Two of the “serious corrupt conduct” findings against former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian centre on the extraordinary decision to commit public funding to two projects backed by her ex-boyfriend, disgraced former MP Daryl Maguire: building works for the Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA), and the construction of a Riverina Conservatorium of Music, both in Maguire’s electorate of Wagga Wagga.
The ACTA decision was particularly egregious, as it involved handing the association public money to put together a business case for its proposal, one based on a benefit-cost analysis that was inadequate to inform any rigorous assessment of the project.
Apart from its findings about Berejiklian and Maguire, ICAC makes a number of recommendations about what NSW Parliament could do to prevent a similar scandal from arising again.
The first is based on the dry statement that “the community may conclude that the applicable codes of conduct had little or no effect in discouraging the conduct of Mr Maguire and Ms Berejiklian identified in this report”. ICAC wants a more comprehensive code of conduct for MPs that emphasises principles of conduct in public life and “public trust, public interest and public duty”.
The Dominic Perrottet government had already moved to significantly strengthen conflict of interest disclosure requirements by MPs and particularly ministers through last year’s Integrity Legislation Amendment Act, but ICAC wants to see much greater guidance on managing, not just disclosing, conflicts.
It wants NSW Parliament to tighten its code of conduct so it’s clear there are only limited circumstances in which MPs can do what Maguire did at a near-industrial scale — mingle private and public business. It wants parliamentary friendship groups — the Asia Pacific friendship group was a key vehicle for Maguire’s corruption — to be much more tightly regulated by Parliament so they can’t be used for commercial activities. It proposes Parliament remove any doubt that breaching the MPs’ code of conduct can have real consequences, including being forced out of Parliament.
ICAC also wants more training for MPs — lots more. It complains of MPs giving evidence to its inquiries being unable to recall what if any training they had about using public resources properly, or managing conflict of interest. It devotes seven recommendations to a comprehensive ongoing training program for MPs and their staff, and suggests naming and shaming MPs who don’t participate.
On the proper administration of grants, ICAC has again been beaten to the punch by Perrottet. He commissioned a review of grants administration, and in September last year, after vowing to end the pork-barrelling that Berejiklian became associated with, established a significantly stronger grants administration guide that ministers, staff and public servants have to follow.
ICAC’s only suggestion is that the rules around handing public money to project proponents to develop business cases be made clear, and that the new training program for MPs should include teaching them about how you can’t just allocate public money for political purposes.
Whether NSW Premier Chris Minns has Perrottet’s appetite for integrity reform remains to be seen. Even accepting the ongoing implementation of Perrottet’s reforms on conflict of interest disclosure and grants administration, there’s still much work to be done to focus MPs’ minds on using public money properly.
The seriously dangerous thing about these findings is that Minns is now making noises about further degrading ICAC as a “Bipartisan” effort…………..
………..whereas in reality, the ICAC Act needs amending to reverse the egregious vandalism inflicted on it by “Babyface” Baird in retribution for them daring to find FIFTEEN Liberal MPs guilty of corruption.
The citizens of NSW would be well advised to keep a watchful eye out for any such moves (particularly using the subterfuge of “Strengthening Accountability”)………………….
………..politicians of all persuasions have a visceral hate of ICAC.
The pollies visceral hatred of an integrity commission is always directly proportional to the effectiveness of the commission. Although, while you are not entirely wrong to say this applies to politicians of all persuasions, it is far more marked in those whose parties spend time in power, and who therefore enjoy far more opportunity to enjoy the perquisites of office compared to the relatively humble plain minor party or independent representatives. Some of the latter can be quite decent, perhaps because, as Whitlam brutally remarked, ‘the impotent are pure’. (What change would be wrought on their moral character by finally getting their hands on the levers of power we generally can only guess, although the ascent of the Scottish National Party from a derided minority to complete domination of Scottish politics is perhaps a useful clue; the party’s acclaimed leader from 2014, Nicola Sturgeon, suddenly resigned this year as both leader and First Minister. She and her husband, who was the party’s CEO, were subsequently arrested, but not charged, as the police investigate missing party funds and other murky matters.)
It’s notable that the same pollies who struggle endlessly to find or implement any solutions to any number of serious issues afflicting the general public have no difficulty quickly devising and putting into practice a great range of measures to prevent, hobble, discredit, neutralise, infiltrate, subvert, misdirect and, if all else fails, abolish, any such commission.
What did he say?
Geez. it does not take much to deflect people from the real issues. Two corrupt people conspire to misdirect public money and get caught by the policeman on the beat. And who gets into trouble? The policeman. Stop listening to the whining apologists for Gladys and Macguire. We don’t need them.
Maybe this is very reasonable, but I cannot help thinking any adult who does not have a clue about such concepts and is unable to get it even roughly right probably has not even a basic grasp of right and wrong. These politicians should not be in positions of responsibility. More likely they should each be placed under state guardianship.
In fact I would like this training to start, when an aspiring person nominates as a candidate. They must attend a compulsory one day training about ethics, prior to them handing our one how to vote card. Then there can be no excuse to any more nudge nudge wink if they become the elected, if they break the rules they along with he company involved, can expect consequences. Annual updates can be done on line.
There would be a bonus associated with placing them under Public Guardianship: NSW Trustee & Guardian would finally have their act cleaned up.
https://aptagie.com.au/property
….. Any recommendations for ‘memory training’ – especially for those fronting ICAC?
They all appear to have undergone training in the “Alan Bond Technique”………………
“I’m sorry Your Honour, I have no clear recollection of that……………..”
Usually trotted out when confronted with either written or audio proof.
Alexander ‘Wheatgate’ Downer was a master of the ‘can’t remember’ brigade, as were almost everyone questioned about Robodebt. It must be a spreading affliction among the political classes.
Perhaps this was a factor in his daughter not being able to carry on his lasting legacy!
You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. Even our closest Neighbour.
For any politician let alone a Premier to have no understanding of Conflict of Interest, as is evident in GBs response to the findings, they should not be in Parliament. This should be a test of their recruitment. Even the smallest NGO is expected to declare conflict of interest when decisions are made about resource allocation