A Federal anti-corruption commission?

[David]

<Split from the Australian federal election 2022 thread>

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -autocracy

What exactly is Morrison's problem with an anti-corruption commission? Is there any actual evidence that the NSW ICAC has improperly found against anyone, or is he merely still pissed off that St Gladys (entirely voluntarily) decided to step down as premier in the midst of an investigation without waiting for a verdict to be handed down?

His position on this seems to be roughly akin to saying we shouldn't have law courts because innocent people might be convicted.

[stui magpie]

I don't read Guardian links, if what they report is real news it would be posted on real news sites.

In response to the question, I can't read minds so I don't know. Some opinions will be that he doesn't want an ICAC because he's corrupt like all Liberals which is clearly bullshit. Labor is traditionally big on having an independent umpire, until they don't get the answer they want then it's toys out of the cot time.

Do we really need an ICAC to oversea Parliament? There's already plenty of oversight including the ultimate, the voters.

Victoria's IBAC primarily investigates the public sector and rarely strays into Politics and when they do generally avoid biting the hand that feeds them.

I haven't read enough about what Morrison proposed to know whether it was a total toothless tiger or a genuine option.

[David]

[eddiesmith]

Evidence suggests Victoria's is pretty toothless, has it ever got anyone in trouble? Plus its at the mercy of the government, so how independent can it be? They started investigating the government and got their funding cut!

[David]

[stui magpie]

[David]

[stui magpie]

Where do you draw the line though?

Pork Barrelling? All governments of all flavour, state and federal, give grants and funding for strategic reasons not to the best purpose. Everyone knows that. Should an independent commission be overseeing those decisions?

Post politics appointments? Gladys picked up a job with (I think) Optus on likely near double what she was earning as Premier. Should someone investigate that?

Appointing ex ministers to overseas Ambassadors (or even Governer General) is a clear lurk. What's the selection criteria? Who should it be justified to?

For someone who's not a fan of authority it seems strange you would support that level of micro intervention.

[David]

[stui magpie]

The Governments are accountable to the people, we elect them.

We also have free press who love getting dirt on politicians and holding them accountable.

What do these IBAC or ICAC's do if they investigate and say they don't believe Bob Hawke should have made Bill Hayden Governor General or whoever made the other ex treasurer US Ambassador, or pick something else that might not be morally clean but not illegal, what can or should they be able to do?

You can't give a bunch of bureaucrats power to remove an elected official from public office surely?

You're not giving me compelling reasons to sway to your side here.

[David]

Well, two things here: firstly, I don't believe the NSW ICAC (or any proposed federal ICAC, for that matter) has the power to remove an elected official from public office. I don't know how you got that impression. What they can do is investigate and deliver a ruling that exposes corrupt actions to the public and, in some cases, recommends prosecution. The press can only report what they know, and a strong ICAC can do their own research and force people to answer questions.

Secondly, whatever you or I might think of such practices, I don't necessarily get the impression that diplomatic appointments would be a particular focus. What's most dodgy in this realm is politicians being offered jobs by companies that directly benefited from their portfolio area while they were in office. Look at Alexander Downer's post-politics contracting role for Woodside after having led the Timor-Leste spying operation that worked towards that company's financial interests as a case in point.

The worst possible outcome that I can see from such a commission being established is that it doesn't achieve anything. The best possible outcome is that it sheds light on some corrupt political behaviour and provides an additional motivation for politicians to act ethically. Neither outcome would be any worse than how things are now.

[stui magpie]

OK, but if a possible outcome is prosecution, meaning the behaviour is illegal, it should be referred to the Police.

If it is potentially immoral or unethical, all they can do is shine a light on it.

With Downer, what would there be to investigate? My understanding is that these bodies only have power in the public sector, not private. If Downer established relationships with key suppliers and one of them decided to employ him after he left office, how do you prove wrongdoing and what possible penalty could be imposed and onto whom?

I accept your desire to hold politicians accountable but these ICAC's were designed to investigate public sector not necessarily politicians. FFS Dandrews is being investigated for the 47th time over branch stacking and the Red Shirt stuff. Everyone knows he did it, deliberately, and that nothing will happen. Just an abject waste of public money.

[eddiesmith]

Plus Dan gets to be interviewed in confidence, no public shaming for the multiple investigations he is a part of. Then what happens to any of the reports? Given to VicPol who sit on them? Given to the Government who clearly won’t release them?

Only chance we’d ever see them is when Dan gets kicked out of office, the current state government released some cabinet in confidence documents last year from the previous government so I’m sure the Libs would happily repay the favour. But by then what does it do? He’s clearly not getting charged for anything, nor are any members of his government who all broke the law!

[David]

Well obviously publicly releasing the findings are a crucial step! And it does sound like the set-up here in Victoria is very flawed and allows Andrews to apparently dodge responsibility in the way he has. This is why it's so important to get the proposal right and not accept a watered-down variant like Morrison was proposing.

As for Downer, my response is probably coloured by the fact that I think he should already be in jail over what he did in Timor-Leste. The fact he later landed a job with the company that the government's criminal actions benefited just adds insult to injury. But it would be good if a commission like this could investigate historical corruption too.

[Dave The Man]

They all be Corrupt anyway