Summary of Discussion
Rockhampton Forum
Leichhardt Hotel
9 September 2009
Are there sufficient guidelines for decision makers?
Issues raised during discussion included:












Concerns about government actions in relation to a toxic chemical spill at a
RAAF base at Ipswich. Although an independent report was to be released
regarding the spill, there was concern that the government treats itself differently
to the private sector. If the government wishes to restore integrity, it must treat
situations such as the chemical spill consistently.
The Fitzroy River discharge was also raised in the context that many politicians
seem to be unaware of the public’s expectations. It was suggested that the
atmosphere is so rarefied in Parliament that Ministers loose touch with the
community.
The standards for the private sector are different to the public sector.
There needs to be greater transparency in government and the community needs
to be able to see how decisions are made.
The possibility of having public online forums as a regular event was raised.
The public and industry finds it extraordinarily difficult to converse with
government, particularly when they want something.
Lobbying and donations play a part in the process, and the issue is how we
regulate these activities better.
The process for declaring gifts and hospitality is very robust.
Capping political donations is an issue - the US experience has been that this
can be manoeuvred around via political actions groups; this would be likely to
happen in Australia if we tried to cap donations.
The framework for integrity and accountability is quite strong, it is just compliance
that is an issue.
The table in the Integrity and Accountability Paper demonstrates that
Queensland is clearly streets ahead of other jurisdictions.
The government is so obsessed with transparency and even handedness that it
risks wrecking the competitive nature and momentum of business and gaining a
reputation as an uncompetitive place to do business.


















Whatever the outcome of this process, we have to ensure that Queensland’s
competitive advantage is not destroyed.
What we do need is a constant reminder of what is ethical; the problem is
keeping that at the forefront of people’s minds.
Research shows that an ethical organisation can make otherwise unethical
people act ethically.
It was suggested that the codes of conduct are not tight enough given the
experience of the Nuttall case.
However, you will always get people doing the wrong thing and the fact that
Nuttall was caught means that the system works to catch those people who
display an appalling lack of integrity, if not criminality.
The public sector should not be competing with the private sector where public
servants are using their position in government to gain an advantage.
However, the usual practice in the public sector is that where a person is
employed full-time, in order to gain employment outside, that person must obtain
approval from their department to undertake secondary employment. The factors
that are usually looked at is whether it is a conflict of interest, the amount of
hours and physicality of the work being performed.
If people see situations which you think are unfair or where a public servant is
misusing their position, you should get in touch with the relevant department.
The private sector looks to the government for guidance and as the benchmark
for exemplary behaviour.
It is concerning when the regulators start regulating themselves (e.g. in the
United Kingdom). Any time this happens, the credibility of the government is
brought into question.
Complaining to the department regarding one of their own public servants is also
a concern as it lacks transparency; there is a need for an independent forum or
someone you can go to with your complaint.
The guidelines governing the public sector are becoming too complex and there
is a need for simplification.
Concerns were raised that there is a trend towards sloppiness and a continuum
of incorrect behaviour in the public sector.
Queensland is the only State in Australia that does not have an upper house, so
from the top down, there is a lack of accountability; the question was raised as to
whether we are trying to patch a system up that is inherently flawed.
The lack of an upper house over the last 70 years has caused a cultural problem
in Queensland and reinstating an upper house would gain respect from the
community.
However, a lot of upper houses do not work properly (with some parts of the
Senate being exceptional). The main value of the Senate is the strong
committee system.
In Queensland, we have the embryo of a strong committee system and
introducing more politicians in Queensland is unlikely to resonate with the public.
The problem is getting the message to the public that a committee can do a
similar job to an upper house.
Are the mechanisms to find unacceptable behaviour sufficient?
Issues raised during discussion included:


















The perception from a lot of other jurisdictions is that the Queensland System
(i.e. the overarching integrity system) works, and it has, in fact, been copied by
other jurisdictions.
There was discussion about who the CMC and Integrity Commissioner report to,
as well as the independent role of the Electoral Commission.
Concerns were raised regarding the referral of complaints regarding local
government to the CMC for investigation, only to have the complaint referred
back to the local government for investigation.
The referral of such complaints back to local government or the relevant
department is not only a resource issue, but also due to the principle of
devolution.
Most matters investigated by the departments are small matters and come back
to the issue of embedding a culture of ethics into the organisation. The best way
to do this is to have the organisation take responsibility for its own internal ethics.
Supervision by the CMC of investigations undertaken by departments is also an
important role.
The issue of reprisals taken against people who make a complaint was also
raised.
However, the whistleblowing legislation allows disclosure of confidential
information when made properly, and reprisals can be investigated by the CMC.
There is concern about reprisals that result from a complaint made by a private
sector organisation against a public sector department; in such cases, the
legislation does not cover reprisals against a private sector organisation.
The whisteblowing legislation could be amended to protect against further
reprisals and in NSW, the onus of proving that something was a reprisal is not on
the person who complained.
There is a general lack of trust in politicians and a perception that they are in
government for the wrong reasons.
The lack of transparency is a lack of understanding about what happens in
government.
The media does not cover government activity enough. Perhaps government
could take it upon themselves to get that sort of information to the community.
Government websites are difficult to navigate and there is a need for further
information in the community about what the government is doing.
The NSW Government website works much better than the Queensland
Government website.
However, one of the effects of the new Right to Information regime is that
agencies are now required to place a lot more information on their websites in
order that people do not have to submit a Right to Information request.
The provision of further information about the government to the community
would need to be balanced though as in the lead up to elections, there is often
the perception that advertising is in fact government “spin”. Any information
provided would need to come from the opposition as well.
It is not information about what the government is doing that is required, but how
government works; this could be supported by all political parties.