Former Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz (Image: AP/Lisa Leutner)

As Australia’s Parliament works through the National Anti-Corruption Commission, there’s news out of Austria that asks a big question: what’s the role of news media in corruption — not as reporters, but as players, even accomplices?

Misuse of government advertising, dodgy polls to boost political allies, politicised appointments to supposedly independent posts — the investigation by Austria’s Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Crime and Corruption has got it all. It’s already ended the career of once-was-rising conservative star Sebastian Kurz.

And it’s forcing a recognition that everyday practices can deteriorate into the dodgy, from the dodgy to abuse of power, from abuse into corruption.

At its heart is an allegation that in 2016, allies of the then 30-year-old foreign secretary Kurz funnelled government ads to the tabloid Österreich which, in turn, puffed Kurz as the best leader for his centre-right Austrian People’s Party. They placed fudged polls in the paper, showing Kurz’s popularity rising against his party leader. These “polls”, too, were paid for by the finance ministry through disguised invoices.

It worked. Kurz took over as leader, moved his party to the right and after elections in 2017 became chancellor in a coalition with the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (until the coalition collapsed over Russian money and he formed a surprise coalition with the Greens).

Once in power, his governments increased government advertising, particularly funnelling it towards the right-wing tabloid papers. Meanwhile, government critics such as the leading upmarket outlet Der Standard were frozen out of the advertising bonanza.

By early last year, according to online news site ZackZack, the government was paying about A$15 million in ads a month. (In Australia, the most recent finance department report says advertising was about $145 million in FY2020-21.)

Late last year, the rising scandal forced Kurz to step down — first as chancellor, then as head of his party. In January, he became “global strategist” for Peter Thiel’s investment company. Last month, he launched a cybersecurity company with the ex-CEO of NSO, creator of the notorious Pegasus spyware.

The investigation is forcing journalism to rethink the cosy access relationship between journalists and politicians that Kurz perfected, like the flattering conceit that seeks off-the-record political advice from the political writer.

Last month, the prosecutor raided the offices of the party, ministries and private apartments in Vienna. They seem to have found further evidence of government attempts to take control of the advertising budgets of government-owned corporations by putting its person in charge of the holding company for state-owned enterprises.

There used to be a name for this behaviour in politics and media in Australia, too: business as usual.

We think of corruption differently now (or should). Once it was thought to be about payments to officials for expedited or special assistance, often involving deliberately opaque and discretionary rules. (Like the 1980s NSW minister taking payments for early release of prisoners.)

Now corrupting payments often flow the other way — from governments eager to influence votes and voters. An increasingly vulnerable media becomes the channel of choice, with government money available to shape reporting.

Once, Australian governments were open about the trade-off. In 1984, both the NSW Labor government and Queensland’s Bjelke-Petersen-led Nationals shifted the “rivers of gold” of state classified advertising from their states’ traditional broadsheets to News Corp’s tabloids.

Now regulation and oversight combined with changing media trends make it harder for governments to overtly direct advertising to media allies. Instead they rely on pumping up the volume to ensure there’s plenty of government and party political advertising to spread around.

Business pressures make Australia’s media less picky: all the major papers were happy to trade off credibility for the dollars that came with those yellow front-page strips from the United Australia Party.

There’s little transparency when it comes to government grants to media. We still don’t know how or why the annual $10 million payment to Foxtel for broadcasting women’s sport was approved or overseen. Similarly, when the government brokered deals between old media and big tech under the news media bargaining code, there was no transparent way of ensuring the reported $200 million a year was spent on news — or on anything for that matter.

The power of access is similarly closed. In the wash-up of the UK hacking scandal, British ministers now reveal who they meet with — and, specifically, how often they meet with News Corp editors, executives and owners.

In Australia, again, not so much. The NACC will provide a new way of lifting the lid.

Do you have faith that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have enough teeth to shine a light into the dark corners of Australian politics? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.