The Rot Within: Corruption in the Australian Parliament and Bureaucracy
Introduction: The Erosion of Trust
Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, a term that reverberates with ominous implications for any democracy. In Australia, a nation often lauded for its strong democratic institutions and relatively clean government, corruption has seeped into the fabric of public life, undermining trust and eroding the very standards that uphold the integrity of governance. The layers of corruption within the Australian Parliament and bureaucracy illustrate how this behaviour, particularly at the highest levels, has become a persistent threat to the nation’s democratic values, especially since Covid and the management of the pandemic.
In an historical context, a legacy of corruption was born and thrives. In Australia corruption is not a new phenomenon. It traces back to the early days of European settlement in the late 18th century. Over the decades, numerous high-profile politicians, at both state and federal levels, have been imprisoned for corruption-related offenses, highlighting the pervasiveness of this issue. Even the police services, institutions meant to uphold the law, have been particularly vulnerable due to the significant powers they possess and the wide discretion they exercise. These instances are not mere historical footnotes; they are part of a continuing legacy that has infiltrated various sectors of Australian governance.
Unlike the Australian states, which have established dedicated anti-corruption commissions, the Commonwealth has adopted a multi-agency approach to combating public sector corruption. This fragmented framework has been widely criticized as inadequate for detecting and investigating serious or systemic corruption at the national level. The absence of an effective federal anti-corruption watchdog is a glaring gap in Australia’s integrity system, leaving the federal level vulnerable to unchecked misconduct.
Political corruption risks, particularly at the federal level, have been documented extensively. Areas of concern include the changing profile of misconduct classified by the public as "corruption," with increasing anxiety about "grey corruption" and undue influence. The inconsistent and confusing legal definitions of corruption across jurisdictions further exacerbate the problem, allowing misconduct to flourish in the gaps between perception and official action.
Corruption exists on a spectrum, ranging from clear criminal offenses like bribery and embezzlement to more nebulous forms such as conflicts of interest and the misuse of information. The danger lies in setting high thresholds for what is officially considered "corrupt conduct," as this allows less obvious, yet equally damaging, forms of misconduct to go unchecked. The insidious nature of grey corruption is particularly concerning, as it can undermine public trust and distort decision-making processes without necessarily crossing the line into overt illegality.
The health sector, with its vast budget and critical role in public welfare, is particularly susceptible to corruption. The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) has been at the center of several corruption scandals, illustrating the vulnerabilities in this high-stakes area. In 2011, a former DoHA manager was found guilty of misusing his position to improperly award over $500,000 in contracts to a company owned by a close friend. These contracts, ostensibly for IT services, were never delivered, highlighting a blatant abuse of public office for personal gain.
More recently, concerns have emerged about conflicts of interest and undue industry influence in critical areas such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and aged care regulation and funding. A 2015 review revealed that one in five experts on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which recommends medicines for PBS subsidies, had financial ties to drug companies. This presents a significant ‘criminal’ risk of biased decision-making, compromising the integrity of public health decisions.
The aged care royal commission further exposed insufficient regulation and oversight of government-funded providers, with some entities found to have exploited public funds while delivering substandard care. These cases underscore the urgent need for stronger integrity measures to protect vulnerable sectors from the corrosive effects of corruption.
The pharmaceutical industry’s influence over government decisions is a particularly alarming aspect of corruption in Australia. Pharmaceutical companies have donated millions of dollars to both major political parties, raising concerns about the potential for undue influence. Between 1998-99 and 2016-17, drug companies donated $4.7 million to the Liberal, National, and Labor parties, with donations peaking around federal elections. This financial influence is compounded by the hiring of large numbers of lobbyists, often former government officials, to sway policy decisions in favor of the industry.
The revolving door between government and the pharmaceutical industry exacerbates these concerns. Numerous former political staffers and politicians have moved into lucrative roles within the pharmaceutical sector, leveraging their inside knowledge and connections to influence policy. This relationship is not just concerning; it is detrimental to the democratic process, fostering an environment ripe for corruption.
The revolving door phenomenon, where politicians and bureaucrats transition into industry roles that capitalise on their government experience, is a significant threat to public integrity. The pharmaceutical industry, among others, has been particularly adept at exploiting this dynamic. Former government officials, now employed by pharmaceutical companies, wield their insider knowledge and networks to push industry agendas, often at the expense of public interest.
This close relationship between industry and government undermines trust and skews decision-making processes. The influence of pharmaceutical companies, for example, has led to decisions that favor industry profits over public health. The temporary shutdown of the health star rating system for food in 2014, due to the involvement of a minister’s chief of staff who co-owned a lobbying firm representing major food companies, is a stark example of how the revolving door can compromise public policy.
To combat the pervasive influence of corruption, Australia must undertake significant reforms. Key measures include:
1. Harmonising Legal Definitions: Addressing the inconsistent corruption offences and definitions across jurisdictions is essential. Clear, consistent legal standards are necessary to effectively combat corruption at all levels of government.
2. Establishing a more effective Federal Anti-Corruption Watchdog: The creation of a truly independent federal anti-corruption body is crucial for providing oversight, ensuring transparency, and enforcing meaningful penalties for breaches of integrity.
3. Regulating Political Donations and Lobbying: Enhancing regulations around political donations and lobbying activities is necessary to curb undue industry influence. Greater transparency in these areas will help restore public trust.
4. Reintroducing Politician Pensions: Revisiting the issue of ‘politician pensions’ could help reduce the incentive for former politicians to exploit their government connections for private gain. A well-structured pension system could encourage continued public service rather than private sector roles driven by profit motives.
5. Enforcing Cooling-Off Periods: Stronger, enforceable cooling-off periods before former government officials can transition into industry roles are essential. This would help prevent the immediate monetisation of political experience and connections, reducing the risks associated with the revolving door.
Corruption undermines public trust, distorts decision-making processes, and destroys the standards that ensure fair and just governance. In Australia, the presence of corruption within the Parliament and bureaucracy is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and reform. By strengthening integrity systems, enforcing robust anti-corruption measures, and addressing the undue influence of industries like pharmaceuticals, Australia can begin to restore the trust and confidence that are essential for a healthy democracy.
The fight against corruption is ongoing, and only through sustained effort can the integrity of Australian governance be preserved. Corruption at the highest levels of government erodes the very foundations of democracy. The majority of the Federal Politicians and a significant number of bureaucrats have placed the Australian population in danger of the greatest toxic health crisis facing humanity, the injection of the pseudo-viral genes of the covid vaccine. They will all have to answer for the damage they have done, one day. This is not just a test of our democracy, it’s a challenge to our civilisation.
Ian Brighthope
I understand. They would be required to work for it for the period as a service to the community. And at arms length from any commercial enterprise. It’s possible. A well-structured pension system could encourage/force continued public service and not private sector roles driven by profit motives.
Re corruption in the judiciary/police (whilst these examples aren't exactly inside the definition you've provided above) - the coercive mandating of toxic injections saga was transparently false before it began, yet judges required legal persons to show proof of vax status to enter their courts, and I almost lost my son-in-law (solicitor) to a blood clot in a major abdominal artery a few weeks post AZ shot which he had to get to keep his law firm operating.
And police enthusiastically and brutally attacked citizens, up to and including the use of radiation weapons at the Canberra rally. We used to say that 1 cop in 10 was rotten, now we suspect every single one of them and hope that a few will call the illegality of their orders for what they are.
Corruption in ethics and morality pervade most institutions.