Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

On 22 March this year I asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Johnston, why the federal government was not interested in setting up a federal anti-corruption commission with a similar charter and similar powers to those of state commissions such as the Corruption and Crime Commission in WA, Queensland’s Crime and Misconduct Commission and the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. The minister’s response never really addressed the underlying issue, which was how better to combat corruption. He spoke at length about the matrix of legislative framework that is available to the Commonwealth, the role of the Federal Police and the Commonwealth Criminal Code, but effectively he ruled out a federal corruption and crime commission.

This coalition government has a bad record on many areas of accountability, including freedom of information and whistleblowing. At its best, it moves slowly. It still has not even made the law changes on corruption recommended by Mr Cole and the OECD. The government seems to have little interest in delving too deeply, where it might be embarrassing, into the actions of ministers or bureaucrats. Just because a matrix of federal legislation and agencies exists, it does not necessarily mean that corruption is systematically investigated or that complaints of corruption are taken seriously. Fortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is endemic corruption at the federal level, but, when past and present corruption or serious misconduct is identified in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia by their state corruption and crime commissions, you would be foolish and naive to imagine there is none federally.

In Western Australia, I heard complaints from property developers that there were delays in planning approvals and that some developments fortuitously did not seem to have those delays. I was aware that often big business appeared to win approvals over the objections of local communities. But I had faith that the system of approvals worked and that the people in charge of applying codes, rules and regulations were doing their job. I thought, as many did in WA, that the checks and balances were in place and people were doing their jobs properly—not always. But through the diligent work of the WA CCC and the commitment of the investigators, lawyers and the head of the CCC, matters were brought to light which brought the WA government, some state and local government politicians, some bureaucrats, some businessmen and some lobbyists into disrepute.

What has pleased me is that, even though the Labor government was embarrassed, the Labor Attorney-General and the Premier continue to back and support the CCC. From the WA estimates hearings, it appears that the CCC, instead of having its funding cut, will continue to be properly resourced. Regrettably, in other states the funding of similar organisations has been cut, staffing levels have been reduced and the governing legislation has been amended, all to curtail the entities’ powers and abilities to investigate.

The Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland celebrated its 20th anniversary recently. As the Fitzgerald report said, it is important to recognise that you need much more than just a crime commission. It states:

A Government can deliberately obscure the processes of public administration and hide or disguise its motives. If not discovered there are no constraints on the exercise of political power.

The rejection of constraints is likely to add to the power of the Government and its leader, and perhaps lead to an increased tendency to misuse power.

…            …            …

The ultimate check on public maladministration is public opinion, which can only be truly effective if there are structures and systems designed to ensure that it is properly informed. A Government can use its control of Parliament and public administration to manipulate, exploit and misinform the community, or to hide matters from it. Structures and systems designed for the purpose of keeping the public informed must therefore be allowed to operate as intended.

Secrecy and propaganda are major impediments to accountability, which is a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the political process. Worse, they are the hallmarks of a diversion of power from the Parliament.

The Fitzgerald report was a watershed in Queensland in accountability, but many commentators 20 years on fear that Queensland may be returning to some of the bad practices before Fitzgerald. Some recommendations of the Fitzgerald inquiry have been eroded over time. One of the most obvious was identified by Craig Johnstone in his article in the Courier-Mail on 18 May 2007 entitled ‘Legacy of transparency’. He wrote that one of the accountability mechanisms urged by Fitzgerald was effective FOI laws.

Queensland, which after Fitzgerald introduced freedom of information laws, has taken a leaf out of the federal coalition government’s songbook and included a myriad of exemptions so that its FOI laws are no longer working as they were envisaged by Fitzgerald and the original legislation. The Premier of Queensland has said that that state’s FOI laws are the same or very similar to those in other jurisdictions, as though this were something to be proud of. It is not.

The federal coalition is hopeless on FOI, but the media have pointed out that the current Leader of the Opposition, although he has said he is in favour of amending the FOI laws at a federal level, showed scant regard for them and ensured that they were as limited as possible when he was a Queensland bureaucrat. So there is concern as to his promises.

In another article by Paul Williams in the Courier-Mail of 17 May 2007, which celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Fitzgerald inquiry and was entitled ‘Back to the old days?’ the ground-breaking anti-corruption journalist Phil Dickie is quoted as saying:

In some ways we might be in a more dangerous situation than before Fitzgerald—we now have the illusion of effective anti-corruption machinery.

In that same article, Dr Mark Lauchs from the QUT suggests that, even where legislation was passed, it was improperly implemented and, where institutions were established, they were often merely to give the semblance of accountability.

There are lots of ways for an incumbent government to ensure that, although mechanisms are in place, they are unable to do their job effectively. If you starve an organisation of sufficient funds, then it is unable to recruit the appropriate staff or undertake the full depth and range of investigations that are required. If you hobble the FOI legislation, then legitimate questions by scrutinising press or by a scrutinising individual or politician can be avoided. The mere presence of the mechanics or institutions of accountability does not necessarily ensure full accountability.

What is really concerning is that the federal government does not even have some mechanisms of accountability in place and it shows no inclination to establish them. It does not see, for instance, that at the federal level a crime and corruption commission would be a good idea. It does not see that improving FOI and public disclosure laws would be a good idea. It is unmoved when whistleblowers like Mr Kessing are threatened with prison for bringing to our attention gross deficiencies in airport security.

There is little protection at a federal level for those who are willing to stand up and point out maladministration, misconduct or corruption. It seems that such whistleblowers are as likely as not to be muzzled, victimised or charged in the courts with revealing confidential material. What do you think would have happened to a bureaucrat blowing the whistle on the useless scrutiny and oversight of AWB contracts during the Iraq sanctions days? Do you have faith that their disclosure would have been fearlessly acted on? I do not.

It is interesting that the commentators looking back on the Fitzgerald inquiry all say a similar thing—that things are reverting to the time before the inquiry. There are a number of possible reasons for that: a complacency in the electorate, which is not demanding a higher level of accountability; a reduction in funding for the various investigative entities created out of the Fitzgerald inquiry; an inept and compliant opposition; and legislative changes that have had the effect of limiting the power of the press. All of these conspire to hinder the exposure of corruption or misconduct.

I am not suggesting that Queensland is any better or worse than anywhere else in Australia. The same vigilance is needed everywhere. To its credit, at least Queensland, like New South Wales and Western Australia, does recognise that there needs to be a standing commission with the remit to investigate allegations of corruption at all levels of government. Judging by the whiffs coming from that state, Victoria could very much do with the same.

The federal coalition government takes the view that, at the federal level, things are just fine and that everyone at every level of federal government is beyond question. That has been shown to be patently untrue at the state level and it is very likely to be untrue at the federal level. I am sure that, if there were a CCC body at the federal level, we would be surprised at what came to the surface. It can only be hoped that, if there is a change in government this year, there will also be a change in attitude on these issues.