Recruitment processes for ministerial advisors in South Australia should be strengthened and align with public sector guidelines, the state’s corruption watchdog says.

In a new report, the Independent Commission Against Corruption SA notes that, when it comes to governance expectations and accountability, there is a “considerable divergence” between public sector agencies and ministerial advisors, “particularly when it comes to recruitment and pre-employment screening”.

Unlike public sector employees, ministerial advisors require no police checks and security clearances. “This leaves the government exposed to significant corruption risks. It must be addressed,” says ICAC SA commissioner Ann Vanstone in the report’s foreword.

As the report’s authors note, ministerial advisors are privy to confidential discussions and have access to valuable information. “Often, they can influence decision making and can control access to ministers.”

This can leave individuals politically exposed.

“Those with a motive to influence outcomes for personal benefit will often seek out individuals that are inside the tent when it comes to confidential information and decision making on things like policy and legislative changes, government spending, procurement, government grants and planning decisions,” say the report’s authors. “Advisors ought to be aware of their exposure to risk and the impact their personal circumstances can have on their vulnerability to corruption.”

The government has a responsibility to properly induct ministerial staff

Ms Vanstone expressed surprise by the low awareness shown by ministerial staff of the corruption risks that exist. “This offers little comfort that opportunities for corrupt activities among this group are not being exploited,” she says.

There can be many other reasons why an individual might be particularly vulnerable to corruption, say the report’s authors. “This highlights the importance of a governance framework that provides structure for recruiting suitable people to these roles, and for making an ongoing assessment and management of risk. It would seem the South Australian Government has some work to do in this regard.”

Good governance requires rules, expectations and lines of accountability to be clearly set out, understood and observed. “It could not be said that this is the case for ministerial staff in the South Australian Government today.”

The SA Government would do well to emulate other jurisdictions, suggests the report’s authors. For example, they note that the Victorian Government’s code of conduct is incorporated into the employment contracts for ministerial staff so that their “proximity to the most significant decisions of government is a privilege that carries with it an obligation to act with care and diligence in the performance of their duties”.

As well, criminal history checks are a standard requirement for appointments to ministerial offices in Queensland and New South Wales.

“These mechanisms, in their various forms, provide a good basis for setting out expected standards of behaviour for ministerial staff, and in some cases, for their employers to screen candidates for suitability,” say the report’s authors. “The imperative for getting this right ought to be considered in the context of what is at stake.”

The report’s authors conclude that a great deal of trust is placed in ministerial advisors. “Along with that comes risk,” they say. “It is important for an assessment to be made of an individual’s vulnerability to engage in corrupt conduct both before they are appointed and during their tenure.”

They add: “The government has a responsibility to properly induct ministerial staff so that obligations and expectations are adequately communicated. It must also ensure that robust and appropriate accountability mechanisms are in place to monitor both the ongoing risks and the effectiveness of the controls to manage those risks.”