The fiasco in NSW makes clear that the public expects leaders to exhibit the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices.

As the New South Wales Icac investigation rolls on, the big-ticket questions remain. Did the premier, Gladys Berejiklian, take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent? Did she knowingly turn a blind eye and cover her ears on the dubious business dealings of Daryl Maguire, with whom she was in a relationship? And most importantly, did she make parliamentary decisions on matters that had a bearing on his private business interests without disclosing to her cabinet colleagues a potential conflict of interest?

The premier had options and she made choices. She could have consulted with her cabinet colleagues to stress-test real or potential conflicts of interest, she could have made disclosures through the register of ministerial interests, and she could have sought counsel from the NSW parliamentary ethics adviser, whose role it is to “provide confidential advice to members of parliament on ethical issues concerning the exercise of their role including conflicts of interest”. The ultimate choice she had was whether it was in the public interest to continue a relationship with someone whom she had sacked for corruption in 2018. Berejiklian told reporters after giving evidence at Icac she had “at all times” kept her private and public interests apart. She insisted she had not needed to disclose her ties to Maguire and that she had done nothing wrong.

Whether the premier engaged in wrongdoing will be decided by Icac.

Meanwhile, legal experts have raised the ministerial code of conduct, which states that a minister, including the premier, must disclose potential conflicts of interest that involve a“ family member” – defining a family member to include “any person with whom the minister is in an intimate personal relationship”.

Much has been made of the language used – the distinction, if any, between a “close personal relationship” and an “intimate personal relationship” – which could potentially trigger the conflict of interest provisions. In most people’s book, they are one of the same.

No code of conduct can anticipate and make prescriptive rules for every contingency that might raise an ethical issue for a minister. Nonetheless, amendments to the NSW parliament code of conduct (Ministerial Code of Conduct – Property Developers bill 2019) have been proposed and if passed, will introduce special provisions that make clear that ministers and parliamentary secretaries must not remain or become property developers. These amendments recognise and acknowledge the culture of mateship between ministers and special interest groups, including developers, that has become all too characteristic of the Australian political landscape at a state and federal level – and these relationships need to be called out and controlled.

The public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of its public officials and expect the highest standards of integrity from our elected representatives. We expect them to avoid or otherwise appropriately manage conflicts of interest to ensure the maintenance of both real and perceived ministerial integrity. Without that, we lose trust and confidence in our politicians.

What this whole fiasco in NSW makes clear is that the public expects ministers, and certainly leaders, to exhibit and be seen to exhibit the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices.

Indeed, the spotlight on the premier has put the spotlight on the prime minister – where’s our federal anti-corruption agency?

The investigation in NSW has made clear to the whole nation the value of a robust and independent anti-corruption agency. Watching this investigation unfold has left us hungering for similar powers at the federal level. We want an agency that has the power to hold public hearings, to investigate both criminal and systemic corruption and administrative misconduct, and the power to uphold ministerial codes of conduct and standards.

The federal Coalition promised a commonwealth integrity commission before the last election but, as Transparency International Australia has argued, it is too weak to be effective. A fit for purpose anti-corruption and pro-integrity agency must be independent and well-resourced, with a broad jurisdiction and the investigative powers of a royal commission to prevent, investigate, expose and address corruption issues which involve and impact on commonwealth public administration. To be effective it must have the ability to hold public hearings when needed and be accessible by anyone who identifies a corruption issue, especially whistleblowers, but also the private sector, civil society and members of the public. It should be accountable to the public, not beholden to political whims. Meanwhile, assessment of the NSW premier’s conduct in keeping with the NSW code highlights the need for a national parliamentary code of conduct to ensure all elected representatives, not just ministers, uphold a high standard of conduct. What we have now, the Statement of Ministerial Standards, is weak, not enforced and there are no penalties for breaking the rules. It is overseen by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, leaving the prime minister to monitor and enforce compliance within his own cabinet. The “sports rorts” saga, among many other scandals, and the revolving doors between public office and the corporate payroll, would be hard-pressed to meet any integrity benchmark.

Our federal-level ministerial code of conduct must be strengthened to include a commitment to spend public money in the public interest and adhere to merit-based procurement and granting processes, and not the undue influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. These codes must include explicit penalties for breaches and been forced by an independent and well-resourced parliamentary integrity commissioner.

Public trust will continue to be eroded if politicians engaging in misconduct are not faced with any real retribution. And those in power will continue to believe that they can act for themselves and their mates. Accountability reform must reinsert public interest to the heart of public decision making, starting with stronger codes of conduct and an effective national integrity commission.