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.