The 2017 “Watergate” scandal, where $80 million of taxpayer money bought questionable water rights from a Cayman Islands-linked company, seemed like a breaking point. It wasn’t. Instead, it was a high-definition symptom of a deeper, more disturbing truth: Australia’s entire system of public integrity is not failing by accident, but by design. From flawed laws and timid watchdogs to a political culture that rewards secrecy and punishes transparency, a complex ecosystem enables the powerful to act with impunity, leaving the public to bear the cost.
The Legal Architecture of Impunity: Flaws in Design and Application
The journey towards scandal is often paved with good legal intentions that are systematically undermined.
Grey Areas and Legal Ambiguity
The law itself is riddled with permissible “grey areas” that are routinely exploited. A clear example is the “facilitation payment” defense in Australia’s Criminal Code, which allows payments to foreign officials for “routine government action” despite international criticism. Domestically, the broad definition of what constitutes an influential “benefit” – such as gifts, travel, or hospitality – creates a major loophole. Whether such a benefit is a bribe depends on whether it might “tend to influence” an official, a subjective standard open to interpretation and abuse.
These weaknesses are systematically targeted. In the resource sector, for instance, there is a known high risk of corruption in licensing processes, exacerbated by the “revolving door” of personnel between government and industry and opaque political contributions.
The Routinisation of “Legal” Corruption
Even when actions contravene the clear spirit of public trust, they are often deemed legal. Politicians on both sides have normalised “pork-barrelling” – directing public grants to marginal electorates for political gain – as an acceptable cost of politics. As former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian famously stated, “It’s not an illegal practice. Unfortunately, it does happen from time to time by every government.”
Gladys Berejiklian is hardly a trustworthy source for the interpretation of morale standards.
This normalisation has real-world consequences, from the $389 million “car park rorts” to the sports grants scandal. In the case of the $80 million water buyback, an independent valuation was ignored, and the government paid nearly double the recommended price. The core principle of “value for taxpayer money” was sacrificed, yet the process was deemed to have followed the flawed rules.
The Culture of Secrecy
Finally, the entire system operates under a culture of resistance to transparency. Governments increasingly hide behind “commercial-in-confidence” claims to avoid disclosing contract details. A profound lack of political will has left glaring gaps in laws, such as the failure for over a decade to bring real estate agents, lawyers, and accountants under anti-money laundering laws, allowing billions in suspicious funds to flow into Australian property. This secrecy is the ultimate shield, ensuring the public never has the full picture.
$Billions of dollars of Taxpayer funds are being invested into projects the taxpayer has no say in. The North West Link in Melbourne is one such project, another is the $380B AUKUS Deal. No Government should be permitted to enter into agreements such as AUKUS without the Australia Voting public being able to approve such a deal. It is not clear at all Australia will receive any submarines and those working on the project include former politicians such as Scott Morrison. This project is just one huge gravy train for those who have created it.
The Hollow Core: The Catastrophic Failure of the NACC
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was promised as the solution, the fearless body that would restore faith. Its reality is one of the system’s most profound betrayals.
Operational Timidity and a Protection Racket Culture
The NACC’s leadership has been defined by caution and an aversion to risk. Experts like Geoffrey Watson SC have criticised its “timid and negative” leadership, which expresses reticence to pursue cases for fear of being challenged in court. This timidity manifests in a flawed investigative methodology. Evidence shows the NACC, in certain high-profile cases, has:
- Refused to speak to complainants to understand allegations.
- Actively discouraged the submission of additional evidence.
- Accepted assurances from senior officials without critical scrutiny.
- Purposely avoided collecting material evidence.
A System in Chaos
The NACC Inspector, Gail Furness SC, has identified “systemic issues” within the agency. These are not minor teething problems but fundamental failures:
- The agency has no appropriate electronic case management system.
- It lacks a clear pathway for handling complex cases.
- Its intake and triage officers lack the necessary skills and training, leading to basic jurisdictional errors.
In one damning instance, the NACC told a complainant their matter contained “no corruption issues” – a decision upheld on internal review – only for the Inspector to find it contained two separate, identifiable corruption matters.
Why have we not seen any real fallout from the PWC Tax fiasco?
A Litmus Test of Failure: The Robodebt Scandal
The NACC’s most public disgrace was its handling of the Robodebt scandal. Despite a Royal Commission referring six public officials for civil and criminal prosecution, the NACC announced it would not investigate a single one. The Inspector later foundCommissioner Paul Brereton guilty of “officer misconduct” for not fully recusing himself from the decision, given his prior involvement in related matters.
This failure was so stark it prompted over 1,160 complaints to the Inspector, constituting 96% of all complaints received about the NACC in its first year. The message was clear: even in the face of a nationally recognised “cruel and illegal” scheme, the NACC was unwilling to act against senior officials.
This should have been enough to have the entire management team at the NACC removed from office. It is my view this was not done and action was not taken by the NACC due to political interference.
A Government that Promised Integrity, Then Defaulted to Secrecy
The Albanese government was elected on a promise to clean up politics and restore trust. Its record reveals a stark abandonment of that commitment.
A Retreat into Secrecy and Unfulfilled Promises
Independent ACT Senator David Pocock has noted that, after promising transparency, this government has become “one of the most secretive governments in the last 30 years,” surpassing even the Morrison government in its opacity. The most glaring symbol of this is its refusal for over two years to release the “Jobs for Mates” report by Lynelle Briggs.
When finally released, the report was damning, stating that patronage appointments had “reduced confidence in government and fed into a climate of public disquiet”. Its key recommendation was to legislate transparent, merit-based appointment processes. The government ignored it, offering instead a weak, non-legislative “framework” that preserves ministerial discretion. The government’s own integrity report card from the Centre for Public Integrity is scathing, criticising failures on transparency, lobbying reform, and undermining parliamentary scrutiny.
Ignoring Warnings and Failing Victims
This pattern of inaction extends beyond appointments. The government was formally warned by Treasury on at least seven separate occasions about dangerous gaps in the regulation of managed investment schemes. It failed to act, and as a result, 12,000 Australians saw up to $1.2 billion in retirement savings put at risk in the First Guardian and Shield collapse. Even in the aftermath, the government has been accused of dragging its feet on providing relief to the victims.
A Way Forward: Solutions Disclosed in Logic Flow
The problem is systemic, but the solutions are clear. They require moving beyond political theatre to foundational reform.
1. Legislative Reform: End Grey Areas and Mandate Transparency
Close Legal Loopholes: Abolish the “facilitation payment” defence. Tighten the definition of “benefit” in bribery laws and introduce clear, low-value thresholds for gifts and hospitality to public officials.
Mandate Merit-Based Appointments: Fully legislate the recommendations of the Briggs “Jobs for Mates” report. Ministerial discretion must be bounded by transparent, skills-based panels, with appointments publicly justified.
Empower Transparency: Pass a robust, pro-disclosure Freedom of Information Act. Remove the ability to hide contracts behind “commercial-in-confidence” unless a true national security interest is proven.
2. Strengthen and Reinvent the NACC: From Watchdog to Guardian
Leadership and Culture Reset: The NACC requires leadership that welcomes legal challenges as part of its duty. Its investigative mandate must be proactive, not passive. The practice of avoiding evidence collection must be made a disciplinary offense.
Operational Overhaul: Implement the Inspector’s recommendations on case management systems and staff training immediately. Intake decisions on jurisdiction must be subject to mandatory legal review.
Amend the NACC Act: The law must be changed to require a public, reasoned statement when the NACC declines to investigate a matter referred by a Royal Commission or other judicial inquiry. This alone would restore immense public accountability.
3. Political and Cultural Reset: Restoring Public Trust
End the Bipartisan Culture of Secrecy: The government must release, not hide, embarrassing reports. It must stop cutting resources for parliamentary and media scrutiny.
Act on Expert Warnings: Create a mandatory, public government response mechanism for formal warnings from agencies like Treasury, ASIC, or the Auditor-General. Ignoring written advice must carry a political cost.
Commit to International Standards: Proactively implement outstanding OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommendations and finally bring all high-risk professions under anti-money laundering laws.
It is incredible Australia is not a party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. My understand is Australia is the only country in the OECD that is not a party to this convention. I also understand Australia has been pressed by the OECD to become party to this agreement.
Australia (Scott Morrison lead government) instead of joining this convention spent taxpayer funds on a plan to have Matthias Corman elected to the lead of the OECD. This included the Australian Government hiring private jets and providing other support for this appointment.
The cycle will continue until the Australian public demands that the scaffolding of integrity – the laws, the commissions, the political culture – is built to support the weight of public expectation, not the convenience of power. The $80 million water scandal was not an anomaly; it was a blueprint. The only question now is whether we have the collective will to rewrite it.
Explore Further: Key Actors and Accountability
This article is based on extensive research into Australia’s integrity systems. If you wish to explore the roles of specific individuals, bodies, or scandals mentioned, here is a brief guide:
NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton: His actions, from Robodebt to handling internal bribery offers, are central to assessing the commission’s performance.
Centre for Public Integrity: This independent body, chaired by Anthony Whealy KC, provides crucial report cards and critiques on government integrity.
Senator David Pocock: A key crossbencher holding the government to account on transparency, especially regarding the secret “Jobs for Mates” report.
The “Watergate” Precedent: This 2017 scandal is cited in academic literature as a prime example of the misuse of ministerial discretion.
Source: THE AIMN.NET
