Does the resignation of NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian threaten to undermine the case for independent corruption watchdogs – or strengthen it?
Berejiklian’s resignation on Friday came as a shock to many admirers of her leadership, fuelled by her pointed claim that the Icac itself forced this decision by “choosing to take this action during the most challenging weeks of the most challenging times”, leaving her with “no option to resign”.
Just hours before the commission had released a statement confirming it was widening its investigation to include her.
However, neither confirmation of the inquiry nor the decision to resign were a shock to anyone following this saga unfold publicly over previous weeks, months and indeed years.
It is almost 12 months since it was revealed that former NSW member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire – who resigned in July 2018 after confirming improper business dealings to the Icac – had been in a secret relationship with Berejiklian for some years beforehand, when she was treasurer and then premier.
Despite the odour of impropriety surrounding his resignation – which Berejiklian announced – she maintained the secret relationship for another two years, only ending it after Maguire’s conduct became the subject of yet further Icac inquiries.
By December 2020, despite the premier’s insistence to have never been involved in any decisions involving Maguire’s activities, it emerged publicly that in fact her responsibilities included grants in his favour, from which associates said he planned to privately profit.
Any claim that the Icac “forced” this moment upon the premier misunderstands the role of an independent integrity agency. Indeed, the Icac seems to have taken quite a long time to confirm that its investigation must widen to include Berejiklian’s own role, knowing or unknowing, in the web of suspected corruption.
There can be no good time for any such decision. But once they formed the view that she was necessarily now part of the inquiry, commissioners Peter Hall, Patricia McDonald and Stephen Rushton – all distinguished lawyers, appointed by the government – could not just sit and wait for some arbitrary future moment to continue.
The alternative, of delaying the inquiry or announcement until some more suitable time, would only fuel accusations that the Icac was going out of its way to protect the premier, or letting political considerations or preferences get in the way of doings its job.
Anyway, when would be the “right time”? As Berejiklian herself said on 9 September, when explaining why she would not continue to hold daily media conferences at least until after the Delta outbreak peaked: “well, we will never know when that is.”
In fact, the middle of an extended crisis like the pandemic is a good time to be reassured that our fundamental integrity and accountability systems are continuing to work.
Icac’s Maguire inquiry, Operation Keppel, centres essentially on the ever-present risks of corruption that go with governments and local members dishing out a wide range of grants – whether to community groups or industry or both.
In this case, the grants were a few years ago. But in 2020 and 2021, the federal “sports rorts” and commuter carparks affairs, as well as other grants programs at state level from Queensland to Tasmania, remind us the risks of corruption don’t go away in a crisis.
In fact, as Transparency International’s monitoring shows, both in Australia and around the world, these corruption challenges are only likely to grow when governments are forced to expend a lot of money, fast, on rolling out crisis responses.
Dishing out stimulus to particular businesses and industries, and trying to save or kickstart economic activity by cutting regulatory corners, are also times when the risk of favouritism, bribery and self-interested treatment are heightened – often sold in the name of getting the job done, but in fact, if we’re not careful, taking the long-term integrity and quality of decision making backwards.
So, tragic as the outcome of the Maguire-Berejiklian relationship may be now that the premier has decided it best to resign, the fact the NSW Icac continues to do its job should stand out as another sign of the success of the state, and the nation, in enduring the pandemic with democracy and accountability still functioning.
Personal respect for Berejiklian may lead some to react – as with other parliamentarians who have fallen under the scrutiny of integrity agencies – that by definition, the anti-corruption body must have overstepped the mark.
But while reputational safeguards and due process are important, neither of these things are an issue in what’s happened in NSW.
The problem is not the Icac but the dubious standards of political life – especially in NSW – that let so many parliamentarians on both sides of politics believe it’s OK to use elected office for a bit of personal gain on the side, or for giving favours to business associates, family or friends.
This is the mire into which Berejiklian allowed herself to be dragged by Maguire. And the problem remains; as history shows, he is not alone. The risks go with the political territory, and without strong, independent integrity agencies we cannot expect to keep them in check – or, in NSW’s case, beat them back to some acceptable level.
Clipping the wings of integrity bodies because we’re embarrassed by what they find, or because they disrupt the already challenging business of electoral survival in the political world, is hardly the solution. In fact, it is simply shooting, or at least nobbling, the messenger, as the South Australian parliament’s gutting of its own Icac has just done.
The case for a strong, independent federal integrity commission, that if necessary can do the same job, is strengthened, not reduced by the unfortunate outcome in NSW.
Read More:If Icac delayed its Berejiklian inquiry it wouldn’t be doing its job | A J Brown
2021-10-02 00:39:00
