A Commonwealth Integrity Commission ? – smoke gets into your eyes

"smoke gets into you eyes"

By

Leong Ng and Anthony Pun, OAM, a modified version of an article published in Independent Australia, this document can be likely changed often.

“The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise” Tacitus c. 5th Century

Introduction:

Two Federal Government inquiries have been launched recently to consult and debate about a potential “Commonwealth Integrity Commission". That is what the Political promise was and is! Lots of talk and debate, no action (typical Australian style) - the plot gets lost on the way.

These are a Senate Inquiry on 3 Bills by the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs and the Constitution and a "consultation". The former possesses the Parliamentary privilege accorded to such Inquires. Many pros and cons have been articulated and discussed in the 23 Submissions. 

In our submission, we were critical of the health regulator, the Australian Health Practitioners’ Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (a private entity): both of which were given their right of written reply published alongside our submission (no 22).

A right of reply by AHPRA and the RACP is a fair process however, it does have its disadvantages that any misleading and inaccurate statements, in our opinion, goes unchallenged. In this context, the public may perceive such statements to be true when made by ‘powerful and influential’ bodies.

For example, we do not accept the peer review process protocols as claimed by the RACP. AHPRA's response was very vague. In fact, it was non-existent as the first author had never faced them in 2003-2006.  A review of a meta-analysis by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare resulted in this publication. It was from this which was published in 2009. These publications likely substantiate our claims of its inequity (and inequality) in process.

We invite AHPRA and the RACP to take formal legal action against us and not tell any more lies, thus further compromising their integrity.

The second inquiry is now repackaged as a "consultation": the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Invitation for Submissions in a non-privileged scheme, is the equally evasive. To date, there is no response to our submission but on trawling found the Inquiry (see link below)

A cacophony of National non-partisan unofficial calls

There have been many and persistent calls for a Royal Commission into Health matters in recent years. During this period, it has been found that many other aspects of life have suffered the same “lack of integrity”.

In both, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and in gross widespread dysfunction in Health care, a common finding is the allegation of bullying and abuse that has occurred for a prolonged period of time. A third subtle one is the Banking etc Royal Commission. These are expensive to the tax payer.  This matter was first brought to the public attention by the Health Professionals Australia Reform Association (HPARA) and supported early by IA.

Try these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ymjCqaAsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSAEWVy4HYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlUQMH19BkQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmCDxmZI3I8

A Commonwealth Integrity Commission?

Australia has slipped in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI). It is rightly very concerned about its image and both sides (and other sides) may be taking this up as a Federal Election Issue. For example, Labour is keen on the formation (another) of an Australian Health Reform Commission as announced by the Shadow Health Minister. This same person had not acted when complained to regarding bullying in Ballarat in 2005.

Subsequently this was independently confirmed in 2016 by two private entities when commissioned by the Minister for Health of Victoria to act. This is not enough. What political points can be scored or is this another promise? Incidentally, a recent survey by the Health Workers’ Union shows that a certain public hospital tops the list in the bullying culture in Victoria. It would appear that remnants of the bullying leadership at this hospital still exists.

One unintended consequence of a right of reply

The right of reply given to APHRA and RACP, a major government agency and a “distinguished” organisation respectively, to allegations made by the Submission 22, is appropriate on grounds of natural justice. However, it does create the unintended consequence of creating a false public perception that the replies are true and accurate as it comes from “established” bodies. In this and for now, i.e. the David vs Goliath contest, Goliath scores one and David scores zero. In the future, it may be different.

However, if the allegations made by Submission 22 is upheld by a court of law, for example, in the near future, who is then responsible for these bodies acting “above the law”? The Chief Executive Officers (who can play revolving chair politics) ?

Definition of Corruption - A Major Problem?

There appears no universal definition of what is “corruption.” Entities may argue their way out if the is a good law practitioner. TI’s CPI definition is reproduced here and appears to hold water as it has been in use for a while.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE CORRUPTION?

Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”, corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money involved and the sector where it occurs. It may not include monetary benefits.

Transparency International's definition it this:

Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good.

Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies.

Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision-makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. 

We (AP is now an Australian) grew up in the same home town of Ipoh, Malaysia: went to the same Methodist mission school (one of the 'big four' of Penang, Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore of the British and our colorful post colonial days) eight years apart and landed up by chance in Australia.

We are certainly very au fait with what corruption is!

This definition is not without its flaws: for example “petty corruption” cannot be petty as in the case of Melburnian, Belle. It is grand corruption, in our view.

Much corruption: many “rules”

It was the Roman Historian (also a Senator) Tacitus who quoted that the more corrupt a process is, the more rules there are – Australia is a perfect example and it is ongoing. In NSW, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) writes about the outcomes of corruption in its website.

SPR, Research dis-integrity and Dishonesty are all related

The problem appears Universal in all of history and humankind. A recent conference of meeting with a British colleague shows so.

A bit of history:

One of us (LN) has dug out a link presentation on Sham Peer Review in the IHI-BMJ Meeting in Sept 2017 (10 min movie download)

Some more recent history: look at this link on a Webinar presentation made on 8 June 2019 at the HPARA 2019 ASM, It is on Integrity.

Conclusion:

There must be an Australian Commission and Commissioners with wide powers to deal with all sorts of dis-integrity which are sorely missing or diminished in many spheres of life compared with several decades ago. This Commission must have teeth and should be given powers to overseer other government and private regulatory bodies acting like a “High Court” of regulatory bodies. Sadly, the Senate Committee in its Report , was negative (and rushed).

We think this is a Federal election stunt but hope we are wrong: look at the Attorney General's link: it was very difficult to find, but finally discovered here. It was not an Inquiry as initially announced but a "consultation". Odd? You decide.

In our view, until such reforms are forthcoming, the public confidence in this area remains dwindling.

In our latest we published this modified piece in IA.