in an appropriate way. Especially at a time of never-ending allegations of pork-barrelling and taxpayers’ funds rorting.
But while those calling for a federal ICAC are right to do so, they may also underestimate how much resistance there is from all sides of politics.
The real question is: Are we better off ‘with’ or ‘without’ an ICAC?
With an ICAC means essential, independent oversight. But allows potential to de-stable political fraternity?
Without an ICAC means . . . we, the electorate open to endemic corruption. A proven option we all too often know to our cost? Personally, even Blind Freddie shouldn’t need hesitate; GIVE US A FEDERAL ICAC . . . NOW!
Perhaps a way to get around some of this is some of the questioning can be done privately. When the evidence is collected the whole thing is released to the public whether there something to answer or not.
We’ve got a government addicted to secrecy now, no need to push it further
Like the miserly god botherer who constantly prayed to win the lottery without success.
At the Pearly Gates he demands to know why and is told “you never bought a ticket”.
The ALP, as currently extruded from the SussexSt cloaca, is unfit for any purpose other than seat polishing.
“The ALP,……………….. is unfit for any purpose other than seat polishing”.
Careful. Your lack of knowledge on the subject of Labor policies is condemning to the ranks of uninformed. partisan whingers.
Do you apply the same level of pejorative and ignorance to the cons as well ?
Labor’s “policies” are like Groucho’s principles.
But the politicians will all be asking is “Are WE better off ‘with’ or ‘without’ an ICAC?
Barnaby Joyce compared the NSW watchdog with the “Spanish inquisition”, telling Channel Seven it was making politicians “terrified to do their job”.
I really did laugh out loud – and for more reasons than could possibly listed in a comments space.
“terrified to do their job” rather than terrified while on the job.
Barnaby must have already been terrified to do his job. It took $675,000 for him not to.
Most of them don’t do their well-paid jobs now – lazy, corrupt and incompetent.
While I believe we are in desperate need for a NSW type anti corruption body, there is no point in it if the federal government creates nothing more than a token. We may well be better off waiting to see if Labor falls over the line. At least we might receive something better than a joke.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ALP to do that….
Perhaps you could try reading the current ALP policy regarding ICAC before just trying to deflect ?
Few have a sufficiently powerful microscope to find any ALP policy – on anything.
What the ALP have said on the matter is full of weasel words. Their ‘small target’ strategy is to not commit to anything! Decades ago Labor decided to abandon its principles in an effort to ‘get around’ the permanently hostile media, and have been bleeding support ever since.
Sadly, the breathtaking corruption and incompetence of the Coalition has disguised the utter failure of Labor strategy, and they still think they’re in with a chance. The old guard keeps on keeping on.
The real kicker is that even if they win, we lose. Murdoch and his media mates will make sure that any Labor government will do little that is not authorised. Labor must confront the media and win, before people will vote for it.
For us, the two party preferential system, has us preferencing Labor or Coalition, unless The Greens get up!
I am abandoning the system. I’m not going to vote for a Party to govern us. I will simply put the sitting Member last on my ballot paper. All that money the two parties spent trying to get my vote wasted!
Revenge is sweet!
Although in practice I could not advocate it – there might be the occasional, decent incumbent – the strategy of putting the sitting Member last is at least a good way of showing that the disgust with the current musical chairs is bi-partisan.
A pox o’ both your houses
Labor still has numerous policy platforms that will deliver fairer and better social justice. As for tyring to get around the MSM, what else do you do when they refuse to give you a fair hearing and aleays slat in favour of the rorters and mendacious cons ?
Curbing Merde-och etc. will only ever come from a Labor government. Vote independant if you like, but please try to ensure that you’re not just voting for a “woke” small-l Liberal with only one agenda, who’ll back the cons on any substantive issue.
Moloch was PJK’s preferred Prince of Print and we have suffered the consequences ever since.
If an elected representative does their job well, acting with integrity, following due process for transparent use of public funds, independent oversight of nominations to significant Government Boards and true care for the welfare of the people rather than for lining their own pockets then they would have nothing to fear from an ICAC. This is the standard we must expect of our representatives as our national interest and of the care of our must vulnerable citizens.
Gosh! That is an enormous’if’.
a Federal ICAC so they can all go to gaol?
Breath not held