The departure of Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is, on balance, good news for the Rudd government. Most importantly, in the first real test case, Rudd has stuck to his ministerial standards rather than bend the rules for a close ally. Fitzgibbon had received the benefit of the doubt a couple of times, but allowing his office to be used by a family member for lobbying was just too much. (Note the family motif in most of Fitzgibbon’s problems – another argument against hereditary MPs).
A scandal of this kind is never good, but such things are inevitable. That the Rudd government has suffered only one such loss after 18 months in office compares very favorable with state Labor governments and with the Howard government, which lost a string of ministers and Parliamentary secretaries before Howard threw out the rules to save Warwick Parer – after that, there was scarcely a member of the Cabinet who wasn’t implicated in some kind of corrupt or dodgy dealing.
Finally, if there’s any truth to the claim that Defence staff were undermining Fitzgibbon to block his reform agenda, they scored a Pyhrric victory here. John Faulkner is going to cause them much more grief than Fitzgibbon ever could.
John Quiggin 
Politicians using their public positions (and /or the public purse) for self interest and business interest and family interests and freebies is often backed, when exposed, by an arrogant sense of ‘entitlement’. The British parliament is in meltdown over it. However Julie Bishop’s sanctimonious attitude to this really is the pot calling the kettle black etc…
The Coalition had more than its fair share of scandals along these lines (and often did very little about it) eg AWB case, a fellow called Finnan? ex austrade chief involved both in AWB and that fuel fire power pill scam which JH appeared to champion at one point. Then there was Ms Coonan’s magical payout from the home warranty insurance company VERO, when most normal people either have to wait years or dont get paid at all..
Click to access sub40.pdf
The Coalition neednt be so smug.
Rudd did the right thing.
I welcome Faulkner’s appointment.
Pr Q says:
Its certainly true that Rudd-ALP presents a squeakier clean face to the public thant Howard-L/NP. Although these days my general view is that “the scandal is what is legal”. This is particularly obvious in the case of the ALP whose cabinet tip rests on massive ice-berg base of connected economic classes and ethnic clans.
Would Pr Q enlighten us as to the identities of those members of the former government’s cabinet who were, “scarcely” without exception, “implicated in some kind of corrupt or dodgy dealing”? If his claim is true its a revelation of the most fantastic scandal hitherto uncovered in AUS political history. More than half the senior L/NP parliamentary membership on the take for a period of six years.
No one has made a serious claim against the integrity of the Howard govts Holy Trinity of Howard, Costello and Downer. What about the lesser lights?
Lets do a Fernic BOTE calculation to see if Pr Q’s claim passes the sniff test. Moving on from from Parer’s exit, Howard had a further two ministries – 2001 and 2004 – until his election loss in 2007. A rough head count gives about seventy positions in a typical ministry (including inner-cabinet, outer-cabinet and parliamentary secretaries).
Of course many ministers wore two or more hats. But a rough estimate gives at least 50 unique members of cabinet. Almost all of whom Pr Q is now claiming were “corrupt” or guilty of “dodgy dealings” at one time or another.
Does Pr Q have any evidence for this massive seamy underside of conservative politics? Name names, please.
More likely this is just another reflexive, if belated, effusion of Howard-hatred. Really it does Pr Q’s credibility no good to just contstantly bag the former govt as if it were a gang of sadistic and mischievous crooks. Who just happened to put the AUS polity, economy and society in the strongest, richest and proudest posititon its been in living memory by a never ending series of strokes of the most amazing good fortune.
But I am open to be persuaded – by evidence.
The only hard evidence I can find comparing AUS’s internatinonal and inter-temporal record on corruption is through Transparency International. Its Corruption Perception Index shows that in 1996, the last year of the Keating govt, AUS scored 8.6. In 2007, the last year of the Howard govt, AUS scored 8.6 again.
Call me a naive positivist but a movement of 0.0 over a period of more than a decade does not look like a headlong plunge into depravity.
I am no great fan of the Howard govt. I just want to set the record straight. And urge members of the media & academic to have a bit more balanced view – for everyones sake.
I had the feeling this would draw you out, Jack. I’ll list relevant cases, but I’m not going to respond to any attempts at defence of particular cases here, any more than I give credence to the suggestion that Fitzgibbon is an innocent brought down by Judases. The Howard government was guilty as sin in every case listed below, and attempts to defend them only discredit the defender
Howard, Ruddock, Reith: Children overboard
Reith: Balaclavas, telephones, Tenix
Wooldridge: too many dodgy deals to list
Downer, Vaile, almost certainly also Howard: AWB
Andrews: Haneef
Vanstone: Madafferi, much more corruption re detention camps
Ruddock: too many to list, but refugee status for South Lebanon Army war criminals will serve as an example
That covers most of the senior figures, and is only a small subset. Costello is unappealing but managed to keep his nose pretty clean at least by the low standards of this utterly corrupt government.
You can add Trevor Rowe to this list
and Trevor Flugge and Ian Campbell and this bloke called Finnan.
an 07 post “over the next few days we will find out that Ian Campbell actually probably did something seriously corrupt … I mean, he was the minister for the environment probably with powers over the planning approval process for that turf club. And we know that Howard rarely sacks ministers for … well, anything!”
Agreed. Now Julie Bishop wants to play precious politics over Fitzgibbon (not that what I think he did was right either…) but spare me….pot, kettle etc
JH ran a dirtier govt.
JH ran a dirtier government because of his ideological bias towards the private sector. He thought any entrepreneurialism was good entrepreneurialism….even if it happened under his watch by persons he appointed to public roles, by virtue of their public positions. Lets face it – Howard saw no distinction between public interests and private interests.
That was the problem with JH’s leadership – so now the Coalition effectively cries into the wind about the taint of corruption in public life when under JH it was almost encouraged.
Who believes in what Turnbull (or Bishop) says now?
Look at the polls.
“Finally, if there’s any truth to the claim that Defence staff were undermining Fitzgibbon to block his reform agenda, they scored a Pyhrric victory here. John Faulkner is going to cause them much more grief than Fitzgibbon ever could.”
Under the Howard government there were few constraints put on Defence with large increases in staffing and under Enterprise Bargaining one of the best paid gigs in the Public Service. This was a department that was never expected to make efficiency savings.
The warmongering of the third partner of the Coalition of the Willing combined with the many photo opportunities taken by the PM with the gallant troops and the lack of fiscal responsibility, has no doubt contributed to a service which is unable to be easily controlled – especially by a Minister who had a shaky sense of right and wrong.
Rudd’s choice of John Faulkner, who has many years of practice finding the weak arguments of Departmental staff during Senate estimates and a keen sense of how proper processes, is an excellent choice by Rudd.
Some of the other decisions in regard to the Ministerial reshuffle also show good judgement and canny politics.
I’m inclined to think the root cause of the problems with the Howard regime was the appointment of placemen to the senior ranks of the public service, a process that Rudd has yet to give any indication of reversing. Senior bureaucrats now, even those who have come by their appointments legitimately, know their tenure is dependent upon telling the government what it wants to hear and tidying up ministerial messes.
The saga with Keelty and the truths that could not be spoken about connections between Australia’s participation in US imperial adventures and our exposure to terrorism is particularly illustrative. The emperor’s new suit had to be officially reaffirmed at all costs, even though the fact of nakedness was apparent to all and sundry. The famous story of Sir Fred Wheeler insisting on telling Whitlam things he did not want to hear because it was his duty to do so, and continuing in office, simply could not now happen.
The Howard regime jumped the shark on this in 2001 with kids overboard, but to my mind the event that ushered in the new public service reality was the leaking of intelligence material by Downer to Andrew Bolt in order to discredit Andrew Wilkie. That public servants kept their mouths shut about major breaches of the Crimes Act says all you need to know about Australian governance in the 21st century. Public servants must now operate in an environment where their own personal advancement takes precedence over any outdated notions of ‘public’ or ‘national’ interest – only by chance do the two coincide. No Nugget Coombs, Peter Wilenski or Fred Wheeler would now stand any chance of progression to the heights of the bureaucracy.
The procession of ministers and ministerial staffers into the highly paid ranks of corporate shilldom is so well established now as to be a normal career progression. Perhaps we should consider shifting to a US-type system where all such appointments are acknowledged to be political appointments and are at least subject to some transparency. The Fitzgibbon case demonstrates that at present the only sin is to get caught.
Hal900- says “The Fitzgibbon case demonstrates that at present the only sin is to get caught.”
I quite agree. This shaky sense of right and wrong and lack of ethics in public life is quite commonplace isnt it, in both federal and state politics. There needs once more to be an entire attitudinal shift but that can only come from checks, balances and controls and I feel a lot were lost in the great moves by JH to devolve controls into decentralised structures and appoint mates to well paid positions and also appoint political lackeys between the senior mandarins and senior politicians succh that right through the AWB case Howard and Downer could claim “I wasnt informed”, “I didnt know” etc. Their own self appointed lackeys knew though and somehow neglected to inform them….?? Fall guys who were positioned precisely to remove a particular control….. ultimate ministerial and political accountability.
“John Faulkner is going to cause them much more grief than Fitzgibbon ever could.”
Faulkner is tough and principled, and I applaud his promotion. He’s capable of doing the right thing despite opposition from the department, but I’m not sure if his agenda will be more or less objectionable to them – he might even go into bat for them on issues Fitzgibbon might not have.
“(Note the family motif in most of Fitzgibbon’s problems – another argument against hereditary MPs)”
The one that springs to mind is Downer, which is a compelling argument for banning their children from public office. 🙂
I’m also supportive of Falkner’s elevation. He is that rarest of beasts, a politician with both a functioning moral compass and a belief in public service. He’ll have a hard time.
While the shifting of John Faulkner to Defence (and the return of Greg Combet to defence personnel) is probably a good result for those hoping for a better managed Department of Defence, I personally think this will come at the cost of the reform John Faulkner was pursuing in the area of political donations and freedom of information/government accountability.
John Faulkner cares deeply about these issues, much more so than his colleagues, plus he has, or had, the seniority to push through change. That impetus will probably dissipate under Joe Ludwig. And assuming that we don’t actually have to defend mainland Australia in the next 15 or so years, the benefits to our system of democracy of John Faulkner’s now still-born reforms would have been much greater than whatever amount of money he may succeed in saving, or spending better over at Defence.
Mungo MacCullum made the same points in today’s Crikey (though in a much better way than I could manage):
@gianni
I sincerely hope so too Gianni. The political influence that donations carry in these times is extraordinary. At times the NSW State government appears in total disarray because of it eg Catherine Bay developments (and developments in general). What happened at Kuringgai Campus on the 27th May was a disgrace. The auditorium was packed with Kuringgai residents who objected angrily to Ms Keneally’s planning panel and what was supposed to occur was community consultation and what actually occurred was silencing of the community and the council, despite many more still to speak, and a three person NSW state “planning” delegate went behind some curtains, came out and approved a massive number of developments along a highway that is already jam packed with traffic at peak hours.
No one could convince me that developer donations do not play a part the now high density developments in Kuringgai and elsewwhere with complete disregard for local communities concerns and not a bicycle lane of new infrastructure offered (this was not even “local” objection – it was a very large regional objection given the number of people who attended – all car parks and the auditorium completely full).
Total disregard and the interests of a few prevail (developers and the NSW state labor party).