The Australian Collaboration is a collaboration of peak national community
organisations representing social, cultural and environmental constituencies
and interests.
Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of The Australian Collaboration website. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled.
Corruption can take many forms; it is not confined to the giving and receipt of direct monetary payment. Australia is a signatory to two important international conventions: the United Nations Convention against Corruption (entered into force 14 December 2005) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (entered into force 15 February 1999). In 1999, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Act to implement Australia’s obligation under the OECD Convention.
New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia are the only states to have specialised bodies to deal with corruption. Public regulatory bodies are notably absent in other Australian states and territories. There is also no statutory Commonwealth anti-corruption body. The Ombudsman has expressed concern that his Office has the sole responsibility for investigations into corruption allegations (Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2003-04). In the absence of anti-corruption commissions, the nature of Australian defamation laws makes it difficult for journalists to expose corruption (Hindess, 2004).
In June 2004, the Howard Government announced that it would establish an independent anti-corruption body to investigate corruption in Commonwealth law enforcement bodies, such as the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The proposed jurisdiction is limited and does not cover other Commonwealth bodies or companies and corporations. Recommendations have also been made for the establishment of anti-corruption commissions in other Australian states, for example in Victoria, to deal with the inadequacies of the ethical standards unit of the Victoria Police (see Hindess, 2004).
The allegations that the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) brokered business deals with Iraq under the United Nations oil-for-food program and knowingly made illicit payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime were subject to investigation by the Cole Commission (headed by Judge Terrence Cole). The Cole Inquiry reported on 24 November 2006, finding that responsibility lay with the AWB for the scandal and not with governmental officials. If criminal corporate prosecutions are eventually launched, existing anti-corruption provisions in criminal law (e.g. the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995) will need to be relied upon (Maiden, The Age, 6 February 2006). The Cole report was critical of the lack of Commonwealth powers to respond to suspicious or corrupt practices. The report recommended that “there be conferred on an appropriate body a power to obtain evidence and information of any suspected breaches or evasion of sanctions that might constitute the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth”.
Australia has a good record of anti-corruption performance on the international scales designed by Transparency International (TI). TI does not, however, take into account political corruption. This indicates the need for the establishment of an anti-corruption body in Australia with powers extending beyond the monitoring of corruption and bribery within law enforcement bodies. Uniform anti-defamation legislation which provides more protection for whistleblowers, as well as Commonwealth whistleblower legislation, would also provide greater accountability and transparency to combat institutional or political corruption (Hindess, 2004).
The Rudd Government has made no commitment to the creation of a new Commissioner with comprehensive powers. Further, as a result of the token increases in funding received in the 2008 budget, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) will remain unable to act upon the powers it has to investigate corruption in the Australian Federal Policy (AFP) and Australian Crime Commission. This has occurred despite the continued growth of the bodies it has been set up to investigate – the Government raised funding for the AFP by about $400 million to a total of around $1billion in this year’s budget. The ACLEI 2008 budget delivered less than 10 per cent of the amount John McMillan, former acting head of the ACLEI, said was necessary to make the new body effective by being able to conduct telephone taps or set up its own covert investigations unit.
Source: “National anti-graft body left toothless”, The Australian, Cameron Stewart, May 19, 2008: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23720117-5001561,00.html
Hindess, B. (2004). “Corruption and democracy within Australia”, http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/focussed_audits/200408_hindess_corruption.pdf
Kurtz, J. (2006). “The failure of Australian anti-corruption measures”, http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20060526_kurtz_corrup.pdf
