The Challenges of Political Corruption in Australia, the Proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill (2020) and the Application of the APUNCAC
Based on:
Journal Article (2022)
This paper interrogates the weaknesses in the Australian 2020 Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) Bill – a bill proposed to establish an Australian anti-corruption commission. Proposals for improving the application of the UNCAC and APUNCAC to Australia’s case are included.
Research collaborators:
Over the past decade, Australia’s score on the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International has fallen from 85 (2012) to 73 (2021), demonstrating that corruption in the country is rising.
In this paper, we are concerned that Australia is entering the early stages of what Rose-Ackerman described as “grand corruption” – a term used in her 1996 paper called “Democracy and ‘grand’ corruption”.
While Australian voters were promised a national anti-corruption commission during the 2019 elections, civil society reactions to the resulting 2020 CIC Bill were critical and the government bill was not introduced into Parliament for debate.
The forthcoming general election in 2022 has also raised this institutional deficit.
Two other existing bills to establish an anti-corruption commission have also failed to materialise.
While we deem it clear that there is a problem of corruption in Australia, we also argue that there is a fundamental failure to appreciate this problem by Australian publicly elected officials in government. With this backdrop, this research paper investigates how political corruption is addressed in Australia.
We include a section-by-section analysis of Australia’s proposed CIC bill, identifying the parts that are flawed in the pursuit of tackling political corruption.
Key findings
Sections 99, 10, 182, 184, 239 and 243 of the bill seek to protect the reputation of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Section 243 states that before the public release of reports, the Minister in charge must “remove information . . . that may unfairly prejudice a person’s reputation". This is problematic because this language favours the protection of private interests, serving to shield those interests from the reputational damage of a corruption investigation, over the protection of the public interest in knowing the identities of public officials who may be involved in corrupt acts.
Section 3.
2 distinguishes, on the one hand, the treatment accorded to politicians and other public sector bureaucrats, and, on the other, that accorded to law enforcement bureaucrats. Politicians are afforded preferential treatment. Section 3.2 permits investigations of law enforcement officers, but not public officials, for corrupt activities. This is problematic because it imposes a higher standard of accountability over the former, versus the latter group of public officials.
Section 99 of the bill contains a major structural weakness.
"[It fails] to require public hearings when receiving charges involving the public sector division, and to require integrity testing. This is problematic when key public appointments are increasingly politicised. It is also inconsistent with the operational success of the NSW ICAC. The NSW ICAC has used public hearings successfully to hold public officials to account.
While there will be continued challenges in addressing the adaptive nature of corruption, UNGASS 2021 and the UNCAC COSP9 demonstrate the commitment by UN Member States to address this challenge.
They highlight the progress and action being made at the international level to mitigate and address the destructive effects of corruption.
Helpful resources
Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) Website [Access resource]
UNODC Conference [Access resource]
General Assembly against corruption website [Access resource]
Morrison shows bad faith in his hit job against ICAC [Access resource]
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Kirsti Sletten for preparation assistance
We would like to extend a special thank you to Kirsti Sletten, for their invaluable contribution in assisting the preparation of this research summary.
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Sponsored links
The Challenges of Political Corruption in Australia, the Proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill (2020) and the Application of the APUNCAC
Cite this brief: dela Rama, Marie. 'The Challenges of Political Corruption in Australia, the Proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill (2020) and the Application of the APUNCAC'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/the-challenges-of-political-corruption-in-australia-the-proposed-commonwealth-integrity-commission-bill-2020-and-the-application-of-the-apuncac/
Brief created by: Dr Marie dela Rama | Year brief made: 2022
Original research:
- M. L., dela Rama, M., & W. S., ‘The Challenges of Political Corruption in Australia, the Proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill (2020) and the Application of the APUNCAC’ 11(7) (pp. 1–27) https://doi.org/10.3390/laws1101000. – https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/laws/laws-11-00007/article_deploy/laws-11-00007-v3.pdf
Research brief:
This paper interrogates the weaknesses in the Australian 2020 Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) Bill – a bill proposed to establish an Australian anti-corruption commission. Proposals for improving the application of the UNCAC and APUNCAC to Australia’s case are included.
Over the past decade, Australia’s score on the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International has fallen from 85 (2012) to 73 (2021), demonstrating that corruption in the country is rising.
In this paper, we are concerned that Australia is entering the early stages of what Rose-Ackerman described as “grand corruption” – a term used in her 1996 paper called “Democracy and ‘grand’ corruption”.
While Australian voters were promised a national anti-corruption commission during the 2019 elections, civil society reactions to the resulting 2020 CIC Bill were critical and the government bill was not introduced into Parliament for debate.
The forthcoming general election in 2022 has also raised this institutional deficit.
Two other existing bills to establish an anti-corruption commission have also failed to materialise.
While we deem it clear that there is a problem of corruption in Australia, we also argue that there is a fundamental failure to appreciate this problem by Australian publicly elected officials in government. With this backdrop, this research paper investigates how political corruption is addressed in Australia.
We include a section-by-section analysis of Australia’s proposed CIC bill, identifying the parts that are flawed in the pursuit of tackling political corruption.
Findings:
Sections 99, 10, 182, 184, 239 and 243 of the bill seek to protect the reputation of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Section 243 states that before the public release of reports, the Minister in charge must “remove information . . . that may unfairly prejudice a person’s reputation”. This is problematic because this language favours the protection of private interests, serving to shield those interests from the reputational damage of a corruption investigation, over the protection of the public interest in knowing the identities of public officials who may be involved in corrupt acts.
Section 3.
2 distinguishes, on the one hand, the treatment accorded to politicians and other public sector bureaucrats, and, on the other, that accorded to law enforcement bureaucrats. Politicians are afforded preferential treatment. Section 3.2 permits investigations of law enforcement officers, but not public officials, for corrupt activities. This is problematic because it imposes a higher standard of accountability over the former, versus the latter group of public officials.
Section 99 of the bill contains a major structural weakness.
“[It fails] to require public hearings when receiving charges involving the public sector division, and to require integrity testing. This is problematic when key public appointments are increasingly politicised. It is also inconsistent with the operational success of the NSW ICAC. The NSW ICAC has used public hearings successfully to hold public officials to account.
While there will be continued challenges in addressing the adaptive nature of corruption, UNGASS 2021 and the UNCAC COSP9 demonstrate the commitment by UN Member States to address this challenge.
They highlight the progress and action being made at the international level to mitigate and address the destructive effects of corruption.