How We Select Museum Exhibits
The Museum of Political Corruption curates its displays using a clear and consistent standard designed to ensure credibility, fairness, and public accountability. Exhibits are not selected on the basis of opinion, political affiliation, or media attention alone. Instead, they are grounded in verified findings from authoritative sources, including courts of law, parliamentary inquiries, and recognised integrity bodies such as anti-corruption commissions.
We also have a panel that meets and makes the decisions.
A matter may be included in the museum where there is credible evidence of conduct that meets established legal or integrity thresholds, including findings that a public official has engaged in behaviour such as:
- a breach of public trust, involving the use of public power for an improper purpose
- abuse of office, including the dishonest or private use of official authority
- misuse of official information by a public official
- conduct by any person that induces or influences a public official to act otherwise than honestly and impartially in the performance of their duties
These definitions reflect the standard approach taken in Commonwealth integrity frameworks, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s interpretation of “corrupt conduct”.
Importantly, the museum recognises that not all poor outcomes are the result of corruption. Errors, mistakes, negligence, maladministration, or poor policy decisions -while potentially serious in their consequences – do not of themselves constitute corrupt conduct unless they meet the statutory thresholds outlined above.
Normal errors and mistakes are what make us human but sometimes these actions are at the extremes and are viewed as deep scandals that need to be in the museum – they are not corruption but they are not acceptable. If anyone thinks a certain issue should not be in the museum then please let us know. If you believe something is missing then nominate that issue and we will consider it.
The aim of this approach is not to sensationalise wrongdoing, but to provide a structured, evidence-based record of how public power is exercised, and in some cases, misused.