Ausbuy

Corruption In Government

March 10th, 2008

As we have said before, democracies are run by an elected government with the permission of the people. They do not agree with all the policies put forward by their elected officials, but are normally prepared to accept what they believe to be the good with the bad. These elected officials, in their turn, delegate some of their authority, but not their responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats. The entire system runs on trust, and when systemic corruption is discovered it undermines the partnership between elected officials and the electorate which underpins democracy.In Australia there are three tiers of government. At the federal level there are few opportunities for an MP to personally benefit from his or her actions, and intense scrutiny is exercised by both the media and the opposing parties. There is also a ministerial code of conduct. The second tier is the state government, and there is less scrutiny and more opportunities than there are in the federal level - particularly when state politicians act in conjunction with bureaucrats and local government politicians. In an effort to combat this, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was formed, with the power to gather information, hold public enquiries and make findings. However, their activities depend on the resources given to them by the State Government.

Undoubtedly, the most corrupt tier of government is at the local level, yet this is the one that is held out to be closest to the ideals of democracy. Planning decisions can directly profit developers and many of them are prepared to pass on a share of their profits to get the decision they want. The situation is not helped by the lack of competence of many of the local councillors. The honest ones are hamstrung by not knowing what should be done. There is almost no scrutiny of local government, and most people don’t know anything about the people who are asking for their votes. Yet can we blame them? They give up a lot of their time without adequate reward and do not have the time, or expertise, to control the staff to whom they delegate authority.

The vote of local communities is important, and there is no real way of it being heard, other than through their elected representatives. However, the recent fiasco at Wollongong, with close connections between some staff, councillors and state politicians, show the danger of systemic corruption entering the scene. We can console ourselves that this is now being exposed by the ICAC enquiry; but even that has its problems. The Commission can only make recommendations, and the enquiries are very expensive. The State Government has not, at this stage, taken any action against ministers with connections to the Wollongong affair.

It is important that the commission be adequately resourced, and when they receive credible information regarding corruption, they be compelled to investigate the matter. This, however, should not be extended to cover politically inspired point scoring, stupidity or incompetence. When the investigation is completed, action must be taken to preserve the integrity of the system if one is to preserve the integrity of the system and confidence in democracy. It is a cumbersome and expensive process, but we have no real alternative. While the overall needs of the state take precedence we must also bear in mind the wishes of local communities. We must also realise that our elected officials at all levels should be subject to ongoing scrutiny, even though that scrutiny is expensive. Failure to organise that scrutiny means that our government bears some responsibility for any corruption.

These are Ausbuy Press! 1 comment.(View comments) Tell a friend

1 Comment »

1. When a big developer gives donations to a political party they are trying to buy favourable treatment. When the ACTU makes donations to the ALP they are also buying favours. when a wealthy individual makes donations to the coalition he wants favours. These practices are legalised corruption. We should make them illegal and give the political parties public funding - less than they now spend. This would lessen corruption and having to listen to all those stupid ads.

   Comment by sceptic — April 15, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL