The latest 2015 Transparency International’s (TI) Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index (GI) report is out assessing the existence, effectiveness and enforcement of institutional and informal controls to manage the risk of corruption in defence and security institutions.
The report stated that Australia’s GI ranking in Band B places it in the low risk of corruption category. It scored in the highest band for Personnel and Political risk (gaining the highest score in the region for Political risk). Australia’s aggregate score was brought down by Operations risk (Band D). The Australian Government completed a government review of the GI 2015 research, which, according to TI, shows a willingness to open dialogue with an international NGO on defence corruption issues.
TI suggested the following reforms of the security sector to reduce corruption risk and to build integrity: enhance oversight of secret spending; penalise facilitating payments; and address corruption risks in military operations.
Despite Australia having effective institutional structures to prevent corruption in its defence and security organisations, TI recommended these measures could be improved by reassuring the public “that the significant increases in funding to Australia’s intelligence agencies in recent years are being matched by appropriate oversight”.
The Government, it said, needed to ensure “oversight of all ‘secret’ expenditure in closed Committee sessions and provide these committee members with extensive information on all spending on secret items, which includes detailed, line item descriptions of all expenditures”.
Facilitation payments in Australia are legal on the understanding that their value is small (though no financial limit has been stipulated in the Criminal Code) and for the purpose of expediting or securing a routine governmental action. The Australian Taxation Office notes special record-keeping obligations for facilitation payments, but does not discourage them.
In 2011, the Government raised the possibility of an amendment to change Australia's law to exclude this exception, however TI noted the status of this proposal is unclear. It said the OECD 2012 report also expressed concern on this issue. Although a follow up report in 2015 stated that good progress had been made on the previous report's recommendations, the OECD also noted that changes in the legal framework were still required.
Australia has deployed approximately 2,241 personnel in overseas and in-country operations (as of September 2015), including significant deployment to complex operational environments in the Middle East. The increased risk of corruption in operations can undermine the legitimacy of missions, particularly to fragile and conflict-ridden environments.
TI suggested there appears to be limited recognition of corruption as a strategic issue in operations beyond the general anti-fraud framework in the Department of Defence. They recommend the “incorporation of anti-corruption controls into Australia’s existing fraud control arrangements for military operations, and the adoption of a comprehensive and detailed military doctrine addressing corruption issues for peace and conflict”.
Defence, TI said, could provide comprehensive guidelines and staff training on addressing corruption risks, including in contracting, while on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions; deploy trained professionals capable of monitoring corruption in the field who regularly report while on mission, with these reports made available to the public, at least in summary form.
The full report can be viewed here.