Finally, as of July 1, we have a federal anti-corruption body. While its prospect has haunted Canberra for years, it has been largely abstract. The reality, as happened in NSW when ICAC was born in 1988, will be brutal. Politics — and the lives of politicians — will never be the same.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is open for business. It will be swamped with work, as its remit includes past wrongdoing and there is a long, long backlog of corruption to catch up on.
Helpfully, the Greens have published their top 10 matters they say neatly fit within the NACC’s jurisdiction for investigation. Are they right?
It’s also helpful that NACC’s legislation closely follows the NSW precedent regarding how it has set up its terms of reference. The key parameter is the definition of “corrupt conduct”, which is what the body is designed to ferret out.
In the federal sphere, corrupt conduct occurs when a public official breaches public trust, abuses their office, or misuses information gained in their official capacity. It also occurs when someone else does something that adversely affects a public official’s honest or impartial exercise of their powers or performance of their duties.
The differences between these definitions and those in ICAC’s act are very minor. Essentially, the NACC will be covering identical ground to ICAC.
What it all boils down to, in lay terms, is this: a public official (this includes politicians, their staff, public servants and contractors to government bodies) engages in corrupt conduct when they prefer their own or a third party’s interests to those of the public. For example, by using public money to build a stadium in their secret boyfriend’s electorate, just to keep him happy.
For those who aren’t public officials, they can be caught when they try to get a public official to do the above. Bribery is the most obvious example. And if you think there’s a bit of a pub test sensibility in operation here, you’d be right. Corrupt conduct is pretty much exactly what you’d think it is.
So, to the Greens’ list of candidates…
PwC
Cool and interesting, as a first test case. PwC and its partners were government contractors (therefore, by definition, public officials) and, according to what’s been publicly alleged, shopped government secrets for money. Definitely worth a look.
Robodebt
Traditionally not a likely subject for an anti-corruption body. Robodebt was an exercise in theft, justified by systematic deceit. It’s difficult to see what purpose a NACC investigation could serve that would improve on what the royal commission already covered, bearing in mind the NACC is essentially a standing royal commission, not a prosecuting body.
Hunter frigates
The allegation is that the Defence Department gave a $45 billion contract to a company that wasn’t even on the shortlist, ignoring its own tender rules. It does smell particularly bad, even for defence with its glorious history of mismanagement. Definitely justifies a referral.
Scott Morrison’s secret ministries and the Future Leaders program
The black hole of amorality called Scott Morrison is not worth anyone’s time, as there’s nothing to learn of any value. However, there is something very strange about the coincidental timing of Governor-General David Hurley’s non-publicised approval of Morrison’s ministries and the $18 million granted to a program that the governor-general was actively promoting. The governor-general is not a public official, but all the ministers called Scott Morrison were. Worth a look.
Pork-barrels
Sports rorts, for starters, but the practice of using public money like it was a private Liberal/National slush fund was so out of control over the past decade that the Greens’ call for NACC to prioritise a wide-ranging investigation is a good one. Since politicians can’t be trusted to distinguish their parties’ interests from the public’s, they need to be taught.
Dodgy contracts
There are a few of these, including the Synergy 360 contracts that have Stuart Robert’s fingerprints all over them, the Leppington triangle land sale, and the awarding of contracts to keep operating Nauru’s refugee detention facility while it’s completely empty. This type of thing is the most common form of public corruption and also the most corrosive of public trust. Any substantive allegation relating to big government contracts should be taken seriously, particularly in the federal sphere where the money is so huge and so freely spent.
Watergate and Grassgate
Opposition Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor is in the sights here over the $80 million spent on water licences from a Cayman Islands company associated with him, and alleged illegal land clearing by a family company. These allegations have been hanging around for years, uninvestigated. They certainly meet the threshold for the NACC.
As for what else is out there, God only knows. A lesson from ICAC’s history is that the big scalps are not necessarily the ones you expect. Whistleblowers may be lining up to refer something that’s never reached the public realm and that could blow all the popular candidates out of the water.
What we can expect next is a period of anti-climax while the NACC gets on with its work, which commissioner Paul Brereton SC will ensure is done quietly and without fuss. Then, one day when we least expect it, the first bomb will drop. My bet is it’ll be a big one.
Were you cheered by NACC commissioner Paul Brereton’s opening statement yesterday? Let us know 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.
