Public servant alleging ministerial corruption told speaking to media could be unlawful
A public servant claiming to have evidence of ministerial corruption was warned speaking to journalists may be unlawful and later directed to use a generic online form for contacting the prime minister, leaked correspondence shows.
The emails between an anonymous public servant and the Australian Public Service Commission again highlight fundamental flaws in Australia’s corruption reporting regime.
The system makes it near-impossible for public servants to lawfully speak publicly about alleged corruption, and instead works to funnel their complaints internally through their departmental or ministerial superiors.
In early January, the public servant used an anonymised email account to seek advice from the APSC’s Ethics Advisory Service, claiming they had evidence of political bias in funding decisions, similar to that seen in the sports rorts scandal.
No minister was named in the correspondence, and details of the alleged corruption were only discussed in general terms. The allegation involved a minister awarding funding on “what were clearly politically based considerations rather than on the basis of merit”, including giving money to “party donors and applicants who weren’t eligible”.
“It’s been playing on my mind in recent weeks and obviously the Australian public has a right to know about this and so I’ve got in touch with a journalist who has advised me how to provide evidence of the corruption … without implicating myself so the corruption can be made public,” the public servant wrote.
A month later, the APSC responded with general advice about “matters you may wish to consider before disclosing information to a journalist”.
The employee was told that speaking to media could be unlawful for APS employees.
“Australian Public Service (APS) employees are subject to a range of confidentiality requirements that restrict the type of information they may lawfully disclose,” the advice stated.
The public servant was told that evidence of “suspected corruption by a minister” would likely raise issues under the statement of ministerial standards.
Such allegations should therefore be reported to the prime minister or his department.
The APSC provided a link to the generic online contact form for the prime minister.
“If you believe that a minister has not complied with these standards, it is open to you to report this to the prime minister,” the APSC said. “Information about contacting the prime minister is
available here. Alternatively, it is open to you to bring your concerns to the department of the prime minister and cabinet.”
Any concerns about corruption involving a public servant should be reported to that public servant’s departmental head, the APSC said.
Whistleblowing laws could also be used, the APSC said.
Guardian Australia is not suggesting the APSC was wrong to provide such advice or acted improperly in any way.
The commission was simply advising on the options that exist for public servants through Australia’s corruption reporting framework.
The case, though, again highlights flaws in Australia’s integrity system.
The only way for a public servant to lawfully go public about alleged corrupt conduct is through Australia’s whistleblowing laws, which are complex and can generally only be relied upon after a public servant has attempted to raise the matter internally, waited for an internal investigation, and has genuine beliefs that the internal handling of the complaint was inadequate.
Failing to adhere to those requirements leaves public servants open to prosecution if they speak to the media.
Transparency and anti-corruption advocates have repeatedly said that an effective federal integrity commission is the best way to ensure complaints of corruption are investigated independently, transparently, and effectively.