Promoting Integrity

Evaluating and Improving Public Institutions

A J BrownProfessor of Public LawCentre for Governance & Public PolicyGriffith University, Australia.

Board member, Transparency International Australia.

NZ State Services Commission, Wellington6 November 2012

Better Public Services

• government agencies working more closely together and organising themselves around results that make a difference to New Zealand

• sharing functions and services, purchasing goods and services, and developing systems together

• greater use of technology and a shift to digital channels, so New Zealanders can more easily access government services

• agencies improving how they measure and report on performance

• greater responsiveness within the public sector to the needs and expectations of New Zealanders, and a commitment to continuous improvement.

Media, unions, political parties 'corrupt'

AUSTRALIANS view the media, unions and political parties as the most corrupt institutions in society, according to a poll by the Australian National University.…Despite the belief that corruption occurs, fewer than 1 per cent of respondents said they or a family member had personally experienced corruption in the past five years.The poll found 43 per cent of people surveyed believed corruption in Australia had increased while 41 per cent believed it had remained the same. Only 7 per cent believed corruption had declined.

Sydney Morning Herald, November 6, 2012

Chaos or Coherence?Strengths, Challenges & Opportunities

forAustralia’s National Integrity Systems

National Integrity System AssessmentAustralian Research Council Linkage Project

Report (2005)

TRANSPARENCYINTERNATIONAL

AUSTRALIA

Australian Research CouncilLinkage Project

Transparency International’s National Integrity SystemJeremy Pope (ed), TI Sourcebook 2000, p.35

Sectors, ‘Core’ & ‘Distributed’ Institutions

Distributed Institutions (The Regulated / Organisational

Integrity Systems)

Core Integrity Institutions (Regulators / Societal

Integrity Systems)

Public Sector

Govt Departments

Private Sector

Public Sector AgenciesPrivate/Public Companies

Small & MediumPrivate Companies

LargePrivate Companies

Public Companies Govt Owned

Corporations

Ombudsmen

Public Service Commissions

Anti-Corruption Commissions

Industry Ombudsmen

Austn Stock Exchange Ltd

ASICACCCAPRA

Compn Tribunals

Police

AuditorsAuditors-Genl

Statutory Bodies

Local Govts

Relationships between NSW Public Sector Agencies and Integrity Agencies and Organisations (Smith 2005)

Notes:++ indicates ‘very important’ to the agency.+ indicates ‘fairly important’ to the agency.‘Other’ columns refers to ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ important integrity agencies and organisations not listed in the interview schedule/questionnaire but raised by the respondent.

Agency 3 + ++ + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ 10Agency 18 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + + 10Agency 7 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ 9Agency 9 + + ++ + + + + + + 9Agency 13 ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ 9Agency 4 ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ 8Agency 8 ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ 8Agency 16 + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ 8Agency 17 ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + 8Agency 20 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + 8Agency 19 ++ ++ + + + ++ + 7Agency 10 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ 6Agency 11 ++ ++ + ++ ++ + 6Agency 5 ++ + ++ ++ + 5Agency 6 ++ + ++ ++ + 5Agency 12 + + + + ++ 5Agency 14 + ++ + + ++ 5Agency 1 ++ ++ + + 4Agency 2 ++ ++ + + 4Agency 15 0

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL

June 2012 -- http://www.transparency.org/research/nis/

MONEY, POLITICS, POWER:CORRUPTION RISKS IN EUROPEA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HOW 25 EUROPEAN STATES ARE FARING IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION 

A Ten-Point Integrity Plan for the Australian Government –Submission by Transparency International Australia on the Proposed National Anti-Corruption Plan May 2012

http://www.transparency.org.au

Health of the integrity system?

1)Parliamentary, electoral and ‘political’ integrity

2) Australian engagement and complicityin foreign corrupt practices

• Foreign bribery by Australian companies• Foreign bribery by Australian GOCs• Foreign bribery facilitated by Australian trade agencies?• Australian real estate and banking system as a haven for

proceeds of foreign corruption… NZ?

3) A lawyer’s issue! Defining ‘official corruption’

Traditional corruption offences

‘Corruption in public administration’ (SA)

‘Corrupt conduct’ (ICAC NSW)

‘Official misconduct’ (CMC Queensland)

‘Corrupt conduct’ (Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth)

‘Improper conduct’ (WA, Vic)

Misconduct and disciplinary regimes generally.

Review of Victoria’s Integrity and Anti-Corruption System (May 2010), Figure 10

Type of misconduct

Employees investigated for this type of misconduct (no.)

Cases where a breachwas found (%)

2009–10 2010–11%

change2009–10 2010–11

% change

Conflict of interest 59 72 +22% 61 86 +41%

Fraud other than theft(e.g. identity fraud)

54 64 +19% 61 83 +36%

Theft 17 11 -45% 47 64 +36%

Improper use of position status (e.g. abuse of power, exceeding delegations)

69 58 -16% 30 50 +67%

Unauthorised disclosure of information (e.g. leaks)

19 24 +26% 42 71 +69%

Figure 1: Types of misconduct in finalised Australian Public Service Code of Conduct investigations, 2009–10 and 2010–11Source: Australian Public Service Commission (2011)

Health of the integrity system?

4) Issues for public administration –the anti-corruption / misconduct ‘infrastructure’

Auditor-General

Ombuds-man Police Complaint Authority

Police Integrity Comn

Anti-Corruption Comn

Crime Comn

NSW 1 2 3 4 (ICAC) 5

QLD 1 2 3(Crime & Misconduct Commission)

West Aust

1 2 3(Corruption & Crime Commission)

Sth Aust

1 2 3

Cth 1 2 3

Vic 1 2

Tas 1 2

NB These tables do not include Public Service Commissions or equivalents, or Health Care Complaints Commissions and a range of other specialist independent integrity bodies, other than those dedicated to police.

Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2004

Auditor-General

Ombud-sman

Police Complaint Authority

PoliceIntegrity Comn

Anti-Corruption Comn

Crime Comn

NSW 1 2 3 4 (ICAC) 5

Cth 1 2 3(ACLEI)

4

Sth Aust 1 2 3(Police Omb)

4(ICAC + Office of Public Integrity)

QLD 1 2 3(Crime & Misconduct Commission)

West Aust 1 2 3(Corruption & Crime Commission)

Tas 1 2 3(Integrity Commission)

Vic 1 2 3(IBAC inc Office of Police Integrity)

Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2012

Australia’s newestIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2012

• Historic integrated approach?

− Corruption (criminal offences)− Misconduct in public administration (breach of codes)− Maladministration (plus role of Ombudsman)

• But query?

1) Implies but does not require ‘mandatory’ reporting of misconduct

2) Implies Commissioner does not investigate misconduct

3)Commissioner directs Ombudsman on maladministration?

4)Public ‘statements’, but not hearings / inquiries

5)No general public reporting power (‘dissatisfaction’ only).

Not including Crime Commissions, Public Service Commissions, Health Care Complaint Commissions, etc

0.0000%

0.0500%

0.1000%

0.1500%

0.2000%

0.2500%

1990

-199

1

1991

-199

2

1992

-199

3

1993

-199

4

1994

-199

5

1995

-199

6

1996

-199

7

1997

-199

8

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2(p

roje

cted

)

Core Integrity Agencies - Ratio of Combined Expenditureas a % of All Public Sector Expenditure 1990-2012

Qld Vic NSW WA SA Tas Cth

Health of the integrity system?

5) Issues of oversight and accountability –

-- Inspectors-- Special investigations monitors-- Parliamentary committees

Commonwealth Ombudsman

6) A ‘bottom up’ view: issues for the average public servant

-- The state of whistleblower protection

How many don’t report? Select case study agency reporting and inaction rates

51.9

75.0 72.768.8

60.0

66.7

55.0 52.2

42.2

37.0

16.7

11.212.5

20.0

8.3

18.317.4

14.1

7.4 8.3

16.1 18.8 20.0 20.826.7 29.3

43.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

B H F C G D A E I

Case study agencies

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

wh

o o

bse

rved

ver

y/ex

trem

ely

seri

ou

s w

ron

gd

oin

g

Did not report, no action, no-one else reported

Did not report but dealt with by self / others reported

Report

Missing

Mean28.6% nationally

Fig 2.4p.49

     Disagree

Neither / can’t say

Agree 

A

If I observed wrongdoing, I would feel personally obliged to report it to someone [in my organisation]

Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll)

6.1 13.8 80.1 100%

All public servants (n=7530) 3.3 17.7 79.0 100%

Cth public servants (n=2285) 2.9 14.9 82.1 100%

B

If I reported wrongdoing to someone in my organisation, I am confident something appropriate would be done about it

Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll)

18.4 26.9 54.5 100%

All public servants (n=7459) 18.4 32.9 48.7 100%

Cth public servants (n=2262) 17.9 33.1 49.0 100%

C

Management in my organisation is serious about protecting people who report wrongdoing

Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll)

13.8 37.4 48.8 100%

All public servants (n=7453) 16.3 50.6 33.2 100%

Cth public servants (n=2260) 15.8 52.6 31.6 100%

‘Propensity’ – Newspoll (2012) v public sector (2008)

State of reform - Australian whistleblowing legislation

Juris Reform Original 1. Effective system & oversight

2. Public disclosure

3. Effective remedies

ACT 2012 1994 1 1 NKTW

NSW 2010-11 1994 1 3 NKTW

QLD* 2010 1994 2? 2 NKTW

WA 2012? 2003 2? 2? NKTW

VIC ?? 2001 2? Missing NKTW

TAS 2009 2002 2? Missing NKTW

NT -- 2008 ? Missing NKTW

CTH Waiting… 1999? Proposed? Proposed? ???

SA* 2012? 1993 Missing NKTW NKTW

Corps Act* Stalled? 2004 Missing Missing NKTW

* Some private sector coverage NKTW: Not known to work

Better Public Services

• government agencies working more closely together and organising themselves around results that make a difference to New Zealand

• sharing functions and services, purchasing goods and services, and developing systems together

• greater use of technology and a shift to digital channels, so New Zealanders can more easily access government services

• agencies improving how they measure and report on performance

• greater responsiveness within the public sector to the needs and expectations of New Zealanders, and a commitment to continuous improvement.