Despite New South Wales’ long history of corruption — from its earliest years through to the dark days of the Askin and Wran governments and into the Obeid era — in recent decades both sides of politics, and especially the Liberal Party, have pursued some strong anti-corruption measures — sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes reluctantly.
Nick Greiner established ICAC. John Fahey established the police royal commission. Nathan Rees, for all his flaws, overhauled political donations and banned donations from property developers. Barry O’Farrell tried to ban corporate and union donations altogether but was defeated by the unions in the High Court. Mike Baird introduced a requirement ministerial meeting diaries to be published. Gladys Berejiklian introduced local planning panels to replace the incessantly corrupt local government planning approval process, which continues to function across Sydney today (despite attempts by local governments to paint them as pro-developer).
In all that time the only reform to provide greater transparency or curb corruption at the federal level was Kevin Rudd reestablishing a requirement for a lobbyist register. John Faulkner tried to improve political donations laws but was defeated by the Coalition. The only other reform of note was the Howard government reducing, not increasing, the transparency of political donations.
NSW and Queensland now lead Australia in terms of anti-corruption and transparency measures, which supplement the powers of the NSW upper house to compel the production of documents. The results are plain to see. NSW politicians know the fate of O’Farrell and now Berejiklian. They’ve seen the fate of Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, along with a slew of other crooked Labor politicians. Local government officials now have much less to offer bribe-toting property developers. And the media does its job of using the tools of transparency to scrutinise politicians.
Ministerial diaries have been used to identify multiple meetings by Berejiklian with proponents backed by disgraced former MP and boyfriend Daryl Maguire. Documents obtained by the Legislative Council provided the basis for the media to reveal the grant that is at the heart of ICAC’s decision to start investigating Berejiklian. The State Archives and Records Authority exposed Berejiklian’s office shredding documents revealing pork-barrelling and partisan allocation of grants.
While it might have been ICAC’s decision to investigate Berejiklian that was the final blow, the patchwork of transparency mechanisms in NSW constantly exposed her and her government’s modus operandi.
It provides an interesting counterpoint to the argument of academic Cameron Murray that transparency measures are more effective as advertising the success of those seeking to corrupt decision-making than in restraining it, and that structural reforms that remove the capacity or incentives of those who would corrupt decision-making (like replacing local government with local planning panels) are more effective. Having both is probably the best method of curbing corruption.
What is much more certain is that with none of the transparency measures and few of the political donation rules that have helped curbed corruption in NSW, federal politics is riddled with people seeking to corrupt decision-making, routinely succeeding in areas like fossil fuels, energy, financial services and outsourcing.
Consider that:
- Unlike in NSW, we have no idea who federal ministers meet and who they allow themselves to be lobbied by
- Unlike in NSW, there is no comprehensive and frequent reporting of who is trying to buy access to politicians through political donations
- Unlike in NSW, there is no independent mechanism to monitor document retention standards, and freedom of information enforcement mechanisms are minimal
- Unlike in NSW, the national media pays little attention to donations or links between politicians and corporations. The country’s dominant media company actually campaigns against transparency and anti-corruption bodies, partly because it is in the business of corrupting decision-making itself
- Most obviously, unlike in NSW, there is no anti-corruption body beyond the Australian National Audit Office, which is primarily focused on financial and performance reviews rather than integrity issues.
While NSW has made significant progress in curbing corruption and politicians know they are being watched, the federal government operates in a culture of impunity.
Transparency mechanisms matter, but they need to be backed up with an aggressive watchdog.
Crikey encourages robust conversations on our website. However, we’re a small team, so sometimes we have to reluctantly turn comments off due to legal risk. Thanks for your understanding and in the meantime, have a read of our moderation guidelines.