When public money is spent on investigations and reports by Commissioners, and the Corruption and Crime Commission investigating problems with local government activities do we get good value? Or will the cowboys always win?
I have few doubts about the CCC working well, their investigations and reports are excellent.
But what happens to the reports after they have been presented to our leaders and the public?
Shelfware.
Do we expect that the CEOs of all the shires throughout the state will act quickly to introduce the controls required to ensure public confidence? Do we expect that they will remove, as far as possible, the risk of public officers being diverted from fidelity to the public interest (or perceived to be so diverted)?
Maybe we think the shire presidents will ensure that their elected representatives are all aware of the risks and will understand the importance of maintaining integrity and develop in them the capacity to recognise manipulation techniques.
Wanneroo is a very good example of why it is just stupidity to turn our backs on past events unless we have implemented every possible control that is needed. Wanneroo had The Kyle Report published in 1992, following that report the allegations continued, and in 1996 Mr Kyle was instructed to conduct a further inquiry.
Dr Wayne Bradshaw, former Mayor of Wanneroo and also the brother of a Liberal member of parliament, objected. After a court case brought by Dr Bradshaw the Premier, Richard Court, decided to appoint a different Commissioner and Mr Davis took over the Wanneroo investigation. He found extensive problems and the following extract could as easily have been lifted from a recent newspaper report covering the ICAC hearings in NSW;
"Mr Sweeting said that the next time he saw or spoke to Dr Bradshaw was when he turned up at his unit in Cottesloe early, that is somewhere between eight and ten o’clock, on the Sunday morning following the dinner. Mr Sweeting said he was not expecting Dr Bradshaw, had no idea of the reason for the visit and was surprised to see him. Mr Sweeting did not remember the sequence of events or what else was discussed during Dr Bradshaw’s visit but he does recall that Dr Bradshaw asked him for a donation of $50,000.00 for the Liberal Party. He does not think Hooker’s Woodvale project was discussed but said “we had just taken him to dinner and he called around wanting a donation: I took it to be connected, correctly or incorrectly”. Mr Sweeting was pressed on the point, as follows:
“COMMISSIONER: Did Dr Bradshaw say anything to you at all, Mr Sweeting, that might suggest there would be any benefit to Hookers if they gave the donation?---No, I don't think he did say that. I don't think he said anything like that. He didn't connect the two. I connected the two, he didn't connect the two.
Yes?---They could well have been unrelated. I got the impression, correctly or incorrectly, that it was associated with us trying to get Woodvale approved. He did not connect it, no.
He didn't say anything that even hinted at it?---No, he did not.
And did he say anything that suggested any sort of connection or tie-up between the request for a donation and any other activities afoot?---No, I don't believe he did.
That it might sweeten the relationship, or ?---No, I don't think he ever did say that.
Did he give any reason to indicate why you should consider giving such a huge sum?---Well, look, I was new to development. I thought, you know, this is the way things could be done, however horrified I might be, but I thought, ‘Perhaps if we do give a donation to the Liberal Party some way it will find its way back to getting our Woodvale project approved.’ Perhaps that was naive but I thought they were connected. ...
MR NASH: Did you understand the request for the $50,000 donation to the Liberal Party to be - did you believe it to be a genuine request for money to the Liberal Party?---No, I didn't.
What did you think?---I thought it was to go towards getting our project approved. Whether or not it ended up in the Liberal Party's hands, I would have personally doubted it. Perhaps it did. Perhaps that's the way Dr Bradshaw raised funds for the Liberal Party.”
Dr Bradshaw was found guilty of soliciting a bribe and served a prison sentence.
That was him bang to rights, but what lessons then found their way into Wanneroo?
Not many I would guess, because just a few years after this second report was published there were still more worrying circumstances around development events at Wanneroo. This time it was the activities of Brian Burke and Julien Grill that caused some consternation.
The CCC report that eventually recorded these matters begins with the following;
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
[1] The real gravamen of this ninth and penultimate report by the Corrrruption and Crime Commission (“the Commission”) in the “lobbyist” series, is not any particular allegation of misconduct by a public officer, but rather the theme of misconduct risk which it reveals.
[2] That theme is the risk of public officers being diverted from fidelity to the public interest (or perceived to be so diverted) because of close personal or political relationships with lobbyists representing private or commercial interests. Associated with that, is the provision of assistance or favour or the prospect of advantageous exercise of influence by lobbyists to benefit the public officer at some time in the future.
[3] Further, the events and activities described in this report show how the integrity of public officers and their agencies can be undermined by the way lobbyists representing particular interests may manipulate those relationships and portray them to others.
[4] Non-disclosure by public officers of their active involvement with lobbyists in supporting particular proposals, or professing compliance with the requests of lobbyists even though later claiming no intention to actually comply, enables lobbyists to actually achieve, or at least convey to clients, or other public officers, a degree of influence over governmental decision making which is subversive of the public interest."
How well were the lessons of the past learned?
Could the CCC insist that all shires had controls to stop lobbyists influencing them?
When James Trail, who came here from Wanneroo, met with Brian Burke was it just too old mates having a chat? Or was there more to their discussion about land development in this shire?
How much checking do our public servants and elected officials undertake on our behalf?
Do they care who they are dealing with? If not, why not? Does a political donation still make things go more smoothly in WA?
When our councillors are given documents to read that have Brian Burke's close associate and known lobbyist presented as a 'local developer' do they ever wonder why? Or do they know precisely why?
When all of the shire planning staff claim to never have met the man described as a local developer, and they can only contact him through an address in NSW should we worry?
When the local developer and lobbyist doesn't appear on the register of lobbyists, is that a concern?
"Mr. Michael
Hale serves as Independent NonExecutive Director of Balamara Resources Ltd
formerly Sultan Corporation Ltd since April 12 2011. Having studied Public
Administration at the University of WA he has experience in the public sector
he has served as a Councilor at the City of Perth and participated in the
establishment of the Cabinet Office of the Government of Western Australia
while serving as an advisor to The Office of Premier and Cabinet Government of
Western Australia. He is a registered lobbyist with The Australian and Western
Australian Governments. The Premier
he served was Brian Burke, and Michael Hale was rebuked by the Royal Commission into WA
Inc because he misled the Commission."
If we really need budget cuts in this state then maybe it's time to just stop playing around with CCC inquiries and Royal Commissions that investigate fraud and corruption in public service. Maybe WA should just declare itself as a no-man's land where the cowboys wear black hats and having a sheriff's badge is totally pointless.
The CCC just keeps on losing, as ICAC will in NSW.
We would save a lot of public money and local government would continue with 'business as usual.' There really is no alternative.
