While headlines often spotlight brown-paper-bag bribery or blatant financial fraud, ‘process corruption’ is just as virulent. John Adams explains.
Process corruption, as defined by the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (1994–97), refers to misconduct where officials manipulate or circumvent official procedures for an improper purpose.
Process corruption lurks in the shadows, but unlike traditional bribery, it does not require personal gain. Rather, it distorts the machinery of justice itself, fabricating evidence, perverting investigations, or shielding wrongdoers from scrutiny.
Justice James Wood’s Commission found such corruption rampant within the NSW Police Service in the 1980s and 90s. Officers planted evidence, coerced confessions, withheld key facts, and undermined due process—all justified in the name of “getting the bad guys”. But the result was a travesty: the innocent punished, the guilty unprosecuted, and the public left in the dark.
The nature of process corruption
Process corruption has been around a long time. The conditions that enabled it decades ago – bureaucratic opacity, weak oversight, and a culture of secrecy – still permeate elements of Commonwealth law enforcement.
Many of the same organisational traits identified in the Wood Royal Commission—such as authoritarian internal cultures, fear of whistleblowing, and suppression of dissent—are alarmingly present in certain modern regulators.
Take the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). During the most recent inquiry into ASIC conducted by the Parliamentary Senate Economics References Committee, many stakeholders and criminal defendants criticised ASIC’s investigative and enforcement practices.
The most prominent being Geoff Shannon, who was found not guilty of criminal charges by the Southport Magistrates Court after Justice Bamberry found “that no proper investigation was undertaken” by ASIC investigators.
CommBank’s Matt Comyn, ASIC face mal-prosecution claims from Unhappy Banking founder Shannon
As reported by MWM, several factors were at play that operated against Mr Shannon, which would add weight to the suggestion that his botched prosecution could not be attributed solely to a case of incompetency, thus indicating a risk of process corruption within Australia’s corporate regulatory sphere.
When regulators protect the powerful or persecute the vulnerable based on internal biases or external pressures, they violate not only legal standards but democratic principles.
What about the NACC?
Established with great promise in 2023, the NACC has the statutory power to investigate serious or systemic corruption involving Commonwealth public officials. Yet, its early focus has gravitated toward financial corruption, where personal enrichment is clear and demonstrable. This is understandable but insufficient.
Process corruption is harder to detect but poses no less of a danger. It corrupts the machinery of justice itself, eroding public trust and weakening the foundations of lawful government. When public officials weaponise procedures, manipulate investigations, or fail to act on credible evidence for political or bureaucratic convenience, they undermine the rule of law.
This is not a theoretical risk. The Banking Royal Commission (2018–19) uncovered years of widespread misconduct, often unpunished due to weak or selective enforcement.
Hayne’s Final: impressive tinkering but big banking flaws remain (Part 2)
More recently, ASIC has been criticised for its declining number of criminal referrals and what some observers have called “regulatory capture”. If enforcement agencies protect some while pursuing others with disproportionate zeal, justice is no longer blind; it is biased.
The cautionary tale of NSW Police
The Wood Royal Commission reminds us of the perils of denial. In the early 1990s, NSW parliamentarians and officials ridiculed calls for a royal commission, dismissing them as conspiracy theories. It was only through relentless pressure, especially from then MP John Hatton, that the full extent of institutionalised misconduct was exposed.
What followed was a national reckoning: dozens of officers dismissed, major reforms enacted, and a cultural reset within the police service. But none of that would have occurred had process corruption remained unseen.
We must not make the same mistake in 2025.
At the federal level, the NACC must explicitly acknowledge and define process corruption within its investigative scope. It should treat procedural abuse as seriously as bribery or nepotism. Arguably, it should be ranked on par with financial corruption.
Moreover, existing referrals to the NACC involving Commonwealth agencies should be revisited through this lens. Some practices, such as selective enforcement, suppression of whistleblowers, and misuse of legal processes, are not mere incompetence or maladministration; they are deliberate, coordinated abuses of power.
If the NACC is unable or unwilling to conduct this broader analysis, then Parliament must step in. A dedicated commission, akin to the Wood Royal Commission, may be required to expose and eradicate the rot.
The Australian people expect more than good intentions from their institutions. They demand integrity, fairness, and accountability. Process corruption threatens all three. As we reflect on the lessons of the past and confront the challenges of the present, we must ensure that procedural integrity is not sacrificed for convenience or politics.
Justice isn’t only about outcomes. It’s also about how we get there.
The invisible hand of ‘legal’ corruption costs every Australian
This post was originally published on Michael West.