Bede Harris writes in The Conversation (16.3.17) that politicians should be subject to a penalty regime similar to the far more stringent one that applies to company directors.
‘Recent commentary on the rules governing politicians’ declaration of financial interests has highlighted the ease with which they are circumvented and the laxity with which they are enforced.
‘Senator Cory Bernardi was recently caught up in a dispute over whether he had correctly disclosed a A$1 million commercial property he owns in South Australia. He denies any wrongdoing and says he complied with the rules.
‘There are differences between the regimes governing politicians and directors of public companies; the former relate to assets whereas the latter govern transactions. But they both serve the same end – ensuring transparency and reducing the risk of conflicts of interest.
‘Why, then, are the rules so lax for politicians?’
- The case for holding politicians to the same disclosure standards as company directors »
- Cory Bernardi’s $1m property shows why the parliamentary rules are broken »
- Trust, transparency and right to information: accountability in an age of democratic disquiet »
- A question of intent: ‘Trad laws’ must not confuse mistakes with dishonesty »
- Conflicted cuts at the Audit Office »
- ‘Affront to transparency’: Turnbull lashes Christian Porter’s blind legal trust »
- Grattan on Friday: Porter’s funding from a ‘blind trust’ is an integrity test for Morrison »
- Christian Porter quits cabinet, refusing to find out who gave him money for legal costs »
- Transparency expert dismisses claims MPs don’t have to declare source of gifts »
- The government’s move to block investigation of Porter donations is a nail in the coffin of integrity in politics »
- Political donations: $1.2 billion over 22 years, and ‘associated entities’ dominate »
- Integrity group calls for political donations to come out of shadows »
- New broom: Albo shakes up ministerial code of conduct »