Pork-barrelling ‘a hair’s breadth’ from bribery, ICAC to be told
NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption pork-barrelling has become so blatant it is now ‘‘a hair’s breadth away from the type of electoral corruption and votebuying we traditionally assumed you could never see in Australia’’.
Grants scheme was ‘industrial’ pork-barrelling
An infamous Berejiklian government grants scheme that resulted in millions of dollars flowing mostly to Coalition electorates has been described by the head of the NSW corruption watchdog as blatant, politically motivated porkbarrelling.
Federal government rules against pork-barrelling are significantly more robust than those in NSW, where expenditure of public funds is governed by vague principles instead of clear laws, the state’s corruption watchdog will be told.
An expert will also tell the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption pork-barrelling has become so blatant it is now ‘‘a hair’s breadth away from the type of electoral corruption and votebuying we traditionally assumed you could never see in Australia’’.
The ICAC will tomorrow hold a special public forum examining whether pork-barrelling is unlawful or unethical, whether it could be considered corrupt conduct under the ICAC Act and whether the rule of law applies to ministerial discretion over grant funding.
The distribution of taxpayerfunded grants to marginal seats has been under the spotlight at state and federal level following a string of scandals involving the $250 million Stronger Communities Fund in NSW, so-called ‘‘sports rorts’’ and commuter car parks.
Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey, who has written a paper at the ICAC’s request, said the Commonwealth had ‘‘much better laws and rules to prevent abuse of power through pork-barrelling [than NSW], although they’re not successful because there are ways of avoiding them’’.
One of those laws was a section of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act compelling ministers to ensure all expenditure was a proper use of the relevant money, she said. But the lack of scrutiny meant pork-barrelling still occurred. Any NSW reforms should add ‘‘impartiality and the public interest’’ to the ministerial obligations and include a mechanism for enforcement, Twomey said.
She said in some circumstances, pork-barrelling could already be considered corruption or even criminal corruption, and would fall within the ICAC’s purview. But the rules and laws were ‘‘extremely complicated’’, leading to confusion.
‘‘The problem in NSW is most of this stuff is not dealt with by law, it’s dealt with by principles,’’ Twomey said. ‘‘That’s all very well, but it doesn’t … give you an answer, in most cases, about what you actually have to do or what you can’t do.’’
A. J. Brown, a professor of public policy and law at Griffith University who will also present to the ICAC, said some pork-barrelling was legitimate. But there appeared to be a growing assumption by MPs and ministers that they had no obligations to public trust when spending taxpayer money, he said.
‘‘The type of pork-barrelling that we’ve increasingly seen [is] a hair’s breadth away from direct electoral bribery – literally vote-buying – of the kind that we know other countries are deeply afflicted by,’’ Brown will tell the ICAC forum.
Michael Koziol writes in The Sydney Morning Herald
This article was first published in the SMH
How to throw pork-barrelling on the scrap heap
Pork-barrelling has been around since bread and circuses in ancient Rome but over the last couple of years the practice has come under unusual scrutiny both at a federal and state level.
The practice of doling out small local grants at the prerogative of the minister with little logic other than winning votes has been the subject of inquiries at both state and federal level.
The Australian National Auditor’s Office criticised the politicised and shambolic administration by the Morrison government of $100 million in sports grants and $121 million in grants for car parks.
In NSW, which hands out more than $4 billion in grants a year, the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated whether Gladys Berejiklian breached the public trust or encouraged the occurrence of corrupt conduct during her secret relationship with disgraced former MP Daryl Maguire.
Yet while the issue has attracted a lot of comment, there is a fundamental disagreement about whether pork-barrelling is really such a problem.
Critics say that politicians who use taxpayer funds to win re-election are acting corruptly. Yet some politicians have said that, while these small grants are not always the best use of public money, it is a normal part of democracy to help and reward constituents and supporters.
The ICAC is sufficiently confused that tomorrow it will hold a seminar on when pork-barrelling is illegal, corrupt or unethical and whether there should be more limits on ministers’ ability to ignore the advice of public servants in allocating pork.
It will look at whether legislation is needed to ‘‘ensure public monies are only expended for public purposes’’ and what safeguards are needed to prevent breaches of public trust.
The Herald argues that more rules are needed and calls for reform to implement all the recommendations of a report last month on the issue by NSW Productivity Commissioner Peter Achterstraat and the head of Department of Premier and Cabinet Michael Coutts-Trotter.
The report said no new criminal offences are needed to fight pork-barrelling but issued 19 recommendations to make sure that all grant applicants have a ‘‘fair go’’.
Departments that administer grant programs will have to issue clear, detailed guidelines and stick to them when making decisions. Ministers will have to disclose and explain any occasions when they hand out money against the advice of the public servants administering the programs. Officials would also have to document clearly input from ministers and MPs.
Crucially, the report says ‘‘a significant breach’’ of the requirements might amount to corrupt conduct under the ICAC Act or maladministration under the Ombudsman Act.
Independent Commission Against Corruption chief commissioner Peter Hall said the $250 million Stronger Communities fund had clearly crossed “the line”, while another legal expert said the process was an “appalling” indictment on the integrity of the NSW government.
Hall said he believed there needed to be a tightening of pork-barrelling laws.
Independent Commission Against Corruption chief commissioner Peter Hall said the $250 million Stronger Communities fund had clearly crossed “the line”, while another legal expert said the process was an “appalling” indictment on the integrity of the NSW government.
Hall referenced the findings of an NSW auditor-general’s report into the Stronger Communities grants when suggesting its sole motive was political, rather than for the benefit of the community.
“The auditor-general’s report discovered, in that case, a document which is a briefing note in the premier’s office, and that briefing note was to the effect ‘we’ve got the money out the door, and it’s hitting the political target’. You couldn’t have been clearer than that,” he said.
“So that was, you’d almost say, the sole motive, sole purpose of that exercise was political or electoral and that’s clearly on the other side of the line.”
