‘Grey corruption’, ministerial staff conduct unpunished
According to a former observer, the high penalty threshold for corruption hinders accountability due to “gray or soft corruption” and improper behavior by ministerial advisors often goes unpunished.
Former Victorian ombudsman Deborah Glass said department staff could not be held accountable as she highlighted numerous examples of abuse that failed to meet the high legislative threshold for criminal corruption.
An investigation into state Labor found the party misused $400,000 in taxpayer funds for political campaigns in the 2014 election, including the signatures of more than 20 Labor MPs.
“This plan was a ruse and it was wrong… but I did not conclude that it was criminal,” he told an anti-corruption commission conference in Melbourne on Tuesday. he said.
“In short, nothing happened to anyone.”
Ms Glass said a second scandal in 2020 “involving alleged branch hoarding by staff engaged in factional work on the public coffers” had spurred some reforms.
“The investigation found evidence of widespread misconduct, including the misuse of public funds for political purposes and what we describe as a catalog of unethical behavior,” he said.
“But once again it has failed to reach the criminal threshold that defines corruption in Victoria.”
But he said reform arising from the 2020 scandal, the creation of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Committee, still did not adequately address oversight of ministerial staff.
“In my view, we should accept that the ministerial responsibility charter is unenforceable and too often ignored … it is far better to ensure that staff are accountable for their actions and are subject to some form of independent oversight,” he said.
“It seems that often there are no consequences when bad behavior is exposed, whether by politicians or their advisors.
“But those who ignore them at their own peril always have consequences for public trust, public purse and trust in government.”
Operation Daintree, which found ministerial advisers improperly influenced the awarding of a $1.2 million contract, also made no findings of corruption, “again given the high threshold required to do so”.
“We found questionable evidence of corruption by the then prime minister and two successive health ministers,” Ms Glass said.
It added that it had identified a range of worrying behavior by ministers and their advisers, including breaches of their public duties and ethical obligations.
This is what is known as gray or soft corruption, where “decisions are made and rules are bent or broken to benefit decision-makers’ friends, political organizations or networks.”
“While gray corruption does not necessarily amount to criminal activity, its impact on public confidence in democracy and its institutions is deeply damaging,” Ms Glass concluded.
