Why do we need another layer in the form of ICAC when we, the people, have just passed judgement.
Because one of the deleterious effects of Laborial governments over decades is the politicisation of the ‘public service’. It’s now finely tuned to facilitate each side’s rorts and bastardry rather than provide frank and fearless advice in the public interest. A federal ICAC would help to expose these systemic problems in the ‘public service’.
Scotty from Marketing was keen to paint corruption as being only a criminal matter which, accordingly, is a matter for the Federal Police (at the Commonwealth level). But most of the rorts and bastardry done by governments these days is not criminal. Scotty knows that.
Many members of the public don’t know that the words “offence” and “penalty” appear nowhere in the Commonwealth Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. Go
here and do a search yourself. It’s not a crime for an government official to breach provisions of that Act. It’s not crime to breach the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are administered by Commonwealth government agencies, supposedly in accordance with this legislation. But it’s not a crime to fail to comply with it. Insistence on compliance in the face of political pressure may get you sacked. If the government wants to spend a lazy couple of hundred millions on sports grants, why lose your job by standing your ground on compliance? The taxpayers are going to be a couple of hundred million lighter in any event.
Allocating sports grants for partisan political advantage isn’t criminal. But it is unlawful.
Robodebt wasn’t criminal, but the law was not complied with in driving the powerless to despair and, in some cases, suicide. Bureaucrats with no shame or humanity sat in front of Parliamentary Committees and defended that system and pretended not to be aware of the level of stress and damage the system was causing. And of course the arseholes settled the Federal Court litigation so that they could claim that no finding of unlawfulness was ever made by a court. (This is CASA Avmed’s modus operandi: do whatever you like to individually powerless pilots, knowing that most cannot bear the cost or stress of taking Avmed on and, in the rare cases that are fought, only back down if there’s a risk of embarrassment in the AAT or court.)
Who will oversee the Federal ICAC??
Who ‘oversees’ the High Court? Who ‘oversees’ a Royal Commissioner?
The very point of these kinds of bodies is to give people with integrity and expertise the resources, powers and independence to find out facts, without fear or favour. Royal Commissions are generally ad hoc responses to specific issues. Courts don’t get involved of their ‘own motion’ - a dispute between parties has to exist. A properly-constituted corruption investigative body is there, all the time, watching and inquiring. At the Commonwealth level, the cost would repay itself many times over, very quickly.
As to the trashing of reputations, I’ve seen front page newspaper headlines with pictures of people with whom I’ve worked, identified as being under investigation by a State ICAC for misuse of travel and other public sector entitlements. The inquiry was conducted and they were exonerated. Remained employed throughout and are still employed. About the only people who remember the headlines are them. Shrug and move on.
A properly-constituted ICAC makes those who are paid out of public money and have access to public money think very, very carefully about their decision-making and behaviour. Their phones can be ‘bugged’. They can be compelled to give evidence. It’s a vastly different power balance compared with the ‘public service’ versus the individual citizen.