Michael Yabsley is a former NSW minister, former federal treasurer of the Liberal Party, and author of Dark Money: A plan to reform political fundraising and election funding in Australia.
Barely a week passes in Australia without hearing an apology from someone in public life. For many who end up saying “I apologise for the mistake I made”, it might sound noble and contrite. But often this apology masks deliberate, carefully planned wrongdoings.
The politician who overclaimed travel expenses, the bishop who turned a blind eye to the paedophile priest, the sport star abusing women, the governor-general who appeared in an advertisement, the newspaper that hacks a teenager’s mobile phone. These are not “mistakes”, a word that suggests the offence was unintended and inadvertent.
The word does not apply to, say, John Barilaro, or for that matter Lisa Wilkinson either — the latter in relation to her explosive two-and-a-half-minute speech at the Logies, the former about the folly of his New York job, which he yesterday abandoned in the face of intense public and political pressure.
These mistakes were premeditated.
As major as the consequences may be for Barilaro and Wilkinson personally and professionally, the bigger and more important consequences relate to a federal integrity commission and its effectiveness.
Such a body would have no jurisdiction over either matter. But what constitutes a mistake rather than wrongdoing, and the problem of people in high places exercising disproportionate and inappropriate influence, is central to its effective functioning.
As a community we need to think this through in anticipation of a federal integrity commission: not all corrupt behaviour is criminal. Arguably, most corruption is not criminal.
Distinguishing, in the context of corrupt behaviour, between a “mistake” and a “wrongdoing” isn’t merely a semantic debate. Mistakes — making the wrong decision, issuing the wrong information, providing a poor service — are an unfortunately inevitable part of public administration.
But they’re different to intentional wrongdoing of the kind a federal integrity commission must address. How it does so will be one of many vexed questions exercising the wise heads in the obscure but important world of those who translate the relatively everyday language of political policy into legislation.
But what’s the link between Barilaro and Wilkinson and integrity? Both have inflicted reputational damage on the pillars of public life, and both represent the abuse of power by entitled and selfish people. It may or may not be criminal behaviour, but that doesn’t make it an acceptable use of power.
Sooner rather than later a federal integrity commission with teeth will take its place in Australia’s anti-corruption landscape. For a federal integrity commission to do its job we need to be prepared for a process that recognises that most corruption is not criminal.
The Centre for Public Integrity, chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Anthony Whealy QC and with board members including Geoffrey Watson SC, recently opined: “if someone adversely affects the exercise of public administration directly or indirectly, this is corrupt conduct”.
Black letter — or “hard” corruption — is relatively rare in Australia. But we must do better — much better — in addressing the kind of corruption Whealy describes, that of people abusing their power. That will mean broadening the scope of corruption to cover abuse of power — including self-entitled media stars blowing up a criminal trial and retiring politicians setting themselves up in cushy jobs.
Doing much better will also mean dealing with dark money and soft corruption in public life. As I have written before, big money in politics and the soft corruption it spawns remains the weakest link in the integrity of our democratic system. Big money is a dark secret among established political players, mainly because the major parties have not worked out how to get by without the big money that has greased the wheels of Australian politics since Federation.
It may not necessarily be criminal, but it’s corruption.
True enough, Barra and Lisa, “nobody died” from your actions. But you have caused, in very different settings, harm to the integrity of public life and the institutions that are central to it. Let’s see what a federal integrity commission does to take Australia another step closer to being what we should be rather than what we are.
Yes, there’s plenty of conduct that can reasonably be seen as corrupt that is not criminal. And there needs to be a proper distinction between mistakes, which are made by ignorance, ineptitude or incompetence, and deliberate or intentional conduct that undermines public administration and the public good for personal ends, such as personal gain or improperly helping or doing favours for others.
But one of the main reasons so much corrupt conduct is not criminal is that the relevant laws have been deliberately and intentionally made to ensure that a great range of corrupt conduct is not illegal. The legal framework is designed to facilitate such corruption because those who made the laws want things this way. A prime example is the system for
bribingdonating to political parties. This needs sorting out and it’s a big job.There is anyway a limit how far laws can realistically be extended in this area. Criminal law tends to be a blunt instrument and prosecuting criminal cases is an onerous, expensive and difficult undertaking. Such laws need to be supported by enforceable standards with clear rules for the conduct of politicians and public officials. A federal integrity commission should be able to inquire into conduct that appears corrupt and pass evidence of potentially criminal conduct to the police while also making findings on breaches of standards for integrity in public life.
Generally find Michael Yabsley an honest broker, and confess I haven’t read his “Dark Money” tome. But the best ways to get some integrity back into politics are to limit the terms an MP can serve; ban all political donations and fund brief election campaigns from Treasury, with strict limits on expenditure (that also includes the self-promoting ads by Federal and State governments!); and ban lobbyists altogether. A lobbyist exists to apply pressure (or bribes) to a public official in order to get preferential treatment: anyone who says otherwise is a knave or a fool. Let governments determine contracts based on public tenders, with advice from the relevant public service experts, without any ‘lobbyist’ having a hand on an MP’s wallet!
You have my complete agreement Smokey. Let us add the following. Abolish ALL political staffers. Advice to ministers or members should come ONLY from a professional and independent public service – and from the public. Place a uniform embargo upon former members of parliament accepting any employment with a for-profit organisation for the term of the subsequent parliament but continue paying their salary for that subsequent term as a recognition and recompense for the opportunities forgone.
The global lobby groups are too powerful and organised for any law etc to affect their behaviour. Billions of dollars spent to achieve outcomes. I’m sure books have been written, but cannot recall any specific publication or author.
Can’t see any positive change in future.
Poor ‘Koala’ John. At home, in Queanbeyan, with cold and rainy weather, unpacking his ‘Here I come NY!’ bag, and no doubt wishing he was a former federal pollie with no ICAC worries, rather than a NSW pollie with serious ICAC worries. Oh well, themes the breaks…
You forgot “Robodebt”? “Timor Leste industrial espionage”? “Children Overboard”? “Iraq”? …. But they were “Coalition government mistakes”?
The scum should be locked up for each and every travesty on that list.
No comparison between Wilkinson who is chasing scoops and ratings. Koala Barilaro is totally unethical and has other dubious actions that need to be examined. He spat the dummy and nearly brought down the NSW govt over the issue of clearing koala habitat. This looked he was doing the bidding of developers. ICAC to examine?