[Peetwo]

Sunday contemplation -


The raiders of the shrinking ATP trough..

Because of the Sussan Ley entitlements scandal there has been much MSM exposure of even more examples of rorts and blatant trough gorging by our political elite...

However the Mandarins & their minions seemingly get away untouched by any similar public  and/or MSM scrutiny - Why is this so..

The following is an article from the Canberra Times written in 2012, that does ask questions of the probity and the potential for COI within the senior executive bureaucracy, who are the true gatekeepers of the ATP trough... :

The faceless men who are supposedly 'public' servants

Until we know more about senior bureaucrats' conflicts of interest, we are inviting corruption.


Markus Mannheim

Senior public servants decide from whom to buy and, if there's a tender, who is invited to submit a bid. Yet we know nothing about them. 

Our dapper opposition leader, Tony Abbott, receives free suits from a Sydney tailor, Max Liondos. He also gets lycra bodysuits from Cycling Australia and is paid a trickle of book royalties by Melbourne University Press. Resources Minister Martin Ferguson stayed at the Hyatt Regency on the Gold Coast last year courtesy of the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies, so as to attend its conference. And I won't even try to describe Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull's extensive portfolio of investments and assets.
We know all about these perks and potential conflicts of interest because

We know all about these perks and potential conflicts of interest because every politician must disclose them via Parliament's website. And, probably because of that, there are few obvious concerns listed among them. Most of the entries are trifles; the occasional upgraded flight or a corporate ticket to a sports match. Nonetheless, these disclosures still matter, because we need to know what may influence our parliamentarians' votes.

It's a small part of what keeps Australia from sinking into the deep corruption in which so many other countries are mired.

But monitoring parliamentarians' interests misses a pretty big point. The federal government buys about $25 billion of goods and services a year, of which more than $10 billion worth is sourced directly (i.e. without competition). Ministers usually have nothing to do with these purchases; senior public servants decide from whom to buy and, if there's a tender, who is invited to submit a bid.

Yet what do we know about these decision makers? I can't check the companies in which these officials (or their spouses) own shares, the gifts they receive or the organisations to which they belong. Yes, the Public Service Act requires that public servants disclose and avoid conflicts of interest, but senior executives need only make such declarations privately to their agency head. As a result, the people best placed to actually discover a hidden conflict – such as those business owners who miss out on government contracts – are unable to scrutinise effectively most purchasing decisions.

Here's an example of what this means in practice. Over the past few years, a federal government agency has awarded tens of millions of dollars in contracts to a firm that's closely linked to one of its senior executives. (The executive's wife has a lead role in a company owned by the firm.) When I questioned the agency about this link, its spokesman said the executive had conducted himself with "the utmost probity and ethical standards in relation to contract procurement". Perhaps so. But the agency refused to show me the executive's declarations of interests. Instead, I was told simply to accept assurances that the official "is not and nor has he ever been involved in tender processes involving" the firm.

That may be an acceptable proxy for scrutiny in Nigeria, but it's a bizarre notion of accountability in a Western liberal democracy.

So I applied for the executive's declarations under freedom of information law. The agency knocked back my request, saying granting me access to the documents would breach the privacy rights of the people named in them. (For some reason, it overlooked the simple option of redacting the names.) The agency also told me that disclosing the declarations would "prejudice the management function of the department, noting staff may be reluctant to take up positions if conflict of interest declarations were routinely disclosed to the public".

Read that closely: the agency fears that asking senior public servants to account to the public is a step too far, and would even jeopardise government recruitment. That argument would deeply offend many of today's upstanding public service leaders.

I won't name the agency or the executive; this isn't about "shame". The point is there may be dozens, even hundreds, of similar cases here in our city, involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars of public money. We don't know how many of these conflicts of interest are disclosed internally, nor can we check.

There's a simple remedy: agencies could publish their executives' declarations of interests, as well as the names of all staff who sit on tender assessment panels. Until they do, they'll continue to invite corruption.

This article was first published in Forum on March 31, 2012.

Hmm...that example certainly has some similarities to the shonky deals and dodgy probity of the ASA OneSKY contract...

The 'Trust' quotient??

Although Markus did cop some flak in comments questioning his rehashing of an archived article, he also received kudos from those who understood the method in his madness...

chapman ACT, Jan 20 2017 at 10:28am

Republished article or not, the point is still valid.

Our entire application of the 'conflict of interest' is flawed. The proper approach is to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Therefore if someone is in the position where they 'could' exercise a conflict then the opportunity for conflict must be removed.

It is not enough to simply report on a potential and move on. A conflict can be almost impossible to prove. The intent must be to prevent the opportunity. This protects both the Government and the individual in question. They can't exercise a conflict nor can they be accused.

For too long highly intelligent and opportunistic people have been operating behind the scenes to feather their own nests. They realise that our current thinking means they can simply act nice and offer denial, with little threat of anything further. And we lap it up.

Volkswagen and various Government Departments have recently established the fact that people will cheat. This is the tip of the iceberg. As a related article on ethics suggests, they then claim compliance and wash over any questions of ethics.

Instead we must enforce the ethics that gave rise to the question in the first place - one must not have the opportunity to exercise a conflict of interest.

Besides the example of ASA executives and other silver-tailed dross feeding from the OneSKY trough, the above comment also brings to mind the unchallenged, 'law unto themselves', 30+year Iron Ring reign at CASA.

Yesterday, via the Comardy thread, we were reminded of how the Iron Ring culture of fear, intimidation and threat of future retribution/embuggerance remains firmly entrenched within the halls of Aviation House, reference starting from - HERE & Mark Newton1 day ago:

Newton – “Can you do another video to describe precisely what has changed within CASA since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found in 2015 that you had been vindictively prejudicial in your enforcement action taken against Mr. Nagid Fadlalla in Perth? Like now, CASA claimed to be proponents of a "just culture." But the AAT found scant evidence of that, castigating CASA for denial of procedural fairness, disregarding evidence, and for behaving as if it had a vendetta against its target. The AAT decision is here, in case anyone wants to contrast CASA's promotional materials about "just culture" with their actual behaviour.”

---

P2 – “From the above decision by Egon Fice, Senior Member of the AAT, it is becoming apparent that the jig is up when it comes to CASA attempting to persecute individuals that have genuinely made an honest mistake/contravention of the regs. This case is also a classic for it shows how CASA manipulates a situation to suit it's own purpose with a dodgy investigation, with little to no factual evidence (sounds familiar hey?? ) and by using underhanded, morally corrupt tactics in an attempt to discredit the applicant.”

---

P9 - "For the GP3 test, Carmody has taken a line which, IMO, reflects the true nature of the risible ‘reform’ mantra being whispered through ‘video’ presentation. You see, boys and girls, once the ‘facts and circumstances’ have passed through the ‘system’ and a ruling handed down, CASA have the perfect defence case against any and all complaint. That their cases are built on outright fabrication, manipulated to a fare-thee-well, exaggerated as needed, shrunk where required, awkward parts buried and oaths sworn in vain makes a mockery of system, is of absolutely no concern to them, whatsoever. There is no appeal, to the gods or mankind, which can shame CASA into admitting ‘they lied’. CASA are totally convinced they are above the law, even have it in writing. CASA believe there is no power on this planet which can bring them to confess their crimes. This has been proven so many times now that it has become the normalized deviance an industry simply accepts; result, living in fear has become the norm.

How can true ‘reform’ ever take place when the Director chooses, of his own volition, not to examine the radical causes which necessitate that reform? How can trust and faith ever be restored when trust is constantly abused and faith, not only in ‘the law’ but in the system is viewed so cynically by those in whom industry should be able to hold in absolute trust?"

"K" finished off his excellent but disturbing post, with this 'reality check' OBS...

"..Aye; it is a sad state of affairs, the nails in the ASRR coffin being driven home now through ‘media’ releases which go unchallenged; produced at our expense to cover the ministerial arse. Risible? Yes, but the irony is on the industry, which sits back and watches the fight while protecting it’s own rice bowl. I am not certain where the blame lays; but industry has had a big part to play in allowing the current situation to develop, perhaps it is time industry got off its collective beam ends and shouted one simple word – Enough..."

  "Enough" indeed...

MTF...P2