STRENGTHENING THE NACC AND FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN GOVERNMENT

And in more detail...

While the Labor Government's National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) appears to have "the bite" so many commentators and crossbench politicians demanded, some observers believe the NACC's threshold to hold a public hearing is ill-defined. The Good Party believes it should be simplified so that if unequivocal evidence of criminal, corrupt or unethical behaviour is presented to the NACC, a public hearing can and should proceed. However, reporting on the hearing should exclude the broadcast media to limit sensationalising the matter. And there is another aspect of the NACC that needs addressing.

We've all seen whistleblowers whose careers and lives have been destroyed by the very organisations they've accused —with proof — of criminal, unjust and/or corrupt practices. The reality is that NACC will only be effective in stamping out corruption at the federal level of government if it receives well-placed tip-offs. Individuals brave enough to come forward with this vital information need solid legal protection

Protecting whistleblowers

We've all seen whistleblowers whose careers and lives have been destroyed by the very organisations they've accused —with proof — of criminal, unjust and/or corrupt practices. The reality is that the NACC will only be effective in stamping out corruption at the federal level of government if it receives well-placed tip-offs. Individuals brave enough to come forward with this vital information need solid legal protection.

The Inadequate Public Disclosure Act - 1994

The Public Interest Disclosure Act was originally crafted to protect whistleblowers from retribution, but it has long since proved to be an inadequate legal instrument. The NACC could itself provide additional levels of legal protection to individuals and organisations that come forward with information.

A Whistleblowers' Protection Agency

The Human Rights Law Society, Griffith University, and Transparency International Australia have produced a joint report that outlines a comprehensive 12-step roadmap for the better protection and empowerment of whistleblowers. A key recommendation of the report is the establishment of a Federal Whistleblower Protection Agency to enforce and oversee whistleblower protections. The Good Party wholeheartedly supports forming such a body as outlined by the report.

To quote the report's other recommendations, which the Good Party supports:

• Upgraded whistleblower protections for Australian public servants in line with domestic and international best practice including a positive duty to protect whistleblowers and steps to make it easier for whistleblowers to enforce their rights
• Consolidation and harmonisation of whistleblowing laws across the private sector in one new single law covering all non-public sector whistleblowers
• Stronger, simpler protections for whistleblowers who make disclosures to the media and members of parliament.

Instilling Integrity in Government

A 1983 Ipsos Poll conducted in Britain found that politicians come last on the list of professionals likely to tell you the truth. Even advertising executives were held in higher regard. We believe that such a poll conducted in Australia would likely provide similar findings. Why is it that politicians are held in such low esteem? Perhaps because the public is regularly treated to examples of politicians who have put their own personal financial gain, sometimes illegally but often unethically, ahead of their commitments to voters despite having reassured us hand on heart that service to the community has always been their prime motivation for the seeking of public office.

Today, it's hard to believe that going into politics was once considered a higher calling.

At the Good Party, we’d like to attempt to put some trust back into politics by having all federal ministers, backbenchers, and opposition MPs swear to uphold a formal Code of Ethics

At the Good Party, we’d like to attempt to put some trust back into politics by having all federal ministers, backbenchers, and opposition MPs swear to uphold a formal Code of Ethics, something, surprisingly (or perhaps not surprisingly), we don’t currently have in Australia. The actual Code of Ethics we would throw open to the public, but the draft code below might be a good place to start.

A Potential Code of Ethics for Politicians:

1. Revolving Door Policy: Former politicians should be subject to restrictions on their activities after leaving office, such as limits on lobbying or working for organizations with which they had significant interactions while in office.
2. Integrity: Elected officials must act honestly and ethically and avoid conflicts of interest.
3. Transparency: Officials should be open and transparent in their decision-making processes and include the disclosure at the time of relevant information.
4. Accountability: Elected politicians are accountable to the public they serve and should accept responsibility for their actions.
5. Respect: Respect for the rule of law, the rights of others, and the diversity of opinions.
6. Fairness: Decisions should be made impartially, without bias or favoritism, and with consideration for the greater good.
7. Confidentiality: Information obtained in the course of duty should be treated with confidentiality and not abused for personal gain.
8. Professionalism: Elected politicians should conduct themselves professionally and with dignity.

Enforcing such a Code wouldn’t be easy because the individual codas don’t break criminal laws. However, there should be consequences designed to discourage unethical—bad—behavior. To begin with, we believe the Code and its enforcement should be overseen by an independent body such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). As with the Code, enforcement should be a matter of public discussion. The table below is offered as a potential place to start.

Ethics Enforcement:

1. Ethics Committees: Establishing an ethics or oversight body within the NACC responsible for reviewing and investigating potential violations of the code. This body should have the authority to conduct inquiries, impose sanctions, and make recommendations for corrective actions.
2. Reporting Mechanisms: the implementation of confidential reporting mechanisms that allow whistleblowers to report unethical behavior without fear of reprisal.
3. Penalties and Sanctions: Clearly defining penalties and sanctions for violations of the code, which may include fines, a censure motion in parliament, removal from office, or bans on future political activities and public office.
4. Transparency Requirements: A public register disclosing financial interests, outside activities, and potential conflicts of interest.
5. Post-Termination Restrictions: Enforcing post-termination restrictions through legislation or regulations that limit the activities of former politicians, such as lobbying bans or cooling-off periods before taking up certain positions.
6. Regular Ethics Training: Providing ongoing ethics training for elected officials to ensure awareness of ethical standards, conflict of interest rules, and the implications of unethical behavior.