Integrity in government was a big issue during the election campaign, with the Labor Party, Greens, teal and other Independents all highlighting the need for an anti-corruption commission. Indeed, the Labor Party has promised an anti-corruption commission by the end of this year and even new Opposition leader Peter Dutton now seems to be on board. Eric Ghosh, a constitutional theorist and senior lecturer in UNE’s Law School, shares his thoughts on integrity and how it can be preserved.
What is integrity?
Integrity is often understood to require adherence to morally defensible principles, including behaving with honesty. Integrity in government is associated with politicians and public servants making decisions that are lawful and in the public interest, rather than favouring private interests.
What would a federal integrity commission involve?
Integrity and anti-corruption commissions are synonymous. They are independent bodies with the power to investigate corrupt conduct. In the election campaign, different views were expressed on the powers that a national body should have. This will partly depend on:
- How corrupt conduct is defined. Does it only cover criminal conduct or does it extend, for instance, to ‘grey corruption’ (including favourable treatment for friends and even pork-barrelling) that is often viewed as unethical but not criminal?
- Whether the commission has the power to investigate public servants and politicians.
- Whether ordinary members of the public can refer matters to the body.
- Whether public hearings are permitted.
The answers to these types of questions will influence the shape that any Australian integrity commission takes.
Where would an integrity commission fit in government?
It would be one institution within the integrity branch of government. Typically, we think of three branches of government: the legislature, executive and judiciary. Within that structure, integrity institutions form part of the executive. This is not to deny the role of parliaments and the judiciary in promoting integrity, nor a free and vigorous press.
However, integrity institutions can also be understood as a fourth branch of government, which elevates their importance and highlights their need for independence from the executive. Such independence helps to ensure that they can properly scrutinise executive decision-making.
Integrity institutions can also be understood as a fourth branch of government.
We already have some federal integrity institutions, including the Crime Commission, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Anti-corruption commissions, however, have broad coverage, rather than focusing on particular agencies, and should have significant resources to focus on and investigate corruption.
What assurances of sound governance and decision-making could an integrity commission give the Australian people?
A 2020 survey suggested that two-thirds of Australians think corruption in government is quite a big problem. We already have anti-corruption commissions in all jurisdictions except the Commonwealth. The first one was introduced by the NSW Greiner government in the late 1980s, and one of its celebrated achievements was investigating former Minister Eddie Obeid, who was eventually sentenced to five years’ jail for corrupt conduct. The power and resources of a national body will determine what assurances it can give the Australian people.