Of the three institutions in Australian liberal democracy currently in disgrace for corruption allegations, the private sector is suddenly leading on accountability measures. From the AFR:
The latest developments in the Leighton bribery scandal send a clear message that other jurisdictions take the issue far more seriously than Australia.
The sudden resignations of former Leighton senior executives David Stewart and David Savage from two separate companies headquartered in the United Kingdom shows how seriously that country’s corporate sector approaches bribery allegations.
Well, OK, it’s not the Australian boy’s club doing anything about itself but it’s still getting done thanks to the Poms. Contrast this with the silence reverberating around the RBA, which is alleged to have done precisely the same thing as Leighton in its two firms. Yet its directors of the time are all galavanting around in plumb jobs elsewhere, reinforcing the norm that local plutocrats can do whatever the hell they like (so long as they don’t set foot outside the penal colony).
But the boys club is also fighting back. From the same article:
Leighton chief executive Hamish Tyrwhitt has moved to lift the ethical standards within the company since his appointment in August 2011. But there is only so much you can do with rule making. The company’s tardiness in relation to dealing with the corruption allegations exposed by Fairfax Media is in keeping with the attitude of Australian enforcement authorities.
The OECD Working Group on Bribery found last year that Australia’s enforcement of foreign bribery laws had been woeful. There has only been one prosecution from 28 referrals over 13 years.
The working group found that “miscommunication” between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission “may have left important aspects of foreign bribery cases uninvestigated”.
And from a separate comment Patrick Durkin:
The debate to toughen Australia’s bribery laws is a red herring.
The United States and British bribery laws are stronger but the differences are marginal.
…The better response is to clearly establish whether the Australian Federal Police or Australian Securities and Investments Commission have responsibility for policing the laws. Whistleblowing laws could be strengthened.
It’s not a red herring. It’s a chicken and egg scenario. Law determines culture determines law. The only way to break it is change the structure and that means law.
The same debate is playing out for the pollies junket scandal:
“It doesn’t matter what the rules are, there is always going to be an argument at the margins,” says [PM]Abbott.
“I don’t think that even passes the cold pie test,” [Tony] Windsor told The Australian Financial Review.
“I’m sure you could turn every politician upside down and you could find something that doesn’t meet the barbecue test. These latest revelations certainly don’t help the view of politicians.”
…Under the federal system, if there is a potential breach of parliamentary entitlements, MPs are given the option to pay back the money – a system known as the “Minchin Protocol” since it was reached under Finance Minister Nick Minchin.
…The evolution of ad hoc allowances for Federal MPs led to the 2010 review of parliamentary entitlements, known as the Belcher Review.
It found a mishmash of allowances – from electoral to travel – which had grown more complex and harder to police.
…The Greens have proposed an Integrity Commissioner to help tidy up the system.
But Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says this will just add another layer of bureaucracy.
He has proposed tightening guidelines for MPs which would help trim millions of dollars off the annual travel bill for federal politicians which he claims cost $34.5 million in taxpayer’s money in 2012…Xenophon believes MPs should be forced to face “double-demerit points” if they incorrectly claim travel entitlements or allowances.
Toughen the laws and prosecute. Then watch the culture change. Except the culture is preventing even that…
