(Image: Mitchell Squire/Private Media)

Gladys Berejiklian’s resignation in the face of an ICAC investigation has bolstered calls for a federal anti-corruption watchdog. 

On the one hand, the dramatic downfall of a popular New South Wales leader provides the perfect example of the need for such a body to bring transparency and accountability to federal politics. But it has also highlighted the growing resistance to an integrity commission with the powers to forensically rake over the decisions of Australia’s most powerful lawmakers.

Some predictable ICAC critics have already come out to protest against the NSW ICAC for essentially doing its job.

Barnaby Joyce compared the NSW watchdog with the “Spanish inquisition”, telling Channel Seven it was making politicians “terrified to do their job”.

NSW Liberal Party president and former attorney-general Philip Ruddock said the ICAC model showed that people’s reputations were able to be “damaged through innuendo” — despite the fact that it was Berejiklian’s decision to resign from politics instead of stepping aside.

And while Labor has committed to introducing a national integrity body, it has also hedged on the need to protect politicians’ reputations.

“One of the problems we’ve seen from NSW ICAC public hearings in the past is that innocent people who are simply assisting the commission with a particular inquiry were the subject of smears and completely unwarranted criticism,” shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus told the ABC. “I think you can write something into the legislation that helps guard against that feature.”

It’s all about reputation 

ICAC’s extraordinary powers have always been a lightning rod for a debate about reputational damage. But the idea that politicians’ reputations need to be protected is curious, given their job is to be held accountable.

As Geoffrey Watson QC points out, Berejiklian could have chosen to stand aside.

And reputational damage imposed on politicians has as much to do with their own alleged actions and how the media reports them as it does with the actual work of the body designed to interrogate them.

“All [ICAC] did was announce the terms of reference of an inquiry starting in two weeks’ time,” Watson told RN Breakfast. “Nobody’s made any judgements at ICAC.” 

One could also question whether ICAC does ruin reputations. Former NSW premier Nick Greiner, who famously introduced ICAC and became the first premier to resign due to an impending ICAC investigation, went on to overturn on appeal accusations made against him. He is now Australia’s consul-general in New York. 

“I’ve got no idea why the premier thought she should resign from Parliament,” Watson said. “All that’s going to do is subject us to an unnecessary byelection. They are very expensive,” 

What happened to the government’s proposal?

The government still claims it intends to introduce its so-called Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) by the end of the year, even after letting it languish for more than 1000 days, saying it is still taking feedback on the model it should take. 

But the body, designed by the then attorney-general Christian Porter, was always a toothless tiger, and as Crikey has pointed out, could even act as a safe harbour for crooked politicians.

This was perhaps Porter’s intention all along, given he consulted notorious ICAC critic Margaret Cunneen to help design it. 

South Australia goes backwards

At the end of the day, an anti-corruption watchdog’s job should not be to protect the reputations of those it is charged to investigate, or be steered by the politics of the day.

But what’s happening in South Australia shows that even when an anti-corruption body is introduced, it can have its powers reversed. A unanimous decision in SA’s Parliament last week saw its ICAC torn apart, its powers vastly limited to initiate investigations rather than relying on people coming to it.

Commissioner Ann Vanstone slammed the proposal, saying politicians had a self-interest in covering up their bad behaviour. 

State anti-corruption watchdogs also run the risk of being starved of funding by the very politicians they are investigating.

So will Berejiklian’s resignation move the dial in terms of introducing a federal integrity body? Hopefully. A federal anti-corruption watchdog would give the public much-needed assurance that their elected officials are behaving in an appropriate way. Especially at a time of never-ending allegations of pork-barrelling and taxpayers’ funds rorting.

But while those calling for a federal ICAC are right to do so, they may also underestimate how much resistance there is from all sides of politics.