A View from Canberra: Living in fear of FoIs | ADM May 2011
A Special Correspondent | Canberra
In the wake of lurid headlines about how the defence top brass was being pampered by the arms industry, defence has issued a brand new directive warning officials against free lunches.
Has this gone too far? Going on comments from industry officials to some politicians at the Avalon defence exhibition, industry isn’t especially happy, particularly at pre-Avalon warnings to officials which had the effect of stultifying the long-established tradition of generous wining and dining and other hospitality.
Anyone remotely associated with defence industry know this largess isn’t limited just to officials of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). It’s also extended to serving personnel, politicians and to journalists who are, it should go without saying, among the more avid consumers.
The change was apparently brought about by a story in Fairfax newspapers in early January where a Freedom of Information (FoI) request resulted in a list of senior officers and what they had received by way of hospitality from what companies over the last three years. That included lunches, dinners plus theatre and footie tickets.
Matt Tripovich, the now retired chief of Capability Development Group, was outed as enjoying more defence company hospitality than anyone else. DMO deputy chief executive Warren King was cited as a “prolific luncher”.
The Fairfax report specifically denied that it was in any way suggesting these gifts were solicited. But the tone clearly implied that these top officials were way too thick with the merchants of death. But further down, the impression was somewhat spoiled by the revelation the vice chief of the defence force Lieutenant General David Hurley had enjoyed hospitality courtesy of Legacy, the organisation which cares for the dependents of dead servicemen.
In the new defence-wide decree issued on March 29, Defence head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and department secretary Ian Watt outlined general principles. Defence personnel must not solicit gifts, benefits or hospitality and must not allow themselves to be placed in a position of actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
Although Defence policy allows for Defence personnel to receive some benefits such as working meals, Defence personnel are reminded that “participation in these activities can be perceived by the public as preferential treatment,” it said.
It entreats officials to use sound judgment and ensure that any benefit does not produce a real or perceived conflict, particularly during a tendering or procurement process. Some benefits can only be accepted once approved by a senior officer.
That includes tickets to major sporting social or cultural events and attendance at social functions, particularly interstate events. Gifts unless of nominal value received by uniformed and civilian defence members become the property of defence. Gifts of nominal value presumably include the name-branded pens, baseball caps and USBs routinely handed out by defence companies.
As an aside, your correspondent is in possession of one such baseball cap, clearly marked as Made in Burma, surely a breach of some international law somewhere.
On the face of it, these regulations aren’t especially objectionable. Yet Liberal MP Denis Jensen told a parliamentary committee hearing recently that some defence company execs at Avalon viewed the restrictions on acceptance of hospitality as draconian and warned they could kill off the airshow. There needs to be a bit of balance, he said.
At issue from the industry side apparently was a DMO e-mail to those attending Avalon advising them to be responsible in their acceptance of hospitality. DMO CEO Dr Stephen Gumley warned his people that they did not need to live high on the hog to do their job.
The consequence was that many completely avoided the hospitality on offer, plus the associated networking opportunities. That’s a significant deal for Avalon where companies are traditionally generous in the hospitality provided through their various corporate chalets.
Dr Gumley wasn’t backing off. When the issue was raised at the parliamentary committee hearing, he said the media was all too happy to splash the issue of hospitality over their front pages creating an impression that something untoward was going on.
“It becomes a balance between having an informed customer, an informed supplier, and having those open and professional relationships, with the perception of the public that, when the taxpayers money is being spent, there is no underhand dealing going on, that there is nothing of great concern,” he said.
The industry might be grumbling now. But they had remained conspicuously silent when defence officials were copping it though being plastered all over the front pages of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald in January, he noted.
The policy appears to be in flux. The defence directive is classed as interim with a new policy for all of defence under way. Senior DMO official Harry Dunstall told the committee the new policy would strike a reasonable balance, deeming hospitality as incidental to engagement with industry as appropriate.
It probably won’t stop the headlines. Like politician perks, any benefit provided by defence companies to public officials will remain fair game no matter what the policy says. For a crusading reporter, the prospect of uncovering actual corruption involving defence companies and public officials is alluring.
Yet the evidence of real corruption at federal level, as distinct from dodgy council planning officers taking backhanders, is scanty. To be sure there are routine claims of misconduct but the most commonly proved offence typically relates to misuse of government credit cards.
In its annual global corruption listing, Transparency International usually ranks Australia in the top dozen least corrupt nations. To put that in perspective, Somalia is at rock bottom, just outranking Burma and Afghanistan, where Australian soldiers are fighting and dying.